Zaroc Stone
2008-08-07 21:35:03 UTC
Why the Hype About Local Food May Be More than Just a Trend
By David Bollier, OnTheCommons.org. Posted August 4, 2008.
It is tempting to dismiss locally grown food as just another elite fashion,
but its merits may mean it will be a long-term phenomenon.
Now that the New York Times has splashed it on the front page (July 22),
consider it an official trend: locally grown food is all the rage. It is
being avidly sought out by Manhattan's Upper East Side, the glam crowd in
the Hamptons, the merely affluent of Mill Valley, California, and even by
the rest of us who live in less celebrated locations with few boldfaced
residents.
It is tempting to dismiss locally grown food as just another elite fashion,
as many people surely will. But it is also true that wealthy households are
often the first to validate broader market trends.
Consider it another chapter in the ongoing dance between the commons and the
market. The commons lovingly advances a new ideal -- in this case, the
ecological virtues, social satisfactions and great taste of locally grown
food. And then, after years of hippies, homesteaders and eco-evangelists
beating the drum for this new ideal below the radar screen of mainstream
culture, entrepreneurs suddenly get hip to what's going on and swoop in to
make money from a grassroots trend.
Some things never change. We are at that special inflection point in the
evolution of social attitudes that are mysteriously propelling the rise of a
new market niche. Its customers, the aficionados of local food, even have a
name -- "locavores." There are also novel sorts of new businesses.
As the Times reports, Trevor Paque has made a business in San Francisco
planting vegetable gardens for affluent suburbanites who want to eat
garden-grown food, but who don't like to garden. So Trevor does the
planting, weeding and harvesting. A company called FruitGuys will deliver
boxes of locally grown, sustainably raised or organic fruit to people in San
Francisco and Philadelphia.
Soon mega-millionaires like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh will rail
against the trendiness of local food. That's their schtick, after all -- to
invent elite foils for themselves so that they can cast themselves as Main
Street populists. Real Republicans only eat red meat and potatoes, it would
seem.
This is just a shell game in the culture wars, however. I am convinced that
local food is going to become a steady, long-term growth market. For its
taste, cost and eco-friendliness, local food has already become a symbol of
social virtue. People are starting to realize that it is not so good for the
planet to haul meat from New Zealand, wheat from South Dakota and fruit from
Caifornia. Social demand and sheer economics are starting to buoy local
growers, and supermarkets are looking for new ways to call attention to
their local produce. The trend lines are clear.
The spending of local money for local produce is surely a virtuous cycle for
local economies. It is also likely to promote greater personal connections
among people locally, stronger commitments to one's local community, and a
more stable and diverse local economy.
Two days after filing the local foods article, Kim Severson, the same Times
reporter who wrote about the elite embrace of local foods, had another piece
about the upcoming an upcoming festival called Slow Food Nation. The event,
to be held in downtown San Francisco over Labor Day weekend, will feature
pavilions devoted to foods like pickles, coffee and salami. A quarter-acre
patch of the lawn in front of City Hall has been ripped up to grow a garden.
Slow Food Nation is an ambitious attempt by Slow Food USA, the American
spinoff of the Italy-born Slow Food movement, to establish itself as a
recognized political and cultural force. Organizers hope the festival will
be, in the words of Severson, "the Woodstock of food, a profound event where
a broad band of people will see that delicious, sustainably produced food
can be a prism for social, ecological and political change."
I am sure that certain elements of the Slow Food world will behave like
effete connoisseurs and fawn over the local argula and goat cheese. But
really, is that so bad? Why shouldn't people start to express their
affection and appreciation for local food? If cultural snobs and the wealthy
can embrace a populist trend without coopting it -- validating it with their
presence and boosting it with their dollars -- I say, bring 'em on. Let
everyone celebrate the taste of local food -- and then move on to the
political and economic realities that sustain it.
If local food is going to be a victim of identity politics, let it be a
politics of localism: "We all live here together, so let's find the way to
support the farmers who are our neighbors."
See more stories tagged with: locavores, local food
David Bollier is co-editor of OnTheCommons.org.
By David Bollier, OnTheCommons.org. Posted August 4, 2008.
It is tempting to dismiss locally grown food as just another elite fashion,
but its merits may mean it will be a long-term phenomenon.
Now that the New York Times has splashed it on the front page (July 22),
consider it an official trend: locally grown food is all the rage. It is
being avidly sought out by Manhattan's Upper East Side, the glam crowd in
the Hamptons, the merely affluent of Mill Valley, California, and even by
the rest of us who live in less celebrated locations with few boldfaced
residents.
It is tempting to dismiss locally grown food as just another elite fashion,
as many people surely will. But it is also true that wealthy households are
often the first to validate broader market trends.
Consider it another chapter in the ongoing dance between the commons and the
market. The commons lovingly advances a new ideal -- in this case, the
ecological virtues, social satisfactions and great taste of locally grown
food. And then, after years of hippies, homesteaders and eco-evangelists
beating the drum for this new ideal below the radar screen of mainstream
culture, entrepreneurs suddenly get hip to what's going on and swoop in to
make money from a grassroots trend.
Some things never change. We are at that special inflection point in the
evolution of social attitudes that are mysteriously propelling the rise of a
new market niche. Its customers, the aficionados of local food, even have a
name -- "locavores." There are also novel sorts of new businesses.
As the Times reports, Trevor Paque has made a business in San Francisco
planting vegetable gardens for affluent suburbanites who want to eat
garden-grown food, but who don't like to garden. So Trevor does the
planting, weeding and harvesting. A company called FruitGuys will deliver
boxes of locally grown, sustainably raised or organic fruit to people in San
Francisco and Philadelphia.
Soon mega-millionaires like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh will rail
against the trendiness of local food. That's their schtick, after all -- to
invent elite foils for themselves so that they can cast themselves as Main
Street populists. Real Republicans only eat red meat and potatoes, it would
seem.
This is just a shell game in the culture wars, however. I am convinced that
local food is going to become a steady, long-term growth market. For its
taste, cost and eco-friendliness, local food has already become a symbol of
social virtue. People are starting to realize that it is not so good for the
planet to haul meat from New Zealand, wheat from South Dakota and fruit from
Caifornia. Social demand and sheer economics are starting to buoy local
growers, and supermarkets are looking for new ways to call attention to
their local produce. The trend lines are clear.
The spending of local money for local produce is surely a virtuous cycle for
local economies. It is also likely to promote greater personal connections
among people locally, stronger commitments to one's local community, and a
more stable and diverse local economy.
Two days after filing the local foods article, Kim Severson, the same Times
reporter who wrote about the elite embrace of local foods, had another piece
about the upcoming an upcoming festival called Slow Food Nation. The event,
to be held in downtown San Francisco over Labor Day weekend, will feature
pavilions devoted to foods like pickles, coffee and salami. A quarter-acre
patch of the lawn in front of City Hall has been ripped up to grow a garden.
Slow Food Nation is an ambitious attempt by Slow Food USA, the American
spinoff of the Italy-born Slow Food movement, to establish itself as a
recognized political and cultural force. Organizers hope the festival will
be, in the words of Severson, "the Woodstock of food, a profound event where
a broad band of people will see that delicious, sustainably produced food
can be a prism for social, ecological and political change."
I am sure that certain elements of the Slow Food world will behave like
effete connoisseurs and fawn over the local argula and goat cheese. But
really, is that so bad? Why shouldn't people start to express their
affection and appreciation for local food? If cultural snobs and the wealthy
can embrace a populist trend without coopting it -- validating it with their
presence and boosting it with their dollars -- I say, bring 'em on. Let
everyone celebrate the taste of local food -- and then move on to the
political and economic realities that sustain it.
If local food is going to be a victim of identity politics, let it be a
politics of localism: "We all live here together, so let's find the way to
support the farmers who are our neighbors."
See more stories tagged with: locavores, local food
David Bollier is co-editor of OnTheCommons.org.