"The local-foods movement, springing from a generally affluent, generally left-leaning, and disenchanted consumer base, has been so thoroughly identified with a 'liberal' mantra that the movement is often derided by the right," conceded The Freeman's Paul Schwennesen, who goes on to remind us that "centralization in agriculture, that hazy realm from which our food spontaneously appears, poses its own set of dangers to individual aspirations," argues, "The local-foods movement offers an alternative to this agricultural-industrial complex, presenting producers with healthier profit potentials and reviving a more diffuse and independent agrarian production base" — Local Food Makes Strange Dining Companions. The author continues:
- When the vast majority of meat processing (87 percent) is done by just four companies, the system is top-heavy and fragile. Coupled with the crony-capitalism of a powerful lobby, centralized agriculture makes youthful entry into agriculture difficult and financially reckless. The local-foods movement offers an alternative to this agricultural-industrial complex, presenting producers with healthier profit potentials and reviving a more diffuse and independent agrarian production base....
Many alleged leftists have found that concepts of freedom and individuality resonate strongly if rooted in a land ethic and in local produce. For them centralization in markets and among corporations is of more pressing concern than centralization of political power, and feeding their dollars into local agriculture is a palatable way to participate in a free market. Ironically enough, while many so-called liberals express skepticism about laissez-faire economies, they are the first to indignantly resist intrusion by bureaucrats into local farmers’ markets.