Thinking the Local Food Movement Would Be Good for the Economy? Think Again.
Posted: November 17, 2011
Local food is sexy. Like any trend, interesting, powerful people seem to love it. From Michelle Obama to a slew of celebrity chefs, everyone seems to be talking about the exact farmer from which they purchased their lettuce. The hottest restaurants include menu descriptions that read like a list of the most prominent family from every bordering local community. On the surface, local foods appear to be the epicurean’s equivalent of retro chic.
Scratch beneath the surface, though, and the local food movement isn’t always what it seems. A complete cultural shift to a paradigm in which local foods reign supreme would yield some ugly results for the economy and for our health.
Simply, local food proponents do not account for basic economic realities in their public policy platform. From the economic advantages of specialization and trade to the realities of scale of economy, the shift toward a government-favored status for local foods, already well underway, would both make food more expensive and increase pollution.
On top of that, the foods which would become the most expensive in a local food world would be those needed for a healthy, balanced diet. Obesity already plagues the United States. If locavores get their way, the poor would be condemned to a sentence of junk food options for the crime of being unable to afford their nutrient-rich, lower-calorie counterparts.
So speak up. Trends and fads come and go. Fashions and crazes like leisure suits and pet rocks pass naturally through the cycle of cool. Don’t let this trend, and all of its harmful repercussions, be written into our laws and regulations. Tell the government to keep our options open instead of basing public policy in popularity.
Eden Balfour Said,
November 17, 2011 @ 1:22 pm
The poor are already condemned to a sentence of junk food options. See Congress’s recent decision to call tomato paste a vegetable for school lunches. Vegetables are already far more expensive than subsidized filler commodities like corn and soy, and many studies of farmers’ markets show that vegetables are often cheaper there than in grocery stores, especially those frequented by the poor. I don’t see any concern on the part of big commodity groups for the poor.
Ken Said,
November 17, 2011 @ 1:34 pm
Eden, even Mark Bittman of the New York Times would disagree with your premise about the poor and junk food. See the link below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
A lot of us like the idea of local food, the subject of this blog post, but we realize there are times when our food needs or even preferences cannot be met only in this way.And there are times when local fiid isn’t as economic or environment-friendly as food from more distant farms and ranches.
Eden Balfour Said,
November 17, 2011 @ 1:41 pm
Ken, this post doesn’t seem to say “at times” local isn’t as friendly; it dismisses it outright.
Mark Bittman is partially correct. When we are talking about people who do not have cooking facilities or knowledge, living in substandard housing (such as many of my brother’s students), he is incorrect; a $1 fast food item is much cheaper than buying pots, having utilities hooked back up to work a stove or microwave, etc.
Ken Said,
November 17, 2011 @ 1:50 pm
I see your point, but how does a locavore system fix that? As the author of the cited article polints out, “as we try to tackle obesity, locavorism is likely to raise the cost of precisely the wrong foods. Grains can be grown cheaply across much of the country, but the costs of growing produce outside specific, limited regions increase quickly.”