May 18, 2006

Economics > The New Yorker Article on Whole Foods

From The New Yorker:

Yet the net benefit of all this to the planet is hard to assess. Michael Pollan, who thinks that we ought to take both a wider and a deeper view of the social, economic, and physical chains that deliver food to fork, cites a Cornell scientist’s estimate that growing, processing, and shipping one calorie’s worth of arugula to the East Coast costs fifty-seven calories of fossil fuel. The growing of the arugula is indeed organic, but almost everything else is late-capitalist business as usual. Earthbound’s compost is trucked in; the salad-green farms are models of West Coast monoculture, laser-levelled fields facilitating awesomely efficient mechanical harvesting; and the whole supply chain from California to Manhattan is only four per cent less gluttonous a consumer of fossil fuel than that of a conventionally grown head of iceberg lettuce—though Earthbound plants trees to offset some of its carbon footprint. “Organic,” then, isn’t necessarily “local,” and neither “organic” nor “local” is necessarily “sustainable.”
Posted by lesjones | TrackBack



Comments

Sort of off topic, but the produce at the Whole Foods up the street from us in Arlington was mostly the same sort of crappy tasteless stuff that was sold at Giant and Safeway. And, it cost more or less the same as the produce at Giant and Safeway, too. Produce of any sort in DC is really, really, really expensive.

What really puzzled me was that our Richmond Kroger would sell good, ripe tomatoes that came from the next county for 79 cents/pound in the summer, but in Arlington, even in the summer, the tomatoes still came from Canadian hydroponic greenhouses and sold for $2.50/pound.

Posted by: Steve K. at May 17, 2006
Post a comment










Remember personal info?







Terms of Use