The Surprising Carbon Footprint of Homegrown Food: A Personal Perspective
Homegrown Food's Surprising Carbon Impact: Time for a Reality Check!
This might not be a fashion post, but I had to share it. When I first stumbled upon the headline, "Carbon footprint of homegrown food five times greater than those grown conventionally," my initial reaction was outrage. It's not every day that you come across a study challenging the very essence of what we consider environmentally responsible.
Growing your own food in your garden or allotment could potentially be more environmentally harmful than relying on conventional agriculture. (?)
But as I delved deeper into the study, some intriguing nuances emerged.
Before we dive into this contentious topic, it's essential to note that the study was published by Nature Portfolio, a division of Springer Nature, known for its rigorous scientific publications. So, the findings can't be brushed aside easily.
The study, conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan, unveiled a shocking revelation: the carbon footprint of homegrown foods maybe five times greater than produced from conventional agricultural practices (hard to believe). As I read through the details, I couldn't help but question the implications of such findings.
What made this study even more perplexing was the realization that the emissions weren't primarily a result of cultivating the food itself. Instead, it was the infrastructure required for home gardening – raised beds, garden sheds, and pathways – that significantly contributed to the higher carbon footprint. So that means that tomatoes, for example, grown in my garden, on a bed, will be less sustainable than tomatoes transported by plane/truck or boats, cultivated by unpaid labor?
Jake Hawes, a PhD candidate at the University of Michigan and the study's first author, emphasized, "The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food."
As I was trying to wrap my head around this new info, I couldn't help but wonder about the bigger picture. Is it even fair to distribute the carbon cost over food units when urban gardens offer way more benefits than just providing food? I mean, what else would be done with the land if not for these gardens? Community gardens are worth way more than just producing food.
It is important to acknowledge that while industrial agriculture can produce food at a lower cost in terms of carbon and money due to economies of scale and chemicals used, this alone should not be the sole argument against the establishment of urban gardens.
A Personal Connection to the Land
I grew up in a small village where gardens were our primary source of sustenance. My grandfather was a shepherd, and it was through his efforts that we had the clothes on our backs. The connection to the land, the food we grew, and the garments we wore was deeply personal. It was a way of life, rooted in self-sufficiency and sustainability long before these buzzwords became fashionable.
So, while the study's findings might seem outrageous at first glance, it's essential to approach them with an open mind. It's not about discarding the idea of homegrown food or urban gardens entirely; it's about reevaluating our practices, considering the broader context, and finding ways to mitigate the environmental impact.
In conclusion, this study challenges us to think critically about our choices and their impact on the environment. It reminds us that sustainability is a complex issue, and solutions are sometimes complicated. The real takeaway from this study is that we should continue striving to balance our desire for self-sufficiency and our responsibility to protect the planet we call home.
Read also more on Nature Portofolio's problem with predatory journals in science.
This article talks about the problem of predatory journals in the world of science. These journals publish articles without proper peer review and charge fees, causing issues for researchers. The author conducted a survey, mostly with researchers from low- and middle-income countries, who sometimes unknowingly submit to these predatory journals due to a lack of knowledge about publishing standards.
The article also highlights how some researchers mistakenly think predatory journals offer a quick path to publication. It discusses the challenges these researchers face, including harassment and threats from journal representatives.
How Does Lobbying Impact our Food and Agricultural Policies?
In 2020, Food and Beverage companies (F&B companies) spent a collective USD 38.2 million on lobbying, and they will lobby about any issue that will affect their business. Professor Marion Nestle, Former Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University says “I can't think of a single area of food or nutrition policy that isn't subjected to lobbying [by the largest F&B companies]".6 A few of the major F&B companies engaged in lobbying, like Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and General Mills, will even publish updated statements on their website describing their advocacy activities.
- Vera
P.S. Is there something on your mind… a burning question about fashion, sustainability, happiness, mindset, or consumer behavior? Reply to this email; I might answer you in an upcoming newsletter.