
In the aptly labeled "industrial food system" we obviously use polluting non-renewable energy to run the vehicles that transport the food from far away, but the fertilizer and pesticides we use are also both largely made from petroleum and requires a great deal of energy to produce, not to mention the packaging. So, for every calorie of food that is produced in this system we have burned an awful lot of oil.
Producing and transporting meat is even worse, especially when you consider the tremendous amount of plant food it takes to raise meat producing animals. In The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, the UCC concludes that two of the most beneficial changes in food consumption are to eat less meat and eat more organic foods.I won't argue with that advice except to say that I would suggest emphasizing local food more than organic food. Author Michael Pollan determines in The Omnivore's Dilemma that buying organic food produced far away provides far less benefit than does buying conventional food grown locally. The main problem is that the industrial farm system has co-opted "organic" and seriously diluted the relative benefits it provides.
In contrast, conventional food grown on relatively small, local farms generally use significantly less fertilizers and pesticides than factory farms and the transportation factor is obviously greatly diminished.

As you consider what you might do to strive for a sustainable Frederick, consider buying food from people who love where you live as much as you do -- local farmers.
No comments:
Post a Comment