Former editor of U.S. News & World Report and of Nature and the recipient of a Guggenheim Award, Stephen Budiansky, in his editorial, “The Local Food Movement: Is It a Better Way to Eat?”, published in 2010, addresses the topic of the local food movement, speaks on the results “arbitrary rules” and “locavores” play in the environment and argues that purchasing local food produce is not always the best thing to do. He backs up this claim by doing the following: first, he acknowledges the opposing argument by stating he enjoys the “pleasure and advantages” of eating what’s regional, fresh and in season; next, he presents statistical figures stated by advocates of the local food movement and brings them down due to their misunderstanding of the
…show more content…
His effectiveness leads to the persuasion of his audience by the use of reason and logic. Budiansky provides facts and strikes down statistical figures often used by the opposing side. The author asserts, “The statistics brandished by local-food advocates to support such doctrine assertions are always selective, usually misleading, and often bogus.” Here the author states how the assertions made by the opposing argument are judicious and often lead to misleading information. He states that words such as “food-miles” and “sustainability” used by local food advocates are said everywhere without the awareness of the larger picture of energy and land use. An example of the author shutting down a statistic is when he states, “ One popular and oft-repeated statistic is that it takes thirty-six calories of fossil fuel energy to bring one calorie to bring one calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the East Coast.” He bring this up to strengthen his overall argument. “That’s apples and oranges comparison to begin with, because you can’t eat petroleum or burn iceberg lettuce” (Budiansky). Budiansky also brings in other targets used by the opposing side in the likes of fertilizers and chemicals being used in modern farming. He answers this by revealing the actual “energy hog” in the industrial agriculture. The author provides facts in showing how American farms have not changed since in its total land mass …show more content…
Just like the author himself, I also appreciate and recognize the convenience of harvesting local fresh produce from your backyard and in general when certain produce are in season. I agree with what he has to say about making the most out of the resources available in certain areas in the nation or even in certain countries. Advocates for the local food movement also can not use statistics that are selective and often pertain to their own group as it can be misleading for others. I enjoy how the author compares the causes of total energy consumed by the American food system. While locavores see that it takes about fourteen percent of the total energy used in transportation, Budiansky acclaims that the share used in fertilizers and chemicals in modern farming use is lower, around eight percent. He also compares this total to the the abundance of energy common household appliances make up for, around twenty-two percent of all energy expenditures in the United States. Overall I must say that this article was well written and structured in a sense that it provided counters to opposing arguments. I must say that the tone used kept me engaged throughout the reading because it was serious. In conclusion, this article has not changed my view on this prevalent issue in today’s society, it only enhanced my current perception on
His effectiveness leads to the persuasion of his audience by the use of reason and logic. Budiansky provides facts and strikes down statistical figures often used by the opposing side. The author asserts, “The statistics brandished by local-food advocates to support such doctrine assertions are always selective, usually misleading, and often bogus.” Here the author states how the assertions made by the opposing argument are judicious and often lead to misleading information. He states that words such as “food-miles” and “sustainability” used by local food advocates are said everywhere without the awareness of the larger picture of energy and land use. An example of the author shutting down a statistic is when he states, “ One popular and oft-repeated statistic is that it takes thirty-six calories of fossil fuel energy to bring one calorie to bring one calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the East Coast.” He bring this up to strengthen his overall argument. “That’s apples and oranges comparison to begin with, because you can’t eat petroleum or burn iceberg lettuce” (Budiansky). Budiansky also brings in other targets used by the opposing side in the likes of fertilizers and chemicals being used in modern farming. He answers this by revealing the actual “energy hog” in the industrial agriculture. The author provides facts in showing how American farms have not changed since in its total land mass …show more content…
Just like the author himself, I also appreciate and recognize the convenience of harvesting local fresh produce from your backyard and in general when certain produce are in season. I agree with what he has to say about making the most out of the resources available in certain areas in the nation or even in certain countries. Advocates for the local food movement also can not use statistics that are selective and often pertain to their own group as it can be misleading for others. I enjoy how the author compares the causes of total energy consumed by the American food system. While locavores see that it takes about fourteen percent of the total energy used in transportation, Budiansky acclaims that the share used in fertilizers and chemicals in modern farming use is lower, around eight percent. He also compares this total to the the abundance of energy common household appliances make up for, around twenty-two percent of all energy expenditures in the United States. Overall I must say that this article was well written and structured in a sense that it provided counters to opposing arguments. I must say that the tone used kept me engaged throughout the reading because it was serious. In conclusion, this article has not changed my view on this prevalent issue in today’s society, it only enhanced my current perception on