Within these past few years, more and more people have tried to use their community’s grown produce instead of large company-based products. These ‘locavores’ have grown in numbers as people have taken into account the health related, environmental, and economic consequences of choosing locally grown products. The key issues associated with the locavore movement are the economic effects and the change made in the environment of a community.
A key issue of the locavore movement is the economic effect it has on a community. A positive result of the movement is the growth of local farms. As Pallavi Gogoi said in his business magazine article, “The local food movement has already accomplished something… a revival of small farms” (Source E).
…show more content…
A positive result of the movement would be the return of health to the land. In Paul Robert’s book, he mentions the superior effects of the locavore movement. According to a UK-based study he used, “Such a shift would bring back diversity to the land… destroyed by chemical-intensive mono-cropping…” (Source F). As large corporation farmers plant only one crop repetitively with the aid of chemicals, the land used becomes unhealthy, and eventually sterile from the lack of nutrients. With the locavore movement, farmland can be saved as local farmers only sell to local buyers. These farmers will only have to plant what buyers need, and have the opportunity to plant diverse crops. These different crops naturally regenerate the land with different nutrients, keeping the environment more healthy. On the contrary, the locavore movement may harm the environment due to the likelihood of forming a large carbon footprint. In James McWilliam’s business article about the locavore movement, he gives the example of a Londoner wanting to buy local lamb instead of lamb from New Zealand. “...New Zealand lamb is raised on pastures with a small carbon footprint… English lamb is produced… with a big carbon footprint” (Source C). Even though food may come from far away, the process of producing the food may be better for the environment. Such as cattle, packaging and feeding them in a factory-farm may create more pollution and harm the environment. If the product is more naturally fed and packaged, pollution can be reduced and be more environmentally friendly. The environmental issues associated with the locavore movement are significant as they can both improve and hurt the environment. The more diverse, local crops grown can help keep the soil healthy, perhaps making people’s bodies more healthy as chemical use is slimmed or ignored. This could trigger a growth in society’s overall health. However, the
Moreover, this system of mass farming leads to single crop farms, which are ecologically unsafe, and the unnatural treatment of animals (Kingsolver 14). These facts are presented to force the reader to consider their own actions when purchasing their own food because of the huge economic impact that their purchases can have. Kingsolver demonstrates this impact by stating that “every U.S. citizen ate just one meal a week (any meal) composed of locally and organically raised meats and produce, we
James E. Mcwilliams stated his aversion to the locavore movement in his essay “The Locavore Myth: Why Buying from Nearby Farmers Won’t Save the Planet”. The locavore movement is the concept of buying produce, meat, and other farm-grown food locally as opposed to having your vegetables or fruits shipped from across the world. This notion believes going local reduces harm to the environment by decreasing the miles food needs to travel before landing on your plate. From the title of his essay itself, the claim would seem obvious. The locavore movement does not essentially help save the environment through lessened food mileage. Don’t be easily swayed, in short. Mcwilliams presented several grounds and data for his justification on this issue.
Many families in America can’t decide what food chain to eat from. In the book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan lists four food chains: Industrial, Industrial Organic, Local Sustainable, and Hunter-Gatherer. The Industrial food chain is full of large farms that use chemicals and factories. Industrial Organic is close to it except it doesn’t use as many chemicals and the animals have more space. Local Sustainable is where food is grown without chemicals, the animals have freedom and they eat what they were born to eat. Lastly, Hunter-Gatherer is where you hunt and grow your own food. The omnivore's dilemma is trying to figure out what food chain to eat from. Local Sustainable is the best food chain to feed the United States because it is healthy and good for the environment.
Reason 2: the locavore movement is saving the world with its conservation of the environment
A major issue that is occurring in America is a phenomena known as “food deserts”, most are located in urban areas and it's difficult to buy affordable or good-quality fresh food. Whereas in the past, food deserts were thought to be solved with just placing a grocery store in the area, but with times it has become an issue that people are not picking the best nutritional option. This issue is not only making grocery store in food deserts are practically useless and not really eliminating the issue of food deserts because even when they are given a better nutritional option, and people are not taking it. In my perspective, it takes more than a grocery store to eliminate ‘food deserts’. It's more about demonstrating the good of picking the nutritional option and how it can help them and their families. For example, “Those who live in these areas are often subject to poor diets as a result and are at a greater risk of becoming obese or developing chronic diseases.”(Corapi, 2014).
Americans should eliminate their regular consumption of animal products and processed foods. This type of diet leads to preventable and expensive health issues such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity and even death. Most Americans don’t realize that the majority of the food being advertised to them is literal garbage that’s infusing their bodies with toxins on a daily basis. As Americans, we take pride and joy in our food, given the fact that it’s so darn tasty. We find comfort in eating a cheeseburger with French fries and slurping down a 44-ounce cola. However, what we eat has a far more detrimental effect on our health than most of us are aware of. To some, making the switch to a raw food diet might seem to be taking a drastic measure.
More and more farm-to-table restaurants, farmer’s markets, and food co-ops are cropping up to meet the demand among consumers for healthy, local foods, as more chefs and consumers recognize the poorer taste and nutritional integrity of ingredients shipped in from far away. Fruits and vegetables that have to be shipped long distances are often picked before they have a chance to fully ripen and absorb nutrients from their surroundings. Because local food doesn’t have to travel long distances, it is grown in order to taste better and be healthier rather than to be resilient to long travel. The farm-to-table movement also helps local economies by supporting small farmers, which is a dying
...nts that are harmful are released. The factory farms have not only been seen to affect humans, but the animals also. The food given to these animals are supposed to make them grow faster, but it is also causing serious digestive problems for the animals. According to the Sustainable Table, “recent studies have shown that chemical additives in feed may accumulate in animal tissues, potentially exposing consumers to unwanted chemicals such as veterinary drug residues and heavy metals.” This is not fair for the animals and humans to have to suffer through something like this just so unhealthy food can be produced.
Former editor of Us News and World Report and recipient of Guggenheim Award,Stephen Budiansky in his article, “Math Lessons For Locavores”,published in August 19,2012 addresses the topic of locally grown food and argues it as a more sustainable choice in terms of freshness and seasons.I agree with Budiansky for growing food locally,however; with three other reasons: we can reduce food waste,(which will benefit the environment), and obesity(which will help an individual mentally and physically), and improve our economy. The purpose is to illustrate why locally grown foods would be a finer option for an American lifestyle. Budiansky adopts an informative,persuasive,and insightful tone for his audience,readers
Our current system of corporate-dominated, industrial-style farming might not resemble the old-fashioned farms of yore, but the modern method of raising food has been a surprisingly long time in the making. That's one of the astonishing revelations found in Christopher D. Cook's "Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis" (2004, 2006, The New Press), which explores in great detail the often unappealing, yet largely unseen, underbelly of today's food production and processing machine. While some of the material will be familiar to those who've read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or Eric Schlosser's "Fast-Food Nation," Cook's work provides many new insights for anyone who's concerned about how and what we eat,
...struggling to earn any income at all and sometimes do not even get the opportunity to eat. Another issue that Raj Patel did not touch on is the lack of care consumers have for the farmers. It seems that consumers care about farmers about as much as the corporations do, which, in my opinion, is not a lot. When consumers only care about low prices and large corporations only care about making a profit, the farmers are left out to dry. Many consumers believe “food should be available at a bargain price, a belief that relies on labor exploitation and environmental exhaustion at multiple points along the commodity chain.” (Wright, 95) Corporations as well as consumers generally tend to be selfish and I think Raj Patel is afraid to mention this. If only these people cared a little bit more about each other I believe the hourglass of the food system will begin to even out.
And, because food now comes at a low cost, it has become cheaper in quality and therefore potentially dangerous to the consumer’s health. These problems surrounding the ethics and the procedures of the instantaneous food system are left unchanged due to the obliviousness of the consumers and the dollar signs in the eyes of the government and big business. The problem begins with the mistreatment and exploitation of farmers. Farmers are essentially the backbone of the entire food system. Large-scale family farms account for 10% of all farms, but 75% of overall food production (CSS statistics).
In 1987 Carlo Petrini started a coalition dedicated to the politics and pleasures of slowness and the opposition of fast food. (Leitch 439) He describes one of his goals by saying:
A United Nations report states that land used for animal agriculture, both for grazing and production of crops fed to livestock, takes up an astounding 30% of land on Earth. ("Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources") To meet the industry’s demands, over 260 million acres of forest in the U.S. have been cleared to grow grain fed to farm animals. ("Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources") With that in mind, the meat industry also dumps disease-causing pathogens through animal waste that pollutes water and forces the need for waste lagoons to be constructed, which are susceptible to leaking and flooding. ("Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms”) Scientists say that about 14% of the world’s greenhouse gases are released by said agriculture industries, which is a growing concern for climate change and global warming. (Silverman) The meat industry uses one-third of all the fossil fuels consumed in the United States. (Moore) There is no question that farming animals has a negative effect on the environment and steps should be taken to mitigate air and water pollution risks and future deforestation. If animal agriculture was phased out, land used for animal grazing could be returned to forest land and some of it converted into fields for cultivating crops for humans. A global shift toward veganism, resulting in the elimination of the meat and animal agriculture industries, would protect the environment from various detrimental effects.
Have you ever considered what is in the food you are feeding your children? Most foods that are bought at the neighborhood grocery stores are considered global foods which are packed with additives and chemicals making them far less nutritious than local produce from the community farmer‘s market. After much research, I have concluded that it is better to buy produce which is grown locally rather than produce which is sourced globally (from other countries). I think this is important because most people, like myself, buy global foods and do not realize how much better local foods are for the local economy, the global environment, and our personal nutrition. Nutrition is vital to the healthy of everyone especially children, so with the purchase of local fresh produce, it can ease the worry in parents of what children as well as ourselves are ingesting.