Do Food Miles Matter?

As an ethical vegan, it is a relief that the tide of new information about the environment and health points to veganism as the healthiest choice for both. Neither were my personal motivations for going vegan, but it would be harder to advocate for veganism if it was worse for your health and/or the environment. (Even though this doesn’t seem to impact the views of most meat eaters at all!)

But what about eating local? It’s probably on everyone’s radar by now. Local produce gets special labels at the grocery store, “food miles” is a common evaluation of a food, a movie was made about a “No Impact” experiment, and many of us have likely heard of and despaired at the former-vegan who begins eating local dairy again, or the former-vegetarian that goes back to eating meat, as long as it is local. If someone’s only concern is the environment, are Locavores a lost cause to our cause?

I read a book that took an analytical look at the Locavore movement, and debunked some of the persistant mythology. “Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly” by James E. McWilliams. Food miles was the first of those myths to be debunked. He didn’t stop at food miles, however, he also took a very serious look at organic crops (which deserves its own post) and meat eating.

His perspective is global sustainability. His question is “how will we feed 9 billion people?” He once fervently believed in organic and local food, but there were persistent questions that made him take a closer look at both. He examines the issue quite deeply, purely from the environmental perspective.

What isn’t widely understood is that food miles are the least important aspect to consider when looking at the most environmentally sustainable foods.

Taking a bird’s-eye view of these food LCA’s [Life-cycle Assessments], Rich Pirog – who is, ironically, the person who veritably founded food-miles analyses – has shown that production and processing account for 45.6 percent of the fossil fuel usage, restaurant preparation takes up another 15.8 percent, and home preparation sucks up a whopping 25 percent of the overall energy used to produce and consume food made in the United States. Transportation is the lowest of all the factors, evaluated (at 11 percent), a fact that has led scholars writing in the journal Environmental Science and Technology to conclude that “although food is transported long distances in general…the GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase.”

Focusing on the production phase led McWilliams to take a close look at the sustainability of animal products, and the conclusion was obvious. As McWilliams said in an interview, “if you want to make a statement, ride your bike to the farmers market. If you want to make a difference, go vegetarian.” [Note: Though he doesn't say it outright, the data points to veganism, not just vegetarianism. "Vegetarian" seen as the friendlier term?]

Sustainability can be a thorny issue because world hunger is as much a political issue as it is a resource issue, and that is not something I have enough knowledge (or space in this post) to tackle in a meaningful way. For now it is important for me to know that when discussing environmental costs of agriculture, food miles are the least significant energy measure (not to be ignored, but not to be overemphasized), while the production and processing are the most significant. It is important to know that the data against eating animal products is so strong from an environmental standpoint that the author who “cannot pass a BBQ shack without having a Pavlovian meltdown” made the commitment to go vegetarian while researching the book because of what he had learned.

I’ve looked far and wide for an exception to this dour assessment. Indeed, I’ve tried to find a rationalization that would allow the serious environmentalist to enjoy his meat and wear his green stripes too. Regrettably, I could find none, and thus I’m left to argue that if you want to start changing the environment with your diet, one of the most productive things you can do is quit eating meat.

He is not someone who cares about animal rights, and I doubt he sees the ethical issue of animal exploitation. His argument is more along the lines of the January 2002 article written by Jim Motavalli, “Do Real Greens Eat Meat?“. It is frustrating to see ethical issues blown off, and both men certainly are quick to tell people that it’s okay to eat some meat as long as you eat significantly less, but McWilliams does a thorough job of addressing many of the sustainable-meat questions/justifications we hear. For that alone, it is worth reading his book.

Though be warned: your views of organic agriculture will take a beating.