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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
If people are prepared to eat locally and seasonally, then they probably do pretty well in terms of environmental impact.
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.
The industrial food system ships in high-calorie, low-nutrient, processed food from thousands of miles away. It leaves us disconnected from our food and the people who grow it.
People complain that cities don't have fresh, sustainable food, but it's just not true.
People in Slow Food understand that food is an environmental issue.
Instead of buying into the global agenda, which is using food as just industrial stuff, we would say we view food as biological, a living thing, that belongs in smaller communities.
How we grow food has enormous effects on the environment - climate change as well as pollution of air, water, and soil.
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.
Food is available, but it cannot be shipped into an area, so the people in that area suffer the consequences.