Benefits Of The Locavore Movement

Aftertaste

Would you sacrifice the state of your world for the sake of seemingly better-tasting produce? The rising tide of the locavore movement, a crusade that aims to promote local produce consumption, has washed over several American towns. This concept appears to ameliorate the lives of few American farmers and yield flavorful harvests, but at what cost? Despite the fact that the locavore movement has improved the state of several rural towns, its global provisions prove to be nominal.

The misinterpreted definition of locally grown food reinforces a common misconception of the movement’s actual health benefits. The terms commonly, automatically, and unmindfully associated with locally grown produce often include: organic, health-conscious,

The carbon footprint that arising local crops create greatly exceeds that of the transportation of already-existing, actively-utilized farmland (C). Supporters of the locavore movement fail to consider the similar implications of locally-grown food on the biosphere: Because the term ‘local’ has been so narrowly defined, consumers do not recognize that food that has been ‘locally’ grown still must be transported to markets. For instance, according to famous Forbes magazine, “... sending a truck with 2,000 apples over a distance of 2,000 miles [consumes] the same amount of fuel per apple as a local farmer who [drives] 50 miles to sell 50 apples...” (C). Produce travelling short distances has proved to create no less of a burden on the environment than produce farmed elsewhere. Not only does maintaining the consumption of globally exported goods not generate a greater amount of carbon emissions, but it also allows millions of agriculturists to maintain their positions

Although the growth of the locavore movement in some towns has indeed lent considerable economic support to farmers in proximity (A), the amount of farmers and farmland that the locavore movement will damage far exceed the amount they will benefit in an already astoundly developed area. Global trade, imports, and exports of produce have proved to be a vital aspect of the worldwide economy: The U.K. relies on Kenya for beans, and vice versa. As a result, “...a campaign to shame English consumers with small airplane stickers affixed to flown-in produce threatens the livelihood of 1.5 million sub-Saharan farmers” (C). Not only will a growing number of locavores continue to hurt others worldwide, a reversion to local consumption has also proved futile in the past. For instance, “The first world war cut Germany off from the rest of the world, so they had to revert to local food... people starved there... they had a few bad crops, and all the problems that long-distance trade had solved came back with a vengeance” (Thompson). The growing locavore movement evidently causes a chain reaction of distress throughout the