Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cons of locavorism
Locavore a myth
Locavore advantages and disadvantages
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cons of locavorism
McWilliams claims that buying locally grown food is not actually better for the planet and states his claim in the title of the essay; “The Locavore Myth: Why Buying from Nearby Farmers Won’t Save the Planet”. Although McWilliams presents the opposing viewpoint first, he should also state his main claim in the first paragraph so the reader will understand what the author’s position is, even if the reader did not read the title. Jumping directly into his grounds for the claim without stating the claim may leave the reader confused.
2. McWilliams supports his claim that buying locally grown food is not necessarily better through a main example of a 2006 study that found lamb transported from New Zealand to England had less of an environmental
…show more content…
McWilliams does provide examples and statistics, as well as a calculation demonstrating the importance of considering food per gallon of fuel instead of how many miles traveled. McWilliams provides a wide variety of reasons in favor of his position, although some do not relate directly to the topic on environmentally friendly food. For example, he uses an emotional appeal of asking us to consider the livelihoods of 1.5 million sub-Saharan farmers who are threatened by the modern locavore movement. For all his statistics, many of them, including the previously mentioned farmers, are not cited and the reader does not know if the information is accurate. To provide adequate backing, he needs to cite his sources and offer more of them, especially more directly related to his claim that locally grown food is not necessarily better for the planet.
5. Most of McWilliams’ writing uses modal qualifiers, for example describing “a lot of them”, “most English lamb,” “most of their leftovers,” “ethically concerned consumers,” “a majority of the water,” and “The average American”. McWilliams could have effectively used modal qualifiers when he discusses the locavores, such as when he says “Locavores argue that buying local food supports an area’s farmers and, in turn, strengthens the community”. Not all locavores may be arguing this-some might simply buy locally because they prefer the way local food
Niman, Nicolette H. "The Carnivore's Dilemma." Food. Ed. Brooke Rollins and Lee Bauknight. 1st ed. Southlake, TX: Fountainhead, 2010. 169-73. Print.
James E. Mcwilliams stated his aversion to the locavore movement in his essay “The Locavore Myth: Why Buying from Nearby Farmers Won’t Save the Planet”. The locavore movement is the concept of buying produce, meat, and other farm-grown food locally as opposed to having your vegetables or fruits shipped from across the world. This notion believes going local reduces harm to the environment by decreasing the miles food needs to travel before landing on your plate. From the title of his essay itself, the claim would seem obvious. The locavore movement does not essentially help save the environment through lessened food mileage. Don’t be easily swayed, in short. Mcwilliams presented several grounds and data for his justification on this issue.
First, the local sustainable food chain is healthy for people. In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma as people stand around to buy chicken from Polyface, Pollan records some of the customers’ quotes. In the book it says, “ You’re not going to find fresher chickens anywhere. (Pollan, 184). ” This quote shows
Reason 1: the locally grown produce’s nutritional value is overall better than unfamiliar produce shipped from foreign countries
In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan challenges his readers to examine their food and question themselves about the things they consume. Have we ever considered where our food comes from or stopped to think about the process that goes into the food that we purchase to eat every day? Do we know whether our meat and vegetables picked out were raised in our local farms or transported from another country? Michael pollen addresses the reality of what really goes beyond the food we intake and how our lives are affected. He does not just compel us to question the food we consume, but also the food our “food” consumes.
Michael Pollan and David Freedman are two reputable authors who have written about different types of food and why they are healthy or why they are damaging to our health. Michael Pollan wrote “Escape from the Western Diet” and David Freedman wrote “How Junk Food Can End Obesity”. Imagine Pollan’s idea of a perfect world. Everything is organic. McDonald’s is serving spinach smoothies and Walmart is supplying consumers with raw milk. The vast majority of food in this world consists of plants grown locally, because almost everyone is a farmer in order to keep up with supply and demand. How much does all this cost? What happened to all the food that is loved just because it tastes good?
What they do not realize is that not everyone can afford to buy the food they do. As I said earlier in the essay, they seem to be out of touch with everyday experiences. Freedman is urging the Pollanites to lower their food prices if their food really is better for people. This way everyone can become healthier.
Throughout the essay, Berry logically progresses from stating the problem of the consumer’s ignorance and the manipulative food industry that plays into that ignorance, to stating his solution where consumers can take part in the agricultural process and alter how they think about eating in order to take pleasure in it. He effectively uses appeals to emotion and common values to convince the reader that this is an important issue and make her realize that she needs to wake up and change what she is doing. By using appeals to pathos, logos, and ethos, Berry creates a strong argument to make his point and get people to change how they attain and eat food.
Whether it is growing their own garden or going to a nearby farmerś market, eating and buying locally is superior for the consumer and the environment. When food is naturally grown, it is better for the environment."Almost everything the farm uses is grown on the farm. Almost all of the energy used to make the food comes from the sun. there are no pesticides, no artificial fertilizer, no pollution, and no extra waste. Everything is recycled" (Pollan 148/150). On Joel Salatin's farm, a local farm in Swoope, Virginia, they doesn't use as many chemicals, fertilizers, or pesticides as a standard industrial food systems. They mostly use natural fertilizers. For example, Joel has a rotation; every day, he moves his cows and chickens to a new pasture (Pollan 147-148). This way, the soil will be more fertile, and it will be in better, not worse, shape. "...My snack could have traveled 8,000 miles to get to my mouth... it takes a lot of energy for food to travel so far" (Vogel 6). For an Industrial food product to travel about 8,000 miles with pesticides and chemicals in it, it makes the pollution in the air worse. The more energy that we use, and the more pollution we create, the worse our future will be because trucks carrying meat and fruit from other cities and countries are worsening our environment by polluting it.Michael Pollan interviewed a few people that shop at Joel Salatin’s farm and one lady said “I drive 150 miles one way in order to
The ideology of fresher and more local food has been spreading like wildfire acrossing many countries, including the United States. This movement brings many beneficial factors to the table. The locavore movement supports small farms and it allows customer to be in touch with where their food comes from; therefore, the movement provides a better and healthier local economy for the community.
According to Wendell Berry, there are two types of eaters. They can be distinguished as ‘Responsible eaters’ and ‘passive consumers’. Berry goes on to elaborate who passive consumers are and criticizes them of not being aware of how the food economy works. Passive consumers recognize what they want, and pay without thinking about critical questions such as the quality of the food, where it comes from, how much did manufacturing or packaging or advertising add to the cost or simply, the nutritional value of the food.
How many local markets do you know of in your community? Where is the first place you think of when someone says grocery shopping? The implications of the locavore movement have negligible effects on the environment,minimum economic benefits,and does nothing truly impactful nutrition-wise.
Our current system of corporate-dominated, industrial-style farming might not resemble the old-fashioned farms of yore, but the modern method of raising food has been a surprisingly long time in the making. That's one of the astonishing revelations found in Christopher D. Cook's "Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis" (2004, 2006, The New Press), which explores in great detail the often unappealing, yet largely unseen, underbelly of today's food production and processing machine. While some of the material will be familiar to those who've read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or Eric Schlosser's "Fast-Food Nation," Cook's work provides many new insights for anyone who's concerned about how and what we eat,
Mr. Clark’s presentation was split up into two different sections. The first section focused on different types of food (grains, fish, meat, etc.) and used life cycle assessments to see each type’s environmental impact. His research found that meat (mostly beef) had the highest acidification potential, eutrophication potential, land use, and greenhouse gas emission. With these results, Mike showed that consuming grains and plant based food has a lower environmental impact. The second section looked at the different types of food production (i.e.: organic vs. nonorganic) and their environmental impact. Mike compared organic vs. nonorganic, extensive vs. nonextensive beef, and trawling vs. nontrawling fisheries. In organic vs. nonorganic, he found that organic requires more land and has higher acidification and eutrophication potential. Extensive beef
Roberts, Paul. "Spoiled: Organic and Local Is So 2008." Mother Jones 1 (2009). https://blackboard.syr.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-3188122-dt-content-rid-8212178_1/courses/33750.1142/Spoiled.pdf (accessed March 25, 2014).