Keeping up with the “Greens” is infinitely more exhausting than keeping up with the Jones. Every time I embrace a new eco-principle – buy local! buy fresh! don’t buy at all! – some study comes along to reveal the flaws.
Not too long ago, it was the bamboo bamboozle, in which eco-friendly bamboo was revealed to not be bamboo at all…really it was rayon. My own bamboo clothes weren’t among those cited for violations, but nonetheless they seemed a little less green.

Now it’s local food.

The local food movement seemed beyond reproach. It focussed on the eco-benefits of buying food that was grown closer to home. Surely that‘s green.

Not so fast, says The Globe & Mail. However, despite the provocative headline, the article fails to convince me that eating locally isn’t a better (read “greener”) thing to do.

It focuses almost exclusively on fish, a muddy issue in any case. We have debate around farmed versus wild, high on the food chain versus low, mercury contamination, overfishing, methods of fishing… In short, fish can be problematic whether you’re catching Lake Huron trout or ordering halibut at your favorite restaurant.

In other words, the benefits of eating locally don’t necessarily carry over into seafood, which, forgive the pun, is a whole other kettle of fish.

So keep eating locally. Eating anything is going to impact the planet…but eating food grown close to home certainly reduces that impact. And creates a positive economic impact in your community.

Bon appetit.