Thanks jcbonbon

In many ways, you would think so. Locally grown food is supposed to be better for you, better tasting and use up far less “food miles” to get to your table. The Locavore movement has gained traction with more than just the environmental crowd, because of the range of products available, the appeal to supporting local economy, the fear of pesticides and preservatives, and even the joy of having your own garden. So why are Stephen Dubner’s findings so opposite? He starts with the argument:

I very much understand the locavore instinct. To eat locally grown food or, even better, food that you’ve grown yourself, seems as if it should be 1) more delicious; 2) more nutritious; 3) cheaper; and 4) better for the environment. But is it?

His conclusions point to several issues, including the products it takes to grow your own food, the efficiency of vegetable and cattle farms and the amount of transportation it takes to get to you. It’s not exactly fair to compare growing your own food to the overly efficient farmers who make this their life, but on the same token, nothing compares to the pride and joy you feel when you pick your first homegrown tomato. Nor does it compare to the feeling of knowing exactly what has been put on or in your fruits and vegetables. So does this still equal a larger carbon footprint than going to your local grocery store?

Here’s his logic:

1. No one can grow all the things he or she would like to eat. While this is true, even substituting some of your produce for homegrown helps. Not to mention, you don’t really have to grow it all yourself if you take a trip to your local farmer’s market.

2. Since you can’t grow everything you need, there’s sure to be nutritional gaps in your diet. Sure, this makes total sense, but no one’s saying you need to grow your own wheat, corn, lettuce and everything in between. That would surely be incredibly inefficient and frankly, overkill. Again, a short trip to your local farmer’s market or vegetable stand can help that.

3. Is it cheaper? What if you factor in all the miles you would have to drive and all the products you need, the seeds, fertilizer, tools, etc? What if 1,000 of your neighbors did the same? This isn’t exactly a fair comparison. Some people don’t have the space to grow their produce in the ground, so they would need to buy pots and soil, but even so, many of those products you don’t need or don’t need to buy. Sprout cups? Unnecessary when you can make them out of newspaper or even egg cartons. Fertilizer? Forget about it! Either start a small composting setup or buy stuff from Terracycle, which I can attest to being great. Tools? you don’t need to buy a slew of tools to make your garden grow, you can improvise. Plus, even if you do choose to buy them, it’s a one-time cost for products you can use year after year. The transportation part is a valid point, but if you make a solid list of what you need and make one trip, it’s a small price to pay.

Now here’s the kicker:
4. (quoted directly) Keeping in mind the transportation inefficiencies mentioned above, consider the “food miles” argument: We find that although food is transported long distances in general…the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” This is a compelling argument, and if only 4% is from retailer to retail, then it makes sense. If 83% of the carbon footprint of getting food to your table is concentrated in the production phase, doesn’t that sound a little inefficient, and perhaps the local growers would contribute a little less? Not to mention, I refuse to believe that only 4% of the CO2 emissions of avocados from Chile in our Florida grocery stores are from that long trip.

The jury’s still out, and for me, I’ll stick to my locally grown produce, thank you.

» Via PSFK and the Freakonomics blog on NYTimes Online