This is true for meat and many grains, but not really for other foods. There are two MAJORLY misleading caveats to the data as presented: 1. These emissions i

This is true for meat and many grains, but not really for other foods. There are two MAJORLY misleading caveats to the data as presented: 1. These emissions include semi-permanent sinks (where carbon is converted into dirt or trees that don't need to be cut down annually), but not the fact that carbon is absorbed to grow the plants. Unlike transport, this carbon doesn't simply appear. If you take this into account it reduces the overall carbon from Ag by ~20%. 2. Fruits and vegetables have MUCH more energy spent on transport, over 50% in some cases once you account for CO2 absorption. Potatoes as well. See page 61 (fig S13) of the supplement on the original paper: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/05/30/360.6392.987.DC1/aaq0216-Poore-SM-revision1.pdf https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/05/30/... Meats and milk (and to a lesser extent rice- methane from the water paddies) are overwhelmingly the largest cause of Ag GHG emissions and why transport seems to play such a small role. It's the only case that buying locally doesn't make a difference.