Showing posts with label local food movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label local food movement. Show all posts

Friday, August 20, 2010

No Math Requirements

On August 19, the New York Times published an op-ed by Stephen Budiansky entitled "Math Lessons for Locavores" on the economic fallacies of eating local produce. It's a useful counterpoint to increasingly popular arguments by locavores about the costs of eating foods outside of an ideal radius (this ideal radius -- what is considered local -- isn't set in stone. I've noticed it getting smaller and smaller as the idea of locavorism catches on.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20budiansky.html?th&emc=th

The author acknowledges that there are a lot of good, completely valid reasons for locavorism. He just objects to sustainability-based arguments revolving around the transportation costs of non-local food. As someone who enjoys a long drive into the Virginia countryside in search of perfect peaches, I concede. Yes, the economics of driving 50 miles to connect with farmers or inspect ideal chicken housing presents something of a disconnect -- if I copped an attitude about the superiority of what I was up to. I've seen this attitude at the Dupont Circle Sunday market. Like Budiansky, I don't care for it.

While knowing the math satisfies my inner debunker, this sort of math doesn't figure into my decision-making about food. I don't eat locally because it's the right thing to do for the environment either -- no dis to the environment, of course.

Economics figure into my rationale and ethics about eating locally. I want small farms to succeed. I buy local food to protect local businesses. But this isn't the main reason I prefer local food.

For me, eating locally is more about my identity (professional and personal) than sustainability ethics. It's akin to the reason I avoid restaurant chains (unless they're local chains), big box stores and national retailers. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with big businesses (unless they're blighting a cultural landscape). I just generally have better experiences -- better service, better food, more interesting options -- with smaller businesses and small local farms.

Buying local food from (or near) the producer is also a form of recreation and connection for me and my husband. The more I'm learning about food through research for this blog, and in my kitchen, the more interested I am in food shopping outside of grocery store environments. If our combined per-hour rate were applied to the time we spend shopping for and preparing local food, we'd probably be spending about $800 a pop for a home made, locally-produced caprese salad.

When I open our BTU-gobbling refrigerator and see the fruits (and vegetables) of our latest outing, it's all personal, a temporary edible album of the last few weeks. Ethics, arguments and math don't figure.




Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Wal-mart vs. Whole Foods in The Atlantic


Image: still from Harry Potter and the Prisoners of Waldemart, October 2008, on YouTube.
Preservationists love to hate Wal-mart. I typed "Walmart preservation fight" into Google and found a slew of entries, as expected. Wal-mart threatens Civil War battlefield outside of Charlottesville. State of Vermont Battles Wal-mart in the Wilderness. Lancaster County, PA advocates have been fighting a Wal-mart planned for Amish/Mennonite country. Etc. Etc.

The National Trust has advocacy materials dedicated to fighting "big box stores" generally -- but Wal-mart has been the focus of most big box fights.

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/community/hist-preservation.html

Conversely, Whole Foods is generally perceived as a good guy. The mission-based grocery store anchored historic and infill redevelopment at P Street and 14th here in DC years ago. Shopping there makes buying local and/or organic easy. But WF (aka Whole Pay Check) is notoriously expensive, which significantly edits its local customer base. Wal-mart is popular because it's cheap. These two businesses don't overlap in my ethical universe.

So I was predictably intrigued by the latest Atlantic Monthly's article "The Great Grocery Smackdown: Will Walmart, not Whole Foods, save the small farm and make America healthy?" by Corby Kummer.

What? Wal-mart now carries local produce that generally competes with (and sometimes exceeds the quality of) Whole Foods.' Kummer gathered together food snobs for a blind taste test. He prepared two separate meals with ingredients from the two retailers. "The tasters were surprised when the results were unblinded at the end of the meal. And they weren't entirely happy."

http://podcasts.theatlantic.com/2010/02/walmart-produce.php

"I'm not sure I'm convinced that the world's largest retailer is set on rebuilding local economies it had a hand in destroying, if not literally, then in effect. But I'm convinced that if it wants to, a ruthlessly well-run mechanism can bring fruits and vegetables back to the land where they once flourished, and deliver them ot the people who need them most."

This seemed to be the salient point, from the perspective of a preservation advocate. If they support the local food movement, why can't they do a better job supporting local preservation?

http://walmartwatch.com/