I know the purpose is to reduce fossil fuel emmissions, but isn't is also to support the local economy? So like King Arthur's flour, if the fish come further than 100 miles away, but are processed locally I am still supporting the local economy. I am perplexed as if I need to choose between the lesser of two evils, or else go without. It looks like I am not alone in finding the answer, so as to quote James and Allissa from their blog (http://100milediet.org/):
" Eating locally pushes you to think about the questions that come up. Why does all the processing and distribution have to be centralized? How do we weigh the benefits of that centralization against the costs? (Our coast is littered with ghost towns and “cannery rows” from the era when much of the processing and distribution was local.) Does the current trend toward ever-bigger cities make sense, or do we need to keep our communities closer to the carrying capacities of the landscapes we live in? Shouldn’t we be working harder to restore the local stocks that can no longer feed us? And what about more distant fish stocks? Is it even possible to fish them sustainably? (I’m reminded of the fact that the East Coast offshore fishing fleet was once powered entirely by sail–the legendary Bluenose was one of the boats–and that the sail fishers warned that power boats would spell the end of the stocks.)
Ultimately, though, I still haven’t answered the question, What is ‘local’ seafood?"