Creative Loafing just put up a post on Fresh Loaf about a new University of Georgia’s Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development study, which asserts that if every Georgia household spent $10 on Georgia-grown produce that it would pump $1.9 billion a year back into the state economy.

Ah yes, the old “something for nothing” assumption.

Correct me if I’m wrong – and I know you will – but while I have been, and continue to be, a vocal and passionate supporter of local food, I can’t put much credence into a purely economic study.  It may be a great PR piece, but while attempting to simplify the impact of locally grown and purchased produce on the state economy, it seems to undermine itself.

How?

Because it makes one unstated assumption: while Georgia would entirely devote itself to locally grown produce, no other states would.  What happens if every other state does the same thing as Georgia?  How adversely affected would the peach, peanut and Vidalia onion industry be if other states spent more money locally?  Would these two behavioral patterns cancel out the other’s economic impact?

My point is NOT to defend corporate agriculture, but simply to suggest that the argument for more local food on the dinner plate must be more holistic, and that the case for it may actually be weakened when viewed in a vacuum of “economy”.

The impact of local food can’t be reduced to simple revenue.  The argument just doesn’t play out.  (Unless you currently live in a state with no agriculture economy.  Even then, your actions will hurt the economies of the big exporting states.)

Local food is about supporting your neighbor instead of a corporate farm, which in turn supports improved working conditions on farms.  It’s about health and taste.  It’s about the impact on the environment.  It’s about creating a food production model that’s a bit more flexible than the current version, which is solely reliant on a single variable – inexpensive energy – in order to keep feeding the population.

Local food is about a lot of things.  A state’s economy may just not be one of them.