Hubbry Logo
Local foodLocal foodMain
Open search
Local food
Community hub
Local food
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Local food
Local food
Local food
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Marylebone farmers' market in London, United Kingdom
A map of wheat production (average percentage of land used for its production times average yield in each grid cell) across the world
Part of a series on
Anti-consumerism
Theories and ideas
Notable works
Organizations and groups
People
Related social movements
See also

Local food is food that is produced within a short distance of where it is consumed, often accompanied by a social structure and supply chain different from the large-scale supermarket system.[1]

Local food (or locavore) movements aim to connect food producers and consumers in the same geographic region, to develop more self-reliant and resilient food networks, improve local economies, or to affect the health, environment, community, or society of a particular place.[2] The term has also been extended to include not only the geographic location of supplier and consumer but can also be "defined in terms of social and supply chain characteristics."[3] For example, local food initiatives often promote sustainable and organic farming practices, although these are not explicitly related to the geographic proximity of producer and consumer.

Local food represents an alternative to the global food model, which often sees food traveling long distances before it reaches the consumer.[4]

History

[edit]

In the US, the local food movement has been traced to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which spawned agricultural subsidies and price supports.[5] The contemporary American movement can be traced back to proposed resolutions to the Society for Nutrition Education's 1981 guidelines. In 1994, Chicago pop culture made local food a trend in the Midwest. These largely unsuccessful resolutions encouraged increased local production to slow farmland loss. The program described "sustainable diets" - a term then new to the American public. At the time, the resolutions were met with strong criticism from pro-business institutions, but have had a strong resurgence of backing since 2000.[6]

In 2008, the United States farm bill was revised to emphasise nutrition: "it provides low-income seniors with vouchers for use at local produce markets, and it added more than $1 billion to the fresh fruit and vegetable program, which serves healthy snacks to 3 million low-income children in schools".[7]

Definitions

[edit]
A cheesemaking workshop with goats at Maker Faire 2011. The sign declares, "Eat your Zipcode!"

No single definition of local food systems exists.[8] The geographic distances between production and consumption varies within the movement. However, the general public recognizes that "local" describes the marketing arrangement (e.g. farmers selling directly to consumers at regional farmers' markets or to schools).[3] Definitions can be based on political or geographic boundaries, or on food miles.[4] The American Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 states that:

(I) the locality or region in which the final product is marketed, so that the total distance that the product is transported is less than 400 miles from the origin of the product; or
(II) the State in which the product is produced.

— H. R. 2419, [9]

In May 2010 the USDA acknowledged this definition in an informational leaflet.[3]

State definitions of "local" can be included in laws, statutes, regulations, or program materials, however few state laws explicitly define "local" food. Most states use "local" (or similar words like "native") in food procurement and marketing policies to mean that the food was produced within that state.[8]

The concept of "local" is also seen in terms of ecology, where food production is considered from the perspective of a basic ecological unit defined by its climate, soil, watershed, species and local agrisystems, a unit also called an ecoregion or a foodshed. Similar to watersheds, foodsheds follow the process of where food comes from and where it ends up.[10]

Contemporary local food markets

[edit]
Further information: Online grocer § Impact on the environment

In America, local food sales were worth $1.2 billion in 2007, more than doubled from $551 million in 1997. There were 5,274 farmers' markets in 2009, compared to 2,756 in 1998. In 2005, there were 1,144 community-supported agriculture organizations (CSAs). There were 2,095 farm to school programs in 2009.[3] Using metrics such as these, a Vermont-based farm and food advocacy organization, Strolling of the Heifers, publishes the annual Locavore Index, a ranking of the 50 U.S. states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. In the 2016 Index, the three top-ranking states were Vermont, Maine and Oregon, while the three lowest-ranking states were Nevada, Texas and Florida.[11]

Websites now exist that aim to connect people to local food growers.[12] They often include a map where fruit and vegetable growers can pinpoint their location and advertise their produce.

Supermarket chains also participate in the local food scene. In 2008 Walmart announced plans to invest $400 million in locally grown produce.[13] Other chains, like Wegman's (a 71-store chain across the northeast), have long cooperated with the local food movement.[13] A recent study led by economist Miguel Gomez found that the supermarket supply chain often did much better in terms of food miles and fuel consumption for each pound compared to farmers markets.[14]

Local food campaigns

[edit]

Local food campaigns have been successful in supporting small local farmers. After declining for more than a century, the number of small farms increased 20% in the six years to 2008, to 1.2 million, according to the Agriculture Department (USDA).[15]

Launched in 2009, North Carolina's 10% local food campaign is aimed at stimulating economic development, creating jobs and promoting the state's agricultural offerings.[16][17] The campaign is a partnership between The Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS), with support from N.C. Cooperative Extension and the Golden LEAF Foundation.[18]

In 2017, a campaign was started in Virginia by the Common Grains Alliance mirroring many of the efforts of the North Carolina campaign.[19]

Motivations for eating locally

[edit]

Motivations for eating local food include healthier food, environmental benefits, and economic or community benefits. Many local farmers, whom locavores turn to for their source of food, use the crop rotation method when producing their organic crops. This method not only aids in reducing the use of pesticides and pollutants, but also keeps the soil in good condition rather than depleting it.[20] Locavores seek out farmers close to where they live, and this significantly reduces the amount of travel time required for food to get from farm to table. Reducing the travel time makes it possible to transport the crops while they are still fresh, without using chemical preservatives.[21] The combination of local farming techniques and short travel distances makes the food consumed more likely to be fresh, an added benefit.

Benefits

[edit]

Community

[edit]

Local eating can support public objectives. It can promote community interaction by fostering relationships between farmers and consumers. Farmers' markets can inspire more sociable behavior, encouraging shoppers to visit in groups. 75% of shoppers at farmers' markets arrived in groups compared to 16% of shoppers at supermarkets. At farmers' markets, 63% had an interaction with a fellow shopper, and 42% had an interaction with an employee or farmer.[22] More affluent areas tend to have at least some access to local, organic food, whereas low-income communities, which in America often have African American and Hispanic populations, may have little or none, and "are often replete with calorie-dense, low-quality food options", adding to the obesity crisis.[7][23]

Environmental

[edit]

Local foods require less energy to store and transport, possibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[24] In local or regional food systems it can be easier to trace resource flows and recycle nutrients in that specific region.[25] It can also be a way to preserve open landscapes and support biodiversity locally.[26][27][28]

Economic

[edit]

Farmers' markets create local jobs. In a study in Iowa (Hood 2010), the introduction of 152 farmers' markets created 576 jobs, a $59.4 million increase in output, and a $17.8 million increase in income.[22] Promoting local food can support local food actors in the food supply chain and create job opportunities.[26][28][27]

Nutritional

[edit]

Since local foods travel a shorter distance and are often sold directly from producer to consumer, they may not require as much processing or packaging as other foods that need to be transported over long distances. If they are not processed, they may contain fewer added sugars or preservatives. The term "local" is sometimes synonymous with sustainable or organic practices, which can also arguably provide added health benefits.[8]

Criticism

[edit]

Food miles

[edit]

Critics of the local foods movement question the fundamental principles behind the push to eat locally. For example, the concept that fewer "food miles" translates to a more sustainable meal has not been supported by major scientific studies. According to a study conducted at Lincoln University in New Zealand: "As a concept, food miles has gained some traction with the popular press and certain groups overseas. However, this debate which only includes the distance food travels is spurious as it does not consider total energy use especially in the production of the product."[29] The locavore movement has been criticized by Vasile Stănescu, the co-senior editor of the Critical Animal Studies book series, as being idealistic and for not actually achieving the environmental benefits of the claim that the reduced food miles decrease the number of gasses emitted.[30] Studies have shown that the amount of gasses saved by local transportation while existing, does not have a significant enough impact to consider it a benefit. Food miles concept does not consider agriculture, which is having contributed the highest when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, season and transportation medium also makes a difference.[31]

Food choice

[edit]
An infographic from Our World In Data emphasising the relative importance of food choice over emissions from transport for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Transport related emissions are in red.

The only[citation needed] study to date that directly focuses on whether or not a local diet is more helpful in reducing greenhouse gases was conducted by Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews at Carnegie-Mellon. They concluded that "dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household's food-related climate footprint than 'buying local'".[32] An Our World In Data post makes the same point, that food choice is overwhelmingly more important than emissions from transport.[33] However, a 2022 study suggests global food miles CO2 emissions are 3.5–7.5 times higher than previously estimated, with transport accounting for about 19% of total food-system emissions,[34][35] though shifting towards plant-based diets would still remain substantially more important.[36] The study concludes that "a shift towards plant-based foods must be coupled with more locally produced items, mainly in affluent countries".[35]

Environmental impact

[edit]

Numerous studies have shown that locally and sustainably grown foods release more greenhouse gases than food made in factory farms. The "Land Degradation" section of the United Nations report Livestock's Long Shadow concludes that "Intensification - in terms of increased productivity both in livestock production and in feed crop agriculture - can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation".[37] Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia found that cattle raised on open pastures release 50% more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised in factory farms.[38] Adrian Williams of Cranfield University in England found that free range and organic raised chickens have a 20% greater impact on global warming than chickens raised in factory farm conditions, and organic egg production had a 14% higher impact on the climate than factory farm egg production. [citation needed]Studies such as Christopher Weber's report on food miles have shown that the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions in production far outweighs those in transportation, which implies that locally grown food is actually worse for the environment than food made in factory farms.

Economic feasibility

[edit]

While locavorism has been promoted as a feasible alternative to modern food production, some believe it might negatively affect the efficiency of production.[39] As technological advances have influenced the amount of output of farms, the productivity of farmers has skyrocketed in the last 70 years. These latter criticisms combine with deeper concerns of food safety, cited on the lines of the historical pattern of economic or food safety inefficiencies of subsistence farming which form the topic of the book The Locavore's Dilemma by geographer Pierre Desrochers and public policy scholar Hiroko Shimizu.[39]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Local food

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Local food encompasses agricultural products grown, processed, and distributed within a relatively short geographic from the point of consumption, with definitions varying by factors such as mileage thresholds (often 50 to 400 miles), political boundaries like state or provincial lines, or direct marketing channels such as and . The local food movement, which gained prominence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, promotes these systems to foster economic resilience in rural areas through direct producer-consumer links, potentially enhancing local and reducing reliance on imported via import substitution effects. Proponents claim from reduced transportation emissions, alongside fresher that may retain higher nutrient levels; however, peer-reviewed analyses reveal that food transport typically constitutes only 10-20% of lifecycle , dwarfed by on-farm production inefficiencies in small-scale local operations, which can yield higher per-unit impacts than optimized large-scale farming. for nutritional superiority remains limited, often tied to varietal differences rather than locality per se, while criticisms highlight higher costs, seasonal limitations, and potential exacerbation of food insecurity in regions lacking suitable growing conditions. Despite these debates, local food initiatives have to diverse, traceable products and supported community cohesion, though their scalability and net depend heavily on specific configurations and regional agro-climatic factors.

Definitions and Concepts

Core Definitions

Local food refers to agricultural products that are produced, processed, and distributed within a relatively short geographic distance from the point of consumption, emphasizing proximity between producers and consumers to foster economic, environmental, and social connections within communities. This concept prioritizes minimizing the separation inherent in globalized supply chains, where food often travels thousands of miles, by focusing on regionally sourced goods such as fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, and value-added items like cheeses or preserves. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), local foods constitute a segment of agriculture sales involving direct or intermediated marketing channels that keep economic benefits closer to production sites. A central metric in defining local food is , which quantifies the distance food travels from to , with lower miles indicating locality; common benchmarks include under 100 miles for strict interpretations or up to 400 miles for broader ones, though no federal standard exists. serve as a proxy for embedded transportation and emissions, though empirical analyses show that total lifecycle emissions—including production methods—often outweigh alone in impact assessments. Core to the definition is also the structure: local food typically involves short channels like sales, (CSA) programs, or on-farm processing, distinguishing it from mass-distributed commodities. The term "locavore," coined in by food writers, encapsulates the ethos of consuming self-produced or nearby-sourced food to enhance , nutritional , and farmer viability, though it extends beyond mere to include ethical sourcing practices. State-level definitions vary—for instance, some include products processed in-state even if grown out-of-state—but the unifying principle remains geographic and relational closeness over arbitrary radii. This framework supports resilience in food systems by reducing reliance on distant vulnerable to disruptions like fuel price spikes or failures observed in events such as the 2020-2022 global shortages.

Variations and Ambiguities

The concept of local lacks a universally accepted , leading to significant variations in its application across markets, policies, and perceptions. Common frameworks emphasize geographic proximity, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) guideline from the 2008 Farm Bill, which classifies as local if produced and transported less than 400 miles or within the same state, though this threshold is not legally binding and varies by implementation. Other definitions prioritize political boundaries, like state or county lines, over strict mileage to account for regional production realities, as proposed in analyses advocating for locality-specific criteria to reduce definitional inconsistencies. Ambiguities arise from alternative criteria beyond distance, including direct-to-consumer sales channels (e.g., farmers' markets or ), which some jurisdictions equate with locality regardless of miles traveled, while others incorporate environmental factors like watershed boundaries or bioregional ecosystems. Retailers introduce further variation; for instance, Whole Foods defines local as products sourced within a seven-hour drive of a store, reflecting logistical constraints rather than a fixed radius. These discrepancies extend to production scale and processing: small-farm outputs are often presumed local due to perceived ethical alignment, yet large-scale operations within proximity may qualify under distance-based rules, complicating claims of inherent or freshness. Empirical studies highlight how such ambiguities affect market practices; surveys of U.S. farmers' markets reveal inconsistent monitoring of origins, with some enforcing self-reported claims and others relying on visual inspections, potentially allowing mislabeling. State-level policies exacerbate this, as no federal standard exists, leading to patchwork regulations—e.g., Maine's focus on direct sales excludes intermediated regional products, while others blend distance with outlet type. Consumer interpretations add layers, often conflating locality with attributes like reduced chemical use or aesthetics, unsubstantiated by uniform metrics and influenced by rather than verifiable . This fluidity challenges policy-making and , underscoring the need for context-specific delineations tied to empirical outcomes like transport emissions over vague spatial labels.

Historical Development

Early Practices

Prior to the widespread adoption of industrialized agriculture and global trade networks, food production and consumption were predominantly local, constrained by the perishability of goods and limitations in transportation technology. The Neolithic Revolution, beginning around 10,000 BCE in the Fertile Crescent, marked the shift to settled agriculture, where communities cultivated crops like wheat, barley, and legumes, alongside domestication of animals such as sheep and goats, tailored to regional soils and climates. This subsistence model relied on immediate local resources, with food procurement involving farming, foraging, hunting, or fishing within accessible environs, minimizing waste and enabling seasonal adaptation. Organized marketplaces emerged as key mechanisms for exchanging surplus local produce, fostering direct interactions between producers and consumers. In ancient civilizations, such as those in and by approximately 3000 BCE, urban centers hosted gatherings where farmers sold grains, , fruits, and harvested from nearby fields, reflecting diets shaped by geographic availability rather than imported variety. Preservation techniques, including sun-drying of fruits and grains practiced as early as 12,000 BCE in the , extended the usability of local harvests through winter, though these methods were labor-intensive and yielded variable results dependent on climate. In medieval Europe, from the onward, the manorial system reinforced local self-sufficiency, with peasants tilling open fields under the three-field rotation to sustain cereal crops, , and for , yielding modest outputs of about 4-7 bushels per acre for . Weekly town markets served as hubs for bartering or selling , meats, and from surrounding estates, though yields were vulnerable to , as evidenced by recurrent shortages. Trade remained regional, with rivers facilitating limited shipments, but perishable foods like fresh produce rarely traveled beyond a , underscoring the inherent locality of pre-industrial diets.

Rise of the Modern Movement

The modern local food movement arose in the 1970s amid backlash against the post-World War II industrialization of food production, which prioritized processed, long-distance transported goods over fresh, regional varieties. This shift reflected broader cultural discontent with homogenized offerings, spurring interest in organic and direct-from-farm sourcing. In the United States, the concept gained early prominence through ' restaurant, opened in , in 1971, where menus featured seasonal ingredients from nearby organic farms. Waters' emphasis on quality produce and sustainable practices influenced a generation of chefs and diners, laying groundwork for prioritizing locality in culinary traditions. The 1980s marked accelerated institutionalization of these ideas. In , founded the movement in 1986 as a against a opening in , promoting "good, clean, and fair" food tied to regional and traditional methods. This initiative spread globally, inspiring advocacy for local economies over industrialized agribusiness. Paralleling this, (CSA) emerged in the , with the first programs launching in 1986 at Indian Line Farm in —drawing from earlier European biodynamic ideas—and Temple-Wilton Community Farm in , enabling shareholders to fund upfront farm operations in exchange for harvests. These models addressed farmers' financial vulnerabilities while fostering consumer-farmer bonds. Revival of farmers' markets further propelled the movement, with US numbers surging nearly 500 percent between 1970 and 1986 amid urban demand for direct access to fresh goods. By the early , the ethos crystallized with the coining of "locavore" in 2005 by food activists, challenging participants to source within a 100-mile radius and amplifying environmental and economic rationales for localization. This period's developments transformed local food from niche practice to a structured to global supply chains.

Current Markets and Practices

Direct-to-Consumer Channels

Direct-to-consumer channels enable producers of local food to sell directly to end users without intermediaries, encompassing farmers' markets, (CSA) programs, on-farm stands, and roadside markets. These outlets facilitate sales of unprocessed or minimally processed products like fruits, , meats, and , often emphasizing freshness and locality. , such channels accounted for $3.26 billion in sales across 116,617 farms in 2022, marking a 16% increase or $458 million rise from 2017 levels according to the . Farmers' markets represent a primary venue, where vendors sell at periodic gatherings. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Farmers Market Directory tracks markets with at least two farm vendors, noting widespread presence though exact counts fluctuate annually. In 2020, farmers' markets and on-farm stores comprised 59% of the $2.9 billion in sales reported by the USDA. Attendance surveys indicate that motivations include access to fresh produce and support for local producers, with 41.78% of U.S. adults attending regularly and 38.51% infrequently as of early 2025 data. Community supported agriculture involves consumers subscribing for regular shares of a farm's , sharing risks and rewards. While global CSA market estimates project growth to $34.3 billion by 2033 at a 7.1% CAGR from 2025, U.S. programs face retention challenges due to cost, time commitments, and consumption patterns, with some farms shifting to alternative models like market credits. Despite this, CSAs contribute to direct sales, with state variations showing higher densities in areas like at 4.32 per 100,000 people. On-farm sales through stands, stores, or pick-your-own operations provide another channel, often integrated with . Approximately 6% of U.S. farms engaged in sales in 2022, with small family farms leading at $2.4 billion in 2023 commodity sales via these outlets. Roadside stands and farm stores can positively impact gross cash farm income for some operations, though overall profitability varies by scale and . These channels collectively support smaller producers by capturing higher margins compared to wholesale, though they require significant labor and logistical investment.

Institutional and Policy Support

In the , the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has historically provided institutional support for local food systems through programs administered by agencies like the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which promote strategies to enhance local economies and reduce food waste via regional supply chains. The Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP), funded under the USDA AMS, offers competitive grants to improve producer access to local markets, with the 2025 application period open until June 27, 2025, building on authorizations from the 2018 Farm Bill that allocated up to $200 million annually for such initiatives through 2023, extended variably thereafter. However, in March 2025, the USDA terminated the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement and related emergency food assistance procurements, canceling approximately $660 million in planned funding for state agencies to purchase local products for schools and childcare, a move attributed to the incoming Trump administration's policy shifts prioritizing fiscal restraint over specialized local sourcing. State-level policies complement federal efforts, with over 30 states enacting "farm-to-institution" mandates or incentives by 2023, such as preferences for foods in public institutions like schools and prisons, often tied to goals rather than environmental mandates. Regional initiatives, including extension services through land-grant universities, provide technical assistance for models, though funding variability post-2023 Farm Bill reauthorization has constrained scalability. In the , the (CAP) integrates support for short food supply chains (SFSCs)—defined as those involving no more than one intermediary between producer and consumer—primarily through its second pillar on , which allocated €99.4 billion for 2014-2020 programming periods to foster local systems alongside broader sustainability objectives. The 2023-2027 CAP strategic plans emphasize SFSCs further, with member states required to allocate at least 30% of budgets to such measures, including grants for infrastructure and marketing, as evidenced by national plans in countries like supporting 120-producer networks for weekly local deliveries. The EU's Farm to Fork Strategy, launched in 2020 under the , reinforces these by targeting resilient local systems for , though implementation relies on voluntary national uptake and faces criticism for insufficient direct subsidies compared to commodity supports. Internationally, organizations like the (FAO) of the advocate policy frameworks for local systems in developing contexts, emphasizing agroecological approaches in guidelines such as the 2021 FAO Handbook on Urban Food Systems, but binding support remains limited to voluntary national adaptations rather than enforceable global policies. These efforts reflect a policy landscape driven more by economic localization incentives than uniform ideological commitments, with recent U.S. reductions highlighting tensions between targeted programs and broader budgetary priorities.

Recent Developments (2020s)

The , beginning in early , exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains and spurred greater reliance on local food systems for resilience and . Disruptions in and processing facilities led to shortages of imported goods, prompting consumers and institutions to prioritize proximate sourcing to mitigate risks of scarcity. , local food sales through channels, including farmers' markets and (CSA) programs, saw sustained growth, with expenditures rising across most outlets post-2020 despite economic pressures. Farmers' markets, in particular, became essential hubs, filling gaps in access to fresh produce and enabling () households to make 572,769 purchases in fiscal year 2021—a 42% increase from —supported by federal incentives like market matching programs. Urban farming expanded in the early , integrating digital platforms to streamline distribution from city-based growers to consumers, enhancing efficiency in dense populations. CSA models, which predate the decade but gained traction amid uncertainties, accounted for approximately 7% of the $3 billion in U.S. direct farm sales by 2022, fostering direct farmer-consumer relationships that buffered against wholesale market volatility. Policy measures reinforced this momentum; the U.S. Department of Agriculture expanded geographic preference options in child nutrition programs by 2021, allowing operators to favor "locally grown" foods in , which facilitated greater institutional purchases from regional producers. By mid-decade, state-level initiatives proliferated, with over 100 farm-to-school bills introduced across U.S. legislatures in 2025 alone, including incentives for procurement in and . doubled funding for foods in school meals, reflecting a broader shift toward embedding sourcing in public programs to support rural economies and reduce transport-related emissions. These developments, while promising, faced challenges from input cost —such as fertilizers and post-2022—and ongoing debates over , as systems supplied only a fraction of total demand amid population growth.

Purported Motivations

Environmental Rationales

Advocates for local food systems often cite reduced transportation distances, or "," as a primary environmental benefit, arguing that sourcing food closer to consumption points lowers (GHG) emissions associated with shipping. A 2023 study estimated global food emissions at approximately 3 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent annually, representing about 19% of total emissions, with international shipping contributing significantly despite comprising only 3% of physical ton-miles due to high-emission modes like air freight. Proponents also claim ancillary gains, such as decreased needs and lower for cold storage in shorter chains, potentially amplifying savings beyond alone. However, comprehensive lifecycle assessments reveal that transport typically constitutes only 5-11% of a food product's total , with on-farm production— including application, , and feed—accounting for 80-90% or more of emissions. For instance, producing animal products locally often yields higher emissions than importing plant-based alternatives from efficient distant operations, as production inefficiencies in small-scale local systems can outweigh transport reductions. Reviews of empirical studies indicate no consistent evidence that local food universally minimizes environmental impacts, as outcomes depend on type, farming practices, and ; for example, heating local greenhouses in cold climates can exceed emissions from seasonal imports via efficient sea transport. Specific cases demonstrate potential advantages for local vegetable production, where models reduce waste and enable , yielding 20-50% lower compared to large-scale conventional systems in lifecycle analyses. Local systems may also promote through diverse cropping and reduced reliance on monocultures, though such benefits require low-input methods and remain underexplored in broad empirical . Overall, while reductions offer marginal gains, prioritizing dietary shifts away from high-emission foods like provides far greater environmental leverage than localization alone.

Economic and Community Drivers

Consumers often cite support for the local economy as a primary motivation for purchasing local food, with surveys indicating that 75% of buyers prioritize this factor alongside freshness and . Direct-to-consumer sales channels, such as and (CSA) programs, enable producers to retain a larger portion of the retail price by eliminating intermediaries, potentially increasing incomes; for instance, small farms derive up to 35% of sales from these outlets, averaging over $3,000 per farm in direct . Economic analyses estimate a multiplier effect where each dollar spent on local food generates $1.32 to $1.90 in additional local economic activity through re-circulation within the , with proponents citing studies indicating that $60–70 of every $100 spent stays locally, though this varies by region and may be offset by displaced spending from conventional retail. Local food systems drive economic participation by fostering viable markets for small-scale and diversified farms, which comprise a growing segment of U.S. ; direct reached approximately $9 billion by 2020, reflecting sustained demand that supports rural and multipliers of 1.4 to 1.8 in studied cases like farmers' markets in and . However, empirical reviews of over 120 studies find no universal economic superiority, as benefits depend on factors like scale, product type, and local market structures, with some evidence of higher costs potentially eroding net gains for producers. From a community perspective, engagement in local food networks promotes social cohesion and civic involvement, as participants build direct relationships with producers, enhancing trust and collective organizing around shared food access initiatives. Farmers report elevated social recognition through visible consumer interactions at markets and events, contributing to a embeddedness that motivates sustained participation despite operational challenges. Programs integrating local food with efforts, such as SNAP-EBT at markets, have expanded access, with redemptions rising from $4 million in 2009 to $33 million in 2020, thereby strengthening and inclusion, though barriers like pricing limit equitable benefits.

Health and Nutritional Claims

Proponents claim that local food provides enhanced due to reduced time between and consumption, minimizing post- degradation of nutrients such as vitamins C and E, which can decline by 15-50% in within days under ambient conditions. This freshness argument posits that non-local , often picked unripe and transported long distances, arrives with diminished nutrient density compared to locally harvested items consumed soon after picking. However, peer-reviewed reviews indicate no direct empirical studies conclusively demonstrate higher nutrient content in local versus non-local , as factors like variety, , and ripeness at exert greater influence than transport distance alone. Observational research links local food purchasing to improved dietary patterns, with one 2021 study of Puerto Rican adults finding intentional buyers of local produce had higher Healthy Eating Index scores, driven by increased consumption of plant foods and healthy fats, alongside lower sodium intake. Similar associations appear in broader reviews, correlating local food access with reduced rates and better overall health metrics, though these may reflect self-selection among health-conscious consumers rather than causal nutritional superiority. Claims of fewer preservatives or pesticides in local food lack uniform support, as farming practices vary independently of locality, and conventional local operations may employ similar inputs to distant suppliers. Seasonal local eating is argued to foster dietary diversity and alignment with peak availability, potentially aiding intake, but evidence remains indirect and confounded by socioeconomic factors. Overall, while reduced duration theoretically preserves labile nutrients, the purported health advantages hinge more on behavioral incentives for whole-food consumption than verifiable biochemical differences.

Empirical Evidence on Impacts

Environmental Evidence

Life cycle assessments (LCAs) of food systems reveal that transportation accounts for only about 6% of total , while on-farm production, processing, and retail stages dominate, often comprising over 80% for animal products. This suggests that reducing through local sourcing yields marginal emission reductions, typically less than 5% for most products, as the emissions intensity of production methods—such as use, feed conversion in , and energy for heating greenhouses—far outweighs impacts. For instance, local or retains high emissions profiles compared to plant-based alternatives, regardless of traveled. Specific LCAs comparing local and imported foods show mixed results, often favoring neither universally. A 2022 study on production found that small-scale systems in the U.S. Midwest had lower across production and distribution stages than large-scale conventional models, due to reduced and use in shorter chains. Conversely, analyses of imports versus domestic production indicated that air-freighted imports like green beans can double emissions from alone, but heated greenhouses for year-round supply can exceed those impacts, making seasonal produce preferable only when yields and efficiency align. In Arctic contexts, seal meat exhibited lower emissions and than imported , highlighting regional advantages where distances are extreme. Urban and smallholder local food production can sometimes increase emissions; a 2024 LCA of reported average per-serving emissions six times higher than conventional farming, attributed to lower yields and energy-intensive practices like artificial lighting. Recent work on processed foods, such as , found imported ingredients yielding lower production-stage emissions than local equivalents due to in sourcing. Overall, empirical evidence underscores that environmental gains from local food hinge on high-yield, low-input farming rather than proximity alone, with global food-miles contributing around 19% to system emissions but dwarfed by land-use and effects.

Economic Evidence

Empirical studies on the economic impacts of local food systems primarily utilize input-output models to estimate multipliers, which measure how initial spending circulates through local economies via re-spending on goods, services, and labor. A systematic review of 24 peer-reviewed studies from 2000 to 2019 found that 16 reported unambiguously positive multiplier effects from increased demand for local food, with employment multipliers typically ranging from 1.05 to 2.14 and output multipliers from 1.4 to 1.77 in cases like Missouri and Minnesota; however, these effects were stronger and more consistent for employment and income than for overall output or value-added, which varied by region and depended on assumptions about local input sourcing. For example, modeling in Michigan projected that local food systems could generate $4.53 billion in output, 18,627 jobs, and $680.5 million in earnings from farm-level sales. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) analyses support some positive local effects, indicating that expanding local food can boost community employment and through direct sales channels like farmers' markets, though findings on broader are mixed and limited by sparse data on linkages. Farmers engaged in local markets often exhibit higher reliance on local labor and variable inputs compared to those focused on conventional , potentially enhancing regional retention. Case studies, such as those in New York, estimate multipliers of 1.87 for local food , suggesting $1.87 in total economic activity per dollar spent, though these rely on tools like IMPLAN models that may overestimate impacts by underaccounting for non-local inputs in small-scale operations. Notwithstanding these estimates, a comprehensive review of 123 peer-reviewed studies over two decades found no consistent evidence that local food systems inherently benefit local economies, as outcomes depend heavily on supply chain specifics, product types, and geographic contexts rather than locality per se; claims of universal money retention through short chains often lack cross-country comparability and overlook substitution effects where consumers shift from other local expenditures. Critics, including economists Jayson Lusk and F. Bailey Norwood, argue that local food premiums—often 20-50% higher than conventional equivalents—reduce consumer purchasing power, effectively destroying net community wealth by forgoing efficiencies from comparative advantage and scale in global supply chains, akin to inefficient protectionism. Empirical comparisons, such as local Belgian versus global Peruvian asparagus chains, reveal that global systems can achieve higher overall economic efficiency through lower production costs and broader market access, despite local chains' advantages in certain income metrics for small producers. Thus, while local food may support niche employment, aggregate economic gains are context-dependent and frequently offset by higher costs and leakages comparable to those in longer chains.

Nutritional and Health Evidence

Proponents of local food argue that shorter supply chains preserve nutritional quality by minimizing post-harvest degradation, particularly for perishable vitamins like and , which decline rapidly after picking. However, empirical studies indicate that nutrient retention depends more on handling practices, such as during , than on geographic alone; refrigerated shipping for imported produce often limits losses to levels comparable with local distribution. For instance, vine-ripened local tomatoes typically exhibit higher and content than those harvested early for long-distance shipping and ripened artificially, as early harvest interrupts natural accumulation of these compounds. Yet, broader reviews find no consistent nutritional superiority for local over conventional non-local , with variations attributable primarily to , conditions, and harvest timing rather than locality. Observational data link access to local food markets with increased and consumption and modestly lower rates, suggesting potential indirect benefits through improved dietary patterns. A USDA analysis of U.S. household surveys found correlations between local food purchases and higher diet quality scores, but emphasized confounding factors like higher socioeconomic status among buyers, which independently promote healthier eating. Randomized or causal studies remain scarce, and available evidence does not substantiate direct improvements in clinical outcomes, such as reduced chronic disease incidence, from locality-specific consumption; benefits, if any, likely stem from overall freshness and variety rather than . Claims of lower residues in local foods lack robust support, as small-scale local farming does not universally avoid synthetic inputs, unlike certified organic systems.

Social Evidence

Local food systems, including farmers' markets and community-supported agriculture (CSA), demonstrate empirical links to enhanced social capital and community cohesion through direct producer-consumer interactions. These networks foster face-to-face relationships, trust, and a sense of local identity, as evidenced by qualitative studies in regions like Washington State. Farmers' markets specifically facilitate greater social engagement, with shoppers averaging 15 to 20 interactions per visit—far exceeding the two typical at supermarkets—according to observations by the Project for Public Spaces. Community gardening, involving 43 million U.S. households as of 2009, further promotes sharing and interpersonal ties within neighborhoods. Short supply chains in local food initiatives contribute to by preserving community structures and generating localized job opportunities, thereby reinforcing social stability. Programs like farm-to-school connections, numbering 2,095 in the U.S. by 2009, link educational institutions with local producers, potentially bolstering intergenerational community bonds alongside economic ties. Systematic reviews confirm that at markets can drive patronage via welcoming atmospheres and events, enhancing participation for some demographics. Despite these positives, social benefits are unevenly distributed, with equity challenges limiting broader impacts. attendance skews toward middle- to high-income (e.g., over $75,000 annually) and primarily participants, comprising the in reviewed studies. Low-income SNAP recipients and , Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) shoppers often encounter barriers, including exclusionary environments and low , reported in 40% of relevant studies and 75% of those focused on BIPOC groups. Local systems alone cannot secure food access for all, as global data show only 11–28% of populations can meet crop needs within 100 km radii. These patterns highlight that while local food bolsters social ties in select contexts, it risks reinforcing socioeconomic divides without targeted interventions.

Criticisms and Limitations

Environmental Myths and Realities

A prevalent claim in favor of local food systems is that minimizing transportation distances—often termed "food miles"—substantially lowers greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental harms. Proponents argue this reduces the carbon footprint associated with long-haul shipping, trucking, or air freight. However, empirical analyses reveal that transportation constitutes a relatively minor share of total food-related emissions, typically ranging from 5% to 19% depending on the scope of assessment. For instance, a life-cycle assessment of various foods found production processes, including on-farm activities like fertilizer use and feed cultivation, account for the majority—often over 80%—of emissions, dwarfing transport contributions even for imported goods. This disparity arises because global supply chains often employ efficient modes like refrigerated ships, which emit far less per ton-mile than local trucking or, in some cases, small-scale farming inefficiencies. A study comparing consumption of lamb versus domestic production showed the imported variety had 40% lower emissions due to superior pasture-based systems in compared to feed-intensive methods. Similarly, out-of-season local produce grown in energy-intensive greenhouses can exceed the footprint of sun-ripened imports from equatorial regions. Peer-reviewed reviews conclude there is no universal evidence that local sourcing inherently outperforms global alternatives in climate impact, as hinges more on production , crop choice, and yield per unit of input than proximity. Beyond carbon, myths extend to broader claims like enhanced or reduced use from local systems. Yet, small-scale local farms may rely on monocultures or tilling practices that erode more than industrialized, no-till global operations, potentially increasing loss and runoff. Water footprints vary similarly; arid-region local production can demand far exceeding that of water-abundant import origins. While local food may promote seasonal consumption in temperate climates, thereby avoiding high-energy alternatives, this benefit is context-specific and does not generalize across all locales or products. Overall, prioritizing "local" without scrutinizing underlying agronomic methods risks overlooking opportunities for greater environmental gains through technological advancements in efficient, large-scale farming, which have driven yield increases and emission reductions per over decades.

Economic Drawbacks

Local food systems frequently impose higher costs on consumers compared to global or national supply chains, as small-scale production lacks the achieved by large agribusinesses that specialize in crops suited to their regions. For instance, economists Jayson L. Lusk and F. Bailey Norwood argue that local sourcing violates principles of , such as attempting to grow pineapples in northern climates like , where opportunity costs and input inefficiencies drive up prices beyond those of imported equivalents of comparable quality. This premium can range from 20% to over 100% for certain items, depending on and location, limiting accessibility for lower- households who spend a larger share of on food staples. Producers in local systems also encounter economic inefficiencies, including higher per-unit production costs from fragmented operations and limited access to advanced technologies or bulk inputs. Small farms, often operating at scales dwarfed by industrial feedlots processing tens of thousands of animals, face diseconomies that hinder competitiveness without niche markets or subsidies. Critics like Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu contend that scaling up localism would exacerbate scarcity and inflate prices economy-wide by forgoing trade efficiencies, effectively impoverishing consumers through reduced for non-food goods. Additionally, emphasizing local food can disrupt downstream economic activity, potentially displacing jobs in transportation, , and wholesale sectors optimized for volume distribution. While local multipliers exist, empirical assessments indicate their macroeconomic impacts remain modest, with local sales contributing less than 2% of U.S. agricultural output in recent years and failing to offset losses in specialized industries. These dynamics underscore how local food advocacy, while promoting certain rural retention, may inadvertently elevate systemic costs without commensurate productivity gains.

Practical and Equity Challenges

Local food systems face significant practical hurdles related to and . Small-scale producers often encounter capacity constraints, limiting their ability to meet consistent demand without expanding operations, which requires substantial in and labor. Distribution networks for local products remain underdeveloped, as aggregating and transporting small volumes from disparate farms proves inefficient compared to centralized industrial supply chains. Additionally, inadequate processing and packaging facilities hinder the ability to extend or meet regulatory standards for commercial sales. Seasonality exacerbates these issues by restricting year-round availability of fresh , forcing reliance on imports or storage methods that increase costs and reduce . Local farmers markets and programs frequently experience supply fluctuations, leading to inconsistent offerings and potential food waste during off-seasons. These constraints result in higher per-unit production costs for local foods, often 20-50% above those of mass-produced alternatives due to forgone . Equity challenges arise primarily from the elevated prices of local foods, which disproportionately exclude low-income households already grappling with food insecurity rates of 32% among those below the federal poverty line as of 2021. In urban and rural food deserts, where transportation barriers and limited store options prevail, local outlets like farmers markets charge premiums—sometimes higher than conventional retailers—further limiting access to nutritious options for economically disadvantaged groups. While programs such as cost-offset aim to subsidize shares for low-income participants, their reach remains narrow, covering only a fraction of eligible households and often requiring upfront payments or logistical accommodations not universally available. This dynamic reinforces dietary disparities, as lower-income consumers prioritize calorie-dense, affordable staples over pricier local produce, perpetuating higher rates of diet-related chronic diseases.

References

  1. https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/localfoods/exhibits/show/food-locality/local-distance
  2. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/110957/ERR-97.pdf
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0743016723002012
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X21001797
  5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/does-eating-local-food-reduce-the-environmental-impact-of-food-production-and-enhance-consumer-health/C264A576782D7B79B95A47D50515B02A
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10218037/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6309636/
  8. https://extension.usu.edu/sustainability/research/the-local-food-movement-definitions-benefits-and-resources
  9. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/LocalandRegionalFoodSystemResourceGuide.pdf
  10. https://lee.ces.ncsu.edu/2022/05/defining-local-food-and-its-benefits/
  11. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2012/09/04/how-green-is-local-food/
  12. https://www.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Local-Food-Definitions.pdf
  13. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/local-food-systems-clarifying-current-research
  14. https://barbieri.wordpress.ncsu.edu/files/2024/08/2023_Brune-_LocalFood_Defintion.pdf
  15. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=jflp
  16. https://foodsystemprimer.org/production/history-of-agriculture
  17. https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/term/pre-industrial-foodways/
  18. https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/localfoods/exhibits/show/stands-and-markets/farmers-markets
  19. https://nchfp.uga.edu/resources/entry/historical-origins-of-food-preservation
  20. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/shift-agriculture/
  21. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-mcc-ltnutrition/chapter/14-2-historical-perspectives-on-food/
  22. https://www.munchery.com/blog/the-farm-to-table-movement-the-chefs-and-restaurants-that-transformed-cooking-in-america/
  23. https://academics.lmu.edu/media/lmuacademics/cures/urbanecolab/module10/The%2520History%2520of%2520the%2520Farm%2520to%2520Table%2520Movement.pdf
  24. https://www.lightspeedhq.com/blog/history-farm-table-movement/
  25. https://www.sierraclub.org/atlantic/blog/2023/06/alice-waters-farm-table-movement-and-edible-schoolyard-project
  26. https://www.slowfood.com/our-history/
  27. https://sentientmedia.org/slow-food-movement/
  28. https://rodaleinstitute.org/blog/the-history-of-community-supported-agriculture/
  29. https://foodprint.org/blog/history-of-csa/
  30. https://www.localfutures.org/the-radical-roots-of-community-supported-agriculture/
  31. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2001.tb00246.x
  32. https://blog.oup.com/2007/11/prentice/
  33. https://www.ecowatch.com/local-food-movement-facts.html
  34. https://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/census-of-agriculture-reveals-the-promise-of-regional-food-systems/
  35. https://www.ams.usda.gov/local-food-directories/farmersmarkets
  36. https://farmersmarketcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Farmers-Market-Facts-Figures-2022.pdf
  37. https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/download/1321/1298/2794
  38. https://growthmarketreports.com/report/community-supported-agriculture-market
  39. https://ambrook.com/offrange/farm-finance/csa-to-market-credit-evolution
  40. https://www.escoffier.edu/blog/world-food-drink/analysis-of-local-food-production/
  41. https://extension.psu.edu/u-s-agritourism-and-direct-to-consumer-sales-census-update/
  42. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=112996
  43. https://foodsystems.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/10-1108_AFR-05-2021-0056-1.pdf
  44. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/local-regional-food-systems
  45. https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/lfpp
  46. https://civileats.com/2025/03/19/the-end-of-federal-support-for-local-food/
  47. https://www.farmtoschool.org/news-and-articles/action-alert-usda-terminates-660m-program-for-local-food-in-schools-and-child-care
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307554928_Policies_Supporting_Local_Food_in_the_United_States
  49. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/586650/EPRS_BRI%282016%29586650_EN.pdf
  50. https://www.arc2020.eu/does-eu-policy-have-an-appetite-for-local-food/
  51. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/young-people-agriculture-and-rural-areas/ivan-lauc-innovating-short-food-supply-chains-sustainable-future_en
  52. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/global-food-nutrition-security/topic/sustainable-food-systems/navigation-page/eu-action-sustainable-food-systems/eu-policies-sustainable-food-systems_en
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550921001883
  54. https://lfscovid.localfoodeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Consumer-Food-Insights-3.07-Changes-in-Expenditures-at-Local-Food-Market-Channels.pdf
  55. https://csafarms.ca/how-modern-urban-farms-are-revolutionizing-local-food-distribution/
  56. https://www.nal.usda.gov/farms-and-agricultural-production-systems/community-supported-agriculture
  57. https://www.fns.usda.gov/f2s/procuring-local-foods
  58. https://www.farmtoschool.org/news-and-articles/2025-mid-year-farm-to-school-state-policy-updates-100-bills-already-introduced
  59. https://foodcorps.org/blog-policy-2025-state-updates/
  60. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683565.2024.2341987
  61. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/field-fork-global-food-miles-generate-nearly-20-all-co2-emissions-food-2023-01-25_en
  62. https://www.carbonbrief.org/food-miles-have-larger-climate-impact-than-thought-study-suggests/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8147589/
  64. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266604902100030X
  66. https://www.cals.iastate.edu/news/2022/research-shows-significant-environmental-benefits-local-food-production
  67. https://cefs.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/research-based-support-for-local-food-systems.pdf
  68. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=44797
  69. https://amiba.net/local-multiplier/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11011336/
  71. https://extension.unh.edu/blog/2022/05/health-benefits-eating-locally
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7940455/
  73. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
  74. https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/life-cycle-assessment-domestic-vs-imported-vegetables.pdf
  75. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/6/1194
  76. https://record.umich.edu/articles/study-examines-carbon-footprint-of-urban-farmed-food/
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391466504_Debunking_the_%27Local_is_Greener%27_Myth_Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_Local_vs_Imported_Ingredients_in_Ice_Cream_Production
  78. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37118044/
  79. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3524
  80. http://publications.dyson.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/wp/2014/Cornell-Dyson-wp1415.pdf
  81. https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/download/664/650/1373
  82. https://fairfoodnetwork.org/from-the-field/buying-local-makes-economic-sense/
  83. https://ees.kuleuven.be/en/bioecon/working-paper-series/bioeconwp-2016-1.pdf
  84. https://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/healthy-eating/the-facts-about-local-produce/
  85. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3773/do-longer-shipping-times-and-or-distances-impact-the-nutritional-content-of-prod
  86. https://fshn.illinois.edu/news/how-healthy-are-tomatoes
  87. https://guidingstars.com/nutrition-science/does-eating-locally-make-a-difference-nutritionally/
  88. https://farmersmarketcoalition.org/education/support-healthy-communities/
  89. https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/download/959/932/1911
  90. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00531-w
  91. https://are.media.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2327/2022/03/Food-Miles-for-Thought.pdf
  92. https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2011/LuskNorwoodlocavore.html
  93. https://www.sustainweb.org/pdf/afn_m1_p2.pdf
  94. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/review-locavores-dilemma
  95. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/46393/7054_err97_1_.pdf
  96. https://www.canr.msu.edu/foodsystems/uploads/files/econ-impact-jafscd.pdf
  97. https://foodsystemsnutrition.org/article/harvesting-change-challenges-and-solutions-to-transform-local-food-systems-for-improved-nutrition/
  98. https://www.digicomply.com/blog/the-farm-to-table-movement-and-sustainable-food-production
  99. https://agrierp.com/blog/managing-fresh-produce-seasonality-and-demand-fluctuations/
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11031423/
  101. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2010/march/access-to-affordable-nutritious-food-is-limited-in-food-deserts
  102. https://healthimpacts.cornell.edu/social-determinants/improving-food-security-through-cost-offset-community-supported-agriculture-csa/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.