Food travels thousands of miles from producers to consumers. Some people think that it would be better for the environment and economy if people only ate the local food produced by farmers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is often argued that only local food should be consumed as it would improve not only the environment but

also

the economy. I totally disagree as many areas would suffer with no variation of vegetables and fruits.

On the other hand

, some locals would have more than the consumption. The following paragraphs will highlight the downsides of the view and some relevant examples.

First

of all, different parts of the world are diverging types of climates that interfere with crops. Some kinds of plans rise in warm weather while others are in the cold.

For example

, a coconut needs a wet and hot climate to grow and survive.

Therefore

, places that have low temperatures would not have the access to them if they are not transported as well as many other foods.

Consequently

, the population would suffer as the body needs some vitamins founded on vegetables and fruits.

In addition

, some crops produce a lot of products that have to be consumed extremely rapid.

Otherwise

, they will get out of date and trowed away.

For instance

, fruits

such

as strawberries, bananas, and apples have to be eaten within one week after they are ripe. If the communities only eat the local food, they would not manage to have them on that rapid way and many of them would be wasted. For that reason, distributing to other areas is essential not only to prevent waste but

also

to the trade of selling the whole crop. To conclude, in my opinion, food should not be consumed only by locals, but distributed across other areas which need them to prevent waste and improve companies' profit.

Moreover

, people worldwide would have access to all vitamins.