Okay.  Let’s get something straight.        

Nobody opposes local food. 

Nobody opposes a local food supply. 

Nobody opposes food security. 

Nobody opposes establishing a market for local products.

But let’s get some terms straight.  And let’s remember that we’re living in 2010, not 1890 or 1936. 

The first term is “local.”  Local can mean within a fairly small radius.  It does NOT necessarily mean the house next door. In fact, in a recent magazine article on the local food movement, the author was extolling the virtues of Colorado’s trucking in beef from “nearby Nebraska.” 

It makes very little sense to me that—with all the open, available farmland we have around us in a forty-mile radius—this tiny minority of liberal locavores have picked the city of Springfield—the most urbanized area in southwest Missouri to try to start their gardens, their urban farms, their chicken coops, and—soon to follow—their fish hatcheries and rabbit hutches.  Why not use the available farm land?  That’s why it’s been left undeveloped and ready for planting.

Secondly, let’s talk food quality—not just food supply.  If you’ve ever eaten a fresh ear of corn from a hardscrabble, red clay Missouri field and one from the rich, black loamy dirt of Iowa, there is no comparison.  The “imported” corn is larger, heavier, juicier, and—let’s face it—tastier than our local variety.

Ditto corn-fed beef, and venison from Iowa.  The quality of the grain going into the meat has a direct influence on the taste and quality of that meat.  Locally produced meat products, while edible and tasty, just don’t compare. 

Want to talk about Georgia peaches?  There is nothing tastier and juicier than a Georgia peach, especially if it’s set next to one grown in this rocky soil we have under our feet.

By the way, in the movie, “American President,” the actor playing the president lays out the perfect way to put something over on the American people.  He says, “First you make them afraid of something and then you offer them a way out.”  He goes on to say that you can “sell anything to the public” with that formula.

So this little food group—representing less than 1-2% of our population—has set out to make us afraid.  Their fear factor is comprised of those mean Arabs and Venezuelans who might pull the plug on our oil imports.  Of course, to make this argument work, we have to overlook the fact that pulling the plug on our oil also pulls the plug on their own economies.  But that’s the argument—the oil cartel will starve us to death simply by cutting off the oil supply.

And then to follow the formula, our little group will thunder to the rescue by shouting “local food, local food” while waving flags of turnips, asparagus, and corn.

Next, we are expected to overlook the fact that many of these same locavores are also beating the drum for compressed natural gas for powering our vehicles.  They say—erroneously, but it’s their argument—that CNG only costs about a dollar a gallon and we should all convert our vehicles or buy new ones.  At today’s gas prices, that dollar a gallon represents a savings of about 60% of the food fuel bill.  That would eliminate much of their fuel argument right there, but this group never seems to notice when their proposals and arguments conflict.

So where are we?  Below is a list of foods that will go away from Springfieldians if the locavores carry their agenda to its logical conclusion.  No canned foods, because—remember—those bad guys cut off our oil.

Iowa sweet corn.

Georgia peaches.

Arkansas cantaloupes.

Kansas wheat.

Alaskan salmon.

Is this the life we’ve worked for?  Or are we being scared into believing this is all we have to look forward to?