Should people eat only locally produced, organic food?

Yes

5 of 13

by Mike Kottke

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

I suppose that the best way to frame one's position in this debate, since the title is presented in the absolute terms and context of "...eat only locally produced, organic food..." -the word "only" being key-would be to reverse the question and pose it in the same but opposite absolute terms and context:

Should people eat only foods produced by modern, industrialized agriculture that employs toxic chemical substances in order to increase production and inhibit weeds and pests; that has only very weak and inadequate federal regulatory oversight that more often than not favors the bottom line of the corporations that make a profit from the marketing of this food than it does the health and well-being of the consumer; that is increasingly being produced in other countries which have even less regulatory oversight than ours and is being imported into our food markets as being "safe" to consume; that by its very nature in this context must be produced with the priorities of increased yield, uniform ripening, convenience of harvest, long-range transportation logistics, processing, preservation and profitability in mind as opposed to the priorities of nutritional value, flavor and freshness; and that is becoming increasingly contaminated with genetically modified organisms the long term health consequences of which are yet to be determined?

Who in their right mind, given an informed choice, could answer "yes" to this!?!

So, given an either/or choice between these two absolutes, one would logically have to make the choice-however unrealistic it might be in the current model of production and distribution-to eat only locally grown, organic foods.

The sad reality, to the point that it is an outrage, of our modern times is that the majority of consumers have only one choice and this being the less desirable of the two. Regrettably, the majority of consumers cannot afford to eat the healthiest of foods available. Perhaps even more regrettable than this is that the majority of consumers are totally unknowledgeable and ignorant of the difference. "What's wrong with the commercially produced foods from the grocery store?" "The government wouldn't let them do anything that would be unhealthy for us!"

Granted, the awareness of the general public as it regards health and nutrition has been modestly increasing recently-but not to the degree needed.

Very serious health issues that stem directly from nutritional intake-or lack thereof or lack of a balance thereof-are rampant in a society that considers itself to be on the cutting edge of a superior civilization that is based on scientific discovery that advances technological improvement. As it concerns our health we are engaged in a battle that has two fronts. One front is the lack of balanced and complete nutrition that the products of commercial/chemical based agriculture fail to deliver. The other front is the damage to and contamination of our body by the toxic chemicals used in the production and preservation of these foods which is compounded by a myriad of other artificial environmental pollutants to which we are all exposed daily because they are an everyday part of our technologically advanced, superior civilization-artific ial flavors and sweeteners, fuel emissions in the air we breath, artificial fabrics and plastics that leach out injurious chemical compounds, chemical cleaners, etc., etc. ad infinitum...

Perhaps one day science will become enlightened enough (if the profit motive were removed from its motivation) to discover that the causes for cancer, obesity, heart and circulatory conditions, thought disorders, etc. are multi-faceted and include the lack of balanced nutritional elements compounded by exposure to and contamination by toxic artificial substances.

Agreed, eating only locally produced, organic foods is in the currently existing model of production and distribution unrealistic-but who is to say that this current model of production and distribution has to remain in place? Who is to say that the individual has to be a participant in it? Nice guys might not win but neither do they have to play the game!

I suppose that, for the sake of discussion, it would not be out-of-bounds to turn the subject of this debate from "should we" to "how could we" set up a model of production and distribution that would enable all who would like to eat only locally produced, organic foods to be able to do so-but that then would be a whole other debate that would enter into the realm of production and distribution, i.e. economics and finance-is it possible? Of course it is and in conclusion it is made possible based on this economic principle:

About the time that Andrew Jackson was President of the United States of America these words were written by an economist named John Stuart Mills-even though John Stuart Mills ridiculed those who wanted a physical tie between real wealth and the artificial monetization of it (in other words, he was in the camp of the Parasites rather than the Producers) his words were herein quite realistic and objective and should, by us, be taken note of:

"The things [material resources] are there. Mankind, individually or collectively, can do with them as they please. They can place them at the disposal of whomever they please, and on whatever terms...Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by anyone, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society...The distribution of wealth, therefore, depends on the laws and customs of society. The rules by which it is determined are what the opinions and feelings of the [true] ruling portion of the community make them, and are very different in different ages and countries and might be still more different if mankind so choose..."

-of course it is possible-if we so choose...

Learn more about this author, Mike Kottke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.