🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1qCdnQx9v-GKiirbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "cat daddy" <furball@.myhouse.com> wrote:

>    Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... <sigh>
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html?th&emc=th
> Food That Travels Well
> 
> By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
> Published: August 6, 2007
> Austin, Tex.
> 
> THE term �food miles� � how far food has traveled before you buy it � has
> entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in Europe,
> are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the
> market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver�s �Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A
> Year of Food Life� contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping and
> flying food from distant parts of the globe.
> 
> There are many good reasons for eating local � freshness, purity, taste,
> community cohesion and preserving open space � but none of these benefits
> compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel
> consumption. In this respect eating local joins recycling, biking to work
> and driving a hybrid as a realistic way that we can, as individuals, shrink
> our carbon footprint and be good stewards of the environment.
> 
> On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing
> greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has
> traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and a
> chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples sold
> in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill
> McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city
> residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the problem.
> In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it seems,
> is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.
> 
> But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment? Researchers
> at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe�s push
> for �food miles labeling,� recently published a study challenging the
> premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel
> consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar
> investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling
> evidence suggests that there is more � or less � to food miles than meets
> the eye.
> 
> It all depends on how you wield the carbon calculator. Instead of measuring
> a product�s carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln
> University scientists expanded their equations to include other
> energy-consuming aspects of production � what economists call �factor inputs
> and externalities� � like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer
> outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the
> kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during
> photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of
> other cultivation inputs.
> 
> Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached
> surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New
> Zealand�s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain
> produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb
> produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer
> British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times
> more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side
> of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar
> figures were found for dairy products and fruit.
> 
> These life-cycle measurements are causing environmentalists worldwide to
> rethink the logic of food miles. New Zealand�s most prominent environmental
> research organization, Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, explains that
> localism �is not always the most environmentally sound solution if more
> emissions are generated at other stages of the product life cycle than
> during transport.� The British government�s 2006 Food Industry
> Sustainability Strategy similarly seeks to consider the environmental costs
> �across the life cycle of the produce,� not just in transportation.
> 
> �Eat local� advocates � a passionate cohort of which I am one � are bound to
> interpret these findings as a threat. We shouldn�t. Not only do life cycle
> analyses offer genuine opportunities for environmentally efficient food
> production, but they also address several problems inherent in the eat-local
> philosophy.
> 
> Consider the most conspicuous ones: it is impossible for most of the world
> to feed itself a diverse and healthy diet through exclusively local food
> production � food will always have to travel; asking people to move to more
> fertile regions is sensible but alienating and unrealistic; consumers living
> in developed nations will, for better or worse, always demand choices beyond
> what the season has to offer.
> 
> Given these problems, wouldn�t it make more sense to stop obsessing over
> food miles and work to strengthen comparative geographical advantages? And
> what if we did this while streamlining transportation services according to
> fuel-efficient standards? Shouldn�t we create development incentives for
> regional nodes of food production that can provide sustainable produce for
> the less sustainable parts of the nation and the world as a whole? Might it
> be more logical to conceptualize a hub-and-spoke system of food production
> and distribution, with the hubs in a food system�s naturally fertile hot
> spots and the spokes, which travel through the arid zones, connecting them
> while using hybrid engines and alternative sources of energy?
> 
> As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must be prepared to
> seriously entertain these questions. We must also be prepared to accept that
> buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much as
> this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle
> assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the environmental
> impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage the
> growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to develop
> in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global counterparts.
> We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of
> awareness.
> 
> James E. McWilliams is the author of �A Revolution in Eating: How the Quest
> for Food Shaped America� and a contributing writer for The Texas Observer.

Thanks, these are the kind of discussions that, as good citizens, we 
need to pay attention to because of cost, both financial and 
environmental.

I think this is a good argument for some products, such as meat, which, 
when shipped as sides, may benefit from the additional time. But 
otherwise we end up talking about shelf life. Obviously, the longer a 
fruit or vegetable has been harvested, the less fresh flavor it will 
have. If I buy corn in a local store, the corn will probably be a week 
old. If I buy at a farmers market, it may be a day old with it's 
accompanying loss of flavor. 

To have the best flavored produce and bakery goods, you want the 
freshest. The freshest is what is produced locally.
-- 
FB - FFF

Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

"Billy Rose" <rosefam@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:rosefam-03D433.10494906082007@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <1qCdnQx9v-GKiirbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  "cat daddy" <furball@.myhouse.com> wrote:
>
> >    Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... <sigh>
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html?th&emc=th
> > Food That Travels Well
> >
> > By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
> > Published: August 6, 2007
> > Austin, Tex.
> >
> > THE term �food miles� � how far food has traveled before you buy it �
has
> > entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in
Europe,
> > are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the
> > market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver�s �Animal, Vegetable, Miracle:
A
> > Year of Food Life� contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping
and
> > flying food from distant parts of the globe.
> >
> > There are many good reasons for eating local � freshness, purity, taste,
> > community cohesion and preserving open space �

>
> Thanks, these are the kind of discussions that, as good citizens, we
> need to pay attention to because of cost, both financial and
> environmental.

   Yes, if the total cost of producing anything were actually considered,
then it would be easier to make the right choices. Environmental degradation
or cleanup being one cost that's hidden or subsidized. Or social impact,
where if say, Afghan farmers could get a good price for cotton, maybe they
wouldn't raise poppies.

> I think this is a good argument for some products, such as meat, which,
> when shipped as sides, may benefit from the additional time. But
> otherwise we end up talking about shelf life. Obviously, the longer a
> fruit or vegetable has been harvested, the less fresh flavor it will
> have. If I buy corn in a local store, the corn will probably be a week
> old. If I buy at a farmers market, it may be a day old with it's
> accompanying loss of flavor.

   I never knew what a real apple tasted like until I lived in Seattle,
where it was picked that morning. Of course, they had no idea what real
citrus or a watermelon tasted like.

> To have the best flavored produce and bakery goods, you want the
> freshest. The freshest is what is produced locally.

   Fresher and more variety. Corporate food is grown for shelf-life and
appearance and is rarely the better tasting.
   We also lose our food knowledge. A little old grandma from Mexico was
walking her grandkids by my house a few days ago. The kids called to me and
asked if they could have the seeds and pointed to my Mimosa tree. With my
poor Spanish, she told me the green, immature pods made great seasoning for
pork. You won't find that recipe on the Internet....

"cat daddy" <furball@.myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:1qCdnQx9v-GKiirbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@giganews.com...
>    Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... <sigh>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html?th&emc=th
> Food That Travels Well
>
> By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
> Published: August 6, 2007
> Austin, Tex.
>
> THE term "food miles" - how far food has traveled before you buy it - has
> entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in
Europe,
> are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the
> market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A
> Year of Food Life" contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping
and
> flying food from distant parts of the globe.
>
> There are many good reasons for eating local - freshness, purity, taste,
> community cohesion

which includes keeping money circulating in local economies, one advantage

>and preserving open space - but none of these benefits
> compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel
> consumption. In this respect eating local joins recycling, biking to work
> and driving a hybrid as a realistic way that we can, as individuals,
shrink
> our carbon footprint and be good stewards of the environment.
>
> On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing
> greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has
> traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and
a
> chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples
sold
> in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill
> McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city
> residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the problem.
> In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it
seems,
> is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.
>
> But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment?
Researchers
> at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe's push
> for "food miles labeling," recently published a study challenging the
> premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel
> consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar
> investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling
> evidence suggests that there is more - or less - to food miles than meets
> the eye.
>
> It all depends on how you wield the carbon calculator. Instead of
measuring
> a product's carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln
> University scientists expanded their equations to include other
> energy-consuming aspects of production - what economists call "factor
inputs
> and externalities" - like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer
> outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation

which is mainly based on shipping produce as opposed to air freight, at
least for our produce. Kenyan apples, as an example, may have a much lower
footprint than NZ beef so they may still come out ahead of European or US
apples. NZ meat comes out ahead if it is shipped versus maybe UK meat
trucked around. Air freighting produce throws the whole equation up in the
air.

rob

"Billy Rose" <rosefam@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:rosefam-03D433.10494906082007@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> In article <1qCdnQx9v-GKiirbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  "cat daddy" <furball@.myhouse.com> wrote:
>
> >    Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... <sigh>
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html?th&emc=th
> > Food That Travels Well
> >
> > By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
> > Published: August 6, 2007
> > Austin, Tex.
> >
> > THE term "food miles" - how far food has traveled before you buy it -
has
> > entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in
Europe,
> > are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the
> > market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle:
A
> > Year of Food Life" contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping
and
> > flying food from distant parts of the globe.
> >
> > There are many good reasons for eating local - freshness, purity, taste,
> > community cohesion and preserving open space - but none of these
benefits
> > compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel
> > consumption. In this respect eating local joins recycling, biking to
work
> > and driving a hybrid as a realistic way that we can, as individuals,
shrink
> > our carbon footprint and be good stewards of the environment.
> >
> > On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing
> > greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot
has
> > traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho
and a
> > chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples
sold
> > in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill
> > McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city
> > residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the
problem.
> > In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it
seems,
> > is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.
> >
> > But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment?
Researchers
> > at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe's
push
> > for "food miles labeling," recently published a study challenging the
> > premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel
> > consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar
> > investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling
> > evidence suggests that there is more - or less - to food miles than
meets
> > the eye.
> >
> > It all depends on how you wield the carbon calculator. Instead of
measuring
> > a product's carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln
> > University scientists expanded their equations to include other
> > energy-consuming aspects of production - what economists call "factor
inputs
> > and externalities" - like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer
> > outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the
> > kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during
> > photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of
> > other cultivation inputs.
> >
> > Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists
reached
> > surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New
> > Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to
Britain
> > produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British
lamb
> > produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer
> > British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four
times
> > more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other
side
> > of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar
> > figures were found for dairy products and fruit.
> >
> > These life-cycle measurements are causing environmentalists worldwide to
> > rethink the logic of food miles. New Zealand's most prominent
environmental
> > research organization, Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, explains that
> > localism "is not always the most environmentally sound solution if more
> > emissions are generated at other stages of the product life cycle than
> > during transport." The British government's 2006 Food Industry
> > Sustainability Strategy similarly seeks to consider the environmental
costs
> > "across the life cycle of the produce," not just in transportation.
> >
> > "Eat local" advocates - a passionate cohort of which I am one - are
bound to
> > interpret these findings as a threat. We shouldn't. Not only do life
cycle
> > analyses offer genuine opportunities for environmentally efficient food
> > production, but they also address several problems inherent in the
eat-local
> > philosophy.
> >
> > Consider the most conspicuous ones: it is impossible for most of the
world
> > to feed itself a diverse and healthy diet through exclusively local food
> > production - food will always have to travel; asking people to move to
more
> > fertile regions is sensible but alienating and unrealistic; consumers
living
> > in developed nations will, for better or worse, always demand choices
beyond
> > what the season has to offer.
> >
> > Given these problems, wouldn't it make more sense to stop obsessing over
> > food miles and work to strengthen comparative geographical advantages?
And
> > what if we did this while streamlining transportation services according
to
> > fuel-efficient standards? Shouldn't we create development incentives for
> > regional nodes of food production that can provide sustainable produce
for
> > the less sustainable parts of the nation and the world as a whole? Might
it
> > be more logical to conceptualize a hub-and-spoke system of food
production
> > and distribution, with the hubs in a food system's naturally fertile hot
> > spots and the spokes, which travel through the arid zones, connecting
them
> > while using hybrid engines and alternative sources of energy?
> >
> > As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must be prepared to
> > seriously entertain these questions. We must also be prepared to accept
that
> > buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much
as
> > this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle
> > assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the
environmental
> > impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage
the
> > growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to
develop
> > in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global
counterparts.
> > We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of
> > awareness.
> >
> > James E. McWilliams is the author of "A Revolution in Eating: How the
Quest
> > for Food Shaped America" and a contributing writer for The Texas
Observer.
>
> Thanks, these are the kind of discussions that, as good citizens, we
> need to pay attention to because of cost, both financial and
> environmental.
>
> I think this is a good argument for some products, such as meat, which,
> when shipped as sides, may benefit from the additional time. But
> otherwise we end up talking about shelf life. Obviously, the longer a
> fruit or vegetable has been harvested, the less fresh flavor it will
> have.

as well as eating locally, eating seasonally makes a contribution. In autumn
I can get local apples & pears from an orchard I drive by for work. I winter
I can get mandarins from the store at the end of the road on my way home
from work. Mandarins are in season whereas apples & pears have finished.

rob

In article <3dOdnfD8_YhPTyrbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "cat daddy" <furball@.myhouse.com> wrote:

>    Yes, if the total cost of producing anything were actually considered,
> then it would be easier to make the right choices. Environmental degradation
> or cleanup being one cost that's hidden or subsidized. Or social impact,
> where if say, Afghan farmers could get a good price for cotton, maybe they
> wouldn't raise poppies.

It's not easy to break a contract with the CIA and can't  compete with 
subsidized American cotton. What's a mujahidin supposed to do? Oh yeah. 
Now I remember.
-- 
FB - FFF

Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

George.com wrote:

> 
> as well as eating locally, eating seasonally makes a contribution. In autumn
> I can get local apples & pears from an orchard I drive by for work. I winter
> I can get mandarins from the store at the end of the road on my way home
> from work. Mandarins are in season whereas apples & pears have finished.
> 
> rob
> 
> 
We used to stop at a local produce stand on the way back from the beach.
One day we bought a bag of garlic, got home and looked at it - you 
guessed it - "Product of China".

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:42:40 -0400, Frank
<frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet> wrote:

>George.com wrote:
>
>> 
>> as well as eating locally, eating seasonally makes a contribution. In autumn
>> I can get local apples & pears from an orchard I drive by for work. I winter
>> I can get mandarins from the store at the end of the road on my way home
>> from work. Mandarins are in season whereas apples & pears have finished.
>> 
>> rob
>> 
>> 
>We used to stop at a local produce stand on the way back from the beach.
>One day we bought a bag of garlic, got home and looked at it - you 
>guessed it - "Product of China".

yeah, when i first saw chinese garlic in supermarket, i was
incredulous - is it really cheaper to ship it all that way rather than
grow locally!!!!

now, with the bad rap things chinese. esp edibles, are getting, will
buy my garlic at farmer's market.

[excuse l/c - one arm in sling...]

persephone