Am I a Food Snob?

"Why did you buy that fancy red leaf lettuce when you can buy chopped, bagged iceberg lettuce for half the cost?"

That's a sample of some of the conversations that I had visiting relatives in Iowa for the Holidays. After a while, one can't help but wonder if there's something wrong with me. Have I lost touch with mainstream America here in co-op bountiful Minneapolis? Have I become an elitist - a food snob?

It all started about 10 years ago when I discovered micro-brewed beer. These beers were so much more enjoyable than what was produced in the big breweries that I became very willing to spend a little bit more for the higher quality. The fact that small independent brewers produce these beers was great, but the real deciding factor was taste. I later made the jump into high quality food. Now that I live and work within walking distance of co-ops, the vast majority of our purchased food is organic or sustainable in some manner. I find the increased cost small compared to the health benefits, the better taste, and the pleasure of shopping in small co-ops rather then crowded grocery stores.

As many of our friends here in Minneapolis share the same opinion, our food choices have not caused any social anxiety. But traveling elsewhere to visit family it suddenly becomes a significant issue. People worry that we are wasting our money and developing weird food preferences for things like hummus and tofu. There are also larger, unspoken concerns - that eating these expensive organic foods is wasteful and counters our moral obligation to "feed the world."

Throughout the past century, our society increasingly commoditized products. For example, a 1/2-inch steelhead nail is a 1/2-inch steelhead nail, no matter where it is produced. Treating products as commodities creates greater economic efficiencies. For example, hardware stores can purchase nails from several different suppliers, and those suppliers must compete for the store's business. This interchangeability of products eventually fostered the development of commodity markets for things such as grain, pork bellies, metals, lumber, mortgage futures, and even pollution emission credits.

Perhaps our commodity mentality is most obviously displayed with the proliferation of box retail (Wal-Mart style stores). Like our industrialized food system, these stores provide mass quantities of low-cost goods. But do these stores really benefit consumers? Despite the perception of lower prices and increased consumer choice, box retail such as Wal-Mart has had a profound effect on communities in several adverse ways. Ken Stone, an Iowa State University economist, has found that small towns near a new Wal-Mart store lose up to 47% of their retail trade after 10 years. The town with the Wal-Mart does enjoy a modest increase in retail sales, but frequently has to deal with increased traffic and infrastructure demands. Box retail also can adversely affect property values in the town. A study of Iowa towns with Wal-Marts near their commercial centers found that property values declined by 16%-20%, likely offsetting the gains from the Wal-Mart property. The perceived savings enjoyed by consumers are also fleeting - prices are often initially low when competition is fierce, but are then raised when that competition no longer exists.

Just as poorly conceived public policy opened the door for box retail, our food policies have had undesirable affects on food choices. Even in the middle of harvest, Midwest grocery stores often have limited local produce, frequently due to contractual obligations with large food distributors. Consumers usually have no knowledge of the farmer and have to judge the produce by their past experience with the retail outlet and distributor. Food production has shifted from a diversity of foods to serve local consumers to large food chains developed to minimize costs for the processors and distributors. Vegetables are grown in California, wheat from the Great Plains, apples from Washington, and peaches from Georgia. Yes, we are blessed with some of the least expensive food in the world, but that comes with a cost, including pesticide run off, increased greenhouse gas emissions from long-distance transportation, and billions of dollars spent in propping up this farm policy. And anyone who has compared a California strawberry with a fresh, vine-ripened strawberry can taste the difference in food systems.

Most people would agree that there is a limit to what can be commoditized. Grandma's apple pie is obviously much better than any apple pie on the market. Aficionados of cars, stereos, and televisions would not stand for someone claiming that they are all the same. So why does it need to become a political statement for someone to prefer fresh, organic fruits and vegetables? Just as kids eventually develop food preferences beyond macaroni and cheese and peanut butter sandwiches, I believe more people will develop preferences for fresh, organic food, and feel good about spending a little more for the quality.

Of course, if good eating came at the expense of others not eating at all, few of us would make that choice. Industrial farming advocates often claim that chemical agriculture in the U.S. helps to feed the hungry and saves millions of acres of rainforest in other parts of the world. That argument has little basis in fact.

First, our commodity exports do little to alleviate world hunger. Our primary exports are products such as corn and soybeans (generally used as livestock feed), animals and animal products, cotton and tobacco. The top three destinations for our agricultural exports are Japan, European Union, and Canada, and none of the top 10 destination countries are considered undernourished. We produce food for people who can afford to pay for it, and sometimes use food as a strategic political tool, but do not produce food out of a moral obligation.

Second, too often we are concerned with people lacking food, when the typical problem is that people do not have adequate income to buy food. Many people in rural, less-developed countries subsist on farming, but sometimes they cannot find markets for their products because surpluses are "dumped" on these countries, driving prices down below that which earns them a living. Sometimes, as currently in Afghanistan, immediate food relief is desperately needed. But more often, these countries would be better served by halting agricultural dumping and other policies that distort markets to the detriment of their farmers.

Third, the belief that high production agriculture in the U.S. can reduce the destruction of the world's rainforest is not well conceived. Farmers in Brazil and other countries will not simply give up farming and take up another job (if another exists) because of high U.S. yields. They may try to out-compete U.S. agriculture, or move into tropical cash crops such as sugar cane and palm oil. People need a means of income. Just as agricultural land in the U.S. rarely is abandoned when prices are low, these farmers won't abandon their investment just because of increased competition.

I also wouldn't feel very good about my food choices if sustainable and organic food production harms farm income and the economic vitality of rural communities. Fortunately, a pile of evidence indicates just the opposite.

A common misperception is that sustainable farms have lower yields then conventional farms. However, a 1991 study comparing 15 crops found little statistical difference in yields between the two groups, with some advantages in sustainable practices (alfalfa and hay) and some advantages in conventional practices (corn, soybeans, spring wheat, and sunflower seeds). A recent study published in "Nature" found similar yields between organic and conventional apples, but organic farmers enjoyed greater profitability and energy efficiency.

Sustainable and organic agriculture provide more benefits to the local economy. A 1996 study in Missouri found that farms using alternative farming practices provided 25 percent greater positive community economic impacts then a conventional system. A 1994 Minnesota Department of Agriculture study found "family-sized farms, employing environmentally sound, humane farming practices, can provide returns well above the average achieved by more conventional operations." Finally, a 1999 Rodale Institute study found that, after a transition period, organic farms economically compete with conventional farms, even without a price premium. These studies indicate that if we are interested in supporting farmers and rural communities, purchasing sustainable and organic foods is a better choice.

The dictionary defines snob as "one who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors." Organic and sustainable food does not ignore others, but builds the farm economy and rural communities. Spending money in a cooperative on fresh foods is a way of recognizing the work of farmers, distributors, and retailers, rather then providing income to a faceless corporation. I continue to eat that bagged iceberg lettuce and whatever is put in front of me, but when I have the choice, I will choose foods that provide more benefits to farmers, communities, the environment, and me.