Running head: COMPARATIVE ESSAY 1

Comparative Essay

Name

University
COMPARATIVE ESSAY 2

Comparative Essay: Math Lessons for Locavores and The Myth of the Rabid Locavore

Stephen Budiansky puts together an anti-locavore op-ed in the New York Times titled

Math Lessons for Locavores. The locavore myth suggests that buying local foods largely

reduces the distance food travels hence saving the planet. Locavores are changing how the world

looks at industrial food. They have continuously highlighted the problems related to

industrialized food such as environmental hazards, transportation issues, as well as energy

hogging factors.

In the article, Budiansky (2010) argues that locavores do not pay attention to real

scientific data available to support their quest and explain why everyone should join their

movement. Budiansky (2010) is adamant that the consumption of locally grown food does not

save the world. He further argues that there is a larger picture, the energy used in the

transportation of food as well as land used in local food production.

On the other hand, Kerry Trueman, an environmental advocate and writer, authors a

response criticizing Budianskys opinion on anti-locavore sentiments. Trueman (2010) claims

that the math of locavore uses not only irrelevant measures but also misleading and often bogus

statistics that are selective and deluded.

Writing Tone

In The Myth of the Rabid Locavore, Kerry Trueman sounds disturbed by the article

Math Lessons for Locavores. In objective difference, Trueman (2010) disagrees with

Budiansky, terming his article as another flimsy and flammable anti-locavore rhetoric. Trueman

(2010) seems to think that Budiansky is patronizing in his way of thinking about the people who

choose to enjoy local food production. Trueman (2010) argues that Budiansky does not have

enough information to talk on the subject of locavore culture. This is largely depicted in her
COMPARATIVE ESSAY 3

sentiments that his professing to appreciate the merit of locally grown food does not accurately

count (Trueman, 2010). Also, the notion that most environmental organizations and mainstream

chefs support local farmers through buying locally grown food is a myth (Trueman, 2010).

Trueman (2010) further asserts that Budianskys article is dubious as it leaves out the most

important information on the significance of industrial agriculture, as well as the cons related to

it.

With a lot of indifference, Trueman (2010) insists that Budianskys article totally

neglects other parameters that support locavore movement. In Truemans view, Budiansky

entirely focuses on the amount of fuel consumed in growing and shipping food from one place to

the other while concluding that it is not a significant parameter in the locavore discussion. In

guarded optimism, Trueman (2010) decides to tutor Budiansky on other important aspects that

make people buy local food. She states these factors while acknowledging Budianskys

ignorance, noting that his article seeks to validate sustainable agriculture as better to the

environment while disregarding the dangers that arise from industrial farming. In a rather

frustrated tone, Trueman (2010) maintains that it is time to have an honest conversation about

climatic change in relation to how people eat. She is furious at opinions such as Budianskys, as

they do not represent the reality of things. In her opinion, What we dont need is dishonest

misrepresentations and tiresome stereotypes about the eat local movement (Trueman, 2010,

para. 16).

Trueman (2010) further explains that buying local food is not the only thing to be

considered in the discussion for sustainable eating and consumption. The locavore movement

emphasizes on better farming habits such as the avoidance of chemical and pesticides which are

quite prevalent in industrial agriculture. Their basis is mostly on adopting plant-based diets
COMPARATIVE ESSAY 4

which are safe for human consumption. This thus elevates their need to buy local food as they

are well aware where it is grown, how it is produced, and how well it is handled before

consumption. Trueman (2010) asserts this in her discretization Budianskys piece; Budiansky is

wrong on writing about a topic he does not fully understand. Trueman (2010) conclusively

intones her standpoint by claiming that Budiansky needs to be taken out to the food shed and

pummeled with his own lousy logic (para. 17).

The Math Lessons of a Locavore is a sober article written skillfully by Stephen

Budiansky. Budiansky (2010) proclaims his love and appreciation for locally grown food but

asserts that locavores do not consider vital factors like energy and land use in disengaging from

local buying. In an aggressive tone, Budiansky (2010) continues that local food advocates throw

around misleading statistics, particularly on the energy costs of food transportation. In a self-

assured tone, he explains that different studies show that there is no difference between locally

grown food and shipping lettuce across the country, given that transportation is efficient. In a

straightforward tone, Budiansky (2010) concludes that local food production has its benefits, but

it is not the only way, considering the energy investment put into it.

Data and Statistics

In comparison, Trueman and Budiansky both believe in the locavore movement. Their

assertions divide at the energy consumption levels. A major idea discussed in the two articles

revolves around household energy consumption in putting a meal on the table for both locally

produced foods and foods bought from industrial markets. Budiansky (2010) argues that

transportation accounts for as little as 14% of the total energy consumed by the American

Food system (para. 6). According to his article, this is a small price to pay as it adds close to

nothing to the total household energy consumption. The facts that conflict are Truemans
COMPARATIVE ESSAY 5

convictions that energy is not the only parameter that locavores consider when deciding to buy

local foods. She claims that locavores most likely consider avoiding pesticides and other toxins,

as well as ecological farming practices for the vegetarians. Budianskys obsession with the

energy detail in his anti-locavore article leaves the reader wondering if he thought about other

factors that influence local buying. He tells his readers to think about the returns to land,

economy, and the environment, as well as their wellbeing in modern farming in regards to

household energy.

In sum, Trueman feels that locavores emphasize largely on becoming vegetarians as

opposed to Budianskys emphasis which lies in consuming conventional farming foods in a bid

to save on household energy. In order to have a discussion that truly contributes to climate

change, people should focus on additional research about food choices that not affect only their

bank balances and waistlines but also global warming.

COMPARATIVE ESSAY 6

References

Budiansky, S. (2010, August 19). Math lessons for locavores. The New York Times, p. A21.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20budiansky.html

Trueman, K. (2010, August 20). The myth of the rabid Locavore. The Huffington Post. Retrieved

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kerry-trueman/the-myth-of-the-rabid-

loc_b_689591.html