Forgive me for reacting strongly, but as one of the 'enemy' defined in this article, I have to say I'm getting extremely tired of people accusing some abstract 'foodie' contingent of not caring, not connecting, and not working to improve matters with people who don't have enough access to good, healthy food.

Save for the occasional healthy-school-lunch pilot program, it's a conversation that too rarely acknowledges the millions of Americans for whom the choice is not fresh versus prepackaged but eating versus not eating.

I've talked about this on MeFi so much that I'm now considering a personal moratorium on having the fight again. This is just untrue. I'm pretty deep in the food movement, and we spent a lot of time acknowledging, analyzing, researching, problem-solving, and developing resources for those whose access to good food resources is not adequate. It's people in the food movement who are most concerned with this topic and most active in taking it on. It's these people who are helping build urban gardens, who are conducting gleaning programs (we do this in Portsmouth - thousands of pounds of local food direct from farmers to our homeless shelter), working with our cities to establish EBT/food stamps and WIC at the produce and farmer's markets, conducting workshops on cooking and gardening in the transitional-housing facility, repairing a greenhouse and planting greens for the cafeteria at a local high school, and doing political organizing - all things we've been doing in my town alone.

It's a complete fallacy that these mean ol' "foodies" don't care about the poor. The deeper you get into the food movement, the more urgency you see to act in ways that revolutionize the food system, and I do mean revolutionize - put it back into the hands of the people who most need it, and are most hurt by the push of cheap, low-nutrient, high-calorie and chemical convenience food.

I suppose if you hang around a suburban Whole Foods you can find a lot of people whose involvement ends with buying an organic version of junk food for their own consumption. But thinking that those people are representative of the activists driving the intense current discourse on our food system is a mistake. They may have some habits in common, and those people may become further radicalized through pursuing their involvement in food from the consumerist fringe into some real change-making, but those shallow, small choices are not representative of the totality of the movement for food system reform. And food justice is a primary concern and area of activism for that reform movement. I'm tired of being told it's not by people who are happy to critique something they have a shallow understanding of, yet cannot be bothered to lift a single finger to help in any way at all.*

/rant
*not directed at BP
Nota bene: tone strongly influenced by my history of exhausting myself on this argument for the past couple of years

I think you're not the "enemy" in that article, Miko, you're the "overlooked."

Reporting on food quality issues in the US (like, well, most reporting anymore) is too personality-driven. It's easier to interview Michael Pollan and get witty quips about other people's sorry eating habits than it is to go out and talk to people in programs that are working to change the food infrastructure for the better.

I'm not sure what the answer is; there have been several well-made documentaries about food safety and health concerns in the last ten years, but they're only seen by the converted. News outlets that cover the issue at all tend to focus on some local yuppies who've changed their consumption habits. (The kind of people I think that article means when it refers to "foodies.") And legislators on both sides of the issue, as quoted in that essay, tend to be woefully under-informed. It's frustrating.

I am still puzzling over the appeal of Whole Foods, Fresh and Easy, and Trader Joes. Their fresh vegetables and meat are expensive and look too delicate to store much more than 24 hours. The nutrition labels on their packaged and processed store brand products read much the same as the equivalent name brands, and except for Trader Joes, half their aisles are filled with the same brand names available at regular groceries at about a 15% markup. So, why are these stores whose shared business model is snob appeal generally mentioned in food divide articles? This is like demanding a Saks when a Walmart is more appropriate.

Miko, you're the "overlooked." - Thanks, BP, I was foundering for the right words.

Most of the people I know who regularly shop at Whole Foods and Trader Joe's do it because their local grocery store does not stock certain "ethnic" or organic ingredients, and they do not have a local Indian or Mexican or asian market to purchase those ingredients. For example, my in-laws grew up in California and moved to New England. Whole Foods was the only local source of curry paste/powder and tamarind. Their local store did not have pre-prepared dumpling/egg-roll wrappers or fish sauce or anything but basic dark soy sauce. These items are considered "luxury" items, but they're really basic components of many non-Western diets. Often, my mother-in-law had to make a price choice between doing all of their shopping at Whole Foods, or spending the gas and time to drive to several different stores.

Here in San Antonio, there's only one Whole Foods, and there's nor reason to drive all the way across town to get some tamarind - it's at my local store, or I can go to the Asian market across the street. But that's because San Antonio is really multi-cultural. This just isn't the case for most regions of the country.

Now, I absolutely agree that the tone of our "national debate on food" is really problematic, but pointing fingers at anybody, whether it's foodies or fat people, just contributes to that tone.

As BP probably remembers, Sevananda was a health food cooperative in Atlanta that stocked fresh organic produce. That was sturdy food that stored well. This is why I find the fragility of commercial organic food such a conundrum.

Anyway, enough derailing...

One area where I would like to see more attention placed is rerouting public transportation to stop at larger markets. Only once have I lived where I could make just one transfer to get to a store. Another convenience I would like expanded is online shopping like I had in Vegas. It was well worth the $10 delivery fee.

I guess Trader Joes varies their inventories across locations. Last week I stopped in one specifically to see what they stocked in terms of ethnic ingredients. The only exotic item I found was a tapenade that included roasted red bell peppers.

there have been several well-made documentaries about food safety and health concerns in the last ten years, but they're only seen by the converted

That's generally true. But if there's an upside to this, the movies do tend to nudge people along the spectrum from less involved to more involved, dilettantish to more seriously examining. Each time one of these films circulates (or another bestseller is written), we do pick up new volunteers and newly impassioned 'converts' who, by getting involved locally, can start working on systemic issues like access.

absolutely agree that the tone of our "national debate on food" is really problematic, but pointing fingers at anybody, whether it's foodies or fat people, just contributes to that tone

Really well said. I generally feel like there's waaayyyy too much work to do to start tossing rotten tomatoes around. We're all in it together.

The Trader Joe's thing has puzzled me for a while. I think muddgirl noted some good points about the fact that they simply have products for which there's no other local source for some people. I heard about the store for ages before they arrived in our region, and I was pretty underwhelmed when it did show up here. So much of the food is processed to within an inch of its life. They sell seafood on the watch list. I sometimes get excited when my travel route is going to take me by a TJs, and then I go inside and think 'why do I think I like this place again?' The marketing and laid-back style of the place sends cultural messages that I think make us respond positively enough to overlook the fact that it's not really too transformative a place to shop.

Ok, to be fair, I've only ever bought Two Buck Chuck at a Trader Joe's, and they stock that right in the front, so I'm not as familiar with them as I am with Whole Foods. It's always sort of interesting to me, because in southern California (where TJ started), Trader Joe's aren't really regarded as organic food stores, because they aren't. It started closer to a convenience store chain, then started importing products under their own label to keep prices down, and now suddenly they have the image of providing "luxury foods".

My experience with Trader Joe's is pretty limited, and I would never consider them a primary grocery store, but I'll tell you what I do buy when we make a stop there: convenience foods that I wouldn't buy at a regular grocers because they're too artificial, that I wouldn't buy at Whole Foods because they're too expensive, and that I wouldn't buy at a proper health-food store because they'd have that self-consciously earnest healthy-ingredient taste.

We stopped at a Trader Joe's outside Boston on a recent trip, mostly as an excuse for me to stretch my legs and grab a snack. I bought:
- cookies made without transfats or HFCS, with real cocoa and real flavorings, for under two dollars.
- whole-grain crackers, again made without transfats or HFCS, again for under two dollars.
- a jar of sun-dried tomato baba ghanoush, again under two dollars and made with Real Foods. If I'd seen a similar thing in Whole Foods, I might have been curious, but it would cost two or three times as much, so I'd never try it.

For an investment of less than six bucks and less than ten minutes, we had a tasty snack with a minimum of factory-transformed fake food ingredients, complete with leftover crackers and cookies. That would've been hard to do at either WF or my local chain grocery.

Yeah, the more I think about it, Trader Joe's is actually sort of the anti-foodie, in that it prioritizes healthy, pre-packaged, and relatively inexpensive items. It's hard to find all three.

I have one Trader Joe's available to me, and it's an out of the way trip by car. I find the perimiter of the store to be cheaper than my local grocery chains, on the whole. It's the only place I can buy eggs that I feel ok about buying and eating. The wine is cheap. The produce is cheap. The fancy cheese is cheap.

I also have one Whole Foods which I went in one time and swore never ever again. What a head trip that was. Just a cluster of excess and sensory overload. And expensive. Not cheap.

I'm really struggling right now with how to feed myself. Not economically thank goodness, but how and what to cook or consume. Please don't lecture me. My scheudle is full. I'm just testifying that TJ's is for me, a better thing than lots of other things.

As I walked up and down the aisles of TJ's, I also thought, "Gosh, if I were a nervous or inexperienced cook, I would find this stuff very reassuring." They had the foods arranged (and sometimes even packaged) in serving-suggestion displays: olivada, cheese, peppers, and crusty bread together; a "guacamole kit" in a plastic gempack (avocados, a tomato, a red onion, some garlic, a lemon); salad greens with dressings and nuts and fruits in the packet or on the shelf nearby.

I didn't notice the meats or fish, because we very rarely buy those, but it did look like they had little serving vignettes around the counters, and the staff were attentively greeting shoppers with samples and recipe cards.

I suspect this arrangement is very enticing to someone who wants to stop eating frozen dinners, but doesn't know how to put a meal together.

And that is a big deal, and an important step in the larger issues: encouraging people who have access to a range of foods (and, of course, who have the time, the resources, and the interest) to take the first tentative steps into cooking them, or just putting them together off the grocery shelf.

A different, and much more dire issue, is that too many people don't have access to the foods or the resources (a real kitchen, running water, fuel, time in which to prepare meals).

I get so goddamned cross whenever some politician makes a show of "living on food stamps," because of course they already have a working stove, a frig that stays cool, running water, and probably someone at home with time to cook. Too many people do not have those things, and lacking even one of them makes food exponentially more expensive and difficult to obtain.

None of those stores are anywhere near me, but it sounds like they all have pretty much the same things, both good and bad, that you can buy in my local Hannaford. But at least my store's got a cool hippie building.

I don't know how it is everywhere but in Portland we can donate the produce we grow to food banks. We can also volunteer at and/or donate money to an organization that helps poor people plant vegetable gardens.

I do both and both are important to me. I also donate to homeless shelters. I seriously doubt I'm the exception. People who care about social causes care about...social causes.

JanetLand, did you know Ukrop's is closing? They were bought out. I am sad.

One area where I would like to see more attention placed is rerouting public transportation to stop at larger markets.

Totally. Suburban planning absolutely assumes everyone will be driving their own car directly to the store. Planning and zoning is one of the reasons there are so many food deserts.

I don't know how it is everywhere but in Portland we can donate the produce we grow to food banks.

Yes, that's true here, too. A lot of people don't know this (I didn't used to, either). In many cases the preference for "nonperishable" foods really was coming from a pass-through donor like the Scouts or a school doing a food drive, knowing the food would take days or weeks to reach the food bank. But in many cases, food banks themselves will take fresh produce - since they usually have weekly pickups at the least, it can be given away on time. One of the local food groups here posted a list of places that would take fresh food on their website, which is very handy. That list also serves as a reference for the Grow-a-Row program another volunteer started - you plant extra veggies in your garden for donating. Good simple idea.

I think TJs varies from market to market, for sure. In Chicago, they're the cheapest option for all non-produce, competitive for most produce, and offer non-processed alternatives for a lot of key staples. Switching from Jewel to TJs for our day-to-day shopping, while not removing anything we buy (and, in some cases, adding new things into the mix!) dropped $40-$50 off of our average bill, and the quality is much, much, much better.

Still like to balance this out with a Farmer's Market trip when that sort of thing's in season, of course.

SpiffyRob, that's my preference, too. I guess I'm in the middle of the "foodie" designation (and darned tired of that being an insult or a dismissal): I split my shopping between several local shops, the farmers' market, the chain grocery, and specialty purveyors. I think this wide-net foraging-gathering style is a product of all those years shopping without a car; I tend to consider purchases discretely as small goods to pick up on my route and carry home, not as one big lump to load into the trunk.

Our small city has revived the winter farmer's market this year, though I'm embarrassed to say I haven't been yet. (Conflicting schedules so far --- but this week I'm making sure I go!)

Lots of my friends opt for a CSA box, which usually works out to be more produce per dolar than shopping the farmers' market, if you have the means to put up a lump sum and if you're willing to take a grab bag every week. A lot of people tell me that they get more of the CSA's weekly bumper crop than they know what to do with; it's good to know that passing it on to a food pantry might be an option, in addition to eating it up or processing it for freezing.

Many of my farmer's market farms offer CSA boxes, but the details of pick-up or drop-off are inconvenient for me. I just learned that my favorite of the farms (biggest selection, friendliest & most knowledgeable workers, and produce most suited to my tastes) also offers a pre-paid shopping account: if I give them $180 at the beginning of the season, they'll credit me $200 to spend at the farmstand.

Trader Joe's has great cheap olive oil, great cheap canned tuna, good cheap balsamic vinegar, good cheap parmesan, good cheap flowers, good cheap shower gel, good cheap shaving cream, and good cheap wine. I feel like I can go there and buy "luxury" items (ones that I use often) for cheap. I don't buy everyday food there unless I'm stuck and that's the only place I'm going, but I do appreciate it being around because they have some things that I got used to being staples when I lived in Italy that are financial- and quality-reaches at U.S. supermarkets.

I do think there's a problem with foodies criticizing individual's cooking/shopping/eating choices in ways that are counter-productive, in the same way that I think there's a problem with feminism criticizing individual's make-up/clothing/jobs in ways that are counter-productive. There's a way in which one can use the idea that the personal is political that critiques systems, and a way in which it judges individuals, and I think it's important to pay attention to how the messages are playing with people who are *not* involved in the movement (whatever the movement may be). It's all well and good to say, "We're helping you!," but if the target population feels judged rather than helped, there's a problem. (Again, this is something that I've seen a lot with feminists not really listening to the criticism coming from POC/ the poor / the disabled / etc.)

There's a way in which one can use the idea that the personal is political that critiques systems, and a way in which it judges individuals, and I think it's important to pay attention to how the messages are playing with people who are *not* involved in the movement (whatever the movement may be). It's all well and good to say, "We're helping you!," but if the target population feels judged rather than helped, there's a problem.

I agree. It's why I think The Personal is Political is such a great, clearly stated and empathetic essay. And I don't know why the internet has seen fit to use the phrase however it wants. Hanisch is clear that we should be vigilant about the injustice of the system and sympathetic to whatever seemingly hypocritical or self-destructive or anti-feminist thing women need to do to live within it.

So yeah, the personal is political because the system is unjust, not because women and people who need to eat are jerks or suck at life.

Hmm

I tried to google for that The Personal is Political essay but couldn't find it quick

Will investigate later meanwhile if anyone can get hold of the full source I'd appreciate a link or a pdf

a pre-paid shopping account: if I give them $180 at the beginning of the season, they'll credit me $200 to spend at the farmstand.

That is a great idea. I think I'll send it as a think-on-this item to the coordinators of our 2 main local markets.

think there's a problem with foodies criticizing individual's cooking/shopping/eating choices in ways that are counter-productive,

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with this, and yet I think it's largely a straw man. I see very few direct instances of this in action, and many more instances of someone lobbing a charge at 'foodies' for being exclusive/thoughtless of others/paternalistic/judgey. More often than not, I think people in the food movement, at least those I've been able to work with personally, are pretty concerned with empowering leadership among all sectors, connecting people with resources to make the changes they need. I do see people feeling judged, but I really see few instances of someone pointing to an individual or a community and saying "You! You need to clean up your act! Shame!" That feeling of judgment might have a different cause than shame delivered by others - it might actually be the dissonance created by raised awareness confronting systemic obstacle. As with all activism that seeks to address issues of societal structures, that uniting against systemic obstacle rather than fighting in an interpersonal dialectic that mislocates the source of the problem is the trickier bit to pull off. But I believe that the food movement deserves a lot more credit for aiming toward that from the get-go.

I found the essay. It's jargon-laden infighting :/ Does nicely dovetail with what we're talking about here though in terms of the in-movement vs. larger society dynamics.

More often than not, I think people in the food movement, at least those I've been able to work with personally, are pretty concerned with empowering leadership among all sectors, connecting people with resources to make the changes they need.

Who's the "they" in that last bit, though?

That is sad about Ukrop's. I'm guessing that whoever bought them will have the stores open on Sundays?