I, along with most of my foodie friends, have been trying to eat more local foods recently. My husband and I bought a partial share of a community supported agriculture program and we also shop at farmer's markets when we can.

I eat locally when I can in part to reduce greenhouse gases. The idea is to reduce "food miles" - the number of miles your food has to travel to get to you. Why eat beef from Colorado when we have plenty of good beef here in Missouri?

According to new research written about in Environmental Science and Technology, eating less red meat and dairy can be a more effective way to lower an average U.S. household's food-related climate footprint than buying local food.

The research shows that, "switching to a totally local diet is equivalent to driving about 1000 miles less per year" while "replacing red meat and dairy with chicken, fish, or eggs for one day per week reduces emissions equal to 760 miles per year of driving. And switching to vegetables one day per week cuts the equivalent of driving 1160 miles per year."

The UK's Soil Association has just put forward a proposal to exclude any foods imported by air from using the "organic" label on their products. In theory, the proposal is based around the "food miles" theory, which states that the nearer to the point of sale that food is grown, the better for the environment it is. The theory assumes that emissions from airplanes and long-haul trucks will be greater than any of the pollutants that result from shorter journeys. There are many situations in which the theory does hold up, but by and large, it has been debunked, so even though it is given as the primary reason for this suggested policy change, the real motivation is simply money.

The demand for organics is very high. Stores can charge more for organics, as can growers. By effectively prohibiting imports in a country where the farmland is so limited (compared to some other countries, such as New Zealand, Chile and the US), the Soil Association is simply driving high prices even higher. Such a move may support local farms, but unless their production is able to match demand, consumers are really going to feel the effects of a change like this one.

Food Business Review Online had an interesting piece on 10 trends to watch for in 2007. I was glad to read that healthful food for kids and local sourcing of ingredients made the list. On a separate note, I was especially happy to learn that nutraceutical beer is in the offing.

Here's the full list:

• Calorie burning beverages: Look for more products like Celsius and Enviga that purport to help shed pounds without exercise.
• Satiety-enhancing foods and drinks: Products that increase the feeling of fullness are just starting to hit the market. Among them is LightFull Satiety Smoothie, which is high in fiber and protein, but has only 70 calories per serving.

The "food miles" theory says that the further food has to travel to reach its destination - such as food imported to Europe from New Zealand - the worse it is for the environment because of the greater quantity of pollutants emitted during transport. Researchers in New Zealand, where farmers and ranchers had a good deal of revenue at stake due to their remote location, put the theory to the test and came up with some interesting results.

Their overall conclusion was that the number of miles a food had traveled was not a reliable indicator of its environmental impact. Many forms of produce, as well as dairy and sheep meat, were found to be more energy efficient even when travel to Europe was taken into account. A similar study in the UK produced the same results.

This does not mean that buying goods from far away is necessarily "better" than buying local goods. It simply means that the method of production is what counts, not overall distance traveled, if environmental factors are a primary consideration when purchasing food. Locally produced food may be better in some cases, but it might not be if it is not responsibly produced in the first place. Buying local is a great way of supporting the local economy and keeping revenue within the community and for consumers who make that a priority, local still might be a better choice.