A nation fed on local food?
The political power of the U.S. president just sets the stage for the presidential family to influence American culture. 
I think one of the most interesting galleries at the Eisenhower Museum--dedicated to our 34th president who hailed from Abilene, Kansas (about an hour from where I write)--is the gallery filled with outfits worn by his wife Mamie. Plaques near the outfits describe the impact the former First Lady had on women’s fashion during her husband’s presidency--like many First Ladies before and after her.
Purpose-minded people everywhere hope that their cause will be picked up by a member of the presidential family and instantly regarded as fashionable.
This, of course, includes proponents of local food.
.png)
As reported by the New York Times,
“The nonprofit group Kitchen Gardeners International wants to inspire people to grow their own food in home gardens. More recently, its “Eat the View!” campaign has targeted the ultimate home garden — the White House lawn.”
According to the group’s website,
Kitchen Gardeners “are self-reliant seekers of "the Good Life" who have understood the central role that home-grown and home-cooked food plays in one's well-being.”
Across the pond, the Japan Times reports that, “public trust in food, packaging and labeling [is] 
crumbling across the nation,” and it’s leading consumers to “tak[e] a healthy interest in vegetables and other locally made produce.”
The article asserts,
“The vegetables and fruits are not necessarily cheap compared with supermarket prices, but people are apparently buying them because they feel safer eating products made by farmers who aren't afraid to be identified.”
It can’t hurt to know who supplies your food. However, without microbiological evidence of the safety of products and processes, there’s really no guarantee that food produced nearby—or even in your own yard—will be safer to eat than food that’s been in transit for a while.
Sick people just get the comfort of knowing who it was that let the poop get on their food.
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/107345
While you're correct that locally grown food isn't inherently safer than the current production system, you're missing a very important point: in the event of food contamination, local food has some notable benefits.
1. The contamination doesn't get spread through hundreds of thousands of pounds of product, and therefore will affect fewer people.
2. The geographic range affected is much smaller, meaning that the source of the contamination can be tracked down much more quickly.
3. Small producers with poor safety records can be quickly shut down by the government far more easily (and with much less economic impact) than gargantuan producers with hideous safety records.
4. Food producers from other regions are much less likely to be economically affected by unnecessary recalls/boycotts/etc.
So while local food isn't necessarily less contaminated, it makes it much easier to police and to fix problems quickly (thereby saving lives).
Nice points, Doc. But I would prefer to know that risks to my health were being addressed and minimized, than to know that they'll only be a few of us that get sick.
Show me what you do and why and I'll be happy to eat off your lawn (provided its a garden).