That Bates College is using an unprecedented $2.5 million gift to offset an expansion of its Maine-produced menu doesn’t speak well about the affordability of “local” food.

It’s a great culinary paradox. The foodstuffs that should be cheapest – grown by smaller, local producers, which should have lower overhead and transportation costs – still cannot compete on price with the offerings from massive producers located everywhere across the planet.

Anyone who shops in their local grocer can attest to this. Local foods appeal to political, social and community sensibilities, but not the pocketbook. The decision to eat local is a decision to pay extra for basic food items.

The gift to Bates underscores this reality. While this unique donation – we always thought college donors wanted buildings named after them, not bestow anonymous food money – will enhance its sizable commitment to local food, it also recognizes the premium this devotion will require.

Bates should be applauded for this commitment. Its efforts show the strong links the college has to the community-at-large, both socially and economically. An expansion of its purchases of local foods has few potential drawbacks.

But outside applause, it must be recognized this decision to “buy local” is beyond the reach of most consumers. Bates has the means – and the philanthropy – to pursue this appetizing avenue to fulfill its philosophical mission.

For Mainers who crowd aisles at Hannaford Bros., Shaw’s, Wal-Mart, Bourque’s or elsewhere, the choices are more clear-cut. Locally produced food is most often a luxury item, compared to the offerings that sit side-by-side.

For the local food movement to really gain momentum, this must change.

Bates’ gift could do this. The interest from the $2.5 million will buy a lot of produce, which, in turn, could boost margins for local producers and reduce their costs, thereby reducing prices.

The impact of Bates’ spending, though, may take awhile to develop.

In the meantime, the greater discussion that should occur is about how to make local food more competitive, in price, against the mass-market offerings that are available at nearly every neighborhood grocer.

Surely some common problems and solutions exist, the exploration of which could help increase the bottom lines of independent producers across the region.

The benefits of buying and eating local food are clear – helping the local economy, fresher ingredients, environmental gains from reduced transportation – but the movement cannot depend on social conscience alone to thrive. Its greatest obstacle is the most basic: affordability.

Independent food producers are already proving competitive in most every market, after all.

They must become competitive in the marketplace, too.