A positive result of the movement would be the return of health to the land. In Paul Robert's book, he discusses the superior effects of the locavore movement. According to a UK-based study he used, “such a change would return diversity to land…destroyed by chemical-intensive monoculture…” (Source F). As large agricultural companies plant just one crop repetitively using chemicals, the land used becomes unsanitary and ultimately infertile due to lack of nutrients. With the locavore movement, farmland can be saved since local farmers only sell to local buyers. These farmers will only plant what buyers need and will have the flexibility to plant a variety of crops. These different crops naturally replenish the land with different nutrients, thus keeping the environment healthier. On the contrary, the locavore movement can harm the environment due to the likelihood of forming a significant carbon footprint. In James McWilliam's economic article on the locavore movement, he gives the example of a Londoner wanting to buy local lamb instead of New Zealand lamb. “...New Zealand lamb is raised on pastures with a low carbon footprint...English lamb is produced...with a large carbon footprint” (Source C). Even if the food comes from far away, the process of producing the food can be better for the environment. Like livestock, packaging and feeding on a factory farm can create more pollution and harm the environment. If the product is fed and packaged in a more natural way, pollution can be reduced and be more environmentally friendly. The environmental issues associated with the locavore movement are important because they can both improve and harm the environment. More diverse local crops can help keep the soil healthy, and perhaps make people's bodies healthier, as the use of chemicals is reduced or ignored. This could trigger an improvement in the overall health of society. However, the