It’s not eco-friendly, it’s ego-friendly.

As a student, I don’t have the money to buy most of my food from farmer’s markets or small businesses that source their foods locally. I can get food from larger chains like Safeway, which sell food (especially produce) at a lower price because it’s part of a food system that relies on exploitation of labor and of the environment because of the fossil fuels and low wages it demands.

If only I had more money, I say. I could buy healthy, local, ethically sourced food and save workers and the planet with the power of my dollar. But realistically, is this what would happen?

Andrew Szasz‘s theory of “inverted quarantine” investigates how consumers control their diet when many foods are contaminated with industrial chemicals. This theory can also explain how consumers opt out of participating in a food system that’s harmful for others and the planet. By choosing which foods you consume, you choose the food’s impact on the world around you, right? However this form of ‘action’ has an effect larger than impacting the world with the power of your dollar- political anesthesia.

The people who can choose to live a life of inverted quarantine with their food choices are those who can afford to. Author Michael Carolan tells readers we can’t afford ‘cheap’ food, for the cost of cheap food is too high- our population is growing too unhealthy, the planet’s climate too hot. Similarly, we can’t afford to let the wealthy opt out of political action and pressure when we live in a world where disadvantaged people can’t opt out of eating cheap food. When the system is broken, it won’t change regardless of how smart your food choices are, especially when you opt for buying local arugula to fuel your body over the labor that fuels political and systemic change.

2 thoughts on “It’s not eco-friendly, it’s ego-friendly.

  1. Benjamin James Reijonen

    Hey Kailey,

    I also can relate to the struggle of being “priced-out” of buying food from farmer’s markets. Something else that I struggle with is having the energy to cook after a full day at school, or with summer coming up a full day at work. As a result, I find myself turning to microwave dinners or fast food more often than I should be. In the current system of food, we live in these are the cheapest options to get a full meal with the least amount of preparation time. I’d like to believe most people would choose a local, healthy quick meal over a quick processed meal if the price weren’t a factor. However, that’s just not possible given we live in a world-driven economy today. Hundreds of years ago, tribal communities and villages were able to successfully produce their own food locally. But now technological and transportation advances have redefined what we know as “local”, and we’ve chosen to redirect where we grow our food to outside where we live in an effort to squeeze together people into larger urban communities that we now know as cities. As long as our priorities remain that, it’s difficult for me to imagine how we expect everyone to have access to this locally grown food when we don’t have the space to grow any food locally, to begin with.

    Reply
  2. Claire

    I really like your post. I have been struggling with this concept a lot because I think buying organic and local is important if you can. I also see that this shouldn’t be where the solution ends. But I find it frustrating when people talk about individual action as a complete waste of time. The rich supporting small farms, demanding food that’s ethically sourced is still an important piece of the puzzle. Consumer demand is still relevant in a supply chain. If you can afford to eat in a certain way and instead choose to consume cheap food, this is not only a toll on the individual’s health but also a missed opportunity to support an important idea and cause. I have begun to wonder who should be creating this political action? The rich? The farmers? The disadvantaged? It seems like everyone is stuck in their respective roles and sure, those who are given much, much is expected. But I don’t think it’s realistic to wait around for the wealthy to start a political movement. I see what you’re generally saying about the ineffectiveness of ending political action with a purchase but I don’t think this is also the end of the analysis and I don’t think it’s enough to expect the rich to step up.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *