Dimensions of Local vs. Global Food
Overview
Environmental Effects
|
Economic Effects
|
Social JusticeDoes the global or local food systems exclude or hurt certain socioeconomic classes? |
Effects Consumer on BehaviorIs buying local a gateway to sustainable behavior? Does it make people more accountable?
|
Resilience & Food SecurityIn the face of natural disaster or crop failure, how does local food systems fair compared to global?
|
You can find more information on each dimension below.
Environmental Effects |
Local food can seem like the answer to many food issues we face today, environmental degradation being one.
Organic farming, often associated with local food, is thought to be better for the soil and air than conventional farming practices. Organic farming can lead to less pesticide and herbicide use with similar yields to conventional farming (Forster et al, 2013), but does not always hold true (Hole et al, 2005). A small-scale, farm that sells local might be emitting more carbon and other green house gasses and causing more harm to the soil quality then a large scale farm in the same place would cause. This could happen due to a variety of factors, such as a small scale farm growing a greater variety of crops, but therefore having to grow crops that are not as well suited and high yielding in the area, requiring a greater amount of inputs and management. The opposite could also be true, with a large scale farm being more harmful to the environment under similar circumstances (Edward-Jones, 2010). Every farm is local to somewhere, and what effect each farm has on the environment depends largely on the skill and decisions of the manager (Butler, Vickery, Norris, 2007). |
Economic Effects |
Pros: When the dollar is consumed locally, it is kept circulating and beneficial to the local economy. The impact of the dollar is multiplied (multiplier effect) at each transaction for the local community than a dollar spent at a chain store (Hess, 2009). This means more money invested into the local community. This can also help create more/new local jobs. Local foods could meet consumers needs by local economies producing higher quality or longer lasting goods.
Cons: Local goods and services are more expensive than mass produced food. Global goods and services are a lot cheaper for consumers and cheaper to produce. Local goods undermines long distances trade. Outsourcing the production of goods allows the maximum output of other goods with a smaller opportunity cost (Curtis, 2003). Global foods will also have an overall positive economic effect to the world. Globalism and localism both creates jobs, but globalism creates jobs for the world, not just the local community. The local movement sometimes portraits big businesses (globalism) as bad. The video below is a Chipotle commercial and is an example of how large corporations can use the facade of local/small businesses to sell its brand and therefore benefit the economy. |
Social Justice |
In certain areas, local food can show an improvement in social welfare, such as through increased availability of fresh foods to lower income levels (Berlin, Hamilton, Shattman). More investment in local business has been correlated with a higher standard living and other positive social welfare markers as well (Goldschmidt 1946).
Local business also face social challenges. Because they are not as heavily regulated, local businesses can be prone to discrimination and exploitation of workers (Hess 2009). Local food is often more expensive as well, and is generally unavailable to lower income families (Macias 2008). |
Consumer Behavior |
As agriculture has gotten more efficient, it has grown to a larger scale and distance between points of production to point of sale has increased. These developments have led to consumers becoming increasingly concerned about the inputs and practices used to produce food. The pressure for more transparency is growing (Autio, 2013). The local food movement is one alternative that grassroots advocates are pushing as a solution to what they see as an unnatural industrialization of agriculture. Shopping locally for food means the costumers know the producers and are able to engage in conversation about production practices. Because shopping locally can be such an education experience, it is often considered a gateway to living in a more sustainable manner in offer aspects of life. The counter-argument to this is that shopping locally and knowing the producer can lead to a false sense of sustainability. If the consumer doesn't ask the right questions and form their own opinions, misinformation or a lack of information can lead them to believe they are making the better selection when they actually are not. A humorous example of this is shown below and illustrates how trendy buzz words associated with the local grown food movement can hinder the pursuit of real knowledge.
Studies done on the lifestyles of consumers suggest that buying local food can be a way of life. Those who buy local put a lot of thought into their food habitats and are more likely to spend time shopping, planning, and preparing meals (Miranda and Rob, 2012). However, research into this type of dimensions can get bogged down with stereotypes which tends to introduce bias and oversimplify the situation ( Schnell, 2013). |
Resilience & Safety |
As food production shifted to a more industrial scale, uniformity increased and regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration help to set industry standards. Consumers have become accustomed to this uniformity and a high level of food safety (Enshayan 2004) Global food sheds act as safety nets to buffer crop loss due to natural disasters and disease outbreaks. However, in times when this buffer is not needed, it creates excess product and drives down the prices (Hines 2002). Therefore the redundancy of global food is not inherently good, it is often unfair to farmers in third world countries growing for export. Moving away from globalism in food production means stepping away from that safety net and putting many people, especially in urban areas, at risk of food insecurity.
|