Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Michael Pollan and Alice Waters Should Quit Celebrating Food-Price Hikes

By Tom Philpott, Grist.org. Posted April 28, 2008.


Why rising food prices may not send people rushing off to the nearest farmers market.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Tom Philpott

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

For more environmental news and humor, sign up for Grist's e-mail list.

As their grocery bills rise, Americans should take comfort: the price they're paying for industrially produced food in the supermarket is starting to approach that of artisanally produced food at the farmers' market. And that might make more of them choose healthier, less environmentally destructive diets. At least, that's the message of a recent article the New York Timesarticle, titled "Some Good News on Food Prices."

To make her case, reporter Kim Severson turned to two Berkeley-based icons of the sustainable-food movement, author Michael Pollan and restaurateur Alice Waters. "Higher food prices level the playing field for sustainable food that doesn't rely on fossil fuels," Pollan told Severson.

People struggling with their food bills should "make a sacrifice on the cell phone or the third pair of Nike shoes," Waters advised.

All due respect to Pollan and Waters, but I think they are grossly simplifying matters here. Nationwide, heightened food and gasoline prices, combined with an economy that's shedding jobs, are putting a hard squeeze on consumers. According to The New York Times, applications for food stamps have surged recently, and the program is projected to reach 28 million Americans over the next several months, the most since its inception in the 1960s.

I have a hard time imagining people who are struggling to put food on the table rambling off to the farmers' market on Saturday to fill cloth bags with the sort of fresh, local, organic produce so beloved by Pollan and Waters (and me). Indeed, higher food prices are likely to send many time- and cash-strapped people in quite the opposite direction.

Rising costs may end up increasing the allure of large entities with economies of scale, cutthroat buying practices, and experience in transforming low-quality ag inputs into stuff people like to eat. I'm talking about fast-food companies, which can likely absorb higher input prices and still churn out crap -- and rake in profits. If that's true, prices at the drive-thru won't rise quite as steeply as those in the supermarket line, giving people yet more incentive to abandon their home kitchens and flock to the Golden Arches.

An informal recent lunchtime survey of fast-food chains in the Chapel Hill area yielded results that would make a Berkeley foodie gag on her omelet of pastured eggs, raw-milk cheese, just-picked kale, and green garlic. At McDonald's, I shouldered my way through a bustling crowd and saw Big Mac combo meals, complete with fries and Coke, going for $4.29. Wendy's, equally crowded, offered a similar package for a bit more than $5. Domino's advertised a one-topping large pizza -- "six foldable slices!" -- for $10. At a Papa John's down the road, $11 will get you a large pie with three toppings. Something tells me these places, not farmers' markets or restaurants like Waters' Chez Panisse, will remain the regular canteen of millions of Americans.

What, then, to do? The answer, it seems to me, is not just to hope that expensive industrial food drives people toward equally expensive sustainable food. It's to make sustainable food more broadly accessible and affordable. And that's happening in a few places -- most recently Washington state -- thanks to farsighted policymakers.

How We Got Here, and How We Can Get Away

Prices of corn and soybean -- lifeblood of the industrial food system, as Pollan has so eloquently shown -- hovered near 30-year lows just two years ago. Then President Bush declared that America was "addicted to oil," and responded by ramping up subsidies for corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel. The effort has done little to ease our oil fetish, but it has resulted in the doubling and then some of corn and soy prices.

Indeed, it's quite likely that the biofuel boom has done more harm than good for the environment. It's led to a surge in agrichemical use and phosphate mining, a dramatic expansion in genetically modified crops, and probably the growth of the infamous agriculture-related dead zone that snuffs out sea life in the Gulf of Mexico each year.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: food, food prices, michael pollan, alice waters

Grist staff writer Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Both Right
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Apr 28, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom Philipott is quite correct that legal barriers that prevent buying local and/or organic food should be removed, and that this type of food should be made more accessible. However, Michael Pollan and Alice Waters are also correct: higher prices drive people away from products, so higher prices for produce grown with petrochemicals (chemical produce) will drive people away from that produce.

Mr. Philipott speculates that higher prices for chemical produce will cause people will shift from buying that produce to buying fast food, which he claims causes even more environmental destruction.

First, this is pure speculation. What we DO know is that higher prices cause less consumption, so people will definitely buy less chemical produce. Whether they choose to give up needless amenities like cell phones and switch to organic local food or to further participate in destruction of the Earth and to compromise their own health by eating fast food instead of making their own is yet unknown.

Second, keeping the price of chemical produce artificially low merely encourages its consumption, which is bad for the Earth and which no environmentalist should be advocating. It would be much better for the Earth if prices of all environmentally harmful products were greatly increased, and chemical produce is certainly no exception.

Third, there is no evidence that the food sold by fast food chains causes any more environmental harm than chemical produce sold in large grocery chains. Whatever additional harms there are would likely be minuscule, because both foods poison the Earth when grown and cause more environmental destruction by their transportation over large distances.

Finally, Ms. Waters is 100% correct: people should get rid of needless junk like cell phones if they can't afford to buy fresh produce. Not only does failure to do this show grossly misplaced priorities, but needless consumption itself is one of the root causes of all environmental harm. To use cell phones as an example, not only is their consumption directly harmful for all the usual reasons, the towers that transmit and receive their signals emit radiation and kill millions of birds annually. So getting people to lower their consumption would be a major boon for our planet and should be strongly encouraged, not ignored as Mr. Philipott did here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well no we don't know that. Posted by: Livemike
» RE: Both Right Posted by: Ambercat
» Well said.... Posted by: Fencerider
» Not Condescending, Environmental Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» Your a scientist it seems.... Posted by: Fencerider
samothrellim
Posted by: milltom on Apr 29, 2008 3:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's hear from the presidential candidates on food issues. Anyone know of a good website comparing positions? Is any (still competing) candidate ready to stop corn and rice subsidies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fast Food, "the regular canteen of millions of Americans"
Posted by: hudsonValleyProgressive on Apr 29, 2008 3:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a note to add re. food prices.

Anyone who gets hungry along the NJ Turnpike knows that the highway is held hostage by a culinary wasteland of fast food chains.

Resigned to staying on the turnpike instead of seeking healthier fare, last week I ventured into a Burger King. My daughter and I each ordered a "meal" (burger, fries, and soda).

The tab for two: $17 and change. Still, for many Americans, it's a bargain compared to Chez Panisse and the like.

Next time I'll pack a sandwich (whole grain bread, of course).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the inside looking out
Posted by: pollencruncher on Apr 29, 2008 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an Agronomist and marketeer in the world of Organic agriculture my perspective is organic is a better product( market place demand continues to grow at a rate faster that we can supply for grains- meat production is slower) A cycle we have seen is high prices are brought down by low prices. We in the Organic community have met the desired goal of Parity prices for the first time in decades, the low meat prices are dragging the market prices down. A lower commerical food price may drag Organic prices lower.
Individually people need to make a health decision, eat better quality with Organic foods with natural chemicals or eat the commerical produced foods that have residual chemicals and genetically modified genes and hope for no long term health issues.
My house will chose to relay on natural developed gene activity and nutrident dense foods from the world of Organic foods and meats.
Pollencruncher

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like black raspberry chocolate chip ice cream!
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 29, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my ten years of raising food for a living it has never been quite like this. The demand that I and every other farmer in my area are experiencing is absolutely over the top. The new fear among us is.... can we produce enough to meet demand? I love having that problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What poor people eat
Posted by: racje on Apr 29, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Food pantries are having trouble buying food to feed poor people. These folks don't have the option of forgoing the cell phone or the third pair of Nikes, as Alice "Marie Antionette" Walker suggests.

I find myself switching away from fruits and vegetables and toward grain-based foods. Sure, rice and beans cost more than they used to, but they are still a lot cheaper than produce, dairy or meat. As the price of the rice and beans goes up, there's just less money left over for the organic vegetables.

Yeah, it's a classic backward-bending demand curve. When the prices of basic goods go up, people cut back on extras, and wind up with more of the basics. Michael Pollan should take another look at his economics 101.

What is needed, as several have suggested, is not higher prices for the "unsustainable" cheap food that keeps poor people eating, but better access to nourishing and sustainably produced foods. Chic boutique eaters can afford to subsidize organic farmers out of their own pockets. Poor people can't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes poor people CAN Posted by: grn1
» RE: Yes poor people CAN Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Yes poor people CAN Posted by: morticia
The good and bad of higher food prices.
Posted by: janvdb on Apr 29, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now all the government subsidies go to conventional commodity producers -- farmers of corn, wheat, cotton.

If the prices of those commodities rise enough that those farmers are swimming in income, MAYBE those subsidy dollars can be redirected toward fruit and vegetable producers, especially ORGANIC producers.

Maybe not, but those subsidies should be ended or redirected somewhere. The best place would be to organics. If subsidies can make organics as cheap as conventional, well, the sky is the limit.

As far as the poor and their eating habits, the quickest way for any poor person to save money on food is to stop eating at restaurants, even McDonald's. Eating at home is far cheaper -- and healthier, too.

And, a person can buy ingredients and cook rather than buying TV dinners.

Maybe that will happen, to some extent.

For those who are already doing this and still can't make ends meet, foodstamps.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mom and Pop Produce Stands
Posted by: Southern Gal on Apr 29, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my neck of the woods we have several mom and pop produce stands. They sell local produce and produce they get from state farmers' markets. Their prices so far are less than the grocery stores. Some of the produce is organic, some of it is conventional. The quality is usually better than that of the grocery stores. To their credit our local grocery stores have started featurig more locally grown food. I look back on earlier days when I went to school at a country elementary school. Our cafeteria was run and staffed by local farmers' wives. The food was soooo good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Article!
Posted by: Gravitas on Apr 29, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think people like Pollen and Walker and the rest of the food cops have the slightest clue what life is like for the economically struggling. Health obsession is for people who can afford it. Those who are counting on a comfortable retirement, or can buy themselves clothes as a pat on the back for all the effort they put into their socially approved bodies. People who are fighting just to keep a roof over their heads can't think about eaking out every last second of life. And for what anyway? To live in a state run nursing home? If you are scared to death of making next months rent, the last thing you are going to worry about is cholestoral or sodium. There is no going out and buying designer jeans to reward yourself for passing up that donut. Sometimes that donut is the one simple pleasure a person has in their lives.
I agree with the author that sustainable foods should be made more affordable instead of rejoicing people will go hungry. But I would take it a step further. Until we can provide economic security for everyone, stop imposing guilt over eating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Article! Posted by: NoKidding
» RE: Good Article! Posted by: kimpohl
» RE: Good Article! Posted by: grn1
» RE: Good Article! Posted by: hagwind
» RE:ligion of Food Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: Good Article! Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Good Article! Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Good Article! Posted by: grn1
» RE: Good Article! More PB&J Posted by: DaBear
» I kept it simple Posted by: Gravitas
» Check Yer Own Assumptions, Fella. Posted by: grumble-bum
Old Farmers Daughter
Posted by: Andie927 on Apr 29, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know about truely sustainable farming, my Dad and our family, lived it! He provided income for his parents home, and ours from 32 acres, (selling milk) heated both houses with wood, and ran the dairy! We had veg. gardens, canned the extra produce, raised on calf a year for beef. He bought little or no fertilizer, used the cow manure.

#1. Many, if not most of these 'farmers markets' aren't real farmers! They buy produce in bulk and re-sell it!

#2. We're as a 'nation' going in the wrong direction. Corn, and ethenal isn't practical to fuel the Nation. Most of Europe is using Bio-Diesel! You can use a multitude of crops. Canola, sunflowers, ect. if you combine that with the Hybryd, and solar panels to recharge, now we're going in the Right direction!
Everyone wants one quick simple answer! Maybe we should be looking at ten or twenty! (Each one taking a Bite out of Oil)

#3. I amaze friends of ours, by buying one chicken on sale, and making three meals! Or one roast that makes four!

#4. One of the Best solutions I've ever seen, is when 5 to 10 friends, (like minded people) get together and buy in bulk, and form a co-op!

#5. Everyone should be digging up a patch of front lawn, planting some easy crops! Squash, beans, tomatos, learn how to use available materials, (veggie peelings, leaves, ect.) to mulch and compost. Find books on canning! If your garden over-produces, give away the extra!
HINT: Start small, keep it easy, TRY to stay Organic, but not to the point that you lose the crop!

#6. Learn how to can, and or freeze extra, Properly! When blueberries, strawberries, ect. are in season, buy process and store! It's going to be a LONG winter!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Screw Fresh
Posted by: jwhitneywise on Apr 29, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Word to the above comment. Even if you don't grow your own, you can still buy canned organic veggies. Fresh only occurs naturally for a few months each year and, even if it is organic, if you're buying it in December, there's something unsustainable and oil-burning going on to get it to you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Screw Fresh Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Screw Fresh Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Europe...
Posted by: maxfactor on Apr 29, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is not running on biodiesel but on regular diesel, nuclear and waterpower for electricity.
Most cars run around 35-45ms or more to the gallon.
1 Windpark per week goes online. Spain is building large solarfarms. A century long plan is discussed right now to use a patch of the Saharadesert for solarfarming costing 700bn $ to supply whole of Europe with solar electricity.

Kiss goodbye to russian and middle eastern oil and US-suppremacy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most people who run
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 29, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CSAs allow folks to pay over time if need be, let people work part of their bill off or many other options. It is pretty simple, if you are interested in being part of a CSA and cannot afford it... ask the farmer what you can do to make it affordable. Most of us want to help people out in some way or another. Just ask.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Most people who run Posted by: grn1
Time to start thinking?
Posted by: frankly1 on Apr 29, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may be the time to examine what we eat, why and where it comes from. We all must begin to seek better alternatives to the devastating industrial feeding complex that is killing both the people and the ecology that we rely on. Right now the giant agriculture corpoate complex is making record profits from the misery they have instigated to slake the greed of speculators and investors. If it takes higer prices for the garbage that people are currently poisoning themselves with to begin to question the process and press for change then there is some hope that the average American can stop being a fat, stupid, nasty, ignorant idiot. Food, oil, polution, war, greed and corruption and the fact that over 80% of our planets' resources are controlled by around 2% of the population are all interconnected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Already at Par
Posted by: westomoon on Apr 29, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As of last year, I noticed with amazement that the prices my high-volume chain supermarket was charging for tired chemical veggies and standard staples were the same that the little low-volume indie health-food store in town was charging for organic ones. The only place where organic food was costing hugely more was in the grocery store itself. We don't have any of the "healthy" chains in my little town -- they also seem to make sure that you pay about double the health-food store price for organic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Myth Of American Poverty
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Apr 29, 2008 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This discussion has devolved into an argument over whether poor Americans can afford local organic food, including whether they're wasting money on things like cell phones. The fact is that only a tiny percentage of Americans are poor. This issue is about how "middle class" Americans, as they define themselves, will react to higher prices for chemical produce. How the very small number of actually poor people react will not make any significant difference to the environment or the market.

I have a close friend who has had a six figure salary for many years, but who used to claim that he couldn't afford organic food. This claim stopped once his wife decided that they would buy organic when they could find it.

The point is that THESE are the people this issue revolves around: people who are not at all poor, which is the vast majority of Americans, but who have priorities that do not include the environment. (You don't need to make anywhere near a six figure salary to afford organic food, this was just an example.) Even Americans making six figure salaries now consider themselves to be middle class, so they claim they can't afford to do the right thing by spending a few cents more for the environment. It's just that Americans have had it far too good for far too long and feel entitled to whatever they want, so they've convinced themselves that they "need" all this needless crap, consumption of which is destroying the Earth. The fact is that there is only a very small percentage of Americans who cannot afford local organic food.

And again, this gets back to priorities. What's more important, living in a manner that does not destroy our planet, or acquiring needless material things like cell phones? These are the real issues here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the rest of the planet
Posted by: redgreenbrown on Apr 29, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
very nice conversation amongst the haves that is going on. While i personally like the slant of Pollan et al, what is being said by him and rebutted bear little relationship to the real world in which the majority of people live, outside the USA specifically and OECD nations generally.
The rise in food prices is not going to get poor people around the world eating organic food. It is just going to get them hungrier. The subsidies by governments in the north have so distorted and skewed agricultural markets for ages that most farmers in the south are unable to be able to respond to this crisis in a timely manner by producing organic or any other food in time to stave off the approaching hunger.
What is needed most urgently is urgent national support of agricultural projects in all developing nations so that they can compete. At the same time protections against trade distorting subsidies must be scrapped.
Then there is obscene abomination of how the food market has been hijacked by the futures market. Just as it costs no more to extract oil from the ground than it did a few years ago so too the real costs of food and food supplies generally are not seriously changed. What has changed is the financial system where food commodities are now tradable safe havens. Ubercapitalism run amuk, starving those who cannot afford food while margin traders make a killling. Literally.
The whole issue of local, national and international food security has suffered at the hands of the market, the Bretton Woods institutions, the WTO, the OECD etc. Food aid is a sop.
Rather help us feed the people of the world through supporting direct, relevant, applicable, food extension processes that avoid external inputs and meddling.
Then the south will be able to feed itself while the north worries about organic food, or what meat to eat today or what margin call to make on hard winter wheat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the rest of the planet Posted by: hagwind
Their Supporters DID try to Buy the Land
Posted by: macdon1 on Apr 29, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but the owner refused to sell it to anyone who would continue it as an urban garden. He sure has some BAD KARMA to face. Glad those folks are farming again. I'm an urban gardener too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Dollar Menu
Posted by: macdon1 on Apr 29, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mac D's has a dollar menu too, which no one has mentioned. The local golden arches in my neighborhood is mobbed all the time and lots of kids too! ARGHH

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Food Prices and chaos
Posted by: buddha's bud on Apr 29, 2008 3:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Timely recession from the norm is how these agribusinesses operate. Why make available foods that are nutritious to school systems? That would mean, there would have to be in place, a better over-sight of that food provided to schools. At the present rate, with lunch-rooms being taken over by Fast-Food chains, and how foods are prepared, the proper idea of nutrition is escaping our children. How are our children to study and learn when the very schools they go to are not providing good, nutritional foods to fuel up their bodies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Food Prices and chaos Posted by: Dixongeo
» RE: Food Prices and chaos in the school cafeteria Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
The plight of the poor is a consequence of cheap oil not a defense of it
Posted by: nfarmwell on Apr 29, 2008 6:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether you side with Philpott or Pollan depends on your frame of reference. I tend to think that Philpott misunderstands something basic and important.

As Pollan points out, the relative amount people spend on food has declined significantly over the last 30 years. In 1960, Americans spent 17.5 percent of the national income on food and 5 percent on health care. Today, spending on food has dropped to 10 percent of national income, while health-care spending has climbed to 16 percent. In this era of cheap energy, people who are poor have not gone as hungry as they would have otherwise. And consequently, for probably the first time in history, it is possible to be both overweight and undernourished. This means that cheap energy has allowed us all to paper over the problem of real poverty. Cheap oil was a kind of subsidy, for all of us, but at the tragic expense of our children's future of course.

As energy prices increase, we will be forced to face, finally, many uncomfortable realities. The true cost of oil will make alternative energy and alternative farming more competitive. In the absence of good social policy, it will also, sadly, make life harder for the poor. This it true and I am sympathetic. But to argue, as Philpott seems to, that the new plight of the poor in any way legitimates a system predicated on ill-health and corruption is misguided. The current plight of the poor needs to be seen as a consequence of that dysfunctional system, not as an argument in its favor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

owning class stoopid and farmer's markets
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 30, 2008 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, Pollan & Waters are typical owning class brats. Brownie points to them for being "sensitive" but bottom line is, they're still rich, overprivileged owning class snobs. It takes such entitlement to make the statements they made. I don't give a fig for such persons. When they need water from me, I'm happy to remind them about their owning class peers' destruction of the planet, while I swallow the last drop in my reused milk bottle.

If you live under local rules (100 milers or less) you can only buy from less than half the stands at a typical market, even less if you live in a Republikaaner city that doesn't require farmers to be at least organic or pesticide free. The local-food thing aside, even the farmer's market prices are going up, A LOT. $6/lb for potatoes, snap peas for $5/lb, an heirloom tomato is $3 per tomato, a Meyer lemon is $0.50 each. These prices are double what they were six months ago.

The nice owning class bitch a family-I-know rents from lets them grow their own food but her HOA is charging her for it and threatening to tear up the family's crop from their pots on the porch (those bean plants and lettuce will sure make property values go down, huh?). Course none of that matters since she's losing the place to foreclosure in two months and once more, the family-I-know'll be back on the street.

There's always the guerilla food our local anarchists planted in city landscaping, but that's subject to criminal consequences for harvesting, weeding, etc.

Food prices are criminal. The owning class is responsible. Time to make them pay for their parasitism. When you pick off a tick, you usually burn them...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: owning class stoopid and farmer's markets:grouch Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Really?
Posted by: MM1970 on Apr 30, 2008 7:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, I don't know where you live to get those numbers, but I live in So CAl (read: not cheap here).

Jar of PB at TJ's: 1.69
Loaf of bread at TJ's (16 slices): 1.99
Jam: We buy in bulk, $5 for 64 oz, not organic

Grand setback: $8.68.

But at 2 TBSP per sandwich, 10 sandwiches per week, that's 20 TBSP, which is 1.25 cups, which is just over half the jar of PB.

At 2 TBSP per sandwich, that's 1.25 cups of jam also.

That's 1.06 for PB, 0.78 for peanut butter. Now, you need 20 slices of bread, and you only get 16. So you need 1.25 loaves of bread, which is $2.49.

Which really sets you back $4.33 for 5 days, or $0.43 per sandwich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]