RE "REDUCING food's carbon footprint" (Food & Arts, April 16):The goals of the eat-local movement in reducing the carbon emissions of food suppliers and restaurants are laudable for some reasons yet are not without negative impact.
Emmanuel College not serving tropical fruits will reduce its demand for the fuel used in harvesting and transporting such commodities. However the fruits not imported by Emmanuel will be marketed elsewhere or left to rot at the docks or in the fields.
Many small, developing countries greatly depend on exporting tropical fruits as their agricultural-oriented economies struggle to earn income for their farmers and processors. Denying a market to the producers of tropical fruit, let's say bananas, in order to lower the developed world's demand for carbon-based fuels shifts an undue economic burden to the less-developed countries.
Instead of boycotting tropical fruit, why not continue to import bananas and determine the carbon-demand per case of fruit and find a local opportunity to reduce the same amount of carbon, e.g., turn off computers at night, replace some incandescent lights, reduce building heat/air conditioning demand, etc.
I hope the eat-local campaign doesn't include that all essential campus staple: coffee!
JOHN S. BAIN
Arlington
