http://kellygallagher.org/resources/AoW%201314_17%20Locavorism.pdf
After reading the article, The Limits of Locavorism, what is your opinion? Can food be completely produced locally? Or are supermarkets the way to go? Or are they both important? Use evidence (at least 2 statistics and/or quotes) from the text to support your essay.
My opinion is food can be produced locally because it is good to eat and have proteins in your stomach. I also think that the supermarket is a good place to go because you have a lot of really good food there like fruits, vegetables, and animal products. "Food system" is responsible for 19 percent of fossil-fuel use, and contributes more than a third of total greenhouse-gas emission. Another reason what's wrong with supermarket food is packing it and transporting it into the grocery store for people to buy it. And it computes that 10 calories of fossil fuel go into creating a single calorie of modern supermarket food some 23 times more than it took to create a food calorie in 1940.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that “Locavorism” is more of a bad Idea than a good idea. Like it said in the article “...U.S. deaths from foodborne illnesses today are a fraction of what they were a century ago, when supply was more local. Which is true, because way back when since food supply was grown more locally, the whole community relied on local farmers to go grow the food. If someone got sick in the community it could not only spread to people in the community but it could also contaminate crops and poison/get people who consume the crops/products sick or worse.If factories usually have contaminated products they will usually recall it and try to prevent people from getting E-coli and all that bad stuff. It also states that “By eating globally they, the modern world has created a “food cornucopia” that successfully feeds 6 billion people, and has reduced the percentage of the world’s population suffering from malnutrition and starvation from 40 percent to 12.5 today.” Which is obviously a very good and significant difference compared to what it used to be like. Locavores argue with that “America’s modern “food system” is responsible for 19 percent of fossil-fuel use, and contributes more than a third of total greenhouse-gas emissions.” and that foods should be shipped to China for “filleting” and sent to California to be sold and eaten. This is good but mostly bad idea because “To start with, transportation contributes less than 11 percent to the overall carbon cost of an average food item.” and “some distant places are much better suited to growing certain foods that it’s folly not to take advantage them. Olive oil and Italy, for example, or Potatoes in Idaho.” So basically they reasons Locavores think it’s better to ship is because they don’t fully understand that some countries are better and growing and manufacturing certain products and that even if we did do that, more fossil fuel and greenhouse-gas emissions would be used up. So it would have more negative repercussions than not. I honestly think that communities should not only have Super markets for the common person but Locavore markets as well for those who have there own reasons to believe that Localism is a better and more healthy option than processed factory goods.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Locavorism because supermarkets are actually known to be healthier for you. According to the article, some chicken eggs contained elevated levels of lead because such heavy metals are found in urban soil. Lead is known to be very dangerous, that is why they took it out of pencils. Besides, you can’t grow food in the winter it’s impossible, you want people to starve to death during winter? Winter is already a terrible season, why must we make it worse by making people die. I also think if you go to a supermarket, it is faster. Face it, it takes all day to go through a CROWDED farmers market, but when you go to a supermarket, it won’t even take an hour. Lastly, according to Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu, authors of The Locavore’s Dilemma say that U.S deaths from foodborne illness today are a fraction of what they were a century ago, when supply was more local.
ReplyDeleteI think that you should grow food, Ex.) grown close to where you live is not only more nutritious and better tasting, but also less burdensome to the environment than mass produced food shipped from distant agricultural complexes. Ex.) The growing passion in this movement has fueled a fivefold increase in the number of farmers markets since 1994. Ex.) Growing food close at hand greatly reduces the greenhouse gases produced by transport, making agriculture “greener.”
ReplyDeleteSupermarkets are the way to go because in winter less people get sick and you can’t grow food in the winter time. Ex.) Processing and packaging, and transport, he computes that 10 calories of fossil fuel go into creating a single calorie of modern supermarket food, some 23 times more than it took to create a food calorie in 1940.
i feel that its a good idea to try and save fuel by buying food from near by like local farmers market. Im not going to go all liberal on you but i'm not going to stand by either and say its not worth a damn. we do need to try and start to buy food grown right here in wisconsin, not buying things grown in alaska then shipped to china then back over to california. quote from (The Limits of Locavorism) ¨ we should reduce the food miles that separate production from consumption why should alaskan salmon be shipped from alaska to china to be filleting, then back across the pacific ocean to be sold and eaten?
ReplyDeleteIf the food is products local is good for our market because farmer get more money to buy local goods. Then if the food is made somewhere else we could pay higher for it. The people have a better bet importing it because if we have a bad season it could be bad if we are independent.
ReplyDelete