Question: Is the lacavore diet beneficial?
Answer: While it is harmful to the world trade and transportation of foods, the locavore diet is generally beneficial to the environment, local farmers, and people. In a small community, the locavore diet would contribute to the local economy as well as the health of the population.
	The locavore diet is a restriction in which people are encouraged to eat foods produced within a 100 mile radius of them, which not only benefits their health, as they are eating organic, locally produced foods, but also local farmers, by buying their produce, and the environment, by eliminating the harmful effects of transportation, such as airplanes and trucks.
A common concern of younger generations is the state of our environment, thanks to the continuation of air and water pollution as well as global warming. The locavore diet targets these exact concerns. In Source A, Maiser notes that a study from the journal Food Policy in 2005 found that buying locally produced foods eliminated the environmental damage that most food transportation causes. The locavore diet is not only friendly to the environment but also to the farmers who produce organic foods. In the USA, the increased purchasing of local foods has created a revival of small farms, with the number of small farms rising 20%, or approximately 1.2 million farms, in just the past six years (Source E). In small communities where small farms are a main source of produce, the locavore diet benefits the local economy, as more money is spent on local farmers and businesses. The increase in small farms within America is also beneficial to the national economy, as money is being spent within the country and perpetuates within our economy.
Despite its benefits to local farmers, farmers from around the world who were dependent upon the trade and transportation of foods have been suffering. For example, Kenya is responsible for most of the UK’s green beans, and while the locavore diet would support local farmers in the UK, approximately 1.5 million of Kenyan farmers’ livelihoods would be threatened. However, the same argument could be applied to local farmers: the import of foods from countries like Kenya decreases the money spent on small, local farms. In addition, eliminating the need to import food is beneficial to the national economy, as money is being spent on American farmers, who will then spend that money in America, rather than being spent outside of the country.
Perhaps the most powerful appeal to the locavore diet is its healthiness. Not only do local foods have fewer susceptibility to contamination, but the physical distance of local foods causes them to harbor more powerful vitamins, minerals, and disease-fighting substances. In Source B, Smith argues that because local fruits and vegetables travel shorter distances, they are therefore more likely to be closer to maximum nutritional value. In a notoriously unhealthy society, Americans are likely to benefit from the locavore diet because it emphasizes the importance of eating fruits and vegetables.
The locavore diet, while having some drawbacks, is overall beneficial to small communities: it keeps local farms in business which in turn stimulates the local and national economies, it reduces potentially harmful environmental impacts by decreasing the use of air and road transportation, and it allows for more nutritional value in the foods people eat. Worldwide, the locavore diet may not be as helpful, as it would all but eliminate the need for food trade. However, for small, tight-knit communities, the locavore diet would be arguably beneficial.