The locavore movement is a movement where people have decided to eat locally grown or provided products in order to improve one’s nutrition and sustainability. However, This movement would not be ideal for the modern generation, due to the other sources of nutrition which are easily accessible. Although the locavore provides many nutritional benefits due to the belief that food which has been travelled less is considered healthier it is clear that the locavore movement is a difficult practice due to the other resources which are available and its geographical challenges which creates inconveniences to the average citizen.
The locavore movement proves to be a difficult concept to adapt to since there are other resources to purchase healthy and organic foods demonstrating how it is less practical for a consumer to adapt to this movement. A common misconception is that the food which has been harvested until it has reached peak ripeness is more beneficial than foods which are readily available in the market. Alisa Smith an author who has written novels based on this subject addresses this common misconception by stating “That doesn’t mean it is necessary to eat locally in order to be healthy….
In fact, a person making smart choice from the global megamart can easily meet all the body’s needs. ” (Source B). This revelation proves that healthy food does not have to be locally grown. It is based on the decisions that one makes which impacts whether one is receiving the nutrition which is necessary. This idea that the decision one makes affects one’s nutrition further proves that the locavore movement is an impractical change for the consumer.
This idea is also represented through a dialogue in source G which accurately represents the state of today’s times, where it is time efficient to purchase healthy foods from locations nearby than actual rural areas (Source G). The locavore movement is a movement which promotes healthy eating and lifestyle; however, this lifestyle can be easily adapted and is more practical for a citizen to purchase organic foods which also provides the same nutritional benefits. Overall, the locavore movement proves to be a difficult practice due to the other resources that are available for the consumer to purchase healthy products from.
The locavore movement is inconvenient due to the selective geographical locations as well as the loose interpretation of what the term “local” is referencing which create confusion to the citizen. As it has been established previously the term “local” refers to the areas which provides healthy, organic, and locally grown food. However, this is very challenging for those who live in urban areas to travel long distances in order to receive organic and healthy food which can be purchased from another location which is nearby.
Paul Roberts an author who is knowledgeable on the subject of the food industry explains “80 percent of us live in large, densely populated urban areas,.. ” ( Source F). This statistic explains how the majority of the population lives in city areas which would have to travel long distances in order to purchase locally grown food. Moreover, the movement claims it wants to be local, yet “there are dozens of definitions as to what local is… with a radii of 100, or 150, or 500 miles) (source F).
This loose interpretation of what “local” is referring to can cause many citizens and consumers to believe that food which is available in the supermarkets which are closer to their residence is “local”, so by not completely defining the term local it creates uncertainty to the consumer of what “local” is referring to. Another issue arises is that if locavores are producing on land that is local yet it is not truly made for agricultural purposes, then that is more dangerous due to the fact, as source D confirms, the largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions are created by the production of foods not in the transportation.
For example, the graph shows a variety of foods and the amount of time it spends in transportation, production, and wholesale/retail. Many foods such as red meat and dairy products spend more time in production than in transportation and wholesale/retail, which further shows how more gas emissions are being released and is causing more harm to the environment. Therefore, local may not actually be better for the earth, in fact, it can ultimately create more harm than good. The research and studies conclude that since their is no clear definition of what “local” is referring to it creates confusion to the consumer.
As well as the fact that the locavore movement creates many geographical and environmental challenges which further proves that the locavore movement has issues which adversely impacts the community. The locavore movement is significant due to the belief that food that has been transported less miles is more healthier and more nutritious; however, this belief has been proven incorrect due to the studies and research done which proves that transportation does not cause a major effect on the nutritional value of food.
The locavore movement has been receiving a lot of popularity due to its healthy eating and healthy lifestyle benefits, but these benefits are still causing a lot of major issues to the consumer. For example, Jennifer Maiser a blogger explains all of the benefits that the locavore movement provides, such as “… eating local is better for air quality and pollution than eating organic… ” (Source A). All of these benefits which are mentioned have proven to have difficult challenges. James McWilliams an author for a business magazine explains how “a 2006 study… iscovered that it made more environmental sense for a Londoner to buy lamb shipped from New Zealand than to buy lamb raised in the UK. ” (Source C). This explains how it is more beneficial to purchase food or in this example lamb from New Zealand which would have more transportation, than purchasing food from London which requires less transportation.
This is due to the fact that the lamb in New Zealand is “raised on pastures with a small carbon footprint” which proves to be more healthier and beneficial to the er even though it requires more transportation. This idea that nutritious food is only received through food that has gone through less transportation has been proven to be false. due to the research and studies that have been done. These resources prove that food that has been transported provides the same nutritional value and therefore demonstrates that the locavore movement is not a movement that provides any additional value to the food and nutrition which is available in today’s time.
The locavore movement proves to be inconvenient to the consumer due to the difficulty for a consumer to adapt to this movement and the geographical and environmental challenges which conveys how the locavore movement is difficult to adapt to. The locavore movement fundamentally argues that it provides healthy food that is locally grown and has gone through less transportation. However, through research and studies it is evident that it is time consuming for the consumer to travel to rural areas when there are other resources that provide the same health benefits.
It is also impractical for a consumer to purchase locally grown food since there are other places that provide the same health benefits. The locavore movement also argues how food that has transported less is more healthy, but through research it is clear that this is not the case, because food that has been transported still provides the same necessary nutrition. Overall, it is evident that the locavore movement is difficult to adapt to due to the geographical and environmental challenges it provides and the inconvenience that the consumer has to go through.