Walking The Talk
This article is scheduled to run in the Capital Press in the Summer of 2006Every so often, an event causes a seismic shift in the food industry. Sometimes, as in the case of the alar scare in 1992, the magnitude of the event is only apparent in hindsight. While the alar scare began the mainstreaming of the organic movement, Michael Pollan’s most recent book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma (2006, The Penguin Press), may begin the mainstreaming of the local food movement.
Aptly described on its cover as “A Natural History of Four Meals,” The Omnivore’s Dilemma addresses a series of food issues from both the perspective of the field and, to a lesser extent, the farmer, as well as from the perspective of the plate and the consumer. As such, the “Omnivore’s Dilemma” provides a view of our nation’s industrial food complex that is as important to farmers and ranchers as it is to consumers. The fact that the book has been on the top of several bestseller lists hints at the impact that it is having on public opinion.
Sometimes the best way to judge a work’s impact is to look at both the substance and the origin of its criticism. In the case of the Omnivore’s Dilemma the criticism has focused on the book’s “one-sidedness,” its lack of journalistic rigor, and the author’s “intellectual navel-gazing.” However, the fact that this criticism has come from all frequencies of the food spectrum, from corporate farmers to Whole Foods Market to vegan activists to meat marketers, illustrates the fact that it has touched a major nerve.
Pollan’s criticism of Whole Foods is that it has become an agent of “Big Organic” or “Industrial Organic.” Although there are holes in his argument, his criticism is totally fair. Whole Foods has become a very powerful force in the organic movement and that movement has become increasingly industrial in nature. The foundation of Pollan’s criticism is that Whole Foods, which has always positioned itself as a totally different and revolutionary type of grocery company, is becoming just another big grocery company by neglecting the very small farmers that its marketing says it supports. The truth of the matter is that, as a publicly traded corporation with nearly 200 stores, Whole Foods can’t afford not to deal with the big players in the organic industry. By sourcing more products from fewer companies, Whole Foods achieves huge economies of scale, in keeping with the capitalistic standard to which all publicly traded companies are held. The sad truth is that economy tends to trump ideology in nearly every instance.
However contentious the book may be, it has caused Whole Foods to very publicly put its money where its mouth is; the retailer recently pledged $10 million in small loans to support small farmers across America while also announcing that it will begin hosting farmer’s markets for small farmers at select stores. However, one feels about their positioning, Whole Foods still represents a great deal of opportunity for small farmers and food artisans.
If you have not yet read The Omnivore’s Dilemma, check it out and let me know what you think at brianjkennymediaworks@yahoo.com.
8/21/06
[+/-] read/hide this post
posted by Brian J. Kenny @ 10:49 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home