One concept that our political leaders like to kick around a lot is the notion of equality. It is one of the founding concepts in the American Constitution, and it was one of the three principles in the French Revolution (liberty, equality and brotherhood). It is one of those words that draws people along with it and resonates, because none of us wants to have less than those around us. In the area of energy, as Dr. Vandana Shiva points out, there are two competing modes of equality. One has all people elevating their standard of living, in terms of fossil fuel consumption, to that of the West (Shiva). The problem with this, of course, is that the planet does not have enough fossil fuel resources, even with the advent of fracking, to make this a tenable proposition. Even if there were an infinite amount of fossil fuel available, the effect of the emissions from all that use would make the planet uninhabitable. Dr. Shiva mentions another paradigm of equality, which involves everyone working closer to where they work and eating food that is cultivated within a shorter distance of the stores near them (Shiva). Currently, the amount of distance that shipping trucks travel to carry processed food all over the United States and other parts of the developed world is contributing mightily to fossil fuel consumption, leading to greenhouse gas emissions, an increase in harmful fracking practices and a way of life that will not be sustainable for much longer, if we really mean it when we say that we want a cleaner planet for the generations that come after us.
One movement that is in line with Dr. Shiva’s suggestions about moving to a more sustainable way of life is the “locavore” movement. A “locavore” only eats produce that was grown nearby, and when possible, only eats meat, eggs, dairy products and other items that have been sourced locally. One obstacle to this movement up to this point has been the difference in price points. Visiting a big-box grocer such as Tom Thumb or Wal-Mart Supercenter often leads to products that are priced far lower than the locally grown items that appear at local farmer’s markets and other stores. This might seem counterintuitive, given that the distance from the farm to the market or the store is a lot less, but one is dealing with an economy of scale, as the big-box retailers simply sell so many more items that the fixed costs are divided by many more units than what the local providers can use. Also, the processing methods that the big-box retailers use are often much different, relying on large factory-scale operations instead of the hands on a local farm, increasing efficiency and decreasing costs.
The difference also takes the form of quality, though. Many have noticed that “there is a noticeable difference in the quality of a locally produced item and an item ordered from a large agricultural corporation, both nutritionally and regarding taste” (Haynes, n.p.). Whether one is shopping for oneself and one’s family or ordering food to prepare in a restaurant that specializes in farm-to-table cuisine, though, the difference in quality might well be worth the difference in price. Also, relying on locally grown and developed food means that there are fewer fossil fuels entering the atmosphere. Eating more fresh foods and cutting down on processed foods also reduces the amount of sodium that one takes in, decreasing intake of a substance that has been linked with high blood pressure and other ailments.
On the farm end of the equation, there is just as much difficulty as there can be for consumers who are trying to go local with their purchases. The lack of economy of scale, and the challenges of returning to traditional (or at least semi-traditional) farming methods in an era of corporate agriculture, mean that the costs of this sort of operation are high, requiring a significant investment from those who want to deliver this sort of food to the market (Haynes, n.p.). Those who enter this sort of business have a commitment to delivering fresh food to people. The benefit of having fossil fuel consumption decline as a result is a fringe benefit to many people, but it is just one of many reasons why the locavore movement makes so much sense from an ecological point of view.
In addition to sodium, there are other preservatives used with the produce that you find in the local grocery store. Many of those items had to travel many miles to get there. In addition to the fossil fuel emissions involved with that process, once the food – particularly food that is out of season – gets to the display in the store, it has a layering of chemicals designed to make it look fresh and keep it from decaying. The FDA has determined that these chemicals are technically safe, but they also suggest washing produce thoroughly (Anderson, n.p.). The fewer chemicals you can ingest, the better off you are.
It’s also true that locally harvested produce will not last as long when you take it home. That is because you have not bought produce that is covered in that chemical coating to keep it “fresh.” When you buy locally, you also increase the amount of diversity in your diet. The reason for this is that, even though you can buy oranges all year round in a big-box grocery store, you will not be able to buy them at a local market. There are several reasons for this: first, you might not live in a part of the country where orange trees can thrive; second, even if you do, it might not be the time of year when oranges are being harvested locally. This means that you will have to rely on the product that is local and in season. A more diverse diet is not just good for you because your mother told you that you needed to try new things. Different fruits and vegetables have different phytochemicals, including antioxidants. When you vary what you eat, you get a wider spectrum of these helpful chemicals, which increases your health over time (Anderson).
There are many arguments against the locavore movement, but many of them have simply been put forth by the corporate food movement. The fewer big trucks we have rumbling across the nation’s roads carrying food to grocery stores that are also located near arable land, the better off the environment will be. Fewer big trucks means fewer greenhouse gases floating up into the environment. A reduction in fossil fuel demand means an abandonment of fracking and other technologies that are also harmful to the environment. While we might end up paying more for the food that we eat, if you compare the cost of preparing a meal with local food to the cost of dining at a restaurant – and if you consider the comparative health benefits – becoming a locavore makes a lot of sense. As the years keep ticking by, there will be fewer and fewer fossil fuels for the planet to share. Developing a plan to reduce their usage now means that we will not have a crisis in the years to come.
Works Cited
Anderson, Veronica. “5 Reasons to Join the Locavore Movement.” The Huffington Post
Haynes, Taylor. “A Labor of Love: The Difficulties, Rewards, and Truth about Farm-to-
table.” Arizona Daily Sun 28 July 2016. Web. 28 July 2016.
Shiva, Vandana. Excerpt from Soil, not Oil. Assigned course reading.
