On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

• Blog front page
• Add this blog to your RSS reader

I get a lecture every time I walk into my neighborhood Whole Foods store. “Be loyal, buy local,” declares a sign near the front door, all but wagging a finger in my face.

At a Wild Oats store recently, my cashier was wearing a T-shirt sporting the image of a Colorado license plate emblazoned with the single word, “Local.”

At least once a week when reading the news, I’ll skim another feature story on the surge of interest in “locally grown” food. “The closer you are to the place where your food is grown,” one expert was quoted as saying, “the better you feel about it.”

Even the books that land on my desk reflect this newfound mania to stick near home for food. Plenty: One Man, One Woman and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally is a particularly earnest example of this trend, written by a couple from Vancouver.

You might wonder what could possibly be “raucous” about eating food for one year produced solely within 100 miles of your home, but you’ll just have to take the word of Alisa Smith and J.B. MacKinnon for it.

(By the way, Whole Foods’ definition of locally grown is a lot more generous: “only produce that has traveled no more than . . . seven hours from the farm to our facility .. . ”)

Now, I’ve got nothing against locally grown. When I was a kid, my family grew a large share of the vegetables we consumed, from corn, peas, beans and lettuce to squash and tomatoes (in the latter case, canned in scores of jars and stored in the basement) — not to mention strawberries, blueberries and red and black raspberries. I love to visit farmers’ markets to this day, and make a point of buying Rocky Ford cantaloupe and Colorado peaches when I spot them in the grocer’s bin.

So why have I, with my appreciation for fresh and local, just about had it with the “buy local” mantra? Let me count the reasons.

- Some of the sentiment mirrors a darker, broader movement: the growing and mostly wrongheaded backlash against globalization — the belief that Americans would somehow be better off if we could just produce everything we own, from TVs and autos to every grape, tomato and orange as well. This is bad economics and a misreading of the reasons for American prosperity.

- Other localists fret about the amount of fossil fuels used to transport food long distances. But why is it more “wasteful” to ship food from other states and nations than, say, appliances or clothes? Does the local movement propose to return to a community-based economy in all fields of consumption, or just in farm products? And if only in the latter, why?

- Still other critics worry about the safety of food from large, “factory” farms, or argue that such farming is not “sustainable.” But the safety issue is hard to get too excited about given how rare outbreaks of disease, such as last fall’s spinach scare, occur. And sustainability is far more complicated than most critics admit. High-yield agriculture that exploits economies of scale also reduces the acreage needed to feed the world — which is a good thing ecologically, too.

So by all means, buy local when you feel like it. But don’t feel guilty when you don’t, or can’t. Indeed, revel in the fact that we can purchase so many fruits all year round from so many exotic locales — and that our stores are stocked with a more interesting variety of food than at any time in our lives.

Or in history, come to think of it.

Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv @RockyMountainNews.com.

READER COMMENTS

1. Local, fresh food taste better.
2. I like that MY money--which I choose to spend--goes to folks who live near me, who put that money back into the economy near me. When I eat locally, I help to feed my neighbors too.
3.Reducing the consumption of fossil fuels does not have to be a zero-sum project: to whit-Mr. Carroll's assertion that if folks are adamant about buying local food to reduce fuel consumption, why not buy 'everything'? is the most absurd statement I think I have ever heard him make...and that is saying an awful hell of a lot given the ridiculous things he writes in this column three times a week. It all helps--conservation that is, we reduce a little here, we reduce a little there, and soon there is less consumption all over the place.

Mr. Carroll,

Who says that people aren't upset at the waste created when appliances or clothing is shipped here from other states?

My question to you is -- what is the alternative to buying those items from out-of-state? There is none.

Also, your point about factory farms being able to reduce the amount of land needed to feed the world begs another question: Why is less farm land a good thing for the world? What other use of land is better than farming?

Perhaps you'd like to see more parking lots, apartments and shopping malls in eastern Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa? Why?

As fossil fuels continue to increase in price, people need to "shrink their world" and live closer to where they work. Similarly, they should buy more items that are produced locally, instead of creating a greater demand for cross-country transportation of goods.

It just makes good economic and environmental sense. There is no "isolationist" mentality behind it.

I totally agree with Carroll. I feel much better not knowing where the products in my local market are sourced. "Don't worry" about where the stuff you buy comes from. Is this guy for real? This is the type of naive recommendation that produces the backlash against globalization. Not all products are created equal -- as is clear in the headlines today. Every exotic source does not have the same quality controls or standards. If I follow Carroll's advice, I should not be concerned about whether the doll in my kid's mouth is safe or whether my dog is going to die of renal failure after I feed it tomorrow. The market will certainly adjust to accommodate -- after a few deaths.

It may not make economic sense to produce things locally, but it is ridiculous to recommend that people "not feel guilty" or worry about where the products they buy come from or the impact they have on local economies and environments. Carroll is defending the naive view that produced the backlash about globalization. "Trust us" is certainly a signal for concern.

Sound advice. Buy whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

"Revel in the fact" that you can have whatever you want whenever you want. And by all means, don't worry about any of the consequences.

Local bananas? Local lobster? Local coconuts? Local salmon? Local rice? Local shrimp? Local tuna fish?

Excuse me my local granola munching, all -natural, bean-sprout munching, range-fed, no MSG, chicken eating, no artificial coloring, tatooed, nose-ringed, spikey green haired, Birkenstock wearing, veggins, but this is America. And, as an American, I demand the highest quality food at the lowest possible price--and I don't care if comes from foreign country like San Francisco.

So you "global warming" socialists and communists can all go choke on your broccoli bars and carbon credits at the DNC HQs in Havana.

The act of having an attitude of conservation begins at home. Being smart about the things you can control; where you purchase your groceries, where the food comes from, clothing, etc is the first step in a process. If everyone were a little smarter about where they buy things, unnecessary fuel they use, and what chemicals are in their shampoo, laundry detergent etc, maybe we wouldn't be commenting on what a cool summer it was here in Texas and how warm it was in Antarctica. Plus, have you ever tried a freshly picked strawberry. A world of difference compared to the quick ripened ones that just came of the MAC truck.

Buying locally grown food is one of the few things I can do this time of year that makes a difference, not just to carbon footprints but to Colorado farmers, and besides, the food tastes better beiong fresher, rather than traveling in refrigerated train or truck trailers. now I can't buy locally manufactured jeans, computers, cell phones, or cars anymore, but every little bit I work on, be it buying peaches from Paonia, or Corn from Platteville, or bison from south park, (yeah some of us birkenstock wearing, hippie socialists eat red meat and know how to spell vegan correctly) helps a small farmer, lessons the terrorist threat from not having available food grown nearby, and offers my family healthier choices.

One has to wonder what Mr Carroll was doing in a whole Foods or Wild Oats, when he could hve been getting the "same" food at Walmart, albeit not of the same quality or care.

I personally think the idea to by our food locally is a smart one, but not just from an environmental standpoint. I also consider it a national security issue. During WWII, many Americans planted Victory Gardens to supply their own food locally, freeing up food supplies elsewhere for use in the war effort and reducing America's use of fuel. It made sense back then and worked very well. I feel we should be considering it again as global tensions rise and energy costs are nearly growing out of control.

Diversifying the sources of our food addresses not only these issues, but also alleviates the potential impact of climate change upon our food source. At the moment, all it would take to triple our food costs is for a major drought, hurricane, or flood to hit key areas of our country and world.

This is what some call a wicked issue. It is affected by so many things that it is hard to nail down a solid solution. All we can do is our best to plan for the potentials, then pray they never surface.

POST A COMMENT

• Carroll: Slippery holiday slope
• Carroll: Parental gall
• Carroll: Clearing the air
• Carroll: Blather about business
• Carroll: The 'Truthers' cult
• Carroll: Numbers game
• Carroll: Brownouts by design
• Carroll: Poor judgment