This House would buy locally produced food

Shopping for local produce is also part of a wider movement to rediscover and celebrate local food cultures. The Slow Food movement emphasises the cultural importance of local cuisines based upon the range of foods that are available within a particular region. By treating the whole world as our larder we have gained an enormous choice of foods, but at the cost of our own culinary heritage and folk traditions. This can cause problems as for example with local varieties of rice in Africa being lost due to competition from cheaper rice producers like Thailand.[1] Each individual cuisine deserves to be preserved and encouraged. We have also lost a sense of seasonality, expecting asparagus and strawberries all year round. Local food restores this connection with the rhythm of the seasons, and connects us to the land around us and to our ancestors who helped to shape it.

[1] Taylor D., ‘NGO tries to “Rediscover” Traditional African Food’, Voice of America, 9 June 2011.

Food does not need to be locally sourced, either from farmers markets or by supermarkets to keep local cuisines alive. Local cuisine is not just about ingredients but about cooking methods and preparation, lamb from New Zealand will work as well in a traditional Indian lamb dish as a traditional New Zealand lamb dish. 

By creating a market for a wide variety of agricultural produce, shopping locally will encourage local farmers to grow and rear a wide variety of crops and animals. Intensive modern farming often consists of huge agribusinesses growing monocultures of wheat, corn, rape or soya over vast areas, with little room left for nature. In Britain this has led to a decline in farmland birds with numbers at a 44 year low,[1]  Even livestock farming can impose one type of farming practice upon the environment and drive out plants and animals which cannot cope with those methods. More varied farming practices are valuable for promoting biodiversity, encouraging a whole range of birds, animals and plants to establish themselves in field margins and adjacent wild areas.[2] Local variety is also good farming practice, as it means that any disease or pest infestation will not be able to spread quickly to devastate a whole region.

[1] Meikle, James, ‘Farmland bird numbers in England fall to record low’, guardian.co.uk, 29 July 2010.

[2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘Europe’s farmland birds in decline’, The Guardian, 24 August 2011.

There are other, better ways to be environmentally friendly than insisting on shopping for local produce. Locally grown food is still just as likely to be very intensively farmed so a change will have no effect on the decline of birds. If sustainability is important organic food should be bought regardless of where it comes from. Preventing monoculture should be managed by governments through their farming policies protecting biodiversity such as the set aside schemes that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) promoted and the ‘Greening’ of CAP and pillar 2 involving encouraging environmental stewardship.[1]

[1] Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, ‘The balance of funding between direct payments and payments for environmental public goods’, parliament.uk, 15 April 2011.

Shopping locally supports local farmers and the local economy – and if it is the retailer who is buying locally then whether the retailer itself is not local will not matter. Typically farmers are forced to sell to middlemen or big business, such as huge supermarket corporations. This means growers see only a small fraction of the price the public eventually pays in the store[1] (as little as 18 cents of every dollar in the USA). This drives down farm incomes and is forcing many farmers off the land as they can no longer make a living. By selling directly to the public at farmers’ markets and farm shops instead, producers can ensure that they get a fair price for their crops and livestock.[2] The income this provides is particularly crucial for small producers, and for farmers committed to more sustainable, less intensive methods, such as organic production.

It does not only help the farmers, but also the rest of the economy. While many experts confess that it is hard to measure the direct effects of buying local products, Dan Houston from an economic development consultancy projected in 2002 with the example of Austin book stores that buying local saves jobs. He explained that on every dollar to the Austin economy, 45 cents returns, while with buying at the national store Borders, the return to the community is only 13 cents. Also the researcher emphasized that in the Michigan community Grand Rapids, a 10 % shift of spending towards local businesses in 2008 could create 1600 jobs with a payroll of 53 million dollars.[3] Consumers who want to support their local producers and sustainable farming over big agribusiness and retailers should therefore aim to shop locally wherever possible.

[1] Renton A., ‘British farmers forced to pay the cost of supermarket price wars’, guardian.co.uk, 2 July 2011.

[2] Sustainable table, ‘Why buy local?’, January 2009.

[3] Tozzi J., ‘To Beat Recession, Indies launch Buy-Local Push’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 27 February 2009.

Farmers and food products are only a very small part of the economy in the developed world. In the UK Farming contributes £7.2 billion a year to the economy,[1] less than half a percent of the whole economy. This is not an industry that needs to be sustained. There may often be more productive ways to use the land that does not involve farming such as creating wildlife sanctuaries to encourage tourism.

[1] Business Link, ‘An overview of the UK economy’.

Buying locally-produced food means that it will be much fresher and healthier. Typical supermarket fruit and vegetables are often picked 4-7 days before they make it on to the shelves, and so may be nearly two weeks old before they are actually eaten, by which time much of their goodness will have long departed.[1] To cope with these long delays, many fruits are picked in an unripe state, so that they do not start to rot on the supermarket shelves – meaning their full flavour has never developed out in the sun on the tree or plant. By buying locally consumers can ensure that they get the tastiest, healthiest food as it is often picked the afternoon before going to market or if going to stores can get there in much less time.[2] Local produce will also encourage people to vary their diet by trying new foods if they come from local producers, who can offer tastings and recipe advice.

[1] Poulter, Sean, ‘Why frozen vegtables are fresher than fresh’, MailOnline, 5 March 2010.

[2] CUESA, ‘Food Quality’, the Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture, 23 September 200

Buying local foods from farmers markets does not necessarily mean that the produce is fresher. Today supermarkets’ efficient supply chains mean that green beans are on the shelves in Britain or the USA within 24 hours of being picked in Kenya or Peru. As most farmers markets only operate once or twice a week, the chances are that their produce is no fresher than this. In addition, farmers markets are a great marketing brand, but there is no guarantee that all of the goods sold are really local at all. British farmers markets often feature such items as olives and coffee beans, which cannot accurately be described as local. And if there is no source for a particular product within 20 miles or so of the market, a producer from much further away will be allowed to come in and take a stall. As mentioned in the introduction supermarket’s definitions of local are often even more expansive and the US Congress in 2008 considered local to be “less than 400 miles from its origin”,[1] which is not really local at all.

[1] Martinez, Steve, ‘Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues’, Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 2010.

Shopping for local produce is also part of a wider movement to rediscover and celebrate local food cultures. The Slow Food movement emphasises the cultural importance of local cuisines based upon the range of foods that are available within a particular region. By treating the whole world as our larder we have gained an enormous choice of foods, but at the cost of our own culinary heritage and folk traditions. This can cause problems as for example with local varieties of rice in Africa being lost due to competition from cheaper rice producers like Thailand.[1] Each individual cuisine deserves to be preserved and encouraged. We have also lost a sense of seasonality, expecting asparagus and strawberries all year round. Local food restores this connection with the rhythm of the seasons, and connects us to the land around us and to our ancestors who helped to shape it.

[1] Taylor D., ‘NGO tries to “Rediscover” Traditional African Food’, Voice of America, 9 June 2011.

Food does not need to be locally sourced, either from farmers markets or by supermarkets to keep local cuisines alive. Local cuisine is not just about ingredients but about cooking methods and preparation, lamb from New Zealand will work as well in a traditional Indian lamb dish as a traditional New Zealand lamb dish. 

By creating a market for a wide variety of agricultural produce, shopping locally will encourage local farmers to grow and rear a wide variety of crops and animals. Intensive modern farming often consists of huge agribusinesses growing monocultures of wheat, corn, rape or soya over vast areas, with little room left for nature. In Britain this has led to a decline in farmland birds with numbers at a 44 year low,[1]  Even livestock farming can impose one type of farming practice upon the environment and drive out plants and animals which cannot cope with those methods. More varied farming practices are valuable for promoting biodiversity, encouraging a whole range of birds, animals and plants to establish themselves in field margins and adjacent wild areas.[2] Local variety is also good farming practice, as it means that any disease or pest infestation will not be able to spread quickly to devastate a whole region.

[1] Meikle, James, ‘Farmland bird numbers in England fall to record low’, guardian.co.uk, 29 July 2010.

[2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘Europe’s farmland birds in decline’, The Guardian, 24 August 2011.

There are other, better ways to be environmentally friendly than insisting on shopping for local produce. Locally grown food is still just as likely to be very intensively farmed so a change will have no effect on the decline of birds. If sustainability is important organic food should be bought regardless of where it comes from. Preventing monoculture should be managed by governments through their farming policies protecting biodiversity such as the set aside schemes that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) promoted and the ‘Greening’ of CAP and pillar 2 involving encouraging environmental stewardship.[1]

[1] Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, ‘The balance of funding between direct payments and payments for environmental public goods’, parliament.uk, 15 April 2011.

Shopping locally supports local farmers and the local economy – and if it is the retailer who is buying locally then whether the retailer itself is not local will not matter. Typically farmers are forced to sell to middlemen or big business, such as huge supermarket corporations. This means growers see only a small fraction of the price the public eventually pays in the store[1] (as little as 18 cents of every dollar in the USA). This drives down farm incomes and is forcing many farmers off the land as they can no longer make a living. By selling directly to the public at farmers’ markets and farm shops instead, producers can ensure that they get a fair price for their crops and livestock.[2] The income this provides is particularly crucial for small producers, and for farmers committed to more sustainable, less intensive methods, such as organic production.

It does not only help the farmers, but also the rest of the economy. While many experts confess that it is hard to measure the direct effects of buying local products, Dan Houston from an economic development consultancy projected in 2002 with the example of Austin book stores that buying local saves jobs. He explained that on every dollar to the Austin economy, 45 cents returns, while with buying at the national store Borders, the return to the community is only 13 cents. Also the researcher emphasized that in the Michigan community Grand Rapids, a 10 % shift of spending towards local businesses in 2008 could create 1600 jobs with a payroll of 53 million dollars.[3] Consumers who want to support their local producers and sustainable farming over big agribusiness and retailers should therefore aim to shop locally wherever possible.

[1] Renton A., ‘British farmers forced to pay the cost of supermarket price wars’, guardian.co.uk, 2 July 2011.

[2] Sustainable table, ‘Why buy local?’, January 2009.

[3] Tozzi J., ‘To Beat Recession, Indies launch Buy-Local Push’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 27 February 2009.

Farmers and food products are only a very small part of the economy in the developed world. In the UK Farming contributes £7.2 billion a year to the economy,[1] less than half a percent of the whole economy. This is not an industry that needs to be sustained. There may often be more productive ways to use the land that does not involve farming such as creating wildlife sanctuaries to encourage tourism.

[1] Business Link, ‘An overview of the UK economy’.

Buying locally-produced food means that it will be much fresher and healthier. Typical supermarket fruit and vegetables are often picked 4-7 days before they make it on to the shelves, and so may be nearly two weeks old before they are actually eaten, by which time much of their goodness will have long departed.[1] To cope with these long delays, many fruits are picked in an unripe state, so that they do not start to rot on the supermarket shelves – meaning their full flavour has never developed out in the sun on the tree or plant. By buying locally consumers can ensure that they get the tastiest, healthiest food as it is often picked the afternoon before going to market or if going to stores can get there in much less time.[2] Local produce will also encourage people to vary their diet by trying new foods if they come from local producers, who can offer tastings and recipe advice.

[1] Poulter, Sean, ‘Why frozen vegtables are fresher than fresh’, MailOnline, 5 March 2010.

[2] CUESA, ‘Food Quality’, the Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture, 23 September 200

Buying local foods from farmers markets does not necessarily mean that the produce is fresher. Today supermarkets’ efficient supply chains mean that green beans are on the shelves in Britain or the USA within 24 hours of being picked in Kenya or Peru. As most farmers markets only operate once or twice a week, the chances are that their produce is no fresher than this. In addition, farmers markets are a great marketing brand, but there is no guarantee that all of the goods sold are really local at all. British farmers markets often feature such items as olives and coffee beans, which cannot accurately be described as local. And if there is no source for a particular product within 20 miles or so of the market, a producer from much further away will be allowed to come in and take a stall. As mentioned in the introduction supermarket’s definitions of local are often even more expansive and the US Congress in 2008 considered local to be “less than 400 miles from its origin”,[1] which is not really local at all.

[1] Martinez, Steve, ‘Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues’, Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 2010.

Buying only local produce means making a commitment to paying much more money for your weekly shop. 250 years ago, Adam Smith demonstrated that there is an economic law of comparative advantage. This states that each country or region should focus on producing those crops and manufactures to which it is best suited, exporting these and using the income to purchase things which other countries can produce more cheaply and efficiently. This way everyone prospers, gaining the most profit from their special areas of economic expertise, while spending less to buy those things in which others excel. Deciding to buy only local produce flies in the face of economic reality, because much of the food that can be produced nearby would be much cheaper if imported from another country with cheaper land and labour, a more suitable climate and greater economies of scale. The bottom line here is that shopping local can only ever be an indulgence of the rich – ordinary working families must follow the rules of comparative advantage and buy their food cheaply from supermarkets, which can seek out the cheapest and most efficient sources of each foodstuff. In Zimbabwe, for example, this means even the middle class mainly buys South African (neighbor) products. The local consumers explain that without much disposable income, the cheapest option is the best option.[1]

[1] Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, ‘Local products too expensive: Consumers’, 23 August 2011.

Consumers and retailers need to take more in to account than just the standard price of the product. Another country may be able to produce a product cheaper but if that cheaper production damages your local community then in the long run the cost is higher. When buying local produce many local businesses benefit through a multiplier effect as the money stays within the local economy making everyone within the community richer and allowing the expansion of companies and employment.[1]

[1] Schwartz J., ‘Buying Local: How It Boosts the Economy’, TimeBusiness, 11 June 2009.

Buying local produce acts as a form of protectionism (which is why farm lobbies are keen on it). As well as artificially increasing family food bills in developed countries, the cult of localism also hits farmers in the developing world by denying them an export market. Over the past decade or so countries like Kenya and Peru have begun to develop their way out of poverty by exploiting their comparative advantages in agriculture, while other countries such as Afghanistan agriculture is necessary to rebuild the economy after conflict.[1] Developing countries commercial farming operations provide fresh fruit and vegetables for rich consumers in developing countries. Farms growing crops like beans, broccoli, plums and cherries have provided good jobs for hundreds of thousands of poor people, and brought their countries valuable income and investment. We should not sacrifice this massive benefit to the pursuit of protectionist “localism”.

[1] Irving S., ‘How fair trade can help tackle poverty and bring peace to conflict zones’, guardian.co.uk, 19 February 2010.

Buying local is not protectionism as most of the products that can be easily grown locally are not in direct competition with developing world producers as they have different climates. Encouraging buying local products does not mean attempting to grow coffee or even oranges in the northern climates, it means that produce that has traditionally been grown locally should be bought from local suppliers. When it comes to development agriculture is not a true way out of poverty in poor countries and is often what has trapped them there in the first place as economist Paul Collier argues people "get charity as long as they stay producing the crops that have locked them into poverty". There is no incentive for these farmers to diversify their crops or to expand their farms. They have to stay small and family run.[1] Instead poor countries should be doing what all countries that have developed have done in the past, move up the value chain so providing non-agricultural jobs.

[1] Chambers A., ‘Not so fair trade’, guardian.co.uk, 12 December 2009.

Supermarkets thrive because they provide what consumers want, a wide choice of products at competitive prices.  We should be grateful for the advances of transport and economic globalisation, which have brought such a wide range of foods to our shops. Our grandparents ate largely local produce, and this gave them a very dull diet with a very limited choice of fruit and vegetables. They understood the importance of seasonal variation all right, but that meant they had little access to vitamins in the cold winter and spring months. Our diet today is much healthier and more varied as a result of globalisation, and we should not try to turn the clock back to the bad old days when only local produce was available. Even when there is no question of nutrition why should consumers not have the choice both of a British apple and a French apple? Many may prefer the taste of the French apple or it may be better for producing a certain type of chutney. 

Buying local produce does not have to mean giving up on different types of food that is grown elsewhere or is available at different times of the year in other locations rather that there should be a policy of buying locally where it is possible. There is no need to have dozens of variety of apples available all at once; rather just the ones that can be locally sourced should be available. Pineapples on the other hand are very difficult to grow in northern climes so would have to be sourced from countries where pineapples are native.[1] So yes there is a slight limitation on choice but shopping for locally produce will not mean turning the clock back.

[1] Lusk J. and Norwood, B., ‘The Locavore’s Dilemma: Why Pineapple Shouldn’t Be Grown in North Dakota’, 3 January 2011.

Buying local is not actually environmentally friendly. The idea of food miles sounds wonderfully green, but the concept is deeply flawed. Often it takes much more energy (for heated glasshouses and fertilisers) to grow fruit and vegetables locally than it does to grow them in a country with a more suitable climate and then transport them by road, sea or air. Studies have found that it is better for the environment to produce butter, cheese, lamb and apples in New Zealand and then ship them to Britain, than it is to buy the same items from English producers.[1] And most of the food miles travelled by products come from refrigeration and consumers driving to and from the shops.[2] Indeed, the carefully packed lorries of the huge supermarkets are a more energy efficient way of distributing food than having lots of small producers driving pick-up trucks to farmers markets. Therefore consumers and retailers should concentrate much more on the overall environmental impact rather than just upon food miles.

[1] McKie R., ‘How the myth of food miles hurts the planet’, guardian.co.uk, 23 March 2008.

[2] Linster, Greg, ‘Protect the Environment: Eat Global!’, Coffee Theory, 12 April 2011.

Local shopping does benefit the environment. At the moment most food in the stores has been transported huge distances, often from countries far away. Food, even if locally-sourced, may be trucked hundreds of miles to a big distribution centre, before being sent back to a store near its point of origin. The average distance that food travels in the US is between 4000 and 5000 miles.[1] These “food miles” represent an enormous environmental cost in terms of carbon emissions and contribute hugely to the problem of climate change. This is especially true of food that has been air-freighted, a very environmentally damaging practice. Shopping in farmers markets eliminates these food miles and the proposal that supermarkets should not transport food unnecessarily would significantly reduce food miles for local produce.

[1] ScienceDaily.com, ‘Want To Reduce Your Food-Related Carbon Footprint? What You Eat Is More Important Than Where It Came From’, 22 April 2008.