Sometimes a new and hot trend is not everything it is portrayed to be. For the majority of people, the concept of locavorism is foreign. But for others, this is a lifestyle they have committed to. The term locavore can be defined as one who exclusively purchases and consumes foods from local farms or farmers. However, the local aspect can be quite conflicting as right within the community, versus a hundred miles from it, are both considered acceptable. Essentially, supporting the locavore movement will not be beneficial to a community due to the key issues concerning the absence of nutritional benefits and the impact it has on the environment.
A key issue in the locavore movement is the absence of nutritional benefits. The locavore movement deceives its audience in which naturally, the majority assumes that they will be healthier. However, this is not the case. It simply is not necessary to eat locally in order to be healthy as the average American is not nutrient-deprived (Smith and MacKinnon). In fact, making smart choices at a global megamart is more than enough to suffice. Another major problem to take into consideration are those who are less fortunate. Whether it is because their communities are food deserts that are too far from major centers of food production, (Roberts) or they simply cannot afford the costs, fresh and nutritious foods are typically not an option for underprivileged individuals. People of all incomes and classes should be able to participate in a community movement, however, this is not the case. Undoubtedly, this makes the movement impractical and unfair. An implication is the increasing amount of ”uneducated” individuals who believe that the locavore movement is more beneficial in health and nutrition. However, this contrasts directly with the less fortunate people. In their communities, it is not easy for an individual to find the time or funds to go far in order to eat locally or more healthfully. All in all, the locavore movement is neither beneficial nor inclusive for all societies.
Another key issue involved with the locavore movement is the toll it takes on the health of the environment. Lately, being mindful of the environment and going green has been in the headlines. Locavores are automatically associated with doing just this. Locavores believe that” because their food is local ”they are saving the planet in various ways, one concerning pollution. As for ethical concerns, the travel costs for food such as carbon emissions and fuel” do not by any means outweigh the processing practices, water availability, packaging waste, and fertilizer application (McWilliams) of the local side. Local or not, the food will have to undergo these processes. Furthermore, food production”local or not”is accountable for the majority of greenhouse gases emitted into the environment (Chart). Transportation on the other hand, plays a very minor role. The idea that locavores are changing our planet for the better is said with disregard to the many negative impacts it actually has.
Ultimately, the locavore movement is misleading as well as unrealistic. Although it is widely viewed as a health conscious trend because of its naturally positive connotations this is ironically not the case. The movement is not any more beneficial than the normal food options, is not inclusive to all social classes, and is in fact, not any more considerate to our planet. More often than not, what lies beneath the face value of a movement is deception.
A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox
I'm Chatbot Amy :)
I can help you save hours on your homework. Let's start by finding a writer.Find Writer