In Petrini's defense, Bay-Area people, certainly the more educated ones, do seem to take their food issues very very seriously, making it a point of morality to decide on where and what they buy.  Which is good; we should all be like that.  But then, as Petrini fuzzily observed in his book, that elevated, enlightened sense of food-ethics can easily become a kind of exclusive discipline, a shibboleth dividing the saved from the sinner.

My guess is, the story of Petrini's visit to Ferry Market is more complicated than either his account or those of the offended farmers and their blogger-allies suggest.  For one thing, we need to understand Alice Waters' role in preparing Petrini for the visit, and in interpreting for him what he saw.  For another, given that he does not speak English and requires the assistance of a translator, it is easy to see how he may have missed some essential information at that time, and even now may not fully understand what his antagonists are saying.

Anyway, there is indeed reason to hope that he is now taking in all these money-related and class-related issues, including, Tom, your own very interesting observations on these subjects; and that before long, after some consideration, he will have something to say which is more satisfactory.

By the way, as a Latin teacher I am tickled that the Slow Food people use two Latin words as formal terms.  "Convivia" is the plural of the neuter-gender noun "convivium," which means feast or banquet, and also the company assembled for a feast.  "Presidia" is the plural of the neuter-gender noun "praesidium" (with a late-Latin simplification of the diphthong "ae" to "e"), meaning protection, defense, that which defends, guard, fortification, and so forth.  Hence, to return to the Bay Area, the name of the San Francisco landmark a bit west of the Golden Gate Bridge, "the Presidio," is simply the Spanish word for "fort," Spanish being one of a number of forms of what can be called Modern Latin.  Strictly, Slow Food's term "Presidia" ought to be treated grammatically as a plural-number noun.  Roz Cummins did not do so; whether Petrini & Co. do so, I do not know.

It has been my observation that the poor will not adopt a new product/philosophy/attitude until it becomes popular with the rich.  After all, most people aspire to be rich and have what rich people have.  

Organic food and farmers market food is not really too expensive for the poor and average income folks as much as it is unavailable.  Isn't the location of the market in question as much of an issue as the price of the products?  Farmers market foods  are usually much lower in price than highly processed, high calorie foods found in convenience stores which is often the only food source available in poor neighborhoods.  Mr. Philpot alludes to the real issue--conventionally produced commodities are sold at a loss at the farm gate and the system would not be sustainable except for subsidies.

Elitism is certainly an on-going issue when it comes to peoples' perceptions of Slow Food and things of similar ilk. The bottom line question is this: do you think that the work that the organization does is important? It is necessary, of course, to know what projects they undertake in order to make that decision for yourself. I wrote an article about the organization recently (it's in two parts, national and international) and I strongly suggest looking at their website as well.

It is my own feeling that the work they do in supporting the maintenance of heritage breeds and connecting chefs and farmers (through national meetings and international meetings like Terra Madre) is very worthwhile. I certainly hope that the efforts of an entire organization aren't judged on the statements of one man, even if that man is the organization's figurehead.

I hope to address the issue of elitism is an upcoming column. It's the elephant in the room, but it's an elephant that isn't necessarily well understood. (For example, I think that a lot of the reason why people have trouble affording food has less to do with the price of food as it does with the price of housing and healthcare.)

As for my lapsed Latin gammar (as noticed by Canis Candida) I make it a policy to use whatever term an organization uses. I feel your grammar pain, though. When I say things like "campi" instead of "campuses," nobody knows what the hell I'm talking about.

Wow, everyone I know sent me a link to this. And a good thing, too! It's a very thoughtful piece on a tricky problem. The difference is I didn't find Petrini charming in the least when challenged, and seeing how the organization dealt with the situation, I have serious doubts about how they're going to move forward in a leadership capacity.

I hope Slow Food US can get it together.
At this point it almost seems an aesthetic rather than a movement.

I'm not yet convinced that eating locally and sustainably is not economically viable.  If the objective is to eat 3800 calories a day, which many quote as the national average, then maybe it's impossible for the working poor to feed themselves at the farmers market.  If the objective is 2200 calories a day, it becomes more economically viable.  Also, with scale prices will fall.  So some of it is just a "chicken and the egg" discussion that needs to be, and is being, seriously investigated by people who are passionate about the idea.  Slow Food is just one example of the collaboration toward that end.

We live in a world were most people have no control over their working lives.   I've lived in Tuscany (for 6 months).   When people there go on unemployment (and most are) they get 80 percent of their Fiat wage.   Put those together in a family, and a "poor" family can be bringing in 4 union wage salaries!

The food there, of course, was excellent.   The standards of almost everyone were at a level that Americans could not imagine.  An Italian walking through our finest supermarket would feel as if he were walking through a garbage dump.

However, you can't tell someone with a 1/2 hour lunch break to "eat slower".   That will only end up with him being hungry because he couldn't finish his Ciabatta burger from JITB.

Americans have adopted an ethic that convenience is king, and anything that takes time, effort, or personal sweat is for economic losers.  

On my upper-middle-class block of homeowners, there are only a couple of us who actually bother to cut our own grass and no one besides me, as far as I can tell, who actually uses their bicycle for any other purpose than recreation.  Dollars to donuts most of them won't park a single space farther away from the front door of our local Safeway than they absolutely have to, even on a beautiful day ...

So when you talk about taking time to find, prepare and enjoy quality food, you're talking about a cultural shift that doesn't fit in well with those clip-on-the-ear cell phones and driving kids all over town to scout meetings and soccer practices. "I just don't have time" is the refrain you hear over and over ... and maybe it's true, in  many cases, especially for single moms or families trying to eke out a living working multiple shifts.  

But methinks it goes back to priorities ... interestingly, many of those same "too busy" people seem to find time to watch American Idol and work the extra hours it takes them to buy an SUV they really can't afford anyway, and don't really need.

Simplify, slow down, live intentionally.  Americans should try it some time.  

but so is taking international vacations, driving fancy brand new cars, sending kids to private schools....but so what? People are free to do what they want and there is no objective definition of the "right" amount of consumption so it's a fool's errand going down this path.

Instead, let's focus on policies to increase everyone's income and standard of living so what is now elitist becomes mainstream, while at the same time improving efficiency and the environment. A tremendous challenge? Of course....it's not called the environmental movement for nothing.

J.S.

Certainly it is the vendors' prerogative to be offended by anything they choose. In this case, though, context is everything, and the Ferry Plaza market is held in front of the backdrop of a smallish indoor shopping plaza, in a location that is prime for tourists but not convenient to most city dwellers, where the choices range toward expensive olive oils, gourmet cheeses, chocolates, breads, and so forth. Also, the Bay Area is among the two or three most expensive places to live in the nation; that's as true for farmers as it is for anyone else, and they have to charge enough to live and keep farming on, and most of the "local" farms are at least an hour's drive from the city, if not more. (San Francisco is on a densely populated peninsula.) With Ghirardelli chocolate and the world's best sourdough bread, we have more than our fair share of "foodies," too.

I can understand why someone from another country would be shocked at the prices at Bay Area markets, and especially the Ferry Plaza market. I recently brought a Congolese friend to one of the Berkeley markets (mainly because he didn't believe there were farmers in the US who practiced hand cultivation, and I wanted him to meet some), and he remarked that what he paid for two leeks there ($2 a pound) could buy a bushel back home.

All of this is a way of getting round to saying that in my view, locally grown food is affordable, but not cheap. Locally grown does not externalize costs to the environment and human health the way big-box grocery retailers and their suppliers do, so often pound-for-pound, specific items can be more expensive - but not always. Supporters of locally grown understand that they are supporting sustainable farming practices, local economies, and the health of the planet and their own bodies, and are willing to pay more for it. It's a form of preventive health maintenance, both for the planet and ourselves.

It is also the case that millions of dollars of food stamps are redeemed at farmers' markets across the nation each year, so it's simply not true that the poor do not have access to locally grown organic food. However, people who are used to processed food products, who lack the time and inclination to cook from fresh ingredients, or who have trouble understanding that there is not any way to do straight cost-comparision between the farmers' market and Safeway, are going to need some help getting on board with locally grown. America does not have a tradition of good food the way Italy does, and it is true that our poor often eat shockingly badly. Understanding and finding ways to address class issues within the various aspects of the environmental movement is a crucial challenge for all of us within that movement.  

Some very good points have been made about the situation in America for the lower classes.  It is true that other industrialized nations spend far more, per capita, on food than Americans do.  However, other industrialized nations also have fewer severe expenses than the American lower classes, such as spiraling health care costs, rent/mortgages and the like.  As someone else also pointed out, wages in the US have also stagnated for the past 30 years.  It is not reasonable to expect people to devote 30-40% of their income to food, when they are already scraping by on what they currently make, due to other peculiarities of the US economy.  I agree that the 10% average US expenditure on food belies a real disregard for the importance of food.  But this cannot change without both a dramatic shift in our economic scene, and a revaluing of foods for our people.  As it is, in the US, it is considered a problem when people cannot afford rent or health care; but it is not considered a problem when they cannot afford fresh vegetables--and that in itself is a problem.

And yes, generally, farmer's markets are no more expensive than supermarket foods, especially considering the expense of convenience foods typically purchased at supermarkets.  But farmer's market foods are not only inaccessible for lower classes to buy, the are also inaccessible for most of them to use.  Purchasing and using fresh whole foods takes both acquired skills and time--two things that most people in the lower classes do not have.  There are ways of streamlining cooking, preparing whole foods, etc., that can make it workable for someone holding down 2-3 jobs, but these are learned skills, and right now, no one is teaching them.  A pound of kale might be cheaper than a TV dinner, but when you have no time to cook, and no idea what to do with kale in the first place, that TV dinner becomes far more feasible.

While this would not solve problems for those who have to hold down 2-3 jobs in order to survive, I think one possible solution to the local food problem is the promotion of growing your own. I'm very interested in the idea of growing and harvesting foods from nontraditional spaces (apartment balconies - big in Hong Kong, those large median strips that seem like a lot of maintenance to keep mowed, etc.). I grow a lot of my own food myself which has really supplemented our personal food supply leaving room in the budget to buy things like the slighty more expensive local, hormone free, unhomogenized milk and organic breads when I don't have time or energy to bake my own.

But, like so many have already mentioned the real obstacle is our cultural attitudes toward food (bigger, faster, longer lasting). Americans in general seem to feel that food is only for filling that empty space in their gut rather than for pleasure or a time for families to come together and reconnect. And, I have to admit, even with all of the putting up of my own food, this spring has been rough in the food department with all of my kids' after school activities.

First of all, I can't recommend too highly Barbara Kingsolver's book "Animal Vegetable Miracle" which has much to say to us about the affordability of local food and its critical place in the local economy.

But talking of elitism though, I'd like to comment on the unfortunately increasing use of the word "gourmand" as a substitute for the perceived-as-elitist "gourmet". Unfortunate because to the French "gourmand" also suggests a glutton, one who is overly obsessed with food and eats too much of it. My English dictionary also confirms this traditional distinction: "a person who is fond of good eating, often indiscriminatingly and to excess". Not so good for breaking the stereotype of American greed and overconsumption. Tom, any problem with the locally-grown "foodie"?