Gregory 1

Cheryl Gregory

June 2010

A Look at the Environmental Impacts of the Locavore Movement

Background:

On the World Environmental Day in 2005, Jessica Prentice of San Francisco first coined the

term “locavore” to describe people who, in trying to feed themselves more sustainably, had

begun to eat primarily foods grown locally, usually within one hundred miles. Since then, the

“locavore movement” has grown and the definition of local food has morphed many times.

Originally the movement to eat locally was influenced by the idea of “food miles:” essentially

how far food travels from the point of production and to the point of consumption. In response

to global warming and the concern of increased greenhouse gas emissions, people began looking

for methods to cut back on carbon dioxide production. Increased globalization of food systems

and the growth of large industrialized food systems had led to increased transportation of food.

Scientists and environmentalists began to look into the greenhouse gas emissions caused by food

miles and in the meantime, some people began to eat and promote eating locally. Today, food

miles are not considered sufficient markers of total environmental impact or even of total

greenhouse gas emissions. However, people still promote eating local. The new ‘locavore’

movement, according to Gail Feenstra of the University of California Agriculture Research &

Education Program, can be defined as a

“collaborative effort to build more locally based, self-reliant food economies -

one in which sustainable food production, processing, distribution, and

consumption is integrated to enhance the economic, environmental and social

health of a particular place” (Feenstra).

While Feenstra’s definition may be the goal of the locavore movement, the current reality is

locavores still make consumption decisions based primarily on food miles. In theory, the model

food economy proposed by the locavore movement would be more sustainable than the current

industrialized global food economy. However, the movement often over-simplifies the problems

of the food system. This over-simplification, as well as lack of solid research, has led the

movement to overlook such aspects as overall environmental impacts of transportation,

differences in supply chain distribution, particularly differences in production or growing

methods, various environmental impacts of specific food types, the benefits of the globalization

Gregory 2

of food systems and the obstacles likely to be encountered in achieving local benefits. The

locavore movement succeeds in achieving environmental sustainability in only small parts of the

food system.

Transportation:

The original local food movement based its claim to sustainability primarily in the

shrinking of “food miles”. Food miles can be defined as “the distance that food must travel to

reach the consumer” (Liaw 1). This claim to sustainability assumes that one: the distance

covered during transportation is responsible for much of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted

during the process of getting food to consumers and two: that transportation accounts for many

of the negative environmental effects created in the process of getting food onto plates. In fact,

according to a study on greenhouse gas emissions by Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews

of Carnegie Mellon University, “transportation only contributes 11 percent of greenhouse gas

emissions on average-with the transportation leg from producer to retailer accounting for just 4

percent” (Liaw 1). This means consuming local produce may not have a significant effect on

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, while individually locavores may be shrinking

their carbon footprint, if large populations were to convert to eating local, there would be an

increase in total CO2 emissions. For example, as reported by Richard Woods, “just over a ton of

goods moved six miles as part of 22-ton lorry load generates about 14 ounces of CO2; moved in

50 cars, each carrying 40 pounds, it generates about 22 ounces of CO2” (Woods). The movement

does not recognize that the global industrial food system may have reduced the overall CO2

emissions released during transport.

Another aspect overlooked by the initial locavore movement is the coordination of

transport. Without central warehouses and with more people delivering goods directly to stores,

there would be more vehicles and more traffic. In fact, “[Nicola Ellen of Safeway] argues that if

all producers and suppliers were to deliver their wares directly to stores then there would be

gridlock on nearby roads” (Saunders et. al.). The industrialized transport system may not be

perfect, but the coordination has helped prevent such problems as gridlock. There would be

problems with creating an entirely local food system.

One of the biggest variables in greenhouse gas emissions when reviewing

environmental impacts of transportation is the mode of transportation: car, truck, airfreight, or

ocean-liner. Many locavore consumers do not account for differences in the mode of

Gregory 3

transportation used in food distribution. While comparing the greenhouse gas emissions

produced by apples produced in New Zealand versus apples produced in the United Kingdom,

both for sale in the UK, Caroline Saunders and colleagues of the Agribusiness & Economics

Research Unit at Lincoln University found the mode of transportation was very important. “The

environmental impact of transport from New Zealand by sea is not dissimilar to that of transport

from southern Europe by road, even though the distance is far greater” (Saunders et al). In this

case, the mode of transport is as significant, if not more significant, than the number of miles

traveled. The transport of apples from New Zealand is not more damaging than transport across

Europe because New Zealand uses primarily ocean transport, as opposed to shipping their

products through the skies. “Food Standards Agency (2004) claim that air transport is the worst

offender, producing between 40 and 200 times the CO2 emissions of marine transport”

(Saunders et al). The negative impacts of air-freight can be further seen in the report by Woods

which states, “[air freighted food] accounts for less than 1% of food transport but 11 % of the

GHGs from all food transport” (Woods). Note, however, these differences are based only on the

GHGs emitted during transport and do not consider differences in GHGs emitted in the

production of airplanes or cargo-ships or differences in overall environmental impacts such as

sound pollution in the ocean or deforestation to accommodate road systems. Yet, just in looking

at GHGs, the difference in environmental impact between varying modes of transportation is

apparent. In order to ensure eating locally is truly more sustainable, locavores will need to

consider the environmental impact of the mode of transportation used.

By using food miles to determine how sustainably food is delivered to people, the

locavore movement overlooks differences in transportation technology. The industrial food

system has provided a setting for many technological innovations in transportation which help to

reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For example, today there are companies who use

diesel-electric hybrid trucks which have lower GHG emissions than traditional, diesel-only,

trucks. However, it must be noted here that the production of an entirely new fleet of hybrid

trucks and the disassembly of an entire old fleet may in fact produce enough GHG to offset any

advantages gained in the engine technology. In order to be sure which mode of transportation has

the least environmental impact and produces the least amount of GHGs, scientists must conduct

a thorough comparison of all GHGs produced during the development and use of a new food

transportation technology and all GHGs produced using traditional, current transportation

Gregory 4

technology (note: current transportation technologies may vary region to region). Engine

technology is not the only transportation technology unaccounted for by food miles. There are

multiple fuel types in existence today. For example, petrol, diesel, ethanol, each with their own

complex impact on the environment. To gather a true count of sustainability, the impacts of

mining or drilling, processing, as well as burning these fuels, must all be taken into account. In

order to be sure a new local food system is in fact more sustainable, advances in technology must

be fully considered.

Distribution Organization:

The locavore movement proposes an alternative food supply chain compared to those

currently employed in the global industrial food system. However, there is minimal research to

back the proposed environmental and social impacts of a local food supply chain. A supply chain

may be defined as

“an integrated manufacturing process wherein raw materials are converted into

final products, then delivered to customers. At its highest level, a supply chain

is comprised of two basic, integrated processes: (1) the Production Planning

and Inventory Control Process, and (2) the Distribution and Logistics Process”

(Beamon).

The proposed locavore supply chain is more direct. In one example of the conventional supply

chain, food travels from farmer to packing house then to a production warehouse or factory then

to a storage warehouse then travels to a distribution warehouse then finally to a supermarket

where a consumer may purchase the food product. In the ideal locavore model, many of the

middle men are cut out. For example, in proposed local food supply chains, the food may travel

directly from the farm to a farmers market. In Berkeley, there is even a (now chain) grocery

store, Berkeley Bowl, which sends employees to farms to buy produce to stock shelves. In

another local model, food travels from the farm directly to the consumer. As seen in Michael

Pollan´s The Omnivore´s Dilemma, there are farms, such as Joel Salatin’s, which sell directly to

consumer at the farm (Pollan). Or, as in the case of Berkeley’s restaurant, Che Panis, farms can

sell and deliver directly to restaurants. With these models the locavore food supply chain may

seem more sustainable. Individually people may be reducing their carbon footprint. There are

fewer middle men, allowing more effective communication and possibly higher efficiency.

Theoretically, money spent by consumers would go directly to local businesses and farms,

Gregory 5

thereby making the system less susceptible to global market fluctuations. Local business would

promote improved local relations. There would be a diminished need for large storage or

warehouse systems. On first look this would appear to decrease GHG emissions because the

system does not require excess refrigeration or construction of warehouses etcetera. However, as

already seen in the case of transportation, decreasing the size of the operation but increasing the

number operations needed may not actually decrease environmental impact. Not to mention, the

decentralization of a food supply chain may cause transportation congestion, especially in cities.

More research is still needed to show the environmental, as well as the social, effects of a local

food supply chain.

Moreover, the locavore movement overlooks differences within the current industrialized

global food supply chain. These differences could in fact provide more sustainable alternatives

than a local food system. For instance, today there are at least two main types of supply chains

including competitive and collaborative chain. In collaborative chains “two or more independent

companies work jointly to plan and execute supply chain operations with greater success than

when acting in isolation” (Lambert). The collaborative chain is likely to have overall, fewer

negative environmental impacts. Differences at all levels of the supply chain will need to be

examined in order to obtain true measures of impact. Differences among production methods

will vary greatly depending on the type of food, as will be later discussed. Differences among

distribution methods are more similar across all food types and are therefore, more easily

compared. Distribution in collaborative chains is likely to be more environmentally friendly

because companies coordinate to streamline distribution. Companies share warehouses and

transportation systems. This would eliminate the need of several smaller warehouses and

shipping operations which may have a greater environmental impact than one large warehouse.

More overall acreage, more roads, and a higher number of vehicles would be needed to support a

non-collaborative system. Therefore, the non-collaborative system is likely to have a stronger

negative environmental impact. Moreover, especially in transportation, collaborative supply

chains have the ability to maximize efficiency: they use fewer trucks, cargo-ships etcetera which

would in turn also help to minimize gridlock, GHG emissions, sound pollution etcetera. The

distribution system that would be used in an entirely local-based food supply chain would not

necessarily be more environmentally friendly. More research is needed to support the claims that

a local system would have fewer negative environmental impacts.

Gregory 6

Growth and Production Methods:

The local food movement does not fully consider the impacts of growth and production

methods of food. Eating locally does not equate to eating sustainably grown or produced food.

There are however, production benefits to a local food system. For example, growing for a local

population would theoretically decrease monoculture cropping. People demand a diverse

selection of foods and thereby, would force farmers to grow a wider variety of crops. For

example, Iowa would not be able to feed its population using solely corn. Farmers would be

forced to diversify their crops. Also, people would need food year round and so fields could not

be left unplanted during winter months. Instead, farmers would need to plant nutrient-fixing

plants such as legumes in order to both feed the people and ensure the soil was replenished with

nutrients when the time came to plant spring and summer crops again. In theory, a local food

system would promote crop diversity and promote sustainable care of the land. However, in

reality, simply eating locally produced food does not guarantee sustainability. For example, in

Haiti farmers produced rice for local consumption. Since the local demand for rice was high,

farmers mono-cropped their fields and depleted their soils until the land became unsuitable for

any crop. While there were many forces at work in Haiti, the depletion of resources despite a

local food economy demonstrates that the locavore movement cannot base sustainability solely

on location. The movement will have to promote consumer and producer education on

sustainable practices and the movement should stress the importance of sustainable production

methods rather than simply promoting consumption of local food.

While eating locally could potentially reduce environmental impact, there is no guarantee

that the food grown next door is grown sustainably. The growing methods of food must be

accounted for when trying to discern which food is most sustainable. There have been studies

showing that food grown around the globe may in fact be more sustainable than food grown

nearby. For example, as Saunders et al reports, “New Zealand [NZ] products compare favorably

with lower energy and emissions per ton of product delivered to the United Kingdom [UK]

compared to other UK sources. In the case of dairy NZ is at least twice as efficient; and for

sheep meat four times as efficient” (Saunders). In this case, the citizens of the United Kingdom

would be eating more sustainably if they purchased certain food from New Zealand. Another

report done by AEA Technology Environment showed, “it can be more sustainable (at least in

energy efficiency terms) to import tomatoes from Spain than to produce them in heated

Gregory 7

greenhouses in the UK outside the summer months” (Smith). Since the food system in not

entirely local, no will it ever likely be entirely local, the theoretical benefits of local growth and

production methods are likely to never materialize. Therefore, people would be acting more

sustainably if they purchased foods based on the current growth/production methods rather than

the location of production.

There are many reasons why food produced in distant location may be more sustainable or

alternatively, why foods produced locally may be less sustainable. For instance, differences in

climate can drastically alter the type of production necessary to produce food in an economically

efficient manner. Production in warmer, more temperate climates, is often, more sustainable. As

Saunders reports,

“New Zealand has greater production efficiency in many food commodities

compared to the UK. For example New Zealand agriculture tends to apply less

fertilizers (which require large amounts of energy to produce and cause

significant CO2 emissions) and animals are able to graze year round outside

eating grass instead of large quantities of brought-in feed such as concentrates”

(Saunders).

Firstly, in this example, climate allows New Zealand to raise their cattle more sustainably

because environmentally costly feed is not necessary. Year round production or grazing is one

way temperate zones may have the environmental advantage. Secondly, New Zealand generally

uses fewer fertilizers. Fertilizer use is another major example of how differences in production

method can affect sustainability. Fertilizer use is a widespread problem in farming which has

very damaging environmental consequences. According to Saunders et al,

“the potential consequences [of the excessive use of fertilizers such as nitrogen

and phosphorus] include eutrophication of coastal and freshwater ecosystems,

which can lead to degraded habitat for fish and decreased quality of water for

consumption by humans and livestock. In addition to these effects, the

production of such fertilizers is also energy intensive and causes significant

emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2” (Saunders).

These are just some of the known effects of fertilizer on ecosystems and the environment. There

are even more damaging effects of fertilizers such as the environmental costs of production or

the cost to human health. Considering how damaging excessive fertilizer use can be and how

Gregory 8

differences in climate can alter production methods, advocates of the locavore movement should

consider that choosing foods based on production methods could be more environmentally

important than choosing foods based on location.

Types of Food:

Another of the main flaws of the locavore movement is the lack of discrimination between

types of food. The environmental impact from food type to food type, between dairy products

and legumes, for example, varies dramatically. The locavore diet does not distinguish between

environmentally friendly food types and unfriendly types. Some advocates of the locavore diet

may even go so far as to recommend eating local beef even though many studies have shown that

red meat is the most environmentally damaging food. For example, Liaw reports “the start-to-

finish process of raising and distributing red meat causes more greenhouse gas emission than any

other food group, with dairy products coming in second.” (Liaw 1) The differences in

environmental impacts between food types are due in part to varying production methods: the

amount of fertilizer needed, the use of pesticide, the amount and type of feed needed, in the case

of beef: the amount of pasture-land needed for cattle grazing, or other production factors.

Differences are also due in part to differences in processing or even differences in waste

production. In short, people may be more effectively protecting the environment by abstaining

from the consumption of the most environmentally damaging food types, such as beef, than by

buying food locally. Vegetarianism may in fact be help preserve the environment better than

locavorism.

One of the reasons people may advocate for local foods without discrimination of food type,

could be that by encouraging people to buy locally, people will begin to see firsthand the

environmental effects of their food. Perhaps people believe if everyone ate locally people would

realize when overconsumption of a product was destroying the land and therefore, limit the

amount of, for example, beef they consume. This could theoretically, eventually lead to an

overall decrease in the amount of environmentally unfriendly food types grown or raised across

the globe. However, this is only theory. In Haiti, people mono-cropped rice to feed their fellow

countrymen until the land became so overworked that the area is now arid and no crops can

grow. While there were many factors which led to the desertification of Haiti, this shows that

simply eating local will not protect the land from environmental damage. People need to be

aware of the environmental impact of the type of food they are eating.

Gregory 9

Globalization of Food Systems:

Globalization has changed the way food systems are organized, altered production

methods, changed where crops are or even can be grown, and has even changed what type of

food entire populations consume. The local food movement is, in part, a reaction to the negative

effects of the globalization of the food economy and food system. However, the local movement

may judge globalization of the food system too harshly. In today’s global food system, food may

travel farther, from New Zealand to the United Kingdom or from Chile to Canada. Liaw admits

“Globalization often adds large distances to a food item’s journey to the consumer, from 1997 to

2004, the average distance covered by good increased by about 25%, from 6760 kilometers to

8240 kilometers” (Liaw). Locavores take this information to mean globalization has increased

the greenhouse gas emissions in the transport of food. However Liaw also reports that the “study

concluded globalization of the food market has only increased greenhouse gas emissions by 5

percent” (Liaw). This study looks at only greenhouse gas emissions, but still shows that the

overall environmental effects of globalization must be taken into account when deciding which

food systems are more sustainable.

Also, globalization has permitted countries to specialize in particular products. As seen

with the New Zealand and United Kingdom case, some countries are capable of producing crops

more economically efficiently than others. As noted by Saunders, “the fact that New Zealand

farmers do not require subsidies to be internationally competitive, unlike their British

counterparts, indicates these efficiencies of production in this country” (Saunders). This could

possibly mean foods are produced more sustainably. Crops may be grown in their native

environments and then shipped to another part of the world. While transport is increased, native

crops often require less chemicals, are produced more efficiently and disrupt the surrounding

environment less than introduced or non-native crops, making them overall more sustainable.

Even if the crops are not native, often the produce which is grown most economically efficient

requires less chemical use.

Perhaps the increased economical efficiency of food production found in global food

systems could be due to exploitation. Locavores are concerned the global market survives

through the exploitation of underprivileged people and unprotected lands, often in impoverished

third world countries. For instance, Saunders et al reports that some advocates of the locavore

movement show “concern that UK is able to import some food products cheaply because

Gregory 10

workers overseas are being exploited by poor wages and working conditions. The belief is that if

these workers were treated fairly, the product would cost more” (Saunders). However, the

production efficiency created by globalization is probably more likely due to a cross between

exploitive practices and the use of more suitable lands. More research looking at the overall

environmental, as well as social, impacts of the global food system is needed to determine which

aspects are in fact sustainable and which need to be rethought or revised. The locavore

movement should not entirely dismiss the global food system, but should look to adopt some of

the environmentally sustainable practices currently present in the global food system.

Proposed Local Benefits of a Local Food System:

Advocates of the locavore movement believe eating local will benefit the local

environmental, economic, and social health. The locavore movement hopes for the preservation

of local food heritage, preservation of local cultures and economic freedom from the fluctuations

of the global economy. By promoting local consumption, the movement hopes the environment

and social problems will begin to right themselves. As stated by Kloppenburg et al,

“A community which depends upon its human neighbors, neighboring lands,

and native species to supply the majority of its needs must ensure that the social

and natural resources it utilized to fulfill those needs remain healthy”

(Kloppenburg).

When forced to face the facts of the limits of earth’s resources, people may begin to change their

habits. The locavore movement hopes that by consuming local foods people will not be able to

deny when harmful production and consumption practices are damaging their own surroundings.

However, recognition of environmental and social damage will not guarantee recognition of the

cause. Nor will the recognition of damage guarantee action or a change in behavior. As seen in

the case of Haiti mentioned previously, simply eating local will not protect lands from damage.

Environmental education is needed along with a promotion of local foods, in order to help people

recognize the underlying cause of environmental or even social damage. The education could be

formal, taught to children in grade-school, or informal such as a farmer talking with a costumer

at a farmers market. Many current sustainability measures have been promoted using labeling:

organic, grass-fed, free-range etcetera. Then, on top of education, the locavore movement should

propose methods or steps for individuals or communities to take in order to initiate change. The

locavore movement will encounter many obstacles, such as environmental education, in

Gregory 11

achieving local benefits. The movement will have to do more than just promote buying food

locally in order to see a significant improvement in local environmental and social well-being.

Conclusion:

The locavore movement overlooks many aspects of the current food system’s significant

environmental impacts. The original local food movement does not account for the total quantity

of greenhouse gasses emitted in a complete transportation system, nor does it account for

differences in transportation technology. The impacts of supply chain distribution methods are

over-simplified and there is minimal research supporting the environmental claims of a local

distribution system. The locavore movement does not emphasize enough the importance of

sustainable productions or growing methods. Differences in environmental impact based on type

of food are also overlooked. The movement ignores some of the important environmental gains

from the globalization of the food system. Also, the locavore movement proposes local benefits

without fully addressing the obstacles likely to be encountered in achieving a truly sustainable

system. In short, the environmental impact of consuming locally produced food is overstated and

may in fact be less significant than the people of the locavore movement believe. Further

research is needed to show what changes should be adapted to the proposed locavore food

system design in order to create a truly sustainable system with a significant impact. This design

should be sure to account for environmental impacts of transportation, distribution, production,

processing, waste management, and etcetera. Until then, as current research shows, individuals

can help reduce their negative environmental impact by consuming food produced in a

sustainable manner and by limiting intake of environmentally damaging food types such as beef

or other animal products.

Gregory 12

References:

Beamon, BM. Supply chain design and analysis: models and methods. International journal of

production economics (1998).

Feenstra, G. Creating space for sustainable food systems: lessons from the field. Agriculture and

Human Values (2002): 19(2). 99-106.

Kloppenburg, Jack Jr., John Hendrickson and G. W. Stevenson.(1996) "Coming Into the

Foodshed." Agriculture and Human Values 13:3 (Summer): 33-42.

http://www.wisc.edu/cias/pubs/comingin.PDF

Liaw, Jane. “Food miles are less important to environment than food choices, study concludes.”

Special to mongabay.com June 2, 2008.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Penguin Books: New York, NY. 2006.

Saunders, Caroline, Andrew Barber and Greg Taylor. Food Miles: Comparative

Energy/Emissions Performance of New Zealand’s Agriculture Industry. Research to

improve decisions and outcomes in agribusiness, resource, environmental, and social

issues. Research Report 285. (July 2006).

Smith, A. et al. The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development: Final

report. DEFRA, London. (2005).

https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp.

Woods, Richard. "Why long-haul food may be greener than local food with low air-miles."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3294448.ece 6/13/2010