Eating seasonally: extremist?

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

There was an article yesterday on MSNBC about being a ‘locavore’ - it focused very much on the issue of eating locally grown foods as an act of environmentalism (from the standpoint of reducing your carbon footprint), and also referred to it as “extremist”.  I can’t really say that I care for that.  What is extremist about wanting to eat what’s in season?  What is extremist about wanting to support local farmers or the local economy?  Is it really that far out to be concerned about the safety of your food, especially at a time when commercial grown tomatoes going through the usual gigundo processing facilities are making people sick in over a dozen states?

Hilariously, the article is called “Extreme Consumerism”.

Recently, however, a small but devoted number of Americans have started to think a lot more about the origin of the food going into their grocery cart. Worried about the environmental impact of shipping food hundreds of miles, plus the dwindling fate of local farmers - and obsessed with the idea of eating really good food - these extreme eaters try to only buy food that is grown within a 100-mile radius of their own home.

Whoa.  Since when is being obsessed with “really good food” an extremist act?  When I think of extremes in food, I think of kids who will only eat white food…or people who only eat fruit…or dieters who adhere to things like the “Jelly Bean Diet” or the “Grapefruit Diet”...or anorexics.  But people who don’t want to eat shitty food?  Yeah, that doesn’t seem extremist.  An act of rebellion, perhaps, but not extremist.

Why an act of rebellion?  Well, being concerned about pesticides and genetic engineering and humanely raised meat to the point of doing something about it is sort of outside the mainstream, I guess.  And opting out of grocery store purchases as much as possible is certainly a way of voting with your dollars.  And hey, I like the idea of being a rebel just because I happen to like uber-fresh food grown by someone I have personally met.  Let’s all be rebels!  Rebels with a cause! I like it!

Not only are we “extremists”, we’re also unrealistic.

Among locavore proponents, one popular pastime is the “eat local challenge,” in which participants try, usually for one month, to eat only food that comes from within their community. The rest of the year, many locavores are more realistic about the limits of their devotion.

Oh dear.  Another extremist and unrealistic activity is preserving food.  Yes, that’s right, we are “forced to take on domestic efforts that most families haven’t tackled for generations”.  Those “domestic efforts” are canning food and freezing food.  And if you have a root cellar, you might as well stop using deodorant and run around with patchouli stank because you are even worse than the rest of us crazy food jihadists.

Oh, and don’t forget all that running around we do to find our local foodstuffs and the outrageous amounts of money we pay for the privilege of eating locally.  I guess now wouldn’t be the time to mention that I travel to exactly one place usually to get my food, and that my CSA box runs about $25 per week and I usually end up freezing about half of it for Winter….so it really ends up being about $10.60 per week for the whole year.  Sure, pastured meat is more expensive than commercially produced stuff, but when weighed against the produce savings, I very much doubt I’m paying more than the average, non-locavore consumer.  I may even be paying less and I’m eating better.  But hey, I’m just an extremist with an unrealistic lifestyle.  What would I know?

 

 

 

To bee or not to bee

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

We’ve been concerned about bee populations for a while now, since the minute the reports of colony collapses began to be reported.  Those of us who garden truly understand the benefit of bees, and by now I think most of us appreciate the impact of bees on our food sources.  It’s said that Einstein predicted the end of mankind within four years without bees.

A report out yesterday indicates that bee health in commercial colonies has declined even since last year.

A survey of bee health released Tuesday revealed a grim picture, with 36.1 percent of the nation’s commercially managed hives lost since last year.

Last year’s survey commissioned by the Apiary Inspectors of America found losses of about 32 percent.

As beekeepers travel with their hives this spring to pollinate crops around the country, it’s clear the insects are buckling under the weight of new diseases, pesticide drift and old enemies like the parasitic varroa mite, said Dennis vanEngelsdorp, president of the group.

This is the second year the association has measured colony deaths across the country. This means there aren’t enough numbers to show a trend, but clearly bees are dying at unsustainable levels and the situation is not improving, said vanEngelsdorp, also a bee expert with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

Pennsylvania has committed an additional $20,400 into Colony Collapse Disorder research at Penn State, bringing the total funds dedicated to investigating CCD to $86,000.  That doesn’t seem like nearly enough money to me to investigate something that could impact us all so radically. Just last year Pennsylvania apple growers, as well as fruit growers throughout the region, had trouble getting enough bees to pollinate their acreage.  The cost of renting commercial bees increased by 60%.  With the greater decline, rental prices will likely increase again, and farmers will be forced to pass on the extra costs to consumers. So what can you and I do?  No one really knows exactly what’s killing off the bees, but we can support wild bee habitats.  Honeybees are not the only good pollinators - bumblebees and Mason bees are also prized for pollination.  To make your yard or patio bee-friendly, grow plants that have plenty of nectar and pollen.  Feed the bees!  Avoid pesticides and other harsh chemicals.  And be sure to give bees a place to live.  You can purchase bee habitats, but you can just as easily build your own.

Making Philadelphia fruity!

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Philadelphia is not exactly known for its fantastic foraging, but things are changing thanks to the Philadelphia Orchard Project.  POP is out there planting fruit and nut trees and berries - they say doing so “provide[s] healthy food free or at low cost, create[s] jobs, stimulate[s] related business, reduce[s] crime, increase[s] summer cooling, make[s] space for beauty and play.”  Whatever the reason, I think it’s a cool idea.

My friend Al was on hand for a recent POP outing to 8th & Poplar.  They planted prepped a lot for planting, and planted persimmons and berries and other things.

A new and very cool toy I found on the POP site is this Google map of public fruit!  I’ll definitely be adding some locations to the map as I discover new public fruit.

If you’re interested in getting involved with the Philadelphia Orchard Project or want to slip them a gift out of your economic stimulus check, be sure to head over to their website.

Photo with permission from Albert Yee

Milking the situtation

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

You may remember that January 1 was supposed to be the date on which dairies who produce milk from cows not injected with growth hormones officially had to stop labeling milk as hormone-free, etc..  Apparently, enough consumers voiced their concern - last Thursday there was…well, a change in attitude.

Due to consumer demand for continued labeling, this plan was revised and last Thursday the state announced new guidelines. Instead of standardizing labeling completely, the new plan requires milk labels be uniform, not be misleading, and that there be a paper trail to verify the claims.

For instance, instead of a label simply stating “No BST,” - which is short for bovine somatotropin and occurs naturally in cows — the label must read “from cows not treated with rbST” (the synthetic version of the hormone). Most importantly, it must also clearly state that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows.

This is a great victory for consumers!  However, the debate rages on in other states.  And not just for milk produced without rbST, but also for raw milk.  You might have heard that last year Georgia proposed dying raw milk gray so that people wouldn’t drink it, and there’s always someone arguing over the health risks or health benefits of consuming raw milk or raw milk products. If you’re interested in learning more about raw milk consumption, I’d suggest you check out the Rutgers University seminar series on raw milk.  There are several upcoming events that are free and open to the public with no reservations required:

1) Raw Milk, Mother Nature’s Inconvenient Truth Mark McAfee, Organic Pastures Dairy Mark McAfee is founder of Organic Pastures Dairy in California. He is internationally recognized as an expert in raw milk production, working closely with government officials and university researchers to demonstrate the superior quality and safety of raw milk. http://www.organicpastures.com February 6, 2008 - two talks: 2:00-4:30 pm, Foran Hall, Room 138B, seating capacity 40 Rutgers University, 59 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 7:00 pm, Cook Student Center, Multi-purpose Room, seating capacity 350 Rutgers University, 59 Biel Road, New Brunswick, NJ Co-Sponsored by New Jersey Agriculture Experiment Station & Rutgers University Cook Organic Garden Club 2) Raw Milk Wars, Government’s Attempt to Dictate What Foods We Can Consume David G. Cox, Attorney at Law, Lane, Alton & Horst LLC Gary Cox has been defending farmers and protecting consumers in their struggles to make raw milk and raw dairy products available all across the country. Gary has litigated cases on behalf of farmers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, and recently filed suit against the state of California to overturn legislation that would effectively ban the sale of raw milk in that state. Gary is a former environmental prosecutor and former organic vegetable farmer who loves the land and all that it provides. http://www.lanealton.com February 20, 2008: 1:00 pm, Marine Science Alampi Auditorium, seating capacity 95 Rutgers University, 71 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ Sponsored by New Jersey Agriculture Experiment Station

For more information, please see the press release.

Eating Dolly

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

I’m sure many of us buy meat and poultry from local farmers, but there’s always going to be a time when you don’t have time to get to the farmer’s market or something and you have to buy meat from the grocery store.  That being the case, you might have been a little disturbed yesterday when the FDA announced they were OK-ing the sale of meat and dairy from cloned animals without proper labeling.

Food from healthy clones of cattle, swine and goats is as safe as food from non-cloned animals, the Food and Drug Administration said in a report released Tuesday.

“Extensive evaluation of the available data has not identified any subtle hazards that might indicate food-consumption risks in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats,” the 968-page “final risk assessment” concluded.

“Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.”

[...]  About half of the more than 30,500 comments from the public the FDA has received about the matter have dealt with labeling, he said.

But, he added, agency regulators cannot require cloned products be labeled as such if—as they assert—there is no material difference between them and food produced by conventional methods.

“There’s really nothing for us to label,” he said.

Well, then. The good news here is that in the event you are compelled to purchase meat or milk from the grocery, you can always purchase organic: the Organic Trade Association has assured the public that meat and dairy from cloned animals cannot be sold as ‘organic’, since that would be prohibited under the National Organic Program regulations. Look for sales of organic meat and dairy to skyrocket. Of course, all this brouhaha is a bigger argument than ever to only purchase locally grown meat and dairy from a farmer you know and trust.

Cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Many of us have differing ideas about exactly what ‘local’ means, but I tend to think of ‘local’ as anything within 100 miles of my house.  As such, most of Maryland is included - including the Chesapeake Bay.  Chesapeake Bay seafood is pretty easy to find, but you have to think twice about whether or not it’s healthy for you.  The Bay has a ‘dead zone’ and is on the EPA’s ‘dirty waters’ list. 

The Bay is constantly being polluted with excess nitrogen, which is terrible for the health of the Bay.  The number one nitrogen polluter of the Bay is agricultural run-off, particularly manure and waste from chicken production.  I’m told that chickens outnumber people by just about 1,000 to 1 in the area.  Perdue Farms is based in Maryland.

New-ish governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, has proposed some new regulations that would finally let the state’s environmental agency police large chicken farms, which would - in turn - improve the quality of water in the Bay (and the quality of the seafood).  The regulations would require large chicken farms to get state permits, incorporate pollution controls, and allow inspections, or face some pretty hefty fines.  Of course, chicken industry spokespeople aren’t overly thrilled by the idea and say its unnecessary, saying that it might be cost prohibitive to family farmers.

Interestingly, federal law required Maryland to begin policing chicken farm pollution three years ago.

Dairy and pig farms have been regulated in Maryland for years, so it seems like a good idea to regulate poultry farms as well.  I have to wonder, though, if it might be more advantageous to require farmers to use more sustainable farming practices, rather than simple pollution prevention methods.  Even big corporate farms like Perdue could utilize at least some sustainable practices [like Rumbleway Farm does] without a huge cost, right?

Whatever the case, if this will significantly impact the quality of the Chesapeake Bay (and the food that comes from it), I’m all for it.

So you want to be a farmer?

Monday, January 14, 2008

Now here’s a great opportunity!  “My” farmers at Blooming Glen Farm in Perkasie are on the hunt for interns: 

Interns wanted for 2008 on Bucks County, PA farm 

Blooming Glen Farm is seeking three full time, full season interns from April 1st to mid-November for 2008 (couples welcome). We are a diverse organic vegetable farm marketing to a 160 member CSA (all on farm pick-up), a weekly farmers market in Philadelphia, and local restaurants. We grow a large variety of field crops and devote the bulk of the space in our 5 greenhouses to intense tomato and heirloom tomato production. We are located in scenic Upper Bucks County, an hour from downtown Philadelphia.

We are a young ambitious farm looking for enthusiastic hard workers with a sincere interest in sustainable and organic agriculture. You will be an integral part of our team, and gain hands on experience in all aspects of the farm from seed to harvest. We provide a stipend and housing in a beautifully restored farmhouse.

Please see our website at www.bloomingglenfarm.com for more details about the internship and to apply.

Farmers Tricia and Tom are incredibly friendly, smart, creative and passionate and it shows in everything at the farm—from Tricia’s luscious food photography to the perfectly organized pick up days.  I love that they hold a work requirement for members, and the variety of produce they grow is unlike any CSA around.  As a member, I especially appreciate that they hold potluck events throughout the year, write a bi-weekly email newsletter, have an online calendar and educate us on the sometimes strange veggies we find each week. 

Clearly, I can’t say enough great things about Blooming Glen!  I’m willing to bet the internship program they offer is a pretty incredible, empowering and unique experience. 

Hmm.

I’m beginning to think I could be convinced to apply…

Plentiful

Friday, December 07, 2007

Somehow I missed that New Oxford American Dictionary word of the year was recently declared “locavore”.

“The word ‘locavore’ shows how food-lovers can enjoy what they eat while still appreciating the impact they have on the environment,” said Ben Zimmer, editor for American dictionaries at Oxford University Press. “It’s significant in that it brings together eating and ecology in a new way.”

Well, that’s nice to hear.  Apparently, those of us who strive to find and eat locally grown food, support local farms, etc. have arrived.  Kookookachoo. 

Of course, there’s nothing like media attention to muddy the waters.  Philadelphia Inquirer writer Rick Nichols wrote a column full of confusion and angst over what being a locavore means.  Bemoaning the fact that the Ardmore Farmer’s Market has stands that sell things that aren’t local in the slightest, Nichols feels overwrought.  “Do you quit them for organic apples from Washington state? Or what if you’re into heritage turkeys?” he wonders. “Do you snub ones from a top-rate Kansas farmer who needs to ship nationally to maintain old breeds?”

Who thinks this hard about what they eat?  I’m as committed as the next person who supports the local foodshed, but I don’t have these existential crises.  For starters, non-organic isn’t necessarily worse for you than certified organic. You only need to understand a little bit about sustainable growing practices to know that many small farmers can’t afford to go certified organic…but those same small farmers are practicing uncertified organic and sustainable growing practices.  And I’ll take those any day over an organic apple grown in Washington on a corporate organic farm.  Nichols really misses the point - it’s not about organic or even eating the most ethically: it’s about knowing where you’re getting your food from.  It’s about knowing something about the farmers and knowing what goes into your food’s production. 

I’m sure that there are some people who are in it for the holier than thou bragging rights it can generate.  Most of us are in it to support local farmers, or maybe because we’re concerned with food safety.

And then, finally, Nichols closes with this:

Which is of some solace. It can be lonely being a locavore, validated in word, tested in deed: The times may be ripe, but the local produce isn’t.

The locavore’s dilemma? Winter.

Well…maybe if you’re a locavore with poor planning skills.  He’s obviously never met any of Farm to Philly writers - most of us have a freezer and pantry full of local produce that’s been put up for the Winter.  Winter, a dilemma?  Hardly!  There’s plenty of ripe local produce if you take the time to look - apples, squash, parsnips, cabbage, brussels sprouts, carrots, collards…broccoli and cauliflower….celery and potatoes…mushrooms…spinach and leeks!  I would call that plentiful.  And when combined with what’s been put up in my freezer and pantry, I’m eating as well as I would in Summer.  And I’m certainly not eating any less local foods.

Thanks to reader Lauren for the tip on the editorial!

Help Markets Grow

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The Food Trust sent out an email today announcing this op-ed piece that was recently run in the Philadelphia Inquirer.  The article, co-written by The Food Trust’s deputy executive director and a representative of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, advocates for three measures to improve the state’s farmers’ markets:

1.  The PA state legislature should fund the grant program approved as part of the Farmers’ Market Development Act passed last year.  This would allow grants of up to $10,000 each for new or expanding markets.

2.  The voucher program that allows low-income senior citizens and mothers to buy produce at farmers’ markets should be expanded so that participants receive a greater amount per year (currently, they get a yearly $20 voucher redeemable for fresh fruits and veggies).

3.  The state should provide wireless card readers to allow markets to readily accept food stamps.

The Food Trust suggests contacting Governor Rendell and other elected officials to support these measures and including the op-ed piece if you want.  Beyond buying local, this is a great way to advocate for some tangible measures that support local farms and markets!
 

Local Vino Steps Up…

Saturday, November 24, 2007

...says this article in today’s Inquirer.  I’m still searching for some go-to wines from the region.  Any favorites that are must tries?

Mother’s milk

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Bad news from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture: consumers will no longer be able to tell from looking at a milk label if the milk contains bovine growth hormones, antibiotics, or pesticides.  State Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff says using labels that read ‘rBGH-free’ or ‘pesticide-free’ only confuse all of us hapless, idiotic consumers because we mistakenly think milk produced from cows who aren’t chock full of drugs is somehow better for us.

Some of the dairies imply their product is safer than others through absence labeling, telling consumers what is not present in the milk as opposed to what is, Wolff said.

Claims such as “antibiotic-free” and “pesticide-free” are misleading, because all processed milk sold in Pennsylvania is tested a minimum of 10 times to guarantee it is free of such substances, which are illegal for milk to contain, he said.

Consumers rely on product labels to decide what to buy and feed their families, Wolff said. The department must approve labels for milk sold in Pennsylvania and there has been more and more marketing that makes it hard for consumers to make informed decisions, he said.

Never mind that rBGH is banned in Canada and Europe, and even the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Consumer’s Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, fully admit that drinking milk derived from rBGH-treated cows is potentially hazardous to humans.  Earlier this year, both the U.S. FDA and FTC ruled that rBGH- and antiobiotic-free milk labeling was appropriate and legal.  Who would possibly want to know that their milk is rBGH-free? Sadly, Wawa only recently announced that they will process and sell milk that is free of artificial growth hormones.  One has to wonder how this will affect their Pennsylvania stores. Under the new labeling ban, 16 Pennsylvania companies will have to ‘correct’ their labels by January 1. Rumor has it that Monsanto, the drug giant that produces rBGH, has been working overtime to pressure Pennsylvania Ag heads to get rid of the ‘confusing’ labeling.

Local foods volunteer opportunity!

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Now that dragonboat season is almost over, I find myself with more free time than I’m used to.  I’ve been on the look out for ways to volunteer my time to organizations that I have a passion for.  Most recently, I signed up to be a clinic escort at Planned Parenthood (you walk patients into the clinic past the throngs of protesters).  And today another potential opportunity presented itself: volunteering at the Fair Food Farmstand.

FTP contributor Joanna has been volunteering there for quite some time, and today Sarah Cain, the supervisor for the Fair Food Farmstand, let me know they’re looking for more volunteers.

Volunteering at the ‘Stand is a 3-hour a week commitment, you get to work with all this great local product, and as we go into the busiest part of the year (with all these ‘food’ holidays), there’s the added bonus of getting a 30% discount at the ‘Stand once you’ve completed your training. As we’re open year-round, it also is a place where people can get their local food ‘fix’ once the farmers markets close down for the season.

I really think I may try to work this into my volunteering schedule, and I hope you’ll consider it, too.  I buy quite a bit of my food at the Farmstand - it’s an important resource for those of us who care about the quality of our food and care about supporting local farmers.

To download a volunteer application form or find out more about the Fair Food Farmstand, visit the Farmstand website.

How far will you go?

Monday, September 17, 2007

I sometimes fantasize about being able to raise livestock and grow more of what I eat on our little property in the burbs.  Growing fruit and veggies is one thing - it’s not hard.  Raising chickens or goats are quite another.  I’m poo-phobic to start with, and while I’ve seen pigs slaughtered and deer shot I’m not sure that I could bring myself to gut animals regularly.  It takes an intestinal fortitude I’m just not sure I have.

After reading this hilarious article article in New York Magazine, I’m pretty sure that I’m content to leave it to the experts.  The article chronicles one man’s attempt to provide for himself out of his back yard…in Brooklyn.  I especially loved his meal descriptions: maimed rabbit euthanasia stew and home-garroted roast rooster.  Tales abound of “bunny boot-knocking” (or lack thereof) and trying to outsmart a hen.

Few, if any, serious locavores would see my experience as having much to do with what they advocate: eating regionally and seasonally in order to save the planet. But I now better understand what will be needed to back up the slogans. Eating local is expensive and time-consuming, which is why this consumerist movement will not easily trickle down into mass society. It requires a willful abstinence from convenience and plenty, a core promise of the modern world. Our bountiful era is predicated on the division of labor: We don’t sew our own clothes, we don’t build our own houses - and we certainly don’t farm - because we’re too busy doing whatever it is we do for everyone else.

But locavores also preach the importance of valuing all the time and energy and care that go into producing good food, and there I’m with them. So, too, in the end, is Lisa. As I joined her and the kids for supper one night, after finishing my own, Lisa remarked that after seeing how hard I’d worked to put a simple plate of chicken on the table, she’d never shop the same way again. It wasn’t just a matter of buying regionally, or seasonally, or organically - the important thing was to consume responsibly. “I’ll never be as wasteful,” she said. “We throw away more food than we eat.”

I highly recommend giving the article a read.  It very much forces those of us who eat locally as much as possible to confront our limitations and our true intentions. (Via Food Musings)

Federal money for PA organic farmers

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Here’s something interesting to note - last Friday the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the availability of $1 million to help farmers and processors pay for the cost of their organic certification costs.  15 states will share the $1 million proportionate to the number of organic producers in the state.  One of those states is Pennsylvania!

The states that will share the money do not traditionally receive as much crop assistance as the larger Midwestern states do in the federal farm bill. Leahy initiated the program to help deliver federal agriculture money to the farmers in the states in New England and the mid-Atlantic.

The money is specifically aimed at small farmers and will reimburse each eligible farmer 75% of certification costs up to $500. 

No doubt this will benefit all of us who enjoy eating locally grown, certified organic produce.

Digression from Tomatoes

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Tuesday morning, parking and setup for the Rittenhouse Square farmers’ market went unusually smoothly, so I wandered into the Barnes & Noble across the street, contemplating the purchase of a news magazine to read over coffee.  My choice became easy once I noticed that the current issue of The New Yorker is the food issue!

(That morning, the first food-related article I came to was an amusing and tantalizing exploration of Singaporean street food, by Calvin Trillin.  If it’s feasible, I’d recommend buying the issue to read that article; sadly, only the abstract is available online.)

The full text of the article I read yesterday afternoon, however, is available online.  It’s entitled ‘New York Local’, by Adam Gopnik.  Needless to say, I was excited to read this article—localism, the word Gopnik seems to use frequently, is entering the zeitgeist as interpreted by such a venerable magazine as The New Yorker!  In the middle of the article, I texted a friend who is a geography professor, ‘I’m not sure what to think of [the article]’, and after I had a couple hours to ponder it, I think I’m annoyed.  Gopnik writes about his meetings with community chicken carers, rooftop beekeepers, a Central Park forager, and a Brooklyn College fish farmer—all people he encounters in his week-long experiment to eat only food ‘grown or raised within the five boroughs of New York City.’

OK, intriguing experiment.  But…I started to become dubious when Gopnik lists the following reasons he attempted this experiment: 1. to find out if it was possible, 2. to explore localism, and 3. ‘to see if perhaps the implicit anti-urban prejudices lurking in the localist movement could be leached away by some city-bred purposefulness’.  ...Huh?!  Is it just because I’ve become a locavore while living IN the city, taking advantage of co-ops and farmers’ markets and farm shares with other urban residents, that I am oblivious to this anti-urbanism he claims to sense in the movement?  It’s true that he mentions in the paragraph previous that the usual rules of localism allow for a 100-300 mile foodshed, but if the whole article is focused on a five-borough foodshed, will his readers remember that passing mention?  Am I just over-reacting?

He talked about interesting people and exciting projects, but I was a little sad that this article was the only perspective on localism in this issue of The New Yorker, a perspective so different from my own experience as a locavore.  Please do let me know your thoughts!  I know most of the blog entries so far have contained beautiful produce collections or tasty recipes [edited to add: and I love all of them!], but I am also interested in your help to become more conversant in the theory and advantages/objections to eating local.

OK, intriguing experiment.  But…I started to become dubious when Gopnik lists the following reasons he attempted this experiment: 1. to find out if it was possible, 2. to explore localism, and 3. ‘to see if perhaps the implicit anti-urban prejudices lurking in the localist movement could be leached away by some city-bred purposefulness’.  ...Huh?!  Is it just because I’ve become a locavore while living IN the city, taking advantage of co-ops and farmers’ markets and farm shares with other urban residents, that I am oblivious to this anti-urbanism he claims to sense in the movement?  It’s true that he mentions in the paragraph previous that the usual rules of localism allow for a 100-300 mile foodshed, but if the whole article is focused on a five-borough foodshed, will his readers remember that passing mention?  Am I just over-reacting?

He talked about interesting people and exciting projects, but I was a little sad that this article was the only perspective on localism in this issue of The New Yorker, a perspective so different from my own experience as a locavore.  Please do let me know your thoughts!  I know most of the blog entries so far have contained beautiful produce collections or tasty recipes, but I am also interested in your help to become more conversant in the theory and advantages/objections to eating local.