Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Local Lettuce=Liberty Cabbage
Tucked behind the New York Times paid subscription wall is a tidy little blog post dissecting the "buy local" movement. It's on the Basic Instincts blog, by Richard Conniff, the author of The Natural History of the Rich: A Field Guide and The Ape in the Corner Office: How to Make Friends, Win Fights, and Work Smarter by Understanding Human Nature. Some highlights:
The “local” label also says little or nothing about a product’s actual environmental friendliness. A resident of Sacramento, for instance, can take comfort in buying “local” rice, but it’s still likely to be rice grown in a heavily irrigated desert, at huge environmental cost. In the overall carbon footprint of a product, the cost of transport often turns out to be relatively trivial. For instance, a New Zealand study recently made the case that better conditions make lamb grown there and shipped to Europe four times more energy-efficient than home-grown European lamb....
Beneath the surface, the urge to buy local is often just a disguised version of the urge to punish someone foreign. But as a way to fix global warming, fretting about where your salad was grown is like thinking you can win a war by calling your sauerkraut “liberty cabbage.”
One point he doesn't touch on--in addition to environmental impact, there's also human impact. Buying food grown (or products manufactured) in poorer countries is one of the most effective ways to increase quality of life for those who are less well off.The Europeans who originated the buy local movement did it, in part, to take the piss out of over-subsidized American farmers. But they wind up hurting African farmers whose goods they once imported a heck of a lot more.
FYI: Anyone with a .edu address can get free access to TimesSelect. Just go here.
libertreee|6.14.07 @ 11:08AM|#
The buy local ideology in Northern Nevada is also an example of
how the left and right can agree on silly ideas.
I find both anti growth populists who call themselves pro freedom
but for immigration and trade issues and anti war leftists who are
anti capitalist and green embrace the buy local ideology.
The populists I know are ant foreign. The lefties are anti
multinational business, which can amount to the same thing. Only
fair trade foreigners are allowed in their club.
|6.14.07 @ 11:09AM|#
That raises an interesting point. Californians want to act all
environmental and stuff, but if they really cared about
their impact on Gaia, they'd stop wasting water and move out of the
desert. Those living in the arid parts, anyway.
In fact, California may be the most environmentally offensive place
on earth. No offense.
|6.14.07 @ 11:10AM|#
"Buying food food grown (or products manufactured) in poorer
countries is one of the most effective ways to increase quality of
life for those who are less well off."
Unless something has changed in the last 5 years, I have to
question this statement. Most underdeveloped countries have an
educated oligarchy that improves its own lot from selling
agricultural products, but the quality of life for the actual
laborers doesn't improve much.
|6.14.07 @ 11:10AM|#
"Beneath the surface, the urge to buy local is often just a
disguised version of the urge to punish someone foreign."
No, it's not. This is just a dumb slur, marring an otherwise
interesting argument.
|6.14.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Heh, this reminds me of the time in my DiffEq class when a guy said he couldn't use Laplace Transforms because he was boycotting French stuff. At first the professor told him to call them Freedom Transforms, then switched to Newton Transforms because Sir Isaac was also heavily involved in their development.
|6.14.07 @ 11:21AM|#
joe,
I think he overstates the point, but I agree that the buy local
movement does have some anti-foreign elements in it. Not
"all foreigners are bad" but "support the farmers at home". And, as
we've discussed in other threads, you sometimes can't pick your
fellow travelers. While one person may like the idea of local food
in the same way he likes Xeriscaping, another may like it because
he doesn't trust the damned fuhriners. And don't forget the recent
health concerns about food produced overseas.
fyodor|6.14.07 @ 11:27AM|#
Okay, but local OR from third world nations?
Actually I agree with joe. This is more likely a case of good
intentions gone stupid than bad intentions masquerading as good
ones.
|6.14.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Pro-Libertate,
Almost all of the local produce in the Lowell, Massachusetts
farmer's market is grown and sold by Southeast Asian immigrants,
and it's almost all bought by white people.
When I buy a bag of squash from those people, I'm not choosing them
over farmers elsewhere; I'm choosing them over some corporation
that pays the farmers that supply them a relative pittance.
"And don't forget the recent health concerns about food produced
overseas." An aversion to poinsoned food is evidence of
xenophobia?
Mr. Econotarian|6.14.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Unless something has changed in the last 5 years, I have to
question this statement. Most underdeveloped countries have an
educated oligarchy that improves its own lot from selling
agricultural products, but the quality of life for the actual
laborers doesn't improve much.
Indeed, you probably help poor people in developing countries much
more by buying Nike's or other higher value-added manufactured
products.
|6.14.07 @ 11:35AM|#
"Unless something has changed in the last 5 years, I have to
question this statement. Most underdeveloped countries have an
educated oligarchy that improves its own lot from selling
agricultural products, but the quality of life for the actual
laborers doesn't improve much."
Buy Free Trade Certified, and you'll know the local oligarchy isn't
skimming off the top.
|6.14.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Mr. Econotarian,
Even better would be to buy value-added manufactured products -
say, rugs from Pakistan - that are manufactured under local
ownership, so that there isn't a multinational corporation taking a
cut that never makes it to the country of manufacture.
|6.14.07 @ 11:39AM|#
joe,
I didn't mean you. I meant some other people. You know,
them.
I think people should buy stuff from whoever makes it best and
offers the best price. If politics simply must come into play,
boycott bad actors. Otherwise, let's enjoy the wonderful world of
global trade. I personally like having access to many choices, be
they in food or otherwise.
|6.14.07 @ 11:45AM|#
I buy local simply because I like to support local businesses. There is nothing inherently racist or xenophobic in buying local.
fyodor|6.14.07 @ 11:50AM|#
I buy local simply because I like to support local
businesses.
Um, I'm not calling you xenophobic, but you haven't told us very
much there. One still wonders why you "like to support
local businesses"??
wsdave|6.14.07 @ 11:51AM|#
joe,
"Buy Free Trade Certified, and you'll know the local oligarchy
isn't skimming off the top."
But you can be sure the Free Trade organization is. At least with
coffee, there's little "free trade" with Free Trade.
|6.14.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Free Trade certification is a tiny cost, compared to what plantation owners and multinationals take.
|6.14.07 @ 12:07PM|#
joe,
Feel the libertarianism flowing through you. You've been posting
here too long :)
|6.14.07 @ 12:16PM|#
That raises an interesting point. Californians want to act
all environmental and stuff, but if they really cared about their
impact on Gaia, they'd stop wasting water and move out of the
desert. Those living in the arid parts, anyway.
As someone who grew up in the desert part of California and later
lived among those who claimed to really really care, I can assure
you that those two subsets of Northern Californians are seperated,
nay, segregated by the coastal mountains.
I do not have any opinion on whether or not this phenomenon occurs
in Southern California, as I do not like to go there.
GILMORE|6.14.07 @ 12:16PM|#
joe | June 14, 2007, 11:10am | #
"Beneath the surface, the urge to buy local is often just a
disguised version of the urge to punish someone foreign."
No, it's not. This is just a dumb slur, marring an otherwise
interesting argument.
I used to write research reports about Organic/Fair Trade/'Whole'
CPG market trends (for investment bank) and there were some
suprising lessons learned...
The truth is, none of these things have nearly any effect on
environmental practices, or diverts money to 'local farmers', or
benfits small business more than large ones.
i.e. Fair Trade in Coffee for instance doesnt necessarily provide
significant benefit to the growers other than some stability in
prices to some degree. They're not much better off, but since they
have a steady customer with fixed prices, their business can make
better predictions.
Most consumers who make purchasing decisions based on these
'ethical marketing' positions rarely care enough to learn about the
real impact of these markets; the main benefit is psychological =
"I'm a better person for choosing these products over those". This
is the basis of any kind of branding.
In this sense, the whole Organic/Whole Foods industry is more
conniving than 'corporations', in that they disinigenously present
themselves are morally superior products, when in the end, the
products arent significantly dfferent from mass market items in
their human/environmental impact.
Just as an example = The organic produce industry consolidated
rapidly over the 1990s, to where no major retail chain buys much
from 'cooperatives' or individually owned farms. If you went to the
organic supplier/farmer, you'd find a business no different than
what yuppies think of as "industrial farming'; most of the
distinctions consumers make in their minds are fantasies invented
by marketing...
Anyway... the Ethical Consumerism trend is something to be very
skeptical of, because it's simply playing off the idea that "all
OTHER products are vaguely 'unethical'." This is a canard.
|6.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#
When I buy a bag of squash from those people, I'm not
choosing them over farmers elsewhere; I'm choosing them over some
corporation that pays the farmers that supply them a relative
pittance.
If the farmers selling to corporations are being paid a relative
pittance why haven't they started selling at the Lowell,
Massachusetts farmer's market? How much locally grown citrus do
these guys offer?
That is the only problem I see with the buy local movement. While
Florida may or may not be able to provide everything I like, aren't
people who practice this dramatically limiting their choices?
Without some significant genetic modification, which seems to annoy
the left more than the right, coffee and chocolate are no longer an
option.
|6.14.07 @ 12:19PM|#
*dammit*
"those two subsets" being "those who 'want to act all environmental
and stuff'" and "those who live in the desert"
|6.14.07 @ 12:20PM|#
At least the set of people who are into "buy local" around here are a set with high crossover with the set who, for whatever their personal reasons, are for the preservation of green space and against "sprawl". Since "family farms" seem to have backed into the definition of preservable green space, all I can say is, look at that, the free market is working, providing a consumption choice that 1) satisfies a foodie movement and 2) makes regional farms cash-rich enough to remain viable businesses in lieu of real estate development.
Everyone should love everyone |6.14.07 @ 12:23PM|#
in Southern California, as I do not like to go
there
Ah-HA!
|6.14.07 @ 12:26PM|#
You're thinking too hard about this. Local stuff tastes
better.
This is pretty much my take on it.
Also agree with joe and others saying the xenophobia associated
with the "buy local" crowd is rather minimal.
|6.14.07 @ 12:27PM|#
GILMORE,
I ran into the same sort of issue when I worked for International
Paper. Back in the 90s (and probably today), it was common
knowledge in the paper industry that the manufacture of recycled
paper was far, far more damaging to the environment than the
production of new paper was (for example, because of the use of
bleaching agents in recycling). But a certain segment of the public
wanted recycled paper, so the "green" branding went apace.
I run into similar issues today with vendors that my company deals
with that are selling "green" or "organic" products. It's not all
b.s., but a lot of it is. And the regulation of the use of such
terms is still pretty weak. Not that I want more regulation, I'm
just saying that what you think you're getting and what you're
actually getting are two different things.
libertreee|6.14.07 @ 12:43PM|#
The populist right says it wants free trade, but objects to
every concrete move in that direction as "violating our
sovereignty".
The anti capitalist left promotes the capitalistic marketing of
morally "superior products" like organic foods and fair trade
coffee.
I agree with Pro Libertate. Just buy what you think is the best
product at the best price.
Alex|6.14.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Gorgonzola's Foil, you took the words right out of my
mouth.
I live in Philadelphia, and regularly shop at my neighborhood
farmer's market. I get top-quality produce (and meats, and eggs,
and cheese, and flowers and bread); I also support family farms and
thus reduce sprawl. It's win-win capitalism at its finest.
The "local rice" example seems to me to be a straw man. I doubt
that many people are seeking out local rice-- rather, they're
buying local strawberries or rhubarb or whatever.
|6.14.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Many thanks for the Times Select tip. It works with my UK university email address too.
Cerro|6.14.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Thanks a million for the .edu tip. I've been hankering after
that bad boy for some time!
n.b. Also works for non-US unis, if anyone was wondering.
robc|6.14.07 @ 12:57PM|#
joe,
If I could find some products that are "free trade certified", I
would probably buy them.
|6.14.07 @ 1:00PM|#
The Europeans who originated the buy local movement did it,
in part, to take the piss out of over-subsidized American
farmers.
Europeans were complaining about the subsidies American farmers
get? That's like the perfect black body absorber calling the
limestone black.
|6.14.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Christ on a pogo, I love reading Reason with the exception of
this same stupid argument being churned over and over and
over...
Look, local food tastes good. I buy my chicken and eggs and milk
and produce from people that I really know, like and and want to
support. I got to know them at the farmer's market and they're
stand up folk. I don't buy from them because I hate ferners, I buy
from them because they make damn fine product, are directly
accountable to ME, and I like what they do. Is that so hard to
understand?
As for the other cross-eyed arguments about citrus in New England
or rice in Minnesota, other than locavore cultists no one eschews
food that has miles on it. You're picking on 1% of 1% of a
population that's already tiny and waving your finger at it like it
represents the norm. How about this one: libertarianism is b.s.
because adherents like to live in compounds in Montana with
stockpiles of guns while they evade taxes. That work for you?
Pick on something else. It's a free market, and it's my market. If
the people in Bangladesh won't make their 35 cents that day selling
bok choi to some multinational because I bought it from the nice
Laotian couple at the market, tough merde. Just TRY and make me
feel guilty for supporting my neighbors.
|6.14.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Alex,
The reason it looks the same to you is that I also live in
Philadelphia. I will happily plug the Reading Terminal Market - and
I can't wait for south Jersey tomato season!
Swillfredo, I'm not sure if you're setting up a strawman or not.
Even the most ardent macrobiotic dieters I've known make "Marco
Polo" exceptions (the term used by one of them) for imported spices
and other ingredients, to varying degrees of what they'll accept
from out of the area. It's a lifestyle choice, and how authentic
and complete one wants to try for is up to the individual. Any
lifestyle choice has trade-offs and, if not exactly "sacrifices",
implied opportunity costs.
Bour3|6.14.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Liberty cabbage. Ha ha ha ha, that slays me. Fact is, when it comes to certain basics, one can settle for nothing less than, say, Freedom flour, Democracy chicken, or Liberty milk. Some things should remain sacrosanct.
|6.14.07 @ 1:24PM|#
A resident of Sacramento, for instance, can take comfort in buying "local" rice, but it's still likely to be rice grown in a heavily irrigated desert, at huge environmental cost
The Sacramento Delta is a desert? WTF?
While I think these micro-protectionists are just as stupid as the
macro-protectionists, there's no reason to bend the truth to make a
point. I buy local California rice because it's better and cheaper
rice!
|6.14.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Bewtween this horseshit, the Green Xenophobes, and the Rachel
Carson = Stalin nonsense it looks Reason is having a new contest
for who can write the most egregiously disenguous
anti-environmental article in June.
First prize is a Cadillac El Dorado, second prize is a set of steak
knives, third prize is you gotta edit Jonah Goldberg's new
book.
|6.14.07 @ 1:35PM|#
I have nothing better to rebut this ridiculous argument than
what PBrazelton said.
Except this: it's food FFS! You've got to be pretty twisted not to
understand the inherent preferability of food that was
killed/harvested yesterday down the road by someone in your
community, as opposed to last month by someone you know nothing
about, under conditions you know nothing about.
|6.14.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Californians want to act all environmental and stuff, but if
they really cared about their impact on Gaia, they'd stop wasting
water and move out of the desert.
In this sense, the whole Organic/Whole Foods industry is more
conniving than 'corporations', in that they disinigenously present
themselves are morally superior products, when in the end, the
products arent significantly dfferent from mass market items in
their human/environmental impact.
Sure, buy local food because it tastes better or whatever, but this
conversation highlights the fundamental truth of the environmental
movement:
It is not about saving the planet. It is about making wealthy
dilettantes feel better about themselves. Most environmental
initiatives represent "feel-good" luxuries that can be purchased by
the sufficiently wealthy, who simultaneously eschew making any
changes in their lives that might actually make a difference to the
planet.
GILMORE|6.14.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Case in point =
Look, local food tastes good
And taste, as we all know, is an objective... wait...
Pick on something else. It's a free market, and it's my
market
If it's a 'free' market, than whats the problem with pointing out
it isnt particuarly efficacious at delivering on the kind of
'ethical' concerns that drives the very impulse to participate in
these markets?
Oh, wait = because it's more about your self perception than it is
the economic reality. Which is exactly the point we're making. As
long as your relative happiness with yourself is raised, then the
'market' has done it's job, right? Regardless if it has *less*
impact on ethical issues in the outside world.
If you "prefer" something for reason of taste, thats fine and good.
But the "preferability" of local markets does not mean they are a)
necessarly of greater quality, or b) provide any more 'ethical'
benefits than shopping blindfolded in safeway.
Sacred cow, moos, keels over bleeding from nose. Internal brain
hemmorage.
GILMORE|6.14.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Most environmental initiatives represent "feel-good"
luxuries that can be purchased by the sufficiently wealthy, who
simultaneously eschew making any changes in their lives that might
actually make a difference to the planet.
My god - RC Dean and I are in agreement... twice in 2
days....
As case in point = Greenpeace spends 87% of it's budget
on...marketing greenpeace.
Quick, someone say something about Immigrants!!
GILMORE|6.14.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Reason is having a new contest for who can write the most
egregiously disenguous anti-environmental article in
June
Pointing out that things that call themselves "environmental"
issues ARENT particularly environmental at all is doing the world a
favor by helping people put money and efforts into things that in
fact DO have real 'environmental' effects. Eating Locally, organic,
etc, has no real imact on the environment, and is more about
ethical narcissism than the actual outside world
|6.14.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Gilmore -
Wow, strange that I would have a subjective opinion about food. I
mean, we all value food by strictly objective values, right? And
our politics, that's PURE objectivity. How about our friends? The
clothes we buy? The cars we drive, and the houses we live in? Just
a big bundle of objective standards applied evenly with robotic
precision. I'd say that I'm free to say that I like a certain kind
of food because it tastes good, don't you? Or do we have to talk
about the difference - nutritional and aesthetic - between a head
of lettuce that was in the ground four hours ago versus a week?
Hmm?
As for the ethics of buying local, I personally don't give a damn
what your ethical standard is. If it's maximizing GNP for some
third world country, congrats. Maybe that makes you happy, I have
no idea. My standard is supporting people I know and like, who use
practices I consider fair and sound, where I can shake their hands
when I buy the food and forge relationships that I will pass down
to my children. You're framing your arguments like there's some
massive, evil locavore headquarters emitting thought waves to those
of us who frequent the farmer's market or local coop. We all go
there for different reasons, not because Reason's blog junkies
decided we have an agenda.
Again, you can't convince me that supporting these families is bad.
You can't tell me that the crap you get from Safeway is superior -
as far as most humans are concerned freshness is a critical
component of quality. Hell, just go to a good market at see what's
there. You may not start receiving instructions from locavore
headquarters right away, but I guarantee that you'll be thrilled
with what your neighbors are laboring over.
Any other arguments? So far it looks like you killed the wrong cow,
pardner.
|6.14.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Two words: Conspicuous Consumption.
In an economy that can produce cheap clothing for pennies in China,
and where even poor people in the "ghettos" often have big screen
TVs and ipods and drive SUVs, it is becoming more and more
difficult to distinguish class.
Just about anything, short of fabulous jewels, or 100 metre long
yachts that only the ultra-rich can afford, is mass produced and is
affordable by most people. When you can buy Louis Vuitton handbags
for the average days wage at your suburban St. Louis shopping mall,
and when gourmet coffee is easier to find than a McDonalds, it is
getting harder and harder for the upper-middle class educated urban
professional to distiguish himself as in a higher class than the
electrician living up the street.
The upper middle class, the people who used to be able to
demonstrate their social class by purchasing a Cadillac or designer
sunglasses, needed to find a new way to demonstrate their
"superiority" to the lower middle classes. But what do you do when
the very concept of conspicuous consumption is failing.
This is why the new "responsible eco-shiek" is becoming popular,
and why it is popular with both conservatives and liberals
(assuming that they are upper-middle class conservatives and
liberals). Organicly grown food, fair-trade food, locally produced
stuff and hand-made stuff, are decided with a built in
scarcity.
There is only a small amount of working farmland that is local to
large urban population centers. Only a limited number of people in
large metro areas can purchase locally grown produce. The fact that
it is organic, and therefore some of it is destroyed by pests,
makes it even more scarce. Consuming local products has scarcity
built into the buisness model.
This new fashion for inefficient production systems is the perfect
form of conspicuous consumption, because it is unattainable by the
masses BY DESIGN! Of course rich people who participate in this
life style think it is morally superior... the rich ALWAYS think
they are morally superior. I finished reading a book about
victorian culture not too long ago, and they were just as convinced
that the fashions of the rich of the day were a choice morally
superior than those of the poor.
When joe, and all the other white people (as he mentioned in his
post), go to the local produce market to buy squash... and when joe
makes sure to tell us all that he buys his produce local and
organic... joe is saying more than "I like organic locally grown
produce". Hidden behind the lines is joe saying:
"I am an education, intelligent, upper-middle class white man. I am
not one of these Budwiser swilling, SUV driving, fast-food eating,
Fox News watching tastless crietens! I have taste, I have
knowledge, and I have the resources to act on it! I am superior to
the average American!".
As joe said, of course all the people going to the local organic
food market are white (even though the growers are asian)...
Because upper-middle class people are disproportionatly white. It
is a way for the upper classes to hang out with the upper classes,
and congradulate themselves for having a lifestyle, that is by
definition unattainable by the masses, more morally superior than
all those irresponsible trash who shop at Walmart!
|6.14.07 @ 2:39PM|#
*sigh*
Rex Rhino, all you've really done is create a sweeping
generalization to reinforce your delusional beliefs about a
supposedly elite class.
Look up Occam's Razor, then use its fury against the reality of the
situation. You might end up with a slightly less complex analysis
now that it's missing the paranoid psychobabble. Maybe all Joe is
saying is, "I like fresh food raised responsibly." You can read
anything you want into THAT, but injecting your classism rant won't
cut it.
Go to a market. Seriously, just go there. There are all sorts of
people there, not just rich white people. There may be MORE white
people there, but we whiteys are the populations majority, ya know.
Additionally, produce at the market (not meat) is cheaper than at
the grocery store when it's in season. If buying a massive pile of
chard leaves for half of what the grocery store charges for a
meager few leaves somehow reinforces my elitism... I guess I don't
know what to say. Maybe it's bizarro day.
libertreee|6.14.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Supporting small farmers stops sprawl?
Only 6% of the US is developed non agriculturally, with cities and
suburbs.
The only place in the US where prime farmland has been replaced by
suburban/urban development is California (mainly Southern).
I am not sure of that linkage.
|6.14.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Gee, when I walk to my local farmers' market and buy my veggies,
meat, bread and coffee for the week I used to think it was because
it was handier and tastier than what I can buy at the grocery
store.
Thanks, Rex Rhino, for opening my eyes as to what a total scumbag I
am! Seriously, I need prompt psychological help for my deep
narcissistic and racist tendencies.
Le eco-freak. C'est shiek!
|6.14.07 @ 2:49PM|#
joe says: "Not "Free Trade," Fair Trade."
Thank you for the clarification. For a moment I thought you had an
epiphany and had embraced the libertarian notion of free trade,
instead of the progressive Democratic notion of overpaying a
company for its goods based on their claim that they are paying
above market rates for labor.
All is well with the world again - joe is still a reliable shill
for Big Democrat with too much time on his hands.
|6.14.07 @ 2:52PM|#
If people are buying locally to meet some producers and get some
better tasting, fresher food more power to them.
However, If the goal is to improve sustainability and environmental
protection ending farm subsidies would accomplish far more then
eating locally will.
|6.14.07 @ 2:52PM|#
jh -- you're stupid and a little child because you don't agree with my obviously correct notions about the merits of a large, overweening government.
|6.14.07 @ 2:56PM|#
If buying a massive pile of chard leaves for half of what
the grocery store charges for a meager few leaves somehow
reinforces my elitism... I guess I don't know what to say. Maybe
it's bizarro day.
I shop at a market. Kensington Market in Toronto. It is very nice,
and I always get swiss chard for pennies. However, the market
hasn't totally been gentrified yet, and therefore they sell fruits
and veggies from non-local farmers as well as local (it is kind of
hard to find Mangos or Oranges grown here in Canada), and stuff may
not be organic.
There is a place in the city for the people who only want their
localy-grown organic produce, and the prices are very expensive,
the selection is pitiful, and it is mostly white people with too
much money. It is a sad, pittiful immitation of a real street
market.
|6.14.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Brandybuck says: "I buy local California rice because it's
better and cheaper rice!"
Try eating Thai Jasmine rice (available in Costco in 50 pound
sacks). Tastes way better than any other rice I've eaten, and it
only costs a few pennies a pound more. You'll never go back to
eating that California rubbish.
|6.14.07 @ 3:06PM|#
The Fake joe,
There's overweening and underweaning. I think bibertarians prefer
the latter.
|6.14.07 @ 3:17PM|#
TJIT - YES. That's exactly the conversation that should be
happening. I consider supporting unsubsidized growers a start, but
eliminating subsidies entirely would radically change the
economics. I'd also like a way to bring externalities into the
equation, but that's a pipe dream.
Rex Rhino - we're getting there. I'm sorry to hear your Rich White
Person Market sucks. I've seen plenty of them, though not here in
the Twin Cities (MN). It's usually a handful of hippy farmers (god
bless 'em) selling chewed up heirloom varieties at beastly prices.
However, established markets are a very different beast. The
Minneapolis market is very much like yours, a melange of produce
brokers, local farmers and the usual junk like magic detergent
discs and knock-off watches. St Paul, the other twin, has a smaller
but still substantial market that only allows local growers. It's
magical - dozens of local growers displaying veggies that might
make you cry with joy (yes, I like food) along with meat that was
walking around yesterday. People of all class/gender/color in both
markets - seriously, it looks like the UN. The prices are rock
bottom in both markets, though I prefer the latter if only to
escape the carnival atmosphere of the former.
Lots of writing to say: this is what we see and what shapes our
opinions. You see the polarization in Toronto, and you perceive a
class rift. I see the opposite, so perceive no such thing. What we
need to get straight is that while classism/racism/whateverism
certainly exists all over, it's not inherent to this model.
Sometimes a farmer's market is just a farmer's market, and people
are there because there isn't another place to buy a bag of
massive, ripe tomatoes for four bucks. And sometimes they're there
because they hate black people and want to look better than their
beer-swilling brother-in-law. I have no idea, but at the very least
it seems like the sane thing to do is not lump everyone in one
category or the other.
Does that sound reasonable?
|6.14.07 @ 3:18PM|#
"GILMORE | June 14, 2007, 12:16pm |..."
Nail on the head. I'm reminded of the Fosterites in 'Stranger in a
Strange Land' who judge each others morality primarily by whether
they by products approved of by other Fosterites.
Most of the feel good labeling of the past few years - most visibly
'organic' - is an absolute crock. On the whole 'Organic' foods tend
to be worse for the environment than the ones not so labeled.
'Organic' foods generally require more irrigation and have higher
culls (the percentage of crop thrown away as unsalable) than
non-organic foods. Organic farming is inefficient in terms of land
and water use, and would if practiced extensively result in greater
degredation to the environment than standard modern practice. And
organic foods are neither safer nor more nutritious. The plain
truth is that many organic foods are produced with 'organic' plant
pesticides which were abandoned years ago because they had higher
toxicity levels than newer products.
As for 'tasting better', for the most part neither locally grown
nor organic is any assurance of higher quality. This is especially
true of organic, but even with 'locally grown' its going to be only
a few highly perishable crops where the difference is going to be
noticable. I buy locally grown seasonal peaches, pears, nectarines,
and tomatoes because you can't transport these foods ripe. You've
never bought a ripe peach or pear at a grocery store and most
people have never had one. But for most foods, the argument that
locally grown means 'better' is ridiculous. For one thing, often as
not if you go to the farmer's market you are buying the exact same
thing that farmer shipped out on a truck and which is in your local
grocery store. For example, local strawberries are available
seasonally in my local grocery. They are the exact same ones
available at vegetable stands and farmers markets. When in season,
they are the best strawberries available. Most of the rest of the
year, they just aren't available so if you want them out of season
your best bet is a berry grown where it is seasonal. Similarly, I
buy locally grown watermelons, but the climate north of here is
better (drier) for watermelons and results in a superior melon when
it comes to ripeness. I get my early watermelons locally, but the
best watermelons I get are shipped in from elsewhere. Ditto
blueberries, cherries, broccolli, onions and a host of other crops
that do better in someone elses climate. I expect they feel the
same about our strawberries and mandarin oranges (even if they've
never thought about where they come from).
Most of all, this is an example of marketing. It tastes better to
you because you expect it to taste better, but in a blind taste
test I'd put money on the fact that people that swear by this and
that couldn't tell the difference.
And for the record, Wal-Mart's produce is generally superior
(riper, fresher, etc.) to Whole-Foods. The reason? Volume. Not only
that, but its generally half the cost, which means its probably
produced or distributed in an environmentally friendlier way. For
example, I bet that a good bit of the price difference is that
Whole-Foods wastes more food.
|6.14.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Welcome to the Thread of the Long Postings :)
PBrazelton,
What's that grocery store with the carpet in Minneapolis? I used to
go there for the higher-end foodstuffs. Before I escaped to warmer
climes--like Chicago--on my eventual path back to Florida.
|6.14.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Sorry, I tend to avoid coffee but today was a notable exception.
I'll be lurking again by tomorrow AM :)
Byerly's is what you're thinking of. The markup is egregious but
it's the place to go if you're looking for the choice between 25
different brands of olive oil. Oh, and the carpet feels nice.
|6.14.07 @ 3:35PM|#
I have no idea, but at the very least it seems like the sane
thing to do is not lump everyone in one category or the
other.
Not everyone who purchases local organicly grown produce is a
classist or elitist. Sure. I agree with you.
But everyone who says it is morally or ethically superior to
purchase local organicly grown produce is.
As a libertarian, I have no problem with people purchasing luxury
items. But just don't pretend luxury items are any better than any
other item because they have scarcity built into the buisness
model.
|6.14.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Byerly's! Right! Overpriced in a way that inspires nostalgia for Soviet breadlines, yes, but what a great grocery store.
|6.14.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Rex - you lost me there a bit. What would you consider a morally or ethically superior choice when purchasing your food? And why is buying fresh, cheap produce considered a luxury?
|6.14.07 @ 4:08PM|#
When I was a kid, the Edina Byerly's used to have a guy in a tux tickling the ivories of a grand piano. Strange.
GILMORE|6.14.07 @ 4:12PM|#
But for most foods, the argument that locally grown means
'better' is ridiculous. For one thing, often as not if you go to
the farmer's market you are buying the exact same thing that farmer
shipped out on a truck and which is in your local grocery
store.
Absolutely true.
The people here buzzing around trying to defend "their preferences
to shop locally" (who cares what anyone *prefers*?) are the one's
missing the point, because they dont know enough about the supply
chain... Farmer's Markets arent different than supermarkets in
terms of the *product*... they're different in terms of the retail
format. You're just cutting out a middle man. Telling yourself 'it
tastes better' may be true. Maybe thats the lack of the
"commercial" taste in your mouth, which so many people equate with
"Big Evil".
And for the record, Wal-Mart's produce is generally superior
(riper, fresher, etc.) to Whole-Foods. The reason?
Volume.
Again - true.
The problem is that the organic/whole foods business is predicated
entrely around convincing people that *Normal* food is somehow so
fucking bad for you and evil and tainted with Corporateness and it
kills trees and undermines proletariats etc. ... and suprise! we
have a solution! spend 30% more and you too can be guilt free from
participating in the global exploitative network of
capitalism.
Never mind that this organic food product was made by a subsidiary
of a subsidiary of a pretty large fucking corporation...
Anyway, no one here is AGAINST farmers markets for @#(*$ sake. It's
maybe useful to have the occasional injection of realism into
debates about what is/is not healthy/sustainable/ethical...
Funny how you guys got into the Class & Race element of this so
quickly... ahh, college in the 90s = where ONLY Class and Race
matter!
In case you want some boring/mock-worthy reading, here's a piece
analysing the Classist psychology of "Yuppie Food"
www2.ucsc.edu/cgirs/research/environment/
afsrg/publications/Guthman_2003.pdf
It's typical PC Liberal Arts strewth that considers bagged salad
part of a Classist Imperialist AntiFeminism or something, but at
least she got some of her points right about the psychological
effects of organic branding
|6.14.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Farmer's Markets arent different than supermarkets in terms
of the *product*... they're different in terms of the retail
format.
Although the produce at the supermarket I go to is usually pretty
good, it wasn't fucking picked this morning. And for some reason or
another the honey I get at the farmer's market is, how to quantify
this, slightly better than the stuff in the plastic bear
bottle.
|6.14.07 @ 4:31PM|#
de stijl,
I can't get the famous Tupelo honey at my grocery store, so the
farmer's market is the only non-ridiculously priced option.
Tupelo honey--tasty, and the subject of that good Peter Fonda movie
without General Zod.
|6.14.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Yes, de stijl, but that's your worthless subjective opinion,
tainted by your deep hatred of capitalism and corporations. What
you're *actually* experiencing is something entirely different. If
you're ever curious as to what you're really feeling or why you're
doing something, just post here and Gilmore will fill you in.
Also, a vendor at my market has this dark buckwheat honey I would
murder a bus full of orphans for. Now if only I could get a large -
really, the largest possible, and preferably based in another state
- supermarket to carry it I would be maximizing my efficiencies and
not buying into the hype. If it were produced by bees 12,000 miles
away that would be nice too. Maybe I should ask...?
GILMORE|6.14.07 @ 5:13PM|#
jesus
Guys, farmers markets are great. But stop taking any comment as
"something's wrong with you". we're talking about common
misperceptions about consumers and food supply. Yes, you can get
fucking fresh honey maple syrup, fresh...whatever.... but it's not
that different than many other types of small grocers,
supermarkets, or even Fresh Direct for christs sake. The reason Im
not adressing any of your points directly is because they're
largely besides the point. I didnt mean to trample on your god, but
give it up already... Im not saying your local market isnt
like...*awesome*. Here, have some swiss card, and a cookie.
|6.14.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Wow, I actually Googled "swiss card" to see if I were missing
some sort of international reference. Then I realized you meant
swiss chard, and felt like an idiot. Also, you're clearly
not that into food. For those of us who really like it, the quality
is important. It's like saying Boones Farm is pretty much the same
thing as a fine French Cabernet to someone who loves wine. Your
argument just isn't going to sell.
Anyway, I accept your offer of swiss card and a cookie. But only if
they're organic and locally produced. Because that's way
better.
GILMORE|6.14.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Also, you're clearly not that into food
har har.
Two of my best friends are chefs, and we do monhly barbecues where
we do competitive-style cookoffs.
my local market is this on essex on the lower east side - although
the produce is just as good at the c-town down the street... i go
there for the butchers.
the difference between you and i, friend, is not culinary
appreciation or sensibilities, but the fact that I spent 10yrs as a
food industry analyst
|6.14.07 @ 5:42PM|#
swillfredo,
"If the farmers selling to corporations are being paid a relative
pittance why haven't they started selling at the Lowell,
Massachusetts farmer's market? How much locally grown citrus do
these guys offer?"
1. Individuals farmers in New Jersey, Alabama, and Chile might have
trouble coming to the Lowell Farmers Market each Friday.
2. Squash is not a citrus.
GILMORE,
That's very interesting. It's also a pretty good rebuttal to the
slur that people who are interested in such things are motivated by
a hostility to furrners.
gorgo's foil,
Good point! Those are people who are actually making decisions with
their own dollars in an attempt to bring about a change in the
market throgh completely non-coercive, market-based mechanisms. The
chance that Reason will ever publish or link to a piece noting and
applauding this idea is approximately 0, for no othe reason than
"they're not our sort of people, dear."
Rex,
"As joe said, of course all the people going to the local organic
food market are white (even though the growers are asian)...
Because upper-middle class people are disproportionatly white. It
is a way for the upper classes to hang out with the upper classes,
and congradulate themselves for having a lifestyle, that is by
definition unattainable by the masses, more morally superior than
all those irresponsible trash who shop at Walmart!"
Oh, I must not have mentioned that the Farmer's Market taked Food
Stamps, and that poor people from nearby neighborhoods shop there,
too. Or that the produce is cheaper than at the store.
Aw, look, I killed Rex's puppy. And he was feeling so good about
gettin' dem libruls, too!
jh, you fucking twit, you posted your email address when you
commented as "the Fake joe." Is it physically painful to be that
stupid, or is it sort of a numb sensation?
|6.14.07 @ 6:30PM|#
jh,
I've come back to mock you some more.
Not only did you comment under a fake name, and screw up and post
your real email address. No, that wouldn't display nearly the level
of cowardice and stupidity that does you justice.
No, you actually go so far as to post under a fake name, so you can
write a comment congatulating yourself, and backing up yourself up
in an argument with another poster - and THEN you screw up and post
your comment with your real email address.
What's the matter, you forgot to type in "fake@joe.com" like you
usually do?
I don't think you should hang around here anymore, jh, because I'm
going to make a point of reminding everyone about this sorry little
episode if you do, you sorry little man.
|6.14.07 @ 10:10PM|#
The first year I lived in NorCal, they had to close Interstate 5
and Highway 99 through the rice belt as the El Nino-fed Sacramento
River was runing at something like 700,000 cubic feet per second
and flooded ... oh, pretty much everything.
Friggin' barren desert.
Racially Sensitive Minority Go|6.14.07 @ 11:39PM|#
"the Farmer's Market taked Food Stamps, and that poor
people"
Watch it.
|6.15.07 @ 12:00AM|#
Gilmore - the swiss card comment was a dig on my own stupidity,
not on your miskey. Sorry, dumb joke, but hopefully I got a smile
out of the last sentence.
As for the rest: eh. The coffee's worn off and I don't care enough
about what you think without the caffeine molecules racing through
my bloodstream. Enjoy your food where ever you get it, you crazy
food analyst, you.
Alsolocalandorganicsarebetter.
xxxooo
|6.15.07 @ 2:34AM|#
Urk,
Definitely--I always put my haggis into one of those big,
black 55 gal. bags the moment I get it home from the store! There's
simply no better way to store it.
|6.15.07 @ 10:26AM|#
Could somebody please explain to me how I'm supposed to buy local produce in the middle of winter here in the northeast? Not many green peppers growing when the ground's been frozen solid for 10 weeks...
|6.15.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Amom - you can't. Humans have relied on food preservation
technology (drying, canning, pickling, cold storage, etc.) for
almost as long as they've been around. If you want to eat local in
the winter, you eat from your pantry, freezer and root cellar. Of
course, this requires a LOT of preparation in the warm
months...
There's also the option of a heated greenhouse, but that's very
energy intensive (read: expensive).
Urkobold®|6.15.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Kirk parker,
URKOBOLD SEES THAT YOU ARE A CONNOISSEUR, UNLIKE THE USUAL HOI
POLLOI SEEN AT REASON. YES, AGED HAGGIS IS THE BEST.
URKOBOLD SOMETIMES BURIES IT IN THE COLD, COLD GROUND FOR A MONTH
OR TWO BEFORE DEEP FRYING IT.
URKOBOLD'S GOOD FRIEND, ALTON BROWN, GAVE THE URKOBOLD A LOVELY
HAGGIS RECIPE. AND FOR THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE THE TIME, THERE'S
ALWAYS
HAGGIS IN A CAN. SCRUMPTIOUS! THE URKOBOLD RECOMMENDS BREAKING
OUT A HAGGIS FOR THOSE ROMANTIC OCCASIONS.
Confused|6.15.07 @ 1:53PM|#
So produce is better when grown in a laboratory setting (i.e., a heated greenhouse) than in a field, as long as it isn't transported more than 100 miles?
Wacky Hermit|6.16.07 @ 12:03AM|#
For me, the Farmer's Market is about getting specialized produce
as well as getting tasty ripe fresh stuff. The grocery store has to
stock what most people are likely to buy. They'll have Roma
tomatoes and slicing tomatoes and grape tomatoes. The farmer's
market will have yellow tomatoes and black tomatoes and tomatoes so
large that you'll have to cut a slice of one in half to make it fit
on your sandwich (no kidding!) There's a choice of six different
varieties of hardneck garlic, not that softneck kind that grocery
stores carry, but the stuff with the easy-peel cloves that's so
spicy you only need half what the recipe calls for. That kind of
"long tail" produce just isn't available at any grocery store, at
least not out where I live. Our grocery stores do carry local
produce which I buy there in season, but even if all their produce
were locally grown, it wouldn't be economical for them to carry
that much variety. Backyard garden hobbyists, on the other hand,
tend to take pride in growing the unusual, and if they can sell it
at a farmer's market and make a little money besides the prize
money from the county fair, so much the better for them!
Now maybe some of you guys live in fancy, highfalutin' cities where
anyone can wander down to some gourmet food district and buy one of
those black tomatoes the size of a toddler's head any day of the
week. But for the rest of us, living out here where Wal-Mart's the
only store in town, there's farmer's markets.
|6.17.07 @ 2:33AM|#
"And why is buying fresh, cheap produce considered a
luxury?"
Because it is. We happen to live in a society which is so wealthy
that it is a luxury which can now be shared by almost everyone, but
never forget that it is in fact a luxury. The natural state of man
is that fresh foods are not available, and certainly not any fresh
food you desire. For the vast majority of human history, fresh
foods were only available at certain times of the year perhaps only
for a few weeks of the year. The rest of the year, these foods
would be out of season and hense unavailable. Only by investing
enormous resources in distribution and refrigeration of produce
have we achieved the illusion of produce being available on a whim,
cheaply, and at any time of the year.
I should also point out that for a food to be locally grown and
available at any time of the year, even more resources must have
been invested in its production. For example, if you want a ripe
locally grown tomato in January, then you are buying a hothouse
tomato.
|6.17.07 @ 2:47AM|#
"Also, you're clearly not that into food. For those of us who
really like it, the quality is important."
Har har, indeed.
Rather than addressing the pompousness of that statement directly,
I'd like to reflect on this belief generally.
I've been alot of places in this great country. One thing that is
universal to all of them is that the locals sincerely believe that
the local culture has a special and unique appreciation for food
(and for eating food, and for fellowship while eating food, and for
celebrating the eating of food) which far exceeds that of people
elsewhere. Likewise, they all believe that they have a local
cuisine which is exceptional and superior to that of thier
neighbors. The funny thing is that this is true even of areas where
the local cooking is exceptionally bad. In fact, the even more
ironic thing about it is that in my experience some places which
have a national reputation for exceptional food tend to have rather
bad cooking on the whole. (Not naming names to avoid offending
anyone.)
The point is that everyone thinks that they have an exceptional
interest in food and in eating. But, in fact this is silly. Humans
generally are exceptionally interested in food and eating and
almost univerally take great pleasure in it. Claiming that someone
else clearly isn't into food doesn't directly demonstrate anything
about your love of food or his, but it does demonstrate your own
narrow experience and THAT may say something about whether you are
a creditable judge of food or not.
In any event, I buy spices from Penzey's and tea from Stash and I
can do all the whole food snobbery and 'I'm more of a food snob
than thou' thing too. The difference would seem to be that I don't
care a wit about what anyone thinks about my taste in food, nor do
I give a flip about eating or buying things because it is
fashionable. I really only care about real and detectable
differences in quality, not percieved quality and certainly not
status. Which is why you are just as likely to find me in Wal-mart
or some hole in the wall that doesn't look like it would pass a
health inspection, as whatever the trendy place to shop is or some
fashionable restaurant.
GILMORE|6.21.07 @ 1:17AM|#
celebrim | June 17, 2007, 2:47am | #
can i quote you in some consumer research i'm doing? :) really.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245