A New Yorker Tries the 100-Mile Diet

Is eating local food better for you? (AP Photo/Don Ryan)

The 100-mile diet is a noble idea — eat only foods produced within 100 miles of your home. But is it really practical for urban dwellers?

That was the question asked by writer Susan Cosier, a New Yorker who tried the 100-mile diet and wrote about it in last month’s E/The Environmental Magazine. She found that buying local often is easier said than done. Diet staples like coffee and tea aren’t grown locally. She learned her grocery store buys produce from a distributor that carries goods from all over the world — pineapples from the Philippines, avocados from California and garlic, surprisingly, from China.

There’s no scientific evidence that eating locally-farmed food is better for you. But it does give you the sense that you have more control over what you put into your body. Eating local often means you can meet the people who produce your food because they are selling it themselves at the local farmers’ market. You can ask questions about pesticide use and farming methods, and sometimes you may even be able to visit the farm or dairy where your food is grown or raised.

Most people who follow the 100-mile diet do so because they like fresh food and because they want to help the planet. Buying locally means less fuel burned to transport food, which means less pollution. Local farmers often are organic producers who employ earth-friendly farming methods or raise free-range animals. Recently, the concept of the 100-mile diet has gained attention after the release in April of the book “Plenty: One Man, One Woman and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally.” The book chronicles the efforts of authors James MacKinnon and Alisa Smith to eat foods produced within 100 miles of their Vancouver apartment.

“Although I was inspired by these conscientious consumers, just deciding what I would eat for breakfast made me nervous,” wrote Ms. Cosier. “I prepared menus and talked to people who had tried the diet themselves, but since my success depended on my locale, out-of-towners’ advice wasn’t very helpful.”

Local vegetables were easy enough to find at a farmers’ market. But the nearby organic market where she shopped no longer carried local dairy products. Surprisingly, she found local milk and butter at Whole Foods, whose Web site says the chain is “permanently committed” to buying local foods that meet its standards. At Whole Foods, signs above the food state its origin, but Ms. Cosier notes that most grocery stores don’t make it easy to find out where their products come from.

Being 100 percent loyal to the 100-mile diet meant tough choices. While cooking her bounty of vegetables purchased at the farmers’ market, Ms. Cosier had to decide whether to add brown sugar and cooking sherry that weren’t local. “I debated…and decided to use them anyway,” she wrote. “What good is any diet without a little wiggle room?”

Comments are no longer being accepted.

When people say that 100-mile eating isn’t practical they always point to things like salt, olive oil and flour but to me that misses the point. If MOST of what you eat is grown within 100 miles of you then the enviroment benefits. That said, I think the 100-mile rule is easy. The Union Square Farmers Market is great and just type in CSA into google and you will be amazed how many farms supply produce and dairy to the city and its surroudings. And as far as anxiety goes, it actually decreases it. Rather than using your brain to figure out what to eat, you just eat what’s in season. So less time is spent thinking about food, not more.

Has anyone done the math? How many people could actually be fed on food grown within 100 miles of New York City?

And how many pound-miles does a car driver add by visiting multiple grocery stores to find local foods? If I drive ten extra miles for of groceries, and the car weighs 3000 pounds, that’s 30,000 pound-miles– enough to transport twenty pounds of bulk groceries 1500 miles.

It makes sense to buy local fruits and vegetables. Grains can come from further away. Go ahead, buy fair trade coffee and spices from distant places. Skip wasteful animal products–very few are truly local anyway, as the animals eat imported grains.

Everybody can do this, not just a few committed foodies, and it would make a real difference in the environmental impact of our diets.

A friend of mine tried the “100 mile” diet for a week in September and posted about the experience on a blog we started which focuses on living healthy and “green” to show people how easy it can be to start incorporating local foods into your diet. We tried to go nearly 100% for a week, but since then both of us continue to seek out as much local food as reasonably possible for the season and region. Check out our experience //green-lemonade.com/going-local-with-the-100-mile-diet

I agree that it doesn’t make sense to drive all over town, but I’m in upstate NY in an apartment (read: no garden space of my own) and am able to find great local produce and other goods everyday at our local co-op and on Saturdays through the farmers directly at the Farmer’s Market.

I really believe local foods taste better, are better for you, and for the local economy.

I do something similar, only instead of 100 miles, I use a thousand. Living in Southern California, makes it pretty easy. Mmmm, time for pizza.

We’re now living in a global village. To me, trying the 100-mile diet is easier said than done. In the market we can now buy our daily food, including vegetables and fruits, coming from different parts of the world. In the cold, cold wintertime, we can still enjoy different vegetables and fruits, not necessarily from the local greenhouses, but from the southern hemisphere. The 100-mile diet can help local farmers and I think people can be encouraged to buy more from them. However, in many aspects, it’s difficult to rely totally on them. What’s wrong to buy from the developing countries? It can help people of these labour-intensive countries to make a living, cut down the number of people starving in this world and to us, we can have cheaper food, even after having taken into account the transportation costs. Besides, the greater varieties of choice of food, even in the wintertime, will be beneficial to us all. It also helps to save our money in our pockets.

To Kevin’s comment “what’s wrong to buy from developing countries,” I’d like to add the need to support local groceries and, in the process push them to seek and sell produce, dairy, meats, etc. of the kind that meets our respective litmus tests. Here in the midwest, we have achieved some progress in getting our big box stores to carry new types and brands of food. We’ve also seen improvements, albeit limited, in identifying the source of food products, especially poultry, beef and fish. And there is a level of accountability that I have yet to see in many of our local seasonal farmer’s markets, where many dealers’ claims as to origin are hard to believe. For me, the biggest reason for support is that these stores hire and train local folks, many of whom, because of ability/disability or background/experience, might not have a job. If there was but one line in the sand to draw, it would be to beg fellow grocery shoppers to abstain from using the automated self-serve check-out counters in order to preserve low wage counter positions.

Why do I think a 100-mi diet probably works better in New York than in, say, Arizona?

I’m all for reducing the time food has to travel to get to my door, but let’s keep in mind that not everyone has a nutritious variety of crops growing with 100 (or even 1000) miles of home.

I think that this diet is a really good idea, I come from New Zealand and the produce etc produced here is amazing, but sadly most of it goes overseas. I try to grow my own veiges and fruit in my back garden. And I always look out for NZ made meats and foods.

Another reason buy buying locally is that when oil runs out (checked the price of oil lately?), we’re going to be dependent on local farms, so we’d better make sure they stay in existence.

The comments here are excellent and sensible. Yes, do the best you can in eating local, depending on where you are. I live in Minnesota where — from about May through November. I can easily buy honey, veggies, meat, dairy grown locally. (As well as local beer.) We’re in apple season now.

But what about during our long winters? Root vegetables only go so far.

Good point, JenK.

How do I buy local fruit & vegetables in the middle of frozen February? The vegetables would have to be grown in a hot house, which has to be heated either by oil, gas, or electricity. The price of the vegetables would have to accomodate the extra fuel costs. And don’t hot house veggies need more fertilizing since nutrients leach out the bottom of containers from frequent watering?

I’ve heard the argument that eating locally also means eating seasonally. But I wouldn’t want to be restricted to merely root vegetables in the cold months. Not much vitamin A or C in turnips.

Frankly, I don’t taste a whole lot of difference between produce in the grocery store & locally-grown foods, tomatoes being the one exception.

For a lot of reasons, this is not the diet for me. But I do like the pressure this movement can put on grocery chains to be more supportive of local farmers in the warmer months, though. It might help reverse the trend of getting everything we eat from agro-monstrosities that are slowly sapping away all the nutrients from the so-called “fresh” produce they sell.

100 miles from any given place is not going to provide you with a wide variety of food unless you own a greenhouse. For the Mid-Atlantic region apples and pumpkin and tomatoes are easy enough to find in their season. Grains? Not happening unless you include corn on the cob a few weeks during the summer. We just don’t have enough wheat or corn fields. Also consider a state like Maine, not a very productive soil save for potatoes and other tubers. Seafood, yes, but man can’t live on lobster alone (granted I would love to try).

“Buying locally means less fuel burned to transport food, which means less pollution.”

This is really quite an assumption. What do I see when I visit my local farmers’ market in St. Paul, Minn.? I see urban farmers standing in front of their vans and panel trucks. How fuel-efficient is it to shuttle people and produce back and forth between city and suburbs? You can transport food a long way by ship, rail, barge, or heavy truck for a lot less fuel per pound than hauling tomatoes by van. Many factors enter into fossil fuel use in agriculture — fertilizer, transportation of workers, home heating of farm families. It’s really simplistic to believe it all depends on the distance from farm to market. Buy local food because it’s fresher. Buy it because it’s tastier. But don’t buy it because it saves energy. The fact is, you just don’t know.

Kevin Shum:

What’s wrong with buying from developed countries? Well, for starters the people doing the actual labor are paid barely a subsistence wage. Scarce water resources are taken up for the irrigation of drought-intolerant crops, meaning that there is less clean water for bathing and drinking in the villages. Environmental standards are lax, so that harsh pesticides and fertilizers can be used with abandon until the soil has been well and truly destroyed and the water irretrievably polluted, and then the farming industry moves on to a better location leaving famine behind them. Finally, agriculture in developing countries clears acres upon acres of forest and grassland, increasing erosion and promoting desertification. One might as well ask, “What’s wrong with buying clothes produced by children in Southeast Asian sweatshops?” It’s the same answer, that doing so involves supporting an exploitative system that hurts the people who live in it.

That variety of fruits and vegetables you enjoy in the winter, that saves money in your pocket? It has a lot of hidden costs, like increased taxes to support farmer subsidies and ensure cheap monoculture corn growth. Like increased taxes to clean up pollution created by profligate waste in industrial agriculture. Like health care that must be provided to people whose children have been made sick by the trace pesticides in their well water. Like military budgets to protect the oil resources critical to large-scale farming. Like trade deals that have to be negotiated with Mexico to secure water rights for people growing moisture-intensive crops in traditionally desert areas. I don’t like what industrial agriculture and third-world agricultural exploitation cost in long-term dollars, so I’ll give up that thirty cents a pound difference in my potatoes in order to opt out of a system that will cost me a dollar in taxes later.

I think this diet is ludicrous. There is a reason why we buy fruits and vegetables from all over the world. It’s called comparative advantage. The point isn’t a diet that solves everything. It’s not about where your food is from. It’s simply eat food, enjoy what you eat, and most of all, eat to live. Eat what you need, and don’t waste. Then we won’t have as many environmental problems. Focus on the end, not the means.

In principle, I agree with the sentiment, although as someone else pointed out it’s just not possible in the mid-west from December through March at least. But I do have to echo the suspicions about Farmer’s Markets. At my local FM, I have asked all vendors where their products come from and have had varied responses. The flower sellers buy from the same wholesale market that all the shops buy from which imports from Peru. The tomato sellers said they had a mixture of early locally grown and some that they had brought in from California. The asparagus seller had clearly bought in since it was completely out of season when he was selling it. Only the corn seller and the cheese seller could show me credentials that verified the local origins of their produce.

Perhaps a better diet would be to eat food which COULD and SHOULD be grown within 100 miles. For example, oats and wheat can be grown within 100 miles of NYC, but very little is. Should environmentally conscious farming practices someday become more common, then more grain for human consumption would be grown closer to big eastern cities as was done in the past.

It is probably more energy efficient to buy a sack of flour, even if it comes from Montana, and store it for baking bread than to buy local peaches in season and then freeze them for later use. Buying locally should also require preserving local which means peaches are dried, apples are turned into cider and just about anything else is pickled. Lots of sauerkraut and kimchi, but no oranges.

I’m not trying the 100-mile diet here in Cleveland, although I’m lucky enough to live in an area with great farmer’s markets and good grocery store prices.

But I am eating seasonally, just as I was taught to do when I was high-school student taking home economics. That means for fruit I’m buying apples from the various local orchards and citrus, which is just now coming in season. I’m not buying tomatoes, but I am eating red peppers on my salads.
When it comes to meat, I limit my choices to chicken, ground turkey and some lamb. The latter is the violation because lamb is really a spring animal. How do I know what’s seasonal? Price. And taste. The seasonal food really does taste better, as anyone who’s eaten a summer tomato will testify.

I’m puzzled, though, by Georgeann’s comment about freezing food not being an efficient use of energy. I’m originally from the South. We always froze food. It was a lot easier and more efficient than than canning or preserving, which could turn into an all day affair of washing, boiling packing jars and more boiling.

If the freezer is full, and believe me it was, the electricity is well used.

I think the entire point of the 100 mile diet is to understand what you consume and where it comes from and THEN to see what is important to you. Obviously items like coffee, tea, olive oil, spices will come from faraway places, as they always have. We all have to make choices and yes, there are pluses and minuses to every decision we make. I’ve been consuming (and not just food, let’s not get started on what’s in the house or closet) as locally as I can for years. Sometimes though you just want a papaya and well, that’s OK. Trying to buy fair trade does help and if buying locally is merely an awareness tool, then it can only help us check into our place in the world.

Jonathan, please read Rowan’s comment. I personally think it is irresponsible for a consumer to disregard the means by which the goods he or she purchases are produced–espeically today when there is so much choice. Am I always a perfect conscious consumer? Of course not! I’m a graduate student on a tight budget, so sometimes I have to make difficult choices. I cannot, however, imagine blithely refusing to consider the impact these choices have, as your statment suggests we do. While I certainly don’t believe the 100-mile diet is THE solution, it is a tool we can all use to benefit more than just ourselves.

For those that complain about space, Google or buy Square Foot Gardening (the most recent addition as the basic method has evolved). You can easily grow the basics. Install a drip watering system. You will learn the difference between food grown to travel 1000 miles and food grown to travel 10 feet. I have had some wonderful “heritage” tomatoes that could only travel 10 feet. The flavor was extraordinary. You get flavor and a chemically free product. Local food can be canned, dried, or frozen for off season use.

I have read all these posts, and most have valid concerns (pro and con). If I had the money, I would love to buy products only within 100 miles. I grew up on a farm where the only thing we bought from the store was sugar and flour as food goes. But now I am on a limited budget, and I look at the fresh produce and wish…but they are much higher, and I couldn’t afford to buy only local. But I am 100 percent behind supporting our local farmers!

Greg has made a very important point (and the reason why I wanted to comment on this article) – buying locally does NOT always mean better for the environment. There are too many other factors to take into consideration beyond transportation, and I’m surprised and a bit disappointed that the author didn’t comment on this. You can find a lot of tasty and interesting food at farmer’s markets, but they’re not automatically the most green, even if the whole scene seems bucolic and makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. The sentiment is nice, but this diet seems like a ludicrous fad – just another trendy way to “be green!” in the US.

If you want to be green, there are better ways to do it (eating less meat often seems to be overlooked). If you want to eat healthily, buy as many fresh fruits and vegetables as possible and make as much as you can from scratch. When I go grocery shopping, there is no shiny packaging in my cart.

It’s rare to find a farmer’s market that isn’t substantially laced with produce that was “bought in.” At farmer’s markets the vendors pretty much tell you what you want to hear, so a touch of wariness is useful, unless you’re just there to fill up on enviro-piety.

From the Upper Hudson Valley, (it’s more than a hundred miles) our storied CSAs export the cream of their crop to the Union Square market, if not directly to the kitchen doors of Manhattan’s celebrity chefs.

Which, last time I checked, is just business. Still, it chafes a little to discover your family is subsidizing Birkenstock Betty to the tune of nearly a thousand greenbacks a year so Wall Street Fat Cats and High Uppities may savor her heirloom delicacies and bask in enviro- “street cred.”

I tire of root vegetables and braising greens long before spring, as did our forebears, who have been importing and exporting a wide variety of food for centuries. New York Ginseng and South Carolina rice mingled in the warehouses of China long before steam ships or internal combustion engines carried produce a hundred miles. West Indies rum for Spanish oranges? Our century didn’t invent the fetish of novelty, but it has certainly proved useful and profitable.

Then too, it’s going on centuries, not decades, that farms, themselves a treasured symbol of unusual staying power in a society that holds so little sacred, have been losing out to urban pursuits and professions, the economics of this being older, more complicated yet fundamentally basic than most will own.

When the novelty of environmentalism wears off, perhaps a few will still care enough to solve the problems of atmospheric carbon proliferation, foolish land-use, and unfair trade and labor practices with something a little more enlightened, informed, or, god forbid, scientific than a quasi-religion of self-righteousness, nostalgic fallacies and Luddism.