My main beef (get it?) is that it threatens to become dominated by its image. "Bourgeoisie values," as my communist dad would say, or "boo-jee" as my sister/Californians would say. Case in point, the comments section of the NYT article on "Slow Food," a movement that is often seen as a an integral part of the sustainable food "movement." Check out Rob L from Myrtle Beach:
"What I want to know is 'What's in it for ME!' How can I slim down, make a lot of money, solarize my house, be cool and hip, AND save the world in one or two easy steps..."
— Rob L, N Myrtle Beach, SC
Or maybe Jan Bone from Palatine, IL:"For one thing, since it's the first time I've heard of Slow Food, it would help if there were a 2-sentence boilerplate blurb defining Slow Food that could be in every story written about the movement. I've read the NYTimes story twice, and don't understand what the movement is about or even what it is. That explanatory short paragraph should be part of every press release the organization issues, and hopefully part of the material it gives to media writers."
- Jan Bone, Palatine, IL
"I was a member of Slow Food for a while. Most of its events were $150/plate tasting menus and similar fare. All events (except for those in which members volunteered free labor) required payment over and above the membership fees. Most of its emails were solicitations for more money. No one at the organization attempted to make a personal connection with us. If Slow Food wants to broaden its appeal, it needs to stop acting like an dining club for the wealthy and start offering members more than the opportunity to be on the solicitation list."
— Rebecca H, Portland, OR
Its a bit shocking to read these comments because after working at the farm for a couple of months, the wisdom behind sustainable, local agriculture seems almost obvious. The vision for local, sustainable agriculture, in which everyone has enough time to grow some food themselves, where farmers can sell directly to consumers, and everyone has enough to eat, is inspiring and uplifting. And of course, there is nothing controversial from buying locally from environmentally-friendly farms. So why the complaints?As reflected above, Slow Food and by association, the whole "sustainable" food movement, is now suffering from huge image problems.
I think to really tackle the issue, we have to start from the beginning. I have feeling that local, sustainable agriculture started out well enough; small scale, word-of-mouth, isolated from marketing schemes and profit-making motives. Most importantly, it was about community, which transcends any socio-economic boundaries. And things were good. It was a true grassroots movement.
But our current problems had already been sown in the form of economics - local food has always been pricier. This created the gap between those who could afford local food and those who couldn't. Instead of closing the gap, it only widened as the "movement" became larger. The egalitarian nature of local and sustainable food and the need for urban agriculture itself were never emphasized. Environmental justice was never given precedence. It was a grassroots movement, sure, but for most people, it was slowly becoming one only for the rich.
As market forces took control and scaled the movement up, the concept of community farms in working-class or poor, immigrant neighborhoods were overlooked because though they could grow locally and in an environmentally-conscious fashion, they were less likely to buy organic food. With the appearance of nationwide chains like Whole Foods, it didn't make sense to market to those who couldn't afford to buy it in the first place. And now, we see the prevalence of local food in chic New York restaurants, in which waiters are expected to know which farm each vegetable or dish is from. We see 200 dollar "sustainable meals" with Slow Food USA. I have been trying to place my finger on exactly why I have had an antagonism to sustainable food or even the word "sustainable" at all, and I believe that this is why. I mainly see only the wealthy and the elite associated with such words and I turn away.
With this marketing concentration on the rich, anything "natural" or "organic" risked becoming associated the rich. We deal with multiple problems now:
1. As with the beginning, organic food is still pricier. There is a slight twist now as in wealthy areas, prices are easily jacked up because to the retired lawyer, it doesn't matter whether a bunch of radishes are 5 dollars or 7 dollars.
2. More malicious is the image, which can remain even if prices lower or even match that of regular, industrial food. The danger is that sustainable food, and to some degree anything labeled "sustainable", is being consumed by this image. After years in which only the wealthy bought sustainable food, others see ANYTHING sustainable as being the realm for the elite. We begin to associate something good - supporting farmers and environmentally-sound practices - with a destructive and exclusive image. Even worse, this image extends beyond food to anything attached with the "sustainable" or "organic" label - environmentalism itself is being attacked. Additionally, without a proper understanding of the issues at stake - farmers' agriculture, public health, etc. - the uneducated elite will be too easily manipulated into furthering profits as opposed to the social welfare.
I honestly have to say that I cannot stand "the movement" and all its boo-jeeness. There needs to be some way to make the issues important to everyone.
And now "Dramatic Chipmunk:
1 comment:
Hey Charles,
Another excellent post. Your blogs may be few and far between, but they're always a treat to read. I also enjoyed the dramatic prairie dog clip--it really drove the point home. Anyway, I just finished reading In Defense of Food a few days ago and I feel like after 200+ pages I'm finally starting to understand what exactly this "Slow Food" movement is. But that's not a good sign, given that most people don't have time to read an entire book to understand something that they already have a negative impression of anyway. The way I see it though, the Slow Food movement has to start with better eating habits, with people who can take the time to cook their meals with fresh ingredients (such as vegetables, grains, meat, dairy--the stuff on the perimeters of grocery stores). Only when people are able to utilize the food they get from CSA boxes and their own gardens can there be a demand for sustainable agriculture. Unfortunately, the American culture of eating on the go and people not having enough time or energy to cook proper meals makes it difficult for a family to justify a box of produce--regardless of how local or organic it is--that they will never have the time to cook. For people with lower incomes and even less time on their hands, the stuff of "sustainable" food becomes even more impractical. Instead, the most accessible calories have become the ones that are unhealthy for them and the environment.
So my point is that sustainable food isn't just suffering from a "bourgeois" connotation, but that more practical concerns prevent it from being as accessible as it should be. Unless we can also address the fact that our culture produces overworked and stressed people who can't seem to afford to prioritize the quality of their meals over how much they work, sustainable food will continue to be a luxury that can only be enjoyed by those who have disposable incomes and time on their hands.
Post a Comment