Talk:Local food/Archive 1

Merging Local food and Food miles
The consensus on this merger was Oppose, discussion closed 23 November 2007 - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

I oppose this merge. Food Miles is worthy of its own article as the term "food miles" was coined as a phrase by Prof Tim Lang. Michael Targett 16:58, 17 May 2006 I oppose this merge. It is appropriate to have the two seperate articles. A Main article: Food miles note can be put under the "Transport distance" heading along with a brief overview of the topic on the Local food article. Alan Liefting 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I oppose to this merge. It is extremely appropriate to have two separate articles. I also oppose completely merging the two articles, but belive a note linking the two would be good. I oppose this merge. I added some text linking the two concepts, more could be done. sbandrews 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I oppose this merge. food miles is enough of a phenomenon to have its own article. I also suggest that the merge template be removed now. --Nin 07:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC) fairly concive opposition, removed merge template sbandrews 13:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The consensus on this proposal was merge

It has been suggested that the article Locavore be merged into the article Local food, please discussion here - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Proposal made on 3 November 2007


 * I oppose this merge. The phrase Locavore has its own definition and implications and should be treated as a separate but related term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.45.156 (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this move. Locavore is certainly a phenomenon within local food and according to the article page it only has a definition... not worth having its own page. --Ryandwayne 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I can't think of much material that could be added to Locavore that wouldn't duplicate material in this article.  If you can then go ahead and add it and I'll reconsider.--TexasDex 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose this merge. It is the word of the year! http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/locavore/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.77.130 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose this merge. These are emerging trends that are linked but not the same thing and we need to keep an eye on them all as they take us in different directions for food policy and food security, also an important growing areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.34.4 talk) 18:49, 23 November 2007


 * Support word of the year or not, it is a term used to describe a patron of local food, and should be included in the article as such. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Support, locavore is really just a definition, that could actually be placed in the Wiktionary and then the info merged into local food with a re-direct. It is unlikely that locavore would expand much past a one paragraph definition on its own.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose the merger. Locavore has just been made Oxford Word of the Year. That seems enough to give it its own article. I don't think many people are going to come to Wikipedia to look up local food. But I think many may come to look up locavore. When I first read the word two months ago and then Googled it, I was very pleased to see the Wiki article up top, and clicked on that immediately, and was able to send the article to my brother who is teaching a sustainability course to college students. I think to merge the word into the much more dull-sounding "local food" article would be a disservice to Wiki readers. By the way, I'm neither for nor against the local foodists. I just think this word/trend is growing and warrants an article of its own, however small. I think having a "See also: Local Food" is linkage enough. Thanks all!  Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I'd also like to point out that having the Locavore article helps preserve the correct spelling of the word, as opposed to the bastardization "localvore." Prentice, in coining the word, was apparently very careful to avoid that ugly-sounding option: http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/prentice/.   Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentHowever, Wikipedia is an Encycolpedia, not a dictionary. Locavore is the "word" of the year, and as such is only a word to be defined.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support merge and redirect locavore (and localvore, ugly though it is) to here. Explain the locavore term in this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I Support this merge. Locavore is hardly more than slang used to compress the sentence 'I only eat local food' and convey it. There is hardly any history to it, it bears no cultural difference, aside from spending longer at the grocery store, and it's usage strictly covers food. Unlike a religion, it requires very little aside from reading labels. Merge it, and leave the dictionary to define it. Dasai Montale (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Return to the Past" conservatism under the disguise of sustainability?
I remember somewhere popular social commentaries judge the local food movement as a fundamentally conservative movement, even though it is done in the name of ecological reasons. Basically their take is that local foods dictate we go back to old-fashioned traditional styles of cooking of the forefathers, and the absence of availability of many spices etc will spell the demise of ethnic cuisines. A New Zealand-based writer recently wrote the movement as analogous to "back to the future" that in the 1930s, the local simple food eaten were driven by necessity (it was the depression-era), and the local simple food circa 2008 is a lifestyle choice made by a spoiled and bored upper/upper-middle class brought up with the abundance of aplenty. --JNZ (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also very few supporters seem to really support the movement per se to its logical end, spelling the end of . For example, Stefano Manfredi from Australia, a supporter of the local food movement and oppose importing cherries from the US to Australia off-season, would not suggest Australia ditch eating rice because Australia's dry weather makes growing rice ecologically disastrous in consequence and the food miles associated with importing Arborio rice from Italy - lest this means he cannot cook his beloved risotto dishes anymore in Australia.  --JNZ (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

from what i have read, people take this concept and apply it in different ways, so many of them, even those who have strong feelings about eating what is local, may add spices or may add sugar or may add some other thing(s) from distant shores. . . there is no book of rules, and each is free to find his or her way. . . - it is true that some of us have 'high class problems' in this day and age where i live. . . San Francisco Bay Area - it may also be true that this movement may in the future be helpful in some way to some people who have problems not so amenable to solution by excluding foods - the planet is fragile - i am not a 'locavore' or 'localvore' either one, but find the concept very interesting - i do hope that people who google it will go right to it in Wikipedia. . . 'local food movement' does not have the 'buzz' the way the one-word version for the adherent thereto has. . . - sometimes the history of a word is interesting enough to talk about. . . that is not quite like giving a definition, as a dictionary would (i love it that we are talking about this - and i remember war years of the 40s . . . eating what my uncle gave us from his farm and garden near Kansas City, sharing rationing stamps if we wanted sugar or gasoline, getting eggs from the chickens in our back yard  . . .  my father was not farming as he was overseas, and i didn't even know him, being very young then - still those were very good years and the food was great!) - b betswiki (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Local Economy POV
The Local Economy section does not mention the POV of any critics. The Economist, for example, has apparently argued that the local food movement is partially driven by economic protectionism. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/the_economist_o_1.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.212.58 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Locavore POV
"Locally grown food is an environmentally friendly means of obtaining food, since supermarkets that import their food use more fossil fuels and non-renewable resources" - well, do they? --Palnatoke (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Localvore" wasn't started by jesicca whozagambit in California . THE WORD ITSELF WAS COINED IN THE MAD RIVER VALLEY IN THE GREAT STATE OF VERMONT!!! 64.222.110.145 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Localvore, not "Locavore"
The correct term is "Localvore"a portmanteau of "local" and the suffix "-vore", derived from the Latin "Vorare", meaning to "devour". "Locavore" is a common misspelling, however literally it means "to devour that which is crazy", so as to avid these negative connotations, I have edited the article to reflect this. See http://www.vermontlocalvore.org, and http://bostonlocalvores.org/, as well as http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/definitions/Localvores-Localtarians/64.222.110.145 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be the "correct" term; but it is less common. Google finds 428,000 uses of "locavore", compared to only 53,000 for "localvore". RolandR (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So because the misspelling is more common that the correct spelling, an encyclopedia should somehow be obligated to use it? I don't follow the logic of this. Can you imagine if that standard were applied to all articles? The results would be disastrous. 64.222.110.145 (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The real issue here is that the article notes that the New Oxford American Dictionary picked "locavore" as its word of the year. You were amending this, to say that the NAOD chose "localvore". This is simply incorrect, and to edit-war in order to force false information into an article is a serious Wikipedia misdemeanour. If you think that the dictionary is wrong, you should take it up with them, not fight out out here. RolandR (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No misdemeanor intended, I honestly thought it was an error in transcription by whomever wrote the rest of the section, my mistake. 64.222.110.145 (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Local
I deleted the claim that "However, more recently USDA has acted to suggest that 400 miles is the actual maximum distance under which local can be reasonably or ethically defined." Research shows that neither the USDA nor any other government authority has adopted any such definition. The erroroneous claim may have arisen from a mis-interpretation of a conference in June, 2009, at which various defintions were discussed. See for more information. Oconnell usa (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your research is poor. A simple google search for "usda local food 400" returns a PDF document from USDA.gov as the first result. This document refers to "Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008" (bill H.R.2419) that was passed by the house and the senate in 2008. Section 6015 discusses amending an existing bill "Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act" from 1939 with a federally legal definition of what local is.

Gbickford (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Essay like
This article is notably lacking is sources, contains a strong POV slant (it's written from the perspective of a locavore, viewing all of the "problems" of the corporate food system), and has bad wording. I'll try to come back at this in the next few days if I remember, but the tag is needed until the style and POV is cleaned up. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

criticism section is also poor on sources.

Why?
The article doesn't answer the obvious question "why would someone want to eat local foods?" It should be succinctly answered in the lede and supported with evidence in a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.13.75 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I Created a page for Foodshed
I created a Wikipedia page for Foodshed, linked the term "foodshed" in this article to that article, and carried over some of the specific-to-foodshed-verbiage about foodsheds to the Foodshed page. Aaronacb132 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote from The Ontario
I just pulled the following out of the article:

"n the book, "The Ontario Table", culinary activist, Lynn Ogryzlo explains, "If every household in Ontario spent $10 a week on local food, there would be a $2.4 Billion influx into the economy by the end of the year". This money circulates to grow to $3.6 Billion and creates 10,000 new jobs. Buying local is a great way to revitalize communities. Ogryzlo goes on to explain, "Buying local is about following the money trail. If the money consumers are spending on food locally all goes into the pockets of a local farmer or local food business, then that is local." www.OntarioTable.com"

This definitely doesn't belong in the lead (where it was), because putting it there gives undue emphasis to one specific opinion that really applies just to one specific city. Actually, when I looked up that book, it doesn't even appear to meet WP:RS, as it appears to be a small-press or even self-published book. As such, my feeling is it probably shouldn't be added anywhere. However, feel free to discuss here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitions
Also, I just pulled out a whole bunch of unsourced original research from the definitions section. Plenty of that could be re-added, but only if it is written neutrally and verified by reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And the labelling section, which is really a repeat of the definition section, with more POV and OR. At this point, starting over again, working out of reliable sources, rather than trying to source what was there, will result in a much better final product.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is an external link to this Local Food Directory within guidelines?
I founded an online directory of locally grown food at http://eatlocalgrown.com. If anyone feels that an external link would be a helpful addition to the page, please add one. Since it's my site, I'll the readers of this page decide. Thanks. Five40 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a look. It's a really nice site, well designed and laid out. I can overlook the ranking and reviewing, because the articles seem to be interesting. Unfortunately, though, while the authors of the articles seem to be knowledgeable, they don't appear to be known experts in the field, which is generally the level you need to rise to for external link status (that is, some sort of reason to believe that the information has been reviewed by with editorial oversight known for a history of fact-checking and accuracy). So I don't think that this meets our external links guideline, which you can read at WP:EL. Basically, links have to be more than useful--they need to provide an encyclopedic resource. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Benefits
Shouldn't we mention that growing your own food or at least easting more locally eliminates or reduces the chance of buying counterfeit food ? For example, many regular food is sold as "biofood" (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3022567/posts ) and some counterfeit food may even be toxic. Also, it avoids the chance of being ripped off, homegrown food is always very cheap. 109.130.163.110 (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

History section
The history section could do with some work I think. It currently goes into aspects of the history of agriculture as a whole, rather than staying focused on the history of the local food movement. It also contains opinion. I'm considering a fairly bold edit to remove a lot of that and leave in only the relevant history. I'd be interested to know if others agree this is a good idea. Mcgrubso (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section needs balance
The question of the impact of grass fed vs feed lot beef is far from settled, IIUC

http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/which-is-greener-grass-fed-or-grain-fed-beef/

The entire section implies that the only environmental benefits from local food are food miles - my sense is that the movement is much more about the encouragement of sustainable practices, and that many pro local food movement would contest the claims that industrial agriculture is lower in environmental impact at the production stage.

Ricardianman (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Economic effiiciency & food safety
Section on efficiency was weird outdated blend of economics, environment & other. Info is sorely lacking. I proposed to rename it "economic efficiency" (previously very vague). That said, It needs updating & clarification. Not good.

Food safety is not mentioned in the pros or cons. There is quite lengthy research which needs updating on this topic. I'll try to start though would propose it needs its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitpenny2001 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

History
This section could use more updated resources. There is depth to the local food movement and more could be discussed here. Jhurst13 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Local food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216142648/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err97.aspx to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err97.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Uber-Local Food" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uber-Local Food. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tsla1337 (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The "Environmental Impact" Subsection of the "Criticisms" Section
I'm fairly positive that free-range farming doesn't do more environmental harm than factory farming of animals does. Yes, it IS true that grass-fed cows produce even more methane from their bodies than grain-fed cows do, but free-range farms at least don't involve "processing plant" buildings that continuously pollute the air, nor industrial arable crop harvest to feed the farmed animals either. Most of the sources that are referenced in this particular portion of the article, are biased because they come from people who are vegan advocates. Is free-range farming of animals a lot less EFFICIENT than factory farming of animals is? Yes. But is it a lot better, both morally and environmentally, than factory farming is? I would assume most likely "yes". 100.35.161.16 (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, the movie "Cowspiracy" was widely criticized for being full of scientific errors and misinformation too. Not that this is surprising though. 100.35.161.16 (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Edible Communities" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Edible Communities. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pam D  15:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jhurst13, Ajensen3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)