The second hearing of the program on food raised some interesting questions. While the "experiment" that one family took to only eat what they can either grow or purchase from their local community sounds good, it has some difficulties.
For starters, how much land was required to provide the harvest of vegetable and animal based food for this family? Probably more than we think, and likely more than is realistic for a family of urban or even suburban climbs to consider converting to agriculture and raising of food animals.
Then there is the question of local catastrophe — what if the people of New Orleans, or any other town that gets flooded/hit by a tornado/et cetera depended totally on locally produced food? Where would that food come from after their disaster?
While it is not something that I like to think about, the reality is that the global food market is probably a bit better than the ancient life of human-kind where one's life was circumscribed by the amount of land they can harvest for their family/tribe.
It is nice to ponder a pastoral existence that harkens back to days gone by but is not sustainable in today's world.
It is also interesting that despite the author's environmental sounding words she expressed a love of going to France. I doubt that she took a ship, or rowed across the Atlantic to get there. And once she arrived, did she have to plant a garden and raise animals in order to eat?
To be sure we can be nicer to the people who actually grow our food and they can be nicer to us but we are not going back to the days of yore when my tribe farmed our land and defended it against the outsiders.
More information about text formats