Giving Local Food the Raspberry

(Flickr / Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

The sustainable-food movement has finally been around long enough to face its first cold front. Pickled okra, critics want the world to know, is not as desirable as sales at the Prospect Park farmers market might indicate. The most recent round of attacks has focused on local food and locavorism: In April, Tyler Cowen took a few glancing blows at local food in An Economist Gets Lunch, and last month, Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu—two Canadians trained as economic-policy analysts—released The Locavore’s Dilemma, an all-out assault on local food in which they seek to “slaughter as many sacred cows in the food activists’ intellectual herd as [they] could.” But by focusing on local food, they end up arguing against problems that barely exist or that never will, while ignoring the real environmental costs of our food systems.

Desrochers and Shimizu mention that they received support for their work from Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the market-oriented research center where Tyler Cowen is the general director. Both The Locavore’s Dilemma and An Economist Gets Lunch rely heavily on an argument, connected to the center’s work on African agricultural exporters, that can be paraphrased as “local food advocates want everyone to live like destitute subsistence farmers in Africa.”

The question underlying this argument is fair: Will the food system provide enough sustenance for the world’s population? But it’s less interesting and ambitious than the question that the sustainable-food movement asks: Can the agricultural system feed everyone adequately and reduce our footprint on the environment?

While overuse has turned the word “sustainable” into a loaded word, the more specific “local” isn’t the best replacement. Farmers who sell primarily to local customers do sometimes run small, organic operations and try to feed people in an environmentally responsible way. And the first heroes of the sustainable-food movement, champions of organic techniques and land stewardship, often sold primarily to people who lived close by. These ambitions don’t necessarily need to come as a package, but when advocates for a better, more responsible agriculture system talk about local food, they tend to jumble all these ideas together.

When Desrochers and Shimizu talk about local food, they choose to understand the term in the most narrow sense—the idea that an ever-growing portion of our food supply should be produced in close physical proximity to the consumers who will eat it, an idea they claim “has made the greatest gain in popularity in the last two decades.”

The authors never provide any support for the comparative popularity of “local,” but it’s a convenient assertion. Growing food close to the place it’s consumed is one of the more questionable preferences of the sustainable-food movement—reducing the “food miles” associated with transporting food to its destination does not put much of a dent in its carbon emissions. And while community gardens, rooftop farms, and skyscrapers filled with hydroponic vegetables work well as topics for blog posts, Desrochers and Shimizu point out that these ideas are likely flash-in-the-pan trends—and not even novel ones.

During an economic downturn in the 1890s, Detroit tried pushing Urban Potato Patches, asking “owners of vacant lots to allow unemployed individuals to grow vegetables on their land.” The current passion for canning eerily resembles a fad during World War I, when Charles Lathrop Pack, the National Emergency Food Garden Commissioner said, “The canning and drying movement has brought back to thousands of American households an art almost forgotten since our grandmothers’ days.”

These twee trends aren’t exactly threatening to take over the world economy, but Desrochers and Shimizu latch onto them as a real danger. They seem to fear that the sustainable-food movement—represented in the book by a couple of anonymous but “well-regarded” academics (and the author Michael Pollan, of course)—wants only for all people, all over the world to consume only food produced within a certain radius of their homes.

In reality, the food movement is far more concerned with better food than food that's close-by. Buying local has mostly been a convenient shorthand for buying food that’s grown in a more broadly sustainable way. “Given the choice, buy local over organic,” Pollan advised in 2006. “Often local food is organic, but farmers may not have the capital to deal with all the paperwork involved.” It’s not an accident that farmers experimenting with alternative farming methods tend to sell to local markets: They’re developing ideas that have been unpopular in the mainstream of American farming.


Although there are some food activists and writers who have glorified the local character of these experiments, the challenge now is to find out if any of those ideas can work on a larger scale. Increasing the proportion of food that comes to stores from close-by—fresh, unprocessed and tasting the best it can—may be one strategy for improving the food we eat and decreasing the impact it has on the world. But few writers, advocates, or farmers think that that strategy should work in isolation.

But Desrochers and Shimizu aren’t interested in applying any new ideas to the mainstream food system, because they don’t think it’s necessary. Their simplistic view of the food movement allows them to brush over the environmental damage caused by the country’s current agricultural system—problems that alternative farming techniques aim to solve.

Desrochers and Shimizu believe that agriculture will always destroy the land it uses and that the only way to reduce its impact is to use the least amount of land possible. They’re satisfied that since the industrial food system has moved farms from mountains onto flat plains, soil erosion is as minimal as it can be. “Severe erosion problems are now largely confined to poor countries extending low-yield farming onto fragile soils,” they write. In reality, millions of tons of topsoil disappear every year from the Mississippi River basin alone.

The food movement hasn’t necessarily been clear about which qualities are the most important to retain and apply more universally to the agricultural system. Should all farms be small? Local? Organic? Is it enough for bigger farms that sell food on a global market to adopt techniques that could leave the world with more soil, less pollution, and more food? Does the best system combine all these ideas so that it’s easier to buy local tomatoes and Peruvian potatoes in the same place?

These questions haven’t been answered yet, but Desrochers and Shimizu don’t seem to believe they are even worth asking. The two authors are convinced that the industrial agriculture system that we have is the best possible system, because it’s the one we ended up with. They assume industrial agriculture must lead to the greatest yields for a given piece of land, when the relative strength of organic and conventional yields vary depending on the crop and the location. By the end of the book, they’ve convinced themselves that there are the only two options—the system as it stands and subsistence farming.

It’s a limited vision of what could be possible. In places like Union Square, where the farmers market competes with Whole Foods, local food and more industrial food have pushed each other to improve: Whole Foods offers better and fresher tomatoes than other local grocery stores, for instance, while the farmers market has diversified its offerings. There are agricultural scientists who are just starting now to tinker with plants so that they grow best under organic conditions, shooting up more quickly over weeds, resisting bugs without pesticides.

The forces that Desrochers and Shimizu value—market pressures and technology—are just now starting to incorporate the influence and inspiration of alternative farming ideas. In ten or 20 years—if the food movement continues to succeed as it has—Americans are less likely to be buying all their food from an 100-mile foodshed than to have more options for how they get it. What economist really thinks that’s a bad outcome?


ok, on reading this review I downloaded the book to my Kindle for instant gratification and, though I've only just started it must say I'm sympathetic.
I do not understand why the sentimentality and ludditism associated with the sustainability/locovore movement has become associated with the left. This is yet another reason why the left has lost populism. Priviledged people with time, money and energy to spare can afford to be finnicky about food but, puleeze, the rest of us can't.

I am still puzzled why this range of sentimentalities and ecological dogmas became associated left. To be left, as I understand it, means to support income redistribution and the welfare state. What in hell does this have to do with "sustainability" or being a locovore, or any or these other fashionable, costly, inconvenient policies that those of us who aren't priviledged, who don't have the time, energy or money, can ill afford?

The locovore movement is associated with the left because the left distrusts corporations to make the right decisions for public health and for the treatment of workers, and regulation has been abysmal for decades. Big agriculture does not answer to anyone except sympathetic government officials. Do you want your family to eat food dusted with pesticides that might poison them? Do you trust that genetically engineered seed, outlawed in other developed nations, is safe for the food supply in the long run? Do you want your dairy and poultry and meat laced with high levels of antibiotics? Do you want your water contaminated by spill from animal waste? Do you want to eat beef from cattle fed with corn rather than the grass their digestive system was built for? Do you want workers to be forced to labor under inhumane treatment? Do you want pigs and chickens to be raised in crates that denies them mobility? These issues drive me to pay extra for local produce, meat and poultry, and I suspect they're what drives the market in left-leaning communities. Incidentally, they also drive purchases in upscale rightwing households, even if those buyers believe it's okay for poor people to eat mass market food.

The left has not solved the problems of mass production, and I'm turned off too by the kitchiness of many local products. But until the food industry sits down at the table to discuss the damage it is doing to public health and the environment, I don't think this issue is going away, no matter how many apologists it finds to defend it. At least I hope not.

You bet I want GM foods. I've read a reasonable amount on this and there's no compelling evidence to suggest that they're dangerous. Rich green Europeans can afford to be finicky, but poor farmers in the Global South we need higher yields and pest-resistant plants can't. GM is great! As far as mass produced foods, once again, the rich can afford to be finicky, but those of us is with limited time and money want cheap food that's quick and easy to deal with. It's a matter of trade-offs: I want the cheapest stuff I can get, and that means nasty mass production. Yeah, it would be nice to be nicer to animals, but can we people afford it? Life is full of hard choices.

Laskow's critique of the contrarian attacks on the "local food" movement are generally helpful. But it is disappointing that she too finds it necessary to resort to an unnecessarily snide comment, as if she too feels the need to condescend to all of those people out there seeking answers to our unsustainable food system. I refer to her reference to growing potatoes in Detroit in the 1890s, or the current upsurge in canning as "twee trends." If she were better informed about what is going on in the world, she would know that there is a lot of urban farming activity in Detroit today. Her choice of the word "twee" casts an unpleasant shadow over the rest of her article. I hope she will be more careful in her choice of words in the future. The Prospect's editors could have done her a favor with a more careful reading of her piece.

As a reporter covering energy and environment, I do know that there is a lot of urban farming activity in Detroit and other cities around the country today. I've a reason for thinking that these projects aren't exactly what's going to make a long term impact on the food system. I'm skeptical of the scalability, and I think they're somewhat of a distraction from other solutions to problems with the food system.

The concept of food miles originated in the early 1990s in the United Kingdom. It was conceived by Professor Tim Lang at the Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment (SAFE) Alliance and first appeared in print in a report “The Food Miles Report: The dangers of long-distance food transport”, researched and written by Angela Paxton. Food miles is a term which refers to the distance food is transported from the time of its production until it reaches the consumer. Food miles are one factor used when assessing the environmental impact of food, including the impact on global warming. Thanks for the Article. New Hunan Wok

Raspberry Ketone supplement has become very common especially among people who want to keep their body weight in check. Many health experts claim that this supplement is one of the best weight loss remedies on the market today. However, despite its growing popularity many people still do not know much about it. They say that it is one of the rare supplements that are expected to take the world by a storm.
business storage

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)