Comments on: False Economy of the Locavore http://www.brunchcoffeeshop.com/false-economy-of-the-locavore.htm Things People are Talking About... Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:52:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: valereee http://www.brunchcoffeeshop.com/false-economy-of-the-locavore.htm#comment-20 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:12:43 +0000 http://www.brunchcoffeeshop.com/false-economy-of-the-locavore.htm#comment-20 The entire NATION was shorter then, and a lot thinner, too, including those living in areas with year-round access to almost every type of fruit. It had nothing to do with any particular food item in your grocery store and a lot more to do with having the money to buy enough calories. I chose bananas because you did -- you do not have to eat =any= foods not grown in Kansas in order to be well-nourished. Kansas produces PLENTY of variety. So does Ohio, and Oregon, and Iowa, and New York, and Florida, and California. Anyone in the US with the possible exception of Alaska and AZ/NM can easily eat only things produced within their state and stay perfectly well-nourished. Now, if they don't can or freeze, it might get a little boring, and certainly there's no reason to stop eating fruit in the winter if that's what you like. I've got a basket of citrus on my (Ohio) kitchen table right now. I love citrus, and while I try to eat locally for a lot of reason, I think it's silly to give up something you love just to prove you can. But to try to say that it's nutritionally NECESSARY to eat what can't be produced in KS is just wrong. And Kansas =isn't= just suited to corn -- a hundred years ago Kansas and Iowa were FULL of diversified farms. It wasn't the suitability of KS and IA growing conditions that turned them into corn and wheat ghettos -- it was Earl Butz and ConAgra. And lots of farmers are trying to transition back to diversification, because it turns out all that specialization DOESN'T support the economy. Transporters of grain may be making money, but growers of it aren't. They're losing money on every bushel, with government subsidies making up the difference. The entire NATION was shorter then, and a lot thinner, too, including those living in areas with year-round access to almost every type of fruit. It had nothing to do with any particular food item in your grocery store and a lot more to do with having the money to buy enough calories. I chose bananas because you did — you do not have to eat =any= foods not grown in Kansas in order to be well-nourished. Kansas produces PLENTY of variety. So does Ohio, and Oregon, and Iowa, and New York, and Florida, and California. Anyone in the US with the possible exception of Alaska and AZ/NM can easily eat only things produced within their state and stay perfectly well-nourished. Now, if they don’t can or freeze, it might get a little boring, and certainly there’s no reason to stop eating fruit in the winter if that’s what you like. I’ve got a basket of citrus on my (Ohio) kitchen table right now. I love citrus, and while I try to eat locally for a lot of reason, I think it’s silly to give up something you love just to prove you can. But to try to say that it’s nutritionally NECESSARY to eat what can’t be produced in KS is just wrong. And Kansas =isn’t= just suited to corn — a hundred years ago Kansas and Iowa were FULL of diversified farms. It wasn’t the suitability of KS and IA growing conditions that turned them into corn and wheat ghettos — it was Earl Butz and ConAgra. And lots of farmers are trying to transition back to diversification, because it turns out all that specialization DOESN’T support the economy. Transporters of grain may be making money, but growers of it aren’t. They’re losing money on every bushel, with government subsidies making up the difference.

]]> by: admin http://www.brunchcoffeeshop.com/false-economy-of-the-locavore.htm#comment-19 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:37:39 +0000 http://www.brunchcoffeeshop.com/false-economy-of-the-locavore.htm#comment-19 Well, yes Virginia, Kansas folk were (relatively) malnourished 100 years ago: their average (male) height was 5 foot 8 inches, versus 5 foot 10 inches today. Average height has been shown to be linked to nutritional factors. Also, you would have to go back more than 100 years to find Kansans who ate only locally available food -- they did have the railroad you know ... I have no doubt they got produce from all over the Eastern US, and may even have had the occasonal banana brought through the port in New York. They were healthy -- mostly because they got a lot more exercise than their modern counterparts (and the weak died young) -- they followed the horse with the plow, rather than sitting on a tractor. They could have been even healthier with an even wider choice of foods ... The banana, of course, is only an example from amongst the hundreds of imported foods available -- there was no intent to imply that one need specifically eat bananas to have a healthy diet. Well, yes Virginia, Kansas folk were (relatively) malnourished 100 years ago: their average (male) height was 5 foot 8 inches, versus 5 foot 10 inches today. Average height has been shown to be linked to nutritional factors.

Also, you would have to go back more than 100 years to find Kansans who ate only locally available food — they did have the railroad you know … I have no doubt they got produce from all over the Eastern US, and may even have had the occasonal banana brought through the port in New York.

They were healthy — mostly because they got a lot more exercise than their modern counterparts (and the weak died young) — they followed the horse with the plow, rather than sitting on a tractor. They could have been even healthier with an even wider choice of foods …

The banana, of course, is only an example from amongst the hundreds of imported foods available — there was no intent to imply that one need specifically eat bananas to have a healthy diet.

]]> by: valereee http://www.brunchcoffeeshop.com/false-economy-of-the-locavore.htm#comment-18 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:55:09 +0000 http://www.brunchcoffeeshop.com/false-economy-of-the-locavore.htm#comment-18 No, nutrition doesn't mean eating bananas in Kansas -- not unless Kansans 100 years ago were malnourished. If you want a banana, eat a banana, but don't tell me it's required for good nutrition in an area that produces berries and apples. No, nutrition doesn’t mean eating bananas in Kansas — not unless Kansans 100 years ago were malnourished. If you want a banana, eat a banana, but don’t tell me it’s required for good nutrition in an area that produces berries and apples.

]]>