Local food isn't the climate solution you want it to be

Then, earlier this month, Bloomberg reported on a new study published by researchers from the University of Sydney, Beijing Technology and Business University and Wuhan University in the renowned scientific journal Nature Food claiming that food transportation emissions are up to 7.5 times higher than previously estimated. The article also highlighted that "fruits and vegetables are particularly carbon-intensive to ship due to their bulk and the need for refrigeration during transport."

My colleagues and friends loved this news — the article landed in my inbox at least a dozen times. Eating local meat seemed a much more agreeable climate solution than switching to a plant-rich diet. I'm sorry to burst the bubbles once again, but when looking closely at the study's findings, they don't support the headline-making statements about the benefits of local food and the drawbacks of eating vegetables.

The study mostly came to new transportation estimates due to emissions categorizations. Food systems literature typically looks at transportation emissions in two buckets:

1.   Before and during production: Emissions related to producing and transporting fertilizers, on-farm machinery and other inputs. They count toward agricultural production emissions. 

2.   Post-harvest: Emissions associated with transporting the food from the farm to the final consumer, usually referred to as "food miles."

The second bucket is what matters when we talk about eating local vs. global because consumers are most interested in how far the food traveled to them, not so much where their farmer's tractor, gasoline and fertilizer were manufactured and shipped from. But the new study added both emissions together in one sweeping transportation emissions calculation, which doesn't provide useful information on the question of whether eating local food is better. 

Continue reading.

Written by: Theresa Lieb

Photo by Alex Hudson on Unsplash

Source: Greenbiz