DINNER CONVERSATION: EATING SUSTAINABLY WITHOUT DIETARY

ELITISM

by

Alyssa Wood

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

The Wilkes Honors College

in Partial Fulfillment in the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences

with a Concentration in Environmental Studies

Wilkes Honors College of

Florida Atlantic University

Jupiter, FL

April 2012

i

DINNER CONVERSATION: EATING SUSTAINABLY WITHOUT DIETARY

ELITISM

by

Alyssa Wood

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr.

William O’Brien, and has been approved by the members of his/her supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

______Dr. William O’Brien

______Dr. Wairimũ Njambi

______

Dean, Wilkes Honors College

______

Date

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. William E. O’Brien for his unwavering

patience and support throughout both my experience at the Honors College and writing

my thesis.

I also would like to thank everyone involved in my homestead (Pluto Farms)—humans,

quails, ducks, chickens, cats, and plants—for being a wonderful place to simply be in

during thesis workdays.

I would also like to thank each and every person that is making a difference in their

community via food and food justice. Your work enables me to do my own and to

continue with a full heart of hope.

Thanks should also be extended to Grizzly Bear and Breathe Owl Breathe, as their

melodies kept me focused and sane throughout the writing process.

iii

ABSTRACT

Author: Alyssa Wood

Title: Dinner Conversation: Eating Sustainably without Dietary Elitism

Institution: Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisor: Dr. William O’Brien

Degree: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences

Concentration: Environmental Studies

Year: 2012

This study explores the perceived elitism within both the environmentalist community and general public in regards to “environmental diets” such as: vegetarianism, veganism, locavore-ism, and ethical omnivory. I explore these diets and potential expressions of elitism within the framework developed by Morrison and Dunlap in their discussion of environmental elitism. Examples come from published sources as well as personal anecdotes. Through this study, I suggest that this perceived elitism is actually not elitism per se, but a very thin line of tension between describing the ideal food systems aside the current state of food inequity and industrial agriculture. Simply, I am trying to grapple with how to be educated in the fields of Food Studies and systems of oppression without perpetuating elitism alongside the system which desperately needs reform.

iv

To Geema and Papa

To the Soil

and

To Life

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………1

Introduction to Food Studies……………………………………………………………...8

Compositional Elitism in Food Movements……………………………………………..16

Ideological Elitism in Food Movements………………………………………………...27

Impact Elitism in Food Movements……………………………………………………..33

The Question of Vegetarian Elitism...…………………………………………………...34

The Question of Vegan Elitism…………………………………………………………39

The Question of Locavore Elitism..……………………………………………………..43

The Question of Ethical Omnivory Elitism..……………………………………………47

Conspicuous Consumption……………………………………………………………...52

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………54

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….56

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Domestic Obesity/Diabetes in Youths………………………………11

Figure 2: “2005 U.S Farm Subsidies”………………………………………………….12

Figure 3: “Price of Foods and Beverages 1978-2008”…………………………………18

Figure 4: “Baltimore Food Stores with Low Availability of Healthy Food by

Neighborhood, Race, and Income 2006”………………………………………22

Figure 5: “Access to Supermarkets and Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables by Race

2002”…………………………………………………………………………. 22

Figure 6: “Vegetable Protein Percentage Chart” ……………………………………...36

vii

Introduction

As an environmentalist, I am asked questions regarding my dietary habits and choices- “Are you a vegetarian?” Perhaps I am being sensitive, but it seems like in any environmental conference, group or club meeting, or other gathering of environmentalists, everyone is staring at each other’s plates to decipher if they are a

“good environmentalist” or not. I have come to see this more and more from other self- proclaimed environmentalists—a perceived elitism regarding the diets that environmentalists and Americans in general hold, for what reasons and to what extent.

Vegans, vegetarians, locavores, and ethical omnivores all seem to have so much to say and the propaganda to back it up to make one feel guilty for not following their diet of choice. While this is a good thing, as undeniably, each of these diets does have a hand in slowing down climate change and supporting local economies (thus shrinking food miles)… the mission to convert everyone to an environmental diet fails to consider that some people simply do not have the resources to do just that.

I am a staunch believer that the way one eats shapes the world and on a smaller scale, the community one lives in, but some of these kinds of diets can often only be held by those privileged enough to follow through, spend time, and in some cases spend money. As I write this I would consider myself a follower of the “ethical omnivore” diet/lifestyle. I have been vegetarian in the past but have had health issues linked to soy and felt malnourished while continuing a vegetarian diet. That’s not to say that a vegetarian diet is not feasible for me, just that I haven’t found the right way to do it for my particular body. I have found myself, through learning about our current food systems and having the monetary agency to “vote with my fork” eating predominately organic

1 produce and organic packaged foods, as well as meat on occasion, that has been raised wild, free-range, or at the very least without anti-biotics and growth hormones. I have vastly cut out my use of dairy due to studies that have shown it to harbor massive amounts of the hormones put into the cows as well as for economic reasons.1 I have been entertaining the idea of raising a dairy goat on my 1.35 acre homestead to take care of my dairy wants. Our food system is an environmental justice issue, in which the already white-washed “greens” or environmentalists and other privileged classes can pay to get out of the systematic poisoning and degradation of public health that others are subjected to. It is neither Food Studies nor environmentalists’ aim to subjugate others by creating an alternative, but unfortunately these new environmental dietary options have many feeling inadequate at the dinner table.2

Simply put, the “elitism” concept I address can describe a person or situation in which a group or party assumes a position of power due to some criteria (diet, race, class/income, level of conviction, etc.) and makes that power known to the “others” through advocacy (missionary militancy) and exclusion. This force becomes oppressive for those that are not considered “elite”. Glaring eyes, campaigns, and choices available are all products of elitism when within the context of dietary elitism. I will be utilizing the following overarching definitions of “elitism” within the context of my thesis:

1 1999 study by Health Canada, “Report of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Expert Panel on Human Saftey of rBST” which discusses how rBST increases the chance of cows contracting mastitis, which is treated with antibiotics (adding to antibiotic resistance in humans who drink this milk). Also, Mark Kastel’s “Down on the Farm: The Real BGH Story Animal Health Problems, Financial Troubles” (1995) described the same with use of farmer’s narratives and experiences using this drug. 2 Food Studies, as a movement, encompasses both critical analysis of food through society, cross-culturally, historically, and artistically (not to mention in many other fields) and Food Justice which fights inequities in the American food supply of healthy food distribution 2

I. “The attitude or behavior of a person or group who regards

themselves as belonging to an elite”3

II. “The advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in

a system or society”4

III. “The systematic exclusion of the majority from political

influence”5

I have had personal experience with the accusation that environmental diets and their followers are elitist through my journey through the Food Studies movement. One evening I realized that my diet had created an elitist monster of me when it came to the kitchen. When my roommate brought home a conventional pepper from the grocery store,

I found myself vocalizing that I didn’t want to use that pepper because it was tainted.6 I essentially turned my nose up to it because it wasn’t up to par with what I wanted to eat, but it came out of the goodness of that roommate’s heart to share with the house and with me. There seems to be a fine line with knowing what you know about the current food system and dismissing most food as not food in an elitist manner. In this study I plan to explore the complexity and tension revolved around this issue of dietary elitism within the environmentalist culture and public sphere.

3 Found in the Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words. This definition is especially applicable to the perceived elitism within the environmental community itself. 4 Also found in the Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words. This definition applies strongly to my analysis because advocacy is the point in which perceived dietary elitism becomes elitism. 5 This definition is from Sociology: Making Sense of Society (2009). This definition is especially useful because it relates strongly to Food Justice and implies that class is tied to the group which is oppressed by elitism. 6 The term “conventional” refers to foods and food products produced through non-organic agricultural practices. 3

I will be utilizing the framework initially created by the two sociologists Denton

E. Morrison and Riley E. Dunlap (1986).7 Written in the seedling stages of the environmental justice movement, the authors describe the ways in which the critique of environmentalism as potentially “elitist” can be broken down into subcategories that include: “compositional elitism”, “ideological elitism”, and “impact elitism” (Morrison and Dunlap 1986, 581). Morrison and Dunlap are not anti-environmentalists; rather they are utilizing a critical perspective to examine the environmentalist movement in order to see ways in which they can improve relations between environmentalists and non- environmentalists (arguably within the context of environmental justice). They state that elitism has been “a major issue from the early days of the environmental movement to the present” (Morrison and Dunlap 1986, 581). The category, compositional elitism, describes the tendency among environmentalists to be primarily from the middle to upper classes (Morrison and Dunlap 1986, 582). A longstanding attribute, the authors show that environmentalists are primarily composed of the same classes of people: “the modal member of an environmental organization is a college graduate, holds a professional- level job, and has an above average income” primarily (Morrison and Dunlap 1986, 582).

Given this status, one may understand why the hungry and underrepresented peoples in the United States might not take so kindly to “elitist” environmental and “moral” diets.

Ideological elitism, the second category described by Morrison and Dunlap, refers to campaigns or political changes created by environmentalists, or in the name of the environment, that benefits environmentalists and distributes the cost to non-participants

7 Morrison and Dunlap are both frequent writers within the context of environmental racism and justice. They are cited in many important works in environmental justice, such as “Dumping in Dixie” by Robert Bullard. In this paper they are playing devil’s advocate as they explore the ways in which environmentalists are potentially elitists within the inclusion of environmental justice into environmentalism. 4 in environmentalism. In other words, ideological elitism exists when the needs of the environment are considered above the ability of all to pay or cooperate with an environmental reform. Ideological elitism is exemplified in the ongoing lawsuit, Organic

Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al. v. Monsanto. Over 300,000 small famers and seed collectors are suing Monsanto in hopes to protect themselves, and their livelihoods from Monsanto’s Genetically Modified (GMO) seeds (Simmons 2008).These environmentalist and Food Studies advocates have filed this lawsuit because Monsanto’s seed monopoly in American and international farming has a threatening impact on small farmers and seed banks, collections and exchanges.8 If these farmers succeed in their battle, the price for produce will increase as one would predict that it would be overwhelmingly more organic and/or sustainable and thus more expensive because the

U.S. does not subsidize organic/sustainable farming in such a manner as they have

GMO/industrial farming in the past and present. While this would be a great achievement for the improvement in America’s farming practices, as stated above it would distribute a cost to those who are not particularly interested in this change occurring.

Morrison and Denton present “Impact elitism” as the most important aspect of environmental elitism but also the hardest to describe (Morrison and Denton, 1986, 587).

They define impact elitism as having “regressive distributional impacts” (Morrison and

Dunlap 1986, 585). They use the example of closing industrial plants, such as chemical plants, due to an environmental externality or excess pollution, which impacts individuals that may lose work in those plants that are closed. The concept also applies to the power of not closing these kinds of plants, which more than likely would have an effect on

8 Monsanto has the tendency to sue non-customers for copyright infringement (contamination) once their seeds blow in the wind to non-Monsanto customer’s crops. This not only gets the farmers sued, but it also damages their crop’s and seed integrity—threatening organic certification if that is the case. 5 worker’s health. The organic and slow food movements have done much to enrich community participation in a common goal and gathering through the creation of food banks and opening Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) projects.

Morrison and Dunlap (1986) argue that compositional elitism is more of a harsh accusation than truth as environmentalists are not mainly white and middle-class any longer. They also describe that this particular elitism is the least important to focus on.

Ideological elitism, their study shows, is present within environmentalism but is greatly being dealt with via the environmental justice movement. Morrison and Dunlap are most concerned with the impact elitism charge, as it “is the accusation that environmental reforms create, exacerbate, or sustain social inequities. Impact elitism, to them is the basic reason that the question of elitism is a matter of concern” (Morrison and Dunlap

1986, 587). My findings, however, show that compositional elitism is the most important elitism in order to decipher if environmental diets are elitist or not. Dietary elitism, in the manner that I am examining, describes a situation in which individuals and/or groups are excluded from a healthier and sustainable alternative to destructive industrial agriculture simply due to their socioeconomic status.

I have found that by analyzing each diet through each of the three elitisms, the elitism charge of “environmental diets” is invalid. One must, however, be delicate to avoid being elitist when trying to get others to join their diet(s). Compositional elitism, ideological elitism, and impact elitism, as Morrison and Dunlap described in the 1980’s are well on their way of being dealt with in current movements. In terms of Morrison and

Dunlap’s concerns with elitism, the environmental justice movement as a movement was established for those suffering from environmental ills due to their race or class creating

6 the agency and support to fight for reparations and future respect. In terms of environmental diets and the charges of elitism, the food justice movement and community programs negate charges of dietary elitism. Still, discussing diet and current food systems must be done in a way not to disempower others. The main thing to remember when discussing reasons for dietary shifts is that food is a gift, first and foremost.

7

Introduction to Food Studies

Food Studies is a field of critical inquiry that focuses on food in the context of society, including culinary arts, art, history, culture, sociology, anthropology, and especially environment. I argue that the field of Food Studies was created in 1962 with

Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking exposé of pesticides (primarily DDT) titled Silent

Spring. Carson described the impacts of DDT that had gone largely unnoticed and unstudied including its effects on the clutches of birdlife and its human health impacts.

Carson states:

These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens, forests, and homes — nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the "good" and the "bad," to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams, to coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in soil — all this though the intended target may be only a few weeds or insects. Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called "insecticides," but "biocides”. (Carson 1962, 8) Spraying indiscriminate pesticides has had a huge impact on the environment in the years before and after the publication of Carson’s cry for the Earth. Her focus on agriculture as having environmental impacts was never seen before. In bringing attention to this cause she has done much to keep modern day environmentalists’ eyes peeled for similar instances. Following the publication of her book, the FDA banned the use of DDT in the

United States in 1972. Still, however, many chemicals are sprayed on domestic and international food crops with the same amount of (non)attention.9 Agri-businesses now,

9 The United States used over 600,000 million pounds of pesticides in 2007, according to the EPA. Studies done by NRDC has shown that Atrazine, the 2nd most commonly used herbicide in the United Sates is found in “75% of stream water and about 40% of all ground water” in the United States. Also, 8 as indicative by the title, straddle the border of being focused on agriculture but also industrialization and most commonly include the chemical manufacturing industry. This kind of industrial agriculture has been allowed to flourish in the time spanning Carson’s works and the modern Food Studies community.10 Now under fire, and for good reason, agri-business is “green washing” and adopting practices (however honest or not) that seem to align with public opinions.11

Each diet I discuss throughout this analysis takes one or more approach to avoid the ills of modern agriculture that I discuss throughout this section. Organic farmers do not use pesticides, or as Carson put it, “biocides”, but rather integrate pest management systems and “grow enough for everybody”.12 Vegetarians and vegans have exposed terrors and mistreatment of animals in the meat and dairy industries, as well as other instances of animal cruelty. As I describe these ills, do not lose sight that there are alternatives to this system that are growing in influence.

With the publication of several books written by Food Studies pioneer and investigative journalist Michael Pollan, notably his Omnivores Dilemma published in

2006, many Americans have changed the ways in which they view, purchase, and prepare food. Documentaries such as Fast Food Nation, Food Inc, and Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead have highlighted on the big screen the terrors of the United States industrial food system

“Glyphosate” also known as “Round Up” is the U.S.’s top used herbicide which kills non-target organisms such as earth worms, fish, and many beneficial insects. 10 It is important to remember, with all the following examples that conventional and industrial agriculture is not the only way food is farmed in the United States. Hugely as a product of the Food Studies movement is the ever-growing population of young farmers and small organic farmers that are taking the Earth into consideration when farming. 11 See: Vorley, William. 1998.“Bugs in the System: Redesigning the Pesticide Industry for Sustainable Agriculture.” And: Francis, Charles et al. 2007. “Greening of Agriculture: Is it All a Greenwash of the Globalized Economy.” 12 Growing enough for everybody is a common practice of organic farmers and gardeners. This practice describes growing more than the humans will eat and in turn providing some plants and produce to satisfy pests. 9 and our current eating habits.13 Driven by misplaced subsidies, new foods are being engineered in hopes of solving the world’s growing food security threat. Alongside the fear of food security, there is a less spoken for fear of America’s poor nutrition conditions (Olshansky 2012, 1139). 14 This generation of Americans is the first to have a shorter life expectancy than the generation prior…and a primary reason—our food and food systems (Olshansky 2012, 1139). Mainly as a result of poor diets, childhood obesity and childhood diabetes have tripled in the past thirty years, and today more than “one third of children and adolescents” overweight or obese in the United States (CDC 2012,

1).These health issues (obesity and diabetes) are seen in mainly metropolitan areas and

“food deserts” as shown by the map (Figure 1) below which focuses on youths age 20 or younger (CDC 2012, 1).15

One may be wondering—why is obesity an issue that concerns Food Studies scholars? The answer is that modern rates of obesity are very complex issues. Obesity is a product on the way in which American industrial agriculture manufactures and sells mostly processed food. Also, obesity comes from the availability of certain types of food to certain classes of people. I believe that U.S. crop subsidies are largely responsible for the current U.S. obesity rates because the food that is being grown is largely starches and meats, and thus the American diet continues as “Meat and Potatoes” (Burros 2007, 2).

Within the greater scope of my thesis, obesity is an interesting symptom of a problem with the food system, and it too, just as environmental diets, needs to be discussed

13 Fast Food Nation. DVD.2006. Richard Linklater; Fox. Food Inc. DVD.2008. Robert Kenner; Magnolia Pictures. Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead. DVD. 2010. Joe Cross; Reboot Media. 14 Brown, Lester. 2004. “Outgrowing the Earth: The Food Security Challenge in an Age of Falling Water Tables and Rising Temperatures.” Published by Earth Policy Institute 15 The term “food desert” describes the lack of accessible grocery stores in rural areas, leading to food insecurity for rural populations. 10 productively and delicately in order for change to be made without elitism. Toward this end, First Lady, Michelle Obama started an organic garden on the White House lawn and spearheaded the “Let’s Move” campaign to fight childhood obesity and diabetes if underscoring the importance of the issues of the food system and U.S. nutrition.

Figure 1. This map shows the distribution of youths under the age of 20 with both diabetes and obesity. It shows that these health problems are fairly localized in the American Southern and Eastern regions, as well as in metropolitan areas. (CDC 2009)

United States farm subsidies have concentrated on the same foods for decades: corn, wheat, cotton, soybean, rice, sorghum, and dairy and livestock (Environmental

Working Group). The subsidies show that there is overwhelming financial support for commodity crops as opposed to fruits and vegetables, which receive few government subsidies, shown in Figure 2 (Associated Press 2012).

11

Figure 2. The bar graph above shows the U.S. farm subsidy allocation for 2005. It is easy to see that corn/feed is disproportionate to all the other subsidies, and that indeed no vegetable or fruit that is not also a starch is subsidized. The exorbitant amount of feed allocations goes to perpetuating high-density livestock conditions. Associated Press 2012.

The government and the farm bills revised every five years dictate which kinds of foods/products will be affordable to United States citizens.

Corn, for example, is heavily subsidized to the point where Americans overproduce it in seemingly infinite piles of surplus. This surplus goes to one of two places: livestock feed and as exports. One impact of the exports is that, just like in the

U.S., farmers cannot make a living growing many other crops and especially none of the top 20 subsidized U.S. staples (Renton 2007, 1). Aside from that, those who wish to grow crops for healthy diets (i.e. fruits and vegetables primarily) find no financial support. Our

12 farm subsidies are not only hurting U.S. nutrition, but also the ability of the world to make a living by farming healthy foods (Renton 2007, 1).

Each of the top subsidized crops is grown industrially and chemically (Union of

Concerned Scientists 2006, 1). A great deal of our domestically produced soybean, corn, and wheat are Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) (NCS 2006, 1). In terms of our top GMO crops, they are modified to have a resistance to pesticides and thus are sprayed repetitively with them to make farming work easier. Some GMOs contain genes from common allergens, such as the peanut. Robyn O’Brien in her “TED talk” asserts that food allergies, specifically peanut allergies, have risen dramatically since GMOs have infiltrated U.S. markets (O’Brien 2011). Currently in the U.S., under FDA guidelines,

GMOs need not be labeled for consumer awareness, regardless of the food safety risks at hand regarding allergens. In addition, many of the GMO foods and ingredients one consumes have not been subject to extra-company testing (Carman 2010, 2). GMOs are a very controversial aspect of the Food Studies movement, and unfortunately they are in a large amount of our food whether we know it or not.

My main concern with GMO farming is the farming practices surrounding the use of pesticides and chemicals. Reconsidering Rachel Carson’s work in the modern day, I am fearful of what is sprayed on America’s food crops. There are negative externalities to spraying these crops, and primarily the impact on water. Even if boycotting GMOs, which can only be done by eating certified organic foods, one is still subject to chemical dosing in every glass of water they drink since this farming technique is so intensely and widely used (NRDC 2010, 2). 16

16Mostly Atrazine, which is a well known endocrine disrupter. EPA shows that 80% of U.S. drinking water has Atrazine in it. 13

Coupled with GMOs, there is a gargantuan problem with our meat industry, as it is run in the same mechanized fashion as other forms of American agriculture. Our

American livestock, commonly portrayed with pictures of happy cows in a field or chickens ranging, are most commonly raised in Confined Feeding Operations (CFOs), which are also known as feed-lots and/or factory farms. Cattle, for instance, are subjected to living in very confined spaces, ankle-deep in their own feces, and are fed corn (Seager and Mason 2006, 61). Cows, being grazers, cannot digest corn and thus have many health problems as a reaction to this diet. The sordid conditions of CFOs force farmers to counteract health problems with prophylactic medications including an exorbitant amount of antibiotics and growth hormones (Seager and Mason 2006, 57). Similarly, the poultry industry also medicates their birds with the use of steroids to increase and quicken the growth cycle and broiler weight (Seager and Mason 2006, 24). They are also kept in close quarters with each other and are rarely, if ever, shown the light of day, creating more health problems for the poultry (Seager and Mason 2006, 23). Coupled with these problems is the issue of greenwashing, that is, the producers of these products using sneaky rhetoric to trick the consumer into thinking that they are buying healthy and happy meat.

While these are issues within the greater scheme of American agriculture, it is not the only way farming is done. Thankfully, there has been an active component of the

Food Studies movement that has worked to spread Community Supported Agriculture, organic techniques, and humane livestock practices. Vegetarians and vegans have done more than their fair share in exposing the horrors of the industrial meat industry.

Locavores have done much to bring people’s attention to community building through

14 community feeding and food production. The organic movement has done much to open people’s eyes to the other ingredients in our food—e.g. Monsanto products with no health studies available. Coupled with this movement, the food justice movement approaches availability of food along color and class lines, taking strides to make sure that everyone has access to non-toxic and nourishing food. Michael Pollan, one of the most important figures in the Food Studies movement suggests approaching the issues of the standard

American diet through “voting with your fork.” By this he means, to buy what you morally support and abstain from those things that you feel uncomfortable about or disgusted by. Unfortunately, even with the food justice movement raging, not everyone has the ability to vote 100% with their fork which leads me to discuss the accusation of the Food Studies movement as upholding “compositional elitism”.

15

Compositional Elitism in Food Movements

Compositional elitism in terms of food movements describes a situation in which non-privileged perspectives are overlooked due to the movements’ composition of primarily white middle-class and higher individuals who are concerned with a paradigm shift in the way food is grown and consumed. Simply, compositional elitism in food movements describes wealthy white individuals (largely) urging for a shift towards sustainable agriculture. This elitism focuses on the make-up of advocacy groups.

Compositional elitism is found in the disproportionate availability of healthy foods, although this compositional elitism extends to the entire food system and not particular advocacy groups. Healthy foods are often unavailable in lower income inner city and rural communities of color. This discrepancy in availability of healthy food is termed the

“grocery gap” which I will discuss in greater depth in this section. A potential example of compositional elitism in the food movements is if advocates focus on spreading certain special diets without mentioning or addressing food justice issues. If one advocates for an environmental diet to be followed in a community that suffers from the grocery gap, then that advocate is marginalizing that community by not addressing the first and foremost issue of availability of these foods. For a movement to be composed of people detached from certain realities of the issue would breed compositional elitism. Thankfully, current food movements have made an effort to transcend the downfall of ignoring food justice issues of the food movement’s earlier days. As an advocate of Food Studies and food movements, I must discuss food justice issues in order to avoid compositional elitism.

Even though grocery stores are ubiquitous in suburban and bourgeois neighborhoods, there are often few in other communities in both cities as well as rural

16 environments. What insufficiently replaces these grocery stores are fast food restaurants and convenience stores, which contributes to health problems. According to an article in the New York Times:

New Yorkers gained 10 million pounds over the last two years, disproportionately in poor and minority neighborhoods, where the 10 million chain restaurant meals from the Burger King, Dominoes, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell are sold every month. Those neighborhoods are also where diabetes, hypertension and heart disease are at epidemic levels. (NYT April 21, 2009) There are many reasons behind this food crisis in American cities and rural areas. Fast food chains offer an inexpensive fill-up for American stomachs. These restaurants focus very little on the health of their customer base and also very little on their meat sources. I feel that there has been a shift within my lifetime when Americans changed from eating to nourish to eating to be full. Figure 3 (Leonhardt 2009) shows that the price of healthy foods (fruits and vegetables) has risen dramatically above the prices for soda, beer, meat, and cookies. If one has a limited budget, as often happens in low-income communities, a

17 shift from nutrition to affordability is inevitable given this shift in price.

Figure 3. This graph shows the changes in the prices of different foods from 1978-2008 (Leonhardt 2009).

When one considers the nutrition first, we enter the realm of those Americans who can spend what they want at the grocery store and are not limited by the availability of fresh produce.

But when swaths of major metropolitan areas are without access to fresh fruits and vegetables (organic or not), and when the ability to engage in green living is a reflection of the size of one’s wallet, then we must contemplate whether eco- conscious activities and practices have become the domain of the privileged. (Mohai 1985, 363) This inequity creates the “food justice” movement. The food justice movement reflects the environmental justice movement that arose in the 1980s. Food justice focuses on

18 accessibility of food across socioeconomic status (which is disproportionate) just as environmental justice focused on the disproportionate dumping of toxic materials in communities of color. The food justice movement originated in 1969 with the Black

Panther’s Free Breakfast Program in Oakland, California, and subsequently spread to the rest of the United States (Holt-Giminez 2011, 2). Food Justice, as defined by Charles Z.

Levkoe, researcher at Toronto’s Center for Urban Health Initiatives Food Research

Interest Group, is a movement that seeks to:

promote a strategy of food security where all people have access to adequate amounts of safe, nutritious, culturally appropriate food produced in an environmentally sustainable way and provided in a manner that promotes human dignity. (Levkoe 2006, 90) The goal of the food justice movement is to get communities, Food Studies, and agricultural producers to recognize eaters as citizens before they are recognized as consumers (Levkoe 2006, 90).

The prevalence of fast food chains and “corner store” markets (gas stations and convenience stores) in lower income or communities of color, as opposed to full service markets or grocery stores, is astonishing. The food justice movement calls this the

“grocery gap”. John Dicker, author of United States of Wal-Mart, defines the grocery gap as:

a pervasive lack of quality, affordable food in low income communities or food deserts in which people have to travel further for a grocery store in low income neighborhoods. (Dicker 2006, 360) The grocery gap is a product of systems of oppression, which impact lower class individuals and communities of color most directly. The grocery gap limits availability of nutritious food, and in some cases, simply just food, to these communities/peoples.

19

Grocery stores and corner stores are distributed racially. The foods available in lower income and communities of color are leading to the people in these communities to be overwhelmingly obese, malnourished, and/or nutritionally defeated.

The grocery gap does not extend just to inner-city communities but also to rural locations as well. A dear friend of mine, Lauren, is a great example of the ways in which people in rural areas do not have easy access to a supermarket, and thus take infrequent trips resulting in packaged food overloads. Lauren lives in a rural community an hour northwest of Tampa, Florida. She lives on a 5-acre property in a trail-behind camper amidst a fleet of non-functional Ford trucks. None of her land is cultivated as she and her husband do not think they have the resources to start a garden. They plan on starting a plant nursery once they can dig themselves out of the situation they are in. Last time I visited her, after the long dark drive into her property she fed me “hobo stew” which was a concoction of canned vegetables and canned soups heated on open fire. Her dogs ate it for dinner as well. Her entire pantry composed of canned foods, which she opened with a large knife and little effort. She makes the trek to the grocery store every month or so in which she boasts that she buys $50 of the cheapest canned goods she can find to last her and her husband through the month. This and other variations of the story are the state of nutrition in many rural communities. Lauren could not eat an organic diet, or a vegetarian diet easily with these constraints. It will be quite some time before Lauren is able to fill up a refrigerator with fresh fruits and vegetables without them rotting between the month

20 long shopping trips. 17 Because of her class and her geographic location, Lauren is a victim of the grocery gap, and her health is compromised because of it.

Unfortunately, healthy food is generally unavailable to those living in low-income or communities of color…hence my critique of the Food Studies movement. 18 If everyone is supposed to eat an environmental diet that is rich in nutrition, those who have no access to fresh foods are marginalized by this movement. This is a product of both compositional elitism and ideological elitism in that the advocates of environmental diets are overlooking basic needs issues that they probably have fulfilled and have the privilege to forget exist (Morrison and Dunlap 1986, 588). The discrepancy of grocery stores and poor and/or communities of color is shown in “[a] 2009 study by the USDA

[which] found that 23.5 million people living in low-income areas lack access to a supermarket within a mile of their home, and that 68% of low-income residents live in areas with limited or no supermarket access” (Karpyn 2011, 1). If one is living in these communities and decides to follow a vegetarian diet, it could be feasible but not with the appropriate proteins, vitamins and minerals found in whole foods and meat alternatives.

Tofu, tempeh, or seitan would likely not be available in these corner stores and the person following an environmental diet would remain malnourished. Below are two graphs

(Figures 4 and 5) from a summary of over 100 food justice studies complied through the

Food First institute for Food and Development Policy (Karpyn 2012 33). These graphs highlight the discrepancy between healthy food availability though class and race.

17 Many cheaper canned goods have animal products in them. This is not to say that they are not available, but by in large I have found meat to be in the cheaper canned goods. Organic canned goods are noticeably more expensive than conventional canned goods. 18 As much as I respect and revere the Food Studies movement, a blind focus on sustainable food does not reach the interdisciplinary (socioeconomic) goals of the movement. The Food Studies movement must also focus on discrepancies in availability to food (grocery gap) of any kind as well as transforming agriculture in the U.S.. 21

Figure 4 Data from a survey of 226 supermarkets, grocery stores, corner markets and convenience stores in 106 census tracts in Baltimore shows that African American neighborhoods and lower income neighborhoods were in the bottom third of availability of healthy food (Franco et al. 2008).

Figure 5. This graph is based on 6 studies that show “proximity of convenience stores was associated with reduced fruit and vegetable intake”. It shows that if grocery stores are located in neighborhoods where they are left out that those neighborhoods would benefit from an increase in consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables (Morland et al 2002).

22

One poignant example of the grocery gap is a low income community called “the

Tenderloin” in Oakland, California—the very same town that witnessed the beginning of the Food Justice movement. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle in

2008, this community has been fighting for two years (now six) for a full service grocery store to be built in their neighborhood. 19 Ridden with crime and violence as products of their oppression this community has been fighting to not only build a grocery store but a fourteen story residential tower on an abandoned parking lot with a grocery store on the first floor (Lagos 2008, 2). This neighborhood, only a few blocks wide, houses thousands of children and families without access to proper nutrition.

Forced to eat at “corner stores” and “discount beverages” that carry only packaged food and some staples in the Americans diet, such as milk, the residents of the

Tenderloin do not have access to a full service grocery store that could provide for their body’s needs (Lagos 2008, 1; Mallory 2012, 1). Frequently, the items at the corner stores that are thought to be staples, like milk, are sold grotesquely past their expiration date

(Lagos 2008, 3). Also, residents have noted the attempted sale of meat that is so rotten that it had turned blue and green. Also, residents have noticed that the prices of some items change from customer to customer, at the store owner’s discretion (Lagos 2008, 3).

Gentrification has had an impact on the Tenderloin community. The neighborhood is a few blocks (one half mile) away from a rising upper-middle class part of Oakland, complete with a gourmet market. When facing the local planning and zoning

19 The Tenderloin still does not have a full service grocer in the neighborhood. Trader Joes and CVS have plans to build stores in the wealthier area just north of the Tenderloin. When asked about why the stores are not to be located in the Tenderloin store representatives stated it was because they feared the stores would not be successful in the Tenderloin due to the low-income status of the neighborhood; also they responded saying that the Tenderloin is in a high crime neighborhood and the stores could not afford to provide appropriate security systems (Mallory 2012, 2). 23 authorities and asking for a simple grocery store, the authorities reply that there already is a full-service grocer within walking distance. Unfortunately, due to its location in a different socio-economically dominated part of town, the residents of the Tenderloin simply cannot afford anything in that particular store without making major sacrifices in their daily lives (Lagos 2008, 2).

In Atlanta, Georgia, there is another example of the grocery gap, but this one, thankfully, has been progressing exponentially faster than the progress in the Tenderloin.

After seeing the state of corner stores in downtown Atlanta and also being inspired by the local and organic food movements, Alison Cross and her brother Alphonzo opened “The

Boxcar Grocer” in 2011. This corner store’s mission is to give the surrounding community access to sustainable and healthy foods. Alison mentions:

My brother and I decided we also wanted to dismantle the idea that organic food is only for people who cook like Martha Stewart and look like Jennifer Aniston, for people who live in other neighborhoods. (Cross 2012, 3) The Boxcar Grocer has been a success thus far in both feeding neighborhood residents healthy, fresh, local and organic foods but also as an establishment that raises awareness that not all neighborhoods eat equally (Cross 2012, 1). The wide customer base of the

Boxcar grocer raises awareness all over the city that food systems need to be altered in many ways that do not exclude access and justice issues (Cross 2012, 3).

I take issue with spreading sustainable food without also spreading access to food.

Thankfully, The Boxcar Grocer takes both aspects of the food movements into action.

While all intentions are well and good, Food Studies advocates who have a relatively privileged perspective may not know to consider others who may or may not share this common goal, but rather have food issues of their own to act upon and work for. Food

24

Studies advocates must be keen to remember that food movements are interdisciplinary, and thus composed of many parts. It includes the production of food from farm to table as well as the cultural, social and historical aspects of food. Included in the umbrella term of food movements or Food Studies are: locavores, the slow food movement, sans meat and dairy diets and their advocates, farmers, food justice, gastronomy, patterns of food consumption throughout history and across race and class lines. It seems as if this movement has made a great deal of effort to not only be interdisciplinary but also relatively open to critique, improvements, and praise (Guthman 2003).

Another example of how the food justice movement has improved food-related conditions is found at the 14-acre South Central Farm in Los Angeles, California. For twelve years, this garden made land available for over three hundred and fifty families to grow culturally appropriate food (Kennedy 2008). The vast majority of the families who cultivated this land lived in South Central L.A., an area of the city known nation-wide for its large immigrant and lower-income demographic, active gangs, and high crime rates

(Shaffer 2002). Grocery stores are half as likely to be built in neighborhoods with a noticeable crime rate or in communities of color, and this stands true in South Central

L.A. (Shaffer 2002). The South Central Farm was established by the people of this community as a response to the unavailability of healthy and culturally appropriate foods as well as a way to empower a community that has had a long standing bad reputation.

Inspiring stories and situations like this are found all over the United States today, and are only gaining in strength and number as the years go by. In New York City, for instance, the non-profit “Nourishing NYC”, “provid[es] food that is nutritionally balanced for individuals struggling with diabetes, obesity, chronic diseases and

25 malnutrition” in New York City and rural food deserts in the state (Nourishing NYC

2012). In Yancey County, North Carolina, the “Dig-In Community Garden” grows and donates organic and local produce to those suffering from the rural community’s food desert conditions (Dig-In 2012). The Detroit Black Community Food Security Network formed in 2006 in response to the city’s food insecurity following the city’s large unemployment crisis (DBCFSN 2012). This is in no way an exhaustive list of food justice accomplishments or advocacy groups, but just the tip of the iceberg of the ways in which compositional elitism is being dealt with by communities at large. Food justice has extended environmental justice into the homes and dinner tables of many disadvantaged/underprivileged Americans.

As a result of such development, Food Studies, the umbrella term I utilize, does not today mirror the compositional elitism in nearly the same magnitude that Morrison and Dunlap ascribed to environmentalists generally in 1986. The sheer size and importance of food justice in Food Studies negates such a charge of compositional elitism. While many Food Studies advocates and scholars may be well endowed economically, the movement does not end there. Morrison and Dunlap state: “the challenge is to develop social policies which promote both [environmental protection and social justice]” (Morrison and Dunlap 1986, 588). Thus far the food justice movement has filled that void in Food Studies.

26

Ideological Elitism in Food Movements

Ideological elitism in terms of food movements would apply to ways in which the goals of the movement would disadvantage others or make non-interested parties pay the cost of the accomplished goals. Ideology comes into play in this elitism when individuals or groups assume that their ideology (environment or food making their goals and actions) is of primary importance thus taking attention away from other ideologies and interests (for instance, food security or poverty). Morrison and Dunlap describe this elitism in hypothetical terms, suggesting that environmentalists take attention away from social issues and environmental justice issues by focusing for instance, on wilderness preservation or other compositionally elite issues. In the realm of food movements this form of elitism is seen when an emphasis on environmental diets takes attention away from food access issues.

Since dietary decisions are choices, there are no scholarly sources that describe ideological elitism in food movements. Instead, I consider the effects on cost of healthy foods in a hypothetical world in which Food Studies advocates have altered Monsanto

Corporation in an extreme way (or eliminated the corporation). This change would undoubtedly have an impact on the price of food as it is primarily large agribusinesses like Monsanto that are subsidized by the U.S. government. It is important to note that even though Monsanto’s and industrial conventional agriculture’s products seem cheaper than organics, for instance, when taking into consideration the hidden costs of subsidization, travel, and negative environmental externalities, this food is not in reality less expensive than sustainable alternatives. In instances in which ideological elitism can

27 be aligned with Food Studies or food movements there is always a choice present that does not require non-participants to bear the blunt edge of the Food Studies’ sword.

Earlier I mentioned the court case of 300,000 farmers and seed collectors against

Monsanto, one of the world’s largest and most influential agribusiness companies. This lawsuit had the power to change indefinitely the way in which Americans produce and purchase food. Unfortunately, the status of this case is unfavorable in terms of small- farmers and has been ignored and shamed by courtrooms in Manhattan. 20 I am sure, however, that this fight will not stop there. Recently, on February 13th, 2012, a landmark case against Monsanto was won; Monsanto was found guilty of the pesticide poisoning of a French farmer, Paul Francois, due to inadequate warnings and safety precautions on their product “Lasso Weed killer” (Lagrange and Douet 2012, 1). Surely if both of these cases were won, and Monsanto lost a bit of its power over the U.S. movement, people and farmers, specifically…the grocery store would be a very different place.

Consider a hypothetical situation: If Monsanto and other agribusiness giants were found guilty of the evil things that environmentalists say they do, one would consider that their products would not be purchased in such quantities in the grocery store, and thus throughout time their goods would not be grown as rampantly. If they faced such an adverse ruling, U.S. subsidized agribusinesses would have to find a whole new way of doing business or the already existing counter-farming culture and buying powers would take power in the now nearly vacant standard American diet and food systems. These are not the only choices, however. Even within organic agriculture there is industrialization and mistreatment of farmworkers, and therefore even this realm of farming is in need of

20 Judge Buchwald denied the farmers in this case because she found it unreasonable for organic farmers to avoid Monsanto products (SNEWSPF 2012). 28 reform (Guthman 2003). A paradigm shift in American agriculture and diet towards sustainability would only be assisted by the landmark agreement made just this February

2012 which opened trading of organic foods between the United States and European

Union for the first time. Now, hopefully, the market would be predominately organic and/or sustainable.

Would everyone in the U.S. be able to afford such foods, or would this shift just end up making the issue of American nutrition worse? This particular issue is incredibly complex and tense. On one hand, it would greatly improve the potential for the standard

American diet to align itself with a truly healthy diet of non-toxic food including meat that was no longer fed by toxic and inhumane monoculture. On the other hand, however, is the more realistic or pessimistic view of this change having an impact on the greater malnutrition of the American people. Organic food, as mentioned above, is not subsidized by the U.S. government and thus is much more expensive at face value to

American consumers (Gorelick 2005). While in some cases organic vegetables and fruits can match conventional prices, sustainable meat is a much greater expense to American consumers. This price discrepancy lends one to consider the standard American diet to shift to vegetarianism or veganism amidst this change in price. This would infinitely increase the level of sustainability of U.S. food systems and its impact on climate change.

This world without Monsanto is all hypothetical, however, and one cannot predict the future of our food systems. This particular aspect of potential elitism in the Food

Studies movement is as complex as it gets, in my opinion. Food Historian at Texas State

University, James McWilliams, argues:

29

[Alice Waters’ style approach to Food Studies is] making the task of getting Americans to eat more fruits and vegetables unachievable. 21 It’s a great example of the prefect being the enemy of good…There is a kind of elitism about it, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing…if you have the time and resources to support the local food-shed, that’s great. But there are some of us who see [Food Studies] as having boutique concerns that are out of touch with where our food worries should be—like how we’re going to globally produce 70% more food in the next 40-50 years. (Finz 2010, 3) McWilliams’ concern is not unwarranted. With the focus of Food Studies, production wise, being local and organic/sustainable food, it is in a way catering to the environmentalist ideology of the movement. McWilliams’s brings up a valid concern with a counter movement to Food Studies , the “Green Revolution” many, many years ago—food production for global population increase. Michael Pollan, in Omnivores’

Dilemma and his later works, approaches this concern by describing that if we didn’t feed livestock corn or other foods grown intensively in terms of fossil fuels (monoculture and

Monsanto crops) and rather let fewer cattle graze as they would naturally, there would be more food available for humans, seeing as how half of our subsidized crops go directly to livestock feed (Pollan 2006). While this is a well and good answer, it does not answer the issue with appropriate complexity that the issue has. If we are to stop feeding the livestock that the U.S. market demands subsidized grains/corn and stop the production of those crops due to their unsustainable nature it still would not solve the issue of global food security…just the inhumane and unsustainable feeding of livestock. Michael Pollan

21 Alice Waters is a very important figure in the “Slow Food”, locavore, and organic Food Studies community and discourse. She owns and runs “Chez Panisse” a rather expensive restaurant that uses only fresh organic and local produce, also she has started many programs teaching elementary school children about organic gardening and cooking. In this quote I am mostly referring to her common critique of being “elitist” as she is a 5 star chef, can “vote with her fork”, and does not seem to comment on the race and class issues in Food Studies (but rather works with children). 30 goes on to describe in other works that organic food grown in industrial/U.S. situations produces around 80% the yields of conventional agriculture; but in other countries the yields are 182% of conventional yields (Jacimovic 2012). Herein lies the answer; it is neither the United States’ duty nor prerogative to feed the world through any form of agriculture. Daniel Summer, agricultural economist, says:

Farm subsidies that lower prices hurt farmers in poor countries by helping consumers in these countries. My best estimate in the case of cotton is that the world cotton price would be about 10 percent higher if U.S. farm subsidies for cotton were eliminated. The impact is likely smaller for most other commodities. (Dubner 2008, 3) The world can feed itself just fine in most cases given the chance to do so by the U.S. not flooding their food markets with subsidized crops. In the case of global food production and food security, the Food Studies movement is not elitist but rather is a force of decolonization and empowerment.

Ideological elitism in Food Studies considering agricultural subsidies’ impacts domestically and internationally, is not apparent. Food Studies, by advocating alternatives to the current food system in a non-compulsory way, does not have an effect on others and non-participants. Only by creating an agribusiness monopoly-free hypothetical world do Food Studies movements have an impact on non-participants.

While this situation may come to fruition one day, I have hope that Food Studies will continue along the relatively non-discriminatory path.

31

Impact Elitism in Food Movements

Impact elitism is the culmination of all of Morrison and Dunlap’s prior elitisms into “regressive distributional impacts” (Morrison and Dunlap 1986, 585). Impact elitism exists when the compositional elite utilizes their ideology to create a reform or deliberately ignore an issue that needs reform. The result not only disregards other ideologies but directly impacts the well-being of those who are disregarded. Morrison and Dunlap discuss the closing industrial or chemical plants as an example of impact elitism on non-environmentalists. If one simplifies this example, it suggests that impact elitism occurs when environmental reforms occur that are connected with improvements or disadvantages in economic well-being and/or health of non-participants in the movement. That is, the actors urging environmental reforms overlook the impacts such reforms would have on the reform-subject’s health and life in terms of job security or immediate exposure to toxics. Also, Morrison and Dunlap make sure to emphasize that impact elitism extends to both enacting on environmental reform and also not making or implementing environmental reforms. This particular elitism is a catch-22. When considering Morrison and Dunlap’s plant closure example in relation to Food Studies, it seemed as if the Food Studies movement through many diets is actually trying to improve the diet of all individuals. Also, it seems as if the Food Studies movement is also trying to shut down many factory farms and packing plants due to their troubling conditions. In either case, there seems to be a balance which leads me to think that Food Studies and these environmental diets does not demonstrate “impact elitism.”

Counter to the Food Studies movement is a movement to include in the next U.S.

Congressional Farm Bill (2012) a cut of $127 billion to food stamps over the next ten

32 years, regardless of the 10.4% increase in food stamp enrollment between 2010 and 2011.

This public change undoubtedly would have an impact on lower class communities’ access to food and nutrients.

33

The Question of Vegetarianism Elitism

There are many reasons individuals decide to become vegetarian; they span from ethical or religious issues regarding killing animals, human health concerns linked to meat-eating, and to environmental issues regarding resource use and/or greenhouse gasses. I will be focusing on the environmental aspects of vegetarianism alone. Is vegetarianism elitist under any of Morrison and Dunlap’s three elitisms?

In 2011, Jonathan Safran Foer, well known fiction author of Everything is

Illuminated and of the 2009 non-fiction Eating Animals, was interviewed regarding environmentalists eating meat. In this interview he boldly stated that environmentalists eating meat “have a blind-spot for something big [climate change].” By this Foer means that environmentalists who eat meat are essentially either hypocrites or ignorant. This statement is true if the environmentalists he is referring to are eating factory-farmed meat.

It is a widely known fact that the factory farming of livestock not only uses exorbitant amounts of energy (and water) to get their feed from farm to Feed Lots/CFOs, but also the livestock emit a great deal of methane, which is a more harmful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. According to the FAO, “Cattle/Sheep/Livestock produce 37% of total methane generated by human activity, a gas that is 20 times more effective at trapping greenhouse gasses than carbon dioxide” (Tuffrey 2012, 1). CFOs are eternally destructive to the land and the lands surrounding the facility by inevitably poisoning water sources. It takes an estimated 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef in these systems.

That said, there are alternatives to this kind of agriculture, and the production of meat need not follow this model in the least (alternatives include free-range, grass fed and finished cattle, etc). Jonathan Safran Foers’ comment, although educated in one way,

34 comes across as elitist (“Greener than thou”) because he discredits diets that enlist agricultural practices counter to this accusation. In his interview, Foer states:

To make a commitment to something—even if it is not the perfect answer—you are removing yourself from the damaging behavior, from the damaging industry to whatever extent that commitment encircles. It is only by drawing a line and saying “I’m not going to be a meat-eater” that you can actually not eat any factory farmed meat. (Tuffrey 2012, 2) Truthfully though, most of the meat that is available to Americans is factory-farmed meat and labels can be misleading in terms of “ethical meats” or non factory-farmed meats.

Regardless, it is comments like these that tread the thin line between being elitist and trying to honestly urge others to follow a better lifestyle and diet for the environment.

Unfortunately there is no etiquette handbook for these situations thus far.

Two and a half percent of Americans are vegetarians, according to a 2011

Vegetarian Resource Group poll (Hymas 2012, 1). Thus far there have been no studies regarding the socio-economic statuses of vegetarians in America. That being said, the two and a half percent of Americans that choose a vegetarian diet may well come from various backgrounds and bank accounts. Once one gets over the fact that to be vegetarian one does not have to replace their proteins with packaged proteins such as tofu, tempeh, seitan, or mycoprotein (which often have their own issues and also cost nearly as much as meat) but, rather that one can get their protein requirements from fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts and beans the financial aspect of vegetarianism becomes much less expensive. Below is a chart (Figure 6) of the percent protein content of many healthy foods included in a healthy vegetarian/vegan diet:

35

Figure 6. This chart shows the percent protein found in many fresh fruits and vegetables. This chart goes to show that corner markets do not have to carry tofu or meat substitutes for its vegetarian customers to be healthy, but rather that supplying fresh fruits and vegetables would improve the nutrition of everyone in those areas. (USDA).

The chart shows that many low-cost items such as kale and broccoli have even more protein (in percent) than tofu, suggesting a broad range of proteins available for a healthy vegetarian diet.

36

There is one aspect of vegetarianism that could be perceived as elitist, and that is encompassed by the grocery gap. If people in low income communities and/or communities of color do not have access to kale or broccoli or even tofu, the diet is elitist to their community. I want to urge that this is not vegetarians’ fault, however. This elitism is caused by injustice done by many people in many different places, and is upheld by those who oversee these communities and cities and perpetuate the grocery gap. This elitism is not from environmental diets and their advocates but rather a product of hundreds of years of discrimination, bigoted zoning laws, and inequities that are continued with blind white privilege. Everyone should have access to the foods necessary to eat a healthy diet, be it omnivorous or vegetarian.

Since following a vegetarian diet is a personal choice, the only instance in which ideological elitism can exist is when the focus on a vegetarian diet distracts from other issues within the food system and American eaters, or distributes a financial cost to non- vegetarians whilst improving American agriculture. Vegetarianism does not overtly overshadow other issues in food systems and Food Studies but rather creates a cooperative system potentially incorporating all aspects of Food Studies (organic and local food, for instance). The only aspect of vegetarianism that overlooks other ideologies is when advocates akin to Foer pass judgment on others and deny the existence of other methods of dealing with American food systems, diets, and the environment. Militant advocacy is more often than not off-putting to non-vegetarians rather than being a useful tool of recruitment. Etiquette and politeness is necessary when discussing an issue that comes up in one’s life three times every single day. That said, many vegetarians do not approach others about their dietary choices and views in a militant manner, and this

37 approach seems to have a great impact, as far as I have seen in my personal accounts with two particular ways to advocate this diet.

Impact elitism in terms of a vegetarian diet can be extended to the ways in which impacts of a vegetarian diet are extended to those involved in the meat industry the diet boycotts. The meat industry is ridden with issues regarding the treatment of its workers

(Linklater 2006). While there are many human rights issues involved in farm working and meat packing (immigration, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, racial discrimination, health standards that are not upheld, as well as wage theft) it is important to remember why vegetarians and vegans boycott this industry (Linklater 2006). As mentioned in the introduction, conventional industrial farming practices in livestock rearing, raising, slaughter and sale is corrupt and incredibly detrimental to environment.

Perhaps vegetarians are boycotting both the inhumane treatment of the animals as well as the abuse the workers live day in and day out.

Overall, charges of vegetarians as elitist are not to be taken seriously. A vegetarian diet contributes less to climate change and pollution and does not contribute directly to food access issues. Strictly speaking in terms of elitism, and not particularly

Morrison and Dunlap’s specific elitisms, the only aspect of vegetarianism that can be focused on to curb elitism is the way in which it is spread in some cases; harsh and judgmental militant advocacy often steers individuals away from vegetarianism while a well-mannered, intelligent, and carefully constructed approach can spread the diet and its benefits across America.

38

The Question of Vegan Elitism

The animal rights group, PETA, points to a study done by the United Nations suggesting that a global shift towards a vegan diet is the best thing the world can do to combat climate change (PETA 2012). PETA also points to “a German study conducted in

2008 concluded that a meat-eater's diet is responsible for more than seven times as much greenhouse-gas emissions as a vegan's diet is” (PETA 2012). The production of meat and animal products, done through our traditional industrial system, is incredibly wasteful and emits more greenhouse gasses than any other human-caused addition to climate change. Changing one’s diet is truly necessary, and shifting from the standard American diet to that of a vegan lifestyle would surely lessen one’s personal impact on environment. While this is true, there are still some kinks to be worked out in the vegan diet, namely the militant recruitment techniques (similar, if not more intense, when compared with vegetarian instances) and ability to overlook social justice issues within our own species (Reiman 2011).

As an example of this elitist rhetoric, I would like to bring your attention back to the Tenderloin community that I discussed in the introduction to Food Studies. In 2011,

Tracy Reiman, Executive Vice President of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals) issued a letter to San Francisco’s Mayor urging him to revitalize the community via changing the name of the community to the “Tempeh District.” Reiman suggested that if the mayor did not like “Tempeh District” that perhaps “Granola Flats” or “Seitan’s

Lair” should suffice (Reiman 2011, 1). Veganism is the most extreme alt-meat diet, which claims to abstain from any animal product including honey and leather. It claims to be cruelty-free, but in this instance, I have to assert that PETA’s suggestion is, indeed,

39 cruel. I would like to entertain the thought of human rights being included in Animal

Rights, in terms of veganism and this particular case. The name of this neighborhood is not where the food issues lie but rather in the intense subjugation this community has to deal with on many levels, including dinner. I feel it irrelevant what this neighborhood is called in the midst of the dietary issue at hand. Part of Reiman’s letter stated:

By discarding an outdated moniker that evokes the horrors of the meat trade, you'll be sending a strong message to progressive businesses and health-conscious residents that this neighborhood is ready for a fresh start.(Reiman 2011) Reiman also stated that she was sure that changing the name of the neighborhood would elevate this neighborhood to the likes of the upscale and unique vegan restaurants in the area surrounding the neighborhood (the same area with the gourmet market keeping the

Tenderloin from gaining a grocery store). This sounds an awful lot like gentrification to me. This suggestion is elitist in my view, as Reiman, with all good intentions for the cows, completely overlooked the people being abused in this neighborhood through class and diet and the impending effects of gentrification.

I do not intend to be anthropocentric in saying this, but is it not important to make sure your brothers and sisters of the human race are also treated without cruelty? Animal liberation should include the liberation of human beings from systems of oppression. I feel this aspect of veganism should be better emphasized, that cruelty-free living includes one’s impact on their community. There are many stepping stones to change.

Regarding Morrison and Dunlap’s three elitisms, there is no strong correlation shown through studies that vegans are composed of the elite class. In fact, the only studies regarding sociology and veganism are studies that show that vegans are almost overwhelmingly female and ranging in ages from 20-35 (Vegetarian Resource Group).

40

Vegans, in addition to vegetarians have claimed to save money with their diet, averaging

$4,000 in savings each year because of not eating meat, diary, eggs, or other animal products (Vegetarian Resource Group). That said, it would be inordinately difficult to slap the name of elitism on vegans regarding their socio-economic status rather than their actions.

Ideological elitism in terms of a vegan lifestyle and diet are slight, besides the kind of situations such as the Tenderloin/Tempeh district controversy and rhetoric. The costs and benefits of veganism are not disproportionately placed other than the cases of meat packing employees receiving less support as I discussed in the vegetarian chapter.

Militant advocacy issues exist within veganism just as they do in vegetarianism. Even with this, the vegan diet/lifestyle does not seem to be composed of ideological elitism.

That said, I think that a approach that PETA and vegan missionaries utilize is shame, and that does have impacts on a community. Many of PETA’s campaigns utilize pathos in great amounts in order to instill a great emotional feeling in the audience, leading to adopting their new lifestyle. Focusing on animal rights issues as one’s reason for becoming vegan is fully acceptable, though I feel that Vegan followers of PETA learn to discredit many beneficial farming changes. PETA in fact has created a campaign against organic and free-range farming (Stepaniak 2012). While it is true that many people take advantage of the labeling and thus higher paying price, their campaign discredits others who may be honest in this label, such as myself and my personal homestead.

Vegans and vegetarians, in their own specific ways, are trying to get the same effects through their boycott of industrial, environmentally damaging, and cruel

American farming. Boycotts have worked in the past; take the Montgomery Bus Boycott

41 in 1955 for example. Through the power of mobilization of masses, nonviolence, and perseverance, activists in Montgomery changed the system of racial segregation on their local bus systems. Boycotts in the sense of vegetarian and vegan diets do not require extra money to buy what is an alternative to the same thing but rather abstain from putting their money into potentially harmful farming period. While this particular boycott has some impacts on those working in the industry that vegans/vegetarians are boycotting, the impact on someone’s everyday life from these factories is miniscule.

Rather, this boycott lets the American government and American farmers know that 5% of the U.S. population will not support the continuation of this kind of system.

Vegans must be careful not to be elitist in the ways in which they ask others to change their diets, their lifestyles, their views, and in some cases the names of their neighborhoods. The extent to which the Tenderloin controversy oversteps appropriate boundaries is something that this movement needs to be adamant about avoiding. Vegans should focus on the serious aspects of the food system that needs reform, the environment that needs a break from industrial farming, and not tedious details that do not actually instigate “animal cruelty”. That said, other than this one particular aspect of militant veganism, the diet is not elitist. Overwhelmingly the good of this diet outweighs the bad, but the rhetoric and methods used to change the world into a vegan paradise must be closely watched and carefully spread.

42

The Question of Locavore Elitism

A locavore diet is a local diet. It consists of fruits, vegetables, fungus, meat, dairy, and eggs sourced from one’s local community or within a 100 mile radius of one’s home, depending on their own personal definition of locavore or their ability to reach food within such distances. One can find food to satisfy a locavore diet/lifestyle by either gardening or farming oneself or by purchasing local foods through local farmers markets/co-ops. “Locavore” was chosen to be the Oxford American Dictionary’s word of the year in 2007 (Striner andUmberger 2008), and since its coinage it has grown in popularity all over the United States. With a focus on “food miles” and local agriculture, the Locavore diet has done much to improve communities and put local small-scale farmers back in the game.

However, this particular diet has been under fire for being “more expensive” than other “sustainable” or environmental diets. Farmers markets are undeniably more expensive than box grocery stores and supermarkets, for instance. Morrison and Dunlap would, I think attribute a bit of compositional elitism to those who can afford to eat a locavore diet. I must assert, however, that this is not necessarily the case for all people who follow a locavore diet. CSA’s, buying groups, and community gardens/growing your own have contributed to the access of all peoples from various socio-economic strata to a local-sourced food system. Even more so, recently, in Alachua County, Florida, for instance, the Florida Organic Growers has set up a system in which the local farmers markets take Food Stamps/EBT (FOG 2012). One cannot be sure, either way, if the locavore movement truly does have compositional elitism or that it is just the stories of the well-off neighborhood garden gets in the press more often.

43

I would like to offer two different recent news stories that highlight the complexity of the locavore movement. First, is a New York Times article discussing locavores who hire gardeners to plan, plant, prune, harvest and wash organic food garden’s in one’s backyard or balcony (Severson 2008, 1-2). The obvious luster of luxury is at hand here, and the article continues to emphasizes how the homeowners get to have the benefits of the garden without “having to get their hands dirty” (Severson 2008, 1).

Second, is the example of the Motor City, Detroit, Michigan, which has blossomed into a great example for the locavore movement as well as the Food Justice movement. In an effort to revive the community and the local food supply, many individuals from each part of Detroit have started gardens, farms, and advocacy groups focusing on the conditions of the people’s diets in the community and ways in which to built Detroit back up from its automobile ashes. Detroit holds farmers markets every day, supplying the local community both food and a vessel to get to know each other.

I assert that ideological elitism is of little concern in terms of the locavore diet.

Where do the actions and choices of the locavore movement inconvenience another part of the population? I simply cannot think of any instances in which this occurs. A locavore diet is based on consumption, making decisions on what particular economy one would like to support (global/multinational or local). I do not see any “cons” to this diet as the choice is personal and productive. I mean productive in terms of the fact that making a positive choice to support a member of your own community. This effort stems from support of their ethics and/or an understandable neuroses regarding food miles and the climate change impact of one’s diet. Where have costs been forced upon those who do not consider themselves to be “locavore”? Arguably, nowhere.

44

At the same time, Impact Elitism is completely positive in terms of a locavore diet/lifestyle:

studies have shown Farmers Markets also have broad societal and environmental benefits such as promoting healthy eating, revitalizing communities, preserving farmland, promoting sustainable agriculture, increasing market access and profitability of smaller independent producers, reducing packaging and food miles. (Stringer and Umberger) Supporting a locavore food system supports a local economy as well as a local community. Access to healthy foods can be extended to all members of the community with programs similar to that in Alachua County, Florida. What could be the regressive impacts on a community, in a hypothetical world?

Does locavore-ism create regressive impacts? If a locavore culture is cultivated, one would hope that the farmers involved would use organic practices. In a hypothetical world the only regressive impacts would be if the farmers involved in supporting a locavore system/diet/market did not use organic practices and instead sprayed harmful chemical pesticides etc. If this was indeed the case, the chemicals would be sprayed very locally and thus would have health impacts on those living around the farms and potentially those eating the foods produced in that fashion. Thankfully, thus far the locavore movement has emphasized sustainability and I have not found any records of things like this happening because of an emphasis on locavore-ism.

A locavore diet does much to curb climate change. It achieves many positive aspects of what needs to be done in our food systems. It supports a local economy and local agriculture, that is more or less done in a fashion to improve soil health (ideal), and it boycotts the farming practices that should be boycotted because of their methods. Also, a locavore diet greatly decreases transport distance of food and thus increases the nutrient

45 content of food purchased and the health of the consumer. Given the emphasis on sharing the positive aspects of a locavore diet, this diet is not guilty of any elitism.

46

The Question of Ethical Omnivory Elitism

“Ethical omnivory” as a specific diet lends much to author Michael Pollan, for its increase in popularity and education about options (Pollan 2006). First, let me describe and define ethical omnivory within my own terms. I define ethical omnivory as a diet in which environment and ethics play a part in the decision making process of purchasing food. To be an ethical omnivore, strictly, one must eat only organic produce—preferably local and organic—which includes not only fruits and vegetables but also mushrooms, eggs and dairy from those sources. Also the option of eating meat is kept open in this diet, if it is humanely and sustainably raised and/or wild caught/hunted (Pollan 2006).

Finding this kind of meat can prove to be difficult due to misleading labeling, lack of access, or lack of funds as this grade of meat is often exorbitantly more expensive than any other cut of meat in the grocery store or market (unless you have hunted it yourself).

When this kind of meat is not available one should abstain from eating meat, as the other options in this diet are seen as cruel and unsustainable (Pollan 2006). This last aspect is often forgotten by ethical omnivory critics; simply put though, not every ethical omnivore is incredibly strict.

This kind of diet differs only from a locavore diet because the meat, eggs, and dairy have to be up to a certain standard for it to be considered within the diet. Ethical omnivores are more flexible with distance given humane treatment of the animals or better growing methods of produce. Ethical omnivory is the epitome of what Michael

Pollan means when he talks about “voting with your fork”, i.e. putting your money where your mouth ethically and environmentally is or should be. This diet can be expensive or

47 can be done with a budget and some patience, given that access to these kinds of good is available.

I am sure that these kinds of goods are available in the gourmet market within walking distance of the Tenderloin neighborhood in San Francisco, and still the

Tenderloin residents cannot afford them. While an urban environment plagued with this food insecurity may not be able to afford these goods or find them elsewhere, this diet can be re-shaped to help people in rural America find an option for a sustainable diet.

Forage and wild game can do much to improve a diet suffering from food desert conditions, given the opportunity to do so.

My father went to the University of Wyoming in Laramie and lived nearby in

Centennial, Wyoming. In the decades he was residing there, he found it inconvenient to travel to the nearest grocery store (which wasn’t very close, and did not have very many options). He was in the definitive food desert of the Rocky Mountains, although he did not see it that way. All the years he lived in Wyoming, as a busy student and geologist in petroleum mining operations, he managed to grow and preserve all his own produce

(except eggs) and hunt all his own meat. I like to come back to this example to remember that it is possible to work, study and supply one’s own food amidst a food desert, or not.

This example is a counter-point to the accusation that ethical omnivory is too expensive or too difficult for busy people to follow. Ethical omnivory, as my father shows, is not a dietary movement composed of individuals with an unlimited budget of time or money, or even a movement composed of individuals with close proximity to a Whole Foods market to other grocery store that sells ethical meats.

48

Environmentally, there are great benefits to an ethical omnivorous diet. Bill

Mollison, the genius behind a system of sustainable farming called “Permaculture”, has argued in favor of ethical omnivory for decades. He states that only growing vegetables and other plants without the presence of farm animals leads to soil erosion (due to continual harvest), which is one of the biggest issues that concerns organic farmers and gardeners alike (Mollison 1986). Critics have retorted in hopes to destroy Mollison’s assertion, stating that cattle/livestock still need feed, which comes from plants/corn.

Regardless, in a sustainable system, such as a farm which grazes their cattle as they are to do naturally, soil erosion does not occur and the soil is continually re-nourished with the cattle dung. It is this sheer ecological fact that helps me have faith in this diet which is so controversial.

In terms of compositional elitism, urban gardens are a great way to extend the benefits of this diet without necessarily extending the cost greatly to people in lower- income communities and communities in which individuals do not hold land. Urban gardens have sprung up all over communities without equal access to healthy and sustainable diets. CSAs have spread across the country like wildfire. In addition there are many groups in inner-city areas that have taken it upon themselves to personally go teach individuals without community gardens how to grow their own food with very little resources. These gardens and CSAs have made it their point to increase the food security of a community, empower the people of those communities, and simultaneously create and maintain an alternative to conventional farming techniques and practices.

CSAs and community gardens do not explicitly deal with livestock or meat sources. This is one flaw of the movement. If one is not able to hunt for his/her own

49 meat, and one wishes to continue eating meat, this diet becomes difficult and in some cases contradictory. “Ethical” meat is easily two to three times more expensive than other meats, and not everyone is able to afford that; and sometimes, yes, people falter...which defeats the purpose. An important thing to emphasize, again, in terms of ethical omnivory is the importance of not eating meat when sustainable meat is not available.

Does this mean that if one goes to a dinner party and meat is served that they should ask the origins of the meat to make others question the source of their meat?

Absolutely. But it is important to do so in such a manner that does not inflict shame or grief on those who may not follow this particular diet. Ideological elitism in this situation becomes complicated and almost inevitable. As I stated before when discussing the GMO pepper in my kitchen, dealing with this kind of situation can be tense. To know what one knows about the food system and to eat or not to eat that which we make a point to avoid can breed elitism. It is important to balance the knowing acceptance of not-so-humane- or-sustainable love offerings foods without grimace with non-confrontational and polite conversation about the food systems. It is a fine line, and quite frankly I have not figured out how to balance on this tight-rope in a win-win manner.

The option to eat an “ethical omnivorous” diet coexists with the option to not. No- one is forced to follow these guidelines before stuffing one’s face, and thus nobody is subjugated by this action of purchasing power or hunting/foraging (i.e. impact elitism).

The power of this diet, which does not necessarily include or exclude the locavore diet, has spread far throughout all communities. These two movements have greatly shaped the way that one can react to the ills of industrial farming, factory farming, and food injustice. With all of its outreach campaigns and options, this diet does not exclude nor

50 does it place inconveniences upon other communities. In some cases, it can inadvertently create shame, but that shame can be converted into empowerment by being connected closer with one’s food supply. Brisman comments:

While an argument could be made that sincere environmental concern may lead to thoughtful and caring behavior in other aspects of one’s life, and less of a likelihood of abandoning green approaches and trends shift or become more costly, if the goal is reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, or loss or destruction of natural resources, then the justifications should be immaterial. (Brisman 2008, 340) I am thankful that this diet and movement has been paired with community outreach. It does not have an impact elitism, as it does nothing to harm only create more options through a framework of ethics.

51

Conspicuous Consumption

Each diet I have discussed here reacts to industrial farming in a different method of boycotting and consumption. This boycotting and consumption, throughout the span of each diet, is seen as potentially problematic. In terms of organic foods there is a tension between keeping farms small (although with the greater picture in mind) and allowing these items to become mass produced. Author and social critic, John Dicker discusses the option of selling organic produce at “affordable” Wal-Mart:

Wal-Mart might not purchase from small, local, organic farmers and will instead exert its market influence to speed up the rate at which organic farming comes to resemble conventional farming…the very antithesis of what organic should be. (Dicker 2006, 358) Even within the tensions of all the individual diets available to curb planetary destruction, there is still a tension and conflict in getting these goods produced in a way in which everyone truly has access to it without compromising its nature. Author of Animal,

Vegetable, Miracle, Barbara Kingsolver thinks that “organic food should be more expensive, “because it takes careful, loving work to produce” (Wiggins 2008, 9). How do we transcend the problems of cost? This expense is where the most elitism is present throughout each of these diets. How do we get this dietary change to affect the whole country without compromising the goals and limits...without becoming industrial agriculture in a different fashion? The solution is not so clear, but I do know that the first step is to improve availability of healthy foods in each part of the country and inner-city.

Be it through building more grocery stores or local markets, addressing subsidies, and/or empowering communities to “grow your own,” it needs to be done. Examining each diet for elitism is important in developing a way to approach these communities in a non-

52 elitist and non-threatening nature. There is a way to escape industrial agriculture— empowerment and options.

53

Conclusion

Each of the diets described in this thesis have their idiosyncrasies, but through my analysis I suggest that, generally, each of these diets is void of the kinds of elitism that

Morrison and Dunlap describe. The elitisms that are present are those within inter- personal communication in the realms of spreading the diet’s “holy word”, so to speak.

As with any other moral/environmental decision, it is incredibly difficult to share one’s opinions without seeming like a missionary or militant. This tight-rope dance is important for the survival of human food as well as humans as climate change and various environmental dangers approach.

The first move in this dance is to work within the food justice movement to get everyone in the U.S. access to healthy food.. This task should be done both in the methods of teaching communities how to garden/farm sustainably within their own communities in an empowering manner and also by equally distributing grocery stores, supermarkets and farmers markets with EBT programs like that in Alachua county (FOG

2012). Thankfully, through grassroots organization and Food Studies advocates, these kinds of changes have begun spreading throughout urban and rural America, and even on the White House lawn.

Alongside this first step should also be the inclusion of a public discussion of systems of oppression, and why this discrepancy in nutrition and diet exists in the first place. With this productive discussion occurring, even greater change can be made at

American dinner tables. The existence of many food options for the privileged class denotes privilege, and once that privilege is noticed, discussed, and destroyed, much progress can be made in the daily lives of Americans. Included in this discussion should

54 be the emphasis of who generally creates change in America, which includes those who are oppressed as well as small groups of concerned citizens. “[Voting with your fork] assumes that our food system can be reformed through informed consumer choice, and ignores the ways the working-class and people of color have historically brought about social change” (Holtz-Giminez 2011, 12).

Morrison and Dunlap, writing in 1986, concluded in their discussion that compositional elitism, actually did not exist anymore in American environmentalism.

They also noted that ideological elitism was indeed a problem, but one that was recognized and in the middle of being re-configured in a non-problematic fashion. Impact elitism, Morrison and Dunlap found, was a terrible issue still plaguing environmentalism and environmentalists. Reflecting on these findings in 2012, I am proud to see that the biggest issues still in environmental elitism have been reversed within its sub-category of the Food Studies movement. Grassroots organization and the success of diets alternate to conventional and industrial farming, as well as food justice has wonders for improving the conditions of Food Studies, avoiding ideological elitism in most cases.

The issue left is simply how we treat each other in regards to passing Food

Studies wisdom along. It is important to remember, above all, that food is a gift of life.

Food and life are a gift, and we must respect them. We must respect them in the ways in which we continually attempt to alter the current system but also in the ways in which these gifts are given. Instead of sneering at the next GMO pepper that comes into my kitchen, I will accept it as a gift, and bring up a non-hostile conversation about the ways in which one can give this gift to others through spreading organic and sustainable agriculture and justice.

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2008. “No more Dining in the Dark.” New York Times, April 21.

Associated Press. 2012. “Farm Subsidies not in sync with food pyramid.” MSNBC.

Berwyn, Bob. 2012. “Food: Europe and U.S. reach organic trade deal.” Summit County Citizens Voice, Feb 16.

Brisman, Avi. 2008. “It Takes Green To Be Green: Environmental Elitism, “Ritual Displays,” and Conspicuous Non-Consumption.” http://web.law.und.edu/lawr eview/issues/web_assets/pdf/85-2/85NDLR329.pdf

Burros, Marian. 2007. “The Debate Over Subsidizing Snacks.” New York Times, July 4.

Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring.New York City: Houghton Mifflin Company.

CDC. 2009. “The Pediatric Nutrition Survillance 2009 Report.” http://www.cdc.gov/pednss/

Chrzan, Janet. 2009. “The American Omnivore’s Dilemma: Who Constructs “Organic” Food?”

Cohen, Sarah, Morgan, Dan and Stanton, Laura. 2006. “Farm Subsidies Over Time.” Last Modified July 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic /2006/07/02/GR2006070200024.html

Congressional Budget Office. 2005. “United States Farm Subsidies in 2005.”

Cross, Alison. 2012. “What if Jay-Z ran a healthy corner store?” Grist, March 27th.

Detroit Black Community Food Security Network (DBCFSN). 2012. “Statement of Purpose.” http://detroitblackfoodsecurity.org/about.html

Dicker, John. 2006. The United States of Walmart. New York: Penguin Group.

Dig-In. 2012. “Dig-In!” http://diginyancey.org/

Dubner, Stephen. 2008. “The Illogic of Farm Subsidies, and Other Agricultural Truths.” Freakonomics, July 24th.

ENEWSPF. 2012. “Farmers Determined to Defend Right to Grow Food File Appeal in OSGATA Vs. Monsanto.” Park Forest News, March 28th.

56

Environmental Working Group. 2011. “2001 Farm Subsidy Database.” Last Modified

2011.

Finz, Stacy. 2010. “Alice Walters push for local, organic setting national agenda.” San Francisco Gate, May 9. Food and Foodaways 18: 81-95.

Get America Fit Foundation. 2007. “Obesity Related Statistics in America.” Last Modified 2007. http://www.getamericafit.org/statistics-obesity-in-america.html.

Gorelick, Steven. 2005. “Is Local Organic Food Elitist?” http://www.localfutures.org/publications/o nline-articles/is-local-organic-food- elitist

Guthman, Julie. 2003. “Fast food/organic food: reflexive tastes and the making of ‘yuppie chow’.” Social & Cultural Geography 4:45-56.

Holt-Gimenez, Eric and Wang, Yi. 2011. “Reform or Transformation? The Pivotal role of Food Justice in the U.S. Food Movement.”Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 5.http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000andregname= UnitedStatesFarmSubsidySummary

Jacimovic, Marija. 2012. “Michael Pollan’s Food Rules.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/ 02/ 15/food-rules-stop- motion_n_1278989.html

Karpyn, Allison andTreuhaft, Sarah. 2011. “The Grocery Gap: Who Has Access to Healthy Food and Why It Matters.” http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97C6D565- BB43-406D- A6D5-ECA3BBF35AF0%7D/FINALGroceryGap.pdf

Kennedy, Scott Hamilton. 2008. “The Garden.” Independent film.

Lagos, Marisa. 2008. “Tenderloin Struggles to Get Local Grocery Store.” San Francisco Chronicle, July 28.

Lagrange, Catherine andDouet, Marion. 2012. “Monsanto Guilty: Paul Francois, French Farmer, Poisoned by Biotech Giants.” Huffington Post, February 13th.

Leonhardt, David. 2009. “Whats Wrong with This Chart?” Last Modified May 20. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/whats-wrong-with-this-chart/

57

Levitt, Tom. 2011. “Jonathan SafranFoer: environmentalists who eat meat have a blind- spot.”

Levkoe, Charles Z. 2006. “Learning democracy through food justice movements.”Agriculture and Human Values 23:89-98.

Mallory, Kathleen. 2012. “Will the Tenderloin District ever get a grocery store?” San Francisco Examiner, February 10th.

Miller, Richard Alan. 2010. “Interview: Bill Mollison on Permaculture and Ecosystems for the Future (1986 and sadly still current).” The Permaculture Research Institute of Australia. http://permaculture.org.au/2010/11/11/interview-bill-mollison-on-permaculture- and- ecosystems-for-the-future-1986-and-sadly-still-current/

Mohai, Paul. 1985. “Public Concern and Elite Involvement in Environmental

Conservation.”

Morrison, D.E. and Dunlap, R.E. 1986. “Environmentalism and Elitism: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis.” Environmental Management 10:581-589.

Nourishing NYC. 2012. “About us.” http://www.nourishingnyc.org/about-us-2/

NRDC. 2010. “Updated Groundbreaking Report Shows U.S. Drinking Water and Watersheds Still Widely Contaminated by Hormone Disrupting Pesticide, Atrazine.” Last modified May 4.http://www.nrdc.org/media/2010/100504.asp

O’Brien, Robyn. 2011. TEDXAustin. http://www.nwcreations.com/http:/www.nwcreation s.com/ted-talks-thursday-robyn- obrien-real-food-evangelist

PETA. 2011. “Tenderloin District? Try ‘Tempeh District’, says PETA.” Last Modified march 29. http://www.peta.org/mediacenter/news-releases/Tenderloin-District--Try-- Tempeh- District---Says-PETA-.aspx

PETA. 2012. “Meat and the Environment.” Last Modified 2012.http://www.peta.org/issue s/animals-used-for-food/meat-and- environment.aspx.

Pollan, Michael. 2006. “The Omnivores Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals.” New York: Penguin.

58

Renton, Alex. 2007. “How America is betraying the hungry children of Africa.” The Guardian Observer, May 26th.

Seager, Peter and Mason, Jim. 2006. “The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter.” New York: Rodale.

Severson, Kim. 2008. “A locally grown diet with fuss but no muss.” New York Times, July 22. Social Science Quarterly 66(4): 820-838.

Shaffer, Amanda. 2002. “The Persistance of L.A.’s Grocery Gap: The Need for a New Food Policy and Approach to Market Development.” http://scholar.oxy.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1395&context=uep_faculty

Simmons, Jeff. 2008. “Food Economics and Consumer Choice.” http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/ Media/MediaManager/Food-Economics- and- Consumer-Choice-White-Paper.pdf

Stepaniak, Jo. 2012. “Should a vegan Shell out for Free-Range Eggs?” http://vegsource.com/jo/qa/qaeggs.htm

Stringer, Randy andUmberger, Wendy J. “Food Miles, Food Chains and Food Producers.” http://www.agrifood.info/connections/2008/Stringer_Umberger.htmlThe Ecologist, Jan 24th.

The Vegan R.D. 2010.“The High Cost of Ethical Eating.” Last Modified Jan 20. http://www.the veganrd.com/2010/01/the-high-cost-of-ethical-eating.html.

Thomas, Susan Gregory. 2011. “Back to the Land, Reluctantly.” New York Times,

October 8.

Tuffrey, Laurie. 2012. “Can Becoming a Vegetarian Help Save The Planet?” The Ecologist, Jan 4.

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2006. “Engineered Foods Allowed on the Market.” Last modified February 16th.http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/s cience_and_impacts/science/engineered-foods-allowed-on.html

USDA.USDA Ag Handbook No 456.http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodco mp/Bulletins/timeline.htm.

Vegetarian Resource Group. 2011. http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/market.htm

59

Wiggins, Susan. 2008. “Locavore Literature.” Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture 8.

60