So, in a nutshell the author thinks that the 'foodie' movement can't feed the world. Perhaps, but I'm not so sure. At its heart, the foodie movement is the com

So, in a nutshell the author thinks that the 'foodie' movement can't feed the world. Perhaps, but I'm not so sure. At its heart, the foodie movement is the complex jumble of things the author mentions. Politics, art, identity, history, etc. But it's also highly supported by people with excess income. So some of this critique seems to warrant further investigation. On the other hand, many of these movements actually are dipping into techniques from a previous era and different social strata. For instance pickling, home preserves, raising your own chickens, etc. Many of these things are actually able to co-exist with urban density, and many more can be if urban planning was adjusted in certain respects. Additionally, I think many who focus on the quality of food would argue the world can't afford to feed the future 11 billion-peopled world using current agricultural practices. Economically, cheap transportation costs prop up various agricultural bread baskets, and will likely see future disruption as oil availability fluctuates. Other places, like California, require more water than is actually locally available. Some would also question the environmental cost of modern ag processes. From pesticide use to deforestation, agricultural use is often at the core of human's environmental impact in an area. The foodie/locavore/in-season movement all have various things to offer to this debate. Throwing such a focus out seems silly, possibly at least as silly as those who think GMO products have no part of the future equation to feeding the world.