“Happy” COP26! Everybody.
Buying local produce (20-50km radius) is carbon emission decreasing, it’s keeping disposable income within our local economy, it’s investing in our own county. Is this new thinking? No. It was pre-industrial UK reality, and M.K. Gandhi successfully advocated the social, economic and political advantages of manufacturing & consuming only local products[mfn]what HE meant[/mfn] already in the first half of the 20th century.
Moreover doing this is ethical & equitable, forward thinking, steward-ly, more “other-oriented” (producers and fellow consumers/planet dwellers, ie. it’s less egotistical than buying, for my appetite/gut-satisfaction alone, large amounts of chemically treated cheap food & drink from globally sourcing[mfn]check out this brilliant food-choice-vs-eating-local-GHG-effect information[/mfn] food retailers with political “lobbying” budgets); it’s sustainable and above all, it makes simple common sense — especially when you insist upon/make sure you’re only getting the real deal: top quality ORGANIC produce.[mfn]Apart from the obvious health advantages of such produce, there is a solid base of studies that suggests organic is equal to or more profitable than conventional farming. Part of that competitive edge comes from the premium price – driven by consumer demand – that organic farmers can get for their products (though even when profits are adjusted for 50 per cent of the current organic premium, most studies still show organic agriculture coming out ahead).
One of the most persistent myths case studies consistently debunk is that organic systems are incapable of reaching the same yields as conventional systems. After a transitional period of 3 to 5 years, organic systems can produce up to 95 per cent of conventional yields. Additionally, organic farming is less dependent on fossil fuels, expensive (synthetic) inputs, and annual loans, making it less vulnerable to financial market fluctuations, and less likely to unbalance financial markets.
Organic is also low-waste, emphasising quality over quantity, meaning it uses less land for the same profit. Conventional crop subsidies exacerbate the problem, incentivising farmers to grow more than they can sell, which causes excess pollution, overuse of all available resources, and food waste.
Often overlooked is the cumulative effect — a very positive personal health one — of higher produce quality and retail price: consumers will naturally have to consume smaller quantities of F&B’s while simultaneously getting more healthy goodness & kilojoules/kg out of what they imbibe than from conventional, cheap “industrial” produce. Hello weight loss, goodbye obesity![/mfn]
Please understand that your retail food buying choices have a direct impact on your/my environment, ecology and health. Do make the right ones here&now for all (y)our tomorrows!
Re. lobbying, here’s a fascinating article about the effect of who sells the most food to your local supermarket. If it’s happening in Europe, it’s happening in the UK too.
It’s about what ultimate “PURPOSE(S)” successfully influence government agricultural policy: ie. politics ie. big business ie. investments behind the food that we’re being offered for sale.
Remember that each and every paying consumer[mfn]don’t forget the hidden, non-pecuniary consumption costs (like the use of one-time available planetary resources) of our choices too…[/mfn] is the final subscriber of/signatory to these policies. And that the “I had no choice–orders and/or didn’t know” argument was debunked 75years ago…