We all know the benefits and importance of eating locally grown food and how this practice is good for our bodies and our planet. But to what degree would it be preferable to not eat local? And what is the definition of ‘local’? Would a food produced 100 miles away still be considered local? Local Harvest recommends that food travel no more than 100-200 miles from its source, which seems like a long way for a farmer to drive to deliver cukes and tomatoes.
Is it better for a single semi truck-load of lettuce to be driven across the country from California to the East coast or for dozens of farmers to drive from their individual farms to farmers markets in New York City and Boston to sell their crops? It’s worth considering whether local fruits and veggies really are more carbon-friendly than grocery store produce.
No one can argue that a homegrown tomato tastes superior to one picked prematurely in order for it not to get pummeled in the long transport process. And that just-picked goodies retain more nutrients than veggies that were picked two weeks ago. But how practical would it be, if eating local becomes more and more of a focus, to allocate more city-side land to farming in order to feed all us city dwellers? And what about those who live in arid or desert climates where farming is impractical? There are many more questions to be asked regarding the ‘eat local’ movement, not all of which may have satisfactory answers.
As for choosing to be a diehard locavore, I for one would have a tough time giving up coffee for breakfast (anyone tried growing coffee beans on Old Mission Peninsula yet?), chocolate, coconut, olive oil, bananas, brown rice, and many other ‘exotic’ foods. Even Barbara Kingsolver, in her family’s quest to eat local for an entire year (chronicled in her book “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, an excellent read) allowed everyone a single non-local exception. Her husband chose coffee. She chose spices. (I forget what her kids chose.)
If you happen to live in Southern California or Florida, you have it made. The last time I visited the Santa Monica farmer’s market in L.A. in mid-winter, it was bursting with organic produce. It was a regular cornucopia of culinary delights, all while back in T.C. everyone was scraping their cars and shoveling their driveways. But for those of us who live in cold climes, you better like squash, cabbage, potatoes, carrots, and apples, because that’s mostly what you’ll be eating all winter. Say bye-bye to fresh salad greens for several months. (Although the season can be extended with hoop houses.)
We can also extend the season by growing our own sprouts, culturing our veggies, and canning and freezing foods. But the point is, it would be rather difficult to be a local purist and shun non-local foods, especially in the great white north. This is not meant to criticize the locavore movement, but simply to raise the issues of whether eating local is truly environmentally sound in every way (i.e. one semi-load vs. dozens of truck deliveries), and how we would get along without certain foods we have come to know and love and consider staples, such as extra virgin olive oil. Any ideas on this one?
