The Accidental Hedonist's Guide to:




My Book



99 Drams of Whiskey:The Accidental Hedonist's Quest for the Perfect Shot and the History of the Drink


Communication

Poll

Would you support a soda tax if the revenue went to improving our health care system?

View Results

-->

What's in it for me?

10/20/06, by Kate Hopkins Email 1421 views • Categories: Food, Food Politics

I have various search terms logged into various blog readers, and sometimes it comes back with peculiar stories and ideas that need to be said. That is how I came across the following items.

Item one:

The writer of Dethroner, Joel, had recently talked about trying to lose weight, and gave advice along the lines of "Buy pre-packaged foods" and "Eat less than 1,500 calories worth a day". A commenter, by the name of Grady, followed up by saying "You’ve lectured about how there are things you have to admit to yourself if you want to be successful losing weight. You’re going to have to admit to yourself that you must eat fresh, minimally processed food regularly if you want to be healthy."

To which Joel responded with the following:

Some of us have lives, jobs, stresses, and realities we face every day that make switching from our unhealthy lifestyles—and we know they’re unhealthy; our bodies testify—straight away into a wholly organic, hand-prepared, completely healthy lifestyle. The thought of purchasing and preparing every last bit of food that goes into our bodies is daunting and serves as a bulwark in which we can hunker down with our insecurities to inaction, stocked as it is with cheeseburgers, chocolate milk, and the echoing rejoinders of self-righteous, preening princes like you.

Item two:

There's a recent Metafilter discussion about the benefits and challenges for eating local, including the following comment:

I can't keep up anymore...

Are we all supposed to move to the large urban centers because there won't be enough oil for everyone to have cars and drive all over everywhere?

Or should we all move out to the country because there won't be enough oil to ship all the food all the way to the urban centers?

Or, should Topeka or Des Moines become the new NYC?

Should I never eat bananas because I don't live within 100 miles of where they are produced? I'm 500 miles landlocked no matter which direction you go... should seafood be forbidden in the country's interior?

Instead of expecting the entire world's population to return to an agrarian lifestyle, finding more efficient ways of transport and cheaper/renewal fuels MIGHT be a tad more productive. These neo-agrarian dreams are just that... dreams.

Item three:
From an article in Adage entitled Organics Fail to Yield Cash Crop for Food Giants:

It's been enthusiastically embraced by marketers, blessed by Wal-Mart and touted as the holy grail of growth for an industry desperately in need of it. But after a stupendous start, organic foods are looking suspiciously like a sensation sizzling out.

All of these items have a current theme in them which bears looking at. In essence, if advocates of Slow Food, Organic Food or any of the other food movements which have popped up wish to have their movements evolve into the mainstreams consciousness, they're going to have to answer a question that will be asked of them repeatedly. To wit, "What's in it for me?"

Before the advocates shrug off the query as insensitive and too chock full o' self-interest, it's best to re-examine it and understand that it is a fair question to ask. There are many reasons for people's food decisions, but chief among them are the effect of the purchase on two valuable components of the purchaser's resources - time and money.

That "organic food is better for you" or "eating local is better for the environment" and the plethora of societal-improvements that may or may not occur if these ideals moved into the mainstream are certainly compelling reasons for some - Enough so that it allows these movements to get to where they are today.

However, mainstream society often doesn't work towards societal-improvements. They work towards what's best for themselves. That often means that they'll spend three dollars on industrial ground beef instead of 5 dollars per pound of grass fed ground beef, saving themselves two dollars to use elsewhere. It means that they'll eat a Budget Gourmet for dinner in place of making it themselves in order to allocate the 30 minutes they have saved on a more enjoyable task.

If your food ideals are such that they require a sacrifice of time and/or money, how do you convince an individual with limited time and/or money that those sacrifices are worth making?

Technorati Tags:


Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Roger [Visitor] · http://aubonvivant.blogspot.com
I enjoy eating local when I can, but I'm not sold on "organic". One of my complaints about my local farmer's market is they are trying to go all organic growers, but really, the reason I eat local is that fresh(er) produce tastes better.

I also really enjoy cooking, so for me, that half hour to cook a meal is something I'd rather be doing than "other more pleasant tasks". Notwithstanding that, I do keep food in the freezer to make meals quickly and we even order and eat out on occasion.

I briefly joined Slow Food, but dropped out because there wasn't enough in it for me.
PermalinkPermalink 10/20/06 @ 11:03
Comment from: L [Visitor] · http://www.cookbook411.com/
There's no easy answer to reversing the way the true cost of eating non-organic, industrially raised or well-travellled food... but I do think it will take that to change the way a majority of the people make their decisions. I have made a huge change in my food choices, but I know I still don't do "the right thing" a good chunk of the time... I don't go to McDonalds or other fast food joints, but I still order meat when I eat at my favorite chinese restaurant knowing full well that it's industrially raised.

At some level, it has to be individuals making more and more of the right choices to start moving the overall culture in the right direction... but that certainly isn't a quick fix to the problem. I guess "slow food" is just going to take time.
PermalinkPermalink 10/20/06 @ 11:40
Comment from: Dave Peplinski [Visitor]
"how do you convince an individual with limited time and/or money that those sacrifices are worth making?"

you teach them to eat better, to cook better, that great tasting food is better than convenient food.

I read that dethroner article with a shudder.
PermalinkPermalink 10/20/06 @ 12:27
Comment from: The Old Foodie [Visitor] · http://www.theoldfoodie.blogspot.com/
"how do you convince an individual with limited time and/or money that those sacrifices are worth making" - Kate, this is a great question. The limited money issue is critical - for those who are feeding a family on a very low income, that 2 dollar difference on the ground beef is huge. The time aspect is a non-issue for those of us who love cooking - we can make a great meal in the time taken waiting for a pizza delivery. So - until ethical and high quality food is as easily available and eatable as fast food - we also need an argument for those who simply dont like cooking, or even hate it! I am out of ideas at this point!
PermalinkPermalink 10/20/06 @ 14:08
Comment from: stephen [Visitor] · http://www.stephencooks.com/
How about this for an idea: I'll eat what I like and not worry about what the next guy's eating? Somebody please tell me what reason there could be for me to try to "convince" anyone to eat something they don't like or care to pay for? The whole topice mystifies me...
PermalinkPermalink 10/21/06 @ 05:15
Comment from: kevin [Visitor] · http://seriouslygood.kdweeks.com
Kate,
Good choice of topic, and I think you've hit the nail on the head. But your hammer could be a lot bigger. People eat local, or organic, or grass-fed, or whatever because they get something out of it. Money and time are perhaps the most common form of reward, but fresher taste or a feeling of oneness with the natural world are also rewards. The key is non one does anything unless they get something they value out of it.
PermalinkPermalink 10/21/06 @ 07:25
Comment from: Kate Hopkins [Member] Email · http://www.accidentalhedonist.com
Stephen,

I take your point. To see why it matters to the food advocates, one need not go further than the various web site of their selected causes.
PermalinkPermalink 10/21/06 @ 09:46
Comment from: stephen [Visitor] · http://www.stephencooks.com/
Hi Kate...well, I don't doubt that people believe in "their selected causes," but my question was, what's the motivation, the reason, that people have when they try to convince other people to like what they like and eat what they like? I like slow food, interesting ingredients, hand prepared, etc., etc., but I don't care at all if you want to eat Triple Whoppers with Cheese all day, and I'm certainly not going to try to convince you to eat my way -- and I don't understand why anyone would want to try...
PermalinkPermalink 10/21/06 @ 13:23
Comment from: Nicholas Caratzas [Visitor]
How to convince an individual... those sacrifices are worth making?


For many, they won't be. Some people don't care and aren't going to, despite being fully aware of their options. And you have plenty of adults who aren't going to eat anything that's good for them, if for no better reason than to be ornery.
So there are a bunch of people you aren't going to reach, no matter how much energy you put into it. The movement has to accept this and focus on people they can reach.

Ann Cooper's experiences in Berkeley suggest our eating preferences are set pretty firmly early in life. The UK's "Meat Pie Mum" phenomenon does the same. Working on anybody past grade school is going to be tough.

Then there's our nation's habit of treating food as medicine. This gives the health food evangelist the crutch of moral superiority and I don't think that's a plus -- God, who likes people telling them what to do? The added "benefit" of our pharmacomestible obsession is an upward pressure on the asking price of the good stuff (hey, can't put a price on your health, after all.) So the preachiness helps keep good food out of the hands those most pressed for time and money, even though they have the most to gain from an improved diet.

The two-year-old in me is conditioned to think of anything that's good for you as boring. I'm probably pretty typical with regard to that. There's no good reason why whimsical food choices have to be restricted to junk. I want my good food choices to be more fun. "Eat your vegetables" ain't gonna cut it. We need to see fewer sawdust-flavored "Nature patties" and more smiley-face-shaped nuggets. The small-producer eggs I buy come with a little flyer telling you about the chickens. That kind of stuff is fun too, and takes the sting out of paying $0.50/egg.

Those of us who feel there are societal benefits to a healthier, tastier diet have to reach people earlier, and tone down the self-righteousness we Americans love to call on when trying to convince people to change their behavior. I think we have to accept that it's going to take a long time for significant fundamental changes to stick, or risk stalling any progress made to date.
PermalinkPermalink 10/21/06 @ 18:54
Comment from: Nicholas Caratzas [Visitor]
Oh, and Joel's response totally rocks. Maintaining a healthy weight by eating a Lean Cuisine for dinner has gotta be better for you than staying fat but intending to eat less-processed stuff.
PermalinkPermalink 10/21/06 @ 19:05
Comment from: Alexandra Lynch [Visitor] · http://www.livejournal.com/alexandralynch
Not only is it a question of money, but one of accessibility.

I live on "the wrong side of town". I drive across town to do my shopping. There is no grocery store within walking distance, only the "convenience stores". I can feed my husband and I for two weeks for sixty dollars, but that's because I do my own cooking. But I couldn't do it without a vehicle. As it is, I do it without eating organic. After all, the people uptown don't care about my desire to eat natural when I come up short on the water bill. (grin) I'd like to see the way our culture eat changing, but it's going to take teaching our kids what I was taught...how to cook good plain basic food, from the ground up, and we make our society one in which it's possible for someone to be home to get dinner.
PermalinkPermalink 10/21/06 @ 19:22
Comment from: frelkins [Visitor] · http://bccy.blogspot.com
the key is to politely, rationally, consicely, and calmly explain the externalities.

the seemingly cheap beef is actually very expensive -- it's just that people end up paying teh bulk of the cost elsewhere than in the grocery line.

for example, they pay for the expensive water subsidies for western cattle in their state and federal taxes. but they don't connect that to the price of beef at safeway or wherever.

this needs to be explained to americans, who aren't stupid, and who don't need to be patronized or preached to, imvho.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/06 @ 10:41
Comment from: George [Visitor]
frelkins...I see your point but you don't want to start this line of reasoning. Pretty soon, you will make the connnection between buying an ashtray and supporting terrorism.

After all...an ashtray is for smoking. Cigarettes come from tobacco raised by farmers. Perhaps one of those farmers grows other "cash crops" to subsidize his income. These "crops" are sold on the streets of my city by people with guns. These guns are combatted by police with legal guns bought from gun manufacturers. Gun manufacturers need to stay in business so they lobby for agressive foreign policy that leads to military action. Military action leads to disgruntled world citizens who lash back....as terrorists.

Obviously this seems far fetched and is waaaaaaay off the subject of food but it's difficult to argue your point with regard to beef without realizing this impact is felt everywhere.

Ahhhh...the circle of life.
PermalinkPermalink 10/23/06 @ 10:32
Comment from: frelkins [Visitor] · http://bccy.blogspot.com
"you don't want to start this line of reasoning"

oh yes, we very much do. with all due respect, it is your reluctance to do so on which the indusstrial corporate food lobbyists rely.

as long as they can hide their subsidies, their "no mad cow testing" and other regulatory loopsholes in federal laws, they believe americans will never catch up to their tricks.

it's not a far-fetched hard-to-follow line. it's pretty straightforward -- just ask people "you know the west is in a drought and the wildfires are in the news all the time. so where does the water for the cattle come from?"

americans are smart enough to get this right away. you have to respect their intelligence.
PermalinkPermalink 10/23/06 @ 12:00
Comment from: träsel [Visitor] · http://www.insanus.org/garfada
i live in brazil. most people here have a hard time trying to make their salaries go all the month long.

i don't think they just don't care for the earth, as some of you imply about the infidels who eat insdustrialized food. they just have to eat whatever they can get.
PermalinkPermalink 10/24/06 @ 05:58
Comment from: Nicholas Caratzas [Visitor]
the seemingly cheap beef is actually very expensive

It's true, but there's also a social welfare component. The (direct and hidden) U.S. agriculture subsidies directly benefit our population because they lower overall food prices. This is a complicated subject, and there's no question in my mind that the system could work a lot better -- I guess my point is that government support of agribiz is in a way similar to government maintenance of roads and waterways -- the progressive nature of our tax system helps the benefits flow downhill.
PermalinkPermalink 10/24/06 @ 09:51
Comment from: pyewacket [Visitor] · http://seasonalcook.blogspot.com
What's in it for a lot of people is an environment that doesn't actually poison their children. I've noticed that a lot of the people who are interested in local/organic/unprocessed foods are people who have suffered from serious illness or whose children do. The increased incidence of asthma and allergies in children has made far more people senstive to issues about pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and preservatives.

AS for the financial issue - of course it's a huge problem for a lot of people to spend more money on food. Dear god, we have enormous numbers of people living in poverty in this country. It's tragic that a result of this is that they have to eat crap. There are some great programs that are distributing locally-grown produce to low-income families, but of course those programs don't being to touch the problem.

HOWEVER, I love to see how people immediately rush to champion the poor in these discussion, without noting that the majority of people in the United States could afford to spend more on food. We believe food is supposed to be cheap, very cheap, just like gas, because, as is mentioned above, the system is subsidized, and of course costs like environmental destruction are laid at the feet of upcoming generations. Food has become a smaller and smaller portion of the family budget over the last fifty years (part of why the poverty-level calculations are so off), and we expect that a big fat steak should be $4. Then we go spend the $5 on a movie rental. Adjustments in expectations will have to happen, and that will of course be slow.

However, I am not a complete pessimist. Enormous changes can happen in very short periods of time, despite huge economic and cultural disincentives. I think the focus on improved school lunches is a good start. And I do think people can change, even if many will not. After all, I grew up eating three bowls of Lucky Charms for breakfast every morning.
PermalinkPermalink 10/25/06 @ 10:08
Comment from: Nicholas Caratzas [Visitor]
We believe food is supposed to be cheap, very cheap, just like gas, because, as is mentioned above, the system is subsidized, and of course costs like environmental destruction are laid at the feet of upcoming generations.

The major difference is that if gas were more expensive people would almost certainly use less of it, with a resluting net impact on social health. If food is more expensive there's no reason to believe people will eat better -- in fact they'll be even more dependent on lower-cost, less-nutritionally-rich options.
PermalinkPermalink 10/25/06 @ 17:38
Comment from: Nicholas Caratzas [Visitor]
Oops, forgot to say: If anything, it sounds like more subsidies may be needed -- targeted to healthier ane more environmentaly-friendly products -- so that lower-income people and their children can take advantage of the options available to the middle class. Figuring out a way to implement such an admittedly difficult task is left as an exercise for the reader.
PermalinkPermalink 10/25/06 @ 17:41
Comment from: Katje Sabin [Visitor] · http://moodyfoodie.livejournal.com
I don't.

I know a vegan woman who wrote, after meeting me and a few other largish people at a party, that we were the self-indulgent, resource-hogging SUVs of the human race, choosing to eat high-protein, high-calorie food when, if only we would make the same food choices as her, we could be saving the world AND skinny to boot.

I found her self-righteous attitude terribly insulting and uninformed. My knee-jerk reaction was that vegans are obnoxious and rude, even though I know intellectually that this isn't the case. However, her gaffe did teach me that I need to be very careful about how I express my own food (and life) choices.

We homeschool, and there are people who send their children to public school that seem affronted when they learn that we keep our children at home. When we talk about our choices, school or food or otherwise, I have to couch my decisions in terms of "what works best for me and my family," rather than "what is best for everybody."

Therefore, I rarely bring up someone's choices compared to mine UNLESS they initiate the conversation, OR they try to ram their own ideas down my throat. We all have our own values and priorities... what's important to one person might be a non-issue to another.

I think the larger question is how do we shift the very deeply held American value of "me first" to the more community, world-based value of "what's right for all of us, and the environment, and future generations?"... and this is a going to be a very big task.
PermalinkPermalink 10/28/06 @ 01:20

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
What color is a red balloon?