"Consider how Americans might respond to a proposal that agriculture was to become a mandatory subject in all schools, alongside reading and mathematics. A fair number of parents would get hot under the collar to see their kids' attention being pulled away from the essentials of grammar, the all-important trigonometry, to make room for down-on-the-farm stuff" (Kingsolver 9).
Should we make a point of learning where our food comes from, how it grows, how it's transported? Is that something that responsible people would do? Does it align with our national values in a way that it could infiltrate school curriculums? Would I personally want to learn about the history of Potatoes in this country? Do I care that much about where my food comes from?
I personally do care about what I eat, but the idea Barbara Kingsolver is proposing in her book seems unfathomable to me. I like the idea of localizing food production...I like it a lot actually, but what I might rather see is a feasibility plan for localizing farms on a national level. I'm sure there is a reason farms are centrally located within the US and why there is a much larger amount of farms in Northern California than Southern California. I suspect weather and water are some of the main factors that influence crop growth. Additionally, what's the marketing plan. What's the lobbying plan. How is local farming financially beneficial to the growers and the buyers within a given community. Do the numbers work out for everyone. Would our national government be convinced to put severe limits on multinational food growers, or would causing those companies problems create an excessive amount of unemployment.
I would personally like to see a financial analysis to see who benefits from centralized food production versus localized food production.
No comments:
Post a Comment