Locavorism Isn't Inherently Elitist, But Many Are Excluded
Locavores are frequently accused of harboring an elitist mentality about food, with local food most recently accused of being "anything but liberatory for those traditionally marginalized." And that's not the worst of it as James McWilliams explains in a guest-post on the Freakonomics blog. He contends that "Localization ... specifies what is and is not acceptable within an arbitrary boundary. In this sense, it delimits diversity." So are those in favor of local food in fact alienating themselves from their community by creating a level of exclusivity not attainable by so many?
To the extent that local food is currently not widely available as it could be: yes. But as the blog explains, this can change. And the sustainable food movement is young! The solution, of course, is not to stop producing local or supporting local food. The solution is to consider who's being excluded by our tight embrace of sustainable food.
Samuel Fromartz doesn't have so much time for McWilliams, arguing back with statistics: "the median income of an organic shopper was right around the national median," further explaining that the problem may be that local food markets simply aren't sufficiently available. Both Fromartz and McWilliams offer compelling arguments that it's worth considering, rather than stumbling into supermarkets or farmers markets' and blindly assuming either is best. We must consider who's being left out, and how we can do better to give good food to more people, not just to ourselves.
COMMENTS (1)