论文部分内容阅读
As more and more people become engaged with their food and are increasingly concerned about the origin of their food， the locavore movement has captured its share of advocators. Locavores are people who strives to eat locally grown and produced food. A study conducted in 2009 by the Food Marketing Institute exhibits that the top three reasons for participation in the locavore movement is 82% for the freshness of the food， 72% to support local economy， and 58% for knowing the source of the food （“The”）. However， does personal preferences really outweighs the damage that derives from the locavore movement？ Although locally produced food is usually fresher， tastes better， and links one closer to his or her community， the locavore movement is not implementable in large scale， and its damages to different aspects of the environment and economy by far outweighs its benefits.
While all locavores coherently defines themselves as people who consumes only locally produced products， the term “local” is still vague in its definition. Paul Roberts in his book The End of Food， published in 2008， indicates that the word “local” does not set a clear premise regarding to the precise distance food products could travel for it to be considered local. Robert argues that the range of food mileage for products to be considered local vary among different people：
There are dozens of different definitions as to what local is， with some advocates arguing for political boundaries （as in Texas-grown， for example）， others using quasi-geographic terms like food sheds， and still others laying out somewhat arbitrarily drawn food circles with radii of 100 or 150 or 500 miles. （Source F）
Roberts points out that localvorism sounds favourable in theory， but would be a conundrum in execution， and not being able to establish a suitable and agreed upon definition would be the first of the many difficulties encountered throughout the process.
Another stumper for the locavore movement is that different areas vary in the way their land is used. Some areas may be able to support their population with food from surrounding farms， but for other areas not so much. As Alex Hallatt， the cartoonist， has implied， through his comic strip the “Arctic Circle”， that in certain areas the idea of eating solely locally produced food is impractical. By pointing out the fact that locavores eat food from within a 100 mile radius， and titling the comic the “Arctic Circle”， Hallatt is able to underscore the dilemma of locavorism not being able to be adhered in areas such as the “arctic” （Source G）， which in this case epitomises any area where the local agricultural industries would not be sufficient in sustaining the local population. Similarly， Roberts had also brought forth such idea in his book. By pointing out “decentralised food systems function well in decentralised societies…80 percent of us live in large， densely populated urban areas…typically hundreds of miles， often thousands of miles， from the major enters of food production， ” （Source F） Roberts implies that locavorism is not practical for the majority of the US dwellers. Some supporters of the locavore movement have advocated for metropolitan farming， yet neglecting the environmental consequences of such actions. Large scale metropolitan farming for urban locavores would result in an excess amount of gas consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. Just like Edward L. Glaeser， author of the online blurb “The Locavore’s Dilemma”， had suggested， the damage that metropolitan farming causes outweighs the benefits locavorism brings：
The most important environmental cost of metropolitan agriculture is that lower density levels mean more driving…this would add an extra 44 gallons of gas annually. Together， the increased gas consumption from moving less than a tenth of agricultural farmland into metropolitan areas would generate an extra 1.77 tons of carbon dioxide per year， which is 1.77 times the greenhouse gases produced by all food transportation and almost four and a half times the carbon emissions associated with food delivery. （Glaeser）
Therefore， Glaeser has indicated that it is not worth while to emit additional carbon and consume additional energy in exchange for the little amount of energy in comparison preserved from the deduction of food mileage.
Additionally， gas emitted throughout the food supply process is also a major concern for many locavores. Many supporters argue that the transportation process generates additional greenhouse gas emissions， yet omitting the fact that transportation only accounts for a very small proportion of the emissions， and often times could be pretermitted. According to a data from the Conservation Magazine， an environmental magazine， Natasha Loder， Elizebth Finkel， Crag Meisner， and Pamela Ronald， creators of the online article “The Problem of What to Eat.”， asserts that transportation does not make much of an impact on the total amount of greenhouse gas emitted. By presenting a set of data in which throughout the whole production process of red meat， transportation only takes up to about 0.02 metric tons of CO2e out of the 2.5 metric tons （Source D）， the authors implies that concerned advocates should focus on how to deduct emissions in the production process since it accounts for the majority of the emissions.
Furthermore， advocates of locavorism have not considered the differences in carbon footprints by producing in different areas， whereas in certain regions， certain product can be produced with a reduction in carbon footprint that exceeds those expanded in transportation. James E. McWilliams， author of the “On My Mind： The Locavore Myth” online article， pointed out that “it made more environmental sense for a Londoner to buy lamb shipped from New Zealand than to buy lamb raised in the U.K….New Zealand lamb is raised on pastures with a small carbon footprint， whereas most English lamb is produced under intensive factory-like conditions with a big carbon footprint. This disparity overwhelms domestic lamb’s advantage in transportation energy” （Source C）. By applying the energy that was believed to be conserved from transportation into the production process， locavores isn’t saving as much resources as one might think. Economically， the locavore movement also has areas of impracticability and unnecessariness. Although many supporters believe that purchasing locally produced products would boost the local economy， they are simply redirecting money into a different circulation. Roger Meiners， author of the online article “The Locavore’s Dilemma”， indicates that “taking money from more productive uses and putting it into lower-valued uses means a smaller economy… global trade in foodstuffs allows a bigger economic pie for all to enjoy” （Meiners）. Therefore， it is true that investments in locally produced food products would benefit the local economy， but at the same time it would cut many others out of the cycle， resulting in no significant impact on the overall economy. In addition， Meiners had also mentioned that “opening up international trade is the route to a less costly and more diverse supply of food… According to the USDA， Americans devote a piddly 6.6 percent of family budgets to food. Thank goodness we are globavores” （Meiners）. It is impractical and unnecessary to demand an average US family to give up cheaper and more diverse food choices for locally produced products. Moreover， based on James E. McWilliams， while purchasing locally produced food supports local producers， it damages food producers in other areas： “The U.K. buys most of its green beans from Kenya. While it’s true that the beans almost always arrive in airplanes…a campaign to shame English consumers with small airplane stickers affixed to flown-in produce threatens the livelihood of 1.5 million sub-Saharan farmers” （Source C）. Thus， there is no point in causing harms to farmers in one area for the benefits of farmers in another region， because it has no overall impact.
The locavore movement is still a highly debated topic in many different communities. Although locavorism has its advantages - fresh and ripening foodstuffs - it’s also true that it is not applicable in practice， and damages the environment and economy in more ways than it benefits them. Eating locally produced products is not practical for the majority of the US dwellers， who lives in urban areas far away from locations of food production， and not to mention the fact that there is not a specific regulation on the distance foodstuffs are allowed to travel for locavores to consume. Even if these conditions are met and are made practical， it is unnecessary and not beneficial for the world as a whole to invest in locally produced food intending to support local economy and farmers， while putting hundreds and thousands of farmers elsewhere out of job， or to demand an average American family to spend their 6.6 percent of food budget （Meiners） on purchasing more expansive local foodstuffs in order to know the story of their food， or to damage the environment by producing in areas with a large carbon footprint， so there would be a small reduction in energy consumption in the transportation process. These issues leads locavores to a severe disadvantage. While locavorism is pointless and not practical in areas where it is forced， the movement could still be implemented in areas where being a locavore is easily implemented， such as small towns with farmer’s markets， just for the better tasting， vine ripening， and fresher food experience. References：
[1]Glaeser，Edward L.“The Locavore’s Dilemma.” Boston.com，The Boston Globe，16 June 2011，archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/06/16/the_locavores_dilemma/.
[2]Gogoi，Pallavi.“The Rise of the ‘Locavore’：How the Strengthening Local Food Movement in Towns Across the U.S.Is Reshaping Farms and Food Retailing.” Bloomberg Businessweek.Bloomberg，20 May 2008.Web.17 Dec.2009.
[3]Hallatt，Alex.“Arctic Circle.” Comic strip.King Features Syndicate，Inc.1 Sept.2008.Web.12 July 2009.
[4]Loder，Natasha，Elizabeth Finkel，Craig Meisner，and Pamela Ronald.“The Problem of What to Eat.” Conservation Magazine.The Society for Conservation Biology，July-Sept.2008.Web.16 Dec.2009.
[5]Maiser，Jennifer.“10 Reasons to Eat Local Food.” Eat Local Challenge.Eat Local Challenge，8 Apr.2006.Web.16 Dec.2009.
[6]McWilliams，James E.“On My Mind：The Locavore Myth.” Forbes.com.Forbes，15 Jul.2009.Web.16 Dec.2009.
[7]Meiners，Roger.“The Locavore’s Dilemma.” PERC – The Property and Environment Research Center，1 Oct.2012，www.perc.org/articles/locavores-dilemma.
[8]Roberts，Paul.The End of Food.New York：Houghton Mifflin Harcourt，2008.Print.
[9]Smith，Alisa，and J.B.MacKinnon.Plenty：One Man，One Woman，and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally.New York：Harmony，2007.Print.
【作者簡介】CAROL MEN XU（2001.09.08- ），女，汉族，加拿大，大连美国国际学校。
While all locavores coherently defines themselves as people who consumes only locally produced products， the term “local” is still vague in its definition. Paul Roberts in his book The End of Food， published in 2008， indicates that the word “local” does not set a clear premise regarding to the precise distance food products could travel for it to be considered local. Robert argues that the range of food mileage for products to be considered local vary among different people：
There are dozens of different definitions as to what local is， with some advocates arguing for political boundaries （as in Texas-grown， for example）， others using quasi-geographic terms like food sheds， and still others laying out somewhat arbitrarily drawn food circles with radii of 100 or 150 or 500 miles. （Source F）
Roberts points out that localvorism sounds favourable in theory， but would be a conundrum in execution， and not being able to establish a suitable and agreed upon definition would be the first of the many difficulties encountered throughout the process.
Another stumper for the locavore movement is that different areas vary in the way their land is used. Some areas may be able to support their population with food from surrounding farms， but for other areas not so much. As Alex Hallatt， the cartoonist， has implied， through his comic strip the “Arctic Circle”， that in certain areas the idea of eating solely locally produced food is impractical. By pointing out the fact that locavores eat food from within a 100 mile radius， and titling the comic the “Arctic Circle”， Hallatt is able to underscore the dilemma of locavorism not being able to be adhered in areas such as the “arctic” （Source G）， which in this case epitomises any area where the local agricultural industries would not be sufficient in sustaining the local population. Similarly， Roberts had also brought forth such idea in his book. By pointing out “decentralised food systems function well in decentralised societies…80 percent of us live in large， densely populated urban areas…typically hundreds of miles， often thousands of miles， from the major enters of food production， ” （Source F） Roberts implies that locavorism is not practical for the majority of the US dwellers. Some supporters of the locavore movement have advocated for metropolitan farming， yet neglecting the environmental consequences of such actions. Large scale metropolitan farming for urban locavores would result in an excess amount of gas consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. Just like Edward L. Glaeser， author of the online blurb “The Locavore’s Dilemma”， had suggested， the damage that metropolitan farming causes outweighs the benefits locavorism brings：
The most important environmental cost of metropolitan agriculture is that lower density levels mean more driving…this would add an extra 44 gallons of gas annually. Together， the increased gas consumption from moving less than a tenth of agricultural farmland into metropolitan areas would generate an extra 1.77 tons of carbon dioxide per year， which is 1.77 times the greenhouse gases produced by all food transportation and almost four and a half times the carbon emissions associated with food delivery. （Glaeser）
Therefore， Glaeser has indicated that it is not worth while to emit additional carbon and consume additional energy in exchange for the little amount of energy in comparison preserved from the deduction of food mileage.
Additionally， gas emitted throughout the food supply process is also a major concern for many locavores. Many supporters argue that the transportation process generates additional greenhouse gas emissions， yet omitting the fact that transportation only accounts for a very small proportion of the emissions， and often times could be pretermitted. According to a data from the Conservation Magazine， an environmental magazine， Natasha Loder， Elizebth Finkel， Crag Meisner， and Pamela Ronald， creators of the online article “The Problem of What to Eat.”， asserts that transportation does not make much of an impact on the total amount of greenhouse gas emitted. By presenting a set of data in which throughout the whole production process of red meat， transportation only takes up to about 0.02 metric tons of CO2e out of the 2.5 metric tons （Source D）， the authors implies that concerned advocates should focus on how to deduct emissions in the production process since it accounts for the majority of the emissions.
Furthermore， advocates of locavorism have not considered the differences in carbon footprints by producing in different areas， whereas in certain regions， certain product can be produced with a reduction in carbon footprint that exceeds those expanded in transportation. James E. McWilliams， author of the “On My Mind： The Locavore Myth” online article， pointed out that “it made more environmental sense for a Londoner to buy lamb shipped from New Zealand than to buy lamb raised in the U.K….New Zealand lamb is raised on pastures with a small carbon footprint， whereas most English lamb is produced under intensive factory-like conditions with a big carbon footprint. This disparity overwhelms domestic lamb’s advantage in transportation energy” （Source C）. By applying the energy that was believed to be conserved from transportation into the production process， locavores isn’t saving as much resources as one might think. Economically， the locavore movement also has areas of impracticability and unnecessariness. Although many supporters believe that purchasing locally produced products would boost the local economy， they are simply redirecting money into a different circulation. Roger Meiners， author of the online article “The Locavore’s Dilemma”， indicates that “taking money from more productive uses and putting it into lower-valued uses means a smaller economy… global trade in foodstuffs allows a bigger economic pie for all to enjoy” （Meiners）. Therefore， it is true that investments in locally produced food products would benefit the local economy， but at the same time it would cut many others out of the cycle， resulting in no significant impact on the overall economy. In addition， Meiners had also mentioned that “opening up international trade is the route to a less costly and more diverse supply of food… According to the USDA， Americans devote a piddly 6.6 percent of family budgets to food. Thank goodness we are globavores” （Meiners）. It is impractical and unnecessary to demand an average US family to give up cheaper and more diverse food choices for locally produced products. Moreover， based on James E. McWilliams， while purchasing locally produced food supports local producers， it damages food producers in other areas： “The U.K. buys most of its green beans from Kenya. While it’s true that the beans almost always arrive in airplanes…a campaign to shame English consumers with small airplane stickers affixed to flown-in produce threatens the livelihood of 1.5 million sub-Saharan farmers” （Source C）. Thus， there is no point in causing harms to farmers in one area for the benefits of farmers in another region， because it has no overall impact.
The locavore movement is still a highly debated topic in many different communities. Although locavorism has its advantages - fresh and ripening foodstuffs - it’s also true that it is not applicable in practice， and damages the environment and economy in more ways than it benefits them. Eating locally produced products is not practical for the majority of the US dwellers， who lives in urban areas far away from locations of food production， and not to mention the fact that there is not a specific regulation on the distance foodstuffs are allowed to travel for locavores to consume. Even if these conditions are met and are made practical， it is unnecessary and not beneficial for the world as a whole to invest in locally produced food intending to support local economy and farmers， while putting hundreds and thousands of farmers elsewhere out of job， or to demand an average American family to spend their 6.6 percent of food budget （Meiners） on purchasing more expansive local foodstuffs in order to know the story of their food， or to damage the environment by producing in areas with a large carbon footprint， so there would be a small reduction in energy consumption in the transportation process. These issues leads locavores to a severe disadvantage. While locavorism is pointless and not practical in areas where it is forced， the movement could still be implemented in areas where being a locavore is easily implemented， such as small towns with farmer’s markets， just for the better tasting， vine ripening， and fresher food experience. References：
[1]Glaeser，Edward L.“The Locavore’s Dilemma.” Boston.com，The Boston Globe，16 June 2011，archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/06/16/the_locavores_dilemma/.
[2]Gogoi，Pallavi.“The Rise of the ‘Locavore’：How the Strengthening Local Food Movement in Towns Across the U.S.Is Reshaping Farms and Food Retailing.” Bloomberg Businessweek.Bloomberg，20 May 2008.Web.17 Dec.2009.
[3]Hallatt，Alex.“Arctic Circle.” Comic strip.King Features Syndicate，Inc.1 Sept.2008.Web.12 July 2009.
[4]Loder，Natasha，Elizabeth Finkel，Craig Meisner，and Pamela Ronald.“The Problem of What to Eat.” Conservation Magazine.The Society for Conservation Biology，July-Sept.2008.Web.16 Dec.2009.
[5]Maiser，Jennifer.“10 Reasons to Eat Local Food.” Eat Local Challenge.Eat Local Challenge，8 Apr.2006.Web.16 Dec.2009.
[6]McWilliams，James E.“On My Mind：The Locavore Myth.” Forbes.com.Forbes，15 Jul.2009.Web.16 Dec.2009.
[7]Meiners，Roger.“The Locavore’s Dilemma.” PERC – The Property and Environment Research Center，1 Oct.2012，www.perc.org/articles/locavores-dilemma.
[8]Roberts，Paul.The End of Food.New York：Houghton Mifflin Harcourt，2008.Print.
[9]Smith，Alisa，and J.B.MacKinnon.Plenty：One Man，One Woman，and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally.New York：Harmony，2007.Print.
【作者簡介】CAROL MEN XU（2001.09.08- ），女，汉族，加拿大，大连美国国际学校。