The Locavore's Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet

by Pierre Desrochers, Hiroko Shimizu

Today’s food activists think that "sustainable farming" and "eating local" are the way to solve a host of perceived problems with our modern food supply system. But after a thorough review of the evidence, Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu have concluded that these claims are mistaken. In The Locavore’s Dilemma they explain the history, science, and economics of food supply to reveal what locavores miss or misunderstand: the real environmental impacts of agricultural production; the drudgery of subsistence farming; and the essential role large-scale, industrial producers play in making food more available, varied, affordable, and nutritionally rich than ever before in history.
They show how eliminating agriculture subsidies and opening up international trade, not reducing food miles, is the real route to sustainability; and why eating globally, not only locally, is the way to save the planet.

Genres: Nonfiction, Food, Economics, Agriculture, Science, Nature, Health

288 pages, Hardcover

First published May 29, 2012

Reviews

[NAT.orious reads ☾ · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can imagine that this book will impress the gullible people that like to be hit with totalitarian "arguments" that are based on a view inhibited by blinkers. It's especially disappointing since it was written by a Canadian academic, who, as such, should definitely know better. I actually expected some well-rooted criticism with a healthy view on the topic of local consumption. If I didn't know better, I'd say a Trump-like Bayer/Monsanto minion paid the author to write this 300 pages waste of my time.

Some arguments are actually an insult to the reader's intelligence. Methods such as CSA, for instance, are not a good idea, because, among other things, what if the kids are suddenly out of the house and you have to throw away stuff? Or what if unexpected guests arrive and you have to buy more food than you actually got from the CSA.

This is ridiculous at so many levels because

a) buying at a chain supermarket that supports monoculture does not prevent you from miscalculating the needed amount of food. In fact, exactly these-over offering facilities encourage the customer to buy about 30% more than they actually need.
b) unexpected guests will not only arrive when they know you are on CSA supply and want to mess with you. Shocking, I know!
c) monoculture may be more productive in yield numbers, which is the only thing a market-driven neo-liberal economist is interested in, but they also destroy the environment as a whole. Not sure whether the authors ever actually busied themselves with studying soil or anything like that

[Andy · Rating 1 out of 5]

So why 1 star? Because I am sick and tired of people using "intellectual" as a bad word. The authors do this over and over throughout the book. This is dangerously stupid. Anti-intellectualism is the hallmark of totalitarianism, not enlightening discourse. Professors attacking intellectuals are dishonest or ignorant or both; in any case they lose credibility.

I'm OK with the author being somewhat biased; he's telling the "other side" of an issue, but his few good points are buried in drivel. Much of the book is devoted to making the case that an organic heirloom tomato bought at a local farmer's market is more expensive than a supermarket tomato. So what? Nobody is arguing the contrary.

More importantly, he ignores important issues that are inconvenient for his arguments. For example, with peasant agriculture in poor countries a big part of the picture is that globalization has replaced traditional farming methods like agroforestry that were very productive and naturally sustainable with Euro-American extensive production of cash crops that may make money for some big company but not for the peasants who now can't even feed themselves. There are obvious good aspects of globalization but sweeping away the bad parts makes the whole thing smell fishy.
Same thing with industrial agriculture methods in the US. Chicken/egg factories are concerning from a health perspective, not because the eggs might have fewer nutrients, but because the concentrated conditions require the massive use of antibiotics (which increases the risk of antibiotic resistance for people, and thus the development of "supergerms") and also promote the evolution of hypervirulent germs (like H5N1 etc. which have killed millions of chickens), and because the chemicals likely promote obesity, etc. "Everything is great; there are no problems" is not a serious argument.

[Dar · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've always had questions about the local food movement.

I've been trying to eat local for several years now. I changed my ways in two stages: first, I stopped eating most processed foods, and then I tried switching to more local alternatives. Sometimes it works fine. For example, I eat frozen berries in the winter, so I make a point of buying wild Nova Scotia blueberries instead of imported raspberries. To the extent I can afford it, I bake with honey or maple syrup instead of cane sugar.

I suppose my issue with locavorism is that my area’s fresh produce is so limited. We have a short growing season that can only accommodate plants hardy to zones 5-6. In the winter, I would be limited to stored root vegetables, frozen foods, and preserves. My ancestors survived on salt cod and salt pork! It’s all very well to be a locavore if you live in California. But even then, there are so many regional “absences:” my coastal area doesn't grow any grains, whereas on the Prairies, they wouldn't have any ocean fish.

I stumbled across a book called The Locavore’s Dilemma, which sounded like it would irritate me and challenge my assumptions! So I made a list of things I wondered about, and set to reading the book.

Some of my nagging thoughts were:

- If everyone ate local food, and all farmers grew food for only their local markets, what would they do with surpluses? They could no longer trade/export them outside the area because people elsewhere would be eating only local food, too.
- Would we adapt to eating only local, in-season food, and rely on preserved and dried local food for the rest of the year? Would this be as healthy as the year-round imported produce available now?
- How could food remain affordable in areas where the cost of land is high, soil quality is poor, or there isn't enough water? Would there be any agriculture at all in Arizona without long-distance water?
- Wouldn't the price of food rise because growers would have a “captive audience”?
- How could farmers make a living in areas where the population is low?
- To keep local farmers in business, even more government support might be necessary, such as subsidies and guaranteed prices.
- If we grew organic and chose foods that thrived in the local climate, what would we do if there was a crop failure due to weather or pests?
- How much food could we stockpile for these events, and how long would it maintain its quality?
- Wouldn't there be competition among farmers to offer novelty products and bring them to market first, at a greater cost to the environment? For example, maybe a local farmer would rely on heated greenhouses so they could get their strawberries to market early.
- Aren't farmers importing their farm machinery, fuel, tools, animal feed, and sometimes even seeds?
If there are more farmers with smaller operations, wouldn't they use up more land and resources (such as equipment) which would be worse for the environment?
- If we eat only what is grown locally, we are depriving farmers in developing countries of any income they might make from exports (such as coffee or bananas).
- If one area is perfect for growing pineapples and another is perfect for growing rice, isn't trade better?
- If my area is famous for its hot dogs and potato chips, should I support them just because they’re local?

Some related questions I thought of are:

- Why do we want a relationship with our farmers but not with the people who sew our clothes or manufacture our bikes?
- Why don’t we try to buy locally sourced computers or cell phones?

So, as you can see, I am lying awake at night worried about the state of modern agriculture, LOL!

The book, as I expected, was very one-sided in favour of global trade and big agriculture. But it did make some good points. First of all, like modern western medicine, agri-business developed for a reason – not just profits, but for its benefits to people.

Agri-business and globalism:

- allow us to buy a huge variety of fresh and inexpensive foods year-round;
- create efficiencies through economies of scale;
- have led to improvements in pest control and soil amendments;
- increase yields;
- prevent starvation, except when there is political interference;
- allow farmers to increase their profits by selling to wealthier clients elsewhere; and
- allow most people to specialize in a career they like rather than foraging for food.

Because I already support big agriculture through my buying habits, whether I like it or not, the book didn't change my mind about anything. But it did help me pull my thoughts together:

- I like preparing and cooking real, whole foods as much as possible.
- I do want to know where my food comes from and know that farmers are getting a living wage.
- I do like to buy from farmers’ markets and farm stands, and visit u-picks and vineyards!
- I like knowing how long it takes to grow or produce food and what goes into it.
- I want my supermarket food to be labelled – with its country, region, organic status, GMO status, and what supplements are in it – so I can make an informed choice.
- Everyone should know what it’s like to grow an edible plant! But growing an animal and slaughtering it is beyond most people. (See the movie: Animals: Friend or Food?)
- If a food is available in a local version or an imported version, I want to buy the local.
- If I can preserve local foods, such as tomatoes or cranberries, I will; rather than buying preserved imported food.
- I like to think that I support fair trade and organic farm practices when I buy international foods. But I do think that fair trade, organic coffee, tea, sugar and chocolate are largely symbolic foods that make us feel better about our shopping. What about all the other international foods I buy?
- I am still buying numerous imported foods such as oranges, avocados and nuts all year; produce in the 8 months of the year that local is not in season; and tropical goods such as coffee, chocolate and spices. I have no expectation that this will change.
- I would, in fact, like to know more about who makes my clothes and my car and everything else.

I see now that I am very much a centrist in the local/global debate.

I dreaded grocery shopping after I finished the book. It makes my brain hurt :)

[Eugene · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had high hopes when I picked up this book. Given that it has been established that selecting a diet simply based on the proximity of production is somewhat foolhardy, I was looking for some further expansion on this theme. Unfortunately, the arguments put forward by the authors are simply the same that you likely already have heard or are just plainly intuitive. Some of the ones that are pounded home most incessantly include:

1) It's simply more efficient to produce certain crops in certain places; method of production is the most critical determinant of environmental impact

2) Accessing locally produced produce is inconvenient

3) Local agriculture = subsistence agriculture - do you want agricultural communities to be poor?

4) The market dictates the best way to do everything, so if people aren't doing it now, it's because it's inefficient

The final point sums up the book's central argument nearly completely. The way in which the authors dismiss externalities is shocking to the point of questioning the quality of their research (even though they use market principles for the basis of most of their points against locavorism). How can the current food system be the best way to do things when so few of the environmental/social impacts have been properly accounted for on the balance sheets of the firms in the supply chain?

Indeed, some points of the book are just laughable (at one point, they seem to argue that climate change will most definitely be good for global food production because "CO2 is plant food"- you're economic geographers not agronomists, nor climate modelers, so stick with what you know). The authors felt that they had to discredit every last argument that puts any value in eating locally (some of which do have merit, such as the potential for community building and for broader engagement in the food system); it ends up that some of their points of debate are just straw man arguments and, as a result, are just downright meaningless.

It didn't need to be this way. A balanced approach recognizing that there is some value in the concept of local agriculture would have improved their credibility. Instead, they've chosen to write a clearly biased tirade against what they perceive to be an elitist foodie agenda. A wasted opportunity, and a weak book.

[Dwayne Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-researched and well-told.

[Jessica · Rating 1 out of 5]

In order to properly review (and, maybe, refute) this book I'd need a non-library copy, a stack of sticky flags, and a 5-color pen. In lieu of that, let's just say it's ironic that the authors mention Jacques Pepin's "failed dissertation" because that's exactly what this book feels like.

As someone very interested in the contrasts between local food sufficiency and globalization I was really looking forward to being presented with a well-formulated run-down of the downfalls of the local food movement as it stands today. Instead what I read was an opinion piece, loaded with inflammatory language (locavores are "activists" and CSAs are "schemes," for example) and chock full of limited historical perspective and the research of others presented in a way that does not make any points at all except that historically there have always been a lot of issues surrounding our food supplies.

The authors set an inflammatory tone from the very beginning, clearly indicating that anyone who thinks growing food close to home is a good idea must be delusional. Most debate team alums will tell you emotionally loading your argument and insulting your opponent doesn't do much to prove your point.

Also peppering your commentary and research notes with phrases like "we are not concerned here" as a reason for ignoring any other factors that may contribute to debunking your point, and generally eliminating a large bulk of factors that had clear influence on outcomes, does not make your point valid. Further adding, more than once, that your support statements consist of "admittedly" faulty or not completely accurate research makes you a hack.

There is so much "we're going to tell you something now and then we're going to tell it to you again but this time it will be under a different subtitle." They really took their 8th grade essay writing class to heart here.

The authors have to completely generalize and misconstrue what "locavores" actually believe in order to launch the rest of their argument. Things like referring to growing citrus in Maine (who advocates this?) or referring to local food advocates as "back-to-the-landers" as if they all wanted to live on communes and nurse their kids until they are 8.

Despite several reminders that the authors are economists and a few stats now and then, none of their examples provide more than a generalized idea of what the economic impact may have been in the past (if one ignored all the other factors, too.) They provide virtually no concrete evidence that the local foods movement impacts global trade.

They also manage to step on their own toes a lot. One chapter rebukes both the idea of preserving farmland AND the idea of building vertical farms in the city, but never offers an alternative. Although they like to do a lot of "wink, wink, nudge nudge," like when they write of Germany removing people from their land so the Third Reich could grow grains, "We all know how this one ended," as if the Holocaust, (which, apparently, can't be mentioned) had anything to do with a food supply issue. At any rate, if we are following their line of reasoning (I use that term oh so loosely) their presumptive solution to the no land/no urban farm predicament is basically along the lines of "grow everything in Iowa because no one lives there" (my words, not theirs.)

If I really try to find something that would even be approaching fairness to the authors, all I can say is that maybe the locavore movement has changed significantly in the last 4 years since this book was published or maybe there is a global locavore movement that is totally crazy and thinks that every single produce truck should be used for scrap and we should only eat what we can grow in our own yards/porches/roofs and I am, somehow, completely unaware of it.

The final shame of all is that there is absolutely no attempt to actually find a reasonable answer to agriculture for a growing planet that would combine the best aspects of both local foods and import/exports. Instead, the authors indicate things like a local food movement would result in an extreme amount of manual labor (ex: 1800s French farmers who had to manually open and close their cold frames every day) which displays an intentional obtuseness about how technology could increase the validity of some local foods arguments. Instead, their indicative solution seems to be that we should grow all our food with one guy at a control panel and we shouldn't eat any of it unless it came from really, really, really far away.

[Benjamin Kelley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book immediately after finishing "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, a frequent character in this book. I'm glad I did. Don't get me wrong, I still liked Pollan's book and I think it had some valuable insights, but this book helps to pull the reader back from visions of romantic subsistence farming towards global food markets.

As far as I can tell, this book is a concise and effective argument against the main tenants of widespread "locavore-ism". That being said, I am not a fan of the anti-intellectual rhetoric through the constant reference to "intellectuals" and "agri-intellectuals". The authors start the book with a personal anecdote about the negative reactions they would receive from "locavores" when engaged in debate, so I found it ironic that they felt the need to act like those very people by frequently bringing them up and insulting them. It was unnecessary and does not have a place in serious discussions like this. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the open-minded reader and plants a suspicion of bias on the part of he authors.

Overall I enjoyed the material. The authors divide the book up into legible bites by dispelling the "Myths" of the locavore ideology. They use historical evidence and example as well as the contemporary economic literature to illustrate why returning to more primitive, regional foodsheds would result in food insecurity, decreased global wealth and welfare, insignificant or non-existent benefits to public health, and other decreases in our standard of living. When you stop and think about it, the whole argument that local food distribution is the answer to our global agricultural woes is shortsighted. With the creation of global markets and free-trade, one country that is unfortunate enough to suffer from a poor annual harvest of cereals can fall back on the imports that they get form other countries who have had a good growing season. There are no such fallbacks that I can see in the locavore's world aside from accumulated preserves and stockpiles of food which result in poorer nutritional intake than simply importing fresh bananas and pineapples from Argentina. I, for one, am glad that I can eat tropical fruit anytime of the year, and I'm sure that the farmers growing it in South America are glad to have a larger market to sell to than their immediate surroundings.

[James · Rating 1 out of 5]

Among other topics, the book addresses various fossil fuel issues with regard to food security, safety, quality, sustainability..., but it doesn't do so very honestly, or from a very well informed perspective.

The one good point the book makes is that transport is a much smaller fraction of fossil fuel input than production in conventional industrial food production -- averaging perhaps somewhere just under twenty percent. So "food miles" aren't just a problem because of transport. Point taken. But the book fails to acknowledge just how important the fossil fuel in production issue is, and how *that* relates to the locavor's
argument.

Peak oil, peak net energy, and the climate crisis together provide ample reason to abandon the fossil fuel intensive production methods which are conventional industrial agriculture. Sustainably produced food is necessarily much more labor intensive than industrial agriculture, so most of that labor would obviously need to be provided nearer to where the food will be consumed. Otherwise, the "10,000 mile diet" will involve an absurd (and impossible) daily commute of farm workers.

The coming (relatively) post-carbon world will be a world in which the distribution of labor will take on a wholly different shape than it presently does in the so-called "developed" world. It was fossily fueled machines that gradually replaced the farm laborer. The climate crisis combines with peak oil/energy and the associated "end of growth" / economic crisis such that we can expect to see a reversal of that trend.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little context: I fall under Desrochers's locavore label and I'm training to start my own farm soon.

The Locavore's Dilemma made me angry for pretty much the duration of my read. It's not because any information in the book was incorrect. If you look at food as Desrochers does, then his arguments about industrial agriculture are valid: it improves our use of resources; it makes food safer; it allows for prosperity. But food is far too complex a subject for mathematical analysis to suffice an argument. Arguing about land use is silly in a world where people can grow all they need to eat in 100 square feet without chemical additives. Arguing about food safety is silly when this "safe food" is loaded with low doses of antibiotics. Arguing that industrial ag "feeds the world" is silly when you learn about how global commodities markets hurt small agrarian cultures, even in the US.

So despite disagreeing with more or less all of Desrochers arguments, I'd still recommend his book to any "locavore" interested in food policy. It's important to understand what others think about food if you ever want to help them see a better way.

[John Wunder · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book because I tend to lean on the locavore side of things and was looking for some alternative viewpoints.

Unfortunately, the book is full of strawmen and anecdotes so it's hard to cut through all that to get to some real arguments. If you believe the authors, "locavores" (a four letter word) want to compel everyone to garden in their backyard and never eat food that was shipped more than 100 miles. On the other hand we can trust random statements from professors and economists that are very rarely backed up by studies.

That said there are some good points in there so it gets two stars. I just wish it would have been more about layout out facts and less about scoring points against imaginary viewpoints.

[Jani-Petri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good discussion and critique of local food fad. Puts the food production in the proper historical context by highlighting the reasons why things are done the way they are. Shallowness of the arguments by local food gurus and protectionist lobbyists is clearly exposed. This book celebrates the abundance, safety and affordability of our food and makes it clear how remarkable achievement it actually is. A fact all too easily forgotten in the middle of wealthy western lifestyle.

[Linda Belote · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was quite disappointing. I wanted believable facts and reliable sources and didn't get either one. A University of Toronto professor should be more academic, rather than blatantly blowing the neoliberal horn, I actually agree with the premise that the world needs an international food system, but peasant ag is misrepresented, and the blind faith that industrial ag is 'good' for our health and our soils and our planet is very misplaced.

[Govind · Rating 2 out of 5]

Someone should write a carefully researched, nuanced book that considers the questions they raise. But they didn't do it.

[Maggie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hugely biased, neglects a lot of aspects of local food.

[Kendall Krebs · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I generally agree with the points made by the authors, opinions seemed to dominate the book rather than well articulated (and cited) facts.

[Carrie Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book interesting, and I appreciated the authors' point of view. I usually feel like I hear pro-locavore arguments much more often than anti-locavore arguments. However, this book was a little too one-sided. Its weak arguments in the areas that I know more about made me skeptical about their arguments in other areas.

A major example: when they compared fresh, locally-grown produce with fresh produce that had traveled a long distance to the grocery store, they claimed that there was little difference, or even that the imported produce was of better quality because it was grown in more ideal conditions. A specific example they gave was strawberries. I have personally bought strawberries both from local "u-pick" farms and from the grocery store, and they are massively different in quality and taste. If strawberries were in season locally year-round, I doubt I would ever buy them at the grocery store. I feel the same way about several other types of produce, like tomatoes and cherries. The authors don't claim that it's wrong to buy local, but it seems strange that they don't understand the advantages. That makes me suspect that they're not able to take a balanced viewpoint or understand the positions that they're arguing against.

If they don't understand the locavores' opinions that they're trying to refute, it's hard to make appropriate counterarguments. I think they spent most of the book arguing against opinions that very few people actually hold. I really would like to hear a reasonable discussion between people on both sides of the issue.

[Waldemar Ingdahl · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Locavore's Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet" by Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu critiques the local food movement. After a lecture with a professor criticizing Japan's food imports, the authors researched and wrote this book as a retort.

They highlight the alliance between protectionists and green advocates, pushing for self-sufficiency and environmental regulations, leading to costly products. The book questions the romanticism of local food and the complexity of global food systems. It points out that the locavore movement's roots are more historical and philosophical than scientific.

Food production has deep cultural ties, the local food movement is shaped by historical contexts. While people can choose these food standards, problems arise when they're pushed as norms, increasing costs and limiting innovation. Desrochers and Shimizu caution against dismissing modern agriculture's benefits, emphasizing efficiency and productivity.

The book argues that local and organic standards limit innovation. Changes are slow, driven by traditional methods. The authors call for a more flexible agricultural system, integrating new technologies to improve farming techniques.

Desrochers and Shimizu advocate for an adaptable agricultural system to meet future challenges. Their book encourages rethinking the romanticized view of local food and embracing a pragmatic approach to food production. It's a valuable contribution to the debate on sustainable and efficient food production.

[Kendall · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was as frustrating as I was afraid it would be. Nobody in support of the local and regional food system movement believes that it's a panacea, but the authors argue - with insultingly simplistic and strawman-based logic - that local food will full-on destroy our economy and our environment as we know it. A measured analysis would have been welcome but instead we get snide comments like "this consideration is lost on food activists" and ridiculous assertions (to combat their "myth #6: locavorism increases food security") like "while geopolitics can always take a turn for the worse, nothing prevents a country from stockpiling large quantities of food and agricultural inputs purchased on the international market while ramping up local production if the threat of prolonged conflict becomes real."

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book. In response to some of the critical reviews, the authors could perhaps have been clearer about whom they oppose. It is not the individual consumer chosing freely to buy expensive local food who is the problem. It is the crowd who would have local food forced on everyone who is a concern. To that crowd this book does an excellent job of debunking the myths and scare tactics used to try to push us away from a global food system that has helped move our species to the current situation of food availability, quality and variety that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. Well worth the read

[Meghan Ostertag · Rating 2 out of 5]

I respect what they were trying to do here in a rebuttal of the Omnivores dilemma, but I think a few things went wrong:
1. Sure, a locavores diet is probably not sustainable for most people and is obviously more expensive, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing for people to search for fresh and local food
2. Never in the Omnivores dilemma was Pollan arguing for pure locavorism, just more thought behind where our food comes from.
3. The book was just kinda boring. For at least half of it I felt like I was reading an Intro to Micro textbook.

[Managing my virtual footprint · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting book, although a bit dry and repetitive at times. It methodically disproves the advantages associated with eating local, but does so in a way that could have been equally well presented in a long academic publication. Regardless of the quality of the writing, the importance of the arguments advanced in the book make it worth of being read (or at least to get a summary from a friend) and discussed.

[R. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a useful book, with tons of endnotes of support. I’m caught between this because I’m a big city cosmopolitan kind of person, but I also like the bucolic agrarian ideal. I like visiting farms and reading Wendell Berry. But I also like the global supply chains that we all take for granted. It’s easy to forget how magical they are and how much worse off we’d be if we were truly dependent on local provisioning. This book is an excellent reminder.

[Samantha · Rating 1 out of 5]

It has some baffling arguments, particularly the ones around climate change. At one point, they actually seemed to be saying that warmer climates are good for crops, and changing climate patterns will on balance benefit agricultural production. Uh, all right.

[Matt Zar-Lieberman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Addresses some straw man arguments around the local food movement by drawing on some basic economic theory. I liked the historical context and learned a little bit about the issue and appreciated hearing the other side of things but it wasn't executed particularly well.

[Tommie Haag · Rating 5 out of 5]

http://www.tomfury.se/wordpress/2014/...

[CR · Rating 3 out of 5]

Liked the content, didn't enjoy the tone

[Danielle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have read any number of books such as Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle and several of Michael Pollan's books as well as watched movies such as Food, Inc. that extol the virtues of eating diets based on local food so I thought it was a good idea to read something that makes the opposite argument. The authors examine the history, science, and economics of the food supply to argue that eating globally is actually much more beneficial than eating locally. I am not in disagreement with many of the arguments. I enjoy eating locally from the many farms located near me but also realize that this is not a sustainable way to feed a global population nor am I adverse to eating food that cannot be grown where I live. However, I did not find the writing in this book to be very engaging. The authors are two academics, which lends them credence in their arguments but which does not result in them writing in a way that will engage a broader audience in the ways that Kingsolver and Pollan have done.

[Ian Walford · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting and timely book that makes you reconsider a lot of popular opinions and "facts" about eating locally.

The movement to eat locally and organically is continually growing and I have seen reputable mainstream media articles unequivocally pushing the concept as a sure-fire way to improve both your own health as well as the environment.

Like almost everything in life, the issue isn't black or white. The authors present numerous relevant and interesting examples, drawn from both history and current events, to explain the reasons (many very logical and reasonable) behind why our food system evolved into its current state, which is most assuredly not local.

I laughed out loud several times when reading this book as the authors cleverly point out holes in arguments others have made regarding the supposed merits of local eating. The book shouldn't be considered the ultimate authority on eating habits, but is well researched and well written and provides a lot of much needed insight into the ongoing conversation about the food system.

[Emily · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've head a lot of great things about this book and I consequently have high hopes for it. The authors made some good points and explained some things in a way that I hadn't thought about them before. But once near the beginning they tried to explain one thing that I just happened to know something about and I could see where what they were saying was technically true, but it wasn't the whole story. They were kind of misrepresenting that fact and for me that shot their credibility. And the whole rest of the book I wondered how else they were misrepresenting their facts.

[Brandt Kurowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Challenged a lot of my assumptions about which food choices I make are most sustainable. There are plenty of places where the authors' conservative bias rises to the surface of the text, but that doesn't detract from the well-argued (and thoroughly documented) main thesis that locavorism for localism's sake leads to a myopic worldview that can have detrimental effects environmentally and economically. I highly recommend this for fellow locavores, because even if the text doesn't convince you, the ideas and arguments are worth grappling with.