As a sort of respite, perhaps, a progressive talk radio show discussed the "slow food movement" yesterday. The guests included Michael Pollan, who wrote an interesting book on food entitled The Botany of Desire as well as an interesting article ["Our National Eating Disorder"] last month in the NYT that covered many of the issues involved.
Another article on the movement defined it thusly: "Slow Food aims to be everything fast food is not. It's slow - in the making and the eating. It's fresh - not processed. It's from neighborhood farms and stores - not from industrial growers such as Tyson Foods (TSN) or retail goliaths such as Wal-Mart." And, if you would pardon the reference, something of which that both red and blue states can be sympathetic.
The movement began as a way to counteract fast food restaurants by providing alternatives of fresh and traditional foods. I myself have a distaste of fast food places, though not "fast food" of all sorts. The book Fast Food Nation suggests all the problems with the McDonalds of the nation, but notes that it is not impossible to have reasonably priced meals that come quickly without the overly processed food, plastic, and high calories/low nutrition.
For instance, the environmental impact of your local pizzeria or Chinese restaurant is not quite on par with fast food, and you are likely to get as much or more for your buck. It is this financial payoff as well as a dislike of the quality (and selection) of the food itself that turns me off from "fast food." And, something from the local fafalel truck (chicken/meat available for those so inclined) is pretty "fast" as well, reasonably priced, and a more enjoyable lunch.
Though the slow food movement honors homemade dishes and fresh foods, the opportunity for a fairly diverse diet is available even for those who rather buy their goods ready made. This is surely the case in big cities, though maybe not as much in certain areas as should be the case. For instance, a fine lunch is some soup with a nice fresh roll. There are quite a few places that provide this option, including a few with a diverse selection. It is surely quick (the stuff is generally ready-made) and not expensive though some of these chain places are overpriced.
Bread itself is a delicious food, especially if you do not focus on your typical sliced varieties. You know what is a fine snack or companion to a meal? Foccacia bread dipped in or combined with some sort of vegetable, such as broccoli, sweet potatoes, or mushrooms (great for dipping). Most big supermarkets have a bread section with much to pick from. A simple fresh bagel with a spread is a fine meal, quick, and often quite yummy. In fact, there are various ways to have nice meals with fresh ingredients, both simple and complex, and it's often a fun experience from the shopping to the production to the consumption.
While our senses can help us to draw the first, elemental distinctions between good and bad foods, we humans rely heavily on culture to keep it all straight. So we codify the rules of wise eating in an elaborate structure of taboos, rituals, manners and culinary traditions, covering everything from the proper size of portions to the order in which foods should be consumed to the kinds of animals it is O.K. to eat. Anthropologists may argue whether all these rules make biological sense, but certainly a great many of them do, and they keep us from having to re-enact the omnivore's dilemma at every meal.
So says Pollan. And, quite true -- food is an important part of culture, though in this country it is more a matter of guilt (often health related, exaggeratedly so: the book Losing It by Laura Fraser discusses the matter pretty well) than a source of pleasure. Artificially limited options, failure to set up encouragements to enjoy food, and perverse cultural norms about body type (the skin and bone look doesn't attract me personally) are three reasons for this problem. It was suggested in the program that our lunch hours are too short, a half hour often the norm. This reduces our options (though encouraging food from home, which is not a bad thing) and limits the ability to truly relax at lunch.
Likewise, culture has discouraged family dinners, including by providing advertising that encourages each person to have their own food when they want it (the microwave meal helps here). Other factors, including two parent incomes, helps this development too, but it is problematic. I myself find a leisurely meal can be enjoyable both for the stomach and companionship. Dinner dates often lead to marriages ... meals to keep the resulting families thriving as well. And, this might include some "fast food" dinners as well, as long as it is enjoyed in a fairly leisurably fashion.
The slow food movement also is concerned with genetically modified foods (GMOs) as well. The potential of GMOs should not be ignored, though not exaggerated, but there are various problems involved. First, they have not been very well regulated, and at times put on the market without much study. The move against labeling is also troubling because in some cases individuals have negative reactions to certain ingredients and on a free choice basis.
After all, if a person for ethical reasons does not want to consume kosher food, even if it is totally healthy, it is not deemed a ridiculous thing. Why not GMO foods, especially since Japan and many nations in Western Europe find it worthwhile to know? Also, GMO plants have a tendency to contaminate other plants, even those grown by organic farmers. Many have a problem with patenting life forms, something that in this country was forced upon the Patent Office via lawsuit. And, there is a tendency against diversity (Pollan discusses this in his book), which can lead to famines and losing out of all that diversity brings.
Food is not only an essential part of life but can be one's of its most enjoyable aspects, if we allow it to be.