Choosing to eat local is likely to decrease the hundreds or thousands of miles it takes most conventionally sourced produce to reach grocery stores. A study conducted by Iowa State University’s associate director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture demonstrated that while produce shipped conventionally traveled an average of 1,500 miles just to reach consumers, local food averaged 44.6 miles. 

However, environmental impact isn’t determined solely by how far something travels, as mode of transportation can significantly affect the harm caused by shipping. For example, trains are ten times more effective than trucks in terms of weight at transporting goods, so while it sounds good to purchase food from 45 miles away instead of 450, the emissions would be about the same. Additionally, if certain crops require specific conditions not satisfied by the climate they’re grown in, they’ll need more resources, like being grown in a greenhouse heated by fossil fuels. It can often be more environmentally friendly to buy that produce from the regions that don’t need to spend extra resources to grow it, which can mean remote areas instead of nearby sources.

According to the calculations performed by two individuals from Carnegie Mellon University, only 4% of the US food system’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were used in transportation from producers to stores. Additionally, that final delivery cost is only 40% of transport-related emissions in the supply chain, as there are other elements in need of transportation, such as the transportation of fertilizers, pesticides, and animal feed.

However, the majority of GHG emissions are related to food production, not transport. Red meat and dairy production make up a staggering proportion of GHG emissions, as discussed on the site about a year ago. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that livestock are responsible for 18% of all GHG emissions, which is more than every single form of fossil fuel-based transport combined. Therefore, perhaps instead of prioritizing where a meal is derived from, it is more important to consider what exactly the meal is made of.

All this being said, buying local does have its perks. Local produce is more likely to be organic, which decreases the transportation and use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. On top of that, smaller local farms are more likely to give cattle more space and grass instead of feed, which as previously discussed, is a huge factor in the production of methane by cows. Not to mention the tendency of smaller establishments to have greater biodiversity, working conditions, overall production practices, and less waste and use of single-use plastics.

Overall, there are a lot of variables that affect whether eating locally makes a big difference. Although transportation emissions are typically every choice depends on the type of food, emissions from transportation, and the practices of farmers. Not all of these variables can be simplified to one “right” choice, or even known fully at all. Sometimes the best way to be confident in the environmental details of a certain type of produce is to grow it oneself, and while it is nice to enjoy the garden, it’s nearly impossible to sustain someone entirely from their own backyard. Buying local has its upsides, but most important is what is being purchased, not where it’s from.

Thanks for reading this week’s article! I was actually rather surprised to find that transport from farm to market plays such a minuscule part of the environmental footprint relative to all the other steps in distributing food to people. I knew that what you eat is super important, but the extent to which it is valued is shocking considering it’s not often discussed. Maybe some of us should stop drinking eight glasses of milk per day… hmmm…

Anyway! A very interesting post to research and one I’ve been meaning to write about for a long time, so I’m glad I finally did! If you haven’t already, please check out the Synopses on red meat! They’re fascinating to me and they even have graphs! Find them near the very beginning of this series.

Thanks for reading until the end, and stay tuned to learn with me!

DeWeerdt, Sarah. “Local Food Is Not Necessarily Better for the Environment.” The Local Food Movement, edited by Amy Francis, Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010722208/OVIC?u=ante588&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=c783a1d7. Accessed 27 Aug. 2023. Originally published as “Is Local Food Better? Yes, Probably—But Not in the Way Many People Think,” World Watch Magazine, vol. 22, no. 3, May-June 2009, pp. 6-10.