Buying local has recently become a battle cry for many consumers weighing the environmental and social costs of the purchases they make. While it’s a laudable goal, buying local may not be as clear-cut as some believe.

The Soil Association in the United Kingdom has tried to ban air-freighted organic foods to reduce food miles spent in transport, for example. But a 2007 New Zealand study found that, when taking into consideration the emissions based on life-cycle assessment for dairy products (including all costs of water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer used and other cultivation techniques, renewable energy, and transportation), those from the U.K. produced 35 percent more emissions per kilogram of milk solid as those produced in New Zealand—even factoring in the energy expended in transport. In addition, a 2006 study by some of the same researchers found that, considering these life-cycle assessments, milk solids, lamb, and apples grown in New Zealand and sold in the U.K. were more energy efficient than those produced in the U.K.

In an opinion piece in the New York Times, James E. McWilliams points out that reasons for choosing local include freshness, taste, and preservation of open space as well as reduction of fossil fuel used for transport. But there is more to be considered. “Not only do life-cycle analyses offer genuine opportunities for environmentally efficient food production, but they also address several problems inherent in the eat-local philosophy,” McWilliams stated. “It is impossible for most of the world to feed itself a diverse and healthy diet through exclusively local food production,” he added.

What’s Energy Efficient?

Whether undertaken locally or in another part of the world, organic production uses less fossil fuel and is more beneficial environmentally than conventional agricultural methods. Two factors are important here:

1. The organic label stands for verifiable environmentally friendly practices.
2. These practices are beneficial for the local communities in which they are used, wherever in the world that may be.

In addition, it is more efficient—and better for the planet overall—to grow certain organic products in specific locales, which may not always be in one’s backyard. Not all imported food can be grown in the continental United States, for example. Doesn’t it make more sense to buy bananas or coffee from tropical regions than to try to create a hospitable environment here?

What’s Local?

Because the term “local” is not regulated, it can mean different things depending on where you shop. With organic certification, consumers know they are buying products that comply with clear standards, thanks to independent third-party verification.

Locally grown products that are not organic may contribute to the many external costs related to conventional farming, including erosion, chemical pollution of drinking water, and loss of habitat for birds and wildlife. According to findings published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, the negative effects from crop and livestock agriculture in the U.S. may cost society somewhere between $5.7 and $16.9 billion each year.

In a study conducted during 2002 and 2003, Leopold Center scholar Erin Tegtmeier and then associate director Mike Duffy found that U.S. crop production had external costs ranging from $11.92 to $38.74 per acre. Their research shows that current agricultural practices result in negative economic, social, and environmental effects, which would significantly affect the perceived economic efficiency of agriculture if these costs were paid by the industry. Although U.S. farmers spent $8.2 billion on pesticides during 2002, this is less than 80 percent of the actual cost of pesticide use i