The case against locovorism

(Lovovorishness? Locovorianism? Locovortishment?)

Case 1: Nutrition. I don't think I could eat healthily enough on a 100-mile radius without a multivitamin except during the late summer months. And where do the vitamin companies get their chemicals anyway? (Hmmm... an untapped market for regional multivitamins?)

Case 2: Trade. Local eating almost smacks of trade protectionism. OK, if I'm in upper Michigan, I can eat Canadian stuff, and in LA I can eat things that grown in Tia Juana etc etc, but fair trade across and outside of the country makes every partner involved stronger.

Case 3: Cravings. I'll never see orange juice again, or pacific or atlantic salmon, or, wait for it, chocolate. Not. Going. To. Happen.

I am trying to be more aware of where I'm eating from, and I am putting a little more emphasis on seasonal cooking, but if I want to make a thai dish, I'm going to need faraway foodstuffs. If I want to set out a nice brunch, I'm going to get oranges and smoked salmon.

if it bothers you, then cheat

I agree with your points( alife with no crab, tequila, grouper, lobster, crawfish, avocados, citrus, etc..., Id rather be dead..... )

I am not a supporter of the localvore movement, but can respect those who are.

I think the point is not to obsessively restrict any foodstuff that comes from more than 100 miles away (and I'm sure Rob will chime in here edit: oops, he already has), but to celebrate what's available locally, and to seek it out whenever possible over other choices. Obviously, there are some things that are useful in cooking (e.g. lemons, cocoa) that don't grow well in these parts. But the point is to do our best to get as much local stuff as possible. It's not about dogma, it's about practical choices.

I'm against crazy Spanish-speaking people too, but I don't understand how any of these arguments make that case.

On a more serious note, I think each of the cases you laid out falls pretty flat.

Case 1: Nutrition. I don't think I could eat healthily enough on a 100-mile radius without a multivitamin except during the late summer months. And where do the vitamin companies get their chemicals anyway? (Hmmm... an untapped market for regional multivitamins?)

Don't you have a freezer? I'm not saying that you want to freeze (or can) summer vegetables, but certainly you could do it, no?

Case 2: Trade. Local eating almost smacks of trade protectionism. OK, if I'm in upper Michigan, I can eat Canadian stuff, and in LA I can eat things that grown in Tia Juana etc etc, but fair trade across and outside of the country makes every partner involved stronger.

It would be protectionism if the government forbade people from eating non-local food. I'm sure there are some fringe people calling themselves locavores that would like to see that, but it's certainly not what the movement is about. If choosing to eat local food is protectionism, then vacationing on a deserted island is imprisonment.

Case 3: Cravings. I'll never see orange juice again, or pacific or atlantic salmon, or, wait for it, chocolate. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Your strict 100-mile radius thing is a strawman which represents only a small subset of people who call themselves locavores. If you want orange juice, have it. Eat your salmon and chocolate too. Carnivores can eat vegetables, can't they?

Thanks folks, I feel a little less cranky now (still, the regional multivitamin biz sounds like it could be a hit).

So maybe I'm a bi-locovore.

Coupling wrote:JANE: I'm bi-vegetarian.
JILL: What? That doesn't exist. It's not possible.
JANE: No, I'm an emotional vegetarian, Jill. I know a lot of vegetarians and we tend to like the same films. Do you have a problem with that?
JILL: You could never finish your greens and could suck a pig through a straw.
JANE: I'm not exclusively vegetarian, Jill, if that's what you're saying. Vegetarianism to me is about saying yes to things, even meat.

Kennyz wrote:Your strict 100-mile radius thing is a strawman which represents only a small subset of people who call themselves locavores.

No kidding. The fact that this view has taken hold in people's minds is infuriating.

I've been fighting this straw-locavore view whenever it pops up. It's "cases against locavorism" like this that make me hate the word "locavore" altogether. It denotes a vegan-like completeness that simply isn't practiced or actively encouraged. In fact, the whole reason I started The Local Beet was to fight this view and advocate for the more practical approach.

I know plenty of people, myself included, who try to focus on seasonal, locally-produced foods for a number of reasons and none of them hold to a 100-mile radius and none of them go for 100% completeness. This picture of a locavore is nothing but media hype and making a case against is pointless.

It's like making a case against bicycling advocacy by saying that you can't take your infant twins to the pediatrician on a bicycle. Obviously using a bicycle as transportation is flawed because it doesn't meet my needs, right? Wrong.

We can advocate for change without advocating for complete change.

Best,
Michael

All arguments pro or con aside, it sure is nice to live in a region where it's possible to be a localvore, if one chooses. I don't imagine they have much that's local to choose from in, say, Las Vegas.

JoelF wrote:Thanks folks, I feel a little less cranky now (still, the regional multivitamin biz sounds like it could be a hit).

Out of curiosity, I did a bit of googling on Vitamin C, assuming that's the vitamin you felt missing from the non-August diet. All of the following have more C than oranges: broccoli, brussel sprouts and red peppers. Kale was also up there. What I found especially intriguing is that peppers aside, the rest of those veg are associated with cooler weather.

I'd also add that in the last two weeks or so, the produce I've consumed include parsnips, peas, rutabagas, turnips, radish, broccoli, lettuce, chard, carrot, tomato (sauce), potatoes, kohlrabi, beets and apples. If it was not for the two Delightful Pastries paczki I've had today, I'd be pretty damn healthy in my eating.

I do not consider myself a strict locavore, because I refuse to deny myself the pleasure of good food when I see it, regardless of the source. Obviously, there are things like a lot of seafood varieties and citrus fruits we would never get (I suspect there actually are a lot of types of seafood that are never, ever locally sourced if you define that as being caught within 100 miles of where you are eating, but I digress).

In fact, I would not call myself a locavore at all. But I do shop at my local Farmer's Markets every weekend that I can, have a passing familiarity with local farmers and food producers who put out quality, interesting products, and definitely recognize and appreciate it when I dine somewhere that respects the seasons, and uses fresh, seasonal, top quality ingredients.

I dismiss, or at least ignore, the self-righteous aspect of the locavore movement, just as I do the same aspects of the Slow Food Movement. It is not a sin to buy Mexican Blueberries or Louisiana farm-raised salmon or catfish at Costco, and conversely I do not believe that if I did not buy those things the world would be a better place (it seems more likely to me that if we all chanted OM things would improve than if we applied a simplistic and impractical mileage test to all our food purchases - lest you wonder, I do not offer that ironically since the act of chanting is of more immediate affect to the chanter).

But the locavore movement is definitely a good thing. It focuses attention on things that deserve it, and while it will never achieve its absolute goal, the incremental change it brings about is positive. Sure, there are annoying zealots and taken to the extreme, as the OP does in setting up his straw man, it breaks down, but isn't that pretty much universally the case? Fresh, high quality, local food products have so many advantages over other foods - what can be bad about acknowledging this, promoting it, and pursuing such foods?

My favorite, local organic farm - delectable produce, great chicken and eggs - has declared that they are only going to do home deliveries next summer, skipping the farmer's market circuit, and my real question is whether to sign up. Unless sloth and forgetfulness prevent me, I probably will. So call me a locavore while I suck a shrimp and drink some fresh grapefruit juice. Or call me an irresponsible person with an excessive carbon footprint, while I enjoy my locally-sourced omelette and greens. Guilty on both counts.

I know I hold an unpopular view, but I have concerns about the whole "green" movement, of which locavoreism can often be a part. I do prefer local food in many instances, but that's in large part because food is rarely improved by long-distance travel - in short, I think it's better. Small farms often provide better, if more expensive, food in the same way that a local carpenter will probably give you better, possibly more expensive, cabinets than Kraft-Maid - more attention and care is put into them.

However, that being said - recycling, eating locally, using "green" building materials etc., etc., etc., seem to me to be missing a very important point: we aren't really changing our lifestyles much at all. We may be wasting greener materials, or using our gas milage in more honorable ways, but we're still using them at an alarming rate. It reminds me of the 50's cartoon where the wife comes in with a fur coat saying "Look, honey, because it was on sale I saved $500!" and the husband says "Great! 4 more coats and we can pay the mortgage!"

I think the food issue has come to the front because we can feel good about eating more expensive food local and organic food because it is better quality, which is great for the people who can afford to do so. The problem is that the majority of Americans (let alone the rest of the world) would be making real, serious sacrifice - by that I mean not eating - to buy local and organic foods - and those who spearheaded the movement are still commuting by car or even airplane for work, buying imported clothes, replacing their wardrobe, cars, cell phones, computers, televisions and stereos every couple of years.

If this issue is as pressing as it's presented to be, why aren't we hearing more about other lifestyle changes?

Mhays wrote:...and those who spearheaded the movement are still...buying imported clothes, replacing their wardrobe, cars, cell phones, computers, televisions and stereos every couple of years.

Well, the good news is, they won't be doing that either, anymore.

See how everything works out?

When someone actually meets one of these pinchfaced Puritan locavores, would you give me their email address or something? Because I've never met one. I know a lot of people who are excited to buy peaches from Michigan that taste great instead of peaches that know how to fly from Chile without getting a bruise, but none of these holier-than-thou types who seem to have become a standard feature of locavore reportage these days, and prompt people to deny they're locavores when, in fact, they are in many aspects of how they choose to eat.

A couple of things to add . . .

last night Doug Fine, the author of "Farewell, My Subaru" did a fabulous, informative and very humorous presentation at the Cultural Center on moving toward a more sustainable lifestyle (without giving up Western comforts we enjoy). Eating as locally as is possible was one of his top 3 points. I don't have time to go into much detail but what I loved about him is that he used humor and honesty, rather than fear or shame to help people figure out ways to slowly change the way they live. You may have read his story in the NY Times a few months ago, it was about how an August hail storm of "biblical proportions" completely demolished every single plant in his garden . . . the plants he was to freeze and can and put up for the winter. So he had to get in his truck (which he converted to run on oil) and go to town to buy produce. Nobody's perfect was his message (and also, hey, if I can do this, being such a nit-wit about certain things, than maybe you can too!) but it still means we need to be a lot more thoughtful about what we eat and how it was produced. I read parts of his book on the busride home and was laughing out loud. But I did think a lot about my bowl of apples that traveled all the way from New Zealand when I got home. (ps he is going to email his recipe for goat's milk ice cream, which he said he came up with when he realized he had a pretty intense addiction to ben and jerry's and had to figure out an alternative. I will share it on the recipe board when I get it.)

Second book that I really enjoy is "Coming Home to Eat" by Gary Paul Nabhan. This was written before the term localvore was being tossed around. But he lives in Arizona and challenged himself to eat everything that came within a 100 mile radius. Again, he is not preachy but more thoughtful and just sort of exploring what it means and how realistic is it.

I bristle when anybody gets righteous on me about anything. But these books really helped me re-think some of my food choices. Plus, they were just good reads.

bjt

What Mhays said

"However, that being said - recycling, eating locally, using "green" building materials etc., etc., etc., seem to me to be missing a very important point: we aren't really changing our lifestyles much at all. We may be wasting greener materials, or using our gas milage in more honorable ways, but we're still using them at an alarming rate. It reminds me of the 50's cartoon where the wife comes in with a fur coat saying "Look, honey, because it was on sale I saved $500!" and the husband says "Great! 4 more coats and we can pay the mortgage!"

I think the food issue has come to the front because we can feel good about eating more expensive food local and organic food because it is better quality, which is great for the people who can afford to do so. The problem is that the majority of Americans (let alone the rest of the world) would be making real, serious sacrifice - by that I mean not eating - to buy local and organic foods - and those who spearheaded the movement are still commuting by car or even airplane for work, buying imported clothes, replacing their wardrobe, cars, cell phones, computers, televisions and stereos every couple of years."

this is possibly one of the most cynical reactions to how our lifestyles and food choices impact the environment that I have read anywhere in a long time.

Let's get one thing straight, the topic here is eating local. (And not necessarily eating organic, you have got those combined when they can be different.) First of all, the best approach is just, do what you can, try as much as you can to support local farmers, eat within your region, freeze or purchase things that are put up. Ask the manager at your local grocery store to stock Michigan apples or local greens. Even at Edgewater produce in my neighborhood they have been making small changes. That's how it starts and that is how it gets more affordable.

But I want to focus on your super casual comment that "most Americans, let alone the rest of the world" would have to resort to NOT eating if it came to choosing local and organic. We need to think about where our food comes from, what is the cost of how it is grown and picked and processed (how does it impact other people AND the environment) and we need to take a little more responsibility for own food. Until we get a little cold water splashed in our faces about the real costs of food we are just going down a path of ignorance and denial. We need to pause and think about the word 'sacrifice" what it means to us really. Could you sacrifice eating apples in December? What if you froze the apples in the fall and then ate them in different ways--in pies, in smoothies, stewed, etc. T

I have a simple suggestion for you. Go to the Green City Market. (They even happen in the winter so it might change your attitude about starvation. I might even be so bold as to remind you that we have things like freezers and non-perishable items aplenty and at these markets you can still get potatoes and mushrooms and honey and pickles and cheese and milk and pecans and applesauce and pesto and bread and eggs and lamb and lots more.) Go to the Green City Market and talk to a farmer from downstate or Michigan or Indiana and and ask him or her the last time they flew to work. Why don't you ask them the last time they took a vacation Oooh here's a really good one, ask them about health insurance. I think you are completely getting corporate organic big business (Whole Foods and Cascadian Farms are not the same as Henry's Farm or Nichol's Farm) confused with local/regional farmers who average about 5 hours of sleep a night from June to September. You are creating a prejudiced caricature of some "spearhead in the movement" that I am not quite sure exists here in this context.

bjt

OK, bj - what if I can't afford a freezer? What if I don't have transportation to Green City Market and have to get there with three kids under the age of four and then haul those kids back with a full load of local produce? Let's remember that the median renter- occupied household income was $30,203 for Chicago - which means that half our tenant population is living on that amount or less annually. Median rent is $613 per month.

This is the attitude that bothers me: Most people who don't buy local don't have better options to feed their families - and that "splash of cold water" you're talking about means not that they're spoiled, but that they won't eat if food prices rise dramatically. While I know the farmers aren't taking vacations or flying across the country - you can bet a large number of the customers who keep farmer's markets in business are. If you're going to talk about public policy, you need to remember that the public is bigger than you and the people you know.

Note that I didn't say I was against buying local: I do, but I do so purely as a capitalist: I think it's better food, by farmers who are choosy about what they grow - and I like that, in the same way that I prefer local restaurants to chains. I expect to pay more for higher quality - and I expect that if times are tight, I'm going where the food is cheaper.

Mhays wrote:and those who spearheaded the movement are still commuting by car or even airplane for work, buying imported clothes, replacing their wardrobe, cars, cell phones, computers, televisions and stereos every couple of years.

If this issue is as pressing as it's presented to be, why aren't we hearing more about other lifestyle changes?

We do hear about other lifestyle changes, but we're on a food board, so that's what seems like is most emphasized. The problem I have with the green movement I alluded to here, which is, that it is our tendency in our culture to take something well-intentioned and morph it into something trendy and assert that the small "green" changes people make are insufficient, that they have to do everything (including dieting) in order to avoid being labeled a hypocrite or morally judged. For all we know, the woman who shops at local farmer's markets commutes by car because that is the only way she can get to/from work as well as pick up kids, dogs and be home for dinner with her family by 7. But she shops local because that's what she can and she prefers to do. And maybe the guy who likes to update his cell phone every two years has invested thousands of dollars in making his home more energy efficient, whereas the person with the 1993 cell phone also has a 1993 refrigerator which consumes energy like a marathon runner. The implication that people are hypocrites unless they change every aspect of their lives often leads to movements which have good intentions, like the green movement, being left like a bag of trash on the side of the interstate as people default to doing whatever they want without regard to anything lest they be judged or feel like their small efforts to change were futile.

Which is one thing that I like about the localvore movement, at least as it is propounded by Vital Information and the Local Beet. I don't know anyone who views eating local as an absolute. It is about making sensible changes. I try to eat local and I haven't touched an out-of-season asparagus or berry since I started. I don't miss them. If both Dominick's and my local farmer's market have peaches in August, I'll choose my local farmer's market, if only because the peaches will taste better. It suggests that people revisit food preservation and winter storage as viable methods. But the localvorism movement as I know it has managed to avoid advocating extremism. These small, doable choices that people make, either by abstaing from buying (some) non-seasonal produce, canning and/or buying local if given the choice, can make a big difference. If the Puritanical version of localvorism was widely and seriously advocated, the movement would die.

Mhays wrote:However, that being said - recycling, eating locally, using "green" building materials etc., etc., etc., seem to me to be missing a very important point: we aren't really changing our lifestyles much at all.

I simply do not agree with this at all and I'm not sure what you're basing it on. A good portion of "green" advocacy is about lifestyle change. It's about altering embedded habits to be less wasteful and more resourceful. There is a lot of education about how small habit changes can have a big impact, and there is a lot of response. The number of people cycling to work has increased across the country by a huge amount. Companies are learning to use less packaging and consumers are learning to use reusable bags. (Two examples of a large number of changes that are being made). There is an enormous amount of advocacy and education around lifestyle change. I think you, like JoelF did in his original post, are punishing a good movement based on a small segment.

Mhays wrote:I think the food issue has come to the front because we can feel good about eating more expensive food local and organic food because it is better quality, which is great for the people who can afford to do so. The problem is that the majority of Americans (let alone the rest of the world) would be making real, serious sacrifice - by that I mean not eating - to buy local and organic foods - and those who spearheaded the movement are still commuting by car or even airplane for work, buying imported clothes, replacing their wardrobe, cars, cell phones, computers, televisions and stereos every couple of years.

I would like to see Will Allen's response to this statement.

No one in the local food movement ever suggests that someone make a choice between local foods and no foods. I dare you to find me one person who calls themselves a locavore that suggests that an impoverished family shouldn't buy what they can afford.

A good portion of this community, like Mr. Allen, is focused on this very food access issue, that is, bringing good, real food to the people who need them the most. This is an economic question of access and demand and people are actively working on it. In the past year, the city worked with farmers to open a number of farmer's markets in needier neighborhoods in Chicago. These markets accept WIC/LINK cards and the set prices were reasonable and the markets were a big hit.

Without markets like the Green City Market or various other markets, opportunities like this would not exist and they would not be able to grow. One key way to increase access is to stimulate demand.

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when hamburger was considered a luxury item. Our food policy was changed to focus directly on the cheap production of corn, soy, and wheat and this lead to beef that is priced astoundingly below what it once ones (adjusted for inflation). The fact that fresh produce is now considered a luxury item is exact problem that "locavores", myself included, are trying to address through demand and new policy.

With all due respect, to decry a movement because a portion of it caters to the affluent and that it hasn't completed it's goal is very cynical and I find the generalization about those who "spearheaded the movement" to be unfair and borderline insulting.

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:No one in the local food movement ever suggests that someone make a choice between local foods and no foods. I dare you to find me one person who calls themselves a locavore that suggests that an impoverished family shouldn't buy what they can afford.

And in this regard, I don't think that there will come that apocalyptic day when the only produce available is local produce priced at $20/lb and therefore people cannot eat. As long as there is a market for cheap produce from Chile, then that produce will be available. I note that my local Dominick's carries local produce alongside the same conventional produce. "Eat local" is about creating a market and even if there will always be people who cannot afford and/or just plain chose not to participate in that market doesn't mean that the market is illegitimate or worthless in its more altruistic aims.

But, I agree with eatchicago that small changes can make a big difference.

My point is that while the goal of less impact on the environment makes people feel better, it can't be reached: if our population continues to grow, lifestyle changes will be insufficient no matter what they are. While the number of people cycling to work may have increased, so has the number of commuters - I don't think the number of cars on the road has decreased at all. Companies may be using reusable bags, but there is more and more demand for product, which uses packaging. Houses may be more green, but until the market crash new and bigger houses were continuing to be built (and often, less green but existing homes were left behind or demolished for new green ones, yes?) I'm not intending to insult anyone, but I don't see evidence that the movement overall has been thought through very carefully.

If you're inviting people over for pie, you have a couple of options:

1. Make lots of bad pie for everybody, throw excess pie nobody wants away.
2. Make a really excellent pie, offer less, some people don't get any.
3. Make the pie you want the way you want, don't have as many people.

As for the $20/lb produce, I have neighbors right now who buy their food on credit at the end of the month. A few dollars difference, yes, it means not eating.

I'm not intending to insult anyone, but I don't see evidence that the movement overall has been thought through very carefully.

I've thought it through just fine:

1. Go to farmer's market, get fresh air, talk to farmers, put money directly in farmers' hands.
2. Peach tastes really good.

Beyond that, one can hope that one is supporting something that will improve things generally in certain ways, by spending one's yuppie dollars to help seed something that will spread more widely in the population over time. But I believe that 90% of anything like that is media-generated hype, whether I'm KILLING THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!! by flushing too often or SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!! by using a fluorescent bulb, and most likely what me and all my neighbors do will be canceled out when Angelina Jolie flies her Gulfstream to Davos for a conference on fighting global warming anyway.

So mainly, I'm all about the peaches. Anyway, I find it kind of bizarre that a food system that involves farmers selling directly to their neighbors needs to be thought through more, but our existing industrial system of fertilizers and subsidies and price supports and technology and global shipping and everything is presumed to be the norm and to work just fine.

Mike G wrote:

I'm not intending to insult anyone, but I don't see evidence that the movement overall has been thought through very carefully.

I've thought it through just fine:

1. Go to farmer's market, get fresh air, talk to farmers, put money directly in farmers' hands.
2. Peach tastes really good.

Beyond that, one can hope that one is supporting something that will improve things generally in certain ways, by spending one's yuppie dollars to help seed something that will spread more widely in the population over time. But I believe that 90% of anything like that is media-generated hype, whether I'm KILLING THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!! by flushing too often or SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!! by using a fluorescent bulb, and most likely what me and all my neighbors do will be canceled out when Angelina Jolie flies her Gulfstream to Davos for a conference on fighting global warming anyway.

So mainly, I'm all about the peaches. Anyway, I find it kind of bizarre that a food system that involves farmers selling directly to their neighbors needs to be thought through more, but our existing industrial system of fertilizers and subsidies and price supports and technology and global shipping and everything is presumed to be the norm and to work just fine.

I'm 100% with you, Mike. I tried to make it clear that I'm not saying we should get rid of the local food system, in fact I'm working with people to increase local food, especially as it pertains to our schools. Again, I like local food because I think it's better.

But I'm not down with some of the more ideological premises, especially when I know that "small lifestyle changes" aren't so small to an awful lot of people. I'd rather see the kids in my neighborhood eating California tomatoes than Flaming Hot Cheetos.

Mhays wrote:But I'm not down with some of the more ideological premises, especially when I know that "small lifestyle changes" aren't so small to an awful lot of people. I'd rather see the kids in my neighborhood eating California tomatoes than Flaming Hot Cheetos.

Which premises (or who) suggests otherwise?

bjt wrote: We need to think about where our food comes from, what is the cost of how it is grown and picked and processed (how does it impact other people AND the environment) and we need to take a little more responsibility for own food. Until we get a little cold water splashed in our faces about the real costs of food we are just going down a path of ignorance and denial. We need to pause and think about the word 'sacrifice" what it means to us really. Could you sacrifice eating apples in December? What if you froze the apples in the fall and then ate them in different ways--in pies, in smoothies, stewed, etc.

Mhays wrote:My point is that while the goal of less impact on the environment makes people feel better, it can't be reached: if our population continues to grow, lifestyle changes will be insufficient no matter what they are. While the number of people cycling to work may have increased, so has the number of commuters - I don't think the number of cars on the road has decreased at all. Companies may be using reusable bags, but there is more and more demand for product, which uses packaging. Houses may be more green, but until the market crash new and bigger houses were continuing to be built (and often, less green but existing homes were left behind or demolished for new green ones, yes?)

Okay so I'll throw up my arms and do nothing because not everyone can afford to go "greener!" I'll gas up the SUV and drive 30 minutes to a Wal-Mart to get the cheapest goods. I'll stop bringing reusable bags to the grocery store because my neighbors continue to use plastic baggies. And those people who have been biking to work (and the increase numbers are palpable - I can glean this just by watching the crowd of bikes on the Milwaukee bike path) -- stop doing it because folks are moving out to big homes in the suburbs. This is exactly my point. While I agree that there's a lot of media hype on both ends, if I can make changes to things I can control, such as programming my thermostat, rather than focusing on that I cannot control (such as the folks who will commute 2 hours back and forth to their large homes in Naperville), then I do think I will make an impact, if only in that I lessen my own heating bill or in that I participate in creating a market for what I deem to be superior food products.

Mhays wrote:As for the $20/lb produce, I have neighbors right now who buy their food on credit at the end of the month. A few dollars difference, yes, it means not eating.

That was not my point. I don't know if you meant to convey this but I understood your point to be that eating local will directly drive up the prices for non-local food and/or obliterate the market for cheaper non-local produce and I just don't think there will come a day when, because those affluent folks are eating local, the market for cheap non-local food will be obliterated and people cannot eat. I think that's a pretty dire viewpoint and ignores basic market economics.

I like to shop locally not to be part of any social, or environmental movement, but to get the freshest items I can at certain times of the year, as well as to support my neighbors, and small business owners vs corporations. I support my local family butcher, the local family grocery store, the local liquor store, the farmers market, roadside farmstands, and the local Mexican market for supplies(they may cost more, but the trade off is worth it). Not for any cause other than my tastebuds, and to help my community. Some items(ocean fish, shellfish, alligator, imported meats and cheeses, olive oils, etc), cannot be sourced locally, & I do not think twice about purchasing them. It is what it is.

I am one of those folks who drives an suv for comfort, and my families safety, I also drive 140+ miles round trip every day to get to and from work(I do carpool though). I moved from an apartment in the suburbs to a home in the country 90 miles from Chicago. I feel our quality of life is better when we have space, nature, and country air to breath vs. being stacked on top of, or right next to my neighbors. Its all about trade off's, & what is best for the individual or their family. I dont tout my lifestyle as being right for anyone but me and my family, I also respect others who choose to live their lives a different way, as long as they respect others opinions, and lifestyle choices.

Mhays wrote:

bjt wrote: We need to think about where our food comes from, what is the cost of how it is grown and picked and processed (how does it impact other people AND the environment) and we need to take a little more responsibility for own food. Until we get a little cold water splashed in our faces about the real costs of food we are just going down a path of ignorance and denial. We need to pause and think about the word 'sacrifice" what it means to us really. Could you sacrifice eating apples in December? What if you froze the apples in the fall and then ate them in different ways--in pies, in smoothies, stewed, etc.

bjt,

Do you think that people who currently can't afford food should be making further sacrifice?

No, not in any way. I have worked in some of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago and I agree very much with the comment earlier that I'd rather see a kid chomping on an apple from anywhere on the planet than a 25 cent bag of Flaming Hots. I have seen the long line in the Humboldt Park boathouse as people wait for the Produce Mobile to show up. I'd rather see a family walk away with a Mexican watermelon than not. And I am thrilled that some of the markets are accepting WIC/Link and showing up in more neighborhoods. But I just feel like we have to start somewhere, you know? (If we don't start somewhere I don't know that we'll get anywhere.) Heck, I have a Trader Joe's pizza in the freezer that came all the way from Italy and last week I went on my maiden voyage to Aldi because I was told you can get cans of tomatoes for 25 cents and bricks of cheddar for $1.29. (My husband was "let go" a few months back, I work half time and we have two boys.) I will be going back to Aldi.

But I did manage to duck in to the Winter's Farmers Market today at a church in the Old Irving neighborhood, I am happy to say that it was bustling, and it was not just SUV-driving affluent people. All shapes, sizes and colors. I bought a bag of aquaponically grown (!!!) lettuce for $3 (two heads) and a bag of organic popcorn, also $3 (we eat a lot of popcorn here).

I do think there is a palpable craving for new ways to have access to healthy, seasonal and yes, local foods. Not out of some trend or fad but because it makes sense. My friend Nance does the urban foraging walks and wild pickling and seed saving workshops. She had 5 times more people show up at her workshop last weekend than she'd expected. There are waiting lists for community gardening plots in the parks. I would be thrilled if the Victory Garden movement (or a new interpretation of it) were to return. Pickling and canning are very much on the rise.

So I try to be realistic and hopeful. I do think that lifestyle changes, no matter how small, can ultimately lead to change. I could never be labeled a localvore but I am trying to incorporate local foods into our meals whenever I can (and when I can afford it). It is much easier to do this in the summer but these new neighborhood winter markets make me very happy. Even lively dialogue like this can help build awareness.

bjt