Although the locavore movement has several benefits, like benefiting society and the local economy, it also has some drawbacks. For instance, it restricts access to certain foods for people living in areas where some foods aren't indigenous or where the land isn't suitable for farming. It's important to consider the impact on people living in areas unsuitable for farming. They may not have a sustainable food source, or the food they have may not be as good as what's available in other areas. As an example, a study in 2006 (source C) discovered that it made more sense for someone in London to buy lamb from New Zealand, instead of buying lamb in the UK. Although some people argue that eating locally reduces carbon footprint, this study showed that lamb produced in England has a higher carbon footprint when it's produced intensively, compared to lamb produced in New Zealand. Therefore, eating locally may not always be the best choice for the environment. …show more content…
While claiming that consuming food grown and farmed within this ambiguous distance can result in lowering one's carbon footprint. However, Source D challenges this argument by presenting a graph that shows how all types of food, including those that locavores advocate for, produce greenhouse gas emissions. Obtaining locally grown meat uses more carbon than obtaining plant-based foods. Eating lamb or beef that comes from a local farm has almost the same carbon footprint as other foods, making barely a difference in total