Well not us per se (we were in the Sun Times), but today's New York Times notes [registration req.] the movement towards eating local. It's an OK article. It hits upon key elements on why; carbon footprint, tastes better, supports farmers, but especially as it focuses on purists, makes it seem quite hard to eat local.
First of all, if you peruse the Eat Local Challenge blog you find few (if any) absolutists. We wrestle with issues like spices yet accept many far away products. Some of it is craven addiction--see me without morning coffee, a lot of it (at least for me) is a sense of which items are meant to travel or have historically traveled. Spices have always been caravaned; apples have not. Second, as I keep on saying, it's not that hard (or maybe, it gets easier). Yes, it can require diligence and effort. Find farmer. Buy freezer. Enjoy turnip. Take what you can get. Help if the kidz love apples.
Granted, the article brought up some serious limitations. For one thing, the article talks about people forced to make odd sandwiches because there were no local grains. I mean coffee-shmoffee, if your area does have bread things, it can get tricky. For another thing, the article mentions the increased cost of local chicken. It does take some work and expense at being local. I mean if I wanted really local bread, I could bake it from Wisconsin wheat. If I wanted. To bake. On the other hand, I'm laying out some big coin for my 1/2 cow; it's not that expensive for beef, per se, but on the other hand as one purchase, it seems a lot.
Figure out what works because it can be done.