The chicken at Whole Foods is organic and cage-free; the chicken at Western Beef is not. Is the woman who buys her children's food at the place where they take her food stamps therefore a bad mother?Powell (thankfully) deviates from the stereotypes of the two stores, delving into the difference between shopping and cooking. She warns not to "assume that everyone at Whole Foods is wise and everyone at the Western Beef benighted."
While the stereotypes are a bit of a straw man, they are not pulled entirely from thin air. Just as with cars, the choice of grocer (for those who have the choice) is "90% social communication and self-branding."
The question is, does this self-branding lead to the two outcomes that Powell mentions?
Comments
View as Flat
MikeCapone Posted 1:17 pm
22 Jul 2005
It may be a bit counter-intuitive, but as Dr. David Suzuki explains, organic farms cost less to operate than industrial farms because a big part of the costs are fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides.
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
Emily Gertz Posted 2:06 pm
22 Jul 2005
Reading this essay over, I think Powell should have stuck to her high moral dudgeon -- darn snooty organic food nuts! -- and not tried to justify her attitude with class analysis.
I mean sure, I get a bit weary of the fetishistic food worship at Whole Foods, or the $14 baskets of heritage tomatoes at the Greenmarket in Union Square. Do I have to select between 15 kinds of organic tomato sauce just to make my spaghetti dinner? And pay $4.89 a bottle for the privilege?
But a big facet of her setup is all wrong, at least here in Brooklyn. These days I shop mostly at a nearby Key Foods myself, and can attest that there is a very welcome influx of whole grain and organic foods -- produce, Amy's Burritos, Annie's Mac and Cheese, Horizon dairy, and more -- into this regular Joe supermarket.
This is a good thing not just for me with my elitist tastes and fear of rGBH, but for every American. Because it is a sign that my neighborhood is gentri-- um, that organic and whole grain foods are becoming mainstream products.
But it's also bad news, because supermarket pricing reveals the inconvenient truth that we whole-grain goodniks try to elide when we preach our gospel: organic usually does cost more than the other stuff. Not always by a huge amount of change, but consistently. Until we can get agribusiness and ag regulation changed to make farming organic less costly for the farmer (or reform agricultural subsidies in this country so that the costs of "regular" food production are less obscured), this is unlikely to change, never mind all those counter-intuitive arguments about how it really costs less 'cause it saves the soil and water.
Powell misses the point while obsessing with the lives of the wealthy (a Times perennial). I get that this was supposed to be one of those curmudgeonly op-eds poking fun at the yuppies who think spending money equals having an experience. But I really doubt the biggest problem for people in penury in NYC is the cost of tomatos at Whole Foods or at the greenmarket, or that folks who shop organic look down on them. It's probably that there are a dearth of supermarkets and greengrocers of any sort in lower-income urban neighborhoods, and a lot of high-priced corner markets where prefab foods rule and fresh produce consists of a few apples or bananas.
That's the real class issue here, not that people drinking Diet Pepsi really do have a lot on common with people drinking Real Tea.
Permalink
jmcstras Posted 2:30 pm
22 Jul 2005
But, the element of branding you mention is also very important. Whole Foods does cater to the suburban class. I only go there on occasion because of its suburban location, and can find better deals on organic and locally-grown produce at the farmer's market downtown. I think it's important to distinguish the typical Whole Foods shopper from the "organic movement" -- the former generally are associating with WF's elitest branding, and drive their SUVs from their McMansions to shop there. The organic movement is more concerned about social, economic and cultural impacts of chemically-based megafarming, and likely views it as an element of larger sustainable development strategies. The organic movement is looking at agriculture through a large lens; the typical Whole Foods shopper is generally just looking to make a statement about his/her own sophistication without considering broader questions of sustainability.
Sustainablog: http://sustainablog.blogspot.com
Permalink
perifrog Posted 3:12 pm
22 Jul 2005
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:04 am
23 Jul 2005
it's now 15-20 miles to the nearest Whole Foods. I hit it when I'm in the areas (rarely) ... but I wonder now about the "magnet" aspect. while we direct our morning grumbles (unfairly) at Whole Food shoppers ... how far do you suppose they drive?
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:06 am
23 Jul 2005
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 10:37 pm
23 Jul 2005
When I was growing up in the 50s and early 60s, there was not much of a selection of foods. Now, even the small supermarkets in rural areas have expresso, French breads, interesting vegetables.
Fortunately, the food elite is an elite of taste and not necessarily of money.
How can you eat well without padding the coffers of Whole Foods?
Garden.
Barter and share produce.
Cook from scratch.
Develop taste, by trying new dishes, reading and trying new recipes, imitating other people with good taste.
Eating fewer things of higher quality.
Make use of leftovers.
Julie has a great paragraph about the universality of good food:Cooking is one of the few actions that verifiably separates us from other animals, and its universality brings us together. This is a sentiment that's been treasured since the dawn of cuisine by people who value the art of eating. And it's not only the ingredients - be they delicate heirloom tomatoes or the stalwart hothouse kind - that we share when we eat well together. There is also the love and creativity and work we combine them with - those human qualities that transform food into cuisine, and eating into a pleasure.
It is not necessary to enter the sphere of consumerism and the shopping mall to eat well.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:10 am
24 Jul 2005
Permalink
perifrog Posted 11:54 am
24 Jul 2005
Permalink
Syniel Posted 6:59 am
25 Jul 2005
^^ducks!^^
Maybe there's some good points to be made by calling someone "elitist", or "morally superior", but i 'll be darned if i know what those are. Yup, i buy organic produce... and you know what? I like buying them (when i can afford them.. 2 dollar tomatoes.. get real!) They taste better, they look better, and I know that I'm helping do my part of sponsor the organic cause.
I may need to reduce the ego trip a bit when it comes to the buzz i get from doing my part but I had so many reason to do my part that bloated slef esteem only made up a part what motivated me into tryign to be more green.
The article did have many good points though.. and since im not merely motivated by my gargantuan head I am fully able to see reason long enough to admit that I do feel that Whole Foods is more of a luxury market than part of a green movement. I've noted over the years that when a whole foods comes into town many mom and pop health food stores dissappear.. so in fact I do see Whole Foods as being the Wal-Mart of health. Not a good thing.
My point really is that we're mostly complicated people with many reason for wanting to buy organic food, etc, so I do wish that we could stop flinging around labels (elitist).
If i were uncharitable and hipocritical I would say that calling people elitist is simply another round of "holier (or "Greener?") than thou.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:48 pm
25 Jul 2005
I'm thinking electric powered farm machinery that aids labor intensive farming.
Riding carts, with shade and dust protection, between the rows pulling water and liquid organic fertilizer, or mulch, that is programmed to weed and feed by itself by the operator, who rides along ocasionally correcting it.
The computer in the cart "learns" where the plants are, where to water and weed.
Water and fertilizer right to the plants, weeds sucked up and shredded into mulch. Bugs eating too much of the plants sucked into the mulch too.
Harvesting all done from a comfortable situation too. This would make labor intensive organic farming actually enjoyable. A great job.
Planting as well, seedlings and seeds all placed by the robot arms, controllable by hand but programmable.
Permalink
OrganicVal Posted 4:04 am
27 Jul 2005
Valerie
"If we did the things we were actually capable of we would literally astound ourselves" ~~ Thomas Edison
Permalink
jen Posted 9:05 am
31 Jul 2005
"Organic could be less expensive too.
I'm thinking electric powered farm machinery that aids labor intensive farming.
"Riding carts, with shade and dust protection, between the rows pulling water and liquid organic fertilizer, or mulch, that is programmed to weed and feed by itself by the operator, who rides along ocasionally correcting it.
"The computer in the cart "learns" where the plants are, where to water and weed."
Sorry, I missed the tone of this message. Do you mean this is how organic growing is or how it should be?
Thanks for clarification.
Jen in Indiana.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:03 pm
31 Jul 2005
I have just completed an extensive comment on this topic over long for this venue, excuse the link. Thanks.
Permalink
jen Posted 8:03 am
03 Aug 2005
Jen in Indiana.
Permalink