A positive outcome of the movement would be the return of health to the land. In Paul Robert's book, he mentions the superior effects of the locavore movement. According to a UK study he used, “Such a change would restore diversity to the land…destroyed by chemical-intensive monoculture…” (Source F). As large farms repeatedly plant a single crop with the help of chemicals, the land used becomes unhealthy and eventually barren due to a lack of nutrients. With the locavore movement, farmland can be saved as local farmers only sell to local buyers. These farmers will only have to plant what buyers need and will have the opportunity to plant different crops. These different crops naturally regenerate the soil with different nutrients, keeping the environment healthier. In contrast, the movement of locavores can harm the environment due to the likelihood of forming a large carbon footprint. In James McWilliam's business article on the locavore movement, he gives the example of a Londoner who wants to buy local lamb instead of New Zealand lamb. “…New Zealand lamb is raised on pasture with a small carbon footprint…English lamb is produced…with a large carbon footprint” (Source C). Even though food may come from far away, the process of producing food may be better for the environment. As with cattle, packing and feeding them on an intensive farm can create more pollution and damage the environment. If the product is fed and packaged more naturally, pollution can be reduced and be more environmentally friendly. The environmental issues associated with the locavore movement are significant as they can both enhance and harm the environment. More diverse local crops can help keep soil healthy, perhaps making people's bodies healthier as chemical use is reduced or ignored. This could trigger growth in the overall health of society. However, the