- From: Michelle Kuhns <chimellers@yahoo.com>
- To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] NYTimes.com: Food That Travels Well
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Hello all,
I appreciate the discussions that happen on this listserv, though I'm often a quiet participant. Especially interesting was the James McWilliams NY Times article (which argued that "eating local" is not necessarily the least environmentally harmful dietary option) and your responses that followed. Here are some published and unpublished letters to the editors that followed his article (including an unpublished one from the Lappe's). I think they do a great job filling out the issue, making the points that we don't eat locally ONLY for environmental reasons, and that, environmentally, perhaps he should phrase the problem a little differently. Hope you all find this
useful.
Michelle in Tucson
some letters responding to the Food that Travels Well op-ed...
I don't know how many of you are Economist readers but, if you are, you might remember the magazine’s relatively recent attack on local foods advocates. Are locavores just clueless environmentalists who don't have their facts straight? Might it be, as the Economist claimed, actually better for the environment to buy food from halfway around the world, if that food was produced more ecologically? A recent New York Times op-ed picked up a similar line of argument. See below for my mother and my unpublished
response to the editor of the Times, click here to read the letters the Times did publish, and check out fan-of-the-local Michael Shuman's "On the Lamb" for an in-depth response.
Best,
Anna
To the Editor:
In an apparent attempt to set us straight on real value of “local food” in lightening our earthly footprint, James E. McWilliams (Food That Travels Well, 8.6.07) beats up on a straw man, confusing the whole question. Local foods advocates don’t promote just any kind of local, as he implies. Tyson Foods’ highly inefficient, large-footprint factory may be local to some, but an anathema to sustainable eating activists. His prime example, that in the U.K. imported grass-fed lamb embodies less fossil fuel use than local grain-fed, is not proof that imports are superior but that we should eat less grain-fed meat. He notes that we must include organic, sustainable farming practices, as well as minimal packaging, into our eating calculations, but eat-local folks already heartily agree. The author, moreover, ignores the many
reasons beyond the ecological for provisioning locally whenever possible—such as less vulnerability to concentrated political and market power.
Frances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé
Small Planet Institute
Buying Local Food Is Still Better (6 Letters)
Published: August 12, 2007
To the Editor:
In “Food That Travels Well” (Op-Ed, Aug. 6), James E. McWilliams explains something counterintuitive: sometimes foods with low “food miles” can squander more carbon than foods that have traveled further to get to you. So what’s the environmentally concerned consumer to do?
How about asking for a sensible carbon tax on fossil fuels, so that the lamb chop that consumed vast quantities of carbon in the form of feed fertilizers, jet fuel and diesel would cost more than the lamp chop that consumed less, wherever it was raised?
Jessica Avery
Newton, Mass., Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams asserts that a study by Lincoln University in New Zealand indicated that “it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard,” because “poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed.”
While this finding is certainly convenient for New Zealand’s lucrative food export industry, it overlooks a central issue: to achieve sustainability in agriculture, we need to adjust our eating habits accordingly.
In other words, if it is so inefficient to produce lamb locally that it is better for the environment to import it from New Zealand, maybe, just maybe, we should be eating less of it.
Lara A. Ballard
Washington, Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams provides a provocative, thoughtful way to consider “food miles,” yet I do not agree with his statement that “we must accept that buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment.”
Sure, transporting grass-fed lamb from New Zealand to Britain might use less petroleum than feeding corn to British sheep, but that is not the whole story. In the 1980s, as a result of the loss of farm subsidies, some New Zealand farmers went through a radical (and painful) process of changing their farming practices over to feeding livestock on grass grown in their pastures. This is what makes their lamb less dependent on petroleum.
What we need is to encourage farmers throughout the world to return to grass farming. Then “local” will truly be better for the environment, as well as better for reasons few care to criticize — superior flavor, our health and a better local economy.
Anne McKeithen
Charlottesville, Va., Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams makes an interesting argument for regional food distribution systems over local ones. His comments on “food miles” are thoughtful, but there is another reason, beyond environmental concerns, for developing and supporting local food, and that is food security.
The day may come, suddenly or gradually, when current distribution systems no longer function. That fact should put farmers’ markets and community gardens, like Victory Gardens during World War II, front and center of cultural change.
Molly McCluer
Memphis, Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams widens the lens on the carbon impact of eating locally, but he doesn’t go the last mile. Because outlets for locally grown meat and produce are fewer and farther between than ordinary grocery stores, most consumers have to drive farther to get to them. If each locavore drives his Prius an extra 10 miles to buy a local chicken, that’s 3.5 pounds of emissions, or 1,400 pounds per ton of chicken (assuming beefy five-pound birds). Even if each buyer stocks up on several chickens, that’s a lot of carbon.
Tamar Haspel
New York, Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
While I applaud James E. McWilliams’s tacit recognition that the issue of food sustainability is not as trivial as “eat locally,” I believe that he misses an important and fundamental aspect of the transition to any form of environmental, social or economic sustainability.
His argument assumes that our society will be able to maintain our current quality and quantity of consumption in a sustainable future. While this might be a best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario, it is far more likely — if not certain — that our patterns of consumption will be forced to change.
We might not necessarily eat less (though many argue for this on health grounds), but we should anticipate that our diets will conform more to the available foods than to our epicurean whims. As some new food books suggest, a more geographically and temporally local diet can not only be healthier for the body and the environment, but can also be more interesting and flavorful.
Kent Hurst
Arlington, Tex., Aug. 6, 2007
>>> Michelle Kuhns 8/7/2007 11:03 AM >>>
Here's an interesting article that came up on a listserv I'm on. It makes the case that maybe we've all gone a little too crazy about local. Food miles may not be the only indicator of environmental friendliness or energy consumption, and sometimes food traveling farther is better for the environment (considering how it was produced), the author says. There was an interesting discussion that followed on the listserv where one person said the article was flawed because its findings were comparing only farms with high energy inputs and low food miles against farms with low energy inputs and high food miles (ignoring those with both low energy inputs AND low food miles).
I think it's important for us to consider these sorts of arguments and to think about what they mean for the people in the "red zone" on behalf of whom we do our work! I'm curious what the rest of you think about it...
michelle
>>> <emitch@worldnet.att.net> 8/6/2007 3:20 PM >>>
Michelle Kuhns
Home Garden Coordinator
Community Food Security Center
Community Food Bank, Suite 221
3003 S. Country Club Rd.
Tucson, AZ 85713
520.622.0525 x240
>
>> Kelly Watters 8/14/2007 3:06 PM >>>
some letters responding to the Food that Travels Well op-ed...
I don't know how many of you are Economist readers but, if you are, you might
remember the magazine’s relatively recent attack on local foods advocates.
Are locavores just clueless environmentalists who don't have their facts
straight? Might it be, as the Economist claimed, actually better for the
environment to buy food from halfway around the world, if that food was
produced more ecologically? A recent New York Times op-ed picked up a similar
line of argument. See below for my mother and my unpublished response to the
editor of the Times, click here to read the letters the Times did publish,
and check out fan-of-the-local Michael Shuman's "On the Lamb" for an in-depth
response.
Best,
Anna
To the Editor:
In an apparent attempt to set us straight on real value of “local food” in
lightening our earthly footprint, James E. McWilliams (Food That Travels
Well, 8.6.07) beats up on a straw man, confusing the whole question. Local
foods advocates don’t promote just any kind of local, as he implies. Tyson
Foods’ highly inefficient, large-footprint factory may be local to some, but
an anathema to sustainable eating activists. His prime example, that in the
U.K. imported grass-fed lamb embodies less fossil fuel use than local
grain-fed, is not proof that imports are superior but that we should eat less
grain-fed meat. He notes that we must include organic, sustainable farming
practices, as well as minimal packaging, into our eating calculations, but
eat-local folks already heartily agree. The author, moreover, ignores the
many reasons beyond the ecological for provisioning locally whenever
possible—such as less vulnerability to concentrated political and market
power.
Frances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé
Small Planet Institute
Buying Local Food Is Still Better (6 Letters)
Published: August 12, 2007
To the Editor:
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Op-Ed Contributor: Food That Travels Well (August 6, 2007)
In “Food That Travels Well” (Op-Ed, Aug. 6), James E. McWilliams explains
something counterintuitive: sometimes foods with low “food miles” can
squander more carbon than foods that have traveled further to get to you. So
what’s the environmentally concerned consumer to do?
How about asking for a sensible carbon tax on fossil fuels, so that the lamb
chop that consumed vast quantities of carbon in the form of feed fertilizers,
jet fuel and diesel would cost more than the lamp chop that consumed less,
wherever it was raised?
Jessica Avery
Newton, Mass., Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams asserts that a study by Lincoln University in New Zealand
indicated that “it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy
lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer
in their backyard,” because “poorer British pastures force farmers to use
feed.”
While this finding is certainly convenient for New Zealand’s lucrative food
export industry, it overlooks a central issue: to achieve sustainability in
agriculture, we need to adjust our eating habits accordingly.
In other words, if it is so inefficient to produce lamb locally that it is
better for the environment to import it from New Zealand, maybe, just maybe,
we should be eating less of it.
Lara A. Ballard
Washington, Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams provides a provocative, thoughtful way to consider “food
miles,” yet I do not agree with his statement that “we must accept that
buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment.”
Sure, transporting grass-fed lamb from New Zealand to Britain might use less
petroleum than feeding corn to British sheep, but that is not the whole
story. In the 1980s, as a result of the loss of farm subsidies, some New
Zealand farmers went through a radical (and painful) process of changing
their farming practices over to feeding livestock on grass grown in their
pastures. This is what makes their lamb less dependent on petroleum.
What we need is to encourage farmers throughout the world to return to grass
farming. Then “local” will truly be better for the environment, as well as
better for reasons few care to criticize — superior flavor, our health and a
better local economy.
Anne McKeithen
Charlottesville, Va., Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams makes an interesting argument for regional food
distribution systems over local ones. His comments on “food miles” are
thoughtful, but there is another reason, beyond environmental concerns, for
developing and supporting local food, and that is food security.
The day may come, suddenly or gradually, when current distribution systems no
longer function. That fact should put farmers’ markets and community gardens,
like Victory Gardens during World War II, front and center of cultural
change.
Molly McCluer
Memphis, Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams widens the lens on the carbon impact of eating locally,
but he doesn’t go the last mile. Because outlets for locally grown meat and
produce are fewer and farther between than ordinary grocery stores, most
consumers have to drive farther to get to them. If each locavore drives his
Prius an extra 10 miles to buy a local chicken, that’s 3.5 pounds of
emissions, or 1,400 pounds per ton of chicken (assuming beefy five-pound
birds). Even if each buyer stocks up on several chickens, that’s a lot of
carbon.
Tamar Haspel
New York, Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
While I applaud James E. McWilliams’s tacit recognition that the issue of
food sustainability is not as trivial as “eat locally,” I believe that he
misses an important and fundamental aspect of the transition to any form of
environmental, social or economic sustainability.
His argument assumes that our society will be able to maintain our current
quality and quantity of consumption in a sustainable future. While this might
be a best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario, it is far more likely — if not
certain — that our patterns of consumption will be forced to change.
We might not necessarily eat less (though many argue for this on health
grounds), but we should anticipate that our diets will conform more to the
available foods than to our epicurean whims. As some new food books suggest,
a more geographically and temporally local diet can not only be healthier for
the body and the environment, but can also be more interesting and flavorful.
Kent Hurst
Arlington, Tex., Aug. 6, 2007
>
>> Michelle Kuhns 8/7/2007 11:03 AM >>>
Here's an interesting article that came up on a listserv I'm on. It makes
the case that maybe we've all gone a little too crazy about local. Food miles
may not be the only indicator of environmental friendliness or energy
consumption, and sometimes food traveling farther is better for the
environment (considering how it was produced), the author says. There was an
interesting discussion that followed on the listserv where one person said
the article was flawed because its findings were comparing only farms with
high energy inputs and low food miles against farms with low energy inputs
and high food miles (ignoring those with both low energy inputs AND low food
miles).
I think it's important for us to consider these sorts of arguments and to
think about what they mean for the people in the "red zone" on behalf of whom
we do our work! I'm curious what the rest of you think about it...
michelle
>
>> <emitch@worldnet.att.net> 8/6/2007 3:20 PM >>>
This page was sent to you by: emitch@worldnet.att.net
Message from sender:
Although I strongly believe in "local first", meaning 1) your own garden
2)your local farmers' market, this article makes some good points. There are
good farmers in other locations that deserve to make a living. We need to
find better wasy to assure that they get real value for their efforts.
OPINION | August 6, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor: Food That Travels Well
By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
Why imported produce may be better for the earth than local.
1. In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don’t Feel Rich
2. What Autistic Girls Are Made Of
3. Op-Ed Contributor: Food That Travels Well
4. 36 Hours in the Cinque Terre, Italy
5. Is Santa Fe Ready for a Makeover?
» Go to Complete List
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
|
Michelle Kuhns
Home Garden Coordinator
Community Food Security Center
Community Food Bank, Suite 221
3003 S. Country Club Rd.
Tucson, AZ 85713
520.622.0525 x240
>>> Kelly Watters 8/14/2007 3:06 PM >>>
some letters responding to the Food that Travels Well op-ed...
I don't know how many of you are Economist readers but, if you are, you might remember the magazine’s relatively recent attack on local foods advocates. Are locavores just clueless environmentalists who don't have their facts straight? Might it be, as the Economist claimed, actually better for the environment to buy food from halfway around the world, if that food was produced more ecologically? A recent New York Times op-ed picked up a similar line of argument. See below for my mother and my unpublished response to the editor of the Times, click here to read the letters the Times did publish, and check out fan-of-the-local Michael Shuman's "On the Lamb" for an in-depth response.
Best,
Anna
To the Editor:
In an apparent attempt to set us straight on real value of “local food” in lightening our earthly footprint, James E. McWilliams (Food That Travels Well, 8.6.07) beats up on a straw man, confusing the whole question. Local foods advocates don’t promote just any kind of local, as he implies. Tyson Foods’ highly inefficient, large-footprint factory may be local to some, but an anathema to sustainable eating activists. His prime example, that in the U.K. imported grass-fed lamb embodies less fossil fuel use than local grain-fed, is not proof that imports are superior but that we should eat less grain-fed meat. He notes that we must include organic, sustainable farming practices, as well as minimal packaging, into our eating calculations, but eat-local folks already heartily agree. The author, moreover, ignores the many reasons beyond the ecological for provisioning locally whenever possible—such as less vulnerability to concentrated political and market power.
Frances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé
Small Planet Institute
Buying Local Food Is Still Better (6 Letters)
Published: August 12, 2007
To the Editor:
In “Food That Travels Well” (Op-Ed, Aug. 6), James E. McWilliams explains something counterintuitive: sometimes foods with low “food miles” can squander more carbon than foods that have traveled further to get to you. So what’s the environmentally concerned consumer to do?
How about asking for a sensible carbon tax on fossil fuels, so that the lamb chop that consumed vast quantities of carbon in the form of feed fertilizers, jet fuel and diesel would cost more than the lamp chop that consumed less, wherever it was raised?
Jessica Avery
Newton, Mass., Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams asserts that a study by Lincoln University in New Zealand indicated that “it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard,” because “poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed.”
While this finding is certainly convenient for New Zealand’s lucrative food export industry, it overlooks a central issue: to achieve sustainability in agriculture, we need to adjust our eating habits accordingly.
In other words, if it is so inefficient to produce lamb locally that it is better for the environment to import it from New Zealand, maybe, just maybe, we should be eating less of it.
Lara A. Ballard
Washington, Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams provides a provocative, thoughtful way to consider “food miles,” yet I do not agree with his statement that “we must accept that buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment.”
Sure, transporting grass-fed lamb from New Zealand to Britain might use less petroleum than feeding corn to British sheep, but that is not the whole story. In the 1980s, as a result of the loss of farm subsidies, some New Zealand farmers went through a radical (and painful) process of changing their farming practices over to feeding livestock on grass grown in their pastures. This is what makes their lamb less dependent on petroleum.
What we need is to encourage farmers throughout the world to return to grass farming. Then “local” will truly be better for the environment, as well as better for reasons few care to criticize — superior flavor, our health and a better local economy.
Anne McKeithen
Charlottesville, Va., Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams makes an interesting argument for regional food distribution systems over local ones. His comments on “food miles” are thoughtful, but there is another reason, beyond environmental concerns, for developing and supporting local food, and that is food security.
The day may come, suddenly or gradually, when current distribution systems no longer function. That fact should put farmers’ markets and community gardens, like Victory Gardens during World War II, front and center of cultural change.
Molly McCluer
Memphis, Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
James E. McWilliams widens the lens on the carbon impact of eating locally, but he doesn’t go the last mile. Because outlets for locally grown meat and produce are fewer and farther between than ordinary grocery stores, most consumers have to drive farther to get to them. If each locavore drives his Prius an extra 10 miles to buy a local chicken, that’s 3.5 pounds of emissions, or 1,400 pounds per ton of chicken (assuming beefy five-pound birds). Even if each buyer stocks up on several chickens, that’s a lot of carbon.
Tamar Haspel
New York, Aug. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
While I applaud James E. McWilliams’s tacit recognition that the issue of food sustainability is not as trivial as “eat locally,” I believe that he misses an important and fundamental aspect of the transition to any form of environmental, social or economic sustainability.
His argument assumes that our society will be able to maintain our current quality and quantity of consumption in a sustainable future. While this might be a best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario, it is far more likely — if not certain — that our patterns of consumption will be forced to change.
We might not necessarily eat less (though many argue for this on health grounds), but we should anticipate that our diets will conform more to the available foods than to our epicurean whims. As some new food books suggest, a more geographically and temporally local diet can not only be healthier for the body and the environment, but can also be more interesting and flavorful.
Kent Hurst
Arlington, Tex., Aug. 6, 2007
>>> Michelle Kuhns 8/7/2007 11:03 AM >>>
Here's an interesting article that came up on a listserv I'm on. It makes the case that maybe we've all gone a little too crazy about local. Food miles may not be the only indicator of environmental friendliness or energy consumption, and sometimes food traveling farther is better for the environment (considering how it was produced), the author says. There was an interesting discussion that followed on the listserv where one person said the article was flawed because its findings were comparing only farms with high energy inputs and low food miles against farms with low energy inputs and high food miles (ignoring those with both low energy inputs AND low food miles).
I think it's important for us to consider these sorts of arguments and to think about what they mean for the people in the "red zone" on behalf of whom we do our work! I'm curious what the rest of you think about it...
michelle
>>> <emitch@worldnet.att.net> 8/6/2007 3:20 PM >>>
|
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.
