- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
What do people think about Singer's stance of the local food question? I've heard a lot of conflicting information on this point (Bill McKibbon comes to mind), and I think rice is a particularly loaded example (since it doesn't grow just anywhere), but what about something like bell peppers? Are organic peppers from Chile really less carbon loaded than local (and presumably in season) conventional peppers? Is there an inherent benefit of keeping one's dollars (and pennies) local? Or is it really "better" to give two cents to a farmer in Kenya? What do we mean by "better" here - impact? most deserving? most in need? I'm confused.
And to that end, should we be eating rice - even organic, fair trade rice - at all if it can't grow where we live, or be eating fresh peppers in New York in February? Is Singer really talking about sustainability? What kind of food system is he imagining here? I might have to read his book and find out.
Also, is anyone out there going vegan in order to shrink his/her carbon footprint?
With an open heart - Tony T.
