Don't buy it! The bogus backlash against buying local.

On July 24, the Christian Science Monitor published an article by G. Jeffrey McDonald called "Is Buying Local Really Best?" The story begins by stating that the question of whether to spend your money on local small stores, farmers, and craftspeople is stirring a "sharp debate" about moral questions.

Before you read on, please stop and consider: have you ever had a debate with someone about whether buying a local product is morally wrong? Have you ever had ethical questions about supporting local stores, farmers, and craftspeople? Can you think of a moral argument against buying from local proprietors?

In the article, writer G. Jeffrey McDonald presented some reasons to buy local: preserving a place's character, supporting small businesses and family farms, reducing environmental impact, improved community connectedness, and so on. To "balance" this point of view, he combed the ends of the earth to find several illogical arguments against local purchasing and back them up with bizarre examples. Here's a summary of how the case was made that it hurts the world to buy local:

1. Buying local destroys jobs in developing nations. Bizarre example given: when U.S. consumers boycotted the garment industry, 50,000 Bangladeshi children lost their jobs.

2. Buying local food hurts the environment because it is more energy efficient to produce food on a large scale wherever it grows best and ship it worldwide. Bizarre example given: local food aficionados would favor growing bananas in greenhouses.

3. Buying locally is isolationist and will hurt our ties with other countries. Bizarre example given: small entrepreneurs in developing countries will be kept from realizing their dreams if U.S. consumers choose to buy local.

In the weeks following the article's publication, it was picked up by multiple online media sources such as cbsnews.com, yahoo.com, and many others. Industry trade newsletters reprinted it. Dozens of blogs provided links to the article, most praising "the fairly balanced view of pros and cons" presented by the writer.

The Christian Science Monitor is a well-respected information source, especially on international issues. They should not be guilty of this kind of journalism, in which simple and plain facts such as the multiple benefits of buying local are played against illogical arguments that, as one blogger says it, "sound like corporate fears more than real human concern."

Fact is fact, and fact is that the act of buying a locally-produced product (rather than a similar product from elsewhere) hurts just about nobody. Who it hurts are the companies that lose market share when people shop based on quality and personal values rather than low price and convenience.

As the interest in buying local grows and looms large on the radar screen of big company marketers, it will be tempting for them to do what's easy rather than what's hard.

What's hard is for big companies to truly heed the "buy local" call by revamping their systems to buy from local producers in the communities where they have a retail presence. Some big companies are doing just that, and deserve the full support of the quality- and values-driven buying public.

What's easy is to support the spread of misinformation about supposed harm caused by buy local campaigns. So let the shopper beware: as the buy local movement builds, the backlash will too. Prepare to see more false claims and misinformation emerge in media and retail settings. Don't buy it.

Peter Marks is Local Food and Farm Coordinator for Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project (ASAP). ASAP's Local Food Guide is available in area retailers or online at www.appalachiangrown.org.