I have mentioned before about the big "real food" paradox I find in the lay literature. Does one "eat food, mostly plants" or does one limit the definition further (ala Kingsolver) by only eating local produce. In some areas of the country (I am looking at you, Northwest!), it seams as though the two aren't really mutually exclusive. However in other parts of the country, that would limit you to feasting exclusively on dandelion weeds (which would get old, no matter how "hip" they might be at the present.)
I came across this map at Epicurious which lists which vegetables are grown and are at their peak at any given month.
Let's take a little looksie, shall we?
Lady Susan's State: Asparagus
Barbara Kingsolver's Farm (VA): Asparagus, Spinach
Washington State (aka Mecca): Asparagus, Cauliflower, Garlic, Lettuce, Mushrooms, Pears, Spinach
Maine (just for kicks): Apples, Arugula, Lettuce, Onions, Parsnips, Scallions, Radishes
Dude, right? Obviously, I need to relocate. The thing is, my state could grow more stuff. It isn't like I live in the desert. But the farmers in this state obviously are all about the bottom dollar with no patience for any of that highfalutin organic crap let alone variety. (What are they actually growing? Turns out it is a bunch of GMO crops (corn and soybeans) and Tobacco. Completely useless!) Gah!
I think me and my hippie, socialist ideas need to just hightail it across the boarder into Canada and be done with it. Either that or live right next to Canada since it appears that some of that corrupted, non-capitalistic way of thinking manages to seep across the boarder. (Montana has Asparagus AND rhubarb!)