Famous Death Row Last Meals
Debunking Beer Can Chicken: A Waste Of Good Beer, And Dangerous
On Monday, the New York Times printed an opinion piece entitled, "Food That Travels Well" by James E. McWilliams. In it McWilliams states that while he is a passionate member of the "eat local" cohort, to be absolutely responsible about the carbon footprint of your food, you have to take more into account that just the place where that food was grown or raised.
He offers the convincing example of research done at Lincoln University in New Zealand (done in response to Europe's push to label their food with the number of miles it traveled from field to shelf) that found that lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped 11,000 miles to England emitted three-quarters less carbon dioxide emissions per ton than the lamb raised in England.
Until the FDA starts requiring food producers to print the amount of carbon dioxide emissions along with the fat grams on that package of chicken breasts, this isn't information to which we will have easy access. Neither do I think it means that people should stop buying their food locally when it is available and affordable. But it adds another layer of consideration to the already complex situation that we all face when we open the fridge every morning.
Photo credit
Amy Adams' Bikini Body Isn't What You'd Expect ...
St. Louis Sports Bar Gives Man Receipt Criticizing His Child
What's Behind This Door Is Terrifying
'Undercover Boss': Top 4 Moments From Season 4 [VIDEO]
Las Vegas Court Officials Accused Of Covering Up Sex Assault [VIDEO]
Helen Lost 82 Pounds: 'Helping Others Is What Life Is All About'
Groomers Lose Dog, Claim Not Responsible
Male Judge Sets Dress Code For Female Lawyers And Sparks Uproar
'Sopranos' Star Dies At Age 51
'Lone Ranger' Star Johnny Depp Opens Up About Split From Vanessa Paradis
The Story Behind Shapewear: From Girdles to Spanx
Men's Wearhouse Abruptly Fires Its Founder, Spokesman
'Grease' Cast: Where Are They Now?
Xbox One-80: Microsoft reverses Xbox One DRM features
Michael Hastings Dead At 33
Careless Chinese Baggage Handler Really Throws Himself Into His Work
'Today' About To Undergo Another Overhaul
PHOTOS: Beautifully Abandoned America
WATCH: Porn Star Says My Dad's Angry I Ruined Porn For Him
Khloe's Workout Photos Are Pretty Alarming
LOOK: Teen Was 'Shamed' By TSA Officer For This Outfit
5 Ways To Get A Flat Stomach -- While Standing Up
PHOTOS: Michelle Obama's Ireland Trip Wardrobe Is Making Us Jealous
LOOK: China Invented The Weirdest Way Ever To Ward Off Pervs
41 Busted In Child Sex Sting
WATCH: The Amazing Moment A Trapped Fox Approaches Men For Help
Axl Rose Doesn't Look Like This Anymore ...
7 Beautiful Actresses Who Were Told They Weren't Pretty Enough
PHOTO: Brazilian Officer Pepper-Sprays Female Protester In The Face
Outrage Over Class Photo: 'Adults Should Know Better'
EPIC FAIL
Helen's Secret Surgery
8-08-2007 @5:28PM Adriane said... Interesting, I'll have to read up. Although for me, buying locally has been more about supporting the [rapidly disappearing and struggling] farmers in my area rather than simply carbon footprint.
Reply
8-09-2007 @2:18PM Patrick said... Whether or not this affects a consumer's resolve that eating local is the best choice depends on why that person chose to eat local in the first place. It's not always about environmentalism. Sometimes it simply has to do with freshness and supporting local business, which are both also advantages of eating local. Also, local farmers/butchers/bakers can tell you much more about how the food was made, where it came from, etc. This is all information you don't get about food you pick up from the supermarket.
Reply
8-08-2007 @12:53PM KF said... These kinds of studies are very misleading. Sharon at Casaubon's Book blog (http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com) talked about this article yesterday and mentions that there are lots of ways to calculate the food's total ecological impact that can skew the results one way or the other. There is no doubt that the best food with the best ecological impact is food that is grown close to where it is consumed, grown with a minimal amount of inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, irrigation water piped from a long way away, etc) and that looking for local foods will more often meet at least some of these requirements. There are also lots of benefits to eating locally besides the food having a lower carbon footprint - it keeps dollars in the local economy and keeps local jobs, it provides incentive for farmers near where you live to stay in business and not sell out farms to suburban sprawl and development, and you're much more likely to have a relationship with the farmer and the food.
Reply
8-08-2007 @2:31PM Wes said... I think the crux of the misconception is "poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed." That's just not true. Economic externalities convinced British farmers that using feed was good for the bottom line. A "poorer" pasture supports fewer lambs than a "richer" pasture -- how about raising fewer lambs? There's also evidence that "feed" produces animals that are less healthy to eat. All without considering where the "feed" might be coming from or how it may have been produced (think: #2 feed corn, shipped from a country where big agribusiness is heavily subsidized, fields are synthetically fertilized, dosed with pesticides, etc).
Reply
8-09-2007 @7:14AM K-Higgins said... Basically it is like comparing getting sugar in Europe from local beets (made locally, but it is a VERY intensive process) versus importing cane sugar (easy to make) from the caribbean.
As always in life, there is no simple answer but food miles is a tool in the toolbox of those of us who buy on eco-concious
Reply
8-09-2007 @12:17PM arkboynko said... This article is pretty silly really. Eating local means only consuming food from within 100 miles. Some even go further to say an hours drive.
If you are eating foods from your country that are mass produced and shipped all over, you aren't quite getting the point.
http://www.reciperate.com
Reply