Last week, The Jew and the Carrot blogger, Eric Schulmiller, posted his response to  James McWilliams’ recent NY Times op-ed that stated some startling news for sustainably-minded foodies to ponder:

Researchers at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe’s push for “food miles labeling,” recently published a study challenging the premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel consumption… Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s fertile pastures and shipped by boat to the U.K. consumed 688 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per ton. By contrast, stock produced within the U.K.’s poorly adapted pastures consumed 2,849 kilograms per ton. In other words, it is four times more energy efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. ”

Touche, anti-localvores, touche.

But the story doesn’t end with that depressing fact.  Yesterday, my favorite food politics blog, Ethicurean, published a fascinating counter-post by Michael Shuman claiming that the study McWilliams quoted only told half the story.  It seems that the quoted study did not take into full account all of the factors involved in getting the New Zealand lamb from farm to table - an admittedly difficult feat.  Turns out, calculating food miles is a lot more complicated than just figuring out the “farm to table” piece.  Shuman also chided the NY Times for printing an op-ed that stood on such spotty facts:

The Saunders’ study is a nice promo for the New Zealand lamb industry, but it’s a lousy piece of analysis. It’s an embarrassment that the New York Times so sheepishly republished this disinformation about local food systems.

Still, despite the potentially incorrect research, I think Mc Williams is correct to point out that the idea of “eating local” is not necessarily the panacea for the world’s food and energy problems.  This doesn’t mean you should turn in your subscription to your CSA, but - like everything - the local foods movement needs to be viewed (and chewed) critically.