Paper or Plastic, Local or Big Ag

     Is local food the new paper versus plastic bag argument? Local food is great in theory- you support small business owners, you support what you think is a "just" operation, and you think you're supporting a more environmentally stable version of agriculture. But, much like the grocery bag argument, there are unforeseen variables. Paper bags are biodegradable; but plastic bags are lighter and often more durable thus making them easier to transport and, supposedly, less fossil fuel intensive. This is an issue I've come across a lot as an Environmental Studies major- the dichotomy between what we think is morally righteous and the realistic truth of the matter. We like to talk about reducing consumption and shopping smartly, but in the end most of us still use straws once and awhile and have full trash cans hidden in the corners of our kitchens. While I avoid meat partially for environmental reasons I still wonder if the highly processed fake 'chikken' I buy, made from soy and miscellaneous chemicals, is much better at all. Like Branden Born and Mark Purcell point out, our fixation on conscious consumption through local food seems to confuse the ends with the means and the goals with the strategies. If the end result that we strive for is ecological sustainability, social justice, democracy, nutrition, food security, freshness, and quality, do we need to fight for local?

     Like the concepts of "Fair Trade"or "Cruelty Free," we feel good about our locally grown purchases. Scanning the aisles of Whole Foods, we pat ourselves on the back when we grab that local hummus. In fact, I was even annoyed to have my bubble burst when I started to read that my efforts to make it out to farmers markets might not even be that beneficial for anyone but my ego.  Laura B. DeLind makes the point that there are numerous alliances of local foodies- from survivalists, environmentalists, artisans, to the labor unions, the healthy, and even the unhealthy. However, this is a movement driven by the idea that an individual thinks their local hummus can change the deeply ingrained issues with our agricultural system.

     As DeLind points out, this can effectively cause people to take a back seat to real social change. By thinking your hummus is saving the world, you are displacing the responsibility of standing up and making a wave of change. It also pushes that by consciously consuming, you are somehow a better consumer. You're still consuming for me, the individual, rather than looking at the collective of we. The fixation on the individual consumer rather than the community makes one question what the intention of the movement is at all. Perhaps this is when Marcia Campbell's point about identifying major stakeholders comes into play for progressive environmental and public policy change.  However, I would argue that it is not within the consumer's control to create collective public action towards a better food system. There can be key players in creating change, but in the end the decision materializes as the monetary exchange between their wallet and their business of choice. When people ask what difference it would make for one person to stop eating meat, you have to tell them that every dollar you spend on something is a vote of approval. It's the concept that an ocean is made up of droplets or a desert is made up of tiny particles of sand. I understand the arguments DeLind makes, but I think collective action by consumers has made our food industry evolve in the past- if producers can see what the people are really looking for through "local food," hopefully they strive to embody those views rather than greenwashing their products.