Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

What does that even mean? There's nearly 10 million people in Chicago, so statistically we probably do have "some of the worst pizza in the nation, and some of the worst customers." But of course, so would New York, or Providence, or anywhere else. I've been all across the country, and proportionally we have better pizza than most any area, and while I've never owned a pizza store, so can't comment on "customers" Chicago residents tend to be nicer than, say, those of NYC.

Personally, I think Great Lakes pizza is pretty darn good, but perhaps they're getting a bit snobbish? Just because a place can't trace the genealogy of their sausage, and manages to serve pizza until a normal closing time doesn't mean they can't make delicious pies.

@producestories - I'm not kidding myself about anything. Increased exports in those countries help everyone. To the extent that life has improved in any of those countries, it's directly related to their ability to participate in global trade. Further, it's a bit disingenuous to lump Guatemala in with Mexico and China. According to wikipedia, agriculture accounts for a full 1/4 of it's GDP, and 3/4 of it's exports. As for the huge agricultural conglomerates, they hire workers, buy supplies, use services, and pay taxes in those countries.

@MK
Supagold is actually a him, not a her. ;)

I've heard the argument that organic farming can actually increase yields per acre (and also that yields can be as low as half that gotten from conventional agriculture), but I'm skeptical. If organic food production could really be more efficient than conventional agriculture, then why doesn't it dominate the market? You point to one good reason in your post - that it requires large amounts of expensive human labor.

"Does Alice Waters deserve this maelstrom of ill will—or is she a well-intentioned activist who’s been made an unfair target? Is she really “out of touch”? And does it matter if she is?"

The first question is a false dichotomy. How does being "a well-intentioned activist" who also happens to be wrong, make her an "unfair target"? She's clearly someone who has a public voice on these issues, shouldn't she be held accountable for the views she espouses? When people say that she's an example of a limousine liberal, this is exactly what they mean. Someone who is out of touch with reality, advocating policies with real human cost, then when you call them on the effects of their polices, they hide behind the suggestion that at least they had good intentions. I'm not saying she should be lynched, but just as with speakers on the right, she deserves no special protection from ridicule when she spouts ridiculous ideas.

My personal opinion is that she absolutely is out-of-touch. Does anyone remember the book "The Population Bomb"? This was a book from the 60s that predicted massive famines, 100s of millions of people starving to death in the 70s and 80s. That fate was averted largely because of modern agricultural techniques. GM modified foods like "golden rice" have the potential to avert 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness due to Vitamin A deficiency each year. Meanwhile, there is not good evidence that the standard vegetables that most people access to in their grocery store are anything but good for them. Further, there are serious questions about the actual environmental benefits of locally grown produce.

So what's the tradeoff? We have the local food movement. It's intellectually appealing, but what are the actual, provable, benefits? Our modern produce distribution system manages to provide a vast array of nutritious produce, from all over the world, at prices that average families can afford. Locally-sourced/traditionally grown foods, are great at creating premium quality, however they also necessarily entail relatively increased cost (including the opportunity cost associated with acquiring the food). That's great for people who desire the quality, and can afford it, but is unnecessarily scaring people into trading more of their scarce resources for fewer vegetables really helping them? The extra money they save might be better spent purchasing books for their children, or repairs for the family car. So does it matter? I think it does.

What's the unit of measurement on the ginger? TBSP, I'm guessing...

I don't get the issue... Did you lose your job? Are you making less money now, or are afraid you might lose your job in the near future? If no to all these questions, why are you spending less money? Spending less money because the economy is "bad" doesn't seem to make much sense. All you're doing is removing money you could (and according to your post, normally would) spend from the economy, thereby making the economy, as a whole, ever so slightly worse.

Unless you have some rational financial reason not to spend, I don't see a reason not to live normally...