By MAKENNA WOOD
Staff Writer
The concept of locavorism is refreshing but is ignorantly spread and does not better the environment as much as people believe. It is similar to that of a child saying they want to end world hunger, of course, the idea and passion are deeply admired but in reality, it is not possible.
Nevertheless, locavores thrive on the possibility of saving the planet and boosting their local economy and although one local economy may be boosted with the adaptation of only eating locally, another diminishes. This is because specific communities are prearranged in their success for eating locally such as Washington State where there are already multiple areas where citizens can buy local food but several other communities who would be seeking out the flavors of fresh sustainable food would have to travel farther afield. To add to the unavailability of fresh, local food that affects some communities; what happens when citizens decide to actually travel that farther distance? The results of this are an increasing amount of carbon footprints which would only damage the environment more. Some would argue that the increased carbon footprint made by traveling farther distances to receive “local” food would ultimately be a sacrifice needed to be made; however, this would cause more friction on the decision-making of what even is “local” food. Is it bound by political boundaries…100 or 150 or 500 miles? This inability to even decide the concrete rules of locavorism only showcases how unreliable it is.