Thread by @ryankatzrosene

This has been all over Twitter. Lots of climate tweeps have been pointing to it as evidence that local food is just a romantic eco-myth - that if we really want to eat environmentally, then ‘the what’ matters, not ‘the where’. Time for a thread…
ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs…

As a professor studying climate change policy, and as a climate activist who does believe in the value of individual action as a potential catalyst for collective-scale change, I can see the appeal of a simple message like “it’s the what; not the where”.

Sure, for the average urban resident in an industrialized economy with no relation to how their food is produced - this rule of thumb will often stand to reason in terms of leading to lower carbon food choices.

But sometimes the advice doesn’t stand up to reason (b/c it’s based on an averaging of a vast highly-diverse global data set with limited parameters) - and that’s at the core of my ACADEMIC critique of this (more about this in this exchange:

https://twitter.com/ryankatzrosene/status/1220739003793772545?s=20

)

But here I want to offer-up a more personalized critique of the “it’s the WHAT; not the WHERE” mantra... in my capacity as a part-time regenerative farmer; someone who's been intimately involved in the ‘local food movement’ for nearly two decades...

Like many 'foodies' out there, I got involved in small-scale food production because I wanted to produce my own wholesome, healthy, fresh food ‘in my own backyard’ in a way which didn’t harm the environment.

For me it was a hobby, for my wife it became a profession…

And like many other LOCAL ORGANIC FARMERS, my wife turned to farming specifically because she wanted to SHARE the wholesome, healthy, delicious fresh food we were producing with OTHERS in our COMMUNITY.

(suffice it to say she didn't get into it to make an easy fortune!)

We’ve been extremely fortunate to be able to pursue our own ‘dream jobs’ - me as academic; her as agriculturalist producing local organic food

(it’s also been extremely fulfilling for ME to help out when I can on the farm; good for #AcWri too!).

And like many other local organic farmers - literally EVERY management decision we make is oriented around principles of sustainability, fundamentally b/c of our desire to see our children thrive on a resilient planet, and as members of a vibrant, diverse, supportive community…

This means we take the following things VERY SERIOUSLY (though in no particular order as they are closely INTERRELATED!): Climate Change; Biodiversity; Clean Water; Resilient Ecosystems; Community-Building; Nutrition; and HEALTHY LIVING SOILS.

As an EXAMPLE: Take our flock of certified organic Icelandic sheep: We rotationally graze our sheep on lush diverse pastures to build soil fertility and help draw down carbon in the soil.

Rotating pastures allows us to leave each acre of land ‘untouched’ for the vast majority of the year. The biodiversity we see around here is UNREAL (ex. endangered Monarchs thrive on the milkweed that grows on vast sections of the farm’s pasture).

We incorporate TREES in our sheep pastures (and other animal pastures) as it provides shade (which protects animals from heat/elements) and because the peer reviewed science shows silvopastures often see more GHGs sequestered than emitted above ground.

Here're the pigs:

We offer a small dietary supplement to our sheep - organic kelp! It's for nutritional reasons, but research shows kelp can cut down ruminant methane emissions by SUBSTANTIAL margins.

(If that seems strange, read this: bbc.com/news/stories-5…)

My wife honestly deserves an award for the care, love and attention she gives those sheep. She literally knows EVERY ONE by name. The regional vet told us they’re the healthiest looking sheep he’s ever seen!

Animal welfare is of fundamental importance to us. Happy animals means healthy animals; and healthy animals means healthy food.

(I appreciate that for some people the idea of happy farm animals is an oxymoron... I guess we just have to agree to disagree)

We also honour the animals whose lives we have taken for meat: Meat a ’special’ food around here. That means no waste, eating nose-to-tail, and making the most of it (a roast turns into broth for a hearty soup the next day).

The hides are used for clothing, mitts, slippers, or baby blankets. The wool is used by knitters, spinners and weavers and fibre artists.

Sheep are quite amazing; they can provide CLOTHING; DAIRY; MEAT; COMPANIONSHIP and ECOSYSTEM SERVICES!

We try to give back to our community - we hold workshops and open events, tours, and most of our customers come straight to the farm to pick up their orders.

The view from the rock is really nice...

And, quite frankly, we work our asses off… with no real prospects for ‘taking a vacation’ (since the logistics of finding people to manage a farm operation while you’re gone are not exactly easy).

Importantly - we are NOT UNIQUE in ANY OF THIS. Countless friends, neighbours and fellow agriculturalists take great pains to steward their lands, protect local ecosystems and biodiversity, sequester carbon, and care for animals.

[Find a REGENERATIVE FARMER near you!]

So imagine how “rich” it is to see people on this website state definitively - with some abstract figure as their sole piece of evidence - that...

“Eating local… is one of the most misguided pieces of advice”!

What!?

Man that hurts!!! Coming from fellow 'environmentalists' no less!

It hurts because we KNOW that we’re producing a much BETTER product than what you’ll inevitably end up getting if you make this calculation (“it’s the what, not the where!”)

BETTER IN EVERY WAY! ok, I'm biased..

It hurts because we KNOW that the anti-localist mantra favours low-value, mass-produced food, which is almost always less healthy and certainly not FRESH!

It hurts because instead of circulating their hard-earned dollars back into our community - you’re advice for them is to offer it away to an anonymous web of profit-driven corporations and capitalists who don’t share our progressive social and ecological values.

It hurts because the imported vegetables you’re indirectly advocating are far more likely to be from large, industrialized, mono-cropped, pesticide-spraying; glyphosate-chugging; fuel-guzzling operations which causing the problems we're talking about in the first place!

And it hurts because our scientifically-supported efforts to contribute to climate mitigation, by building carbon-rich soil, incorporating agro-forestry; and inhibiting ruminant methane are cast aside simply because... it’s meat, and that’s what the figure says about meat!

And for me personally - it hurts because there’s so much darn chlorophyl around here that you’d need an entire fleet of coal plants to negate the CO2 being soaked up on this little piece of paradise…

(ok, an exaggeration, but come on: How much CO2 are YOU drawing down?)

So there you go… a little rant for those who want to know why small-scale farmers have such a CONNIPTION FIT when they hear well-intentioned good people say...

"you can have a larger difference by focusing on what you eat, rather than ‘eating local’."

GMAFB.

/fin