I guess this kind of critical discussion of the organic and local food movements resonates so much with me because I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the self-righteous moral positioning that seems to go along with these products. Of course, I buy organics (less so locally produced food),and I do so in large part because they taste better and I have a vague sense that they are healthier. I am willing to pay a premium because I value better taste and health. But there's also a feeling that when I purchase these items, I'm also buying a sort of environmental indulgence.

Do people really miss the irony of using the term "sustainable" to refer to this kind of production? I understand that (among other things) it's referring to the unsustainability of using petroleum, which is a limited resource, as a motivator of food production. But if you can't scale it up to a place where it provides food for the whole world because of limitations on another natural resource -- land -- then doesn't it end up being equally unsustainable? Doesn't it just become a luxury product, a way for some people to feel like they're doing their part while the hoi polloi keep eating their corn? It's certainly sold like a luxury product. I don't see it at WalMart.

As I write this I'm in the middle of reading The Omnivore's Dilemma (highly recommended based on what I've read so far, but of course you've probably already read it) and while Pollan's description of our industrial food production is deeply troubling, there's this inescapable question of scale that it manages to satisfy. These ugliest features of our food production are also the same ones that allow us to live in the modern world, that support our populations and our largely urban lifestyle. Obviously the current system can't continue, but it seems pretty clear that any system that replaces it has to satisfy the same question of scale.