Locavores and 100 Mile Dieters
Sustainable, organic, local, ethical food movement
Eating locally is gaining converts and making me crazy. Why do we take a good idea and push it to illogical extremes? Eat only from a 100 mile radius? Seriously?
No one would question my enthusiasm for local, seasonal food, like heirloom tomatoes. Buying from your local foodshed makes sense on so many levels: economic, environmental; and, if you like, political. Mostly, it just plain tastes better. It's also healthier for us and for our environment. But some folks want me to give up anything not grown within a 100 mile radius of where I live.
Que loco! I'm going to have another sip of my Ethiopian coffee and then dash off a note to the President. And by President I mean the one I respect: my brother. He claims to be the Pres. of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals.) I'm just a member. But here's the thing: we should "eat local"; we just shouldn't get loco about it. (Note to my editor and other astute readers: I am aware that "local" is not a noun.)
Omnivores Versus Herbivores
Putting the specific meat/non-meat debate aside for the moment, the
100 Mile Diet advocates and Locavores (and Localvores springing up like so many mushrooms after a rain)have begun initiatives focusing people on the overall impact of their food choices. Many of these groups call for a one-year commitment (or longer) to the 100 mile radius limit. No food is allowed from beyond 100 miles from where you live. (A compelling argument for a vacation home in France, if you ask me.) For a review of the original 100 mile dieters' book click here.
Limits of the Radius Argument
The "Locavores" were conceived in San Francisco, CA. They describe themselves as "a group of concerned culinary adventurers... making an effort to eat only foods grown or harvested within a 100 mile radius of San Francisco..." If we all lived in San Francisco, well, it would be a very crowded place. But seriously, if we did, we would have a much more varied diet, all the year-round. Imagine: Dungeness crab, great wines, beautiful produce. I'd like to ask the "wise food ways women" and the 100 milers to contemplate the plight of their neighbors up North - like the woman in Alaska who comments that she "gets no fruit in 100 miles but strawberries and for protein: only salmon, if they're running, if one has a car to get to the fishing spot.
How about snow-bound Northeasterners in January? Know what grows around here in January? Icicles. I don't see myself learning how to preserve the bounty of summer Farmer's Markets for the winter, either. A better person might. A person with more time on her hands might. A person with more room to store canning equipment and preserved vegetables might. But not me. No interest, no time, no space.
Sustainable agriculture and organic farming are two common themes discussed in these forums. Supporting the local and organic farmers, eating seasonal food, reconnecting with our food sources; thoughtfulness about all this is a good thing.
Recent entrants into the dialogue include the writers at Ethicurean.com. They've cleverly borrowed from another political movement coining the term: S/O/L/E.(Stands for: Sustainable, Organic, Local, Ethical.)Clever, I'll grant you, and their site seems intelligent and balanced. Yet some of those at the forefront of this movement would have us eliminate any and all foods not harvested ethically (their definition not yours or mine, in case you were in doubt). Others advocate for even more stringent ethical requirements. I am not going to forego an omelet because it could've been a chicken. (See, I didn't even mention foie. Oops.)
My dinner, plus or minus a few thousand miles
If I were to stick to a locavore's plan, I could not eat, for example, that lovely French goat cheese I ate on a Carr's cracker. Couldn't have made those pillowy gnocchi (no wheat here in Boston.)
The veal dish would have been different, assuming I found a local veal producer. Using the definition of "ethical" as applied to food harvesting by the other PETA, I probably wouldn't have had veal, even local veal. Don't know if anyone's making capers in my area, and then there's the issue of the wine and the lemon juice.
But this is interesting thread - let's deconstruct my dinner - removing items from outside my 100-mile limit:
- Gnocchi would have been just potatoes. (No wheat = no flour = no pasta or gnocchi)
- The herb/broth/shallot/pancetta/parmigiano-reggiano/romano sauce would have been herbs/shallot/broth. (No Fleur de Sel; No Telicherry pepper.)
- Veal (if allowed) - no capers; no wine; no flour; no lemon juice. (No Fleur de Sel; No Telicherry pepper.)
So we're left with plain veal (maybe) and pretty plain potatoes. Hmmm. Not quite as interesting. Let's assume I can find local wine that doesn't taste like something kids drank in high school. And, if we also assume we can find some locally produced cheese that approximates those fabulous Italian cheeses, we're getting even better.
But let's get serious: I'm half-Japanese. I live across the street from some of the best Chinese food anywhere. Live a year without noodles or rice? Without Dim Sum? Without Indian or Thai food? No way, no how.
For the record
I applaud the effort to get folks back to good, local food. We could all eat much better quality meals, have less of a negative impact on the environment. We could support local farms if we brought even a little of the 100 mile diet or Locavore consciousness to our daily food choices. That would be a good thing, indeed.
I've even seen a large hotel property making the effort. the Westin Providence features sustainable agriculture on its in-room dining menu.
