24
Locavorism is not good for you
A customer shops for nectarines at a farmers market on June 13, 2012 in San Francisco, Calif. Commentator Pierre Desrochers offers the contrarian view that buying food locally is good for your health and the environment.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
If taken seriously, locavorism would not only mean lower standards of living and shorter life expectancies, but also increased environmental damage.
Think of it this way. Because nobody would bother transporting foodstuffs over long distances if it didn't deliver superior outcomes, locavorism can only result in higher prices and less variety. A less varied diet is inevitably less nutritious. Higher prices also leave less money in local pockets to spend on other things, in the process destroying jobs both at home and abroad. Furthermore, foreign food exporters no longer have the means to purchase other goods produced in the locavores' community.
In addition, producing food in the most suitable locations and delivering it over long distances is actually much "greener" than growing vegetables or manufacturing dairy products locally. The "local" operations require energy-guzzling heated greenhouses instead of natural heat, massive amounts of irrigation water rather than abundant rainfall, and large volumes of animal feed to make up for less productive pastureland. It's better to grow tomatoes in the Florida sun than in a heated greenhouse in upstate New York because the energy required to transport them 1200 miles is only a fraction of that required to heat greenhouses for several weeks.
The most preposterous claim of locavores is that their prescription increases food security. Yet, no local food system can ever be completely protected from insects, plant and animal diseases, drought, floods, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes. Fortunately, trade liberalization insures that the surplus of regions with good harvests can be channeled to those with below average ones. In the long run, good and bad harvests cancel each other out. Locavorism, by contrast, puts all of one's agricultural eggs in one regional basket.
Pages
I think Desrochers' commentary was incomplete and even misinformed.
He may think growing tomatoes in the Florida sun is better because the are grown in the Florida sun. However, he missed important environmenttal and health factors.
To grow tomatoes there requires mind-boggling amounts of fertilizers, fungicides and pesticides (on roughly the same acreage of tomatoes, Florida uses about eight times as many chemicals as California); because the soil is so poor.
(refer to "The True Cost of Tomatoes" http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/the-true-cost-of-tomatoes/)
There have also been reports of the horrific birth defects linked to tomato pesticides
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1033178/chemical_warfare_...
According to Bill McKibbe A British study that recently came out proves that growing locally helps the environment more that growing organic.
(Home Grown / Bill McKibbe) http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.html?programID=12-P13-00027
I think his statement "If taken seriously, locavorism would not only mean lower standards of living and shorter life expectancies, but also increased environmental damage." is irresponsible and lacks thorough research to all the factors involved in mass agriculture production.
There is more involved than just sun and energy.
I'll take my locally grown organic tomatoes over mass produced Florida tomatoes any day.
I happened on to this article and discussion right after returning home with my weekly CSA share from a local farm, and my local farm experience refutes much of Prof. Desrochers' argument. (I can only assume that he was deliberately trying to be provocative or was fatally challenged by the limited length of the piece, because his argument is so one-sided as to be silly.) I live in Maine, a rural, agricultural state with a relatively short growing season (somewhat colder and harsher than Prof. Desrochers' Toronto climate), and yet Maine is a wonderful place to buy a great variety of high-quality local food. I can buy meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, grains, fruits and berries, and vegetables that are all produced in my local region. Because the topology of Maine does not lend itself to large industrial agriculture operations, farms are small, and most planting and harvesting is done by hand. This means that there is no advantage to monoculture here, so most farmers grow a great variety of crops. Eating locally has greatly increased the variety of my diet, because I get foods that I've never had before from my CSA and I learn how to cook them and eat them (and find some new food loves in the process). Farmers also grow many varieties of a single food, instead of sticking to one variety that all ripens at the same time and that ships easily. The many varieties of potatoes or tomatoes I get from my local farm are simply not available at the supermarket -- at any price. In addition, the quality of the local food is superior; everything I picked up in my CSA share this afternoon was harvested today. Food doesn't get any fresher than this! And varieties have been selected for taste rather than for packing and shipping qualities. I don't eat everything I get in my share right away; some food keeps for quite a long time, and other foods lend themselves to being canned or frozen for use during the winter season. There are crops produced in my local area all year round, but the local greens and carrots that I buy in the winter are not grown in greenhouses, but in a system popularized by Eliot Coleman for creating growing environments without any artificial heat. While I try to buy as much of my food as I can locally, I don't buy ONLY local food (and I don't know anyone who does). I sometimes miscalculate my off-season need for cooking staples like garlic, berries, and tomato products and run out before the new crop is ready. And I regularly buy some items (like chocolate and tea) that cannot be grown in my local area. I agree that there are trade-offs here; my local foods are often more expensive, but they are also very varied and of extraordinarily high quality. Prof. Desrocher seems to be comparing globalized industrial agriculture with localized industrial agriculture (acres of heated greenhouses producing great quantities of a single crop), but that's not the comparison that most of us who would characterize ourselves as locavores are making.
In my country, the people will become the fruit and vegetables into powder or the liquid. Then when we make food, we can add the powder or liquid as food additives which can make food beautiful and delicious. I have a website, http://www.foodchem.com , it is about any kinds of food additives, you can get more information from here. Hope you can love my website.
Here in Georgia, we can't produce any abundance of mangoes, avocados, citrus fruits, and many other foods. We can, however, grow peaches, peanuts, tomatoes, corn, greens, different squashes, etc. The article doesn't seem to acknowledge that in a world of varied tastes, and more educated and worldly eaters, there will always be a need for shipping food that can't be locally grown with the same quality. The most common sense approach is to buy locally what grows in the region, and rely on shipping to provide what doesn't. If I can grow a tomato or peach in my own back yard, or buy a higher quality one from a local farmer, I would much rather eat that than one shipped here from across country and could be a month off the tree or vine.
Did any of you actually consider the arguments offered, or was it easier to just attack the article as a corporate plot? Does the fact that there are 7 billion people on the planet who are more worried about calories than flavor enter into your equations? Did the environmental cost of manufacturing glass or metal cans, and the labor and energy of processing canned or frozen foods enter the equations? Did the fact that having access to fresh fruits in the middle of winter can improve health enter the equations?
Saying "only buy local" is like telling people with two toddlers living in the country that they should get rid of their car and bike everywhere. It is easy to say if you live in the right place and are young, healthy, and rich enough to afford the local organic options, but most people don't live in areas that make this a viable option. Pointing this out does not make a person a corporate shill. It makes them pragmatic. On the other hand, choosing to buy local when you can does not make you a socialist hippie. It just means you have your own set of priorities. That's great. That, as someone said, is balance.
Stating "simply purchase neighborhood" is similar to informing individuals with 2 small children residing in the nation which they ought to eliminate their particular vehicle and also cycle almost everywhere. It is possible to state if you reside inside the correct spot and so are younger, healthful, and also abundant sufficient to cover the area organic and natural choices, but many individuals don't reside in locations which make vid feasible choice
regards,
http://hvactrainingpro.com/
The bulk of the comments, if you actually read them, are asking for a balanced argument. The article itself is one-sided and quite simply full of incorrect information. Locavorism is not always the right answer, but an article full of blatantly inaccurate facts is not going to convince anyone who is informed on the issues.
Mr Desrochers fails to consider the importance of the multiplier effect that local agriculture has on local community, as explained here:
http://www.good.is/post/infographic-the-agricultural-multiplier-effect/
I started reading about industrialized food production about 4 or 5 years ago. While there are indeed some downsides to locavorism including lower convenience and sometimes higher cost, the industrialized mass-produced food that most of us consume have many more downsides ethically, nutritionally and environmentally. My background is chemical engineering, so when I read about the issues with industrial farming, I do it with a fairly critical eye. This article reads like it was written by a lobbyist for the industrialized food producers. There are so many points that are obviously incorrect, I wouldn't know where to begin disputing them. I am always in favor of considering both sides of any argument, but I'm very disappointed that Marketplace gives credence to this type of grossly inaccurate material. I fully believe that Mr. Desrochers sees an increasing trend towards locavorism and has decided this is a good time to market himself as a high paid lobbyist/publicist for industrialized food production.
Pages
