First posted on the 'Alex's Weblog' page
Posted by: Alex Marshall
One of the dangerous possibilities in writing is to see an avenue that is sort of true, and then to follow it, in an attempt to wrap up a complex situation with a simple but wrong analysis. This comes to mind after reading Julia Powell's op-ed in The New York Times recently called "Don't Get Fresh With me." She got some things right: it's certainly worrisome that more and more people are buying their ways out of the regular food system with $2 tomatoes and whathave you. But Powell missed something in her perceptive but muddled essay: government regulation. If the states or federal government required chickens to be raised with more light and air, cows to be given fewer hormones, vegetables to be grown with fewer pesticides, and instituted policies that supported rather than penalized local agriculture, then people of all incomes would have a chance to buy more wholesome food, in the fullest sense of the word. If food production were regulated more closely, the price of foodstuffs would rise some, but not immensely because economies of scale would kick in. We could substantially end the bi-furcated food system we have now, where a wealthy elite buy food of almost total purity, and the masses buy tainted and often tasteless goods. We should require all food to be "almost organic." There's a way to split the difference between what is now two unappetizing extremes. Until then though, we can't blame those who can afford it to seek out tastier and healthier food, in all senses.Categories: Standard of Living | Food and Wine