NYT: Blah, blah, locavores are elitists and wrong because farmers drive old pickup trucks

Haven't we seen this article too many times by now?

I've grown quite weary of the "righteousness equals SELF-righteousness" fallacy: simply doing something socially responsible doesn't automatically mean you're smug and judgmental about it. That really doesn't make any sense.

Also: "Transporting food by container ship or rail is relatively energy efficient. Shipping it by air or a 25-year-old pickup is not." Nice try--if only most of our industrial food was transported by ship or rail. In fact, it travels by truck--hundreds of miles in a great big, <10-mph 18-wheeler.

More importantly: The point of buying local produce is not to reduce the "food miles" or "carbon imprint" or whatever of an individual piece of produce so that you can sleep better at night knowing that, while the world's still going to hell, you did slightly less than someone else did to pack it into its hellbound handbasket. The point is to help build a movement--not only to contribute your small part but also to promote the greater efficiency, economies of scale, etc. that come w/ the movement's success.

And: the benefits of local food aren't just about reducing energy used to transport food. (Why are we incapable of talking about anything except energy use and global warming?) We know that largescale monocropping devastates the soil. We know that agribusiness devastates family farms and rural communities. We know that tomatoes and stone fruit shipped hundreds of miles are always going to be articifically ripened and relatively flavorless. Why is anyone feeling the need to crunch numbers to figure out whether local or industrial food is "greener"?

Sorry to rant. It's a really frustrating piece to see in the Times.

Philpott takes it down calmly, concisely, and effectively. I should take notes.