Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-992X-2015-0439
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
ISSN 1678-992X
ABSTRACT: This paper aims to examine the issue raised by the consumption of locally pro-
duced food in all its various aspects, and in particular, addresses how this practice contributes
to local and global sustainability. It analyzes the different definitions of local food, the strategies
used, the implications of the distance traveled in the transportation of food to the consumer’s
table – food miles, the relationships between local food consumption and sustainability, farming
practices that reduce carbon emissions, contribution of urban agriculture to local food, local
trading of food produced by rural farmers, as well as a number of relationships between the
consumption of local food and human nutrition and health, local food protection and the ability
to support local food production for humanitarian actions in disaster situations. The promotion
of “local food” is a complex problem covering environmental issues, the economy and health.
Transportation is not the only factor that determines how efficient it is to consume local food. Of-
ten, the technologies used for agricultural production are those most responsible for the degree
of sustainability in the production and supply of food to the population. Local production does
not always mean lower emissions of greenhouse gases. In general, the consumption of local
foods, produced in ways adapted to the local environment using technologies with an ecological
basis, is something beneficial and salutary for the environment, economy and society in general.
Keywords: food consumption, food miles, greenhouse gases, sustainability
Local food: benefits and failings due to modern agriculture
Fábio Cunha Coelho1*, Enilce Maria Coelho2, Monika Egerer3
1State University of North Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro – Lab. of
Phytotechnology, Av. Alberto Lamego, 2000 – 28013-602 –
Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ – Brazil.
2Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology –
Dept. of Occupational Safety and Health, R. Dr. Siqueira, 273
– 28030-131 – Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ – Brazil.
3University of California Santa Cruz/Center For Agroecology
& Sustainable Food Systems, 1156 High St. – 95064 –
Santa Cruz, CA – USA.
*Corresponding author <fabiocoelhouenf@gmail.com>
Edited by: Luís Guilherme de Lima Ferreira Guido
Received November 12, 2015
Accepted January 03, 2017
Introduction
“Local Food” means that the food was grown in
close physical proximity to the consumer. Around the
world there is a growing movement to consume locally
produced food known as “Local Food”. Although this
movement has concentrated somewhat on North Amer-
ica and Europe, other global regions are now becoming
involved, specifically Brazil. There are, however, many
questions about these policies or popular movements
that value the use of local foods, though common sense
suggests this attitude has been considered beneficial.
This review aims to examine the issues arising out of
the consumption of local food in its various aspects, and
especially emphasizes to what extent this practice con-
tributes to local and global sustainability.
This review is subdivided into several core topics
following the introduction: (a) local food – definitions;
(b) history and strategies used to increase local food
consumption; (c) food miles; (d) local food and sus-
tainability; (e) urban agriculture; (f) farmers and local
food commerce; (g) local food quality; (h) protection of
local food; (i) local food and humanitarian aid and (j)
conclusions.
Local food - definitions
The term “Local Food” has multiple and some-
times conflicting definitions. In most cases it means that
the food was grown in close physical proximity to the
consumer (e.g., a few miles from the point of sale, was
produced in the same city, or in the same state) (Marti-
nez et al., 2010). It can also mean food sold in an alter-
native food market (Smithers et al., 2008). Furthermore,
it could also refer to the food that has the unique char-
acteristics of a particular place, or carries a certain local
cultural value or significance (Sonnino, 2007).
Regardless of the range of meanings, the concept
has undeniable power. The growth in world consump-
tion of locally produced food has resulted in significant
increases in the amount of sales of food produced by lo-
cal farmers. This new paradigm has also stimulated new
(or re-emerging) marketing strategies (Brown and Miller,
2008). Associations for the Support of Peasant Agricul-
ture (Association de Maintien de l’Agriculture Paysanne
– AMAPs) have been spreading through France since
2000. These trust-based partnerships between urban
consumers and farmers are similar to Community Sup-
ported Agriculture (CSA) organizations that developed
in North America in the 1990s (Lagane, 2015). Baskets
of food delivered weekly by organizations of farmers are
locally promoted and local markets are more highly val-
ued, establishing links between farmers and consumers.
However, currently even in large supermarkets one can
find shelves with local food on offer.
Due to the subjectivity of the term, some govern-
ments have decided to standardize the meaning of “lo-
cal food” (Table 1). According to the definition adopted
by the US Congress in 2008 in the “Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act”, a product can be considered a “local
or regionally produced agricultural food product” if (a)
the total distance traveled is less than 400 miles from
the source (approximately 644 km) or (b) the product is
produced in the same state in which it is marketed (Mar-
tinez et al., 2010). However, in Canada, the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency recognizes the term “local” as
food produced in the province or territory in which it
is sold, or also food sold just across provincial borders,
within 31 miles (50 km) from the province or territory
Ecology | Review
85
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
of origin (CFIA, 2014). It is important to consider that,
for example, the province of Ontario in Canada is more
than 1,000 km (621.4 miles) long between its furthest lim-
its. Thus, food produced at the most distant border, up
to 1,000 km away from its destination is still considered
local food. However, Lim and Hu (2015) found that most
Canadian consumers did not show a preference for food
bearing a generic “local” label over similar beef products
labeled as produced within 160 km. This supports the
notion that most Canadian consumers would accept food
produced within 160 km as local food. Further, they found
consumers preferred the generic local label over the 320
km local food label. This suggests that most consumers
deemed the 320 km radius limit beyond the definition of
local. They also observed that most consumers preferred
home-province beef to beef labeled local, suggesting that
it might be beneficial for producers to market products as
home-province products rather than local products.
In France, for example, a so-called ‘short circuit’ is
150 km. According to an official definition, established
in 2009 by the Ministry of Agriculture, a short circuit
is a form of agricultural marketing that is done either
by direct sales from producers to consumers or through
indirect sales provided that there is only one intermedi-
ary between the operator and the consumer (Conseil de
Développement du Pays d’Ancenis, 2015). On the other
hand, Brazil, another huge country, has no legislation
that defines what local food is. This should be discussed,
given its continental size.
In addition to the geographical issues that the term
“local” can address, the movement of local food is a “col-
laborative effort to build a more local based economy,
self-sufficient in food. Sustainable food production, pro-
cessing, distribution and consumption are integrated to
improve the economy, environment and society of a par-
ticular place” (Feenstra, 2002). Thus, the concept of local
food is part of a broader concept of local purchasing and
local economy; a preference for buying locally produced
goods and services, instead of those produced by busi-
ness institutions located far from where people are buy-
ing. Local food is not just a geographical concept, related
only to the distance between producers and consumers,
but is also defined in terms of food supply chain charac-
teristics and their social impact (Martinez et al., 2010).
Local food systems also draw inspiration from how
food is produced, how it affects health, the economy
and the environment. Thus, in some ways, a local food
system also incorporates the concepts of “food security”
and “food economy”. Food systems can be divided into
three basic components: biological, economic-political
and socio-cultural. The biological component refers to
the food production process or how food is produced.
The economic and political components refer to the in-
stitutional moderation of different groups of interest and
control of the food system. The socio-cultural compo-
nent refers to personal relationships, community values
and cultural relationships that affect people in the use of
food (Tansey and Worsley, 2008).
What “local” actually means has long been de-
bated in the alternative food networks literature, with
the consensus that the term is contested and defies defi-
nition. The concept of local food is contextualized and
refracted through the people and places in which food
is produced and consumed. There is huge complexity
involved in understanding, and making sense of local
food networks and their relationship with conventional
food systems (O’Neill, 2014).
History and strategies used to increase local food
consumption
In the United States, those who prefer to eat lo-
cally grown food sometimes are called “locavores” or
“localvores” (Roosevelt, 2006). These terms were first
used around 2005 in San Francisco, California, when a
group of “foodies” (i.e., a person who loves food and is
very interested in different types of food) launched the
website Locavores.com, after being inspired by the book
“Coming Home to Eat” authored by the environmentalist
Gary Paul Nabhan (Tansey and Worsley, 2008). In 2009,
the U.S. state of North Carolina launched the campaign
“10 % of North Carolina”, which aimed to stimulate lo-
cal economic development by creating jobs and promot-
ing the demand for state products. More than 4,600 peo-
ple and 543 companies, including 76 restaurants, signed
up to support the campaign through the website: http://
www.nc10percent.com. They pledged to spend 10 % of
their food budget on local food provisions. As a result of
the campaign, more than 14 million dollars were spent
on locally-grown products (Hampton, 2011).
In Europe, the UK government has for some time
encouraged consumers to buy more locally produced
food. It is expected that the veneration enjoyed by lo-
cal food will generate economic, environmental and so-
cial benefits in local areas, leading to patterns of more
sustainable consumption and production. Furthermore,
consumers, in general, approve of the idea of supporting
local farmers and their own national economy (Cham-
bers et al., 2007).
Local food advocates ranging from individual con-
sumers to government agencies rally around the idea of
knowing who grew their food and how it can be used
as a means of enacting social change and improving the
Table 1 – Countries and distances to be considered local food.
Country Distance Reference
USA 644 km or products produced within the same state in which it is marketed. Martinez et al. (2010)
Canada Food sold within approximately 50 km of the provincial borders. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2014)
France 150 km. Conseil de Développement du Pays d’Ancenis (2015)
86
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
environment. The United States Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA) has codified this sentiment by assigning a
diverse set of the agency’s initiatives from greenhouse
cost-shares to grants for novice farmers to an umbrella
program named “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food”
(USDA, 2011; Nost, 2014).
In many ways, local consumption aims to reverse
the negative effects of globalization on local economies
and communities. Globalization is understood as “the
ever-increasing integration of national economies into
the global economy through trade and investment rules
and privatization, aided by technological advances. Lo-
cal consumption is a process that reverses the trend of
globalization, to discriminate in favor of local” (Hines,
2000). Today, an American popular movement seeks to
protect local economies and go against the juggernaut
of globalization even as government policies continue
to support large food producing companies in the food
exporting sector. For example, many efforts of the U.S.
Dept. of Commerce are to “support U.S. companies in
selling their goods and services abroad” and “aggres-
sively investigating unfair trade practices affecting U.S.
exports or imports into the U.S. market” (United States
Department of Commerce, 2013), rather than figuring
out ways to support local markets. Nonetheless, govern-
ments should develop strategies to strengthen the local
food market and trade as they do for foodstuff that is
exported.
Research approaches that estimate the economic
benefits of local food production could inform govern-
ment strategies and policies that favor local producers.
For example, in one case study Loke et al. (2015) estimat-
ed that the price of milk in Hawaii, USA would increase
by 17 % if the product was locally produced, and by 25
% if it were both local and organic. This information
undoubtedly encourages local and organic production
from a local producer’s perspective, where increases in
market price lead to increases in profit. However, this
information does not necessarily encourage local and
organic consumption as price is a barrier to many con-
sumer groups.
Another strategy is to put information about the
origin of food on the packages. For example, Korean con-
sumers have a positive perception of and preference for
domestic rice, particularly when country of origin infor-
mation is provided (Lee et al., 2014). Many consumers
favor the idea, as promoted by retailer advertisements,
that farmers produce in harmony with nature and their
products can be purchased conveniently in the super-
market next door. Regionalization suggests traceability
as it provides an air of knowledge about production
methods. For example, one major Austrian discounter
offers for its organic line not only a differentiation into
“regions of origin” but complete traceability on the inter-
net via the bar code and even CO2 footprint calculations
on the packaging (Schermer, 2015).
The registration of a local food item under Pro-
tected Designation of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geo-
graphical Indication (PGI) is an interesting regional and
cultural based strategy to protect local production. For
example, ‘Vatikiotiko’ is a local onion landrace from
Greece with special quality features, such as strong and
pungent taste and storability. In their study, Petropoulos
et al. (2015) sought to characterize the ‘Vatikiotiko’ land-
race and record its morphological traits and nutritional
value in comparison with commercially cultivated geno-
types. They found the ‘Vatikiotiko’ landrace to indeed
have unique nutritional value (sugar content, mineral
composition and fatty acids profile) in comparison to
commercial genotypes, providing an argument to poten-
tially introduce it as PDO or PGI. Another important
aspect of this product is its cultural importance for the
local region, owing to its survival over the centuries, and
its special taste and flavor due to the microclimatic con-
ditions of the region, which lends high quality to this
product.
As for the promotion of local food products and
services, a study by Mynttinen et al. (2015) recommends
a stronger focus on the added-value of “exciting and au-
thentic novel experiences” in the provision of local food
products and cuisines exclusive to the local culture.
First, this entails the development of the brand around
local food products and services with adequate labeling
to guarantee the authenticity, identity and nature of the
products to the tourist. Second, joint promotional efforts
by farmers' groups and the regional tourism association
might facilitate local products becoming more easily
available in local events. Moreover, fairs and festivals
arranged around meals can be used to attract visitors to
regions and provide organizers an opportunity to make
a wide range of consumption activities. Third, the con-
sumption of locally produced ingredients could be in-
creased through cooperation between the farmers and
owners of self-catering cottages: e.g. in terms of “wel-
come packages” including samples of local foodstuffs.
Fourth, gift-wrapped local food products could be sold
on the premises of tourist accommodation and in the
local supermarkets as souvenirs and presents. Fifth,
more intensive inclusion of local ingredients and spe-
cial menus of authentic local cuisine offered by local
cafes and restaurants in line with seasonal availability
can be seen as an opportunity to add value for tourists.
This was confirmed in a study by Sompong and Rampai
(2015).
Food festivals can provide high levels of interac-
tion between customers and producers, and offer an
opportunity for traditional culture, livelihoods, and the
local food movement to intersect. At their individual
stalls, producers offer visitors the opportunity to sample
their produce, allowing them to experience the taste and
flavors of the food, at the same time as being able to
discuss the origin of the food and production processes.
Results indicate that engagement and positive emotions
at a food festival are good predictors of food buying be-
havior six months later, highlighting the significance of
emotions and engagement in influencing food purchas-
87
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
ing choices. Thus, one recommendation on a local scale
could be to enact policies that encourage food festivals
which involve local producers and foods to influence
longer-lasting food buying behavior in positive social
and economic ways (Juergensen and Demaree, 2015).
In fact, public policies and marketing are the strat-
egies most commonly deployed to improve local food
consumption and are the ones that result in stronger
gains.
Food miles
The “food miles” concept, originating in the Unit-
ed Kingdom, has been very prominent in policy, media,
and social movements in northern countries. This con-
cept has been used to suggest that the importing of food
from distant countries inherently causes more emissions
than cultivating and consuming local products (Kemp et
al., 2010). One of the reasons why consumers choose
to purchase local foods is to reduce the “food miles” of
their purchases (Brown et al., 2009), that is, reduce the
distance that their food travels from farm to plate, in
an effort to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases
(GHG). In fact, it is assumed that consuming more lo-
cal agricultural products results in reduced emissions
of GHGs and the imminent impact of climate change,
and thus contributes to environmental protection and
conservation. However, the calculation is not so simple.
Food production causes emissions of greenhouse gases
at many stages between soil preparation and harvesting.
Even from great distances, food transportation generally
represents less than 15 % of the total energy used to
produce food products (Brodt et al., 2013; Plawecki et
al., 2013). Thus, transportation is only one aspect in the
analysis of the pathway from agricultural production to
the consumer's table.
Plawecki et al. (2013) compared the GHG emis-
sions in the production of organic lettuce grown in a
greenhouse and sold in Michigan, USA, with conven-
tionally grown lettuce in California transported to Mich-
igan in refrigerated trucks for sale. After taking into
account the energy consumption associated with diesel
burning, fertilizer production, activities involved in ag-
ricultural production, transportation and manufacturing
inputs such as the vegetation and irrigation materials,
the authors concluded that the total GHG emissions for
each 1 kg of lettuce produced locally in Michigan was 4
times lower than the lettuce that came from California.
In this case, the use of organic farming techniques and
local production in Michigan resulted in lower green-
house gas emissions compared to conventional produc-
tion in California and the cumulative emissions from
transportation.
However, local production does not always trans-
late into lower emissions. In a similar analysis which
evaluated the energy consumption involved in the pro-
duction of tomatoes in Sweden and Spain, for consump-
tion in Sweden, it was found that GHG emissions were
higher for tomatoes produced locally. That's because
only about one-fifth of the energy was required to pro-
duce tomatoes in Spain. Swedish production required
high use of coal burning to heat greenhouses needed for
local production. Thus, transportation is not the only
factor that determines how efficient local food really is.
It must also be considered whether the methods used
in the production process are conventional or organic
and whether the siting of that production occurred in
a field or greenhouse with temperature control through
the use of fossil fuels (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1999). Thus,
the inputs in production at the field level, and not just
transportation factors, must be given due consideration.
Saunders and Hayes (2007) reviewed several stud-
ies that compared energy use and emissions of GHGs,
from cultivation to consumption of agricultural products
with local and imported origin. In general, where prod-
ucts are air freighted, the transportation component con-
tributes significantly to the total energy and CO2 emis-
sions in the supply chain. In the case of sea freighted
produce the transport contribution is much lower and
frequently insignificant compared to the energy and
emissions associated with other parts of the supply
chain. According to the authors, the shortest distance to
local markets is generally offset by the higher transpor-
tation efficiency of imported products, which reduces
the energy consumption per unit transported.
In accounting for the total energy spent in the pro-
duction of food, it is important to assess the entire food
system from production to the consumer's table and
thus enable an evaluation between local or imported
food. Saunders and Barber (2008) reported that, due to
different production systems, even when transportation
was taken into account, dairy products imported from
New Zealand used half as much energy as their UK
counterparts, and in the case of lamb, a quarter as much
energy. The importation of apples from New Zealand is
10 % more efficient than UK apples in terms of energy
expenditure as this evaluation showed that products im-
ported from New Zealand to the UK used less energy,
from production to the consumer's table than those
locally produced in the UK; the lower the power con-
sumption, the lower the emission of greenhouse gases.
GHG emissions from the food supply in the UK,
excluding changes in land use, were estimated. Accord-
ing to Garnett (2008), agriculture is responsible for 40
% of total GHG emissions, fertilizer manufacturing
contributes 5 %, food processing 12 %, packaging 7 %
and transport 12 %. Corroborating these data, Edwards-
Jones et al. (2008) concluded that the distance traveled
by food is a poor indicator of the environmental impacts
of food production.
It is often said that locally produced food con-
sumption can greatly reduce the carbon footprint of
agriculture. However, there are many controversies sur-
rounding this statement, which demand more research
on the subject. For example, Matos (2009) in evaluating
sunflower oil consumption in Portugal, found that the
seeds of oilseed produced in Portugal are sent to Spain,
88
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
for extraction processing and oil refining. The refined
vegetable oil travels back to Portugal where it is pack-
aged and distributed to hypermarkets, and finally to con-
sumers. The GHG emissions analysis shows that to pro-
duce and put 1 L of edible vegetable oil on the shelves
of national hypermarkets in Portugal, the product's car-
bon footprint is 2.77 kg CO2 eq. Production of oilseed
contributes the largest fraction of GHG emissions (80
%), followed by the extracting and refining stage (12 %),
packaging (6 %), road transport (3 %), and local distribu-
tion (1 %). The authors found that the greatest contribu-
tion to the carbon footprint comes from nitrous oxide,
the result of denitrification processes associated with
the use of nitrogen fertilizers. However, Michalsky and
Hooda (2015) did a quantitative assessment. They se-
lected five commodities (apples, cherries, strawberries,
garlic and peas). Selection of the commodities fulfills
a key prerequisite that all of them can be grown un-
der current UK climatic conditions and are commonly
bought by UK consumers. A scenario-based approach
determined the level of emissions savings that could be
achieved by local food production in the UK. The least
dramatic change of Scenario-1 (25 % reduction in im-
ports by increasing their local production by the same
amount) could save 28.9 kt CO2 e yr–1, while Scenario-2
(50 % reduction) and Scenario-3 (75 % reduction) could
result in savings of 57.8 kt and 86.7 kt, respectively.
New indicators are urgently needed because re-
search shows that spatial localization in general and
minimized food miles in particular are not adequate or
even required for most of the goals of alternative food
systems (Cleveland et al., 2015).
Local food and sustainability
Leff (2009) commented that the slogan “thinking
globally and acting locally”, so tenaciously promoted by
the discourse of sustainable development, has been a
ruse to induce in local cultures the unique thought and
background knowledge of the economic rationality of
a hegemonic world in which “other worlds” don’t fit.
However, the challenges of sustainability and democ-
racy, of entropy and otherness, open the siege of global-
ized unique thinking and move it towards local singu-
larities, leading to the construction of an idea capable
of amalgamating the power of the real (ecology) and the
meaning of the symbolic (culture).
Consuming only locally produced food does not
guarantee the ecological sustainability of our agricul-
tural systems. Thus, the place where our food is grown
brings no assurances of the methods used to produce the
food and the subsequent impact of these methods on the
environment and biodiversity (McWilliams, 2010). If lo-
cal agriculture and food is to be truly beneficial, it is im-
portant that local agriculture conserves the biodiversity
of the agro-ecosystem. Thus, it is the role of sustainable
agriculture to contribute to the conservation of organ-
isms that play important activities such as pollination
and pest control (Philpott et al., 2014).
For many consumers, the term “local” conjures
up images of environmentally friendly, small farms and
local properties. However, it is worth considering that
these images are not implicit in standard definitions. If
local farms are using industrial farming methods that
include widespread use of agrochemicals this practice
will have negative impacts on biodiversity (Kimbrell,
2002). Furthermore, the indiscriminate use of pesticides
can also have strong negative impacts on the local com-
munity and on local agricultural workers. A representa-
tive example of this would be the strawberries produced
in Watsonville, California, which is only 20 miles (32.1
km) from Santa Cruz, CA. Conventional strawberry
production requires a large amount of soil fumigants in-
cluding methyl bromide, which destroys ozone in the
stratosphere. Conventional strawberry production im-
pairs biodiversity, destroys soil microbiota, and causes
pesticide drift to loom over neighboring towns and
schools (Reeves et al., 2002). These strawberries may be
considered local food, if consumed in Santa Cruz, but
are they produced in a sustainable way? Do the produc-
tion methods used ensure the protection of biodiversity
and maintain the health of rural workers? These ques-
tions suggest that a beyond “local” perspective and ap-
proach is needed in order to combine both sustainable
agriculture and local economic benefits. If we consume
a local product that degrades the local environment, we
are actually condemning the place where we live for a
purpose that is not desired.
One alternative is the consumption of local and
organic food Badgley et al. (2006) estimate that organic
methods could produce enough food on a global per cap-
ita basis to sustain the current human population, and
potentially an even larger population, without increas-
ing the area under cultivation. The authors also evalu-
ated the amount of nitrogen that can be fixed by legumi-
nous cover crops used as fertilizer. The results indicate
that organic agriculture has the potential to substantially
contribute to the global food supply and reduce the envi-
ronmental impacts of conventional agriculture. Howev-
er, certification of organic food is rooted in social, legal
and bureaucratic institutions that often accentuate tra-
ditional economic inequalities between companies and
countries. Onerous and expensive organic certification
requirements create significant barriers to entry of poor
farmers in the southern countries in this niche market.
Furthermore, certification promotes the concentration
of production in the hands of large corporate produc-
ers. Large corporate retailers also benefit from organic
certification, as it facilitates their control over suppliers
(Raynolds, 2004).
Agriculture can be a major consumer of fossil fu-
els during production and input application phases but
the amount of carbon emitted varies greatly depending
on the methods of production, food processing and mar-
keting processes (Edwards-Jones et al., 2008).
Grain crop systems based on soil tillage result in
high emissions of CO2, combined with huge soil losses.
89
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
In Brazil, the no-till system is widely used in order to
combat soil erosion by water. In addition, this soil man-
agement technique leads to the accumulation of soil car-
bon stocks and provides high crop yields for many years
(Machado, 2005). Nunes et al. (2011) evaluated the ef-
fect of soil management systems based on tillage, cover
crops and P fertilization on C and N stocks in physical
fractions of the soil organic matter and microbial bio-
mass in an Oxisol soil in Brazil after 11 years of soybean-
maize rotation (Glycine max-Zea mays). Phosphorus fer-
tilization led to accumulation of organic C and N in the
soil, regardless of tillage and cover crop systems. Higher
stocks of organic C and N and higher microbial biomass
were found under no-till compared with conventional
tillage. The conversion rate of C added to the soil by
crops in organic C was 4, 8 and 14 % for conventional
tillage and no-till systems with pearl millet (Pennisetum
glaucum) and velvet bean (Mucuna aterrima), respective-
ly. Also in an Oxisol soil, Corazza et al. (1999) found
that soils under no-till management sequestered 21.4
Mg ha–1 of CO2 and emitted 8.3 Mg ha–1 of CO2 result-
ing in net carbon accumulation in the soil. Similarly, the
use of more ecological cropping systems instead of the
traditional fallow/maize systems was an efficient tool for
storing soil organic matter and increasing the sequestra-
tion of agricultural carbon and, therefore, mitigate the
greenhouse effect. Amado et al. (2001) found that rota-
tion of maize and velvet bean, grown for eight years re-
sulted in the sequestration of 15.5 Mg ha–1 of CO2, while
the fallow and maize rotation resulted in net emissions
of 4.32 Mg ha–1 of CO2.
Another way to ensure quality of food is through
participatory certification, where the organization's own
farmers and consumers make it possible to perform the
certification of products (Radomsky, 2009). This is an ef-
fective way to encourage local organic production with
quality and independence. In the United States, local
food organizations are doing an excellent job in promot-
ing the movement of consumption of locally produced
food. However, it is interesting that such organizations
also work to support sustainable food production tech-
niques in order to protect both the local and global eco-
systems. Agricultural ecological production methods
based on intercropping, crop rotation, biological pest
control, trap cropping, and other methods ensure great-
er protection of biodiversity (Altieri, 1999; Harvey et al.,
2008) and may reduce carbon emissions (Lin et al., 2012)
while protecting the local and global environments.
It is important to consider that there is great varia-
tion in the forms or the technologies involved in food
production between from farm to farm, especially the
amount of carbon emitted or sequestered.
Urban agriculture
In recent years urban agriculture has strengthened
production in many parts of the world. Here, food is
both produced and usually consumed locally in cities
and in the suburbs of cities. These urban green spaces,
including backyard gardens, have the potential to pro-
vide families with a more affordable alternative for im-
proving their diet and for supplementing their income
from the sales of surplus food grown. Eichemberg and
Amorozo (2013) evaluated the consumption of fruits
and vegetables, which are partly supplied by homegar-
dens in Rio Claro, SP, southeastern Brazil. The authors
found that spices and teas consumed by the families
interviewed were obtained from homegardens, reveal-
ing its importance in food consumption and health pro-
motion. However, among 98 species found in homegar-
dens, only 38 % appeared in the diet of the respondents,
which indicates an under-utilization of crops in these
homegardens. The study concluded that the main role of
homegardens is to provide variation in the diet, which
contributes to the consumption of different types of
products.
Urban agriculture is commonly discussed as a
sustainable solution for dealing with gaps in the local
food system, and proponents often highlight the many
social, environmental, and economic benefits (Cook et
al., 2015). The Amazon region in northern Brazil consist-
ing of nine states is currently an area of increasing urban
concentration as a result of economic development, and
70 % of its population now live in urban areas. New
migrants to cities continue to rely on self-provisioning,
especially through growing food in urban homegardens,
to meet their food needs. For example, the maintenance
of urban homegardens in Santarém, in the state of Pará,
helps new urban migrants to survive in a highly devel-
oped, highly populated city by providing a part of the
food directly through local production (WinklerPrins
and Souza, 2005).
The expansion of urban agriculture assists in re-
ducing GHG emissions not only by producing food but
also by reducing the amount of food transported from
farming areas and thus reduces the food mileage. For
example, if Seoul, South Korea, implemented urban ag-
riculture in a 51 km2 area, it would be possible to reduce
CO2 emissions by 11 million kg annually. This numerical
value is the same amount of CO2 absorbed annually by
20 km2 of pine forests and 10 km2 of oak tree forests that
are 20 years old (Lee et al., 2015). Thus, urban forms of
agriculture have the potential to mitigate climate change
impacts especially in highly developed urban areas.
Machado and Machado (2002) commented that
public policies aimed at encouraging and implement-
ing urban agriculture can promote the local develop-
ment of the peripheries of large cities. In addition, by
redirecting community goals, through participatory ac-
tion in all development processes, it is possible to offer
healthy life choices for young people and children as
well as generate jobs and improve the quality of life of
the elderly or the unemployed. The production of good
quality nutritional and pesticide-free food, developed
at relatively low cost, can contribute not only to im-
proving the quality of life, but also to increasing family
income.
90
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
Farmers and local food commerce
Many farmers who live in the countryside have
difficulty in locally marketing their products. This is due
to several factors such as inadequate visual quality stan-
dards imposed by the market, lack of community orga-
nization, or a lack of consistency in production. Lima
Filho et al. (2012) analyzed purchase of fruit and veg-
etable policies in supermarkets in Campo Grande, in the
Brazilian midwest. Interviews were conducted with rep-
resentatives of small and medium markets and large su-
permarkets. Large supermarkets most frequently source
vegetables and fruits from other states, while small and
medium-sized markets source more from local produc-
ers. For the supermarket, fruit and vegetables produced
locally are fresher and have a lower cost; however, the
low dependability of supply and the lack of variety of-
fered by local producers are considered unsatisfactory
points. Certainly, better organization of local farmers
would help in maintaining the supply of agricultural
products with greater regularity and diversity.
A major obstacle to localization is the lack of eco-
nomic, organizational and physical structures on the ap-
propriate scale for local aggregation and distribution of
food. Local food hubs are emerging as an important tool
for overcoming this obstacle by pooling food products
from a number of smaller farms and delivering them to
grocery stores, schools, hospitals and restaurants (Cleve-
land et al., 2014). Alternative Food Networks (AFNs)
have arisen with the potential to re-connect the differ-
ent participants in local food systems (Cicatiello et al.,
2015). Another local agriculture revitalization strategy
is the Farmers' Markets (FMs). These markets have
emerged and/or grown in northern countries, as an im-
portant place of engagement for producers, consumers
and producers of local foods. However, FMs are seen as
a complex and ambiguous space where the local notions
of quality, authenticity and legitimacy find expression in
communications and transactions around food (Smith-
ers et al., 2008). A recent empirical analysis involving
sellers, buyers and managers in 15 markets in Ontario,
Canada sought to understand how participants “read”
the market as a breathing space and then build the terms
of (their) “engagement” (Cicatiello et al., 2015). The au-
thors found that FM customers wish to support Ontario
farmers and agriculture and, therefore, direct their ex-
penditures to FM food. Furthermore, consumers make
purchases at FMs with an expectation that they may
get other benefits from local consumption. For example,
consumers have the ability to not only know the origin
of their food by purchasing at a market that only allows
food from a specific area, but they also have the oppor-
tunity to meet the farmer/producer, learn about how the
food was produced, and establish long-lasting relation-
ships between consumers and farmers/producers. These
relationships related to food production, trade, and con-
sumption can create a sense of cooperation and com-
munity (Cicatiello et al., 2015). However, these values
and benefits can vary and be context-dependent, as, al-
though the notion of “local” can be highly valued, its in-
terpretation in meaning and degree of importance varies
greatly from consumer group to consumer group.
In conclusion, the key to FM success in the move-
ment lies in the ability and motivation of participants to
prioritize social and environmental over just economic
goals (Cleveland et al., 2014).
Local food quality
In comparing the nutritional quality of local and
non-local foods, one popular assumption is that local
food is often more nutritious because items are fresher.
Edwards-Jones et al. (2008) considered the nutritional
quality of local and non-local food in their review. They
purport that if consumers buy products from a farm af-
ter a few hours of harvesting, it is expected that their
nutritional quality will be high. However, if quality is
related to the smallest time interval between harvesting
and consumption, then it should be noted that food pro-
duced at great distances, as in the case of products grown
in Kenya, may also be available for sale in some parts
of northern Europe within 24 h after harvest. For this
reason, it is not possible to state categorically that fruit
and vegetables produced locally will always be of bet-
ter nutritional quality than products from further afield.
Quality depends on how they were grown, and the type
of post-harvest process they have undergone. Thus, the
authors concluded that the characteristics of cultivation,
processing and storage are certainly more important in
determining the quality of fruits and vegetables than the
distance between producer and consumer.
It is also worth considering the issue of mass pub-
lic opinion regarding which foods should be eaten. With
the advent of fast food chains there was a sharp increase
in advertisements displaying certain products as being
more tasty and cheaper, and as a result, this generally
discouraged people (especially younger generations)
from buying fresh produce, some of which was locally
produced.
Frequent consumption of “fast food” has strong
positive associations with weight gain and insulin resis-
tance, and eating “fast food” increases the risk of obesity
and type 2 diabetes (Pereira et al., 2005). On the other
hand, Salois (2012) found that the greater the number of
smaller local food retail outlets in a location, the lower
the rate of obesity and diabetes in that location. The au-
thor assumes that this is due to the possibility of encour-
aging better and healthier food choices. Thus, increasing
the availability and affordability of healthy foods are
key strategies to improving diet and health (Budd et al.,
2015). With respect to obesity, Hamilton et al. (2014) be-
lieve that urban agriculture, with local food production,
shows particularly significant potential for stifling the
obesity epidemic.
In a number of regions, the composition of nutri-
ent data of fruit and vegetables of local food are being
formulated by health professionals such as physicians
and nutritionists in order to enhance recommendations
91
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
for consumption of locally produced food. In several
places, many local food products (e.g. pequi [Caryocar
brasiliense] in Brazil, paterna [Inga paterno] in El Salva-
dor, Kulãkula [Syzyginus guineense] in Angola) are not in-
cluded in nutrient data compositions of foods in books
studied at university. Thus, physicians and nutrition-
ists are unlikely to recommend such products to their
patients. Yet, in a number of locations, to know the nu-
trient composition can be powerful tools for promoting
local food systems. For example, the West African food
composition tables (FCT) allow users to treat health prob-
lems related to diet, and to strengthen local development
and encourage biodiversity. In addition, the preparation
of these nutrient composition listings contributes to a re-
duction in poverty in rural and urban areas (Stadlmayr
et al., 2013). Samuda (2003) reported that in 1995, the
Regional Data Center for food composition activities in
the English-speaking Caribbean (CARICOMFOODS) was
established. The geographical area represented by CARI-
COMFOODS covers 18 territories scattered throughout
the Caribbean basin. The compositions of 1,000 kinds of
local food are described in these tables.
The use of the nutrient content of local foods is
very important in the development of local food. Many
universities in the South used books published in the
North in their nutrition and medicine courses. These
academic standards led to an overvaluation of diets that
contained food produced in the North at the expense of
local food from the South.
Protection of local food
The maintenance of genetic diversity within lo-
cal food plants and products has also been discussed
at length. For example, Mexico is the center of origin
and diversity of maize (Zea mays L.), with great ge-
netic wealth. Maize comes in different colors, textures
and amylopectin and amylose content in their starch
(Sandhu et al., 2004). Each type of maize can be used
for cooking specific foods and these foods are tradition-
ally used in their places of origin. The preservation of
the genetic biodiversity of maize will lead to the pres-
ervation of local foods. Moreover, maize in this region
is the major local food. Thus, the protection of the ge-
netic integrity of local varieties of maize is of paramount
importance. However, with the increase in the use of
transgenic maize, the genetic purity of this local food
is being threatened. Quist and Chapela (2001) reported
the presence of transgenic DNA in native Creole maize
populations grown in the remote mountains in Oaxaca,
Mexico, which is part of the Mesoamerican center of
origin and diversification of culture. The transgenic
DNA in Creole maize samples, indicates the occurrence
of multiple introgressions probably mediated by pol-
lination. As pollination in maize occurs mainly on the
wind, the pollen of transgenic plants can pollinate native
plants and contaminate natural DNA with transgenic
DNA. Further, Lopez (2011) assessed the existence of
a relationship between the presence of transgenes and
the appearance of new abnormal phenotypes in maize
in five communities in Oaxaca. Leaf tissue was sampled
from 500 native corn plants with abnormal phenotypes
and 500 native corn plants with normal phenotypes.
Transgene presence was observed in at least 18 % of all
the plants sampled; the Cry1Ab protein was the most
frequently encountered (of the three tested). In addition,
there was a significantly higher frequency of recombi-
nant proteins in abnormal phenotypes (117/500) com-
pared with normal phenotypes (62/500)(Lopez, 2011).
This gene flow is not the only possible environmental
impact. Overall damages to crops, wild relatives, pesti-
cides, and the wider ecosystem are another result. For
instance, herbicide resistant organisms stimulate the use
of herbicides, antibiotic resistant species create health
risks, and genetic engineering in monocrop agriculture
promote erosion and the spreading of disease. On the
other hand, we must recognize the important role of bio-
diversity conservation achieved by small farmers in the
South. This is critical, as the southern countries contain
most of the world’s biodiversity both in terms of the
variety and species of crops that are used as food (or
agrobiodiversity) (Harvey et al., 2008).
Local food and humanitarian aid
Another important issue to be addressed is the de-
velopment of local food in disaster situations. Humani-
tarian aid work, in times of major disasters, demonstrates
the mutual aid capacity that nations have when facing
dire situations. Much aid food is donated, and shipped
from far-away locations to disaster zones. Yet, in these
situations the development of local food can be a lever
for the resumption of development. Harou et al. (2013)
conducted case studies of food assistance programs in
disasters in Burkina Faso, in North Africa and Guatema-
la, Central America. The authors concluded that there
could be a 63 % reduction in costs if the food were to
be purchased locally or nearby. Thus, given the size of
the program, the same funds could potentially provide
another three months of daily rations for approximately
20,000 people. The authors comment that, furthermore,
given the capacity of planning in advance and the fea-
sibility of providing local food where possible, prior-
ity would be given to acquiring food from local small
agriculturalists. Lentz et al. (2013) generated estimates
of timeliness and cost-effectiveness, comparing three
forms of aid in cases of national disaster. They are: US
transoceanic food aid shipments, local or regional food
purchases funded by the US, and cash aid. The study
was conducted in nine countries over the same period.
The authors concluded that the local purchasing of food
or distribution of cash or vouchers would result in time
savings of about 14 weeks and an average economic gain
of 62 %. If only the grains were to be bought locally
there would be, on average, a savings of 50 %.
Local purchase of food, in addition to offering eco-
nomic savings,would stimulate the resumption of local
development.
92
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
Conclusions
The promotion of “local food” is a complex issue
which incorporates the realms of environment, economy
and health on both the local and the greater national and
international scales. Governments should have strategies
in place to promote and strengthen the local food trade
as much as they have historically for the export market.
Transportation is only one aspect of an assessment of the
life cycle from agricultural production to consumption
and local production does not always equate to lower
GHG emissions or to sustainable food production. Thus,
whether the methods used for agricultural production
are conventional or organic, and whether production oc-
curred in a field or, for example, in a greenhouse with
temperature control through the use of fossil fuels are
factors that must be considered when evaluating local
food efficiency and sustainability. Consuming only lo-
cally produced food does not guarantee the ecological
sustainability of our agricultural systems.
Urban agriculture has the potential to provide
families with a low-cost alternative for diet improve-
ment and to supplement their income from sales of sur-
plus food grown. It also provides families the ability to
grow foods that are culturally relevant. In addition, pur-
chasing local foods at Farmers’ Markets gives consumers
the ability to discover where their food comes from and
who is producing it, and with that knowledge, a certain
assurance about the production methods on-farm.
The use and understanding of the nutrient com-
position of local foods is very important in the develop-
ment of local food. Many universities in the southern
countries have used books produced in the North in
their nutrition and medicine courses. These academic
standards have led to an overvaluation of diets that con-
tain food produced in the North at the expense of local
food from the South. Thus, there is a need to integrate
local knowledge into the evaluating process of nutrition-
al benefits and locale-based values of local food.
Protecting the maintenance of the genetic purity
of local food has also been much discussed. We must
recognize the important role played in the conservation
achieved by small farmers in the South, because it con-
tains most of the biodiversity of the world both in vari-
ety and species that are used for food.
Another important issue to be addressed is the de-
velopment of local food in disaster situations. Given the
capacity of planning in advance and the feasibility of
providing local food where possible, priority would be
given to acquire food from local small agriculturalists.
In addition to these aspects, the local purchase of food
would result in the resumption of local development.
In conclusion, we need more data that can pro-
vide information on the environmental, economical and
health impacts resulting from the consumption of local-
ly produced food compared to those produced far from
the place of consumption. Research on this topic has
been and remains limited (Edwards-Jones et al., 2008).
However, in general, the consumption of local foods,
produced in ways adapted to the local environment and
the use of technologies with ecological conditions, is cer-
tainly one positive factor in promoting improvements to
the health of the environment, the economy and society
in general.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank CAPES – the agency for
the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level
Personnel for funding the sabbatical of Fábio Cunha
Coelho and Enilce Maria Coelho in UCSC – Universi-
ty of California Santa Cruz making this study possible.
We would like to extend our thanks to Professor Stacy
Philpott, CASFS - Center for Agroecology & Sustain-
able Food Systems, the Ant Labs group of UCSC. I also
thank the Lab. of Phytotechnology, especially Professor
Sílvio de Jesus Freitas, of the State University of North
Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro (UENF), for their support in
this work and a special thanks to my son André Fialho
Coelho for the English review.
References
Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in
agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
74:19-31.
Amado, T.J.C.; Bayer, C.; Eltz, F.L.F.; Brumr, A.C.R. 2001. Potential
of cover crops to sequester carbon and increase soil nitrogen
content, under no-tillage system, improving environmental
quality. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 25: 189-197 (in
Portuguese, with abstract in English).
Badgley, C.; Moghtader, J.; Quintero, E.; Zakem, E.; Chappell,
M.J.; Avile’s-Va’zquez, K.; Samulon, A.; Perfecto, I. 2006.
Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems 22: 86-108.
Brodt, S.; Kramer, K.J.; Kendall, A.; Feenstra, G. 2013. Comparing
environmental impacts of regional and national-scale food
supply chains: a case study of processed tomatoes. Food Policy
42: 106-114.
Brown, C.; Miller, S. 2008. The impacts of local markets: a review
of research on farmers markets and community supported
agriculture. American Journal of Agriculture Economics 90:
1296-1302.
Brown, E.; Dury, S.; Holdsworth, M. 2009. Motivations of
consumers that use local, organic fruit and vegetable box
schemes in Central England and Southern France. Appetite 53:
183-188.
Budd, N.; Cuccia, A.; Jeffries, J.K.; Prasad, D.; Frick, K.D.;
Powell, L.; Katz, F.A.; Gittelsohn, J. 2015. B’More healthy:
retail rewards; design of a multi-level communications and
pricing intervention to improve the food environment in
Baltimore City. BMC Public Health 15: 283.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency [CFIA]. 2014. Local food claims
interim policy. Available at: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/
labelling/food-labelling-for-industry/origin/local-food-claims/
eng/1368135927256/1368136146333 [Accessed Jan 21, 2014]
93
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. 1999. Food consumption patterns and
their influence on climate change: greenhouse gas emissions
in the life-cycle of tomatoes and carrots consumed in Sweden.
Ambio 27: 528-534.
Chambers, S.; Lobb, A.; Butler, L.; Harvey, K.; Traill, W.B.
2007. Local, national and imported foods: a qualitative study.
Appetite 49: 208-213.
Cicatiello, C.; Pancino, B.; Pascucci, S.; Franco, S. 2015.
Relationship patterns in food purchase: observing social
interactions in different shopping environments. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 21-42.
Cleveland, D.A.; Carruth, A.; Mazaroli, D. 2015. Operationalizing
local food: goals, actions, and indicators for alternative food
systems. Agriculture and Human Values 32: 281-297.
Cleveland, D.A.; Müller, N.M.; Tranovich, A.C.; Mazaroli, D.N.;
Hinson, K. 2014. Local food hubs for alternative food systems:
a case study from Santa Barbara County, California. Journal of
Rural Studies 35: 26-36.
Conseil de Développement du Pays d’Ancenis [COMPA]. 2015.
Food Short Circuits in the Countries of Ancenis = Les Circuits
Courts Alimentaires de Proximite en Pays d’Ancenis. COMPA,
Ancenis, France. (in French).
Cook, J.; Oviatt, K.; Main, D.; Kaur, H.; Brett, J. 2015. Re-
conceptualizing urban agriculture: an exploration of farming
along the banks of the Yamuna river in Delhi, India. Agriculture
and Human Values 32: 265-279.
Corazza, E.J.; Silva, J.E.; Resck, D.V.S.; Gomes, A.C. 1999. Behavior
of different management systems as a source or sink of C-CO2 in
relation to cerrado type vegetation. Revista Brasileira de Ciência
do Solo 23: 425-432 (in Portuguese, with abstract in English).
Edwards-Jones, G.L.; Llorenç, M.C.; Hounsome, N.; Truninger,
M.; Koerber, G.; Hounsome, B.; Cross, P.; York, E.H.; Hospido,
A.; Plassmann, K.; Harris, I.M.; Edwards, R.T.; Day, G.A.S.;
Tomos, A.D.; Cowell, S.J.; Jones, D.L. 2008. Testing the assertion
that “local food is best”: the challenges of an evidence-based
approach. Trends in Food Science & Technology 19: 265-274.
Eichemberg, M.T.; Amorozo, M.C.M. 2013. Contributions of the
old urban homegardens for food production and consumption
in Rio Claro, southeastern Brazil. Boletim do Museu Paraense
Emílio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas 8: 745-755.
Feenstra, G. 2002. Creating space for sustainable food systems:
lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values 19: 99-106.
Garnett, T. 2008. Cooking up a storm: food, greenhouse gas
emissions and our changing climate. p. 155. In: Food climate
research network. Centre for Environmental Strategy,
University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
Hamilton, A.J.; Burry, K.; Mok, H.; Barker, S.F.; Grove, J.R.;
Williamson, V.G. 2014. Give peas a chance? Urban agriculture
in developing countries: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development 34: 45-73.
Hampton, N. 2011. North Carolina campaign promoting locally
grown food. Southeast Farm Press. Available at: http://
southeastfarmpress.com/vegetables/north-carolina-campaign-
promoting-locally-grown-food [Accessed Jan 21, 2014]
Harou, A.P.; Upton, J.B.; Lentz, E.C.; Barrett, C.B.; Gomez, M.
2013. Tradeoffs or synergies? Assessing local and regional food
aid procurement through case studies in Burkina Faso and
Guatemala. World Development 49: 44-57.
Harvey, C.A.; Komar, O.; Chazdon, R.; Ferguson, B.G.; Finegan,
B.; Griffith, D.M.; Martinez-Ramos, M.; Morales, H.; Night, R.;
Soto-Pinto, L.; Van Breugel, M.; Wishnie, M. 2008. Integrating
agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the
Mesoamerican hotspot. Conservation Biology 22: 8-15.
Hines, C. 2000. Localization: A Global Manifesto. Earthscan,
London, UK.
Juergensen, J.; Demaree, H.A. 2015. Approach-motivated positive
affect and emotion regulation alter global-local focus and food
choice. Motivation and Emotion. 39: 580-588. DOI 10.1007/
s11031-015-9472-3.
Kemp, K.; Insch, A.; Holdsworth, D.K.; Knight, J.G. 2010. Food
miles: do UK consumers actually care? Food Policy 35: 504-513.
Kimbrell, A. 2002. The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of
Industrial Agriculture. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Lagane, J. 2015. When students run AMAPs: towards a French
model of CSA. Agriculture and Human Values 32: 133-141.
Lee, G.; Lee, H.; Lee, J. 2015. Greenhouse gas emission reduction
effect in the transportation sector by urban agriculture in
Seoul, Korea. Landscape and Urban Planning 140: 1-7.
Lee, J.Y.; Han, D.B.; Nayga, R.M.; Yoon, J.M. 2014. Assessing
Korean consumers' valuation for domestic, Chinese, and
US rice: importance of the country of origin and food miles
information. China Agricultural Economic Review 6: 125-138.
Leff, E. 2009. Ecology, Capital and Culture: the Territorialization
of Environmental Rationality = Ecologia, Capital e Cultura:
A Territorialização da Racionalidade Ambiental. Editora Vozes,
Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Lentz, E.C.; Passarelli, S.; Barrett, C.B. 2013. The timeliness and
cost-effectiveness of the local and regional procurement of
food aid. World Development 49: 9-18.
Lim, K.H.; Hu, W. 2015. How local is local? A reflection on
Canadian local food labeling policy from consumer preference.
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 64: 71-88. DOI:
10.1111/cjag.12062
Lima-Filho, D.O.; Oliveira, L.D.S.; Watanabe, E.A.M.; Maemura,
M.M.D. 2012. Purchase policies to fresh fruit and vegetables in
supermarkets in Campo Grande, Brazil. Horticultura Brasileira
30: 132-136.
Lin, B.B.; Chappell, M.J.; Vandermeer, J.; Smith, G.; Quintero,
E.; Bezner-Kerr, R.; Griffith, D.M.; Ketcham, S.; Latta, S.C.;
McMichael, P.; McGuire, K.L.; Nigh, R.; Rocheleau, D.;
Soluri, J.; Perfecto, I. 2012. Effects of industrial agriculture on
climate change and the mitigation potential of small-scale agro-
ecological farms. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 6:1-18.
Loke, M.K.; Xu, X.; Leung, P. 2015. Estimating organic, local, and
other price premiums in the Hawaii fluid milk market. Journal
of Dairy Science 98: 2824-2830.
López, F.R. 2011. Relation between the presence of recombinant
OGM maize proteins and the frequency of abnormal phenotypes
in native maize varieties, in central valleys region, Oaxaca, Mexico
= Relação entre a presença de proteínas recombinantes de milho
OGM e a frequência de fenótipos anormais nas variedades de
milho nativo, na região vales centrais, Oaxaca, México. p. 124.
Master's Dissertation in Plant Genetic Resources = Dissertação
de mestrado em Recursos Genéticos Vegetais, Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina, SC, Brazil (in Portuguese).
94
Coelho et al. Local food
Sci. Agric. v.75, n.1, p.84-94, January/February 2018
Machado, A.T.; Machado, C.T.T. 2002. Urban Agriculture =
Agricultura Urbana. Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, DF, Brazil
(in Portuguese).
Machado, P.L.O.A. 2005. Soil carbon and the mitigation of global
climate change. Química Nova 28: 329-334.
Martinez, S.; Hand, M.; Pra, M.D.; Pollack, S.; Ralston, K.;
Smith, T.; Vogel, S.; Clark, S.; Lohr, L.; Low, S.; Newman,
C. 2010. Local food systems concepts, impacts, and
issues. USDA-Economic Research Service, Washington,
DC, USA.
Matos, M.A.A. 2009. Study of the carbon footprint of cooking
vegetable oil = Estudo da pegada de carbono de óleo vegetal
alimentar. Available at: http://ria.ua.pt/handle/10773/7130
[Accessed Dec 23, 2013] (in Portuguese).
McWilliams, J.E. 2010. Just Food: Where Locavores Get it Wrong
and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly. Little, Brown, and
Company, Boston, MA, USA.
Michalsky, M.; Hooda, P.S. 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions of
imported and locally produced fruit and vegetable commodities:
a quantitative assessment. Environmental Science & Policy 48:
32-43.
Mynttinen, S.; Logrén, J.; Särkkä-Tirkkonen, M.; Rautiainen, T.
2015. Perceptions of food and its locality among Russian tourists
in the south Savo region of Finland. Tourism Management 48:
455-466.
Nost, E. 2014. Scaling-up local foods: commodity practice in
community supported agriculture (CSA). Journal of Rural
Studies 34: 152-160.
Nunes, R.S.; Lopes, A.A.C.; Sousa, D.M.G.; Mendes, I.C. 2011.
Management systems and the carbon and nitrogen stocks
of Cerrado oxisol under soybean-maize succession. Revista
Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 35: 1407-1419 (in Portuguese,
with abstract in English).
O’Neill, K.J. 2014. Situating the ‘alternative’ within the
‘conventional’ - local food experiences from the east Riding of
Yorkshire, UK. Journal of Rural Studies 35: 112-122.
Pereira, M.A.; Kartashov, A.I.; Ebbeling, C.B.; Horn, L.V.;
Slattery, M.L.; Jacobs, D.R.; Ludwig, D.S. 2005. Fast-food
habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA
study): 15-year prospective analysis. The Lancet 365: 36-
42.
Petropoulos, S.A.; Fernandes, A.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.; Ntatsi,
G. 2015. Morphological, nutritional and chemical description
of ‘Vatikiotiko’, an onion local landrace from Greece. Food
Chemistry 182: 156-163.
Philpott, S.M.; Cotton, J.; Bichier, P.; Friedrich, R.L.;
Moorhead, L.C.; Uno, S.; Valdez, M. 2014. Local and
landscape drivers of arthropod abundance, richness,
and trophic composition in an urban habitats. Urban
Ecosystems 17: 513-532.
Plawecki, R.; Pirog, R.; Montri, A.; Hamm, M.W. 2013.
Comparative carbon footprint assessment of winter lettuce
production in two climatic zones for Midwestern market.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 29: 310-318. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170513000161
Quist, D.; Chapela, I.H. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into
traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414:
541-543.
Radomsky, G.F.W. 2009. Participatory certification practices in
organic farming: network, seals and innovation processes =
Práticas de certificação participativa na agricultura ecológica:
rede, selos e processos de inovação. Revista IDeAS 3: 133-164
(in Portuguese).
Raynolds, L.T. 2004. The globalization of organic agro-food
networks. World Development 32: 725-743.
Reeves, M.; Katten, A.; Guzmán, M. 2002. Fields of Poison:
California Farmworkers and Pesticides. Pesticide Action
Network North America, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Roosevelt, M. 2006. the lure of the 100-mile diet. Time Magazine
167: 78. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/
article/0,9171,1200783,00.html [Accessed Jan 25, 2015]
Salois, M.J. 2012. Obesity and diabetes, the built environment,
and the ‘local’ food economy in the United States, 2007.
Economics and Human Biology 10: 35-42.
Samuda, P.M. 2003. Regional food composition activities:
update on CARICOMFOODS (2000-2002). Journal of Food
Composition and Analysis 16: 409-412.
Sandhu, K.S.; Singh, N.; Kaur, M. 2004. Characteristics of the
different corn types and their grain fractions: physicochemical,
thermal, morphological, and rheological properties of starches.
Journal of Food Engineering 64: 119-127.
Saunders, C.; Barber, A. 2008. Carbon footprints, life cycle
analysis, food miles: global trade trends and market issues.
Political Science 60: 73-88.
Saunders, C.; Hayes, P. 2007. Air Freight Transport of Fresh Fruit
and Vegetables. Agribusiness and Economist Research Unit,
Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Schermer, M. 2015. From ‘‘Food from Nowhere’’ to ‘‘Food from
Here:’’ changing producer-consumer relations in Austria.
Agriculture and Human Values 32: 121-132.
Smithers, J.; Lamarche, J.; Joseph, A.E. 2008. Unpacking the
terms of engagement with local food at the Farmers’ market:
insights from Ontario. Journal of Rural Studies 24: 337-350.
Sompong, N.; Rampai, N. 2015. Knowledge management of
Thai local food on the route of northern tourism in Thailand.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology
5: 664-667.
Sonnino, R. 2007. The power of place: embeddedness and local
food systems in Italy and the UK. Anthropology of food.
Available at: http://aof.revues.org/454 [Accessed Apr 15, 2015]
Stadlmayr, B.; Charrondière, U.R.; Burlingame, B. 2013.
Development of a regional food composition table for west
Africa. Food Chemistry 140: 443-446.
Tansey, G.; Worsley, T. 2008. Food System: A Guide. Earthscan,
London, UK.
United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2011. Know
your farmer know your food. Available at: http://www.usda.
gov/documents/KYFCompass.pdf [Accessed July 6, 2015]
United States Department of Commerce. 2013. Fact sheet:
national export initiative. Available at: http://www.commerce.
gov/news/fact-sheets/2013/02/19/fact-sheet-national-export-
initiative [Accessed Mar 13, 2015]
WinklerPrins, A.M.G.A.; Souza, P.S. 2005. Surviving the city:
urban home gardens and the economy of affection in the
Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Latin American Geography 4:
107-126.
