Is it possible for an econ professor to commit malpractice?

[Fake Boris]

I was not sure I wanted to comment that the issue of locavorism - is "that everyone would starve if they ate locally."

You know, the problem with shoes, is that if we were all shoemakers, we wouldn't have cars.

Subsequent posts are not much better.

[snoopy369]

I find it a bit odd that this fairly inconsequential swipe at an econ professor transformed so quickly into an attack on the locavore movement. But whatever; it's Poly.

I go to local farmer's markets because the food is fresh, its chemical content is (allegedly) less, and because I can access unusual varieties, artisinal and free range foods that actually taste better than what I can get at the supermarket. And I do like supporting small family farms - just as I support local (non-chain) merchants when I can.

For me, this has nothing to do with global warming or social responsibility; it's about eating well. When the growing season ends, farm-to-table becomes irrelevant in Chicago.

I agree with what you're saying here, largely. The attack is really on the Econ professor, not on locavorism; locavorism is perfectly fine as a personal practice, it's just nonsense from an economic point of view. I do think the solution to the problem of supermarket food being of unknown content pesticide-wise etc. should be solved by methods other than everyone shopping at a farmer's market, though; and those people expending large amounts of energy promoting locavorism should spend that energy promoting information availability instead, as they'd benefit everyone more. If everyone can choose between cheaper but pesticide-used food and more expensive but pesticide free food, AND know which pesticides (as some are far worse than others), the market would quickly decide which of the two makes more sense.

[Fake Boris]

We had a thread about his, I believe 2 or 3 years ago.

It all came down to the simple fact that serious locavores are smart enough to add some logical checks to their initial statements.

Like: "if it's been grown in January in a hothouse in Wales, it's probably not better than imported from Spain".

I can bet 20 bucks with regexcellent that his professor understands this.

[-Jrabbit]

The attack is really on the Econ professor, not on locavorism

Maybe I missed something, snoop. You just said locavorism is fine as a personal practice. Did the econ prof say that everyone should do as he/she does?

[regexcellent]

The econ prof acknowledged that some people don't because they can't afford it, citing for instance that she spends $6/gallon on milk (as in HOLY ****ING **** she's getting robbed blind). I could, in principle, afford to buy local/organic ****, but you'd have to be seriously stupid to think it's worth that kind of money. Or that it's even worth anything. Local food isn't inherently worse, it's just there really isn't anything that makes it better.

[regexcellent]

I was not sure I wanted to comment that the issue of locavorism - is "that everyone would starve if they ate locally."

You know, the problem with shoes, is that if we were all shoemakers, we wouldn't have cars.

Subsequent posts are not much better.

Aren't you socialist, and therefore ineligible to credibly comment on any econ thread?

[The Mad Monk]

It doesn't have enough farms to feed its population. It is a net food importing state. Iowa has more food production than it consumes locally. It is a net food exporting state. The implication is that there would have to be net population transfer from NJ to IA.

That said,

Seriously, even environmentalists should want nothing to do with locavorism. The damage done to the environment in order to make New Jersey land arable is far more than that done in California/Mexico/etc., where nature has done this for us already.

Is a load of CACA.

New Jersey has perfect soils, where it hasn't been paved over or polluted. It's fertility has been recognized for centuries. The "Garden State" moniker was not originally ironic.

[MRT144]

ken, there's no place where locavorism makes any sense. The whole ****ing world is local now, because we have this amazing technology called "transportation." It enables something economists (like my professor) call "trade." Things that can be produced at a higher quality, more cheaply, and in a manner that is better for the environment in one place are traded for other things from other places on trains, trucks, and ships.

I'd rather eat local oysters than those shipped in from somewhere else. Cause it's practically my back yard.

this despite suffering from oyster food poisoning the past 3 days. yeesh.

[regexcellent]

Right, and I have no problem drinking milk that's made in the Rochester/Western New York area, because there's tons of dairy farms around here and it's a huge dairy producing region. I wouldn't eat local bananas or whatever.

[The Mad Monk]

Here you go!

New Jersey is a leading producer of fresh fruits and vegetables. Its total farm income was $821 million in 2001. In 2000, New Jersey ranked 3rd in the US in the production of escarole/endive. In 2002, it ranked 3rd in cranberries, 6th in lettuce, 7th in fresh market tomatoes, and 14th overall in fresh market vegetables.

Some 820,000 acres (about 332,000 hectares) were in 9,600 farms in 2002. The major farm counties are: Warren for grain and milk production, Gloucester and Cumberland for fruits and vegetables, Atlantic for blueberries, Burlington for nursery production and berries, Salem for processing vegetables, and Monmouth for nursery and equine.

In 2002, New Jersey produced 290,700 tons of fresh market vegetables. Leading crops (in hundredweight units) were: bell peppers, 962,000; cabbage, 624,000; sweet corn, 791,000; tomatoes, 759,000; and head lettuce, 150,000. New Jersey farmers also produced 56,340 tons of vegetables for processing. Fruit crops in 2002 (in pound units) included apples, 35,000,000, and peaches, 62,000,000. In 2002, cranberry and strawberry production were 43 million and 1.8 million pounds respectively. The expansion of housing and industry has increased the value of farm acreage and buildings in New Jersey to over $8,000 per acre, the highest in the nation.

http://www.city-data.com/states/New-Jersey-Agriculture.html

...not bad for an overpopulated itty bitty peanut of a state, eh? Eh?

[MRT144]

The econ prof acknowledged that some people don't because they can't afford it, citing for instance that she spends $6/gallon on milk (as in HOLY ****ING **** she's getting robbed blind). I could, in principle, afford to buy local/organic ****, but you'd have to be seriously stupid to think it's worth that kind of money. Or that it's even worth anything. Local food isn't inherently worse, it's just there really isn't anything that makes it better.

Good milk is worth $6 to those that care about good milk. Watchyu know bout prices reflecting values of consumers.

[MRT144]

Unless those reasons are anti-humanism or anti-modernism, no, they're not. Who the heck cares when what I eat is in season? If I want a banana, I want a banana, and I don't think either my health or the environment gives a **** that I'm eating a banana out of season in Illinois (where they're out of season 12 months out of the year). All the BS about "your body knows" or some **** like that is just that - BS. You're far healthier eating a balanced diet all year round, because it's a balanced diet all year round. You want to be a true Locavore in Michigan? You can eat about 3 dishes, total, because you don't actually grow much of anything within 100 miles of Michigan, or 200 miles, or 10 days' hike, or whatever useless and arbitrary distance the locavores claim is appropriate.

Even the local tomatoes and whatnot aren't truly local - they're originally from somewhere warm and sunny, and the plants were brought to Michigan thirty years ago by a band of hippies, or Monsanto, or somewhere in between. Why should I limit myself to eating nuts and berries, which is basically what was grown in the Chicago area, along with swamp ferns and whatever grows in swamps. Mushrooms, I guess, though not even very many good ones, those are all in Washington State.

The only true advantage to locavorism - and the reason I do shop at farmers' markets when I have the chance - is that you know under what conditions your food is grown. You can ask the farmer what pesticides they used, while you can't ask your Jewel-Osco clerk and expect a truthful answer other than "how the heck should I know". But that's not truly related to locavorism - it's related to the communication of information, which is very possible to do via methods other than locavorism.

Why did people move to Michigan in the first place? Self Loathing? Why do people stay there?

[Fake Boris]

Aren't you socialist, and therefore ineligible to credibly comment on any econ thread?

This thread is not even close to being about economics.

It's about some very basic factual checks involving local food.

[MRT144]

next regexcellent is going to insist that we should all eat kraft singles instead of good local cheese. Inferior goods, know about them?

[regexcellent]

Good milk is worth $6 to those that care about good milk. Watchyu know bout prices reflecting values of consumers.

My milk costs like half that and is totally fine and I can't taste the difference between it and the "organic" variety. It's like a $30,000 bottle of wine but less egregious. People buy it to feel good about themselves, not because it's actually good.