What is Local Food

In the past decade the eye of the health food world however has become exceedingly skeptical of almost anything we eat. Still is has long been know (at least since the mid 1930’s when Popeye began devouring spinach to keep his strength up in comics) that produce has the vital elements we need for good nutrition. When the health food craze first began, it immediately took to the notion that organic produce was healthier because it has uncontaminated by artificial pesticides and chemicals. Now however there is a new push within the food community that contends that locally grown food is the way to go.

The first question relevant to the issue is what exactly constitutes a local food. There have been definitions provided by various sources, which might help pin down what is meant by local but still the issue is clearly up for debate. For example, the U.S. Congress stated in the 2008 Farm Actthat a food could be considered locally produced if it meets one or both of the following conditions:

· (I) The locality or region in which the final product is marketed, so that the total distance that the product is transported is less than 400 miles from the origin of the product; or

· (II) The State in which the product is produced.

This seems like an authoritative definition for what is local; still it might not actually capture what is meant by a local food. It has also been defined here as “food that is grown in a local area, supporting a local economy." By this definition, there is no way that a food grown at the bottom of Texas and shipped to the northern most point would be considered local, and maybe it shouldn’t be. Another article on the matter by Sarah DeWeerdt found here suggests that local food is food grown within a 100-mile range of its consumers.

She cites Alisa Smith and J.B. MacKinnon who claim in their book “The 100-Mile Diet” “that “a 100-mile radius is large enough to reach beyond a big city and small enough to feel truly local.” Truthfully there is no consensus about what it means to be local. However, it can be said that the movement towards local food is one that is concerned with a few things: food quality, transportation distance, local economies and sustainability. With these things in mind it might be said that local food is food that travels the least and best promotes local economy while remaining environmentally and sustainably conscious. This is still only a functional definition, as it can’t be used to determine the “locality” of a given food. But on the other hand it might be moving towards thinking about local food on a case-by-case basis which would mean that calculating the locality of a food would be much more than finding out how far away from it’s consumers it is being grown.

Of course it would then become a debate about what factors should be considered other than proximity. Obviously proximity would be near the top of the list showing that the definitions given by Congress and "The 100-Mile Diet" are good places to start.

For more on local food, check out this video with Ken Meter.

Journal

What is the most appropriate way to cover the news about the mosque near ground zero without missing or omitting information that gives a truthful account of the debate. More importantly how is it possible to write with the biases we have about the situation?

After pouring over several articles about the proposed new mosque I have gotten a better idea about how exactly reporters and journalists are treating this issue. It is clear that there is a large difference between how different publications write this story. Many factors must be taken into consideration when writing this story and it is clear that such a multitude of factors makes each story on it unique. For example, the New York Times, has a very different angle than the Guardian on this issue. I can only guess that perhaps the fact that the NY times is based in New York where the news is happening they have a very in depth look at the situation in there publication. The Guardian on the other hand is writing for an audience at least once removed from this news, even if it is only the result of their physical distance. To give more concrete examples of what I am referring too, the NY times has put out at least one article a day updating the news on the situation and following different threads of information to their sources. The NY/Region section of the Times, as well as the local news publications like the New York Post have are flooded with the intricate details of the situation. On the other hand, the Guardian has run only three big stories that really deal with the mosque debate since the anniversary ceremony. This seems to tell me that news, no matter how globally relevant, will for the most part be concentrated in the area that its effects most directly. This may seem like the most obvious statement but it hits upon a facet of journalism that I am just discovering.

There is another point that I found interesting in the way that the story is written stylistically. The Guardian, as compared with the times and the post has a very different approach to writing about the mosque. To begin, there are more willing to take risks in there writing. Which is good because it makes clear their angle and bias. For example in his story, Charlie Brooker, writes about how Americans are very upset about something that actually doesn't exist yet. In a kind of poking way, he seems to be getting at the fact that we are caught up in a debate of principle. His point clear enough but he is able to mediate his bias with statements like "I'm exaggerating. But I'm only exaggerating a tad more than some of the professional exaggerators who initially raised objections to the "Ground Zero mosque". They keep calling it the "Ground Zero mosque", incidentally, because it's a catchy title that paints a powerful image – specifically, the image of a mosque at Ground Zero.". These explanations of his own writing as a response to the words and writings of others makes more clear his purpose for writing and thus his bias is no longer hidden but available to be taken into consideration by readers. In contrast to the way the Guardian has been running stories, I feel like it is pretty clear that the NY times and the NY post both feel like there are walking on thin ice and thus have to publish only the facts. In the article titled "Iran cash might fund Ground Zero mosque" There is very little that can be said to have any explicit bias or voice. The reporting is highly factual and for the most part dry. This might be the best way to cover the story, but I can't help feel as though they are hiding an agenda. Perhaps it is only hidden in the sense that they are choosing which information to give you and which is to be withheld. Either way I liked the way the Guardian was willing to attack the issue and make more real attempts at connecting the dots of the situation. In this sense, even though the Guardian ran fewer stories about the issue, their articles truly seemed to cut to the core of it rather than, as was the case with the NY Times, who wrote at ton about the issue in a way that was relatively incohesive as a way of getting the bigger picture.
These of course are only my personal sentiments on the reading I have done, and I have not read every single article on the issue from any of the above mentioned papers. However, after carefully sifting through at least 3 articles from all three papers I felt that the Guardian did the most apt job at giving me the news.