by Jayson Lusk
What’s true of sheep is also true of all kinds of other commodities. Tomatoes, for example, require ample amounts of warm weather to reach full potential. Outside a few months in the summer, the research shows that it is more energy efficient for northern European cities to ship tomatoes up from the south than to grow them locally in greenhouses.17 Natural differences in weather, availability of tillable land, and other resources convey comparative advantages to specific regions that add up to significant differences in the amount of energy required to produce certain food. There are good economic reasons why corn tends to be grown in Iowa, wheat in Kansas, potatoes in Idaho, peanuts in Georgia, and grapes in California. It is because these crops can be grown there at higher qualities and in greater quantities using fewer resources than in other locations.
Moreover, successful farmers of a crop that benefits from a region’s natural resources can often expand and gain economies of scale. The larger size provided by scale economies results in more efficiency and less energy use. One environmental economist suggests the possibility that “larger producers, because they are more energy-efficient, can transport food longer distances and still have a smaller environmental impact than smaller, local producers.”18
Of all the global warming impacts that are said to come from food consumption, only 10 percent is due to transportation, whereas 80 percent is a result of activities on the farm.19 The implication for those worried about global warming is clear: to reduce the carbon impacts from food consumption, one should grow food on farms where production is most efficient and then ship it to the consumer.
While locavores obsess about the distance foods travel to get to them, seldom do they emphasize how far they have to travel to get to the food. Shipping food by boat or barge is incredibly efficient, and while shipping by semi is worse, it isn’t all that bad. The really inefficient part of food transportation comes from our cars’ emissions from the home to market. One study estimated “that if a customer drives a round-trip distance of more than [4.15 miles] in order to purchase their organic vegetables, their carbon emissions are likely to be greater than the emissions from the system of … large-scale vegetable box suppliers. Consequently some of the ideas behind localism in the food sector may need to be revisited.”20 So, unless locavores are one-stop-shopping at the farmers’ market, chances are that the extra stop to buy local foods is creating more emissions than any that might have been saved getting that food to market. That’s also the reason Harvard economist Ed Glaser says that urban agriculture is environmentally harmful: by diverting living space to crops, it increases commuting distances, which causes much more environmental harm than any benefit accruing from the local fare.21
As far as the environment goes, it is important also to recognize that “buy local” is a cause, not a certifiable production practice. Some local producers use organic and low-tillage production methods, but many do not. At least with organic, there is a certifying body that requires adherence to certain standards to attain the organic label. There is no standardization with local. Some locavores think that’s a good thing. But one consequence is that you can never really be sure (even if you ask) that a local tomato was grown with more or fewer pesticides or in a way that caused more or less soil erosion than the tomato traveling cross-country. In fact, one of the main goals of locavorism is to increase consumption of vegetables, and as I have already revealed when discussing farm policy, growing fruits and veggies can require more pesticides and fungicides than growing grains. More chemical usage hardly implies improved environmental impacts. Maybe you think that means you should buy organic, but what does that have to do with local?
And what happens to all the food a local farmer can’t sell? One study showed that a large percentage of the crops brought to farmers’ markets were never sold and thus simply perished. More than half the tomatoes suitable for market had to be thrown away because nobody bought them. The local farmers also had trouble growing produce of an acceptable size and appearance to consumers, and thus another 20 to 30 percent was thrown away even before market. This kind of waste is not nearly as problematic on large-scale commercial farms. As the authors put it, “[A] large proportion of each type of squash (especially the zucchini squash), cucumber, bell pepper, and okra could not be marketed due to poor quality or because it was too large for the market. In a large-scale production state such as California, much of the defected produce could be salvaged by frozen-food processors or possibly by a food cannery.”22
Because they share weather and temperature, all farms within a given region are likely to have their produce come to market around the same time. In a world with regional and international trade, that isn’t a big deal, as the surplus can be shipped out to other locations. But in the locavore’s world, the result is inevitable: spoilage and waste—not something typically prized by recycling environmentalists.
THE THIRD TENET OF LOCAVORISM: LOCAL-FOOD SYSTEMS PRODUCE A MORE ROBUST, SECURE FOOD SUPPLY
In a diatribe against food imports (although I presume he’s excepting Italian olive oil, Belgian chocolate, and French Champagne), Mark Bittman writes, “I’m not a jingoist, but I’d prefer that more of my food came from America. It’d be even better, really, if most of it came from within a few hundred miles of where we live. We’d be more secure and better served, and our land would be better used.”23 The idea that a more local food supply is a more secure food supply rests on shaky premises. As we’ve already seen, local food production will often mean less-efficient food production, which in turn means less food. That’s fine if you’re trying to cut calories, but food security means that food is available when you want it.
It would be foolish to invest all your retirement savings in a single stock. The financial experts tell us to diversify. And if we shouldn’t keep all our financial eggs in one basket, the same goes for hen-laid varieties. One of the things that make farming unique compared to other businesses is its unusually large reliance on the weather. An unexpected drought, rain at the wrong time, an early freeze, or a hailstorm can devastate a whole farming community or even an entire region. While farmers protect themselves financially against these kinds of risks by buying crop insurance, what about the food consumer?
In a world of extensive food trade, there is little need to worry about the consumers of Northville if their farmers face a flood, because Northville consumers can readily buy their food elsewhere. But a world where the locavores have tied the hands of farmers in Northville, Southville, Eastville, and Westville to supply only their local consumers is one where a weather disaster in one location can have dire effects on the consumers who live there. After all, agriculture is a business that requires long production lags. A farmer can’t produce potatoes on a whim; it takes months of planning and foresight. The world sought by the locavores isn’t more food secure, it’s riskier—in terms both of the availability of food and of the prices we’d have to pay.
The locavores want us to imagine that only those small farmers planting heirloom tomatoes are adding to the diversity of regional cropping systems. The reality is that the so-called mono-cropping systems that are the bane of the locavore’s existence are far less “mono” than they let on. A large farmer who plants corn this year typically rotates to soybeans the next. Even continuous corn or soybean farmers will often plant a fall cover crop of wheat, rye, or barley. And as I’ve already shared, many of the big farmers do use the low- or no-tillage production practices praised by the locavores. It is true that the crops these farms plant are not as diversified as those on the farms prized by the locavores, but there is much more temporal and geographic diversity in the global food system than locavores often admit.
THE FOURTH TENET OF LOCAVORISM: LOCAL FOODS ARE HEALTHIER
Most of us could stand to eat a few more fruits and veggies. But what does that have to do with local food? The conclusion that local food is healthier is a non sequitur. It depends on what local food you eat, when you eat it, and what you do with the extra tim
e and money you don’t spend seeking out local products. In short, eating local has nothing to do with eating healthily.
It is true that many fruits and vegetables are most nutrient-rich immediately after being picked ripe. But large growers and processors often quickly freeze just-picked produce to preserve freshness. In fact, frozen vegetables are typically more nutrient-dense than fresh veggies that have been off the vine for several days. One of the big problems for locavores participating in community-supported agriculture or food co-ops is that they are delivered much more produce than they can eat in a timely fashion. One member of a local farm association admitted, “Ordinarily, I would never eat turnips. I managed to go 30 years without buying one. But now every winter I’m faced with a two-month supply, not to mention the kale, collards, and flat-leaf Italian parsley that sit in my refrigerator, slowly wilting, filling me with guilt every time I reach past them for the milk.”24
Not only is this wasteful, it’s not even all that healthy. The nutrient content of veggies that have been sitting around for a few days can deteriorate to the point that eating canned would be better—at least from a nutritional standpoint. That’s why one group of scientists concluded “that exclusive recommendations of fresh produce ignore the nutrient benefits of canned and frozen products.”25
Eating healthy means more than eating just a few kinds of vegetables. You won’t do your body any favors with a broccoli-only diet. Nutritionists tell us that a key component of a healthy diet is the diversity of the foods we eat. For example, a recent paper in The Journal of Nutrition indicated, “The recommendation to eat diverse types of foodstuffs is an internationally accepted recommendation for a healthy diet.”26
A person who restricts his diet to only those things grown locally is restricting diversity in his diet—especially in the winter. Wander around almost any supermarket in almost any town in America almost any time of year, and the diversity and abundance of fruits and vegetables are absolutely astounding. Vidalia onions from Georgia, oranges from Florida, California lettuce, sweet corn from Iowa, mangoes, bananas, and jalapeños from south of the border—if you live in the right location, you might have access to such a cornucopia a few weeks or months out of the year, but Walmart offers it to us every day. Fifty to a hundred years ago, the available transportation and storage technologies required people to eat a lot more local food. Yet, despite weighing a bit less, people weren’t healthier then. One reason, among many, is that our great-grandparents lacked the diversity of the diet we enjoy when we eat food from places from beyond our backyard.
THE FIFTH TENET OF LOCAVORISM: LOCAL FOODS TASTE BETTER
At certain times of the year and with certain veggies, fresh local food can taste better than nonfresh imported food. But that’s no argument for government promotion of local foods. Dinner at a three-star Michelin-rated restaurant tastes better than pizza from Domino’s. Yet I don’t see a campaign to limit meals to only those cooked by chefs who can rate a star. Few reasonable people would argue that governments should subsidize top chefs. Locavores must hold the rest of us in pretty poor esteem if we can’t be presumed to know what tastes best.
While I’ll grant the locavores their premise at certain times of the year, the same isn’t true all year round. Maybe local winter squash, broad beans, and beets do taste better than the ones grown farther away. But in the winter, the real choice isn’t between local or imported winter squash. With abundant trade, we can choose between local winter squash and imported peaches, oranges, and tomatoes. You’ll have a hard time convincing me, and the vast majority of other Americans, that in February winter squash will taste better than peaches, oranges, tomatoes, and lettuce brought up from Florida or South America. No one comparing apples to oranges would win even a high school debate, and yet the locavores hope to convert us by hiding the fact that they’re comparing winter squash to summer sweet corn.
Fresher often tastes better, but local food does not axiomatically mean fresh food. The fish in the city center of Paris is typically considered fresher than what can be found even a few miles in from the coast. (It goes to show the drawing power of a big consumer market.) Even in the landlocked Midwest, the best seafood restaurants fly in fresh catch. Want fresh peaches from Georgia or South Carolina? Thanks to the Internet and FedEx, you can have them sitting on your doorstep the next day.27 That’s as fresh as you’ll find at any farmers’ market.
THE SIXTH TENET OF LOCAVORISM: LOCAL FOODS ARE FOR THE KIDS
Almost anything can be justified if it’s for the kids. Alice Waters wants us to invest in local foods for schools because “[c]ertain things are just too important to compromise on. I just cannot compromise on what children are fed in school … I cannot compromise on the purity and nutrition and tastiness of the food. Children should have the very best of everything.”28 It is interesting that Waters says she can’t compromise for my kids, because I have to do it every day.
The reality is that even Bill Gates has to compromise. Nobody’s income is unlimited. Our wants will always outstrip our capacity to supply them. That’s a fact of life—one that has escaped Waters, who apparently presumes schools have budgets more akin to those of the sheikhs of Saudi Arabia than administrators in the Bronx. Schools face real budget constraints that force real trade-offs. If schools are forced to spend their budgets on more local foods, that means less money spent on healthy foods. A school can try to maximize nutrient intake for a given budget or it can maximize the amount of local food. The outcomes are not the same. Personally, I’d rather schools tried to maximize what my kids learned.
Why should we promote policies that take fruits and veggies, which are often the farmers’ most highly valued commodities, and give them to the people who value them least? Most kids don’t want veggies—local or not. I’m all for local schools thinking about creative and cost-effective ways to improve the quality of schoolchildren’s diets, but simply requiring schools to buy things kids won’t eat isn’t helpful. Even if we could increase local food consumption through subsidies, that doesn’t make it an economically efficient thing to do. Giving out local food to seven-year-olds is about as smart as handing out T-bone steaks at a PETA convention.
When all is said and done, the locavores don’t have a truly compelling answer for why we should all eat local. I once co-wrote an article with the tongue-in-cheek subtitle “Why Pineapples Shouldn’t Be Grown in North Dakota,” and received a retort from a locavore saying they never claimed that pineapples should be grown there. “So, what do you claim?” I asked. The answer, in not so many words, was that people in North Dakota shouldn’t want pineapples. There we have it. Locavores don’t care what we want. It’s all about what they want us to eat. The food elite want us to become something different from what we are. Unless, ironically, a North Dakotan can export himself to where pineapples are local.
In the end, the locavores want to supplant our wants and desires with theirs. Art Salatin, a local-food advocate and farmer, says, “We have to battle the idea that you can have anything you want any time you want it.”29 This is an interesting position for someone in the business of trying to please the customer. At least Salatin’s cause is a personal one that doesn’t entail government regulation. That’s not the same as Pollan, who says: “People will have to relearn what it means to eat according to the seasons.”30 Our modern economy allows us to eat tasty fruit from South America in the off-season, but if Pollan’s crusade to have us eat more local food is to succeed, then our preferences must change. In fact, he argues, “[a]ll we need to do is empower individuals with the right philosophy and the right information to opt out [of the industrial food chain] en masse.”31 Apparently, according to Pollan, whatever philosophies are currently guiding food decisions are wrong.
Local-food advocates tend to be the exact same folk who promote cultural diversity and relish their adventures to Europe and Southeast Asia. Pollan himself traversed the United States to make the case that we should stay at home to eat. Locavores use pop
ulist language to extol the virtues of local producers, all the while smugly praising exotic foreign foods and spending their vacation money elsewhere. Despite the populist overtones, locavorism is but another form of elitism—even though locavores can’t bring themselves to admit it. We have one group of people claiming to know better than the rest of us where we should get our food, all the while exempting themselves from the same requirements. The irony is lost on the locavores, who, in one breath, claim it is a myth that “eating local (organic) food is elitist,” while, in the next, encourage fellow locavores to “continue enjoying your delicious Green Zebra and Brandywine tomatoes with a little bit of extra virgin olive oil, homegrown basil, and sea salt without the slightest bit of guilt.”32
Most of us have more to worry about than the distance zucchinis travel. If your goal is to minimize nutrient loss, buy frozen veggies. If your goal is to feed kids cheaply and more nutritiously, buy canned. If you want to minimize your carbon footprint, ride your bike and stay off airplanes. If you want to help local farmers, give them a donation or fight to remove the trade barriers that keep them from selling to consumers in other countries. If you want to ingest fewer pesticides, pay more for the organic. Local has nothing to do with it.
The locavores have taken a movement designed to satisfy the whims of foodies with time and money on their hands and turned it into a national cause with the growing support of politicians. I happily buy from folks I know at the farmers’ market when a ripe tomato is needed for fresh salsa, but I can’t possibly imagine why everyone has to. As the award-winning author Charles Mann put it in a New York Times interview, “If your concern is to produce the maximum amount of food possible for the lowest cost, which is a serious concern around the world for people who aren’t middle-class foodies like me, [local food] seems like a crazy luxury. It doesn’t make sense for my aesthetic preference to be elevated to a moral imperative.”33
