Companies like Mattson catch a lot of flak from people like me, who critique the multiplicity of ingredients, technologies, and overall moving parts that go into each finished product. But Stuckey, who works in marketing for Mattson, is dismayed by the expectations we have for her company. “You don’t have to be a math wizard to understand that if lean chicken costs 15 cents an ounce, and vegetables are 7 cents an ounce, there’s going to be a lot of cheap stuff in our formulas to get us to our cost target of 3 cents an ounce! Guess what this usually is? Yep: corn, wheat, soybean, sugar, rice, etc. All the subsidized stuff.” Her op-ed calls for more money spent on food, period. It’s not an original point of view, but it’s refreshing to hear it coming from someone like Stuckey: “If consumers were willing to spend more on food and less on other stuff, this would help us raise food prices, allowing farmers and manufacturers to make better margins, allowing is to put more of the good stuff in the foods we develop for our clients.  More vegetables, less flour. More protein, less oil.”

I applaud Stuckey’s attitude, and I believe hers is genuine. But how many people working in industrial food development are committed to healthy, nourishing foods, and how many simply adhere to nourishing the bottom line? I fear that people like Stuckey are few and far between, and that raising the prices of industrial foods would simply fatten industry’s pockets. It’s a strong and encouraging move, however, and if I saw others like it, I’d be more inclined to believe. I’d really like to.