Mostly.  There is some truth in the statement regarding "cutting down on other bills to buck up for food". The relatively low cost for the foods we eat from "corporate agribusiness" over the past decade or two has allowed for higher miscellaneous spending in a large demographic. The cost of these foods in our own personal health and our environmental health was much disregarded and never factored into family budgets as an actual cost (mostly higher medical costs from food allergies, toxin reactions, weight issues etc). If a second or third car, a third garage, a 3 or 4th tv or even that 2nd latte of the day needs to be sacrificed in the short term to reap the more widespread savings of the long term, then so be it.  And before you ask, yes I make these sacrifices myself. I am ranked low middle class according to several internet sources, and I have been buying local/organic foods as they become available to me for about 5 years now. At first the price difference was a bit overwhelming, but as time went by and a) more people participated b) big business goods got more expensive, the costs seem quite a bit more reasonable.

You can wish what you want, but food prices at the supermarket will continue to climb. Industrial ag uses 10 calories of petrochemical energy to deliver one calorie of food energy. As small farmers, who are less efficient in terms of human labor, but incredibly more efficient in terms of energy and water, achieve price parity, and demand for local food rises still more, we can hope that more folks will be attracted to farming. Because we need millions of new farmers, farming sustainably.

The whole concept of cheap commodity prices was put in place not for the consumer, and certainly not for the farmer, but for the benefit of the giant corporate processors.

As to the value of Washington's program to put local foods into schools, it's helping to raise awareness. But the dollar amount is miniscule. Especially when you consider that the Washington State Department of Agriculture is dedicated to killing small farmers in the state. Several years back I raised pastured poultry on my small farm north of Spokane. The WSDA put me, and about thirty other producers east of the Cascades (and my guess is more than that on the west side) out of business. They did this by promulgating new regulations which would require us to build a factory to continue to slaughter chickens. Building a factory would adversely affect the cleanliness of the product, and double its price. One producer, raising half the federal limit (10,000 birds) would gross about $125,000.  They killed a local ag sector that was putting millions into the economy with the potential for far more. And now you give them credit for the paltry $600,000 subsidy (I've heard that far less will actually be spent). They've gone on to target small dairies, and I understand local egg producers will be in the crosshairs next.

the work that many organizations do to alleviate hunger locally, nationally, and internationally.

The fact that many people don't get the amount or quality of food that would be best for them is something that we need to keep in mind in all of our own thoughts, statements, and actions about the way food is grown and distributed. This is especially true for those of us whose opinions are made publicly.

I know that most of my friends and I are already making a lot of difficult decisions about which foods we can -- or cannot -- afford to buy organically, and now we are moving into a period when we have to think hard about what foods we can afford to buy at all. Friends have been hitting me up for a lot more new bean and pasta recipes.

I often shop at a supermarket near me that is located next to a housing project. I can tell how bad the economy is by looking in everyone's carts. These days most families are buying lots of carbs and a lot less protein.

Thanks for a great article, Tom.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. have too much money.  Their ownership of cars, cell phones, big screen TVs, and other needless environmentally destructive crap is proof of that.  People in this country also worship money to a larger extent than people elsewhere.  Therefore, rising prices of food that is produced in more environmentally destructive manners is a good thing, because it will at least level the playing field for locally grown organic food.  Yes, people can choose to buy junk or fast food instead, but that's no more harmful to the planet than them buying food that was grown by poisoning the Earth with pesticides and transported hundreds or thousands of miles.

In the 19th century, the average person spent something like 90 percent of income on food.

Now, I think we can all agree, that in the mostly agrarian 19th century United States, the "environment" as a whole was much, much better.

The 20th saw the advent of super cheap food.   With this came the ability to afford mass produced goods...goods that came from petroleum for the most part.

Now, as food becomes pricier, I agree...it may spur two things.   It may make us go back to "natural foods" and more importantly it may prevent us from littering our pond with cheaply produced goods that provide little or no happiness and end up clogging our landscape.

One of the few legitimate criticisms against the local foods 'movement' (for lack of a better word) is that it is the province of privileged white liberal snobs and has little connection to the real lives of real people. Thanks to Pollan and Waters, there is no longer any defending local foods against this criticism -- they've proven it to be true in the most profoundly insensitive, insulated, privileged manner possible. The dirty masses have no bread? Let them eat cake kale... organic and local of course.

I wouldn't have thought it was possible for anyone to be that ignorant of what life is like for people living in lower socioeconomic circumstances. I guess the divide has become so great the concept of 'hardship' doesn't even register in the minds of people like Pollan and Waters.

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.

In Chicago, at least, there is great demand for farmers markets in so-called food deserts. There just aren't enough farmers to fulfill this demand. Instead of just assuming that these people don't want healthful and nutritious food, they should be given an opportunity to acquire it. One farmers market in Sioux City, Iowa, accepts food stamps, and a quarter of its sales come from them. This kind of arrangement could benefit local producers and consumers alike.

Studies have shown that given the choice, low income people will choose local, nutritious food. They are poor not stupid. Many low income people have little choice other than processed food from the convenience store. Local is cheaper than that, and far far better. As to going to the farmers market, public transportation may not do it, and carrying a big bag full of vegetables home on a bus making several transfers is, I am sure, not  easy. I like the idea of inner city gardens, but realize that will not work everywhere. Our food system like everything else, is not very friendly to the poor.

As to biofuels or more correctly agrofuels, I am not a fan.
ttp://www.counterpunch.org/goodman12282007.htm

"One of the few legitimate criticisms against the local foods 'movement' (for lack of a better word) is that it is the province of privileged white liberal snobs and has little connection to the real lives of real people."

This is a completely false assumption, because it is not a legitimate criticism unless your priority is leftist ideology and not the environment.  The vast majority of people in the U.S. can easily afford local and organic food, but they choose to spend their money on needless crap instead and complain that local and organic are too expensive.  I've heard this totally illegitimate complaint from people making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year!

So enough with the leftist crybaby garbage already!  The small minority who truly cannot afford local organic food are already on food stamps.  For everyone else, get your priorities straight!

Most people are not willing to take the time to fix their own food and that is where the problem lies. I remember as a child my mother (who was a stay-at-home mom all my life and still is) could spend all day preparing a meal that was nutritious and filling.

We have become "spoiled" by all of this convenience food that even preparing something in the crock pot in the morning to eat in the evening is perceived as "too much time."

Stop and take the time, beans and rice are really cheap to buy, but may take longer to cook than nuking it in the microwave.

All due respect to Pollan and Waters, but I think they are grossly simplifying matters here.

The problem is they aren't the ones simplifying matters here:  the article is grossly simplifying their message with a few quotes and you bought into it.

The food system in the United States is completely off-kilter and what Pollan has been writing about for years now is finally becoming a bit more obvious to the general public.  

And Waters (and some commenters) are completely correct that people are making poor choices in how they spend their money.  Good food choices are easily available to everyone.    However those people who aren't making wise food choices need to do some research (which is also easily available) and set their priorities.  Is it more important to have good food and health and spend more on that or have the newest shiny techno-bauble?  People could easily ditch the extra pair of Nikes or the latest $10/month fee for some service they don't really need.

It amazes me how completely clueless most people are to food issues these days and its a shame considering the amount of information out there.  The only thing people want to do is bitch and moan about this stuff but they never seem to want to get off their asses and do something about it.

Thank you jratz for your perceptive response. From the posts here (and my perception of blog comments in general) I get the sense that many posters didn't even read the Times article (simplistic as IT is) before they started throwing tomatoes at Waters and Pollan. And you're right, most people - even enviros, but especially "lifestyle" journalists - don't seem to understand food issues.

The point Waters and Pollan were trying to make - AND THEY'RE RIGHT ON - is that the McDonald's and microwave food culture is predicated on an endless supply of cheap oil, as it takes oceans of the stuff to grow and transport the raw materials of Big Macs all over the planet. As the world seems to have noticed, oil is a fossil fuel and will not last forever. Thus, any market system predicated on the falsehood of its endless supply will ultimately collapse.

Local food, however, mostly doesn't depend on petrochemicals. So what is happening is that your in-season, locally-grown produce (including, not just fruits and veggies, but dairy products, honey, meats and fish, and here in Berkeley, brown rice) lately has a more stable price than comparable items trucked from Chile to the supermarket. This point WAS made in the Times article, but Philpott et al. chose to overlook it.

People, you cannot hear this often or loudly enough: READ THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL BEFORE YOU COMMENT. Sometimes even that's not too great so you have to learn to think critically. Our mental environment seems to me just as threatened as our natural one. FIGHT GLOBAL DUMBING.

When I was growing up, (and that wasn't so long ago), my parents didn't have a lot of money to spend on luxuries, but they did believe, very strongly, in the importance of a healthy diet.  Our food was generally of good quality, and a fair amount of it was locally grown, either by ourselves, or by people that we knew.  We never went out for fast food.  I realize, of course, that we had some unfair advantages-we lived in a rural area, and my parents, while not wealthy, are very unconventional-but my point is, it is not impossible to eat a healthy diet on a very modest income.  It may not be easy for everyone, but it can be done.

I've been buying a lot of my staples in the bulk section of my local organic grocery store and that helps save some cash. Buying protein-rich beans, nuts, and whole grains in bulk is a lot cheaper than buying meat and dairy products, both grass-fed and grain-fed animal products.  As the price of grain rises, hopefully more people will begin to see the stupidity of using so much grain to feed poultry and livestock instead of consuming grains directly. There's actually a lot more protein in whole grains, as well as certain vegetables, than people think.

So contrary to those who like to classify vegetarians as "elitist," a vegetarian or vegan diet based largely on whole foods is typically much cheaper than a meat, egg and dairy heavy diet, especially as the price of animal products rises in comparison to fresh fruit, veggies and other vegetarian staples.

I just want to clarify a couple of things about the recent local food Act passed by the Washington State legislature.  It does create the state farm to school program in the WSDA to include two coordinator positions to assist with linking farms (of all sizes) to schools and provide resources such as curricula and seasonal menu planning.  

The $600,000 for WA Grown Fruits and Vegetables is a mini-grant program to be administered by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Approximately $570,000 will go directly to schools with a high percentage of low-income students, to buy Washington Grown produce  and to pay for necessary equipment for light processing (chopping, etc.) and labor.  The remaining $30,000 will go to pay for administering the grant program--not an unreasonable split of funds.  

Of the $1.49 million allocated in the bill, only $250,000 goes to WSDA.  The rest is to schools, food banks,and farmers market and farm shop programs to provide access to local fresh food and invest in our state's farm economy.  The program has lots of room for small farm participation in these programs--it's one of my favorite things about it!

The article grossly simplified what Pollan has been saying - which is that food has become cheaper, but you pay for it in other ways.  Subsidied corn syrup, large amounts of salt, fat and various other bulking agents end up in 'cheap' food - but all too often they are empty calories, paid for in higher rates of obesity, heart problems, cancer rates, etc.

And of course these are the sort of food the poorest  are able to afford/access.  Reading Nickel and Dimed, you quickly realise that the people using hamburger helper will still be using it if the price of beef was 10% lower - the cost of food is not too high for them, its that they simply cannot make enough money to live on in a way we would all like.

Preparing cheaper foods is often time-consuming (which if your working three jobs is simply a non-starter), and requires a certain level of knowledge of cookery.  Over the years, we have gradually become de-skilled in the sort of areas which allowed our grandparents to live on relatively little (cheap cuts of meat, combining leftovers, etc), and supermarkets now seldom sell the sort of basic cheap ingredients which you can use.  My local supermarket only sells prime cuts of beef; to buy cuts such as shin or skirt I have to go to the farmers market, which is gradually dying in part because most people would prefer to simply drive to the supermarket once a week, load up and drive away again.

Far from the farmers market being for elitist liberals with cash, I find that eggs, butter, cheese, and meat are no more expensive, and often cheaper than the supermarket, and mostly better quality too.  There is a better profit margin for the seller, and I know where my food comes from.

We have become used to cheap food, so cheap that in the UK we can waste up to 40% of what we buy in simply throwing it out because we bought too much, left it in the fridge too long, etc.  If you add to that the wastage from the long buying, processing and shipping chains we now see with supermarkets, there is a huge amount which is simply written off as the cost of doing business.  

The price of food is rising, and the price of oil will push that far higher still. Cheap food is over, but that does not mean we need to starve, instead we need to rediscover what good local, seasonal food is, and treat it as something to be bought and eaten with pleasure and respect.

Of all the big retail chains, it's COSTCO that is showing big gains in March.

What does this tell you? The bulk-shopping mentality has been revved up, due to increasing scarcity. We're going in the exact opposite of what P/W predict.

Should it be surprising that two people who have zero connection with the unwashed masses have made a poor prediction? No. 98% of US citizens have never heard of either of 'em.

"I wish influential figures like Pollan and Waters would quit pushing to make industrial food more expensive"

Tom - give us, and Pollan and Waters, a little credit. These two people are not "pushing to make industrial food more expensive" and you know it.  They were commenting, in the face of rising prices for industrial food, that there may be a silver lining if that makes whole, local, organic or sustainable food more competitive or appealing.  As one of the other commenters said, "We know who the bad guys are..."  and Pollan and Waters are not them.

Both sides got it wrong. There are different strata of Americans--28 million on food stamps (probably 40 million could use them). Another 160 million in families led by working people negatively affected by food prices. I put myself in the second category. When food prices go up, we go to the closest supermarket and buy pasta, potatoes, rice, fruits, and vegetables, and make meals around those.

I used to go to the local farmers markets until 2 months ago. Then I quit. I went to the 99 cents store and the local supermarkets. People do know how to buy  and cook economically.

Phillpott's heart is in the right place, but his idea that the choice in American foods is local organic farmer's market or fast food is a silly either or fallacy. But worse is Pollan or Waters. Waters charges over $70/dinner in her restaurant
when over 28 million need food stamps. For her or
anyone else to say that Americans need to not
buy the Nike or cellphone so they can afford organic food or that Americans are too rich shows off tremendous ignorance about lives of Americans.
Waters is blaming the victim for the faults of the wider system.

I think we need to focus on changing both national agricultural policy--the 2007 food bill in Congress--as well as state agricultural policy--to favor small local farmers, but stopping blaming individuals or the poor, stop accepting the rise of food prices, and act like citizens to change food policy and make sure no one is hungry in this country.

Tom, great article.  I do have to take issue with the portrayal (and not just in this article, but in many news stories about this topic) that the ethanol boom is the only factor leading to high food prices.  Don't get me wrong, corn-based ethanol is a thoroughly worthless enterprise, but as I understand it there are actually four main reasons why we are facing high food prices (in descending order of importance, as I understand the situation):

The rising middle class in China and India is consuming a greater amount of meat and - if we all think back to ecology class - it takes a lot of  energy from the lower trophic level (grains) to raise those cows and chickens.  This is pushing both grain and meat prices higher.

More corn is being used for ethanol, and more land is being used for corn.

The economy is bad, and so investors have been increasingly investing in commodities (i.e. corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, oil, etc.) - they were considered the safe fall-back option when the credit crunch hit.  Now we have a bubble in these markets and prices have gone sky-high.  Oil is the same way - there is actually no reason from a production/capacity/reserve standpoint why we should have oil prices this high.  It is just that investors have gone crazy for the commodities.  (For more on this: the "Marketplace" program on public radio did a great story on the bubble in the rice market a few weeks ago.)

The high price of oil raises costs for both production and distribution of food.

I really don't want to be a Negative Nancy, but it just irks me when we only hear a one-sentence explanation of why food prices are high.  Seriously, other than that, I really did appreciate the article.  Environmentalists need keep access and affordability foremost in their minds when it comes to sustainable food and green technologies.

You missed weather--the drought in Australia and other places.

Which of the following would be the most prudent?

Control what the poor can eat
End government mandates for biofuels
Control the economy
Control the cost of oil
Control the weather

Someone has been reading their New York Times.

No question that a change in biofuel policy would be the low-hanging fruit, but that doesn't change the fact that we ought not misrepresent the situation when it comes to high food prices.

And ... we may not be able to control the weather, but we can do something about our climate (and the drought in Australia is likely climate-change induced).