But I have problems with the movement insofar as it radically calls for only eating within a 100 mile (or so) radius of one’s home. For one, there are just too many foods that I can’t get that are produced within 100 miles that I want to consume — coffee comes quickly to mind, as do bananas (my doctor encourages my eating them), avocados, pineapples, wheat products (no bread? no bagels?), et cetera. To just live on only foods available within 100 miles would mean a severe limitation of what I consider a healthful and sustainable diet. I could survive, I’m sure, but why? I could survive by just eating the foliage and critters that inhabit my own yard (dandelion greens, mourning doves, and chip monks), but I’m not Jed Clampett.
Moreover, if everyone should decide to go locavore, who would work these millions of local farms? How many lawyers, doctors, teachers, sanitation workers, department store clerks are ready to move out to the county, buy a few acres, till the land, plant the crops, harvest them, and haul them to the farmers market? And then what would happen to all those depleted professions? And then there is a big difference between the farming possibilities in Iowa or California or Maryland and that in Arizona or Mississippi or North Dakota. I’ve lived in places where if I had to survive off food from within 100 miles of my home I’d have to survive off pinecones and lizards.
Truth be known, the whole “locavore” movement is a very yuppie, a very privileged pose. And again, we are a part of it. I’m not apologetic. I enjoy the fresh, sustainable, healthful food. But I live in Iowa. I can afford it. I just can’t go so far as to proselytize others to join the congregation of the locavorian saved. It’s a privilege that should be enjoyed by those able, but not pressed on those not so able.
No comments:
Post a Comment