Consumers who support “buy local food” campaigns because they think it is better for the environment and the local economy are wrong, an analysis published by the Montreal Economic Institute reports.
University of Toronto associate geography professor Pierre Desrochers, working with consultant Hiroko Shimizu, argued that the distance it takes to transport food to the store from the farm should not be the sole calculation for the impact of food on greenhouse gas emissions.
Buy-local advocates cited these “food miles” as a reason to discourage purchase of food that has been imported, often from distant countries.
Read Also
Storm dynamics and extreme rainfall
Besides moisture, instability and orographic lift, the next biggest factor that contributes to heavy or extreme rainfall is storm dynamics.
“The appeal of the food miles perspective, with its promise to reconnect people with food, neighbouring producers and seasonality, while delivering environmental, economic, health and social benefits is understandable,” he wrote.
“However, the expected environmental advantages of buying food locally are often based on an improper assessment of the overall sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the food production and distribution process, as well as a misunderstanding of the advantages of geographic specialization.”
He said an American study concluded that 11 percent of food sector GHG emissions come from transportation while 83 percent come from the production phase. And growing crops in countries with more favourable climates is more energy and pollution efficient.
Desrochers said he is not against the local food movement but skeptical of the usual arguments made to support it.
“Buying fresh produce in farmers’ markets and socializing with one’s neighbours may be good reasons to buy locally produced food but saving the planet or improving the local economy are not,” he wrote.
Importing food during winter rather than buying Canadian food that must be kept in heated storage areas actually is more energy efficient and less polluting, he argued.
And the polluting effect of consumers driving to buy local produce can contribute far more carbon to the atmosphere than transporting food by airplane or ship to Canada.
He dismissed the argument that buying local is a boost for the local economy, saying it is a boost for farmers. Consumers pay more for the food, making less money available for other parts of the local economy.
“Because consumers and taxpayers have less money available for other purchases or investments as a result of such policies, the local economy is made worse off overall,” he said.
“They also harm farmers in developing countries who are deprived of an opportunity to improve their economic conditions.”
He cited the published experiences of a British Columbia couple that lived for a year on the 100-mile diet. It cost significantly more, their food options were significantly reduced, particularly in the winter, and “the time spent acquiring and preparing food was comparable to holding a part-time job.”
