Eating local vs. veg*nism - trade off?

[RubyMoonlight]

I've discussed this topic with a friend before and have my own views, but I was curious as to what you guys thought:

I live up in the north part of the U.S., where our growing season is pretty short, and our winters can be harsh. We get a decent variety of fruits and veggies that grow up here, but in order to get a strong variety of plant-based foods, a lot of what I eat will come from all over the world. Avocados and quinoa come from South America, most fruits come from California and Florida, just to name a few. And during the winter, I rarely see local foods, if at all at the supermarket.

If it's true that to stay healthy on a plant-based diet you need to consume a variety of foods, then (it seems) that there's a necessary environmental cost to that lifestyle as well. Now I'm not saying there aren't bigger things that impact the environment negatively, but I think this is something to think about. Maybe in the future when we live in a world of 100% renewable energy sources (I can dream right?) this won't be an issue, but for today's world would it be sustainable if everyone adopted this type of diet?

 

[Amy SF]

Ideally, everything a veg*an needs to live on could be grown locally, but unfortunately that's not the case right now. It IS a frustrating conundrum. We attempt to reduce our carbon footprint by eating lower on the food chain, but even that has its risks.

Unfortunately, I really don't have an answer, or a straight, simple opinion. It IS something to think about, though.

 

[Second Summer]

I live up in the north part of the U.S., where our growing season is pretty short, and our winters can be harsh. We get a decent variety of fruits and veggies that grow up here, but in order to get a strong variety of plant-based foods, a lot of what I eat will come from all over the world. Avocados and quinoa come from South America, most fruits come from California and Florida, just to name a few. And during the winter, I rarely see local foods, if at all at the supermarket.

This is probably similar to northern Europe.

If it's true that to stay healthy on a plant-based diet you need to consume a variety of foods, then (it seems) that there's a necessary environmental cost to that lifestyle as well. Now I'm not saying there aren't bigger things that impact the environment negatively, but I think this is something to think about. Maybe in the future when we live in a world of 100% renewable energy sources this won't be an issue (I can dream right?) this won't be an issue, but for today's world would it be sustainable if everyone adopted this type of diet?

There is an environmental cost to any diet, of course. Some of the alternatives to transporting veggie foods over long distances would be:

• Hunting, which is not sustainable if it's going to feed big numbers of people.
• Fishing might be sustainable for smaller numbers of people, but as it is we're gobbling up stocks and emptying the oceans.
• Factory farming animals locally. Factory farms are probably the worst polluters in food production, consuming and polluting water, emitting greenhouse gases, contributing to deforestation for animal feed etc.
• Organic farming of animals locally. This takes up more space than factory farming. Would it provide enough food for big populations? Even far north there are some rather large cities. I'm sure the environmental cost is lower than factory-farmed meat, but is it significantly lower? I have some doubts ...
• Growing vegetables in greenhouses locally in colder climates. What I've read on the topic suggests this alternative has a higher environmental cost than transporting the food from warmer climates, as long as the method of transport is not by aeroplanes. Heating greenhouses consume lots of energy apparently.

 

[Mischief]

There's actually an alternative, and that is to can/freeze/otherwise store foods that are grown during the growing season, to eat during the winter/early spring. It's what our ancestors did (in my case, because I'm old, what my immediate ancestors, i.e., my parents did). This emphasis on fresh produce throughout the year is a really recent development. We also don't need the variety that we get these days by shipping all over the world. In my youth, oranges, for example, were a special treat. Many, many generations did just fine on locally grown produce.

The foods that vegetarians primarily rely on for protein - legumes and whole grains - are the easiest of all to store for the winter months. No processing or special storage facilities (like a root cellar) necessary. So it's really not a decision that's any different for vegetarians than for meat eaters.

 

[ledboots]

I grew up in New England, and had a large vegetable garden, and we canned. My mom made crabapple jelly from the crabapple tree (yum.) And there were always local apples, pears, root vegetables, winter squash, etc in the winter.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

When I was growing up, my grandparents always had a good-sized vegetable garden (not huge, though), and Grandma canned to a and tons of tomatoes. There were always enough to last the winter. She also made pickles from cucumbers , okra, beets, and watermelon rinds.

We would go to local pick-your-own orchards for apples and peaches. These were made into jelly, applesauce, and pie filling for canning, or sliced and frozen. There were local farmers markets where we would get larger quantities of corn, green beans, strawberries, etc, which were processed for freezing.

(My grandfather did hunt, so a lot of the meat we ate, especially in the winter, was hunted rather than purchased.)

If we wanted strawberries in the winter, we thawed a bag and did something with those- we didn't buy fresh ones that had been trucked from South America. I don't even remember fresh strawberries being available in the winter.


I try really hard to eat as much seasonal produce as I can. I think it's possible to eat a large percentage of local foods, and be vegetarian. It just requires some planning, effort, and commitment.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think local animal products use grains etc as animal feed, that have been transported a long way, like soya. So I'm not sure if those products could be considered 'local'.

 

[Pirate]

^ Yeah I read a while ago that it is actually worse for the environment to eat British meat. The reason for this is we can't grow the crops to feed them - it gets flown in from abroad. You may as well feed it in the same country the food is grown then ship it over once its been killed (sorry to be graphic). I dunno how relevant that is for other countries.

 

[RubyMoonlight]

I try really hard to eat as much seasonal produce as I can. I think it's possible to eat a large percentage of local foods, and be vegetarian. It just requires some planning, effort, and commitment.

I'd have to agree with you there. You may have hit where the real issue lies- that (myself included) many people don't plan out our meals.

This emphasis on fresh produce throughout the year is a really recent development. We also don't need the variety that we get these days by shipping all over the world.

My understanding was that most people don't eat enough variety of vegetables (in general), and I haven't seen a lot of information on exactly how much variety a vegan diet should consist of. I think you raise a good point though that we probably don't need fresh produce all year round- although it is nice to have!

I looked a little more into home canning- for those interested here's a link: http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/pdf/5344.pdf

 

[Clueless Git]

.. but for today's world would it be sustainable if everyone adopted this type of diet?

Anywhere that humans live in numbers beyond the localities ability to naturaly sustain the population will not be naturaly localy sustainable.

The wider logic appears to be simply that transport from A to B per ton of food is not going have less of a negative environmental impact for a ton of meat than for a ton of plant based foods.

If that is correct then the only variable remaining is that meat (basicaly nothing but a 80-90% inneficient conversion of plant food into animals) will always be the greater enviromental negative.

I think it often gets overlooked that animal 'foods' always carry the full negative impacts of all the plant foods fed to the animals in the first place. Roughly every pound of meat/dairy carries the full environmental impacts of growing/storing/processing/transporting the 8-10 pounds of plant food used to produce it.

That heavily loaded 'start point' for meat being in addition to any negative impacts (housing, effluents, slaughter, freezer storage, etc ..) that would not be incurred at all if animals were taken out of the food chain.

 

[Second Summer]

If that is correct then the only variable remaining is that meat (basicaly nothing but a 80-90% inneficient conversion of plant food into animals) will always be the greater enviromental negative.

I believe the pro-meaters are sometimes implying that there are big swaths of land (e.g. in rugged terrain and/or in colder climates) that are allegedly not suitable for production of food for humans, but grass and such can grow there that can in turn be grazed by e.g. cattle and sheep. That way they are growing food (meat) in areas where you can't grow anything else for human consumption.

 

[RubyMoonlight]

I think there is merit to that idea though. That's why I was wondering how much variety we really need on a vegan diet. All the reading I've done this far people have said you need to have variety of foods. You can't just pop a multivitamin and call it a day. I could imagine in colder climates there arguably may be less impact if there was some hunting, although there would need to be care not to destroy the populations because of so many people. You get more environmental impact from raising farmed animals, but I don't think that would apply to hunting.
My original thought though was not necessarily to compare the impact of plant based diets to meat eating, but rather to evaluate the current state of how we are eating if that makes sense. The ethical side of raising farmed animals outweighs any benefit IMO. So it becomes a matter of asking what can we change to make a cruelty free lifestyle possible. There's a lot of hype now on foods like avocado and quinoa and acai, star fruit etc. There's also a lot of emphasis on corn, wheat, and soy. That may be because of its use in animal feed though but I'm not sure.

 

[Mischief]

My understanding was that most people don't eat enough variety of vegetables (in general), and I haven't seen a lot of information on exactly how much variety a vegan diet should consist of.

I don't think that the optimal vegan diet requires a greater variety of vegetables than the optimal omni diet. Why would it?

I'm quite sure that most people don't eat enough variety of vegetables. However, I think that a great enough variety can be grown locally, unless someone is living in an extreme climate. The problem is what people choose to eat, rather than what is available.

 

[Second Summer]

I think there is merit to that idea though.

Personally, I think some of those places should be left for wildlife. Humans and human activities take up more and more space every year, and as a result species go extinct all the time. I also suspect we haven't experimented enough with growing "new" species of plants. Remember what a revolution it was when the potato arrived in Europe. We could be growing quinoa in northern Europe, even in my home country Norway. And I also suspect using some of those areas as grasslands for livestock is a result of farmers trying to maximise their profits and minimize their efforts and costs. Perhaps they really could, to some extent, be growing food for humans in those areas, but it's just more convenient and more profitable for them to raise livestock. Consumers are obviously used to their meat, so that's where the demand is. Introducing a new food is risky for farmers.

That's why I was wondering how much variety we really need on a vegan diet. All the reading I've done this far people have said you need to have variety of foods. You can't just pop a multivitamin and call it a day.

"Variety" is just a way of saying you need a multitude of specific nutrients that you can learn about by reading up on nutrition. "Variety" doesn't tell you what you actually need to eat and what to avoid for optimal health. It's helpful when you start out as a veg*n, but long-term I think it's a good idea to learn more details.

My original thought though was not necessarily to compare the impact of plant based diets to meat eating, but rather to evaluate the current state of how we are eating if that makes sense. [...] So it becomes a matter of asking what can we change to make a cruelty free lifestyle possible. There's a lot of hype now on foods like avocado and quinoa and acai, star fruit etc. There's also a lot of emphasis on corn, wheat, and soy. That may be because of its use in animal feed though but I'm not sure.

Yes, I don't think we need avocado (although it tastes sooo good!), acai, star fruit etc. Soy and dairy are competitors, so the dairy industry is keen to fund research that proves soy to be a health hazard. And perhaps the other way around. Truth is obviously the first casualty in this war. The anti-wheat sentiments seem to be something of a fad to me, but it's true that wheat is used in a lot of foods so maybe we should be consuming less of it.

 

[Danielle]

Don't... need... avacado?
Don't listen to him, my guacamole.. I need you