fkdjshfkjsdhfkjahkjh

It's not a fad or some trendy bandwagon.
I would if I could, but I can't so I won't.
That's the biggest problem facing the people of modern day America when it comes to their choices in food. Everyone knows that it's a lot easier to just stop by McDonald's (which is cheap and fast) and pick up a quick meal, or to make a quick run on Safeway (which is everywhere) for the dinner groceries as opposed to stopping at an organic restaurant (which is expensive) or going all the way to a Whole Foods market (which is not everywhere) for daily dietary needs.

Everyone needs money. Almost everyone needs their time. McD's and Safeway save money and time for people. More people will choose (or be forced into choosing) the lesser options of genetically modified foods and pesticide ridden vegetables for these simple reasons. It's inevitable for as long as we live in the market based world...

This is where the New Yorker article goes wrong entirely. Seeing as how eating organically, locally and pesticide free is almost always more time and money intensive, there is no way that it could just be 'another middle-class lifestyle choice'. The middle class struggles enough as it is to maintain a healthy and productive life without having to go to the troubles of eating greener (let's not even get into what lower-class people are suffering through, perhaps eating fast food twice a day or more...). To prove this point, I did a quick online search of Whole Foods and Safeway around me. Using the zipcode locator, I found three Whole Foods markets within five miles of me, whereas there are more than eight Safeway stores within just three miles of my location. For middle class people where money and time (time that is important because it can be used to make more money or do other things that are forcibly neglected due to overwork) are essential to the well-being of the family, the difference is huge.

Therefore, one can reasonably assume that eating locally and organically is not just some sort of middle-class lifestyle choice that just so happens to be conveniently located on a moral high ground. It's not about morals, it's about realistically being responsible for what you do to your own body, and about what your legacy will be on this planet - a regressively destructive or a progressively contructive one. Let's be real here: when it's a matter of eating poorly and pumping yourself full of poison to die ten years sooner, or eating healthily and living ten years longer, it is no longer an issue of morals. Sure, there are people that have moral grounds for eating locally and green, but most people are just concerned over what exactly is going into them, even if being more aware means less pocket money and spare time.