|
Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM PDT
|
|
Now that the first Slow Food Nation is a thing of the past, the press (and all of us foodies) are getting a chance to weigh in with our opinions. I really like what Chef Kurt Michael Fries said on Grist. He addresses the charge that Slow Food is elitist. Of course, this charge is not without merit but as he points out, it is not a reason to dismiss Slow Food altogether. Their work is valuable and aligned with the values all of us in the movement hold, even if they are flawed.
Slow Food does not do everything right and will never please everyone, nor is it any form of panacea, nor does it claim to be. It can and has made lives better for thousands of people not just in the U.S. and Italy (where it was founded) but from Bolivia to the Ivory Coast to India by supporting farmers and aiding to reinvigorate local food traditions. Here in the U.S. it raised thousands of dollars to help the farmers and fishers affected by Katrina, then raised thousands more for Midwest flood relief. Already Slow Food USA has turned its attention once more to the Gulf in the wake of Hurricane Gustav.
What I've observed is that all food movements are flawed in some ways, and that the most "pure" of the movements fail to get the popular attention and mainstream media coverage that Slow Food has garnered. (Want proof? Check out Time's Slow Food article - you can't get much bigger than Time when it comes to media coverage.) If Slow Food can raise questions about the ethical and environmental effects of our food choices and get people thinking about it, they are doing a good thing for all food movements. |
| Jill Richardson :: The Aftermath of Slow Food Nation |
|
|
|
