The rising costs of food

I have a long running entirely one sided (in the sense that he is unaware of it) argument with Ezra Klein about his "locavorist" policy prescriptions (which, in short, amount to changing government policy to raise the cost of meat). His theory is that if you raise the cost of meat, people will eat less of it, and the environment will be better off. The issue has come back again because of Anthony Bourdain's recent tart comments about Alice Waters, the high priestess of American market driven cuisine. Waters's occasional high-handedness reminds me a lot of Klein's, and it is equally annoying. But in any case, we are in the middle of a great natural experiment in seeing what happens when the price of meat rises in relation to the average person's income (through the unfortunate mechanism of dropping incomes). I am confident that no less meat is being consumed. I realize I don't have the empirics to back me up, but I can at least start my analysis with the observation that the reaction of burger chains (some of the keenest observers of food trends anywhere) has been to provide cheaper rather than less meat. Mcdonald's has surveyed the landscape, and the McDouble is their inimitable answer.

Underlying all this, though, is that the fact that the good food lobby is riven with contradictory and competing interest groups. While they all think they're allied, in reality they are not, and tensions caused by people like Waters are a sympton of the fact that there are many things one may mean by "good food". Consider the below preliminary taxonomy - if pushed, I would put myself in between the taste and localist groups, but with an intense historical sympathy for the advocates of the poor. In terms of practicality, though, the only answer is a humble, incrementalist approach, somewhat akin to Mark Bittman's "less meat-ism". The food situation in so many places in our country is so bad that almost any improvement, whether providing vegetables to those who don't have them, or providing somewhat dubious "naturally raised" meat, is a measurable, valuable improvement to the lives of real people. I disdain the zealots who refuse to consider these modest steps.

1. The environmentalist crowd - The focus here is to limit the harm caused by food production on the global environment. This means less meat and less fishing. To be clear, this doesn't mean "better/natural practices in raising livestock". Indeed, raising chickens or pigs or cows in a humane manner would only exacerbate the environmental impact of meat, because organic, healthy, animals need land and resources. What these people want, ideally, is vat grown, artificial meat.

2. The taste crowd - Their goal is to bring back flavors that have been lost due to the growth of the food industry, from vegetables to meat to fish. They might care about organics because they taste better, but they do not necessarily care about environmentalism. Indeed, if one thinks about it, better tasting meat might mean that more meat is consumed, eventually.

3. The localist crowd - Local food might or might not taste better, but the point is to live within your area, to experience New York, or Virginia, or Lyon, as New York or Virginia or Lyon. Of course, while this is all well and good, true localism condemns millions to wretched food for much of the year (unless, I suppose, one really loves tubers) and rolls back gains made over centuries of economic development (forsooth, our medieval ancestors stabbed localism in the back when they started importing sugar). As such, localism is highly susceptible to hypocrisy (e.g., a "localist" food event staffed by chefs and food flown in from around the country). Local for thee, but not for me.

4. The cruelty crowd - The puritanical allies of the localist and taste groups, the anti-cruelty advocates care not so much about how the meat tastes or where it comes from, but whether it was raised in a way that respects the animal's life. They may think it a nice side effect that humanely raised meat tastes better, but the point is emphatically not flavor. The fissure between these lobbies is illustrated by foie gras, which scandalizes the cruelty crowd, but is positively encouraged by the taste/localist groups.

5. The improving the food of the lower middle class and poor crowd - Another interest group with less glamor under the broad umbrella of the good food movement are those advocates interesting in raising the eating standard of the poor and lower middle class, of persuading people whose food is so often based in restaurant junk food (bad) or on very bad food made at home (a little better) to try something new. The problems here are the lack of availability of decent food in many of the places these people live, and money. Of course, these problems would be made much, much worse by the success of any of the lobbies above. While we, the affluent, might do well to put aside our industrially raised vegetables, the problem for these people is the lack of exactly those things which we're so happy to sneer at.