Freaknomics blog author Steve Sexton writes:
"implicit in the argument that local farming is better for the environment than industrial agriculture is an assumption that a “relocalized” food system can be just as efficient as today’s modern farming. That assumption is simply wrong. Today’s high crop yields and low costs reflect gains from specialization and trade, as well as scale and scope economies that would be forsaken under the food system that locavores endorse".
He argues that specialization and trade, economies of scale and even the health implications of local food do not make sense.
I disagree with a number of his points and feel that he has not adequately captured the local economic benefits of farmers' markets, the immense potential urban farmers have in helping contribute to our growing and vibrant cities and the educational possibilities associated with localizing our food choices. I understand he is arguing from an economics perspective but local food production is beyond just an economics discussion. I will let my colleagues who work in this area respond to this article.
To refresh, Harvard economics professor Ed Glaeser (who I admire very much) is also against local food production. My friend wrote a critique of his article back in July which you can view here.
Read the Freakonomics article by Steve Sexton. Some of you will agree, some will disagree. This is a critical issue of our time especially as food prices continue to rise and our nations continue to urbanize.
No comments:
Post a Comment