Cheap food -- particularly fast food -- has become a political issue. Critics argue that dollar menus are contributing to obesity rates, while some would argue that cheap food is the the only way many people can afford to eat and should be seen as a triumph of modern agrarian practices.
In an opinion piece for the Cattle Network, Kansas City freelance writer Chuck Jolley rails against what he sees as "elitist snobbery" in which the most fortunate are trying to make value judgments for the people who are just scraping by and ignoring the fact that farming is a for-profit enterprise that has evolved in order to meet the rapidly growing population:
The food chain in America -- from the ranch-to-restaurant, gate-to-plate, farm-to-fork, whatever you want to call it -- is an amazingly complex but efficient model. It puts the product on the table quickly and at an affordable price. The centuries old curse of having to spend a majority of our waking hours and cash on feeding our families and fending off famine is a distant memory. Fortunately.
Although Jolley's criticism is grounded in the idea that it's easy to criticize a food system when you can afford to eat outside of it, his argument is slightly twisted. Without speaking for the Michael Pollans of the world, I believe that personal responsibility -- while a factor -- is not the main push of food safety and production reform. The impetus behind documentaries like Food Inc. is to look at how the current methods of food production are affecting our health.
And that starts with the base issue of whether cheap food is actually good for both the economic and physical health of the nation. Yes, the food system is remarkably complex and expedient; and we are far removed from inconsistent yields. But we are also farther removed from the process than ever before.
A Kansas farmer may feed 129 people; but how many of those people actually know who that farmer is these days? And is there no middle ground? Must we either return to subsistence living or embrace an industrialized agricultural system, rather than encourage the best parts of community gardens and technological innovations?
Right now, I don't have to worry about where my family's next meal is coming from and I recognize that as a luxury. However, over the past two years I've also made the decision that I don't want my food to be cheaper -- I'm OK with it taking a larger portion of my budget, even if that means cutting back somewhere else.
For me it's not a question of whether cheaper food is better or worse, but at what point do we stop simply trying to make our food cheaper?
[Image via Flickr: krosebud]
Comments (0)