Multiple times a year the farmer’s market occurs all around the world, supporting local farms and businesses this event brings the community closer together. When most people would buy produce and other goods from a supermarket, the locavore movement encourages buying from locals to promote a healthy lifestyle and protecting the environment. The locavore movement should be supported, however it is connected to highly controversial issues such as nutrition, the environment, and the economy. . Locally grown food has been proven to be more nutritious than that of commercially grown produce, and it tastes better. Not only is local food fresher it also has longer to ripen, this allows it to have a greater amount of nutrients which deteriorate with time (Maiser). Although the amount of nutrients lost from Asia to North America is very small compared to local food travelling from a farm to farmer’s market and people are not nutritionally deprived, fresh and local food taste better (Smith and MacKinnon). The sweetness and crispness of a fresh fruit compared to the somewhat mushed and bitter …show more content…
To raise an animal for food causes harmful emissions no matter what practice is being used, in one case one may have raised a cow in a pasture and resulted in a low carbon footprint, and on the other hand most companies use factories for mass production and cause a large carbon footprint. In either case, emissions are being created, unfortunately this can not be bypassed. Red meat creates the largest amount of carbon emissions during the production stage than the other products companies transport across the world (Source D). If more people were to join the locavore movement fewer carbon emissions would be released not only from the decrease in transportation, but also in the increase of pasture raised animals and farm grown crops rather than
Benefits like the experience involved in shopping local, the ability to have access to healthier foods while saving money, and supporting your community, local economy, farmers, and the environment are all great reasons to make someone reevaluate their produce purchases and decide to shop local. Priebe was successfully able to take the concern associated with long-distance food miles and make buying, selling, and producing locally the solutions. Priebe is able to leave her readers with not only an understanding of what becoming a locavore can do for you, your community, but also your world in her article “Benefits of Being a Locavore” while challenging her readers to get out and explore the opportunities of buying locally with the statement “If you’ve never grown your own food or experienced the joy of eating a freshly picked tomato from the farmers’ market, you’re missing out!”
Although healthier options may be expensive or growing fruits and vegetables may seem like a burden, Berry suggests that it can make eating more enjoyable, an “extensive pleasure” according to Berry. As Americans, freedom and democracy plays a big role in our politics, yet we are ignorant to the fact that giving control of what we are eating and it's sources is not an example of freedom. (Berry) Americans are fooled by the lies advertisements give out about their foods, continuing to make Americans ignorant of the realities of food, and the only way to stop this is by realizing and “ reclaiming one's own part in the food economy” possibly by making food instead of buying fast food, deciding on better choices instead of settling with the unhealthy ones.
Grazing and growing feed for livestock now occupy 70% of all agricultural land and 30% of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. If these current events continue, meat production is predicted to double between the turn of the 21st century and 2050. Yet already, the Earth is being overpowered by livestock that consume massive quantities of energy and resources, whose wastes contaminate waterways and farmlands, and when eaten excessively, degrade our health. Pollan makes a considerable point when discussing concentrated animal feedlot operations, “The economic logic of gathering so many animals together to feed them cheap corn in CAFOs is hard to argue with; it has made meat, which used to be a special occasion in most American homes” (pg. 67, An Omnivore's Dilemma).
Is eating meat a detrimental threat to the environment? This debate over meat’s involvement in the global warming crisis was what inspired Nicolette Hahn Niman to write, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma.” Niman hoped writing, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma,” would cause her audience to understand that eating meat, raised on traditional farms, was a superior alternative to vegetarianism. Niman supported her claim by explaining how industrialized farms and vegetarians produce more of the three greenhouse gases that caused global warming, than that produced by traditional farms. Niman’s article fell short of being effective due to flaws in her supporting evidence and conclusion.
Throughout this book there is an underlying message about today’s culture and how it has changed eating for the better or worse. The first section of this book is all about industrialized farming and industrial eating. This form of food production is superior in terms of the amount of food produced. Unfortunately, in some cases, namely corn, food is being overproduced which brings down prices and hurts the economy. Another con to this form of farming is that it hurts the environment as well as some of the animals in the CAFO’s.
In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan encourages us to change the way we eat but he never instructs us on what consumers should be eating. He educates us on what we are eating and informs us of all the events that go on behind closed doors. By building and building on our knowledge, he can reel us in instead of driving us away with offensive remarks. He never attacks the fact that most of us eat without thinking about it. In doing this, he can calmly approach his audience with the facts.
One of the main goals of the locavore in supporting eating locally is to improve their carbon footprint. They believe that transporting food emits an increasing amount of greenhouse gases. However, in document D, it shows that production such as water usage, fertilizer types, processing
Many locavores believe that transportation greatly contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, Source D clearly shows that for red meat, nearly 90% of the greenhouse gas emissions per year come from production, not transportation. As such, local communities must also determine not only where their food comes from, but how to produce and manufacture that food to have the least environmental impact. Otherwise, the locavore movement contributes effects that are just as detrimentally to the environment as any other form of production would produce. Likewise, individuals and restaurants must also be held accountable in a community in order to have a positive impact.
James E. McWilliams takes the opportunity to plead his case against the popular belief that buying food locally can help save the planet in “The Locavore Myth: Why Buying Form Nearby Farmers Won’t Save the Planet” (McWilliams 89). McWilliams finds it necessary to point out that the popular slogan “Buy local, shrink the distance food travels, save the planet” covers the problems with industrialized foods in regards to transportation in his beginning statements. He then follows up by making the bold statement that “a lot of them are making a big mistake” (89). They fail to see that there are other “energy-hogging factors” (89).
Due to McWilliams’ strong claim, evidence, warrant, backing, and rebuttal to counter arguments, his argument is therefore an effective one, according to the Toulmin method. The most important and key components, that are vital to an argument, are the argument’s claim, qualifiers, as well as the evidence the author uses to support their argument. If there were no claim, then the author has no firm stance or basis for their argument, because they would have nothing to defend or persuade their readers of. The claim James E. McWilliams makes in the article “The Locavore movement: Why Buying from Nearby Farmers Won’t Save the Planet” is that since there are so many factors that are attributed to the destruction of the earth and the waste of tons of energy ,that the locavore movement is not quite saving the planet simply by focusing
Furthermore, 51% of total greenhouse gas emissions is derived from animal agriculture. Moreover, red meat is a very inefficient means to produce food because of the amount of
He presents a compelling argument for why we have to recall lowering or casting off our intake of animal products, the use of evidence and records to guide his claims. for example, Foer cites the fact that animal agriculture is chargeable for more greenhouse gas emissions than all kinds of transportation combined. via presenting this statistic in a clean and concise manner, Foer makes a robust case for the environmental blessings of lowering our meat consumption. Foer additionally appeals to our sense of morality and values. He emphasizes the significance of compassion and duty in our food choices, encouraging readers to remember the ethical implications of consuming meat.
From the very first sentence in The Locavore’s Dilemma he states how he feels about this idea, “There is a growing trend, or at least a growing noise in favor of eating locally produced food” (Pelletier). Right from the start he calls it a noise, making it pretty clear how he feels about this subject. He also points out that as of right now if we only ate within a 100 mile radius we wouldn't eat what we do now. Fresh fruit only comes from south of us, farther than 100 miles. A very important point he makes that is very easy to relate to here is farming.
(424). These powerful words of insight from the author emphasize just how far the consumers of the western diet have distanced themselves from natural food their ancestors used to once indulge on. For example, going back sixty to seventy years ago families had to prepare their meals with more nutritious foods as they did not have nearly the same accessibility to the amount of processed and fast-foods that Americans do
According to a study published in Nature, scientists believe by 2050 eighty percent increase in global greenhouse gases could be avoided, if human diets were equally mediterranean, pescatarian, and vegetarian. Truthfully, less animal products are what is best for the future of the planet, eliminating dairy and egg products would reduce emissions the most as confirmed by Marco Springmann