"Good Food is Elitist" Frame Must Die

Time has a great special report on its website, called The Food Chains That Link Us All. I've only scanned it so far, but so far it's drool-worthy for a geek like me. The beginning of Mark Kurlansky's opening essay was awesome:

C.L.R James, the great Trinidadian essayist, once wrote of his favorite sport,"What do they know of cricket, who only cricket know?" The same question
should be asked of food. To write about food only as food misses the point, or
the many points, about the great universal human experience between birth and
death. Food is not just what we eat. It charts the ebbs and flows of economies,
reflects the changing patterns of trade and geopolitical alliances, and defines
our values,status and health—for better and worse. The famous dictum of the
early 19th century French gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, "Tell me
what you eat and I will tell you who you are," should be expanded. Tell me
what you eat and I will tell you who you are, where you live, where you stand on political issues, who your neighbors are, how your economy functions, your country's history and foreign relations, and the state of the environment. By looking at food, the age we live in is better understood.

I was all set to stuff this in the overflowing "What I wish my thesis would have been" file, but then he got all patronizing...

Originally a movement to take control back from corporate industrial agriculture, these markets, serviced by local farmers trucking in their goods,are a most fascinating collusion of small-scale farming and wealthy consumers. There is almost no limit to the price such farmers can ask for their produce...

Okay...not once have a read an interview with a small farmer who didn't voluntarily limit the price they put on their heirloom tomatoes to make them relatively affordable. But then again, most of these farmers weren't selling in New York City (faux news trend alert: something happening in NYC does not a national trend make).

The wealthy, of course, reject industrial farming, which was always intended to mass produce for the poor (and yet has failed in its greatest goal: to end world hunger). To see just how much resistance to industrial agriculture there isamong the rich, travel to rural areas where wealthy urbanites have their vacation homes and watch them pay fees for the privilege of stooping in the field to harvest a crop.

"..of course..."? "...pay fees for the privilige of stooping in the field..."? Not that I disagree with the first sentence in that paragraph- I think it's a good point. But does he think the proponents of industrial agriculture are working class stiffs being put down by the man, that the rich aren't the people making money off industrial agriculture? Obviously, he hasn't seen the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidies Database.

And yet, industrial food is out of fashion. Today there is a global market for organic fruits and vegetables, free-range birds, oysters from microbeds.
Technology is in. Genetically modified food offers many opportunities, not the
least of which is crops that are so insect repellent they need no pesticides.
But—to the fury of some farmers—some of the same people who reject pesticides
and call for organic food are now calling for a ban on genetically modified
food. The argument, though a bit murky, is powerful. While there is no solid
proof of the evils of such food, why trust hi-tech food from the same
corporations that brought us industrial food?

Yeah, that's right. The whole food reform movement is just about "fashion." Not health, or the saftey of the next generation. How bourgeosie of us to reject industrial pesticides and fertilizers AND genetically modified crops. Seriously people, why is the precautionary principle so distained in this country? Perfectly acceptable in other modern countries (e.g., Canada), but lest people in California want to ban a chemical from children's toys until it can be proven safe, it's overreacting. "No solid proof of the evils"? How about no solid proof of the good?

Obviously, I get really passionate about this. On the whole, it's a good essay. It's just the tone that makes the caring about food so flippant, so unimportant. He should know better, considering he's made a career of writing good books about the impact of food on civilization. Because "to write about food only as food misses the point, or the many points, about the great universal human experience between birth and death"? Brilliant.