The Locavore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet is a critique of In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto by Michael Pollan and other works praising the so-called 100-mile diet. If locavores blindly believe that local is always better and food should never be procured from outside the arbitrary 100-mile limit, then I would agree wholeheartedly with the authors that locavores are deluded and will either starve or endure a very boring diet during the winter. But perhaps locavores are trying to say something a little different, such as it’s much better to eat an apricot in June in California than a pear transported there from New Zealand. I love New Zealand, I have nothing against New Zealand, and I appreciate its ability to shipping fruit to countries who don’t grow enough. My point is simply that the local apricot, in this case, tastes better than the pear, tastes heavenly indeed, if picked ripe, and it’s cheap to boot.
But apparently the authors have decided to fight the hard-core locavores and adopt a strident tone to insist that big supply chains are always better because they would not exist otherwise (hhmm… big banks always better because they would not exist otherwise? but I digress) and because they can be more easily regulated (stop thinking about banks, you in the back of the room!) So although they make the eminently sensible point that local, organic diets would mean starvation diets for many people around the world, their arguments are weakened by their overly combative tone and aggressive demeanor.