In Michael Pollan’s New York Times essay, The Food Issue – An Open Letter to the Next Farmer in Chief , he says, “[W]hen we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases.”
It would seem to be a no-brainer that local produce needs less fuel to get to market than something that had to be carted halfway around the world, but cargo trucks and railcars carry more than pickups and vans can, so their fuel cost per pound is often less. Farm-to-market fuel is a small piece of the farm-to-table energy pie with transportation accounting for a small slice of the energy pie.
Household storage and preparation of food uses more than twice the farm-to-market energy (32 percent). Thankfully, we don’t hear pleas for us to give up refrigeration and eat only raw foods to eliminate the energy costs of storage and preparation. Oh, wait. We do hear that.
It is fashionable these days to decry “food miles.” The longer food has spent traveling to your plate, the more oil has been burnt and the more peace has been shattered along the way. But why single out food? Should we not protest against T-shirt miles, too, and laptop miles? After all, fruits and vegetables account for more than 20 percent of all exports from poor countries, whereas most laptops come from rich countries, so singling out food imports for special discrimination means singling out poor countries for sanctions. Two economists recently concluded, after studying the issue, that the entire concept of food miles is a “profoundly flawed sustainability indicator.” Getting food from the farmer to the shop causes just 4% of all its lifetime emissions…A New Zealand lamb, shipped to England, requires one-quarter as much carbon to get on to a London plate as a Welsh lamb; a Dutch rose, grown in a heated greenhouse and sold in London, has six times the carbon footprint of a Kenyan rose grown under the sun using water recycled through a fish farm, using geothermal electricity and providing employment to Kenyan women. – The Rational Optimist, Matt Ridley
Tyler Cowen points out that Pollan (in The Omnivore’s Dilemma) also “argues against free trade in agriculture, on the grounds that the economics will bankrupt family farms and destabilize the market; Pollan fears centralization and the industrial mode of production. He does not note, however, that New Zealand has moved to free agricultural markets—virtually no subsidies or tariffs—and its farms, including family farms, have flourished. Nor should we forget that farm protectionism, as practiced in the EU and elsewhere, costs billions and damages economic development in poorer countries that might otherwise ship foodstuffs to the wealthier West.”
Nullius in Verba 
In trying to rebut some of Timberati’s postings I did some research on this subject. Very interesting and eye-opening for me to see many of Pollan’s arguments easily dashed on the rocks of analysis. For instance, the Polyface farm analysis left out the fact that much of the grain used on the farm came from other sources which just lets Polyface export much of their waste and soil issues. Also, the “green” equation ignored the gas used by people getting to the farm.
As Timberati posted recently, the amount of food per acre on the organic farm vs. the standard method farms would not feed the population we have. Since I am primarily a consumer of whole food products i.e. meat, dairy, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds and mostly shun all grains, my sympathies and needs lie more with the organic small farms. However, my analysis has made me realize my needs are specialized and if all society tried to change to this food life-style it would be unsustainable.
Does that make me an elitist as some of my friends might say? I don’t think so since my diet and exercise approach have so far (57 years and counting) contributed to a very healthy body that does not go to the doctor (had my 1st physical in 30+ years last year just to get a CDL and it was perfect), needs no prescription drugs, and functions so that I still can run, bike, row boats, hike, ski, etc., to my heart’s content in spite of the fact my family history of heart disease is scary with all blood relative uncles, aunts, grandparents, parents dieing or currently experiencing heart disease. What it does mean is that an overnight change to a more healthy food diet by everyone could not be made because people would just starve to death. I really do not have an answer for how to get the US population eating more healthily. I think people would need to grow much more food in small home gardens to start with in order to supplement a more expensive product in the grocery store and to have enough to eat.
I also concur with the analysis above regarding New Zealand and believe that ending all farm subsidies (including ethanol which is really a corn subsidy) in the US would help more family farms than hurt them. It would also do the most for reducing Ag pollution since much of that is due to corn production that would reduce if not subsidized.
Good posts Norm that are helping me take a more balanced and informed approach. I still don’t like some of your conclusions and believe much data that we need to make better informed decisions on health and the environment is not available due to the focus of mainstream media, academia, and our government. However, in reading some of you other postings, I can see with the current available data that your analysis and conclusions are sound.
Hello Michael,
Thank you for working at finding meaningful solutions to feeding, clothing, and housing people while also giving wildlife its due.
The two books that changed my thoughts about what is green and what isn’t, were The Skeptical Environmentalist and The Rational Optimist. Both books contain mountains of information but are quite accessible. I know there are authors who have made it their mission to disprove Lomborg and claimed to have done so. I’ve fact-checked enough of Lomborg’s sources that I’m confident of his charts and numbers. Ridley is a former writer for The Economist (among other things). He tells the story of humankind from 2,000,000 BCE to today. It’s a fascinating read. Before I read it, I was anti-oil and gas and pro-renewable. So, be warned, it could well change your mind, though from your two previous responses, it sounds as though you are willing to consider alternatives.
Congratulations on your healthy regimen. And, thank you for reading the posts here on Timberati. Whether you agree with me or not, just your willingness to read and respond mean a great deal to me as a writer.
Happy New Year, Michael.
Best regards,
Norm
Hi Michael,
I have to agree with you about how eye-opening (I would call it ‘jarring’) it can be to have some of my basic beliefs challenged. I have had my own journey on this, similar to yours. I was upset that I thought my husband was turning into a person with whom I would not want to discuss environmental issues. But we listened to The Rational Optimist on a long road trip, and I read his posts and his monthly column in our local newspaper and I slowly came over to “the dark side” (dragging my feet a little).
It is not easy having opinions that are not in synch with many of my friends, and I have found myself surprised at how frequently people make statements in casual conversations that I now disagree with. I have had to be careful in how (or if) I let my friends know about my altered beliefs! For me, it kind of goes along with the shades of gray that keep getting wider and wider–things were easier when I was younger and everything was pretty black/white.
Happy New Year,
Mary Benson
Mary and Norm,
The one thing I have going for me regarding changing an opinion is a 30 year career in high-tech manufacturing which gave me the ability to use data. So, when new data comes to light, my analytical side is engaged and when that analysis says a new thesis is appropriate then that is what I do.
Also, living in Mount Shasta for the last 11 years has given me the opportunity to make friends with many NFS folks and timber harvesters so I have developed a fairly balanced approach to natural resource use.
Best Regards and a Prosperous 2012 to you both,
– Michael