My food musing this week has taken a turn toward the financial.  With all of the talk about the ailing economy, I have begun pondering the positive and negative effects of locavorism and sustainable agriculture on the national and global economies.

When I made the decision to choose local, I knew there would be certain foods I would have to forgo entirely.  One of the foods I have given up is the humble banana.  As I have never encountered a banana grown in the United States, I determined that this was one food I would just have to live without.  It was an easy decision, and I never thought twice about the ramifications of my banana boycott until recently, when I started researching almonds.

Almonds, you say? I though we were discussing bananas.  Bear with me.

My adopted state of California is the leading almond producer, growing more than 80% of the world’s supply of almonds, and exporting our goodies to nearly 80 countries.  With the labors of 6000 almond growers in the Central Valley, we produce the number one horticultural export in the country.  We are talking big bucks, and not just for the economy of our state, but for our country as well.

Even if I can manage to justify my own almond consumption with the rather weak argument of “it grows in my state”, there is no way a Pennsylvanian locavore could.  Let alone a local eater from Japan.   A global switch to locavorism would be catastrophic for the almond industry.

So I ask you, should the almond growers only produce enough to feed the local market, and leave the rest of the world bereft of almonds?  Or conversely should I be eating the imported bananas so I do not cause bankruptcy for the poor banana farmers in Brazil?

If there were global initiatives in place to mandate organic farming practices which support healthy ecosystems for both plants and animals, could we allow ourselves to disregard the environmental costs of shipping and still consider it a sustainable system.

How do we reconcile a local lifestyle within an increasingly global economy?