wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] whoindatgarden from Brooklyn September 08, 2009 - 10:54AM

  Are Americans & the Rest of the Caucasian population willing to redefine what it means to be Developed? That is necessary if we want to have an impact on Climate Change.

  Without redefining WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A DEVELOPED ECONOMY, any changes that your guests may help bring about will only be a drop in the ocean at the most.

  
  
• [2] Voter from Brooklyn September 08, 2009 - 10:54AM

  I think I remember a guest on either the BL or LL show saying that local food isn’t necessarily better than food shipped across the country. The example was waste in the form of fertilizers, water management, being “organic”, or labor practices that may be better 2000 miles away that what the local farmer 150 miles away does.

  The same with locally grown grains or fruits versus things that could be grown fair trade in South America, Africa, or Asia over growing it subsidized or out of season in the States.

  
  
• [3] jill from new york September 08, 2009 - 10:56AM

  I went to the College of Wooster in Ohio in the 1990s. The students developed a program called "Soup and Bread". Once a week, one of the two cafeterias served only soup and bread at dinner. The money saved at this meal was donated to charities. Not a Real Food Challenge, but a way to be politically active through the dorm food.

  
  
• [4] whoindatgarden from Brooklyn September 08, 2009 - 10:56AM

  Unless the guests help push for redefining what it means to be a *developed economy* all their efforts will be just a drop in the ocean.

  Currently how we define what it means to being a *developed* economy is directly detrimental to *climate change*.

  
  
• [5] Calls'em As I Sees'em from Langley, VA September 08, 2009 - 10:59AM

  What about the effect on poor non-white people growing food all over the world? The local movement will help destroy jobs and lives all around the world.

  Many people gave up growing drugs to grow foods. Many farms overseas are organic, because they never saw chemicals. Many farms in the US have toxic soil.

  So many consequences that fussy thinking liberals don't think through.

  PS - Brian, no segments on Obama’s school speech (influence them while they’re young) or Van Jones forced to resign because of conservative talk radio outing him as a racist, communist, and 9-11 “truther?” Your sanitized news coverage is very Stalinesque.

  
  
• [6] John from NYC September 08, 2009 - 11:05AM

  How wonderful is this idea about not wasting food! Now American parents don't have to tell their kids something abstract like, 'Don't waste food because there are kids in the third-world who don't get enough to eat.'

  All they have to say now is that if you waste food then you are killing the planet!

  Unnecessary large-scale food production is Carbon intensive.

  
  
• [7] jonny goldstein from Philly September 08, 2009 - 01:42PM

  Locally grown does not automatically translate into energy efficient.

  For example, you could grow a pineapple on Long Island (with the help of some serious artificial lighting and climate control), but it's much more energy (and cost) efficient to eat a pineapple shipped in from Hawaii.

  The same goes for most foods. Where you live is not the most efficient place to grow what you eat.

  One way people CAN hugely reduce their contribution to global warming is by eating less animal products.

  
  
• [8] Joe September 08, 2009 - 04:24PM

  Great segment! Really inspiring work by these students.

  
  
• [9] Cindy from Jackson, NJ September 10, 2009 - 01:42PM

  My daughter is a junior at Sarah Lawrence. This year she is raving about the food. Making the ingredients more environmentally friendly has also improved quality.