The fallacies of buying local

One common argument in this regard is the idea that buying local food helps the local economy and will thus somehow improve the lives of oneself and the people nearby. However, if one pays more for an otherwise similar local product than for an “imported” one, one is actually destroying wealth, as Lusk and Norwood, two agricultural economists, argue in their recent online article “The Locavore’s Dilemma.” Deliberately paying a higher price to the less-efficient local producer is the same as redistributing money from other locals to these farmers as a reward for their wasteful activity. Even if we desire to redistribute our own money to local farmers, this transfer can have a smaller social cost by simply “importing” the fruits and vegetables at a lower price and handing the “local” premium directly to the local producers who are free to engage in more socially beneficial activities now that the food has been taken care of by more productive farmers.

The second fallacy is due to misinformation and confusing “doing something” with “doing good.” A common argument in favor of local produce is the environmental impact of transportation: If a good has traveled far, it must have resulted in higher greenhouse gas emissions. However, the environmental impact of transport is only a small share of the emissions from food production — only 11 percent. In fact, according to a 2008 study published in “Environmental Science and Technology,” most of the emissions come from things like heating greenhouses, fertilizers and burping cows. Some of these production-related emissions can be minimized by choosing the most favorable climate for food production, which is typically not in New Jersey, or by becoming vegetarian — for example, by replacing red meats with tofu, which is “imported” as well. Thus, when trying to minimize emissions from all aspects of food production, the prima facie evidence does not necessarily come out in favor of local food.

Thus, detailed knowledge of all production-related processes — even including the red meat consumption of the farm workers — might be needed to come to a verdict on which goods to buy. Even when possible environmental benefits in the future have been assessed, one still needs to consider whether lower living standards due to higher prices are justified in exchange for these benefits.

Fortunately, this is not as difficult as it sounds, because for competitively priced commodities like fruits and vegetables, we have a way of roughly estimating how many valuable resources — human labor, water, electricity — have been used in its production: the price. The higher-priced goods probably use up more of the resources we value, so that when faced with, for example, two organic tomatoes, the cheaper one should be assumed to be more environmentally friendly.

Of course, buying local or not is normally a choice every consumer can and should make for themselves. Unless, that is, one is a Princetonian. Given that we are forced to buy a dining contract for at least two years, it should worry us that Dining Services prides itself on “buying locally” with our money without leaving us a choice. It might be especially ironic that in this way students from countries whose agricultural producers might be impoverished — perhaps partly due to the United States’ protectionist agricultural policies — find themselves forced to subsidize relatively wealthy New Jersey farmers while destroying global wealth.

An argument in favor of local food in the dining halls, made at its introduction several years ago, was that it is more nutritious because less time passes between production and consumption. However, if the goal is to force students to eat more nutritious food, then eliminating certain unhealthy options, like fries or red meats, would be a cheaper and more efficient way to achieve that goal. Until that change is made, I would like organic foods that are bought locally at a higher price to be clearly marked in dining halls so I am able to eat in a way that respects the environment and raises living standards everywhere — that is, to buy global.

Gregor Schubert is an economics major from Leipzig, Germany. He may be reached at gregors@princeton.edu.