Michael Pollan on the rise of the food movement(s)

Pollan nation: In what is ostensibly a five-book review for the June 10 New York Review of Books, journalist Michael Pollan has an epic essay charting the emergence and character of the food movement. Or, as he puts it, “‘movements,’ since it is unified as yet by little more than the recognition that industrial food production is in need of reform because its social/environmental/public health/animal welfare/gastronomic costs are too high.” (Pollan, of course, has been indispensable in the rise of this movement, yet he omits his 2006 best-seller, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, from his list of its catalysts — among them Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, Marion Nestle’s Food Politics.)

This collection of movements is a “big, lumpy tent,” says Pollan:

Where many social movements tend to splinter as time goes on, breaking into various factions representing divergent concerns or tactics, the food movement starts out splintered. Among the many threads of advocacy that can be lumped together under that rubric we can include school lunch reform; the campaign for animal rights and welfare; the campaign against genetically modified crops; the rise of organic and locally produced food; efforts to combat obesity and type 2 diabetes; “food sovereignty” (the principle that nations should be allowed to decide their agricultural policies rather than submit to free trade regimes); farm bill reform; food safety regulation; farmland preservation; student organizing around food issues on campus; efforts to promote urban agriculture and ensure that communities have access to healthy food; initiatives to create gardens and cooking classes in schools; farm worker rights; nutrition labeling; feedlot pollution; and the various efforts to regulate food ingredients and marketing, especially to kids.

Yep, that about covers it. And those factions don’t always play nicely together. For example, animal-rights activists can’t abide what I like to call the “born-again carnivores” — the people (like me) who used to be vegetarian but resumed eating meat once they could get it in good (or at least better) conscience from small farms.

Pollan finds one common point on which all the various movement splinters can agree: that the way our food system is organized and supported in this country has led to an epidemic of ill health. First Lady Michelle Obama’s various forays into food politics show how high the level of recognition has risen. He also makes the important point that the food movement isn’t just about tearing down the unhealthy, unfair, and unclean industrial food system, but about celebrating the communal and gustatory pleasures of its opposite — and that’s what makes it so appealing. Farmers markets aren’t just outlets for organic kale; they’re the new informal gathering places to meet and make friends. They make food shopping fun again, versus a grim sprint pushing a cold metal cart through aisles of corporate logos.

And in the final part of the essay, in the guise of discussing political scientist Janet A. Flammang’s new book, The Taste for Civilization: Food, Politics, and Civil Society, Pollan takes aim at a favorite target: the corporate message that cooking is a chore from which convenience food should be begged to save us. Fast food and convenience food, writes Flammang, along with other tactics to denigrate “‘foodwork’ — everything involved in putting meals on the family table,” have wrecked the critical social institution of the family meal. And with its demise have gone other important meals, such as the bipartisan bread that used to be broken in the Senate dining room.

Reclaiming cooking and communal eating as worthy societal values are just two goals that the various factions of the food movement can share. They will need to find more common ground if they are to reach the tipping point that will persuade politicians that theirs is a cause worth backing.

Cross-posted from Grist

2 Responsesto “Michael Pollan on the rise of the food movement(s)”

  1. Syd says:

    It’s so sad to me that this write-up is ruined by taking potshots at a group you have far more in common with; doing the work, for free, of the industry and their astroturfing henchmen such as Berman in order to dismiss those who’ve done so much to make traditional animal raising much more viable by highlighting the absolutely atrocious conditions well over 90% of the billions of food providing animals in this country suffer through. It just wasn’t necessary especially when so absolute. Surely you do not know all of us and instead have chosen to ignore the majority of us who have not even given you a second thought or maybe even have promoted this website. But I guess the human condition is the need to always set themselves apart. Who will be your victim next if you succeed at what Industrial Meat so wants you to by ostracizing the animal rights groups?

    Ah well, it does highlight how successful industry is in implanting the memes…

  2. Cooking Man says:

    Pollan needs to be taken to task here for soft-selling the notion that feminists are to blame for the loss of cooking culture, as Anna Clark and and Kate Harding have done at Salon.