Sensitivities in discussing food ethics

Good food

There's some criticism floating around in response to food writer Mark Bittman's recent article about McDonald's surprisingly unhealthy oatmeal, and his frustration with Americans' collective obsession with "convenience foods."  The criticisms I've read were written by fans of his, but it's the comments in Amanda Marcotte's post that I'm interested in discussing.  As is wont to happen in the progressive blogosphere, commenters are critical of the seemingly condescending tone used by "elite" food writers like Bittman, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Amanda herself.  Some of the complaints that crop up in response to articles like these are valid, like the ones in response to commentary like, "I can't believe parents would feed their kids boxed macaroni.  Don't they know that has yellow number 9?!" without giving consideration to what their circumstances may be that led those parents to the decision to make boxed macaroni for lunch or a microwavable chicken pot pie for dinner.  Or the well-intentioned "you know, you can really eat healthfully for really cheap.  The farmer's market, which is open on Thursdays and Sundays is cheaper than the grocery store and even supports local farmers!!, but you have to get there before 2, and bring cash.  And there are plenty of cheap items that you can make that are nutritious and filling, it only takes an hour or so each night so prepare."

I'm of the opinion that Americans in general should like to spend that much time preparing meals to share with family and friends, and that it should be an activity that everyone involved participates in, but that's an ideal, not a reality.  We can try to shift our collective understanding of the role of foods in our lives.  And we can do that while also making sure to remember that, for many working families -- the very ones we root for when we think of the Wisconsin and Indiana protests, and the ones we are on the side of when we consider the importance of a social safety net and programs like WIC -- that extra hour, or those hours and requirements for using more eco-friendly, locally-supportive, less-expensive options, are worth a lot more than others might initially assume.

Some of Amanda's commenters have a problem with Bittman's biting condescension; specifically, where Bittman lays out the following:

Since we know there are barely any rules governing promotion of foods, one might wonder how this compares to real oatmeal, besides being 10 times as expensive. Some will say that it tastes better, but that’s because they’re addicted to sickly sweet foods, which is what this bowlful of wholesome is.

 Alysia says, 

 I just think it something that needs to be acknowledged when righting such an article rather than the sort of “OH MY FUCKING GOD YOUR ARE SO DUMB YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW HOT TO LIVE YOUR OWN LIFE BECAUSE THIS IS EASIER THAN WHAT YOUR ARE DOING NOW YOU DUMBASS” sort of tone of the article. I just started reading the times because it is one of a few websites I can read at work. I had never read anything by this guy before this article and I thought he made a lot of good points but it just dripped with such condescension.

I agree, to an extent; the article does have a snarkier tone to it that I'm not used to reading (or hearing) by Bittman, although I haven't been familiar with him for very long.  But to me, it reads less as condescension and more as a general frustration with the system that creates this ignorance and fabricated need for extremely sweet, extremely "convenient" foods.  Bittman has proven his understanding of the underlying causes of poor nutrition in America (see the TED Talk below), and the obstacles that marginalized (and even not-so-marginalized people, lately) face in eating healthy, nutritionally-balanced foods in sufficient quantities.  He clearly speaks from a place of privilege, because while he may not have a luxurious kitchen to prepare all of his nutritious and well-documented minimalist meals, he does have the means, and the time, to adhere to his own food philosophy.  But even given that, he's not proven himself to be too out of touch to speak for the collective American population when it comes to food, its importance, and our relationship to it.

Amanda is similarly well-versed in the underlying causes of the Western food problem.  While I imagine that if she weren't such a high-profile writer, she'd let herself be a whole lot snarkier than she is when it comes to issues surrounding food, she does tend to remember that her audience doesn't consist entirely of New York-based foodies who have the luxury of being able to join a CSA and have the time to blog about it every week, among other things.  Which is why it's irritating to see more knee-jerk reactions from commenters who assume she's talking down to people who don't, or can't, eat like her.  Because while Amanda doesn't say anything in her response to Bittman's post alluding to a disdain or lack of compassion for people who are unable to follow hers and Bittman's similar food philosophies, some people are responding to her as though she did.  As kristin says, 

It’s kind of funny to me that Amanda can be so on point about valuing the labor women are expected to do, and then turn around and forget entirely about how that extra labor might make the work of getting breakfast into everyone a bit harder. Maybe because she doesn’t have the additional labor of caring for kids. That REALLY makes a difference in how easy it is to get meals on the table from scratch.

Bad food
(via.)

I don't mean to single out kristin; the content of her comments, though, are incredibly common in this context, and oftentimes, the person making the comment is jumping to unfair conclusions.  While Amanda let some snark through when she echoed Bittman's assertion that our collective addiction to extraordinarily and artificially sweet foods has dulled our ability to taste the satisfying sweetness in real foods, kristin couldn't see past the frustration Amanda and Bittman were expressing with the consequences of the corporate-sponsored food system in America to the real point, which is what people like her have eased themselves away from.  While it's important to remember that many people are unable to change their diets to the ideal put forth by Bittman, Marcotte, and other food-focused writers and activists, it is also important to recognize that the people talking about it right now have made actually made the difficult transition from traditional, consumer-based Western eating toward more wholesome, healthy, deliberate eating, and understand each side pretty well.  A frustration doesn't necessarily indicate an unfair bias or a dismissively "privileged" perspective.  What Bittman was asserting is both scientifically supported, and intuitively true: that we've collectively desensitized our tastebuds to nutritionally-acceptable levels of sweetness and fat- and carb-satisfaction with heavily-processed, over-produced junk.  Of course an orange won't taste as satisfying as a Little Debbie's brownie, when you're not used to using an orange to satisfy your sweet tooth.  And that's not personal; anyone in Western society is susceptible, obviously, and the people who speak out against our current food system usually haven't been eating so healthfully their entire lives. It's not made up, and it's not being used as a vehicle to shame people who can't afford healthy foods, or don't have sufficient time to prepare them.

I think, ultimately, we need to remember that there is a clear difference between complaining about the people who remain deliberately ignorant of the food system in the Unites States, and hollering at the mother of three small kids behind you in the grocery store line about how she should feed her kids oatmeal instead of the sugary cereal in her cart.  The former is lamenting about the negative impacts of a recent trend, while the latter is personally attacking an individual over a choice over which they may have little control.  It shouldn't be too hard to tell the difference.

San Francisco bans Happy Meals

In news that has pissed off grownups across the country, San Fransisco has decided to ban McDonald's restaurants from giving toys to children with their Happy Meals (or other food items that don't meet certain nutritional requirements). Tom Johansmeyer from Business Insider lists his four reasons for disliking the ban:

1. Civil liberties take a beating … again

It’s easy to get alarmist about the encroachment of the government on our various rights that haven’t been explicitly stated or rescinded (remember, the tie goes to the runner on this one). But, add it to measures across the country – especially in California and New York – that curtail some of the vices we enjoy most, and it’s easy to see the trend form. Prohibiting a product for kids has very real implications for adults.

I'd like to know more about how he thinks that prohibiting the restaurant industry from using certain types of emotionally manipulative and deceptive marketing tactics is a type of civil liberties violation, because it's not clear. McDonald's uses the allure of a free (cheaply made, quickly-forgotten about) toy to entice children to hopefully pressure their parents into buying them the nutritionally-void food products so they can get the toy. Children whine and cry, their parents take them, and eventually, if the trend continues, as McDonald's hopes it will, the child will grow an addiction to the pile of fat, salt, and high fructose corn syrup that the restaurant provides to them to accompany their free toy so that they become life-long customers. Parents can buy all the products they want for their kids; there's no banning of toys, there is a ban on toys sold with shitty food. What these "very real implications for adults" are is not explained, nor implied.

2. The message is wrong anyway

The ordinance approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors only allows toys to be included in meals that have certain health benefits. So, instead of relying on parents to talk to their kids about nutrition and instill proper eating habits, the elected officials are leaving a loophole to bribe kids into healthy eating with shitty toys they’ll forget about in a few minutes anyway. Maybe the next move will be to give out free hugs with gym memberships? Just a thought …

It's unclear how allowing toys to be served with healthy foods is "bribery," or how this apparent bribery is different than the bribery involved in offering a toy with shitty food. Johansmeyer doesn't elaborate. His claim that the children will forget about their "shitty toy" in a few minutes, anyway, is also confusing. If that's really the case, which we all know it to be, why is he so concerned that these "forgotten" toys will not be given out with unhealthy meals any longer?

He also uses the "let's leave it up to the parents" trope, like he's been waiting for the perfect opportunity to use it in print, but which doesn't make sense in context. He's suggesting that the government is trying to replace responsible parenting with government-controlled fast food commercials. What's actually happening doesn't have any effect on what parents teach their children. Parents obviously remain free to teach their children whatever they'd like about food, and also buy them toys; the children simply will not receive a free toy with meals that their parents choose to buy them that do not meet certain nutritional requirements.

3. Tradition is relegated to history

While I wouldn’t let that food anywhere near my body now (and would keep it away from kids), I do remember growing up on Happy Meals. I guess I turned out fine, despite what many have said and written at length. I made it through childhood and into adulthood despite stuffing fries into my mouth and pulling pickles off tasteless burgers. It’s part of being a kid – a “childhood rite of passage” Melissa Bell of the Washington Post blog, calls it. If it is time for this sort of transition to occur, government isn’t the way to do it.

He's being really over-dramatic. I, too, remember eating McDonald's as a kid. I really liked it, and there isn't anything wrong with that, because we didn't treat it like a daily meal, but a dietary and monetary splurge. It's apparent that Americans eat like crap, and a lot of factors play into that fact. Transitioning away from that would be a good idea, as would relegating this tradition to history, as he says, and I'm sure not too many people would disagree. But is government not the answer, like he says? What government definitely is, is a regulatory body that also serves to protect the people of the country. Government is not supposed to protect us from ourselves, but from other people. If the people are to be expected to make their own decisions and be responsible for themselves, then they need to be given correct information. For a government that exists to protect the people to allow corporations to deceive citizens in advertisements with misleading information, omission of facts, and emotional manipulation of children in order to maximize profit, then people don't have a free choice to make.

4. The target’s off to the right … you didn’t hit it

The ordinance requires that toys not be served with shitty food: it doesn’t say anything about the food itself. One would think that if we have to sacrifice our civil liberties for something, it might as well be for the right thing. Banning toys in the name of nutrition is like prohibiting boob jobs to prevent teen pregnancy.

That's a really dumb analogy. Also, what would this article look like if San Fransisco had banned fast food restaurants, or forced them to change their menu items instead of getting rid of cheap plastic crap shaped like Barbies and cars? That's not a very convincing argument. Obviously, changing the food so that it wasn't so full of saturated fat and sodium would be the best option; that, however, would cause a huge public outrage, because ZOMG, Government takes over everything!!1. So instead, San Fransisco tackles the greed-based marketing strategies of fast food restaurants and help to give parents and kids a real choice about what to eat by eliminating the tricks. And that choice is really important to ensure a truly free society.

Update: David Katz, M.D. has a great analysis up at Huffington Post about why not only is this decision not an example of government taking over, but that it's really the other way around:

I do understand the resistance: opposition to heavy-handed government. Those opposed to the toy-free Happy Meal are our defenders against tyranny!

Or are you?

The government in San Francisco, unlike McDonald's, is accountable to voters. The government actually needs the support of a majority of citizens to get elected, and thus have the authority to take the toy out of the Happy Meal. McDonald's only needed the passive assent of its share holders to put it in.

We are all prone, whether or not we care to admit it, to manipulation by multinational corporations with fortunes to spend on the best thinking Madison Avenue can provide. Thinking designed to figure out what it takes to get us to buy what they're selling. Being manipulated into a lunch choice by McDonald's and Dreamworks is not exactly the epitome of personal liberty.

I understand that some see tyranny in the removal of the toy from the Happy Meal. But I think they are missing the point in a rush to judgment.

Removing the toy is the will of parents. The toy was the tyranny.