By Talia Berman
Critics argue that members of the locavore “movement” would run into far less controversy if they called it a practice, or a hobby, or even a way of life. It’s just that when they call themselves a “movement,” it seems like a call to action or some kind of organized effort, and that is when naysayers get their panties in a twist.
One of the largest figurative knots can be found in the figurative panties of David Tamarkin, a senior food and wine writer at Time Out Chicago and recent author of a fiery piece lambasting locavorism that sparked much debate over the topic. I spoke with him on the phone last week, where he was very helpful in explaining the anti-locavore movement. Herewith, I explain it to you.
“It is not that I mind eating locally – I eat locally all the time,” Tamarkin was quick to clarify. “It is just the extremes that bother me,” he said.
What Tamarkin refers to are the locavores who deprive themselves of things like chocolate and coffee, whose ingredients don’t grow anywhere in this country, for one. What Tamarkin doesn’t understand is ‘why not.’ When he asks people he gets a few basic answers: I am watching my carbon footprint, local tastes better, and local farmers need my business. According to Tamarkin, all are flawed and here is why:
