- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I stand by my comment. I think Michael Pollan is an elitist and is falling back on the "ignorant unwashed masses" argument -- as other posters pointed out, that people are too stupid and lulled by corrupt market practices to make intelligent choices for their families. I also think it's intellectually weak to isolate the cost of food in consideration with other expenses families pay-- want to talk childcare, anyone? How are home prices doing in your area these days? Don't you think it's a little condescending to keep perpetuating this stereotype that uneducated American rubes are pouring subsidized corn syrup down their children's throats just to save a few bucks? Do only wealthy people care about their children? I know that sounds really compelling and lurid to people sitting around noshing on slow food and syrah and organic kale but I think it's a huge oversimplification-- sort of like saying people should just "stop having sex" if they want to avoid abortions. Makes for a good emotional sound bite, but ignores human complexities and realities.
My point is that it's lazy and presumptuous to just expect people to "pay more for food." Adding to that, it just simply isn't likely to happen, and isn't realistic for the "10%" (I doubt that number too) who simply can't afford to. A real solution should include those people too.
