purity is expensive
by jebni on January 17, 2004
Just returned from a nearby, self-described “organic fruit and vegetable market”, which was actually a health food store with a smattering of vegetables that were three times as expensive as the stuff we usually buy.
Tell me: how does this benefit anybody except those stupid white hippie yuppies with a large wallet and a sense of entitlement? And the pseduo-scientific-sounding “organic” label rankles as well. Uh, given that most food comes from some kind of lifeform, you’re pretty much guaranteed that it’s “organic”, you hippie dickheads. Sure, it’s a populist (and yet institutionally certified) corruption of “organically grown”, but that rankles as well; while I’m quite cognisant of the perils of capitalism’s destructive approach to the industrialisation of food, I find the assumption of a healthy, originary organicity — counterposed to “chemicals”, synthetic substances and genetic modification — dodgy at best, and utterly terrifying at worst, suggesting a feudal nostalgia.
This is bugs me so intensely because like many people living under late capitalism, I’m growing increasingly allergic to the sorts of preservatives, fertilizers and pesticides favoured by agribusiness. My current bind reminds me of a line (recalled from very hazy memory) in a paper by my old comrade Ben Ross: “While capitalism increasingly threatens the very capacity for the reproduction of life on this planet, I find it personally distressing that the available options for engaging with this problem consist of an assortment of tree-huggers and nature fetishists”. I’m with Farscape‘s D’Argo on this: “No offense, but I say we take this tree-hugger, shove him out the access port, and get the hezmana out of here.” But to where? That is the question.
6 comments
damn, good question indeed. Here in the US the issue is even further complicated by the fact that “organic” produce is increasingly coming from those same agribusiness that love the chemicals. Organic is now a means towards larger profit margins. Which takes the whole concept even further from the realm of reason and further into the twisted confines of ideology and marketing. No one seems to be asking the hard questions about what really is healthy for both humans and the artificial farm ecologies we rely upon for our survival…
by Abe on 17 January 2004 at 3:32 pm. #
mm, i dont think its so simple as merely an industry for yuppies. there is a tendency to go the whole ‘healthy, back to nature shtick’. But the development of the industry is not all bad. On the one hand, it is very much a lesser of two evils – industrial agriculture is really one of the worse things that is happening globally on the environmental side of things (I would add that the meat industries are by far the worse in my mind). A shift to a less destructive mode of cultivation can only be a good thing in the short term. Unfortunately, consumer demand is one way of ‘encouraging’ that shift. On the other, the development of a technology progresses either by necessity, or via direct investment. The more the ‘organic’ industry develops, the more attractive it is to adopt, the more it is adopted (and the less damage there is). And considering that there is actually a timeframe for life forms and their immanent destruction, and that the revolution (or the ‘true’ one comrades) is a little tardy in making its appearance, I would suggest that limited or stopping the damage now (or as soon as possible) would be a good idea. But that could just be me, and I’ve always been one to throw the ultra-leftists out the airlock before the hippies. ;-)
by nik on 19 January 2004 at 11:06 am. #
If it were simple, this situation wouldn’t be such a bind for me. (For a flat dismissal of organic/anti-GM hysteria, check out Warren Ellis’ recent screed on the matter. Nasty, nasty man :)… Pretty funny, tho.)
Nik, the planet might expire while the ultraleft ponders the purest praxis, but to put your trust in markets as decision-making mechanisms — and to then somehow see industry as being able to exponentially self-reproduce via direct (re)investment (i.e. the idea that “capital creates capital”) — isn’t “realism”, it’s a re-reification of the economy. I obviously can’t deny that certain industrial fluxes involving markets could yield practices that are less environmentally harmful, because this undoubtedly happens, but equally, they might not lead to significant change — how much is the current prestige niche market for “organic food” going to (a) give us non-poisonous produce that benefits people at large, rather than neurotic yuppies, and (b) actually allow the most immediate ravages of agribusiness on the wider environment to be averted? I’d think that prestige niche markets are more likely to stimulate “product-line diversification” than turn the tide in an industry, thus leaving the status quo fairly much intact.
by jebni on 20 January 2004 at 8:53 am. #
i’d never put my ‘trust’ into market forces. but i do believe in hedging my bets… i agree that prestige economies work in the way you describe, but i would say that not all organic industries are prestige economies. the recent growth of indian organics is in part a recognition of the limits of the industrial agriculture ‘revolution’ of the 70′s and an attempt to counter the falling harvets rates. similarly, the uptake of the ‘technology’ in australia in certain areas is also a result of the failings of industrial agriculture (but maybe im watching too much landline episodes..). prestige economics alone does not explain the growth of organics in my mind.
by n on 20 January 2004 at 10:08 am. #
If parts of the industry are grappling on a large scale with problems in traditional-industrio-agricultural approaches, then cool. But I’d think that’s far removed from the business of consumer demand. Meanwhile, I just want to smash windows. :)
by jebni on 20 January 2004 at 7:38 pm. #
totally, smashing things is the way of the future. i want to get all greek-anarchacist on their arse and burn their shit down. burning things is so under-rated. 04 is the year of the burn ;)
by nik on 21 January 2004 at 10:21 am. #