Every month, a tub filled to the brim with locally-grown fruits and vegetables arrives at my house. Choice produce we use in future meals range from normal fruits to wild flavors and colors--purple carrots and orange watermelon are just some of the wild produce I've tasted thanks to this local farmer. However, if his efforts are geared towards helping the environment, is it paying off?

Wendy Koch from USA Today is inclined to disagree. Only about 4% of greenhouse gas emissions are a result of food production. Moreover, if an area attempts to grow more local food, they simply cannot cut all transportation. Climate differences in different countries, states, and even cities are a major factor in the equation. Further, if the majority of the city purchases locally-grown foods, the big supermarkets would most likely continue to ship their produce to their stores from wherever they choose. As long as a good number continue to buy produce from them, the carbon footprint would remain relatively the same.

If we were to gear our efforts towards a few key things, locally-grown  foods should not be our top priority. There are significant ecological and health benefits of local food production, however the carbon emission remains relatively the same. I'm not advocating that we should stop local food production altogether; every action taken, no matter how big, can change the world for the better.

Source: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nat … 56892452/1

Hannah, your post caught my attention because generally, people accept the idea that eating locally grown foods creates less of a negative impact on the environment than buying foods that have been shipped around the country and the world. I had not considered how the climate in various places around the world effects whether food can be grown locally, but it absolutely does; for example, pineapples grown in Hawaii would not grow in somewhere like Colorado. However, I think that although some transportation is inevitable, growing produce locally cuts transportation substantially enough to be worthwhile. Driving products across the country in order to distribute them definitely has a larger carbon footprint then driving them from town to town. Furthermore, if people begin to demand that supermarkets have locally grown food options, I believe that people could incite a change in where the food in their local markets comes from; this would definitely reduce damaging effects on the environment. You definitely have a good point that eating locally grown foods should not be ou r top priority in reducing human contributions to climate change, since food transport is not one of the primary issues humans face. However, eating local can only be more positive for the environment than eating transported goods, and thus, it is worthwhile no matter the magnitude of its environmental effects.

Hannah, It was really interesting to see your point of view on how local is not always better. I agree that 4% is not a large amount of greenhouse gases but every little bit helps. Buying locally is not only helpful for the environment but also for the economy and by using crop rotation we can help lower the strength of pesticide we need to keep our plants growing, which is something you may not find on a industrial growing site. The lower strength of this pesticide is also helpful to humans because it helps keep our bodies free from unnecessary chemicals. Great post!!