Local foods promote a safer food supply. The more steps there are between you and your food's source the more chances there are for contamination. Food grown in distant locations has the potential for food safety issues at harvesting, washing, shipping and distribution.
Air, artificial lights, and temperature changes during transport lower a food's nutritional value as well. By comparison, local food is healthier because it's only transported short distances and isn't exposed to chemicals, gasses, or waxes used to preserve food for long-distance transport.
Cons: It is much more expensive for people to eat locally. Often it takes more time and effort to eat locally as people have to go to the farmers markets and farms which can be harder and take more time than running to the store and grabbing nonlocal food.
Is eating local really better for the environment?
By shopping at local food stores and eating locally-sourced ingredients, you reduce the distance the ingredients need to travel, reducing fuel consumption and pollution caused by planes, trucks, trains, and boats.
When Travelling is it better to eat the food you know or try local food?
In conclusion, exploring local cuisine is essential to any travel experience. Not only is it a fun and enjoyable way to learn about a destination's culture and history, but it can also support the local economy, provide insight into the local environment, and improve your health and well-being.
In addition to the advantage in freshness, growers who cater to local customers aren't constrained by harvesting, packing, transport, and shelf life quality issues. Instead, they have the freedom to select, grow, and harvest their produce. Thus they can ensure the highest qualities of freshness, nutrition, and taste.
Based on carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) measurements, beef comes in first place as the food with the largest carbon footprint, emitting an astounding 99 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of the final meat product.
Does eating local food lower your carbon footprint?
Eating local only slightly reduces your emissions. Eating local beef or lamb has many times the carbon footprint of most other foods. Whether they are grown locally or shipped from the other side of the world matters very little for total emissions.
They write that,"locavorism can only result in higher costs and increased poverty, greater food insecurity, less food safety and much more significant environmental damage than is presently the case."
Shorter Food Supply Chain- Locally sourced produce is usually picked within 24 hours of being sold. Less steps from farm to plate means less handling, meaning less potential for bacterial or viral contamination during distribution.
In addition to farm costs, local food pricing is impacted by place-specific factors, such as differing property taxes, cost of labor, and land value, so pricing will be different in every community.
Local farmers set prices according to the actual cost of growing food, often providing higher wages for their employees and utilizing better animal welfare practices than large scale agriculture.
Crops are picked at their peak, likely within days of you receiving them. When it comes to food, local is often the freshest choice. Imported produce can be picked weeks before it is ripe and often the taste, texture and color have not fully developed. Restaurant chefs all love fresh and high-quality products.
Conclusion. Overall, buying organic or locally grown food can have some environmental, social and health advantages. Organic is primarily associated with minor nutrient benefits and environmental sustainability. Whereas buying local can be more sustainable, foster a sense of community and help support local economies.
For these people, there is a very common misunderstanding that importing plant-based foods from around the world has a worse environmental impact than eating locally sourced animal products. This is, in fact, entirely false – it is the other way around!
A diet rich in peas, pulses and nuts can be incredibly low-carbon. Producing 100g of protein from peas emits just 0.4kg of CO2e. This is almost 90 times less than getting the same amount of protein from beef. Other pulses, such as lentils, have a GHG footprint of 0.8kg of CO2e.
Vegan, Mediterranean diets have lower carbon footprints than standard U.S. diet | UCLA. A UCLA study found that vegan, Mediterranean and climatarian diets create smaller carbon footprints because they rely less on red meat and processed food.
The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation.
Potato production has a lower carbon footprint and requires less land and water than many other fruits, vegetables, and cereals1. Potatoes are also affordable, widely available, and prevalent in many diets around the world. Potatoes can help feed people across our growing planet in a healthy and sustainable way.
The resource-intensive nature of cattle rearing also explains why, on average, cheese and other dairy products have a higher climate cost than pork and poultry. Also, chickens and pigs are not ruminants and so do not produce as much methane.
By eating local, seasonal foods you can help reduce the environmental costs associated with your food. Local produce is more likely to be ripened on the farm before being harvested and delivered. This food is fresher, tastes better and is more nutritious.
Local businesses not only pay their employees, they also spend money at other local businesses. That means by buying local, you help create jobs for your friends and neighbors, contribute to improved public infrastructure, and invest in your community both socially and economically.
