The Debate Over Buying Locally Buying locally has becoming a debate around the world. Many advocates believe that by buying locally each consumer can do their part in saving the environment. However, there are many proponents that think other wise. It’s a matter of quality. Both side propose fantastic points around the movement of locavorism and how to conserve the environment, however, they go about it differently. The root of the debate is: does buying truly help environment and is it beneficial for the economy? Proponents for buying locally state “locally grown food is healthier, fresher, cleaner, and better tasting” (Lanford). These same people argue that buying locally is an easy way to help preserve the environment. Not only that but
…show more content…
McWilliams of Forbes.com, there is a ‘chink’ in the ways the food miles are calculated. He believes that the measure should not be food miles rather it should be the amount of food per gallon. McWilliams uses an extreme example to demonstrate his point. The example he used is, “a shipper sending a truck with 2,000 apples over 2,000 miles would consume the same amount of fuel per apple as a local farmer who takes a pickup 50 miles to sell 50 apples at his stall at the green market” (McWilliams). Along with stating this argument, McWilliams discusses an alternative way to to shrinking our carbon footprint. His idea is to take meat off of the consumers’ plate. According to the article, “it takes 6 pounds of grain to make a pound of chicken and 10 to 16 pounds to make a pound of beef” (McWilliams). Is is getting the reader to think about the cost of the grain and the transportation to get the grain to the farm. McWilliams goes on to discuss that “it requires 2,400 liters of water to make a burger and only 13 liters to grow a tomato.” Not only can you save water but “the average American eats 273 pounds of meat a year. [By giving] up red meat once a week and you’ll save as much energy as if the only food miles in your diet were the distance to the nearest truck farmer” (McWilliams). According to McWilliams, by cutting out meat from the dinner plate the buyer can save money and save the environment at the same time. He believes that it is more cost affective …show more content…
He does so by talking about how food that travels over 2000 miles is not more efficient. While keeping an open mind to McWilliams arguments, Schuster discusses how the product does not all go to one spot. They go to the distribution center where they are sent on smaller delivery trucks to the individual stores. Schuster goes on to also counter McWilliams point that eating less meat can save the world. He references Eliot Coleman's 2009 Grist article entitled "Debunking the meat/climate change myth." Coleman states, “it is not meat eating that is responsible for increased greenhouse gasses; it is the corn/ soybean/ chemical fertilizer/ feedlot/ transportation system under which industrial animals are raised” (Schuster). Schuster concludes his article by saying, “eating locally isn't going to solve a food crisis or bring world peace, but it's a step towards small-scale independence and pride in your neighborhood.”
McWilliams of Forbes.com, there is a ‘chink’ in the ways the food miles are calculated. He believes that the measure should not be food miles rather it should be the amount of food per gallon. McWilliams uses an extreme example to demonstrate his point. The example he used is, “a shipper sending a truck with 2,000 apples over 2,000 miles would consume the same amount of fuel per apple as a local farmer who takes a pickup 50 miles to sell 50 apples at his stall at the green market” (McWilliams). Along with stating this argument, McWilliams discusses an alternative way to to shrinking our carbon footprint. His idea is to take meat off of the consumers’ plate. According to the article, “it takes 6 pounds of grain to make a pound of chicken and 10 to 16 pounds to make a pound of beef” (McWilliams). Is is getting the reader to think about the cost of the grain and the transportation to get the grain to the farm. McWilliams goes on to discuss that “it requires 2,400 liters of water to make a burger and only 13 liters to grow a tomato.” Not only can you save water but “the average American eats 273 pounds of meat a year. [By giving] up red meat once a week and you’ll save as much energy as if the only food miles in your diet were the distance to the nearest truck farmer” (McWilliams). According to McWilliams, by cutting out meat from the dinner plate the buyer can save money and save the environment at the same time. He believes that it is more cost affective …show more content…
He does so by talking about how food that travels over 2000 miles is not more efficient. While keeping an open mind to McWilliams arguments, Schuster discusses how the product does not all go to one spot. They go to the distribution center where they are sent on smaller delivery trucks to the individual stores. Schuster goes on to also counter McWilliams point that eating less meat can save the world. He references Eliot Coleman's 2009 Grist article entitled "Debunking the meat/climate change myth." Coleman states, “it is not meat eating that is responsible for increased greenhouse gasses; it is the corn/ soybean/ chemical fertilizer/ feedlot/ transportation system under which industrial animals are raised” (Schuster). Schuster concludes his article by saying, “eating locally isn't going to solve a food crisis or bring world peace, but it's a step towards small-scale independence and pride in your neighborhood.”