an appetite for philosophy

Everything is relative, I suppose. 3QuarksDaily says Whole Foods is moving into New York City's Bowery District. And that's a bad thing.

I once served some sliced raw albacore tuna doused in soy to a friend. I had bought the fish not far from Whole Foods from Alex, the fisherman who had caught it and brought it the next day to the Greenmarket. I'm lucky to live in a city where this is a humdrum and everyday transaction. My friend, a film producer, remarked, "This is great! But how did it get sterile?"

Not that Whole Foods is responsible for food ignorance or food paranoia, mind you, but it's certainly capitalizing on the trend. And that's not all.

There is something else alienating about Whole Foods: it posits a universe in which we are all only consumers. The holism its name gestures towards is not the holism of a community in which buyers and sellers know each other. Instead, it's purely about the foods themselves: one's interest in food is projected as only another form of self-interest.

One of the best lines:

Neoliberal shoppers prefer the impersonal embrace of a corporate parent, disguised as some vague moral goodness.

And later:

The last decade's avalanche of information about food, where to get it, what's in it, and how it's made has been mostly a very good thing: the industrialized food system that wallows in corn syrup, hydrogenated soybean oil, and boneless, skinless chicken breasts is finally being recognized as unhealthy for both individuals and society, as well as the very soil.... Labels are often a shortcut for thinking.

I must admit, I had always thought of Whole Foods and Trader Joe's as A Good Thing. They really are better than most supermarket chains (more expensive, too). But is the solution to the supermarket-of-the-world problem to build a better supermarket? Perhaps not. Most of the youngish, hipster-bohemian-starving-student neoliberals I know (pause: do I know anyone NOT in that category?) buy food in markets when they can. Some even eat local.

Back home in Maine, we have weekly farmer's markets and backyard gardens galore--during growing season. But it takes a lot of effort to eat local. Most folks rely on a supermarket or country store to top up the pantry. I've mentioned my concerns about pat answers to systemic problems before, and movements like Eat Local still make me nervous. I love the sentiment, but inhabitants of Urbania are too unaware of the complexities of food networks to really get what they're asking of folks outside city limits. At first glance, it might seem like agricultural communities would have an easier time eating local. But the fact is, rural areas don't have fish markets and fruit stands within walking distance of homes. They lack the rich diversity of food choices now offered only by a local supermarket or country store.

In farm country there's not much demand for Big Organic. Perhaps it's because people are closer to food there. I've never heard anyone in Maine ask about "sterilizing" fish. Of course, I've never heard anyone ask for raw fish, either, unless for bait. Maybe it's just another facet of the city-country contrast.

Whole Foods represents a trend to reform the supermarket, to make healthy and safe the dangerously industrialized food system. Even some supermarkets in Maine are making an effort to sell local produce (studies have shown that people will pay more for local food. It's a winning business model). Unfortunately, even trendy supermarkets perpetuate homogenization. Now we have a dozen varieties of apples all stamped "Certified Organic." My fear is that trendy Eat Local movements also have a homogenizing effect. The idea that Eating Local is possible, cost-effective, or desirable in all locations at all times just seems a little foolhardy.