The recent globalization of the food system is jeopardizing global sustainability. The way the current system provides food contributes to global warming and air pollution, causes a lack in quality, taste, and nutritional value in the produce, often severely damages the health of the biosphere through soil and aquifer depletion, deforestation, aggressive use of agrochemicals, and the loss of biodiversity in crops, livestock, and wild species and ultimately does not benefit local economies or the farmers. It is for these reasons that eating locally and organically is not only beneficial but is also very important in terms of global sustainability.
Primarily, transporting food over long distances generates large quantities of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. On average food travels between 1,500 to 2,500 miles every time that it is delivered to the consumer, making the average travel of produce 25 percent farther now than it was in 1980. An example provided by the National Resources Defense Council states that, “Every year, nearly 270 million pounds of grapes arrive in California, most of them shipped from Chile to the Port of Los Angeles. Their 5,900 mile journey in cargo ships and trucks releases 7,000 tons of global warming pollution each year, and enough air pollution to cause dozens of asthma attacks and hundreds of missed school days in California”. According to Michael Pollen, journalist for Mother Jones Magazine and author of the Omnivores Dilemma, it takes 30 times more fuel and the release of 30 times more greenhouse gasses, primarily CO2, to import food, in comparison with the transportation of regional food to a local market.
Secondarily, in addition to the sizeable portion (10-15%) of the world’s fossil fuel consumption and corresponding CO2 emissions added to the atmosphere due to the actual transportation of the food, the transportation of produce over long distances also requires the produce to be picked while still unripe and furthermore, after transport, to be either gassed or highly processed in factories using preservatives, irradiation, and other means to keep it stable or to ripen it. The early picking of fruits and vegetables also causes a loss in nutrition because the longer that fruits and vegetables sit around waiting to be transported, sold, or eaten, the more nutrients they lose. On the other hand, small-scale farmers who sell direct to local consumers “need not give priority to packing, shipping and shelf life issues and can instead select, grow and harvest crops to ensure peak qualities of freshness, nutrition and taste”. They also often supply farmers markets, allowing the food to be picked within 24 hours of being sold, therefore providing the highest quality produce available.
Penultimately, the way we grow and harvest large quantities of produce in agribusiness consolidation and large-scale, monoculture cash-cropping, causes a loss of biodiversity, leads to soil degradation and a loss of topsoil, compromises of water quality, causes aquifer depletion, leads to aggressive use of agrochemicals and triggers the release of additional greenhouse gases through soil cultivation and the release methane from livestock, rice cultivation (half of the world’s population lives on a staple diet of rice), and the burning of agricultural residues. It also takes up a lot of space; as it stands, 40-47 of the world’s biologically productive areas are being used solely for large-scale agriculture. On the other hand, small-scale, locally owned farms benefit the economy and the environment in many ways. Small-scale farms, unlike corporate farms who practice monoculture- planting acres and acres of one crop in order to streamline mechanized processes which in turn “depletes the land of nutrients and encourages disease, weeds, and pests”, use practices that encourage biodiversity. For example, they “rotate crops to prevent soil depletion, nourish soil with compost, interplant various crops for natural weed and pest prevention, and have a long-term view of what is best for the land”, i.e. promoting sustainability. (www.spectrumorganics.com). Ultimately, besides the impact on public health and the environment, the global food system does not benefit local economies, or the farmer. Farmers on average receive only 20 cents of each food dollar spent, the rest wasted on transportation, processing, irradiation, packaging, refrigeration, and marketing. On the other hand, farmers who sell food to local customers “receive the full retail value, a dollar for each food dollar spent.” Additionally a British study, which tracked how much of the money spent at a local food business stayed in the local economy, and how many times it was reinvested, found that the total value of a dollar spent on local produce was almost twice the contribution of a dollar spent at a supermarket chain.
In conclusion, as the National Resources Defense Council says, “the way we eat has an enormous impact on the health of the planet. By choosing to eat lower on the food chain, and focusing on local and organic produce, we can curb global warming and air pollution, avoid toxic pesticides, support local farmers, and enjoy fresh, tasty foods”.
For even more benefits of eating locally, please visit:
