It seems like everywhere you turn, there is some new book, article or movie popping up to tell you about the local-global debate these days. There is so much information out there that it can be hard to keep track of what you have and have not read, or even remember what your opinion on the subject is, when everyone else is throwing their opinions at you.
Last night I came across this article in the Globe and Mail that attempts to highlight the points for each argument - local and global - and actually does a pretty good job of it. The thing is, after studying this topic for over a year I feel as if I COULD argue either way. There are valid points on both sides of the court. There are clear positives and negatives to each side of the argument, and it's taken me a year to come to that conclusion.
The real argument, I think, is for a system that is both local and global in scale. It's about recognizing the realities of a world with 8 billion inhabitants that need to get fed, yet also understanding that I, specifically, live quite well in a first world country, and have the luxury of treating what I eat as more than mere substanance. I have the luxury of being educated and making choices. Because the best part about food, any food, is that it is not only essential to our survival, but also about culture, community, history and tradition, and the only real way to weigh the argument is by figuring out how much those things mean to you.