In “Food Fight,” Kristin Wartman criticizes the class bias of the organic/local food movement. In particular, she criticizes Michael Pollan’s slogan, “Pay more, eat less.” What does she say about this? If the solution to the problem of industrial food is not simply to “Pay more [and] eat less,” what actions are necessary to effect meaningful change?
April 10, 2019 at 2:21 pm
Kristin Wartman criticizes Michael Pollan’s oversimplified slogan, “Pay more, eat less”, as she explains that this slogan cultivates a “cultural divide” between people who can and cannot afford these higher quality food alternatives. Many people who may want access to these organic, healthier types of foods being promoted in the food movement either cannot afford them, or simply are not in a place that is accessible to them. (In “suburban regions, inner cities, rural areas”, only industrial food options may be available). Michael Pollan’s slogan is very limiting and seemingly ignorant, as it only pushes for those of us who are “able to” to pay more for these better, healthier foods, thus creating a power divide between the two groups. If some of the major problems are that of individual choice in the food market, what about those people who don’t have this choice?
Wartman pushes back, questioning why we aren’t changing agricultural practices that are dangerous and detrimental to our health, and instead are just charging a premium to those “deserving” just because they can afford it. Perhaps nothing is being done because those at the top of this “food movement”, or those who can afford healthier foods, are too selfish and worried about granting access to everyone. To promote meaningful change, Wartman pushes that we need to be united across classes. We need a workers’ movement to demand an increase in wages and changes in agricultural production, and heavier regulations on advertising that would help to educate people on what they are putting into their bodies. On a side note, I think it would be interesting to discuss this “elitist culture” of farmers markets that some people believe is occurring in our societies, and how maybe the conversation could be shifted to talk more about structural problems, such as “food deserts”, access, and property rights, rather than just to eat locally and pay more.
April 10, 2019 at 1:07 pm
In her piece, “Food Fight,” Kristin Wartman criticizes the class bias of the organic food movement, highlighting critique on author Micheal Pollan’s slogan “Pay more, eat less.” She says that this slogan is flawed because it doesn’t take into account that the alternatives to industrial food are more expensive and that not many people can afford organic food. She thinks that Pollan’s solution is over simplified and that paying more for better food doesn’t hold the producers responsible, who are the creators of the problem. She says that Pollan’s argument excludes many factors that the producers control such as : “government subsidies for commodity crops like soy, corn, and wheat; environmental considerations; animal welfare concerns; or the high concentration of exploited workers—all aspects of the industry that flourish because of a lack of fair regulation and proper oversight.” Pollan argues that the disparity in food consumption is furthering a class divide in the US, because the blame and any potential solutions have been put on the consumer. This isn’t practical seeing that many cannot afford to buy more expensive food and furthermore many who live in inner city or suburban areas don’t even have access to such organic foods needed to make the option. Pollan suggests that in order to implement meaningful change larger institutions need to be addressed as they are the ones who truly control standards in the food industry. She suggests that the way consumers have a part in getting large institutions to change their standards is through a workers’ movement that includes workers from every part of the food chain, where they demand a living wage. Pollan notes that even government intervention is limited in its effectiveness because taxes on junk food target poor consumers. Pollan states that “We need a united front demanding that production practices change and that harmful—to our health, environment, and workers—products are no longer produced.”
April 10, 2019 at 12:21 pm
The class divides that exist within the food system never cease to startle me. Sure, we have almost all been exposed to the classic teachings of the food pyramid, effectively prioritizing nutrient-rich foods above those of high-fat and caloric content. However, what often goes unconsidered is the significance of wealth disparities throughout our country that heavily influence access to behaving in ways that support such eating ideals. The unequal access to healthy foods that exists throughout our society not only diminishes physical health of its bottom-tier participants, but also further perpetuates stigmas around associated conditions (e.g. obesity, impoverished communities, welfare recipients, etc.).
Michael Pollan, a proponent of the Food Movement, claims that the way to diminish such divides is to “pay more, eat less.” Ideally, yes, this would help to support the more expensive organic/healthy foods in competing with the industrialized hegemony that is our food system. However, as recognized by Kristin Wartman, it is almost entirely unrealistic and, frankly, only further in maintenance of class divides. This idyllic phrase, representative of the Food Movement, further fuels consumerism, encouraging that the way to escape such disparities is to buy more. This notion fails to acknowledge and target the larger issue at hand: the consolidation of power among few large corporations that undermines the opportunities for smaller-scale farmers.
Wartman suggests that encouraging a “Workers’ Movement” to demand livable wages and improved conditions for food chain workers. She suggests that workers on all levels should unite, forming a strong group that can demand change in larger significance. I do agree with this recommendation; however, I think it is relatively unrealistic to expect ALL levels of the chain to be willing to join together. Front-line workers earn significantly less and experience significantly worse working conditions than workers among higher tiers of the industry. That said, it is unlikely that both poles of the chain will be equally as willing to demand change.
The action that I think is most important, at this point, in instilling change within the system is targeting consumption. Sure, workers protesting and demanding improved conditions would be heard to some degree, large agribusinesses like Monsanto often view their front-line workers as disposable machines, prepared to replace them without a hitch. However, what may have a larger impact is if the companies’ consumers make such demands. Though one individual writing a letter to an agribusiness, say, for requesting better rights, etc. may go unrecognized, with larger initiatives like ad campaigning and daylighting, consumptive demands could be shifted. Individuals should seek influence on their grocery stores, too, for impact on a larger entity that may be more recognized by a large corporation like Monsanto. Through this, along with greater awareness and advocacy for the injustice underlying our food system, I think that beneficial change becomes possible.
April 10, 2019 at 12:16 pm
I found Kristen Wartman’s article “Food Fight” raised awareness for a growing probably in the United States. It is hardly a secret in the 21st Century that food processing in the U.S. is a mass production that priorities margins of earnings over quality of product. In recent years, a movement towards organic and better quality food has began to gain serious traction. The concern with organic products and better quality food is the higher cost for higher quality goods. In Wartman’s piece, she critiques Michael Pollan’s slogan, “Pay more, eat less”. Michael Pollan is a strong advocate for paying for higher quality food products, but also acknowledges that only wealthy Americans will be able to afford this lifestyle. Pollan brings up a valid point, stating that when you eat healthier food, you will need less in quantity because of the pure richness in vitamins, protein, carbohydrates etc. But the majority of Americans cannot sustain that lifestyle. In her piece, Wartman is calling for a change in the way mass production of food is processed in our country. She believes that a call to action starting with the workers of fast food chains, farms, production plants and others need to stand up against the low quality of food being produced. Wartman believes the entire food industry in this country needs an overhaul. This is a tall task to order, but I don’t see any reason why people would be against it.
April 9, 2019 at 7:57 pm
Kristin Wartman critically responds to Michael Pollan’s slogan, “pay more, eat less,” but she doesn’t seem to actually contradict its reality in practice – and that is the problem. We all know that this is true – people who go to expensive restaurants pay large sums for bite-sized food, groceries at Whole Foods are healthier but also more expensive per pound than most supermarkets, and going to McDonald’s results in large sums of unhealthy food for cheap – this is why obesity is most common among low-income recipients. Wartman says that when we further “pay more, eat less” approaches, we strengthen a “cultural divide” which contributes to helping the wealthy thrive and putting the poor at a disadvantage that they cannot combat.
Based on this reading, Wartman seems to think that the solution is to have ‘everyone pay more (but especially those who can afford it), so that everyone can eat better.’ This includes paying more taxes, raising farmer/ worker income, etc. – a frankly unrealistic goal (as we see with everyday life, not even revolving around food). However Wartman’s second proposal is to increase regulation, strengthen labeling procedures and educate the public – an idealistic goal, but most likely not very realistic either.
April 9, 2019 at 7:22 pm
Wartman’s article, “Food Fight” was particularly interesting regarding the organic/local food movement that has created a class divide. In particular, I found her criticism of Pollan’s slogan, “Pay more, eat less,” to be warranted. In recent years, the organic/local food trends have taken the world by storm, but are really only available to those willing and able to pay extra for these better products. Instead of working to create healthier foods and lifestyles for society as a whole, companies are able to market these products to the wealthy. This leads to increasing class divides, particularly related to health and wellness. Not only do members of the upper class have the means to buy healthier foods, but they likely have the time and/or resources to cook them rather than buying GMO foods or not cooking at all. Further, the class divide is intensified in regards to the type of restaurants people are able to eat at. More expensive restaurants tend to have higher quality and fresher food whereas cheaper restaurants tend to be fast food and unhealthy. This highlights that class divides are present in many aspects of life. However, it is important to consider actions that can be taken to mitigate this divide and create change. The government should work to increase standards for organic foods and subsequently require companies to adhere to these standards. It is likely that this will lead to an increase in costs, which will force companies to raise prices. As a result, governments should offer subsidies or some type of tax reduction for these companies so that they don’t have to raise the price of their better goods. In essence, the government should work to create a system that enables every member of society to have the opportunity to buy healthier foods.
April 9, 2019 at 3:14 pm
I thought Kristin Wartman’s article about the organic food movement raised a lot of important issues. People over the years how started to believe that organic and local foods are more important. You are constantly seeing farm to table restaurants popping up in which they advertise what local farms they receive their food from. However, in grocery stores, you do not see advertisements of where food/vegetables are grown, and you do not know what processes they went through. When you see a sign claiming that something is organic you are trusting that the grocery store is being truthful. However, Warman raised an interesting point about how large retailers like Walmart are claiming to have organic food that is not actually healthier than the non-organic counterparts. I think right now we are still in a stage where if you want to be certain that you are getting organic food you have to go to farmers markets like Pollan is talking about and pay more for your food. Wartman criticizes Pollan on this theory because Pollan says that you have to “pay more, eat less” if you want to eat healthier foods. Wartman criticizes Pollan on this idea because she talks about how everyone doesn’t have access to farmers in which they sell higher quality food and not everyone can make scarifies to spend money to live this type of lifestyle. I agree with Wartman that in order for everyone to have access to healthier food and be able to eat organic there needs to be a worker movement and everyone needs to join forces. Wartman talks about how in the meantime regulations need to be made so that people are more away about what they are eating such as making labels more clear about GMO. An area I think the US could improve on is banning GMO. While it would be a difficult task and an expensive change it would help allow everyone access to healthier food.
April 9, 2019 at 1:50 pm
After reading many of Michael Pollan’s books, I have come to understand his idea of “Pay more, eat less” as a slogan meant to encourage people to spend more on fresh, unprocessed, non gmo, antibiotic-free, pasture raised, and humanely raised foods, whether that being produce or animals. Pollan argues, that when you eat this type of food, you typically need less, because your body is more satiated with whole foods, and, for example, you’re not left crashing after a sugar-high, or nutrient depleted. But what happens when you can’t afford to eat this way? Kristin Hartman argues that Pollan’s slogan is discriminatory toward lower-income families who cannot afford to prioritize food this way, and quite frankly, may not even have access to nutrition education.
Our food system makes it increasingly easy to reach for the ‘food-like substances’ i.e, chips and other ultra-processed foods. Unfortunately, a class divide arises for those who are unable to afford this kind of food. In an article I’ve read by food activist Julie Guthman, called, “ The Unbearable Whiteness of Alternative Food,” she writes about the need for an inclusive food movement, which mirrors much of what Kristin Hartman writes
Many low-income families are struggling to make payments on their homes, on their medical bills, and on every day necessities; food quality is not at the forefront of concern for these families. This puts low-income families into a cycle of oppression: consumption of low-quality, calorically dense foods because its all they can afford, leading to the onset of many chronic illnesses or obesity because of poor nutrition, which then leads to high medical bills and inability to work, which further puts a strain on household budget and their ability to afford healthful foods. Not only are our consumers suffering, but farmers are suffering as well with exposure to toxic chemicals, the risk of mono-cropping, and extremely low wages.
Kristin Wartman writes, “without employing a combination of collective actions and political tactics the food industry will remain unchanged and our current two-tiered system will continue to grow.” In this statement, it’s evident that more Americans need to advocate for their rights to consume healthful foods at a more affordable price. There doesn’t appear to be a one-size-fits-all solution, but if progress is not made, food discrimination and insecurity will continue to be prevalent issues in the U.S.
April 3, 2019 at 10:01 pm
In Kristin Wartman’s “Food Fight” she addresses the issue raised with Michael Pollan’s slogan, “Pay more, eat less” in regards to encouraging those who can afford more expensive but healthier organic foods to buy them over industrialized, processed alternatives. Wartman finds many issues with this statement, and highlights how this is class biased, as only those who can afford to buy healthier, more natural foods can do so, while the remaining individuals have to suffer through with non-organic, GMO, pesticide-ridden produce and meat. While the wealthy can afford to be healthy, the majority of Americans are left to the mercy of the food industry. In fact, her major argument targets the industry as a whole, as she claims that only enabling people to access healthy, natural food through spending significantly more on organic foods, it puts the burden on the consumers to choose health or economy, as well as the farmers that are subjected to the harsh chemicals used in farming. The main actions necessary to get meaningful change are to get legislations passed that require better, healthier, and safer farming practices done by all food producers. The most significant downside to this would be that food products might increase in price, but the government should subsidize these farming methods as they do with other produce and goods in the US. Wartman also suggests that low-wage workers demanding truly livable wages will also help counteract this issue. She notes that the market-based economy won’t let this happen naturally, so it requires swift, deliberate actions by groups on whole. Overall, this is a problem that is wreaking havoc on our country, as financial barriers and those limiting access to quality foods, like food deserts, create either health or financial burdens for individuals who don’t exist in a high enough social class level to not have to choose, and measures should be taken to mitigate this divide.