Locavore Synthesis Essay (Question 1)

The recent surge in the local-market proponents (locavores) introduced questions of nutrition that challenged current standards of nutrition, transportation, and agriculture. The small-scale cultivation system might appeal to many as the panacea for issues regarding health and the domination of our agricultural industry by the few. Yet there is more to the story. The allure of "fresh food" and proximity clouds many issues regarding the local-market system, including the ambiguous characterization of "local" and the way foods are transported. The rise in locavores has far-retching implications, nationally and globally. However, in-depth evaluation exposes the ignored and undiscussed reasons as to why this newfound trend is only sweet on the surface.

The major critique of locavores is the definition of the term "local" Proponents argue that the less distance a food travels, the more it retains its nutritional value. Though this isn't entirely incorrect, it's a partial interpretation of a larger issue. As McWilliams indicates, lambs in New Zealand are produced under relatively congenial environments, whereas lambs in the U.K which many Londoners are tempted to buy due to its proximity, are treated under intense, adverse factory conditions. Quite evidently, the single criterion of distance that locavores hold when shopping for food is very short sighted. The simple-minded view that "near is healthy and far is bad' excludes other significant considerations, including how the product is treated and perhaps even where it's coming from. As Roberts indicates, the source of local foods might simply negate the benefits that arise from close-distance cultivation. On more technical terms, "local" is subject to people's preconceptions and interpretations. In addition, a formal, objective definition of "local" cant' be prescribed because it can conflict with some individual's opinions of what local means

Another issue is the destabilizing force that locavores impose on the globally interdependent economic system. Robert suggests that "decentralized food systems function well in decentralized societies." Our global economy is simply not compatible with the local-farm type system that is the rage in our nation. Forcing locavorism onto a puzzle piece that won't fit can have debilitating implications as results.

The major implication of this locavore trend is that it distorts our view of what healthy, nutritional food is. If, hypothetically, one lives 200 miles from the nearest food source, a distance not usually categorized as "local", is the individual robbed of his/her nutrition? Smith and MacKinnon asserts that the individual doesnt:"There will be nutrional differences, but they'll be marginal". By portraying nutrition on such superficial criteria, locavorism holds the dangerous potential of permanently changing what proper nutrition means. Instead of counting calories or keeping close tabs on what one eats, locavorism tempts the regular Joe to simply attend the local markets and remove the attention and focus on nutrition that he had possessed before the locavore trend. We must be cautious in jumping on this bandwagon. It can, quite frighteningly, make us what we eat: Vegetables.