Skip to Navigation Skip to Content

Hardcore Eaters: When Well Meaning Becomes Obnoxious

Judging by the number of emails I've received and tweets I've seen in the last few days concerning this article, I'm going to go ahead and guess that it's something that has captured the interest of more than a few readers of this blog.

Rebecca Thistlethwaite's provocative piece basically takes people—that is to say, upper middle-class people—to task for paying lip-service to the idea of changing the food system while simultaneously buying meat at Trader Joe's, splurging only occasionally on pastured eggs and blissing out on "highfalutin pork rinds." (On that last point, I am guilty as charged.) It's probably not a surprise to learn that, by and large, I agree with Ms. Thistlethwaite's message. And yet. There's something about her delivery that really rubs me the wrong way.

The article that ran on grist.org is a repackaged version of something she wrote for her own blog, Honest Meat. There, in the original post, you'll find a list of around forty things she says a person needs to do to support a sustainable food system. Sweat on a farm. Kill an animal. Own a chest freezer. Buy in season. "Have eaten and enjoyed at least 1 of the following: chicken feet, gizzards, liver, heart, kidney, sweet breads, head cheese, or tripe." The list—which includes lots of great, reasonable suggestions—reads to me a bit like a checklist to determine who is the most hardcore. While I understand that the point that Ms. Thistlethwaite is trying to provocatively get across the point that it is not enough to be a passive consumer, I find her list almost detrimental and discouraging to Americans looking to wean themselves off a broken food system.

A responsible eater, I'd argue, doesn't have to dispatch a pig just to understand and appreciate that farmer, that animal and that meat. A family of two probably doesn't need a chest freezer. And if you don't "know the names of more farmers and ranchers than celebrity chefs," well, that's OK too. What we ought to do is place a higher burden on those chefs to educate, because they are in a position to do so. Thistlethwaite's list is daunting, frankly, a bit holier-than-thou, even a little elitist-sounding. I fear because of that, it will alienate as many people as will print it out and tape it to their refrigerator. Clearly, I'm not the only person who feels this way. In the comments section on the Grist post, Thistlethwaite, who owns a farm with her husband in the Central Coast, responds to criticism:

"Some of you may think I have a 'condescending tone'. Well I am part of the 2% of the population that is feeding the 98% of you. I have to be bold to get your attention, otherwise your actions will squash me. Farmers are going out of business by the troves. Farmland is being paved over by the millions of acres each year. We are at crisis point- will you listen? There are plenty of other writers asking sweetly for your attention, for you to kindly support farmers markets, eat more veggies, etc. That is great and I appreciate their voices. I am suggesting we need to be more active if we really want to create a sustainable food system in our lifetimes. With our population rising and natural resources disappearing, I don't think we can be patient any longer."


I'd love to hear what you all think about the article. Do you prefer sweet grabs for attention, or does this article bring things to light in a new way?

What's so interesting is that every farmer and rancher who reads this article tells me "Right On!" or "Thank you for telling it like it is!". Imagine if what you did for a living (I assume it is writing?) there was constant downward pressure from your readers (your consumers) to write more high-quality material for less pay. In fact, they want you to spend 60 hours a week writing until your back is wracked in pain, your family life is shot, and you hourly wage works out to about $7/hr. Then to top it off, you can't actually survive on that income, so you have to have a non-writing 2nd job to bring in most of your income and benefits (70% of farmers income in America comes from off-farm sources). Unfortunately, consumers are asking for affordable, accessible, sustainable food 24/7, but have little idea what it takes to make that happen, nor do they realize their role in making that a reality. I wrote this article from a food producers perspective. We will not survive until eaters move beyond being empty vessels of consumption. We won't even survive when those same eaters are occasional supporters of local, sustainable food. We need engaged eaters that are committed, loyal partners for change. Otherwise what we will continue to see is industry consolidation, loss of farmland around the urban fringes, and an increasingly unsafe food supply. Corners are cut on animal welfare, food safety, water conservation, soil conservation, worker health and safety, & more when consumers are not willing to pay for their values, and instead opt for convenience & cheapness.
Anyways, thanks for reading and giving the subject some thought.

I understand how people could see her article as abrasive/condescending but I have to say, I agree with her. As someone spends a lot of my income on local and sustainable food and a lot of my time going to farms and getting to know farmers, I agree with her. On the other hand, I don't think she needs to be critical of the people buying the eggs or the meat every-so-often...