If people are prepared to eat locally and seasonally, then they probably do pretty well in terms of environmental impact.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
A lot of local food is very tasty. I'm very happy to eat it. I just don't think it's the same thing as saving the world.
The way to make the world a better place, through your eating, is simply to eat a bit less meat. Local is sometimes good, sometimes bad. But even when it's good, its environmental impact is relatively small compared to other possible improvements.
How we grow food has enormous effects on the environment - climate change as well as pollution of air, water, and soil.
Locally produced foods - defined as those harvested within a 100-mile radius of one's home - have a lesser impact on the environment because of the decreased need for transportation from source to consumer.
People in Slow Food understand that food is an environmental issue.
People will travel anywhere for good food - it's crazy.
Many live to eat, instead of the other way around.
People complain that cities don't have fresh, sustainable food, but it's just not true.
I think as individuals, people overrate the virtues of local food. Most of the energy consumption in our food system is not caused by transportation. Sometimes local food is more energy efficient. But often it's not. The strongest case for locavorism is to eat less that's flown on planes, and not to worry about boats.
In this country, the health concerns and the environmental concerns are as deep as in Europe. All the surveys show that. But here, we didn't have the cultural dimension. This is a fast-food culture.
No opposing quotes found.