Getting Real About the High Cost of Cheap Food

That was a much better written article.  The paper is heavily laden with direct quotes, references, figures and verifiable data, including references.  Everything is there and made plain.  The argument was well managed, the information well organized and delivered clearly, and bias was limited and hidden.  Altogether well done.  The only ding I might give it would be the uninspired writing style.  But that can be overlooked.

I think the difference between this paper and the New Prius article is in motive.  The motive of the Prius paper was shallow and deceiving.  The motive behind the Time article is a little more true.  The Time article was written to be enlightening and a little controvercial, with a good helping of politics for seasoning.  That is what people expect when the read Time, and that is what Time tries to deliver.  And the motive of the writer was to be published, probably in Time.  Further, Time has a good reputation that has to be protected.  With that in mind, the shinanegans that the Prius author pulled would be completely unacceptable to Time magazine.  It just goes to show that you don’t need to be a good author to be a best selling author.  Just an unscrupulous one.

Since I wrote such a scathing report on the last paper, I suspect that several people will have the suspicion that I am an anti-environmental, right-wing, gun-toting Conservative Republican.  That couldn’t be further from the truth.  I refuse to back either party because I feel that neither has the best interests of the public in mind.  It always comes down to motive.  The best interests of the public are not the best interests of the political parties, and where those interests diverge, so do the politicians from the public.  Moderation is the key.  I guess that makes me a moderate, though I will never actually call myself that.  I would prefer unassociated.

In the environmental arena, I am split.  I feel that the environment needs to be protected, but I also feel that people are important, too.  Unfortunately, I keep seeing too much politics in the environmentalist movement, and too little environmentalism.  The Prius paper is a prime example.

On the topic at hand, I strongly believe in organic food.  I always buy organics, for a multitude of reasons.  First and foremost, it is the responsible thing to do.  In the face of ridicule, from almost everyone I know, I persevere, knowing that the extra money I am spending is worth it in the long run.  It is better for the planet, healthier for my family, and politically sound.  It also helps that I am a self proclaimed epicurean and organic food tastes better, and is easier to sift through, given my allergies.  Organic food is more often made with the ingredients that one would expect to find in them.  Another great reason to go organic is the increased dependence on local farmers.  You see, Americans have become addicted to the Economies of Scale, even when those economies start to fail.  Anthropologists have proven that sometimes the most efficient systems are the smallest ones.  That is why farmers markets are so inexpensive, even when compared to the likes of Walmart.  Every industry is different when it comes to scaleability, and the food industry has gone too far afield from where it should be.  But the organic food movement is starting to shift that back into balance.  Organic food production has given small scale farmers a viable solution to allow them to do what they do best, in a responsible way, and remain financially viable.  I have been buying organic food for several years, and there is one thing I have noticed more recently.  As more people are switching to organics, more farmers are following suit, and prices are dropping.  In certain areas the prices have almost normalized to a reasonable price.  I would expect to pay more for organic food, but when that difference has fallen to 10-25%, it certainly make the organics that much more appealing.

Advertisement