"Avoiding the Local Trap" is an article that goes over, as the title states, the "Local Trap." What the article means by the Local Trap is that activists and researchers assume that local food is automatically better than other, larger foods, such as chains. These individuals see the local food as innately healthier, ecologically sustainable, and overall a higher quality in comparison to the "global-scale-food-system." I think that the assumption doesn't go over everything. There are so little factors that go into what makes food "good," apart from being an entirely subjective topic already; for example what goes into the production of the food itself, like pesticides or entirely other contaminants that may impact appeal. The author then goes over how those individuals have conflated two entirely separate topics into one thing that had created this issue: capitalism and globalism. The author says how "they" [the activists] are trying to resist the globalizing of food, and that it should be left to the localities. This is wrong, and they're actually against the capitalization of agriculture and its practices. The monetization of farming and locally produced foods are what caused the issues that they have, according to the author. I generally agree that turning agriculture from a way of sustaining a family and community into a way to make mass amounts of money was a slightly negative event overall, but I wouldn't say that it makes the local-scale-food better than the globalized food. Like I said, there's so many little details that go under the radar when on this topic that really need to be brought up. In the text, the author includes a promotion for local food over global food, with 10 reasons. The very first reason is a subjective title "Local food tastes better." The other nine reasons seem to be general statements that support local, like it's non-GMO, it keeps diversity, etc. I think that people should do both, buy local and global. Support the local community of farmers and keep the economy going at the same time.
The "Food Miles" article starts out with the statement of "your average food item on your plate has travelled 1,500 miles." The author then makes a point of how that statistic is severely outdated, and had overly-generalized and assumed when calculating the total number. The author basically says that the entire statement is very vague and incomplete, as well as not actually focusing on the real "average" and it was a study in just one city, for a certain kind of product, with an ambiguous term of measurement. The author then makes the point of how the oversimplification / stereotype of; "local food is better because it isn't global" makes no sense when one actually goes into the details. The author then throws a curveball, [at least a curveball to me], and says that the "food mile critiques quickly mutated into 'local food is killing the planet and poor.'" To me, I'd think that the global food would be the cause of the earth's decay, but the author wrote the opposite. It was a headline in a news outlet. Then the author switches back to the "global bad" side and quotes The Economist's quote of "it is virtuous to buy one [a tomato] grow in a lavishly heated greenhouse in the Hudson Valley." The back and forth of the author's writing really gives me a feeling of whiplash, because there is a jump back-and-forth between the sides of the argument.
The author interviewed a number of individuals, and created a list as to why it's better. The top answer, as expected, is the freshness and quality. The rest of the list makes sense; supporting farmers, farms, etc., boosting community, lower carbon footprint. Some of the reasons are a little odd to me, though. Perhaps I don't completely understand what the interviewees meant by "Thankfulness for the food itself." Can one not appreciate food that was produced from elsewhere and put through effort to get to you? Am I misinterpreting the people's words?
The "Piracy by Patent" article goes over the Neem Tree and its vast array of very useful parts. The discovery and use of the Neem Tree, as well as many other plants, had been done for centuries, millennia, even. And in the late 20th century, someone took it to the U.S. and got it patented for themselves and their companies. People claimed that it was piracy to take the work and offer it as their own. The patenting was naturally met with major resistance by the people who had discovered the incredible versatility of the tree.
The way that the companies claimed ownership of those methods of neem usage really put into perspective how easy it is, or perhaps was. Nowadays, it is a very arduous process to get something patented; but back then, you could basically say "yeah I did this thing and it's mine." [Not actually, but it was a lot easier to get something patented.] It was very easy to [essentially] steal an idea that wasn't officially protected and get it to be under your name or company. The article highlights how this was going on with the tree and its subsequent processes, with toothpaste, medicine, toothbrushes, wood, fungal solutions, and many other things. In more recent years, the process has definitely become more rigorous and thorough, making sure that there isn't already something like what someone claims to have invented, as well as generally costing more to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment