Effect of Localizing Fruit and Vegetable Consumption on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Nutrition ...

26 Pages·2011·0.29 MB·English

ARTICLE
pubs.acs.org/est
Effect of Localizing Fruit and Vegetable Consumption on Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Nutrition, Santa Barbara County
David A. Cleveland,*,† Corie N. Radka,||,‡ Nora M. M€uller,§,‡ Tyler D. Watson,^,‡ Nicole J. Rekstein,||,‡
Hannah Van M. Wright,3,‡ and Sydney E. Hollingshead‡
†EnvironmentalStudiesProgram,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara,California93106-4160,UnitedStates
‡Currentorformerundergraduatestudent,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara,California93106-4160,UnitedStates
b
S SupportingInformation
ABSTRACT:TheUSagrifoodsystemisveryproductive,but
highly centralizedandresource intensive with very weaklinks
betweenproductionandconsumption.Thiscontributestohigh
levelsofmalnutritionandgreenhousegasemissions(GHGE).
Apopularapproachtoimprovementislocalization—reducing
direct transport (farm to retail distance, or “food miles”). We
examined Santa Barbara County (SBC) California, which
mirrors the high production, nutritional and environmental
problems, and growing localization movement of California.
SBCranksinthetop1%ofUScountiesinvalueofagricultural
products, and >80% of this value is produce (fruits and
vegetables).WecalculatedtheamountofproducegrowninandconsumedinSBCandestimatedthat>99%ofproducegrown
inSBCisexportedfromthecounty,and>95%ofproduceconsumedinSBCisimported.IfallproduceconsumedinSBCwasgrown
inthecounty(100%localization),itwouldreduceGHGEfromtheagrifoodsystem<1%,andnotnecessarilyaffectnutrition.While
foodmilescaptureonlyaportionoftheenvironmentalimpactofagrifoodsystems,localizationcouldbedoneinwaysthatpromote
synergiesbetweenimprovingnutritionandreducingGHGE,andmanysucheffortsexistinSBC.
’INTRODUCTION vegetables;2manySBCresidentshavelownutritionalstatusand
foodsecurity.3,4
It is widely recognized that the conventional U.S. agrifood
WeanalyzedtheSBCagrifoodsystemforproduceintermsof
system, whilehighly productive,isunsustainable—ithasmajor
(a)theamountofproducegrowninandconsumedinSBC,and
negativeenvironmentalandsocialimpacts,includinglargecon-
exportedfromandimportedtoSBC,(b)theeffectsofthecur-
tributionstogreenhousegasemissions(GHGE)andhighlevels
rent system on GHGE and on nutrition, and (c) the potential
ofmalnutrition.Therehasbeenincreasinginterestinlocalizing
effect of complete localization—all produce consumed in SBC
agrifoodsystems,basedontheassumptionthatthespatial,eco-
also grown in SBC. Our goal is to stimulate discussion of how
nomic, and structural centralization of this system is a major
localizationasanindicatorofagrifoodsystemsustainabilitycan
causeofthesenegativeimpacts,.Twoquestionsneedtobean-
be rigorously related to two commonly stated goals of sustain-
swered about localization in each instance: “How local is this
ability—improvementinnutritionandreductioninGHGE.This
agrifoodsystem?”,and“Howwouldincreasinglocalizationhelp
isimportantnotonlyatthelocallevel,butatthenationallevel,
achievegoalsofdecreasingnegativeeffectsofthecurrentsystem?”
e.g.,inoverhaulingtheUSFarmBill.5
WeaddressedthesequestionsforSantaBarbaraCounty(SBC)
asacasestudyoftheCaliforniaandU.S.agrifoodsystemsandthe
potentialeffectoflocalization.SBCischaracterizedbythesame ’THEU.S.AGRIFOODSYSTEMANDTHEMOVETO
highproductionandenvironmentalandsocialproblemsevident LOCALIZATION
atthestatelevel,andmoregenerallyatthenationallevel.Wefo- Conventionalindustrialagriculturehasbeenverysuccessfulin
cusedonproduce(fruitandvegetables)becauseproduce(1)dom- increasingfoodproductiontokeeppacewithpopulationgrowth
inatesSBCagricultureeconomically,with82%oftotalvaluein andrisingpercapitaconsumptionbothglobally6andintheU.
2009 (calculated from ref 1); (2) dominates direct sales of S.7,8 It has also been very successful economically in terms of
agriculturalproductsinSBC;e.g.,salesofproduceattheSanta
BarbaraCertifiedFarmersMarketmarketsforNovember2008 Received: December1,2010
toSeptember2009were79%oftotalagriculturalsales(calculated Accepted: April13,2011
fromsalesdata);and(3)containsnutrientswidelybelievedtobe Revised: March25,2011
lackinginU.S.dietsduetounderconsumptionoffreshfruitand Published: April22,2011
r2011AmericanChemicalSociety 4555 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1040317|Environ.Sci.Technol.2011,45,4555–4562
EnvironmentalScience&Technology
ARTICLE
generating large sales of inputs, crops, and processed foods. A Thecentralizedagrifoodsystemalsopromotesdietscontributing
majorfactorhasincreasedlaborefficiencyfromuseofmachinery tomalnutritionandrelatedchronicdiseasessuchasobesityand
andfossilfuels,sothatagricultureinhighlyindustrialcountries diabetes. Average food energy consumption in the U.S. has in-
liketheUSisveryenergyintensiveandcentralized,withavery creasedby533caloriesperson(cid:1)1day(cid:1)1since1970,8comprising
smallproportionofthepopulationworkingonfarms;largerfarms mostlyfatsandoils,refinedgrains,andsweeteners19whichpro-
whichcancaptureeconomiesofscaledominateproductionand videdmorecaloriesday(cid:1)1thananyotherfoodgroupin2007.8
receivemostgovernmentsubsidies.9 There is lower consumption of more nutritious foods such as
However, as the world continues to experience what many fruitsandvegetables.7Low-incomeandfoodinsecurepeopleare
perceiveasamajorfoodcrisis,10thereisincreasingevidencethat especiallyvulnerabletopoornutritionandhealthproblemsdue
the conventional agrifood system is unsustainable because of toriskfactorssuchaslackofaccesstohealthyfood.20
negative environmental, social, and economic impacts.7,11 It is Localization As a Solution. One increasingly popular re-
often assumed that a major cause is its spatial, economic and sponsetotheseperceivedproblemsisdecreasingthespatial,eco-
structural centralization, with two major effects frequently em- nomic,andstructuralcentralizationofagrifoodsystems,i.e.,in-
phasizedinresearchandpopularmediabeingitscontributionto creasing their “localness”, emphasizing “foodsheds”, i.e., where
GHGEandmalnutrition. thefoodconsumedbyapopulationisproduceddefinedprimar-
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Centralization of the agrifood ilyintermsoffoodmiles(e.g.,refs21and22).Amongthemost
systemresultsinincreasingdistancebetweeninputsandproduc- frequently mentioned potential benefits are reducing GHGE
tion,andbetweenproductionandconsumption,increasingnot fromburningfossilfuelsintransportation,andimprovingnutrition
onlyGHGEfromgreatertransportation,packaging,andstorage by increasing the availability and therefore the consumption of
requirements, but from potentially greater production require- freshfruitsandvegetables.23
mentsduetoincreasingproportionofwaste.“Foodmiles”(distance Thefocusisoftenonthepotentialforspatiallydefinedpopula-
fromfarmtoretail,or“directtransport”)isanespeciallypopular tions to be fed from within arbitrarily defined foodsheds, for
measure of environmental impact in terms of contribution to example,SanFranciscowithina100-mileradiusoftheGolden
GHGE. Weber and Matthews estimated that in 2004 the aver- Gate,22 and population centers within New York State “in the
agedistancemovedbyfoodconsumedintheUSwas2050km minimumdistancepossible”withinthestate.24Thespatialextent
(1250 mi) farm to retail, and 8240 km (5120 mi) in total, an of production and consumption captures only a portion of the
increaseof25%since1997,mainlyduetoincreasedimportfrom environmental impact of agrifood systems, however, and more
outsideoftheU.S.12IntermsofGHGE,foodmilesaccountedfor comprehensivelifecycleassessment(LCA)isincreasinglyseen
∼40%ofagrifoodsystemGHGEfromtransport,butonly∼4% asamorevalid method,12thoughmorechallenging,withmost
oftotalagrifoodsystemGHGE.12 worktodatedoneinEurope.13
Research on the climate impact of agrifood systems is a rel-
ativelynewfieldwithmanymethodologicalchallengesforgathering ’METHODS
andanalyzingdata,13andrequiresdrawingarbitraryboundaries
Assessing the sustainability of an agrifood system is challen-
inspace,time,andfoodsystemsstructure,basedonassumptions
ging. While the positive direct economic effects (amount and
aboutwhichthereismuchdisagreement.Forexample,theU.S.
value of production) and positive economic externalities (e.g.,
EPAestimateofGHGEfromagricultureisbasedonspatialand
nonagriculturalemploymentgenerated)aretracked,therelation-
systemboundariesthatresultinestimatingthatagriculturedirectly
shipbetweenagrifoodsystemsandthenegativeexternalities(e.g.,
accounted for 6.1% of U.S. anthropogenic GHGE,14 and the
GHGEs, lowered water quality, decreased biodiversity, unjust
IPCC estimated 10(cid:1)12% globally.15 Weber and Matthews12
laborpractices,increasedcostoffood,malnutrition)areinvisible
used an input(cid:1)output life cycle assessment (IO-LCA) metho-
becausenodataaresystematicallycollected.5Inaddition,there
dologywhichextendedtheboundariesspatiallyandsystemically
has been little interest until lately in tracing the often complex
totheagrifoodsystem,butdidnotincludelanduseorpostretail
trajectories connecting the locations where food is grown and
components, resulting in an estimate of 8.1 MT CO e (metric
2 whereitisconsumed.
tons carbon dioxide equivalents) U.S. household(cid:1)1 in 1997,
Therefore,formanyoftheimportantcomponentsoftheSBC
12.7% of total GHGE household(cid:1)1 in that year (calculations
agrifoodsystem,wemadeestimatesbasedonourownresearch,
based on ref 14). Goodland and Anhang draw boundaries more
extrapolationfromexistingdata,andonconversionfactorsdevel-
broadly,forexampleattributingGHGEtolossofvegetationwith
opedbyotherresearchers.OurdataforproducegrowninSBC
original conversion natural vegetation to pasture, rather than
and produce consumed in SBC are for 2008; our annualized
crediting existing pasture with carbon sequestration, and esti-
estimatesforSBCgrownproduceconsumedinSBCarebasedon
mate that globally the animal portion of the agrifood system
datawecollectedfordifferentperiodsbetween2008and2009.
aloneaccountsfor51%ofallanthropogenicGHGE.16
Weusetheword“local”tomeanwithinSBC,unlessotherwise
Malnutrition.Inpoornationsgloballyhungerandmalnutri-
indicated.Detailsofmethodsaregivenintherelevantsections
tionhavebeenincreasingprimarilyduetolackoffood,andthe
below,intheSupportingInformation(SI)andinthetables.
absolutenumberofhungrygloballyreachedmorethanonebillion
in2009,thehighestnumbersince1970,thoughithasdeclined
’THESBCAGRIFOODSYSTEM
duringthelastyear.10Hungerisalsopresentinthericherindustrial
nationsliketheU.S.17AmongallhouseholdsintheU.S.in2008, Ourfirstquestionwas“HowlocalistheSBCagrifoodsystem?”
theprevalenceoffoodinsecurity(14.6%)andverylowfoodsecurity SBCisanagriculturalcountyintermsofresourceuse,employ-
(5.7%)wasthehighest“sincethefirstnationallyrepresentative ment,andproduction.Accordingtothe2007censusofagricul-
food security survey in 1995”.17 (Food insecurity is broadly ture,41%ofalllandinthecountyisinagriculture,mostofwhich
defined as households which have had uncertainty and/or (87%)isusedforgrazingorpasturewhiletheremainderiscrop
difficultyinsupplyingadequatefoodforallfamilymembers.18) land.25 About 77% of water use in SBC is from groundwater26
4556 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1040317|Environ.Sci.Technol.2011,45,4555–4562
EnvironmentalScience&Technology
ARTICLE
andtheremaindersurfacewater(localorimportedviatheState buyers involved for the other transaction points. We assumed
WaterProject),withmostofthisusedbyagriculture,26estimated that all produce going through CSAs, farm stands and Upick
at74%oftotalwaterusein2000.27 operationswasSBCgrown.Wemadegenerousestimateswhere
SBC agricultural production in 2008 was valued at $1.14 datawereespeciallydifficulttoobtain—farmstands,U-pickop-
billion,whichplaceditinthetop1%ofallcountiesintheU.S. erations, the public school system and restaurants. Our results
and14thof58countiesinCalifornia;fruits,vegetables,andnuts were3871MT(8.53millionlbs.)ofproducegrowninandcon-
rankedfirstinvalue(80%),withnurseryproductssecond(16%), sumedinSBCyear(cid:1)1(TableS-3oftheSI).
and livestock, poultry, and their products (along with apiary Whiledifficulttoquantify,itseemscertainthatsomeproduce
products) accounting for only 2% of the county’s agricultural that is exported to distribution centers outside of SBC is subse-
productionvalue.28 quentlyimportedtogrocerystoresandothertransactionpoints
ProduceGrowninandConsumedinSBC.TablesS-1and in SBC, and several farmers told us of such occurrences. SBC
S-2oftheSIshowthevegetablesandfruitsproducedinSBCin grownproducethatisexportedandthenimportedisinimportant
2008,totaling1.07millionMT(metrictons;2.36billionpounds). ways (e.g., freshness, packaging, GHGE) similar to produce
WhileproducedominatesSBCagriculturalproductioneconom- grownoutsidethecountyandimported,andwedidnotinclude
ically,itoccupiesasmallproportionofagriculturalland.In2007 estimatesforthisinLcp.
landharvestedforfruitandvegetableswas94000acres,or13% ProduceExportandImportintheSBCAgrifoodSystem.
of all agricultural land in SBC (the remainder being almost all WeusedUSDAdataonfooddisappearanceforfruitsandvegetables
rangeland,calculatedfromdatainref25). (fresh and processed) in the US for 20088 and the 2008 pop-
InordertoestimatehowmuchproduceisexportedfromSBC, ulation of SBC (405 296)29 to estimate the total amount of
and how much is imported for consumption, we first had to produceconsumedyear(cid:1)1inSBC,andconvertedthistoprimary
estimatetheamountofproducegrowninSBCthatisconsumed weight. Together withour estimates ofproducegrown inSBC
inthecounty.Wegatheredorestimateddataonthedollarvalue (TablesS-1andS-2oftheSI)andproducegrownandconsumed
ofsales(bywholesalersorretailers)orpurchases(byretailersor in SBC (Table S-3 of the SI) we were able to calculate the
consumers)ofSBCgrownproducebythefollowingentitiesin amountsexportedandimported:<1%ofproducegrowninSBC
SBC: farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture pro- isconsumedinSBC,and<4%ofproduceconsumedinSBCis
grams(CSAs),U-pickoperations,grocerystores,farm-to-school grown in SBC (Table 1). The amount of SBC grown produce
programs, institutional sales/purchases, and food assistance pro- consumed directly in SBC is so small, that even if the actual
grams (see SI). We assumed that the food sold, purchased, or amount was 3 times our estimate, it would be <10% of total
donatedwithinSBCthroughthesemeanswasconsumedinSBC. estimatedproduceconsumptioninSBC,and<2%ofSBCgrown
Wedidnotincludehomeorcommunitygardens,exceptasthey produce.
contributedto foodassistanceprograms(this amountwasalso
addedtothetotalproducedinSBC).
’THEPOTENTIALEFFECTSOFLOCALIZATIONONTHE
Toestimatethecurrentextentoflocalizationforproducefor
SBCAGRIFOODSYSTEM
SBC(Lcp),definedasthequantityofproducegrowninSBCthat
isconsumeddirectlyinSBC,weusedeq1, Oursecondquestionwas“Howwouldincreasinglocalization
of the SBC agrifood system help achieve goals of decreasing
∑T ∑n negative effects of thecurrent system—reduce GHGE andim-
Lcp ¼ ½ðSi=W(cid:1)$Þ=A(cid:3)(cid:4)Pi ð1Þ provenutrition?”SBCcurrentlyproduces∼9timesthefruitsand
t¼1i¼1
vegetables consumed in the county (Table 1), so there are no
whichsumsforallsalesorpurchasetransactionpoints(t,where physical limits to completely localizing the produce agrifood
Tisthetotalnumberoftransactionpoints,listedintherowsin system.Inaddition,productionforSBCconsumptionwouldnot
TableS-3oftheSI),forallindividualentities(i)ineachtransaction require large export-oriented farms to change their operation.
point,theamountofsalesorpurchasesindollars(S)dividedby Farms <50 acres account for 13 744 acres, equal to 1.8% of
i
unitweightdollar(cid:1)1(W-$)toobtainweightofproducetransac- agricultural land and 14.7% of harvested cropland in SBC in
tions.Weconvertedthistoprimary(farmgate)weightbydividing 2007.Ifthesefarmsproducedfruitsandvegetableswiththeaver-
by proportion available (A), and multiplied by the proportion ageyieldoffruitsandvegetablesinSBCin2008,thentheycould
growninSBC(P). produce114%oftheestimatedconsumptionofproduceinSBC
i
For making the conversions we used the following: (1) To in2008 (118 348MT,Table1) (calculations based on data in
obtainweightofproducesold/purchased(S/W-$)weconverted refs25and28).
i
dollaramountofsalesorpurchasesusingestimatedaveragepounds GHGEandFoodTransport.Thereispotentialforlocalization
dollar(cid:1)1 for transactions for each transaction point, using data to contribute significantly to reducing GHGE from SBC. The
availableforarepresentativememberatthatpoint,sincewewere IO-LCAestimateof8.1MTGHGECO ehousehold(cid:1)1yr(cid:1)1for
2
notabletoobtaindataforallmembers.(2)Toobtainprimary theUSagrifoodsystemin199712is∼12.7%ofthetotalGHGE
weight(amounttransactedatfarmgate),wedividedtheweight that year.14 The EPA estimated that total US GHGE CO e
2
ofproducesold/purchased(S/W-$)bytheproportionavailable person(cid:1)1 in 2008 was 22.8 MT, with 1.40 MT from the pro-
i
(A,afterfoodlosttowastewassubtracted) ateachtransaction ductionportionoftheagrifoodsystemalone.14
point, based on USDA estimates for different stages of the To estimate the GHGE CO e for direct transport (farm to
2
agrifoodsystemforproduce.8(3)Finally,toobtainthecurrent retail)ofproduceimportedintoSBC,wesummedGHGECO e
2
extentoflocalizationforproduceforSBC(Lcp),wemultiplied for all three categories of produce from Weber and Matthews
the primary weight of produce sold by the proportion of that IO-LCAoftheUSagrifoodsystem12(themostrecentfortheUS),
produce grown in SBC (Pi), using estimates based on farm calculated the GHGE CO2e household(cid:1)1 yr(cid:1)1, and multiplied
locationforfarmers’markets, andinformationfromsellers and thatquantitybythenumberofhouseholdsinSBCin2008.29
4557 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1040317|Environ.Sci.Technol.2011,45,4555–4562
EnvironmentalScience&Technology
ARTICLE
Table1. SBCProduceExportandImporta
weightMT(pounds) with100%localization(allconsumedinSBCgrowninSBC)
1 grownSBCb(MT) 1068957 1068957
(lbs) 2356646728 2356646728
2 consumedinSBCc(MT) 118348 118348
(lbs) 260912866 260912866
3 consumedinSBCas%growninSBC 11.07% 11.07%
4 grownandconsumedSBCd(MT) 3871 118348
(lbs) 8534708 260912866
5 grownandconsumedSBCas%grown 0.36% 11.07%
6 exportedfromSBCe(MT) 1065086 950609
(lbs) 2348112020 2095733862
7 exportedas%grown 99.64% 88.93%
8 importedtoSBCf(MT) 114477 0
(lbs) 252378158 0
9 importedas%consumed 96.73% 0.00%
10 grownandconsumedSBCas%consumed 3.27% 100.00%
aAnnualestimatesarearebasedondatafor2008and2009.Allweightswereconvertedtoprimary(farmgate)weights.bDatafromref28withamountfor
BackyardHarvestadded.cCalculatedas:[populationofSBC200829](cid:4)[averageannualconsumptionfruitsandvegetablesconvertedtoprimaryweight8].
dFromTableS-3oftheSI.e=(row1)(cid:1)(row4).f=(row2)(cid:1)(row4).
Table2. GHGECO eyr(cid:1)1fromImportandExportofProduceintheSBCAFS
2
GHGECOetotalforproduceinU.S.1997a,c(MTCOe) 68555632
2 2
GHGECOetotalfordirecttransportationofproduceinU.S.,1997a,b,c(MTCOe) 7521442
2 2
householdsinU.S.199712 101000000
GHGEMTCOehh-1totalforproduceinU.S.1997a(MTCOehh-1) 0.679
2 2
GHGEMTCOehh-1fordirecttransportationoffruitandveginU.S.1997a(MTCOehh-1) 0.074
2 2
households(“housingunits”)inSBC,200829 151763
proportionproduceimportedtoSBC,2008 96.7%
totalGHGEMTCOetotalforproduceconsumedinSBCthatisimportedintoSBC(forproportionimported2008)(MTCOe) 99642
2 2
totalGHGEMTCOefordirecttransportationofproduceconsumedinSBCthatisimportedinto 10932
2
SBC(forproportionimported2008)(MTCOe)
2
totalproduceimportedintoSBCforconsumption,2008(MT)(1MT=2204.623lbs)(Table1) 114477
averagekmtraveled(roundtrip)fromfarmtoretailforproducegrownandconsumeddirectlyinSBCd 65
directtransportofproduce(MT)withinSBC(km)(assume1MTaverageload) 7440991
MTCO km(cid:1)1fordirecttransportationofproduceinSBC,assuminglightdutytrucks(below6000poundsor2.72MT), 0.00028118
2
averagedformodelyears1995(cid:1)2008;N.B.,CO,notCOe.47
2 2
CO fordirecttransportationwhenallproducegrownandconsumedinSB(MT)(assumemostGHGEfromlighttrucktransportisCO) 2092
2 2
potentialnetsavingsCOeformaximumlocalizationofSBC(MTCOeyr(cid:1)1)forreducedimports 8840
2 2
potentialsavingshousehold(cid:1)1(MTCOeyr(cid:1)1)formaximumlocalizationofSBC(importsonly) 0.058
2
potentialsavingshousehold(cid:1)1asproportionofU.S.averagetotalhouseholdagrifoodsystemGHGEin1997,importsonly12 0.0072
potentialsavingshousehold(cid:1)1asproportionoftotalhouseholdGHGEforallproduce 0.0858
potentialsavingsperson(cid:1)1yr(cid:1)1asproportionofU.S.averagetotalGHGECOeperson-1in1997,24.2MT14,29 0.0009
2
potentialsavingsperson(cid:1)1yr(cid:1)1asproportionofU.S.averagetotalGHGECO2eperson-1in2008,22.9MT14,29 0.0010
aOnthebasisofthelifecycleassessmentofGHGEforfoodconsumedbyU.S.householdsin1997,12inCO equivalents(CO e).WeberandMathews
2 2
estimatedthatGHGEfromdirecttransportincreasedby5%between1997and2004.12bDirecttransportation=finaldeliverytransportationordelivery
fromfarmtoretailstore,andisonecomponentofthesupplychainwhichalsoincludedindirecttransportation,wholesalingandretailing,passenger
transportation,andproduction.cWeberandMatthews12usedU.S.DepartmentofCommercecommodityflowdataforthreecommoditygroups:
vegetableandmelonfarming,fruitfarming,andcanned/driedfruitsandvegetables.dRoundtripestimatebasedondataforfarmersmarketvendorsin
WesternU.S.,30seetext.
Wefoundthatunderthecurrentexport-importagrifoodsystem, CO emissionsforthedirecttransportwithinSBCofthequantityof
2
produceimportedintoSBCaccountsfor∼100000MTCO e,with producecurrentlyimported.Weestimatedtheaveragedistance
2
∼11000MTofthisfordirecttransport(Table2). foraroundtripbetweenfarmanddeliverypointas60km,based
To estimate the effect of complete localization by produce on data for the Far West region (Alaska, California, Hawaii,
import substitution of SBC grown produce, we calculated the Nevada, Oregon, and Washington): 57.4% of farmers’ market
4558 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1040317|Environ.Sci.Technol.2011,45,4555–4562
EnvironmentalScience&Technology
ARTICLE
vendors traveled 5 miles (8.0 km) or less, and 89.3% 20 miles Nutrition. There is also ample potential for localization to
(32.2km)orless(comparedwith58.0%and92.9%fortheU.S., contributetoreducingmalnutritioninSBC.WhileSBCisgenerally
respectively).30 consideredtobeanaffluentcountyandhasamedianhousehold
WethenusedEPAestimatesofCO emissionsforlighttrucks, incomeof$60645,slightlybelowtheCAaverageand17thhighest
2
assumedanaverageloadof1MTtruck(cid:1)1andcalculatedthenet of58CAcounties,36italsohashighlevelsoffoodinsecurityand
emissionssavingsof8925MTCO eyr(cid:1)1fromlocalization.We malnutrition.
2
didnotmakeanyassumptionsabouthowthisimportsubstitu- SBC ranks 11th of 58 CA counties (1 = best) in terms of
tion might affect exports. If an equivalent amount of produce number of overweight or obese adults and children.3 In 2007
werenolongerexported,andthoselocationsnolongerimport- 53%ofSBCadultswereoverweightorobese,22%obese,and7%
ingthisSBC-grownproducereplaceditwithlocalproduce,the diagnosed with diabetes;37 in 2004 25.8% of children were
net reduction in GHGE would be doubled (assuming other overweight.38 Obesity prevalence is 21% higher among the
factorsareequaltotheirvalueinSBC). Hispanic/Latino population (∼40% of SBC residents29).39
This amounts to a savings household(cid:1)1 of only 0.058 MT, Healthconsequencesofobesityincludeincreasedriskforchronic
∼0.7%oftheaverageUShousehold’sagrifoodsystemGHGEin conditionssuchasdiabetes,heartdisease,cancer,arthritis,stroke,
1997(8.1MT,percalculationsofref12),and∼9%ofproduce andhypertension;ratesofobesityanddiabetesarehighestand
GHGE.Wealsocalculatedthesavingsperson(cid:1)1asaproportion rising the fastest among low-income residents and people of
oftotalUSGHGECO2eperson(cid:1)1(MT)forboth1997(24.2) color.40
and2008(22.9)basedonEPAdataandfoundsavingsfortotal Insurveysoflow-incomeadults(thoseresidinginhouseholds
localization of produce in SBC to be e0.1% (calculated using withincomeslessthan200%ofthefederalpovertylevel),SBC
data from refs 14 and 29). However, our calculations would ranks 47th highest of the 58 California counties (1 = best) in
overestimatethereductioninGHGEduetolocalizationtothe prevalenceoffoodinsecurity.SBChasafoodinsecurityrateof
extentthattheenergyintensityoffreshmarketedvegetableshas 39.5%orapproximately37000residents.3Inaddition,17.6%or
also been increasing, as it did 1997(cid:1)2002 (i.e., total agrifood 15000oftheseresidentsareaffectedby“verylowfoodsecurity,”
systemenergyinthissectorincreased17.2%annually1997(cid:1)2002, meaning a condition of severe food insecuritycharacterized by
amuchhigherratethanpercapitaexpenditures).31 disruptionofeatingpatternsandreductioninfoodintake.41Low
Wealsomadethesecalculationsusingestimatesoftranspor- incomeandfoodinsecureresidentsareespeciallyatriskforpoor
tation GHGE for 2008, based on Weber and Mathews,1 who nutrition and health problems because they have unique risk
estimatedthatfrom1997to2004theincreaseinGHGEofthe factorsthatmakehealthyeatingmorechallenging.20Statewidein
agrifoodsystemduetoincreasedtransportdistanceswas0.91to 2005,40.1%oflow-incomeadultswithfairorpoorhealthstatus
0.96 (5.5%), and for direct transport only 0.35 to 0.36 (2.9%) livedinfood-insecurehouseholdscomparedto24.8%ofadults
MTCO ehousehold(cid:1)1yr(cid:1)1.Wedoubledthoseincreases(11.0% withgood,verygoodorexcellenthealth.41
2
and 5.7% respectively) to conservatively estimate the increase Foodinsecurityandpoornutritioncanbepartlyattributedto
from1997to2008(notshowninTable2).Theseadjustments obstaclesinobtaininghealthyfood.SBChasthreetimesasmany
madeaninsignificantdifferenceinproportionsavingsdueto100% fast-foodrestaurantsandconveniencestoresassupermarketsand
localization. produce vendors.4 Neighborhoods without access to healthy
Itisnotsurprisingthattotallocalizationresultsinsuchasmall foodfromsupermarketsorgrocerystoresarebecomingknown
reductioninGHGEforSBC.Lifecycleanalysesshowthatfood as “food deserts”, where residents may have more health pro-
transportaccountsforarelativelysmallproportionofGHGEin blems and higher mortality rates than residents in areas with a
theU.S.Anestimatefor1997is83%oflifecycleGHGECO ein higherproportionofgrocerystores.42Inlow-incomeneighbor-
2
theagrifoodsystemwascontributedbyproductionandproces- hoods,onestudyestimatedthateachadditionalsupermarketin-
sing,withonly11%bytransport,including4%fordirectdelivery creasedthelikelihoodofresidentsmeetingnutritionalguidelines
(farm gate to retail).12 Direct delivery accounted for a higher byone-third.42However,measurementoffooddesertsandtheir
proportionofGHGECO eforproduce—11%,whichwas39% relationshipstodietandnutritionarecomplex,andcausalrelation-
2
of total transport for this commodity group. However, direct shipsremaincontroversialandappeartobehighlycontextspecific.43
deliveryofproducewasonly2.5%oftotalfoodsystemGHGE Low-incomeresidentsalsospendagreaterproportionoftheir
CO e(calculatedbasedondatainref12),andonly0.3%oftotal incomeonfood(upto25%forthelowestincomebracket)com-
2
net GHGE CO e in the U.S., using the 1995 total, which over- paredtotheU.S.averageofjustbelow10%.44Healthy,nutritious
2
estimatesthisproportion.14 foodsarebecomingmoredifficultfortheAmericanconsumerto
Inaddition,itisalsoimportantto note that“local”isacon- obtain,withthepriceoffruitsandvegetablesincreasingby40%
troversialterm,andthatthecommonassumptionthatdecreasing inthelast25years.Atthesametime,thepriceofsweets,fatsand
foodmileswillalways,orevenusually,resultinlowerGHGEhas oils,andsoftdrinkshasdeclined,leavingmanyAmericans,especially
beenincreasinglychallengedinfavoramoreholisticassessment low-incomeandfoodinsecurecitizens,morelikelytopurchase
of the agrifood system.32,33 For example, a study in the U.K. calorie-densefoodsthataretypicallyhighinfat,sugar,andsalt.45
foundthatifconsumersdrivemorethan7.4km(4.6miles)to Therefore,thereisgreatpotentialforlocalizationtoimprove
purchaseorganic produce directfrom thefarm,theGHGE are nutritioninSBC.However,simplysubstitutingSBCgrownfor
greaterthan“theemissionsfromthesystemofcoldstorage,packing, imported produce will not automatically have a positive effect,
transport to a regional hub and final transport to customer’s because there are many intervening cultural, social, economic,
doorstepusedbylarge-scalevegetableboxsuppliers”.34Acom- and geographic obstacles, including national agrifood policy.5
parison between locally produced food in the U.K. vs imports Forlocalizationtoimprovenutritionanumberofotherchanges
fromNewZealandfoundthatapplesandonionsproducedinand wouldbeneededtoovercometheseobstacles.
shipped from New Zealand to the U.K. were more energy ThePotentialforSynergy.Localizationinitsmostpopular
efficientthanthosegrownintheU.K.35 form, reduction in food miles, will not necessarily advance the
4559 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1040317|Environ.Sci.Technol.2011,45,4555–4562
EnvironmentalScience&Technology
ARTICLE
goals of reduced GHGE and improved nutrition. However, are intertwined with many other important variables.5,12 For
localization could be designed and carried out in ways that in- example, it is important not to overlook the extent to which
creased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables among all “local”agricultureisdependentonimportedlabor.Agriculturein
residents of SBC to recommended levels, and therefore im- SBCandCaliforniahashistoricallybeendependentonnoncom-
provednutrition,whileatthesametimereducingGHGE.5(See petitivemigrantlabor,recentlysuppliedprimarilybyimmigrants
SIformoredetails.) fromMexicoandCentralAmerica.Therefore,localizationofthe
SBC agrifood system may be at the price of delocalization of
communities in Mexico and Central America. A complete life-
’DISCUSSION
cycleassessmentwouldrequireinclusionoftheeffectsofmigrant
Theglobalized,centralized,industrialagrifoodsystemishighly labor on both the communities people migrate from as well as
productive but has created a major disconnect between food thoseinSBCwheretheyhelpproducefood.
productionandconsumptionassociatedwithanumberofmajor Thereareofcoursemanyadditionalpossiblecultural,social,
socialandenvironmental costs, including high levelsof malnu- health,economic,andenvironmentalbenefitsoflocalization.There
tritionandGHGE.Localizationoftheagrifoodsystemisoften arealsomanyfinancial,logistic,andinfrastructuralobstaclesto
suggested as a remedy for these negative effects, and there is a effective localization—it would require changes in consumer
surgeofinterestinandmovementtowardlocalizingagrifoodsys- shoppingandeatinghabits,farmers’productionandmarketing
temsinSBC,acrosstheU.S.andaroundtheworld.Twoquestions strategies,andcommunityandgovernmentactiontochangere-
thatneedtobeansweredaboutlocalizationineachinstanceare gulationsforland,water,farmlabor,marketing,andfoodsafety.
“How local is this agrifood system now?”, and “How would Those who control and profit from the currently dominant
increasing localization help achieve the goals of decreasing centralizedagrifoodsystemmayseelocalizationasathreatand
negativeeffectsofcurrentsystem—viz.malnutritionandGHGE?” resist it, e.g., by using food safety regulations in ways that dis-
OurresearchaddressedthesequestionfortheSBCagrifood criminateagainstsmall-scalefarmers,directmarketing,andlocal
system for produce. Our answer to the first question was “not distributionhubs.46
very”—theSBCagrifoodsystemproduces∼9timestheamount Theoverarchingobjectiveofourresearchistocontributeto
ofproduceconsumedinthecounty,yetalmostallofthefruits achievingthegoalsofthethrivinglocalizationmovementinSBC
andvegetablesgrowninSBCareexported,andalmostallofthe andelsewhere,byprovidinginformationabouttheagrifoodsystem
fruitsandvegetablesconsumedinthecountyareimported.Our andthepotentialforlocalizationtoproducepositiveeffects.By
answers to the second question were that totally localizing the scientificallyanalyzingtheconnectionsbetweentheindicatorof
producesystemwouldreduceGHGEveryminimallyasaresult localizationandthegoalsforimprovingtheagrifoodsystem(viz.
ofreducingfarm-retailtransportbyeliminatingproduceimports decreasingGHGEandimprovingnutrition),ourresultscanhelp
tothecounty,andwouldnotnecessarilyimprovenutrition. inrefiningbothindicatorsandstrategiesforreachinggoals.
However,answeringthesetwoquestionscanprovidethebasis
formakingprogresstowardthegoalswhichlocalizationismeant
’ASSOCIATEDCONTENT
tofurtherandofwhichisfrequentlyassumedtobeanindicator.
Mostsignificantly,therearepotentialpositivesynergiesbetween b
S Supporting Information. Data on produce grown in
improvingnutritionanddecreasingGHGE—theextenttowhich
SBC, additionalmethods for calculating produce growninand
localizationincreasesaccesstolocal,freshproduceforallcounty
consumed in SBC, and details of potential synergies between
residentsinwaysthatoptimizenutritioncanbedoneinwaysthat
improved nutrition and reduced GHGE. This material is avail-
alsoreduceGHGE.
ablefreeofchargeviatheInternetathttp://pubs.acs.org.
InSBC,therearemanyeffortstoincreaselocallygrownpro-
duceinsalesatgrocerystores,farmers’markets,andCSAs,farm-
’AUTHORINFORMATION
to-schoolprograms,backyardharvestprograms,andthecreation
oflocaldistributionhubs.Althoughtheselocalalternativestothe CorrespondingAuthor
predominant export(cid:1)importagrifood system of SBC currently *E-mail:[email protected].
accountforonlyatinyfractionofthetotalproduceconsumedin
PresentAddresses
thecounty,theyhavethepotentialtolocalizetheSBCagrifood
§CurrentlyGraduatestudent,L’EcoledesAffairesInternationales
systeminwaysthatcouldpromotesynergiesbetweenimproved
deSciencesPo,27,rueSaintGuillaume,75337Paris,France
nutritionandreductionsinGHGE.
)CurrentlyResearchAssistant,EnvironmentalStudiesProgram,
However, to achieve this result, it will be important to con-
UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara.
tinuallycheckthecausalconnectionsbetweenlocalizationperse
^Currently, Santa Barbara County Public Health Department,
(“foodmiles”)andthegoalsitismeanttoserve—atheoretically,
and Campus Learning Assistance Services, University of Cali-
methodologically,andempiricallychallengingandcontroversial
fornia,SantaBarbara,CA.
task. Data are often difficult to find or generate, and decisions
3Currently,OutreachCoordinator,IslaVistaFoodCooperative.
aboutwhattoincludeorexcludearecontroversial.Othergoalsof
localization often considered as important as reducing GHGE
and malnutrition include nurturing local communities, conser-
’ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ving historically important activities and landscapes, and redu-
cing security risks of long supply chains—and these are even Thankstothefollowing:Forgenerouslysharinginformation
moredifficulttomeasure and insights about the SBC AFS: David Montano, Melissa
LCAisanimportanttoolandisbeginningtomakeimportant Cohen,andDylanKuenzi,IslaVistaFoodCo-op;SamEdelman,
contributions to our understanding of agrifood systems. Yet, Santa Barbara Certified Farmers’ Market; Wesley Sleight and
whileLCAfocusesonenergyandmaterialsinput/output,these AnnaBreaux,FarmerDirectProduce;BonnieCrouseandTerry
4560 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1040317|Environ.Sci.Technol.2011,45,4555–4562
EnvironmentalScience&Technology
ARTICLE
Thomas, UCSB Residential Dining Services; Doug Hagensen, Issues and Research Methods; UC Davis Agricultural Sustainability
BackyardHarvestSantaBarbara;JaneLindsey,SBCFoodbank; Institute:Davis,CA,October8(cid:1)10,2007,2008.
Eric Cardenas and Judy Sims, s’Cool Food Initiative; Chris (14) EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2010 U.S.
Thompson; Tom Shepherd, Shepherd Farms; Pam Plesons, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. http://www.epa.gov/climate-
PlowtoPorch;LauraLyle,PeabodyCharterSchool;andmany change/emissions/usinventoryreport.html;accessed2010April25.
(15) Smith,P.;Martino,D.;Cai,Z.;Gwary,D.;Janzen,H.;Kumar,
othermembersoftheSBCagrifoodsystem.Forhelpwithdata
P.;McCarl,B.;Ogle,S.;O’Mara,F.;Rice,C.;Scholes,B;;Sirotenko,O.,
collectionand/orthelargerproject,formerundergraduateRAs:
Agriculture.InClimateChange2007:Mitigation.ContributionofWorking
Ingrid Avison, Katie Brimm, Julian de Rubiera, Heidi Diaz,
GroupIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelon
Anthony Hearst, Dominique Liuzzi, Sarah Roth, and Jonathan ClimateChange;Metz,B.,Davidson,O.R.,Bosch,P.R.,Dave,R.,Meyer,
Weber. For many helpful insights and comments on drafts: L. A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K. and New
Daniela Soleri, Geography Deparment, UCSB; for comments York,2007;pp497(cid:1)540.
onadraft:StephanieM.Gaffney,EnvironmentalStudies,UCSB; (16) Goodland,R.;Anhang,J.Livestockandclimatechange.World-
andforusefulcommentsforrevision,twoanonymousreviewers Watch2009,Nov-Dec,10-19
forES&TandGidonEshel,PhysicsDepartment,BardCollege. (17) Nord,M.;Andrews,M.;Carlson,S.HouseholdFoodSecurity
For explanations of their data analyses: Christopher L. Weber, intheUnitedStates,200866pp,November2009.http://www.ers.usda.
gov/publications/err83/;accessed2009November26.
Department of Civil & Environmental Engneering, Carnegie
(18) Buzby, J. C.; Farah Wells, H.; Axtman, B.; Mickey, J. Super-
Mellon U., Hodan Farah Wells, Economic Research Service,
marketLossEstimatesforFreshFruit,Vegetables,Meat,Poultry,and
USDA.FordiscussionofLCAandagrifoodsystemlocalization:
SeafoodandTheirUseintheERSLoss-AdjustedFoodAvailabilityData.
Sonja Brodt and Gail Feenstra, Agricultural Sustainability In- http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB44/EIB44.pdf; accessed 2010
stitute, UC Davis. For funding: UCSB Academic Senate for a March7.
faculty research grant; UCSB Academic Senate Sustainability (19) Putnam,J.;Allshouse,J.;Scott,K.U.S.percapitafoodsupply
WorkingGroup(withfundsfromTheGreenInitiativeFundand trends:Morecalories,refinedcarbohydrates,andfats.FoodRev.2002,
theOfficeoftheExecutiveViceChancellor)fortheSustainability 25,2–15.
Championaward. (20) FRAC(FoodResearchandActionCenter).WorkingDocument:
Hunger and Obesity? Making the Connections. http://frac.org/pdf/
proceedings05.pdf;accessed2010May31.
’REFERENCES
(21) Zajfen,V.,FreshFoodDistributionModelsfortheGreaterLos
(1) SBCACO(SantaBarbaraCountyAgriculturalCommissioner’s AngelesRegion.BarriersandOpportunitiestoFacilitateandScaleUp
Office). 2009 Crop Report. http://www.countyofsb.org/agcomm/; theDistributionofFreshFruitsandVegetables.FindingsfromanAction
accessed2010May26. Research Project of the Center for Food & Justice, a division of the
(2) Buzby,J.C.;Wells,H.F.;Vocke,G.PossibleImplicationsforU.S. Urban&EnvironmentalPolicyInstitute,OccidentalCollege,December
Agriculture From Adoption of Select Dietary Guidelines; United States 2006-March2008.InMarch2008ed.;CFJ:2008.
DepartmentofAgricultureEconomicResearchService:2006. (22) Thompson,E.,Jr;Harper,A.M.;Kraus,S.,ThinkGlobally—
(3) CFPA (California Food Policy Advocates). Santa Barbara EatLocally:SanFranciscoFoodshedAssessment.In2008.
County Nutrition and Food Insecurity Profile. http://www.cfpa.net/ (23) Martinez, S.; Hand, M.; Da Pra, M.; Pollack, S.; Ralston, K.;
2010CountyProfiles/SantaBarbara.pdf;accessed2010April07. Smith,T.;Vogel,S.;Clark,S.;Lohr,L.;Low,S.;Newman,C.LocalFood
(4) CCPHA(CaliforniaCenterforPublicHealthAdvocacy).The Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues; United States Department of
foodlandscapeinSantaBarbaraCounty.http://www.publichealthad- Agriculture,EconomicResearchService:2010.
vocacy.org/RFEI/Santa_Barbara_County_Fact_Sheet.pdf; accessed (24) Peters,C.J.;Bills,N.L.;Lembo,A.J.;Wilkins,J.L.;Fick,G.W.
2009November10. MappingpotentialfoodshedsinNewYorkState:Aspatialmodelfor
(5) Eshel,G.Ageophysicalfoundationforalternativefarmpolicy. evaluatingthecapacitytolocalizefoodproduction.Ren.Agric.FoodSys.
Environ.Sci.Technol.2010,44,3651–3655. 2009,24,72–84.
(6) Evans, L. T. Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and Population (25) USDANASS(USDA-NationalAgriculturalStatisticsService).
Growth;CambridgeUniversityPress:Cambridge,UK,1998. Volume1.GeographicAreaSeries.Part5,CaliforniaStateandCounty
(7) Wells,H.F.;Buzby,J.C.DietaryAssessmentofMajorTrendsinU. Data.http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/
S.FoodConsumption,1970(cid:1)2005.EconomicInformationBulletinNo.33; Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/California/index.asp; accessed
USDA Economic Research Service: Washington, D.C., March 2008, 2009August20.
2008. (26) Gibbs,D.;Ahlroth,J.;Lopez,C.;Almy,R.2008SantaBarbara
(8) USDAERS(USDepartmentofAgriculture,EconomicResearch CountyGroundwaterReport;SantaBarbaraCountyPublicWorks,Water
Service). Data sets, food availability. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ ResourcesDepartment,WaterAgencyDivision:SantaBarbara,2009.
FoodConsumption/FoodAvailIndex.htm;accessed2010March07. (27) Rodriguez, L.; Lang, R. Water Resources of Santa Barbara
(9) Hoppe, R. A.; MacDonald, J. M.; Korb, P. Small Farms in the County.InSantaBarbaraCountyWaterAgency:2000.
United States: Persistence under Pressure; United States Department of (28) SBCACO(SantaBarbaraCountyAgriculturalCommissioner’s
Agriculture,EconomicResearchService:2010. Office). 2008 Crop Report. http://www.countyofsb.org/agcomm/;
(10) FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization). The State accessed2009November10.
of Food Insecurity in the World: Addressing food insecurity in pro- (29) USCensusBureauUSACounties.http://censtats.census.gov/
tractedcrises.http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e00.htm; usa/usa.shtml;accessed2010March07.
accessed20101020. (30) Ragland,E.;Tropp,D.USDANationalFarmersMarketMan-
(11) Khan,S.;Hanjra,M.A.Footprintsofwaterandenergyinputsin agerSurvey,2006;Washington,D.C.,2009.
foodproduction—Globalperspectives.FoodPol.2009,34,130–140. (31) Canning,P.;Charles,A.;Huang,S.;Polenske,K.R.W.,Arnold
(12) Weber, C. L.; Matthews, H. S. Food-miles and the relative Energy Use in the U.S. Food System. Economic Research Report No.
climateimpactsoffoodchoicesintheunitedstates.Environ.Sci.Technol. (ERR-94);USDAEconomicResearchService:2010
2008,42,3508–3513. (32) Edwards-Jones,G.;Canals,L.M.I.;Hounsome,N.;Truninger,
(13) Brodt, S.; Feenstra, G.; Tomich, T. The Low-Carbon Diet M.; Koerber,G.;Hounsome,B.;Cross,P.;York, E.H.;Hospido, A.;
Initiative:ReducingEnergyUseandGreenhouseGasEmissionsintheFood Plassmann,K.;Harris,I.M.;Edwards,R.T.;Day,G.A.S.;Tomos,A.D.;
SystemusingLifeCycleAssessment.SummaryofaSymposiumonCritical Cowell,S.J.;Jones,D.L.Testingtheassertionthat“localfoodisbest”:
4561 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1040317|Environ.Sci.Technol.2011,45,4555–4562
EnvironmentalScience&Technology
ARTICLE
thechallengesofanevidence-basedapproach.TrendsFoodSci.Technol.
2008,19,265–274.
(33) Weber,C.L.;Matthews,H.S.ResponsetocommentonFood-
milesandtherelativeclimateimpactsoffoodchoicesintheunitedstates.
Environ.Sci.Technol.2009,43,3984–3984.
(34) Coley,D.;Howard,M.;Winter,M.Localfood,foodmilesand
carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution
approaches.FoodPol.2009,34,150–155.
(35) Saunders,C.;Barber,A.Carbonfootprints,lifecycleanalysis,
foodmiles:globaltradetrendsandmarketissues.Polit.Sci.2008,60,
73–88.
(36) USDA ERS (US Department of Agriculture, Economic
ResearchService).County-LevelUnemploymentandMedianHouse-
holdIncomeforCalifornia.accessed
(37) CDC(CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention).Dataand
Trends. County Level Estimates of Obesity: 2007 Age-Adjusted Esti-
mates of the Percentage of Adults who are Obese in California.
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DDT_STRS2/CountyPrevalenceData.aspx?
StateId=6;accessed2010January15.
(38) CCPHA(CaliforniaCenterforPublicHealthAdvocacy).The
Growing Epidemic: Child Overweight Rates in California Counties.
http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org/PDFs/research_pdfs/countyo-
verweight.pdf;accessed2010April07.
(39) CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Differ-
ences in Prevalence of Obesity Among Black, White, and Hispanic
Adults United States, 2006(cid:1)2008. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pre-
view/mmwrhtml/mm5827a2.htm;accessed2010May31.
(40) CCPHA (California Center for Public Health Advocacy,
PolicyLink, and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research). De-
signedforDisease:TheLinkBetweenLocalFoodEnvironmentsand
Obesity and Diabetes. http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/pubs/files/
Designed_for_Disease_050108.pdf;accessed2010January15.
(41) Harrison,G.G.;Sharp,M.;Manalo-LeClair,G.;Ramirez,A.;
McGarvey, N.FoodSecurityAmongCalifornia’sLow-IncomeAdults
Improves,ButMostSeverelyAffectedDoNotShareinImprovement.
<http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/pubs/files/Food_Securi-
ty_PB_082207.pdf>;accessed2010January15.
(42) SBCPHD(SantaBarbaraCountyPublicHealthDepartment).
CX3:Ahealthsnapshotofourcommunities.http://www.sbcphd.org/
documents/nutrition/SBCountyCX3CommunityBriefSH6-1-09.pdf;
accessed2009November06.
(43) Walker,R.E.;Keane,C.R.;Burke,J.G.Disparitiesandaccess
tohealthyfoodintheUnitedStates:Areviewoffooddesertsliterature.
HealthPlace2010,16,876–884.
(44) USDA ERS (US Department of Agriculture, Economic
ResearchService),FoodCPIandExpenditures.2010.
(45) Schoonover,H.;Muller,M.FoodwithoutThought:HowU.S.
FarmPolicyContributestoObesity.http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publica-
tions.cfm?accountID=258&refID=80627;accessed2010April07.
(46) DeLind,L.B.;Howard,P.H.Safeatanyscale?Foodscares,
food regulation, and scaled alternatives. Agric. Human Values 2008,
25,301–317.
(47) EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Cars and Light
Trucks. Light-duty automotive technology, carbon dioxide emissions,
and fuel economy trends: 1975 through 2009. http://www.epa.gov/
otaq/fetrends.htm#report;accessed2010March15.
4562 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1040317|Environ.Sci.Technol.2011,45,4555–4562
Supplemental information
[Containing 18 pages, 3 tables]

The effect of localizing fruit and vegetable consumption on greenhouse gas emissions and
nutrition, Santa Barbara County

DAVID A. CLEVELAND*,1
CORIE N. RADKA2,4
NORA M. MÜLLER2,3
TYLER D. WATSON2,5
NICOLE J. REKSTEIN2,4
HANNAH VAN M. WRIGHT2,6
SYDNEY E. HOLLINGSHEAD2
1 Environmental Studies Program, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4160
2 Current or former undergraduate student, University of California, Santa Barbara.
3 Currently Graduate student, L’Ecole des Affaires Internationales de Sciences Po, 27, rue Saint
Guillaume, 75337 Paris, France
4 Currently Research Assistant, Environmental Studies Program, University of California, Santa
Barbara.
5 Currently, Santa Barbara County Public Health Department, and Campus Learning Assistance
Services, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.
6 Currently, Outreach Coordinator, Isla Vista Food Cooperative.
SBC AFS localization, Supplemental Information, p. S2
* Corresponding author email: [email protected]. Mailing address: Environmental Studies
Program, U. of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4160.

1. Produce Grown in Santa Barbara County..............................................................................3
2. Produce Grown in and Consumed in Santa Barbara County...............................................6
3. The Potential for Synergies.....................................................................................................12
4. References.................................................................................................................................15