428342 Mon Aug 06 07:15:30 -0700 2007 33 33 Food Media and News 0 2817123 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html?em&ex=1186545600&en=c10fde0c6e7e596c&ei=5087%0A This appears like common sense, but the idea has never been press forward in view of the local foods trend. Good food for thought, so to speak. Mon Aug 06 07:15:30 -0700 2007 11826 Phaedrus 1 2817923 I thoroughly enjoyed this timely piece and thank you for posting it. Just yesterday, I received an e-mail from an "Ivory Tower" chef singing his own praises for doing all the currently trendy "locavore" bit at his resto/catering/classes. While improvement certainly needs to be made in the US food system, relying solely on local and seasonal is not the only viable answer. Buzz word answers do not work long term to solve complicated problems. Mon Aug 06 10:30:21 -0700 2007 2817123 15743 Sherri 2 2818514 before you use this article to single handedly dismiss the entire localvore movement, keep in mind some of the salient points the article was making : giving ineffecient locally produced farm goods, it was more effecient to import, in these examples. clearly, reducing inefficiencies *ie their example on livestock fed feed, for example* goes along way towards creating a positive impact. the local movement isn't just aiming to reduce the carbon footprint on deliveries alone. its aim is to also build strong viable communities by encouraging and supporting local goods by local producers. biodiversity & sustainability, for another. i think there's little dispute regarding taste of the tomatoes i buy at my local farmers market versus the ones that i am presented with at my nearest chain grocery store. Mon Aug 06 12:46:25 -0700 2007 2817923 60025 winedubar 3 2818549 Well, i put that article up because I was wondering about that very thing: the ability of growing diverse foods in a given geographic area without being a fuel hog. The state of California has been a unmitigated success in producing produce for a long time, BUT they are doing so by chugging up all the water in the west. I think we need to be honest about the pluses and minuses. I don't think that the opinion piece is anti-local foods, I think he is saying that the proponents have overstated their claims by claiming lowered carbon footprint as a part of the advantages. But by saying so, he does not minimize the other advantages of the concept of local foods, which is still as valid as before. Mon Aug 06 12:54:06 -0700 2007 2818514 11826 Phaedrus 4 2818661 hi phaedrus, i liked the article - i think that discourse & discussion is a good thing! i was mostly replying to the comments i percieved to be terse and dismissive from the other poster. no offense meant!! i agree we should be honest about the pluses and minuses. thats why i pointed out in the article he references the benefit for 'imported' items vis a vis local farming inefficiencies. for the carbon footprint of food, i don't think there's a definitive answer either way, YET. that's all i'm saying :) Mon Aug 06 13:19:50 -0700 2007 2818549 60025 winedubar 5 2818913 I did not mean my comments to be terse and dismissive and apologize if you found them so. I'm a Food Historian and try to look at problems with a long lens. "Carbon Footprint", "Locavore" and several other terms have become media buzzwords that trivialize a very complex problem. What I really objected to was using this touchy-feely concern as advertising for a business; jumping on the bandwagon du jour in a very self-promoting way. No one need debate the flavor bonus of a fresh tomato VS supermarket cardboard variety. For a short while, I grew produce for a restaurant -- I'm the preacher and the choir all rolled into one on this topic! Where I have problems is when an easy answer (buy & eat only locally grown, seasonal food products) is proposed for a very complicated situation. It's sophomoric. The road to good solutions begins when smart, caring people work together to find answers. I think that most everyone on this board fits that category. Mon Aug 06 14:22:31 -0700 2007 2818661 15743 Sherri 6 2819965 hi sherri, thanks for the clarification. nuance and tone are easy to miss in electronic communication. my apologies for attributing your comments as terse and dismissive. i agree - unrepentant bandwidth jumping muddies the waters. Mon Aug 06 20:22:36 -0700 2007 2818913 60025 winedubar 4 2821408 "The state of California has been a unmitigated success in producing produce for a long time, BUT they are doing so by chugging up all the water in the west. I think we need to be honest about the pluses and minuses." Agreed.... water is going be a very serious issue in California as global warming accelerates. At this year's Calfornia League of Food Processors convention... there was a couple of presentations touching on the subject.... one was trying to predict the year in which desalinization would break-even for Calfornia's agribusinesses. Another thing to note... California's mainstream produce is not your mom & pop farm in a strong viable community... it is more of a manufacturing operation, with intensive pesticide use, and which relies on traveling farm workers living in deplorable conditions. Tue Aug 07 09:18:13 -0700 2007 2818549 42572 Eat_Nopal 1 2818798 Very interesting. "Instead of measuring a product’s carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln University scientists expanded their equations to include ... water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of other cultivation inputs. ... they found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton ..." Mon Aug 06 13:52:40 -0700 2007 2817123 11369 Robert Lauriston 2 2819800 Ultimately, it all depends on the practices of the individual British lamb producer. Mon Aug 06 19:17:36 -0700 2007 2818798 10793 Morton the Mousse 3 2819815 Sure. If you know that a particular producer is exceptionally "green," then it might be a more responsible choice. On the other hand, if the only information a UK consumer has is that one piece of lamb is from NZ and the other is domestic, then the "greener" bet is NZ. Which emphasizes the need to know the big picture. Uninformed consumers can't make the best choices. Mon Aug 06 19:22:32 -0700 2007 2819800 11369 Robert Lauriston 4 2819828 I agree with you 100%. I'm just concerned with recent criticisms of the eat local movement based on intensive commercial agribusiness operations that happen to be local. Pete Singer's diatribe that we shouldn't eat local food because Californian rice is more energy intensive than Indian rice is a straw man; it misses the whole point. The premise behind "eat local" has always been "eat sustainably grown food that is also local." Loca-sustainavore just doesn't sound as good. Harris Ranch is a local beef producer, but I'd rather eat tofu than a Harris Ranch steak. Mon Aug 06 19:27:36 -0700 2007 2819815 10793 Morton the Mousse 1 2819567 I think that the message is local, but also organic and grass-fed. If your gut-feel is that flying food from China to the U.S. is silly, I think you have a handle on the situation. Mon Aug 06 17:53:42 -0700 2007 2817123 11995 pikawicca 2 2819618 Assuming that grass-fed is "greener" is exactly the same kind of mistake as assuming that fewer miles mean less greenhouse emissions. You can't evaluate the varying ecological impact of foods from different sources without looking at the whole picture. Mon Aug 06 18:12:34 -0700 2007 2819567 11369 Robert Lauriston 3 2819630 True, but don't you think that cows that feed on grass, versus cows that are fed grain, are "greener?" Assuming, of course, that you're not shippping your beef half-way around the world? Mon Aug 06 18:18:24 -0700 2007 2819618 11995 pikawicca 4 2819657 1) It depends on how that grass is grown. if it is grown in southern California with irrgation water pumped from Colorado then we need to look further. Read the bit about New Zealand lamb versus UK lambs and all the factors the study takes into account. 2) Ditto the mileage, that is just one measure of a dozen other measures that all stack up as carbon costs. Mon Aug 06 18:25:53 -0700 2007 2819630 11826 Phaedrus 5 2819945 California water is pumped from Colorado? Mon Aug 06 20:16:58 -0700 2007 2819657 15036 tastyjon 6 2820024 OK, it has been a while. When I was growing up, the farmers along the western slopes of Colorado were violently protesting the water contracts that the feds had set up so that these farmers had no rights to the water which flowed through their land to irrigate their farms, they were destined to be used in California for large scale agribusiness. i don't know if this is still the case, but I think it is. This is the same water that goes to make golf courses green in Phoenix. Mon Aug 06 20:43:27 -0700 2007 2819945 11826 Phaedrus 5 2820247 Sustainable beef ranchers don't need to irrigate heavily; grasslands will thrive with rain water and ground water. Most of the imported water that California "farmers" use goes to enormous agribusiness operations in the Central Valley. Rice growers are the worst culprits. Mon Aug 06 22:27:08 -0700 2007 2819657 10793 Morton the Mousse 6 2821499 Having worked for a large private agribusiness that is a majority shareholder in the consortium that owns the water rights to the entire Central Valley: > The Central Valley's water comes from Northern California not Colorado. However, the desert farmlands near Palm Springs (Coachella etc.,) do tap the Colorado river (as does all of Southern California for everyday water consumption). Not only does this affect Colorado's farmers it also affects Mexican farmers in Sonora & Baja California... whose water sources (which originate in the Colorado river) have been depleted. (There is a big lawsuit going on) > The Rice Growers aren't that bad... as they actually get alot of their water from the Sacramento river delta... the stuff that comes down the channel is used just as much for Tomatoes (not particularly great ones that usually end up canned anyway), Peaches, Citrus, Almonds, Pistachios etc., > Having driven by Harris Ranch many times... it sure doesn't seem like THEY irrigate much... but again they are just grain feeding. However, as you get closer to Tracy... you see some ranches that allow grazing.... and if you look closely you will see irrigation sprinklers... don't know how much water it takes to keep grasses up around that are. However, the general problem with livestock is that it is so land and/or feed intensive. Beef is a very inefficient mode of producing protein & nutrients for humans etc., Rather than worrying about how much water the local grass fed livestock is using... we should be thinking of beef as a special occassion meat we eat only occassionally. From a human & planet health perspective. Eating undercooked beef is a leading cause of colon cancer. Tue Aug 07 09:37:27 -0700 2007 2820247 42572 Eat_Nopal 7 2821557 Save the planet, eat more pork! Tue Aug 07 09:51:44 -0700 2007 2821499 11369 Robert Lauriston 8 2821722 Or milk & eggs. We probably don't have the stomach for it... but the Masai seem to do well on sustainable cow blood =) Tue Aug 07 10:29:03 -0700 2007 2821557 42572 Eat_Nopal 4 2819729 "Examples of [the ecological costs of livestock grazing] include loss of biodiversity; lowering of population densities for a wide variety of taxa; disruption of ecosystem functions, including nutrient cycling and succession; change in community organization; and change in the physical characteristics of both terrestrial and aquatic habitats." http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0888-8892(199409)8%3A3%3C629%3AECOLGI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N Mon Aug 06 18:48:10 -0700 2007 2819630 11369 Robert Lauriston 5 2819767 I highly doubt that there are many grass-fed beef producers who are displacing non-grasslands ecosystems and growing grass through intensive farming. Most ranchers practicing livestock grazing in the US are calving operations, which rear young cows before they are sold to a CAFO and have no interest in sustainability. All of the grass fed beef producers I've communicated with have expressed a strong commitment to environmental preservation. Mon Aug 06 19:06:25 -0700 2007 2819729 10793 Morton the Mousse 6 2819799 I believe grass-fed beef production is one of the primary threats to rain forests in Brazil and Central America. Mon Aug 06 19:17:35 -0700 2007 2819767 11369 Robert Lauriston 7 2819809 I may be mistaken, but I've read several times that the primary threat beef brings to the rainforest is in large-scale corn and soy plantations that are used for animal feed. Where's Sam F when you need him? Mon Aug 06 19:20:52 -0700 2007 2819799 10793 Morton the Mousse 7 2819942 wouldn't this be a reason to know the source of your beef, then? Mon Aug 06 20:15:46 -0700 2007 2819799 60025 winedubar 5 2819951 hi robert, this abstract is from '94 and specific to the western us. do you know of any more recent studies? Mon Aug 06 20:18:42 -0700 2007 2819729 60025 winedubar 6 2820349 http://www.jdburgessonline.com/grazing/research.html http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Ecological+%22livestock+grazing%22&btnG=Search Tue Aug 07 00:09:20 -0700 2007 2819951 11369 Robert Lauriston 7 2821301 robert, i'm really not trying to be difficult. but again, if you go up on level on your first link to here : http://www.jdburgessonline.com/grazing/ this is what is says : The Public Lands Grazing Activist Dedicated to reforming the federal government's approach to livestock grazing on public lands administered by the U.S.D.A's Forest Service and the U.S.D.I.'s Bureau of Land Management. and again, a substantial number of the studies are from the 80's, and there's nothing past 2000. i've started reading on this issue since someone started this thread. and i'm not convinced there's a definitive answer on some of these issues. specifically since several studies are netting out inefficient farming practices vs efficient ones. clearly there's room for improvement in helping farms and farmers become more effecient. Tue Aug 07 08:52:25 -0700 2007 2820349 60025 winedubar 8 2821489 Academic studies generally aren't about definitive answers. Making farming practices more efficient doesn't necessarily make them environmentally friendly. Tue Aug 07 09:35:51 -0700 2007 2821301 11369 Robert Lauriston 1 2819946 This article is interesting for a number of reasons. I have always wondered how it is possible to 'eat local' in so many regions where fruit, vegetables, and even animals do not survive well. If you live in an arid climate, what are you supposed to eat? Hasn't it been proven time and again that a varied diet is key to health? Mon Aug 06 20:17:08 -0700 2007 2817123 76025 mojoeater 1 2820405 Seems like common sense to me and a good pursuit of research. Really, it's not unlike "passenger miles per gallon" (pmpg) vs.straight mpg. A humongous SUV might only get 10 mpg...but if it ALWAYS carried 6 people it would be getting 60 pmpg-- as good as a 30 mpg sedan carrying 2 people. Yes, this is an absurd example but it's really about the math. It appears this is exactly what these guy did. Any way, I understand the reasoning for eat/grow locally and support it yet questioning an assumption is a good thing. History is filled with people who question an assumption, get slagged (sometimes literally) and end up being right. Oh well. Tue Aug 07 01:33:33 -0700 2007 2817123 27275 ML8000 1 2821770 bart anderson from the energy bulletin had this to say about the nyt article from this site : http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/6/8352/82373 Lots of theorizing, few facts That's a powerful lot of theorizing by Jason and James McWilliams (author of the original article). We're talking one product - New Zealand lamb - and one importer - the UK. And guess who the study was done by? New Zealand researchers. As McWilliams himself says, the researchers were probably "responding to Europe's push for food miles labeling." Several more criticisms of the thesis in the NYT article: * McWilliams makes his arguments based on cheap fuel and fertilizer, not wise assumptions with peak oil and climate constraints on the horizon. To keep cheap transportation networks going, he resorts to the Tinkerbelle defense: "hybrid engines and alternative sources of energy." * He seems to have missed the fact that large economic entities are the powerful players in the food business, and especially in long-distance systems. Local production, in contrast, tends to favor small farmers and businesses. * It is much easier to have knowledge and control one has over food produced locally, vs that produced on the other side of the globe. The FDA has trouble even monitoring the safety of imported food to the US. How could they or any agency reliably assess the environmental impact of food grown in China ? * There are many other reasons for buying food locally besides food miles. One reason that has been important for most of history (e.g. during wars) and will probably be important again is food self-sufficiency. * The number of people "obsessing over food miles" is miniscule. The dominant paradigm is still: factory farming - supermarkets - junk food - ignorance and unconcern about food miles. ...which isn't to say the Life Cycle Analysis is not a useful tool. Bart Energy Bulletin by Bart Anderson at 3:13 PM on 06 Aug 2007 Tue Aug 07 10:40:15 -0700 2007 2817123 60025 winedubar