Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 415–462 | Cite as

Is Local Food More Environmentally Friendly? The GHG Emissions Impacts of Consuming Imported versus Domestically Produced Food



With the increased interest in the ‘carbon footprint’ of global economic activities, civil society, governments and the private sector are calling into question the wisdom of transporting food products across continents instead of consuming locally produced food. While the proposition that local consumption will reduce one’s carbon footprint may seem obvious at first glance, this conclusion is not at all clear when one considers that the economic emissions intensity of food production varies widely across regions. In this paper we concentrate on the tradeoff between production and transport emissions reductions by testing the following hypothesis: Substitution of domestic for imported food will reduce the direct and indirect Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with consumption. We focus on ruminant livestock since it has the highest emissions intensity across food sectors, but we also consider other food products as well, and alternately perturb the mix of domestic and imported food products by a marginal (equal) amount. We then compare the emissions associated with each of these consumption changes in order to compute a marginal emissions intensity of local food consumption, by country and product. The variations in regional ruminant emissions intensities have profound implications for the food miles debate. While shifting consumption patterns in wealthy countries from imported to domestic livestock products reduces GHG emissions associated with international trade and transport activity, we find that these transport emissions reductions are swamped by changes in global emissions due to differences in GHG emissions intensities of production. Therefore, diverting consumption to local goods only reduces global emissions when undertaken in regions with relatively low emissions intensities. For non-ruminant products, the story is more nuanced. Transport costs are more important in the case of dairy products and vegetable oils. Overall, domestic emissions intensities are the dominant part of the food miles story in about 90 % of the country/commodity cases examined here.


CGE model Emissions intensity Food miles debate Livestock emissions Transport emissions 



Constant difference of elasticities


Constant elasticity of substitution


Computable general equilibrium


Greenhouse gas


Global Trade Analysis Project


Global warming potential


Life cycle analysis

JEL Classification

F18 Q17 Q18 Q56 Q58 


  1. Avetisyan M, Golub A, Hertel T, Rose S, Henderson B (2011) Why a global carbon policy could have a dramatic impact on the pattern of the Worldwide livestock production. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 33(4):584–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballingall J, Winchester N (2010) Food miles: starving the poor? World Econ 33(10):1201–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanke MM, Burdick B (2005) Food (miles) for thought. Energy balance for locally-grown versus imported apples fruit. Environ Sci Pollut Res 12:125–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bomford M (2011) “Beyond Food Miles”. Posted March 9, 2011. http://www.postcarbon.org/article/273686-beyond-food-miles
  5. Burniaux J, Truong T (2002) GTAP-E: an energy-environmental version of the GTAP model. GTAP Technical Paper No. 16, Center for Global Trade Analysis. Purdue University, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  6. Canals LM, Cowell SJ, Sims S, Besson L (2007) Comparing domestic versus imported apples: a focus on energy use. Environ Sci Pollut Res 14(5):338–344Google Scholar
  7. Carlsson-Kanyama A, Ekstrom MP, Shanahan H (2003) Food and life cycle energy inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecol Econ 44:293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coley D, Howard M, Winter M (2009) Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: a comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy 34(2):150–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cristea A, Hummels D, Puzzello L, Avetisyan M (2013) Trade and the Greenhouse Gas emissions from international freight transport. J Environ Econ Manag 65(1):153–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DEFRA (2007) Overview of the benefits and carbon costs of African horticultural trade with the UK. DEFRA Food Chain Economics UnitGoogle Scholar
  11. Desrochers P, Shimizu H (2012) The Locavore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet. PublicAffairs, p 14Google Scholar
  12. DeVuyst EA, Preckel PV (1997) Sensitivity analysis revisited: a quadrature-based approach. J Policy Model 19(2):175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards-Jones G (2006) Food miles don’t go the distance, column in Green Room, BBC online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4807026.stm
  14. Fogelberg CL, Carlsson-Kanyama A (2006) Environmental assessment of foods—an LCA inspired approach. In: Fuentes C, Carlsson-Kanyama A (eds) Environmental information in the food supply system. Swedish Defence Agency (FOI), pp 55–84Google Scholar
  15. Hendrickson C, Horvath A, Joshi S, Lave L (1998) Economic input–output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol Policy Anal 32(7):184A–191ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hertel T (1997) Global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Hertel T, Hummels D, Ivanic M, Keeney R (2007) How confident can we be of CGE-based assessments of free trade agreements? Econ Model 24(4):611–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hertel TW, Lee H-L, Rose S, Sohngen B (2009) Modeling land-use related Greenhouse Gas sources and sinks and their mitigation potential. In: Hertel T, Rose S, Tol R (eds) Economic analysis of land Use in global climate change policy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007—the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCCGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC/OECD/IEA (1997) Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories. Paris: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Energy Agency (IEA)Google Scholar
  21. ITC/UNCTAD/UNEP (2007) ITC/UNCTAD/UNEP statement on soil association air-freight consultation, Geneva 2007. http://www.intracen.org/organics/documents/Joint_Statement_on_Air-freight_ITC_UNCTAD_UNEP.pdf
  22. Jones A (2006) A life cycle analysis of UK supermarket imported green beans from Kenya. Fresh Insights No. 4. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. Kasterine A, Vanzetti D (2010) The effectiveness, efficiency and equity of market-based and voluntary measures to mitigate Greenhouse Gas emissions from the agri-food sector, published in the Trade and Environment Review 2010, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. King RP, Hand MS, DiGiacomo G, Clancy K, Gómez MI, Hardesty SD, Lev L, McLaughlin EW (2010) Comparing the structure, size, and performance of local and mainstream food supply chains. U.S, Department of Agriculture, Economics Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawson D (2008) Food miles are just a form of protectionism, column in The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson-food-miles-are-just-a-form-of-protectionism-803132.html, 1 April
  26. Lee H-L (2007) An emissions data base for integrated assessment of climate change policy using GTAP. GTAP Resource No. 1143, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  27. McKie R (2007) How the myth of food miles hurts the planet, The Observer, 23 March 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving
  28. Peters G, Andrew R, Lennox J (2011) Constructing an environmentally-extended multi-regional input–output table using the GTAP database. Econ Syst Res 2(23):131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reimer J, Hertel T (2004) Estimation of international demand behaviour for use with input–output based data. Econ Syst Res 4(16):347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose S, Lee H-L (2009) \(\text{ Non-CO }_{2}\) Greenhouse Gas emissions data for climate change economic analysis. In: Hertel TW, Rose SK, Tol RSJ (eds) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, London, pp 89–120Google Scholar
  31. Saunders C, Barber A, Taylor G (2006) Food miles—comparative energy/emissions performance of New Zealand’s Agriculture Industry. Research Report 285, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU), Lincoln University, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  32. Sim S, Barry M, Clift R, Cowell S (2007) The relative importance of transport in determining an appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing. A case study of fresh produce supply chains. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:422–431Google Scholar
  33. USDA: citation for 2002 study cited by BomfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Tukker A, Huppes G, Guinee J, Heijungs R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Suh S, Geerken T, van Holderbeke M, Jansen B, Nielsen P (2006) Environmental impact of products (EIPRO): analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU25. Report EUR 22284 ENGoogle Scholar
  35. van Hauwermeiren A, Coene G, Engelen G, Mathijs E (2007) Energy lifecycle inputs in food systems: a comparison of local versus mainstream cases. J Environ Policy Plan 9(1):31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weber CL, Matthews HS (2008) Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 42(10):3508–3513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams A (2007) Comparative study of cut roses for the British market produced in Kenya and the Netherlands. Précis Report for World Flowers, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  38. World Bank (2008) Adaptation and mitigation of climate change in agriculture. World Development Report 2008Google Scholar
  39. Wynen E, Vanzetti D (2008) No through road—the limitations of food miles. Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  40. Zhu X, van Wesenbeeck L, van Ierland EC (2006) Impacts of novel protein foods on sustainable food production and consumption: lifestyle change and environmental policy. Environ Resour Econ 35(1):59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Misak Avetisyan
    • 1
  • Thomas Hertel
    • 2
  • Gregory Sampson
    • 3
  1. 1.Sol Price School of Public PolicyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Center for Global Trade AnalysisPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.International Trade CentreGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations