So, I was pondering the locavore movement the other day. There are many reasons to eat locally grown food, including better taste, a greater sense of harmony with local seasons and apparently even better behaved bowels. But certainly one raison d'etre of the locavore movement is the desire to reduce the distance that food must travel from where it is grown to where it is consumed, hence reducing the amount of fossil fuels required for food production and transportation.
This makes a certain amount of intuitive sense, but does it really make sense when examined critically? I mean, I love the color and vibrancy of local markets as much as anyone, but on balance, I can't say that I really think they are even a part of a solution to global warming.
I also cannot resist thinking the snarky question about that what matters more, the distance that your food has travelled, mostly likely in bulk and in relatively efficient trucks, or the distance that the consumer travels on a daily basis, to and from work, and to and from their local market or Whole Foods, individually, in a generally inefficient car?
No comments:
Post a Comment