Prohibiting new fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

kutulu · 08-06-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

actually yes, there are families that do spend about that in if not more in groceries. The Revis family in North Carolina Food expenditure for one week: $641.98

First of all, that is a family of four. Their daily average is $22.93 per person. Second, look at all the crap they are buying. Pizza, Taco Bell, McD's, KFC, soda, juice, beer, crap, etc.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 01:42 PM

Snowy, this is about allowing the choice of easy access to healthy calories. If that choice is allowed through this ordinance, then the issue will then fall to cost. If I only have $3 for lunch, then it would be better if I understood that those $3 could go just as far if not farther with a healthy choice than it would with an unhealthy choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so democracy is now redefined as the majority telling the minority that not only are these types of conduct prohibited, but we are also not responsible enough to provide for our own choices, so you'll do it for us?

No, we're determining what we want in our area. No one is saying that you can't eat fast foods. Anyone is totally free to eat whatever they want. It may not be quite as close as it could be, but you can still eat it. The freedom is intact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

In this context, the belief that you know whats best for me and will make me do it one way or another, removing the burden of having to choose from me.

You don't live in LA. Neither do I, for that matter.

dksuddeth · 08-06-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

dk--so a decision made by a supermarket chain to pull it's stores out of poorer areas of a city is an example of freedom, but an action on the part of a city to PARTIALLY address the consequences of that decision is oppression?

WHAT???? other than zoning, where would any branch of government have the authority to decide what type of restaraunts could or should be built?

If a supermarket chain closes its stores because it is unable to profit, that is freedom. If a million (insert any store chain here, i.e. white castle or starbucks) stores wish to open in a neighborhood, that is freedom. If a city government says that only whole foods markets can open in compton, well that is certainly not freedom.
-----Added 6/8/2008 at 05 : 55 : 09-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

No, we're determining what we want in our area. No one is saying that you can't eat fast foods. Anyone is totally free to eat whatever they want. It may not be quite as close as it could be, but you can still eat it. The freedom is intact.

You don't live in LA. Neither do I, for that matter.

ok, so we're going to keep it very local then, correct? I don't have to look forward to the entire state of california prohibiting any new taco bells from opening up in the next couple of years?

roachboy · 08-06-2008, 01:59 PM

so yes, a supermarket chain deciding to shut down its outlets in poor urban neighborhoods is freedom, but a city acting to limit the impact of it (read the thread) is oppression.

you libertarians make me laugh, dk.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

ok, so we're going to keep it very local then, correct? I don't have to look forward to the entire state of california prohibiting any new taco bells from opening up in the next couple of years?

I could see it passing up here in San Jose. Still, we're not prohibiting Taco Bell from opening new restaurants, we're simply reducing the insane amount of fast food and allow people who wouldn't other wise have a choice of healthier food to have that choice. I figure you'd be okay with this because it doesn't remove fast food, but just allows for the market to speak via a vote. If the market doesn't want healthier choices, then it will not pass and that will be that.

Voting isn't always anti-libertarian.

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

First of all, that is a family of four. Their daily average is $22.93 per person. Second, look at all the crap they are buying. Pizza, Taco Bell, McD's, KFC, soda, juice, beer, crap, etc.

Hey, I don't make this shit up.

I report it as I find it and interpret what I see. I know it is crap. Do they know it is crap? Or do they like most people think, "Mmmm.. I'm craving some KFC." Or "I've got a Big Mac Attack!" or even, "Ding dong! Domino's!"

People are poor deciders.

I'm even happy to admit that I don't eat as healthy as I have been taught to in Nutrition classes I took in college. There are many times it is cheaper for me to eat out than it is to cook at home. I can eat in NYC for $8.25/day easily, less if I don't mind eating burgers and pizza. Bacon, egg, and cheese on a roll, ($2) I'll tell you now that the only vegetables that I would have eaten would be the handful of shredded lettuc and 1/2 slice of tomato with my halal lamb and rice. ($4) Dinner, 4 pan fried pork dumplings and hot and sour soup ($2.25).

Access to crap food allows people to make crap decisions, no different than access to drugs allows people to make crap decisions. It doesn't mean that everyone makes the decision, it means that some do.

I walk home sometimes and carry my groceries. I'll tell you that I don't get alot of crap because it's heavy. I can easily go to Whole Foods or Trader Joe's it's in Union Square and it is just a 30 minute single bus ride to my apartment. I have done it maybe a handful of times since I moved to this area.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

People are poor deciders.

Fair enough.

Still, the opportunity is there for those who are willing/able to make good decisions.

Halx · 08-06-2008, 03:36 PM

I have always maintained that nutrition is bullshit, but this thread is about politics, not nutrition.

Willravel · 08-06-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

I have always maintained that nutrition is bullshit, but this thread is about politics, not nutrition.

Have you ever tested this theory? I've personally seen real health improvements from eating healthier foods in correct proportions.

Halx · 08-06-2008, 03:50 PM

Have you SEEN my diet? If I started eating healthy, I'd shrivel up! However, bring on the local politics discussion!

roachboy · 08-06-2008, 03:51 PM

btw--hungry planet is a strange book--it appears to tell you more than it in fact tells you. i taught it last year in globalization and food courses you see.

anyway, the way they did the photos was to buy the families a week's worth of groceries and get them to do the spreads for the photos. it's hard to say how representative of anything each photo is with reference to the family in it---there were no controls to speak of, no attempt to work out what a "typical" week was---and in alot of cases, the idea of buying a week's worth of groceries all at once was understood as quite a bizarre thing to do.

where the book's probably most interesting as a document is across the images, which taken together function as a kind of index of the spread of the super/hypermarket model, so as a function of the rural/town-urban split(s).

that said, as photos i kinda like them in a series. there's something curious about the sameness of the poses, the spreads of food more or less the same in their organization.

one thing is *real* obvious, though--particularly if you read the essays in the book (not to mention if you've looked into this at all)---processed food may be cheaper, but that's a function of economies of scale and not in any way an indicator that they're at all good for anyone as food. and the processed foods are indicators of the extent of the supermarket system. and the supermarket system is about profit, not feeding people well.

you could make the argument that people don't choose well--personally, i think that most folk want what they're told they want, what's presented to them as the range of things they want. people are adaptive like that. the irony is that in nutritional terms, many of the families outside the reach of capitalist food relations probably eat better than those who are sucked into them. in an american city, obviously, you are entirely inside that system unless you do considerable work to get out of it. and if you are in a poor neighborhood without supermarkets at all, without bodegas, without public transit, without much time, you are still inside that system. which feeds you shit. which you eat, being adaptive like that.

because it is possible to opt out of the capitalist food system--by which i mean processed foods and the conventional supermarkets that present them to you instead of actual food---you can argue that there are bad choices. and you're right--but it's not right to stop there.

jorgelito · 08-06-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Have you ever tested this theory? I've personally seen real health improvements from eating healthier foods in correct proportions.

Second. I am proof of this. I love my Mcdonalds but when I overdose on it, my health suffers.

Will, look at my first post for examples of a side by side comparison of healthy eating versus junk food (it is my own personal example).

Secondly, passage of this ordinance is NOT mommy government because it is done at the local level and presumably with the approval of the local residents. I don't see it as a clash with Libertarian values. If it's what the people want then that's their decision. Same with the decisions to not allow Wal Mart to open up in a locality. It's up the communities what they want.

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Second. I am proof of this. I love my Mcdonalds but when I overdose on it, my health suffers.

Will, look at my first post for examples of a side by side comparison of healthy eating versus junk food (it is my own personal example).

Secondly, passage of this ordinance is NOT mommy government because it is done at the local level and presumably with the approval of the local residents. I don't see it as a clash with Libertarian values. If it's what the people want then that's their decision. Same with the decisions to not allow Wal Mart to open up in a locality. It's up the communities what they want.

I'll tell you that my local government does lots of stuff to us without any input from the locals. Happens all the time

right now they are putting in medians to calm traffic, thus create more and more noise. Thank you NYC DOT!

And the local community board

thank you! they had a meeting about it AFTER they broke ground!

djtestudo · 08-06-2008, 07:44 PM

Here are my questions, since there seems to be an assumption that this is what the "locals" want.

1) What was the actual vote from the L.A. city council?

2) Which council members voted which way, and which areas do they represent?

If the representatives of the people in the affected areas specifically did not vote for this, or if the "yea" voters were mostly from upper- or middle-class areas and the "nay" voters were from poorer areas, can we really say that this was fair by invoking democracy?

Poppinjay · 08-07-2008, 05:17 AM

The Revis family spends $341.98, not $641.98. But yes, they buy a lot of crap. They also buy alot of fruit and they're in decent shape for such voracious sharks.

The fact of the matter is that city council actions are supposed to allow public access and public input unless they are discussing personnel matters. A city council can't just close it's doors and make zoning changes.

The council members were elected. They made a zoning change. It's perfectly legal and it is done all across America. Don't like zoning? Go live in the county.

It's not mommy government, it just appears unusual. But it's up to your city council or county supervisor to decide if a Wal Mart can go here, or an insurance agency goes there. There are also rules on what kind of sign your business can have, the size of it, how many lights, whether it keeps with the town's ascetic....

Why is this case so special? This is what your local government does.

Cynthetiq · 08-07-2008, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

The Revis family spends $341.98, not $641.98. But yes, they buy a lot of crap. They also buy alot of fruit and they're in decent shape for such voracious sharks.

The fact of the matter is that city council actions are supposed to allow public access and public input unless they are discussing personnel matters. A city council can't just close it's doors and make zoning changes.

The council members were elected. They made a zoning change. It's perfectly legal and it is done all across America. Don't like zoning? Go live in the county.

It's not mommy government, it just appears unusual. But it's up to your city council or county supervisor to decide if a Wal Mart can go here, or an insurance agency goes there. There are also rules on what kind of sign your business can have, the size of it, how many lights, whether it keeps with the town's ascetic....

Why is this case so special? This is what your local government does.

Was there a correction that I did not see? The information for the week food has been replicated over and over again, but my original source is Time Magazine.

Our local governement makes zoning variances and changes all the time behind closed doors.

Poppinjay · 08-07-2008, 06:32 AM

My source was also Time.... I wonder what the deal is.

If your city government is making zoning changes behind closed doors, it's against the law. Although I know it happened in massive amounts when the subway was being constructed. How closed are those doors? I know places I've covered there will be work sessions, but those are still announced and the doors are still kept open.

Cynthetiq · 08-07-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

The Revis family spends $341.98, not $641.98. But yes, they buy a lot of crap. They also buy alot of fruit and they're in decent shape for such voracious sharks.

The fact of the matter is that city council actions are supposed to allow public access and public input unless they are discussing personnel matters. A city council can't just close it's doors and make zoning changes.

The council members were elected. They made a zoning change. It's perfectly legal and it is done all across America. Don't like zoning? Go live in the county.

It's not mommy government, it just appears unusual. But it's up to your city council or county supervisor to decide if a Wal Mart can go here, or an insurance agency goes there. There are also rules on what kind of sign your business can have, the size of it, how many lights, whether it keeps with the town's ascetic....

Why is this case so special? This is what your local government does.

thanks, I went over it again, and I guess maybe I cut and paste it wrong? I'm not sure but doublechecked and adjusted it. Maybe I have fat fingers

-----Added 7/8/2008 at 06 : 14 : 46-----

Quote:

View: Balancing Personal Principles and the Bottom Dollar: The Cost of Healthier Food Choices
Source: Thesimpledollar
posted with the TFP thread generator

Balancing Personal Principles and the Bottom Dollar: The Cost of Healthier Food Choices
If you’ve been reading The Simple Dollar carefully over the last few months, you’ve probably realized that my wife and I have spent some serious time taking a deeper look at the food we eat and the food we feed our children. We’ve always supported farmer’s markets and had a garden, but over the last several months we’ve taken things to a new level.

It was really triggered by my reading of two books by Michael Pollan: first, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and later, In Defense of Food, which I reviewed in detail shortly after I read it. These two books, along with the opportunity to have a nice garden which was afforded to us as new homeowners, led us to spend some time seriously re-evaluating our food intake.

For the most part, our biggest change was to become more local eaters. We started attending farmers markets, got on a waiting list to join a community-supported agriculture group, started a thriving garden (here’s a peek at it), and looked for local sources for many of our staple foods. One big example of our change is in our milk - we moved from buying whatever was cheapest to buying either milk produced by the Burkhart family at their local Picket Fence Creamery (it really gets you in touch with things to spend time with the very cows that produce the milk you drink) or, in the event that there’s none available at the moment, organic milk at the local grocery store.

The only problem with changes like these is, although you can find bargains, fresh and sustainable food options often tend to be more expensive, particularly in the off-season months. Buying Picket Fence milk is more expensive than the regular milk by about two dollars a gallon. You can get most local produce cheap when it’s in season, but come January in Iowa, there’s not much produce to be had. Our only option for sustainable produce is either what we’ve frozen or canned ourselves or what we buy organic at the grocery store, paying a premium price for it.

This brings about a pretty profound question about our eating habits. Is it a justifiable expense to spend more money on sustainably produced, hormone free, and organic foods? For the most part, I’m not sure.

Up to this point, I’ve mostly justified the extra cost as being more or less a frivolous expense, acceptable only because we’ve cut so much spending in other areas. I figured that $20 a week in extra food costs is something I can swing, particularly if it makes me feel better about the food we’re eating.

Over the long term, though, a generic “feel good” sense isn’t worth a consistent $20 a week in expenses. Is this expense really justifiable?

I think it comes down to personal beliefs. Is giving my children rBS and rBGH-free milk worth an extra $2 a gallon? What about for me and my wife? Is the slight increase in nutrients and the notable increase in flavor worth that extra effort to get fresh produce at the farmer’s market (the cost itself is negligible, because around here the costs for most of this stuff in season is the same as the grocery store)?

You can write a book debating these issues until the cows come home (in fact, I’m reading a book right now that does just that - Barbara Kingsolver’s Animal, Vegetable, Miracle), but what it really comes down to is whether you find such issues important in your own life, and not everyone is going to reach the same answer.

Does rBGH and rBS pose a health risk to my children (or to me)? Is it worth a premium of $2 a gallon to avoid it? Different people are going to come to different conclusions on that issue - some will point to studies that show potential negatives and say avoiding those is well worth it, while others will say the evidence is scant and paying a premium to avoid it is silly.

Is it worth a bit of extra effort and a bit of extra cost to support local, sustainable agriculture? Some will say yes, unquestionably. Others will look at the food selections already available and say it’s not worth it at all.

In the end, the question really is what’s the maximum value for you? Do you find personal and ethical and health value in buying organic and supporting sustainable agriculture? Do you find enough value to justify the cost and effort premium?

I can’t answer that question for you. But I can say that it’s something my wife and I both ponder as we decide where our food dollars should be allocated.

I follow this site from time to time, and he agrees that the cost of eating healthy is MORE than eating junk. While he doesn't say how much extra money he spends, he eludes to $20/week extra, but nothing really solid as to what his total cost is.

He does state, "fresh and sustainable food options often tend to be more expensive, particularly in the off-season months. Buying Picket Fence milk is more expensive than the regular milk by about two dollars a gallon. You can get most local produce cheap when it’s in season, but come January in Iowa, there’s not much produce to be had. Our only option for sustainable produce is either what we’ve frozen or canned ourselves or what we buy organic at the grocery store, paying a premium price for it."

Poppinjay · 08-08-2008, 07:13 AM

I've actually been doing a little experimenting with this. I've been alternating shopping between a cheap supermarket and a farmer's co-op. I bought two beef filets from th4e co-op for under $3. Tasted. Wonderful. Men's Health has said one of the most beneficial foods you can eat is 7 ounces of lean beef.

I bought some beef from the supermarket with the goal to keep it under $3. It was fatty and tasted like shit. But I probably wouldn't have known that if I hadn't bought the co-op beef. It's the same with veggies, the co-op consistently costs less than the chains.

I think if a co-op is available, or even a decent farmer's market, you can buy there for less, and get better quality, healthier food.

Cynthetiq · 08-08-2008, 07:49 AM

there is currently a debate on a local board for my neighborhood about the use of CSAs. I don't doubt that they have better vegetables, but I don't have time to go to them nor do I "know" what I'm interested in preparing or making with the perishable goods. The upfront cost of the CSA is a bit steep, $500 for a full share and $350 for half. I also can say Skogafoss and I don't particularlly care for what vegetables I have seen come from the CSA.

Since Skogafoss and I are very active in the city, we call our vegatable storage a rotter since I may purchase some nice vegetables only to discover a couple weeks later that I have completely forgotten them.

Finally, good meat is good meat, period. If you can buy any beef for $3, I'm amazed. I'd also add that many people don't understand how to butcher, cut, prepare meat to make it useful even when it is a crappy fatty cut.

roachboy · 08-08-2008, 08:04 AM

at this point, i no longer understand what the debate is about.
i was part of a csa in chicago for a couple years and found that it was a lovely arrangement--but that was because my preferences for food and ways of cooking meshed with what i was getting. in the end, you either explore options or you dont. i don't see where anyone is being forced to do anything.

the cost of a csa or sustainably produced food as over against industrial food is a no-brainer---it is a simple matter of scale. it is self-evident that processed foods are cheaper per unit than not processed foods--this is a function of a series of *state* choices concerning what types of agricultural production would get subsidized and which would not the logic of which was put into place after world war 2 and then tweaked significantly in the early 1970s.

if i read similar complaints about the industrial food system--that choices are imposed on you--which they are, like it or not---to the complaints about csa or other sustainably grown food (sustainable being a problem meaning-wise i know) then the debate would make sense--but the idea that the industrial food system is a natural horizon and moves to introduce less processed foods a deviation from that natural horizon operates within a deep historical vacuum, and so makes no sense.

as if fast food is not an imposed range of choices--ridiculous.

kutulu · 08-08-2008, 02:18 PM

We did a CSA for a while also. The stuff was really good but I didn't like paying for a whole season up front ($20/week) and even though the stuff was good, we didn't get a lot of it. Therefore, it wasn't a good value for people like us on a budget.

08-06-2008, 01:59 PM	#84 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so yes, a supermarket chain deciding to shut down its outlets in poor urban neighborhoods is freedom, but a city acting to limit the impact of it (read the thread) is oppression. you libertarians make me laugh, dk. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-06-2008, 03:36 PM	#88 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	I have always maintained that nutrition is bullshit, but this thread is about politics, not nutrition. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

08-06-2008, 03:50 PM	#90 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Have you SEEN my diet? If I started eating healthy, I'd shrivel up! However, bring on the local politics discussion! __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

08-06-2008, 03:51 PM	#91 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	btw--hungry planet is a strange book--it appears to tell you more than it in fact tells you. i taught it last year in globalization and food courses you see. anyway, the way they did the photos was to buy the families a week's worth of groceries and get them to do the spreads for the photos. it's hard to say how representative of anything each photo is with reference to the family in it---there were no controls to speak of, no attempt to work out what a "typical" week was---and in alot of cases, the idea of buying a week's worth of groceries all at once was understood as quite a bizarre thing to do. where the book's probably most interesting as a document is across the images, which taken together function as a kind of index of the spread of the super/hypermarket model, so as a function of the rural/town-urban split(s). that said, as photos i kinda like them in a series. there's something curious about the sameness of the poses, the spreads of food more or less the same in their organization. one thing is real obvious, though--particularly if you read the essays in the book (not to mention if you've looked into this at all)---processed food may be cheaper, but that's a function of economies of scale and not in any way an indicator that they're at all good for anyone as food. and the processed foods are indicators of the extent of the supermarket system. and the supermarket system is about profit, not feeding people well. you could make the argument that people don't choose well--personally, i think that most folk want what they're told they want, what's presented to them as the range of things they want. people are adaptive like that. the irony is that in nutritional terms, many of the families outside the reach of capitalist food relations probably eat better than those who are sucked into them. in an american city, obviously, you are entirely inside that system unless you do considerable work to get out of it. and if you are in a poor neighborhood without supermarkets at all, without bodegas, without public transit, without much time, you are still inside that system. which feeds you shit. which you eat, being adaptive like that. because it is possible to opt out of the capitalist food system--by which i mean processed foods and the conventional supermarkets that present them to you instead of actual food---you can argue that there are bad choices. and you're right--but it's not right to stop there. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-06-2008, 07:44 PM	#94 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Here are my questions, since there seems to be an assumption that this is what the "locals" want. 1) What was the actual vote from the L.A. city council? 2) Which council members voted which way, and which areas do they represent? If the representatives of the people in the affected areas specifically did not vote for this, or if the "yea" voters were mostly from upper- or middle-class areas and the "nay" voters were from poorer areas, can we really say that this was fair by invoking democracy? __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

08-07-2008, 05:17 AM	#95 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	The Revis family spends $341.98, not $641.98. But yes, they buy a lot of crap. They also buy alot of fruit and they're in decent shape for such voracious sharks. The fact of the matter is that city council actions are supposed to allow public access and public input unless they are discussing personnel matters. A city council can't just close it's doors and make zoning changes. The council members were elected. They made a zoning change. It's perfectly legal and it is done all across America. Don't like zoning? Go live in the county. It's not mommy government, it just appears unusual. But it's up to your city council or county supervisor to decide if a Wal Mart can go here, or an insurance agency goes there. There are also rules on what kind of sign your business can have, the size of it, how many lights, whether it keeps with the town's ascetic.... Why is this case so special? This is what your local government does. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

08-07-2008, 06:32 AM	#97 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	My source was also Time.... I wonder what the deal is. If your city government is making zoning changes behind closed doors, it's against the law. Although I know it happened in massive amounts when the subway was being constructed. How closed are those doors? I know places I've covered there will be work sessions, but those are still announced and the doors are still kept open. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

08-08-2008, 07:13 AM	#99 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I've actually been doing a little experimenting with this. I've been alternating shopping between a cheap supermarket and a farmer's co-op. I bought two beef filets from th4e co-op for under $3. Tasted. Wonderful. Men's Health has said one of the most beneficial foods you can eat is 7 ounces of lean beef. I bought some beef from the supermarket with the goal to keep it under $3. It was fatty and tasted like shit. But I probably wouldn't have known that if I hadn't bought the co-op beef. It's the same with veggies, the co-op consistently costs less than the chains. I think if a co-op is available, or even a decent farmer's market, you can buy there for less, and get better quality, healthier food. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

08-08-2008, 07:49 AM	#100 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	there is currently a debate on a local board for my neighborhood about the use of CSAs. I don't doubt that they have better vegetables, but I don't have time to go to them nor do I "know" what I'm interested in preparing or making with the perishable goods. The upfront cost of the CSA is a bit steep, $500 for a full share and $350 for half. I also can say Skogafoss and I don't particularlly care for what vegetables I have seen come from the CSA. Since Skogafoss and I are very active in the city, we call our vegatable storage a rotter since I may purchase some nice vegetables only to discover a couple weeks later that I have completely forgotten them. Finally, good meat is good meat, period. If you can buy any beef for $3, I'm amazed. I'd also add that many people don't understand how to butcher, cut, prepare meat to make it useful even when it is a crappy fatty cut. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

08-08-2008, 08:04 AM	#101 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	at this point, i no longer understand what the debate is about. i was part of a csa in chicago for a couple years and found that it was a lovely arrangement--but that was because my preferences for food and ways of cooking meshed with what i was getting. in the end, you either explore options or you dont. i don't see where anyone is being forced to do anything. the cost of a csa or sustainably produced food as over against industrial food is a no-brainer---it is a simple matter of scale. it is self-evident that processed foods are cheaper per unit than not processed foods--this is a function of a series of state choices concerning what types of agricultural production would get subsidized and which would not the logic of which was put into place after world war 2 and then tweaked significantly in the early 1970s. if i read similar complaints about the industrial food system--that choices are imposed on you--which they are, like it or not---to the complaints about csa or other sustainably grown food (sustainable being a problem meaning-wise i know) then the debate would make sense--but the idea that the industrial food system is a natural horizon and moves to introduce less processed foods a deviation from that natural horizon operates within a deep historical vacuum, and so makes no sense. as if fast food is not an imposed range of choices--ridiculous. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-08-2008, 02:18 PM	#102 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	We did a CSA for a while also. The stuff was really good but I didn't like paying for a whole season up front ($20/week) and even though the stuff was good, we didn't get a lot of it. Therefore, it wasn't a good value for people like us on a budget.