The Local vs. Conventional Food Battle
With concern growing about food insecurity, shortages and price increases, there is less resolution than ever about the relative wisdom of where and how our food should be produced. At one end are those who prefer supporting local producers. At the other are those who appreciate the critical mass that can be achieved by factory farms.
Monica Eng, food writer for the Chicago Tribune, attempts objectivity, explaining both sides of the case while pointing out, "for many, the benefits of local produce extend well beyond measurable issues of efficiency." The one thing all contenders have in common is the power of conviction. Multiple studies provide statistics claiming to repudiate any and all opposition.
Historian Stephen Budiansky, in the New York Times, offers lengthy arguments about the impracticalities of locally produced food being sufficient to feed the world. But he also exemplifies the emotional side of the argument, claiming that "the local food movement now threatens to devolve into another one of those self-indulgent -- and self-defeating -- do-gooder dogmas." Mr Budiansky says that "arbitrary rules, without any real scientific basis, are repeated as gospel." He adds that "words like 'sustainability' and 'food-miles' are thrown around without any clear understanding of the larger picture of energy and land use" and emphasizes that "the total land area of American farms remains almost unchanged from a century ago ... even though those farms now feed three times as many Americans and export more than 10 times as much as they did in 1910."
Mr. Budiansky recommends that "the best way to make the most of these truly precious resources of land, favorable climates and human labor is to grow (foods) ... where they grow best and with the most efficient technologies -- and then pay the relatively tiny energy cost to get them to market."
Steven Morris, writing in The Guardian, demonstrates how distribution "complications" can mean products travelling hundreds of miles from their point of origin to reach a store just two miles away. But Tim Lang, the professor of food policy at City University London, who coined the phrase "food miles", blames "the reality of modern logistics ... based on cheap oil, the motorway system and mass production. If people don't like it they are going to have to be prepared to pay more for a more sustainable system of logistics."
Spokesmen for large chains such as Tesco and the Co-operative Group as well as suppliers such as Cornish pie and pastry maker Ginsters, agree about distribution impracticalities. Speaking to the Guardian, Ginster's spokesman claimed "there would be 'mayhem' if every producer tried to deliver to every store in the country," leading to vast increases in the number of vehicles on the road, emissions and congestion, and adding "consumers would have to come to terms with very limited choice if producers delivered only locally ... there would be no fresh fruit, no fresh vegetables out of season."
Discussion questions: Where do you stand on the argument between locally-produced food versus that produced through methods of mass production? How much traction do see locally-produced foods gaining over the years ahead?
[Author's commentary] With so much conflicting data, arguments remain predominantly emotional and political. Even using the label "locavores" smacks of childish sneering and name-calling. Accepting that there are advantages to having a mixed supply and distribution system -- and achieving it -- are major challenges still to be tackled.