A great article appeared in the Guardian yesterday, talking about the ethical trap of “food miles.” I highly recommend reading the article, as I assume that most of my readers are interested in food politics and the ethical issues which surround food, and I promise that it is very interesting, and not all that long.

For those of you who didn’t read the article, the short story is that the concept of food miles is a bit more complex than people want you to think it is. At first glance, it makes sense to eat exclusively locally, right? Eating from the land, supporting your local economy, reducing your impact on the planet…but, in fact, there are a lot of factors which go into whether or not a food product is ethical, and it’s not as simple as how many miles the food has traveled.

From an environmental standpoint, one of the things the article highlighted was that food grown with chemical fertilizers and pest management materials, on a farm with petroleum powered tractors (or in a greenhouse) may not be as ethical as food which is grown naturally and air-freighted with large shipments of goods. In terms of carbon footprint, food which comes from further away might, oddly enough, be more ethical.

However, not all locally produced food is made with chemicals, and if local food is produced with the assistance of animals, rather than machines, I would argue that it would,in fact, have a far smaller carbon footprint than freighted food. I was somewhat disappointed that this was not really addressed in the article, which seemed to assume that conventional mechanized agriculture is the only way to produce food. This interesting omission reminded me of a somewhat disingenuous New York Times article on the same topic which was published not long ago, trying to discredit the food mileage idea with simplistic arguments. (Note that I do not necessarily think alternative fuels are more ethical, given the fact that biodiesel is turning out to be a huge disaster.)

I think that the article really illustrated the fallacy of the carbon footprint, which seems to be turning into the new gold standard for ethical living. In fact, the carbon footprint only scratches the surface of ethical living. Tristan and I were talking about this recently. I was arguing that the carbon footprint is too simplistic, and that by accepting it, people are missing out on the opportunity to delve more deeply into environmental issues. He was arguing that the carbon footprint is better than nothing, and that complex discussions of environmental issues alienate people, so we should be promoting the carbon footprint concept. What do you think? I’m not a fan of doing things by half measures, but I can see his logic.

And, the article argues, growing food for the North is a valuable source of money for people in the Southern hemisphere. So, by passing on those Chilean asparagus bundles and buying some local Brussels sprouts grown organically and without the use of heavy farm equipment, you are depriving some poor Chilean of the means of sustenance. Oh, but wait, if people in the Southern hemisphere weren’t dedicating their farmland to producing food for us, they could eat their produce, rather than selling it.

I was very pleased to note a plug for veganism at the end of the article, because it’s true that in most regions of the world, veganism is the most ethical and logical choice. It kind of surprises me, really, that the locavore movement isn’t more into veganism; I think they want to have their environmental self righteousness and eat meat too.

I think that the article really highlighted the fact that food politics is extremely complex, and that there are no easy solutions. It also reminded me of my personal goal in life, which is to take care of a large stretch of land somewhere, growing things on it and becoming self sufficient. As tangled in the industrial food complex as I am, it’s frustrating to feel forced to rely on a system I don’t like for the food I eat.