Drink Local Article - Thoughts?

[James Roscoe]

I thought this article in today's Washington Post presented some interesting points on the entire drink and eat local movement. Does anyone want to throw their opinion in?

It should go without saying that if local produce of any kind attain excellence, those should be the first products sought out. Beyond that, however, I am one of those who considers the locavore movement little more than a rather silly sub-division of the larger and even sillier political correctiness movement. In a phrase, it has been amply demonstrated that eating local is not going to solve the ecological problems of the planet. It has also been shown that agricultural and oenological endeavors that produce excellence can sell their wares almost anywhere in the world that can afford them.

Having so stated, I do feel strongly that communities - regardless of whether they are towns, cities, states or nations - should enthusiastically support their own industries and in this case that means their wine industry. And that largely because such support will encourage local wineries that are already excellent to keep on and it will encourage others to realize that if they strive for exellence they too may succeed at a higher level than at present.

Indeed, if I were dining at a fine restaurant in Virginia (staying within the context of the article), I would very much hope to find at least several of the better wines of the state represented on the wine list.

Best
Rogov

As I live in the Niagara region, we have a bounty of local produce in season and we buy local produce as much as possible....it is simply fresher and better. A plus is that we are contributing to the local economy. We are also growing some of our own fruit and veges.

As far as buying local wines is concerned, I do buy Niagara wines but to restrict myself to only those would be boring (as would restricting myself to any particular wine region). Not to mention that I am primarily a red wine drinker, and Niagara simply does better with whites than reds, especially in the under $20 range.

Norm

Say whot...opinions?? On WLDG?? Never done see'd any around here!!
The Locapour movement strikes me somewhat of an affectation. Wine is not nearly as perishible as local tomatoes or lettuce.
So a very good wine at a ery good price from the Savoie on a French restaurant's list make emminent sense to me.
Nonetheless, I appreciate when a restaurant will make the effort to showcase a few local wines on their list, especially if they're by the glass.
Tom

In California, the "issue" is a claim that local (California) wines are made in a style that simply does not drink very well with food. Which is a legitimate argument.

What I find interesting (and I recall us talking about this before?) is area someliers becoming winemakers. I love the Liocco wines, for example.

[James Roscoe]

Excellent points. As I generally drink my wine to accompany food, many American wines just do not suit my tastes and quite frankly most restaurant lists disappoint me.

I come to this discussion from the view that, like one of the chefs in the article, you should buy local (insert item here), not because it is local, but because it is the best. As an avid proponent of local food systems and an urban organic and biodynamically driven farmer myself, I am under the belief that the great majority of the time, local produce, meat, eggs, etc. will be FAR superior to anything that has been trucked in from afar and produced industrially. A bit of this in me is a revolt from the industrialized food system, and being smack dab in the middle of the corn belt, I am usually all for whatever helps people eat fresher and to support local small farms.

That being said – I have (until recently) never tasted a local wine that I would ever voluntarily choose to drink. I was convinced that Nebraska was incapable of making quality wine due to the tundra-like conditions of our winters and the bizarre hybrid grape varieties that will tolerate them. I was surprised however, on a recent trip to the local apple orchard/winery, to find a wine that I would actually buy and drink. It was a Seyval Blanc, and it was crisp, off-dry with a bit of minerality and reminiscent of a decent Vouvray. I would imagine it should go quite nicely with food. Because of my personal experience, I can understand how people’s views would be tainted, if all they have ever tasted was lousy local wine – so I understand their points in the article.

I agree with the general comments here that most American wines are styled too bold and big to pair really well with food, and that can put a hindrance on any restaurant when attempting to add local wines to their lists, assuming they are good enough to be there in the first place.

I'm a big fan of the local food movement, mainly for environmental resaons. I disagree with Daniel's comment that buying food locally isn't going to help the environment. While by itself it will not "solve the ecological problems of the planet", no one change can ever do that. That will require multiple actions, laws, social changes etc.

But buying local leads to all kinds of political and social changes that can benfit communities. First, the issue of reducing our carbon footrpint is very important. The carbon released by the global transportation of food is extremely high. Lessening that carbon source is easily achievable. Supporting local industries is also a good thing, as is creating laws and bylaws that protect fertile lands near urban areas, instead of paving over farmland for yet more subdivisions. Also, one of the major social issues we face is the disconnect between our consumption of food and our awareness of where food comes from and the impact that industrial farming has on our health and economy. The local food movement helps, in a small way, to re-engage consumers with locally produced food, and this has a myriad of social benefits.

Many, and probably most restaurants in BC serve local wines. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of BC wines, but I definitely agree with restaurants' policies of focusing on BC wines (but not ignoring other regions). As I've noted above, it makes sense from a lot of different environmental and social angles.

Putting local products above other regions products just for the sake of supporting local industries is a fine line, though. If you are producing very basic wine, like most BC wine in my opinion, having that guaranteed market without really earning it will not make producers strive to create a better product. They should have to earn their way into fine restaurants (both food and wine).

John, Hi...

You suggest:

...First, the issue of reducing our carbon footrpint is very important. The carbon released by the global transportation of food is extremely high. Lessening that carbon source is easily achievable

I would suggest that hundreds of small trucks driving into town from small farms and thousands of automobiles driving to the farms or the farmers' markets will leave far more in the way of "carbon footprints" than a single train travelling cross-country with 100 times the quantity of foodstuffs. Even more so, of course for a large container laded ship sailing across the Atlantic or the Pacific Oceans.

I would also suggest that no matter how many small farms there are, their total output would feed a very small percentage of the population. We are probably in agreement that small producer products are closer to the earth and bring us closer to our foodstuffs but it is interesting to note of course that in many cases only those with adequate cash can afford those lovely locally grown products.

Perhaps I am misguided, but for me the issue has something akin to "buying organic". I most definitely buy organic when and if the aromas and flavors of the fruits or vegetables are superior to those that are not organic. And only then.

As to carbon footprints, I would have to agree with the notion that people make dirt and industries creat pollution. Dirt will not harm the planet - it will just make it a bit uglier in places. Pollution is the threat.

Best
Rogov

I'm certainly a fan of local food for primarily taste considerations, but also appreciate the environmental concerns. A huge percentage of the energy expended on food is wasted (thrown away food) or spent on packaging and transport. Whatever we can do to reduce helps.
It's true that rail or ship transit is far more efficient than truck, but other than bulk grains the percentage of fresh food transported by rail is low if not negligible in US, and only a little better elsewhere. So a false argument. Ship transit is pretty efficient, but most people don't live in ports, so there still is truck (or very occasionally train) involved.
There's less energy wasted in produce grown in Hudson Valley being trucked to my farmers market than a semi from CA, that goes to a distribution center in NJ, where it's trucked to supermarket.
The cars driving to the farmer's market is also a false argument, unless you live on a magical train track with a special distribution system, you have to drive to supermarket.

Daniel, I guess in Europe trains are used to transport food; I would have thought trucks were used more than trains, but I hasten to add I'm not sure. But trains are definitely not used much at all in North America. Most of our food comes by plane or boat, and then transported domestically by truck. And it isn't just the transportation sector that creates greenhouse gases, you have to add in all the inputs from all the other parts of the food creation and distribution process (e.g., manufacturing fertilizers) as well.

For example, I was amazed at how much the carbon footprint of a meal is decreased by making it vegetarian. Producing meat requires an incredible amount of fossil fuels and energy in general; you have to produce a lot of corn, for example, to create one kilo of beef.

I agree, the way we are living now, local foods can not supply much of a large city's food requirements. But there are a lot of things governments could do to allow us to create our food much closer to home. For example, a suburb in Vancouver is discussing the possibility of allowing residents to keep a small number of their own chickens. It is not allowed at present, but many people use the local food argument to suggest that we need to change many of the laws that prohibit people from producing their own food.

The system is skewed towards globalization now. That has brought a lot of benefits (to the developed nations, primarily), but it has also created a great number of problems. Separating us from our food sources is a dangerous game, and one that can have high environmental and other social consequences. It seems right to have a more balanced plan for food supplies.

I am a fan of the eat local movement and yet I do not agree with the standard reasons why, namely its better quality and it is better overall for the environment.

It might be fresher and it is local whch I support but that is the end to all the facts.

If local is always better than we lose the definition that most of us here subscribe to, terroir. I personally believe that there are better locations for certain products and that is why they did so well in the wild originally. Who would want to grow watermelons in Sweden...no offense to anyone in Sweden but it does not make sense. Why don't we force truffles to grown in Temecula.....

I've seen local farmers grow just about anything and I applaud them for trying. And I even buy then....but it does not again mean that the output is better. it just means that they did it. Now in temporate climates, I'm ALL for growing food at home! Again efficiency versusu quality. There is no way my tomatoes will be better than those grown by professional farmers, but I also won't advertise it this way.

Also, I am not particularly movitivated by Local Farmers who are out in the middle of the desert growing some very water intensive crops with some very inefficient water technology, namely the public water, and then promoting it as being more ecologically friendly. Sorry it is not. It is local and it may be fresher, but it is not necessarily better and it is not without ecological cost. I understand that the cost for transport is significant and I don't discount that but it is not a completely loopsided game. There are counter arguments for efficiency. Growing of crops not native to the area also can cause it to go free and aggressively inflitrate the local ecology. Obviously this is also an issue with centralized growing.

So my pet peeve is not in the concept of local producers, please I mean go and do that, but what I do not like is the notion that this will save the world and where the concept gets extended to areas that do not make sense. We need lots of solutions appropriately applied, its not such a black and white story,...but rather nuanced,....like the wine that we like.

I buy locally grown grapes to make my wine at home. I also tend to support local wineries, but I do buy wines from other areas (mostly France). After all, I do need benchmarks.

Hi James,

In general, I support the local eating and drinking movement, if for no other reason, to support the local economy. However, as Rogov and other point out, the carbon and land footprint of shipped in food and drink does not necessarily have a greater environmental impact than local produce or wine. Take, for instance, shipped in strawberries from California. Local berries are definitely more tasty and have better texture than shipped in berries, but what about the environmental impact of each? California strawberries are everbearers that produce a pickable crop for 9 months of the year. Local strawberries in my area are June bearers that at best have a 6 week season. That means the land footprint to produce local berries is about 5 to 7X greater for the same amount of produce. A significantly greater environmental impact. And my closest wine producing region is about 250 miles away in northern Michigan and while those are good wines, they are not nearly as good as classic ones from around the world, with a few exceptions. You have to be thoughtful about your consumption of everything, including food and wine. Somethimes local is best, sometimes not.

California strawberries are everbearers that produce a pickable crop for 9 months of the year. Local strawberries in my area are June bearers that at best have a 6 week season. That means the land footprint to produce local berries is about 5 to 7X greater for the same amount of produce.

A large part of the whole point of eating locally is eating in season. Unless you have the luxury of living in a temperate climate where the growing season is near year round, you are at the mercy of traditional seasons of harvest for crops. In my opinion, this is the best way to eat, when ingredients are in their prime. And so, I choose not to buy strawberries, or any other produce (even from the grocery store) when it isn't in season, because it simply isn't worth it. I'd rather eat amazing berries a few weeks out of the year than eat mediocre ones all year long. Before refrigeration, mass transportation and globalization, our ancestors ate seasonally for centuries. Why must we always have to have whatever we want, whenever we want it? I would say the point is not to try to match California's volume of whatever type of produce you choose, but rather eat seasonally and diversely when you are talking about local produce.

I certainly don't advocate only eating local, in my area there's not going to be a lot of citrus! But local in-season fruits and vegetables are typically both tastier and more enviromentally friendly.

Also, I am not particularly movitivated by Local Farmers who are out in the middle of the desert growing some very water intensive crops with some very inefficient water technology, namely the public water, and then promoting it as being more ecologically friendly. Sorry it is not. It is local and it may be fresher, but it is not necessarily better and it is not without ecological cost. I understand that the cost for transport is significant and I don't discount that but it is not a completely loopsided game.

But Michael, in US it's primarily the NON-local farmers growing water intensive crops in desert/steppe conditions. About 10% of the nations food is grown in the Central Valley, and shipped (the majority of many vegetables). Virtually none of those crops could survive without pumped in water.

. Take, for instance, shipped in strawberries from California. Local berries are definitely more tasty and have better texture than shipped in berries, but what about the environmental impact of each? California strawberries are everbearers that produce a pickable crop for 9 months of the year. Local strawberries in my area are June bearers that at best have a 6 week season. That means the land footprint to produce local berries is about 5 to 7X greater for the same amount of produce. A significantly greater environmental impact. .

I'm unclear how a "land footprint" translates into environmental harm (and single bearers typically put out more fruit at a time than everbearers, so yield/acre is probably more like 3-4 times as much in CA). A local crop that lies fallow and then comes back is better environmentally than plasticulture crops that depend on outside irrigation, constant fertilization, annual plowover/replants, and then trucking across nation.

I don't think that one should become a total locavore. But it's pretty much a no-brainer to eat local seasonal fruits and vegetables when possible from both a planetary and culinary viewpoint. Personally, I can live without those trucked in tasteless strawberries and tomatoes.

I drink 90% local.

Alex R.

Also, I am not particularly movitivated by Local Farmers who are out in the middle of the desert growing some very water intensive crops with some very inefficient water technology, namely the public water, and then promoting it as being more ecologically friendly. Sorry it is not. It is local and it may be fresher, but it is not necessarily better and it is not without ecological cost. I understand that the cost for transport is significant and I don't discount that but it is not a completely loopsided game.

But Michael, in US it's primarily the NON-local farmers growing water intensive crops in desert/steppe conditions. About 10% of the nations food is grown in the Central Valley, and shipped (the majority of many vegetables). Virtually none of those crops could survive without pumped in water.

You are absolutely right. I don't mean to give the commercial large scale activities any breaks either and should have mentioned that. Both need to look more into their use of resources and more so the commercial guys since their scale is so large.

Like Tom, I try to buy local foods when I can to support the local economy. We have very good locally produced beef, pork and in-season vegetables. Also, Red Gold ketchup is manufactured nearby, so I seek it out.

Locally made (Indiana) wines are another story. With only a couple of exceptions I have not tasted many regional wines that I would classify "good", or even "tolerable". One of the exceptions is a Chambourcin from the "Turtle Creek Winery" (I think that's the name). I do not feel compelled to shop for local wines.

One of the exceptions is a Chambourcin from the "Turtle Creek Winery" (I think that's the name). I do not feel compelled to shop for local wines.

Sam,
Turtle Creek is located very close to Casa Redwinger and I agree their wines a a couple of notches above many local wines. Nice cozy tasting facility, patio, music on many evenings. Come on down sometime and we'll also do Stone Mountain which is doing some nice things, but seldom seen at retail outside of Harrison County.
Bill

If it's local, I'll try it.

If it's good, I'll drink it.

If it's really good (distinctive and quality), I'll continue to drink it.

What's so hard about that?

A large part of the whole point of eating locally is eating in season. Unless you have the luxury of living in a temperate climate where the growing season is near year round, you are at the mercy of traditional seasons of harvest for crops. In my opinion, this is the best way to eat, when ingredients are in their prime. And so, I choose not to buy strawberries, or any other produce (even from the grocery store) when it isn't in season, because it simply isn't worth it. I'd rather eat amazing berries a few weeks out of the year than eat mediocre ones all year long. Before refrigeration, mass transportation and globalization, our ancestors ate seasonally for centuries. Why must we always have to have whatever we want, whenever we want it? I would say the point is not to try to match California's volume of whatever type of produce you choose, but rather eat seasonally and diversely when you are talking about local produce.

Good point, Joy,

I live in Canada where there is a nearly 6 month long winter with essentially no fresh local produce for over 250 miles. Therefore, I occasionally splurge for a few fresh items I really love like strawberries. They are not as good as local ones, but they are better than no produce at all (if I restrict myself to local in-season produce). I grow my own vegetables, strawberries, tart cherries, and red raspberries. I also pick local strawberries, cherries, and raspberries when they are in season. We make our own strawberry and cherry preserves and freeze the extra fruit. We are still eating our own fall raspberries (a rare treat for us), freshly dug potatoes from my garden along with fresh kale. We also buy seasonal, fresh fruit and vegetables, bison meat, and fresh whitefish from the local farmer's market. I believe in local. But, I also indulge in far-away produce because 6 months is too long to go without fresh produce.

I certainly don't advocate only eating local, in my area there's not going to be a lot of citrus! But local in-season fruits and vegetables are typically both tastier and more enviromentally friendly.

I'm unclear how a "land footprint" translates into environmental harm (and single bearers typically put out more fruit at a time than everbearers, so yield/acre is probably more like 3-4 times as much in CA). A local crop that lies fallow and then comes back is better environmentally than plasticulture crops that depend on outside irrigation, constant fertilization, annual plowover/replants, and then trucking across nation.

I don't think that one should become a total locavore. But it's pretty much a no-brainer to eat local seasonal fruits and vegetables when possible from both a planetary and culinary viewpoint. Personally, I can live without those trucked in tasteless strawberries and tomatoes.

Hi Dale,

You are correct in stating that the single crop is more concentrated per acre than the everbearers for any one picking. However, you get 9 months of picking from everbearers vs. just 6 weeks for single crop berries so, I have adjusted my estimate to allow for that. The environmental impact of the 'land footprint' is clear to me. Every extra extra acre used to produce a crop has to be taken from some other use. Plus the environmental impact of the fertililzer, herbicides, fungicides, and in the case of strawberries, usually soil sterilants used on the land. In my mind it is better to have 1 acre to produce the same amount of strawberries than 5 acres given the rather high environmental impact of strawberry production. The other 4 acres could be left in a wild state or used to produce another crop with less environmental impact.

The tasteless tomatoes, I agree, are not worth buying. The shipped in strawberries usually taste at least half decent to me, it is their tough texture that I find unappealing.

I believe in local. But, I also indulge in far-away produce because 6 months is too long to go without fresh produce.

I totally agree - here in Nebraska nothing grows in the sub-zero winters we have here. I eat local when possible (store my own squashes through the winter, etc), but even when I am buying supermarket produce, I try to eat only what is in its natural season, even if it is from far away. In winter, I choose apples, pears, citrus and potatoes and other root vegetables that are in season, for example.