There's a really interesting thread on Gristmill right now discussing how the local-food movement should consider pushing not only the eco-benefits of eating food grown close to home, but also the superior flavors.

Writer David Roberts is right about the main reason people opt for organics; 46 percent of consumers surveyed by the Hartman Group in 2004 said they bought organic food for health and nutrition reasons, while only 26 percent of the study group cited concern for the environment. So perhaps many of these organic-eating folks don't "particularly care about how far the food has traveled or what size farm it was grown on," just choosing whatever organic brand happens to be handy instead of seeking out local goods. (Granted, poll numbers are a bit flaky: a survey commissioned by Whole Foods in 2004 said more consumers bought organic out of environmental concern than for health reasons, and supporting local agriculture was just a few points behind either of those; still, the Hartman data have remained pretty consistent over a number of years and are pretty well respected, so I'm inclined to trust those.)  

But I'd question Roberts's assumption that people aren't also buying organics out of consideration for deliciousness: 38 percent of the Hartman study group cited taste as a main reason for going "O" (and when you consider the atrocious conventional produce and packaged goods on offer at most supermarkets, it's not hard to see why shoppers might spring for the often better-looking organics.)

Likewise, I don't buy the claim that "[Americans] simply do not take pleasure seriously" when it comes to food. While it's largely (and sadly) true that "most Americans are raised on a diet of fatty, salty food and have developed a craving for that kind of tawdry instant rush," the recent proliferation of food-related media shows that people's interest in food is more avid and widespread these days than ever before. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, 145 food-focused publications were produced in the U.S. last year (up from fewer than twenty fifty years ago), claiming a total of 19.7 million regular readers; The Food Network claims that 78 million households subscribe, while 530 million books about food and wine were sold in 2000 (and the number continues to climb steadily). These media don't exist in a vacuum—the growing thirst for food-related info is why chow-centric publications and networks are thriving. And, as CJR notes, the content of gastro-journalism these days is not primarily health-related; it's mostly "food porn," which deals with taste and aesthetics, precisely the stuff that Roberts is talking about.     

Not that food media shouldn't tackle the important issues of food safety or personal health, which strike close to the bone for a lot of us (and perhaps even more so for low-income folks). I think the key to reducing the overall miles our food travels is a multi-faceted approach: People need to become aware of the health and safety reasons why they should buy fare that's not only pesticide- and hormone-free, but also raised nearby (for one, it reduces the chance of contamination or spoiling during shipping); health arguments clearly resonate for the supermarket organic shopper, so they could just as easily be used to make the case for local food systems. Local-food advocates do also need to capitalize on people's foodie tendencies, as Roberts suggests, but that strategy is not as problematic as he thinks, given current buying trends. It may be that all it takes for some people is a little food for thought: If you're already paying a little extra for those organic supermarket tomatoes from Mexico because they taste better than the mealy conventional ones in the next bin, imagine how much better a freshly-grown bunch from your home state would taste!

Posted by Christy Harrison on Aug 29, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)