The American Way of Eating: Undercover at Walmart, Applebee’s, Farm Fields and the Dinner Table | By Tracie McMillan | Scribner | 336 pages, $25.00
Irritating. That’s the word that comes to mind when reflecting on Tracie McMillan’s The American Way of Eating: Undercover at Walmart, Applebee’s, Farm Fields and the Dinner Table.
Irritating because McMillan goes undercover in order to determine why Americans as a whole—especially the poor—eat so badly. Except we’ve viewed or read parts of this story before in Morgan Spurlock’s series 30 Days, Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, and Robert Kenner’s Food, Inc., to name three examples. Throw in Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma and it’s increasingly unclear what else could be said about food that merits such continued attention.
Irritating because McMillan is a middle-class white woman who delves into the lives of the poor and because so many pious, holier-than-thou narratives use the poor to teach us life lessons. (Mercifully, she avoids preaching, and her secondary characters are largely engaging and well rounded, but the poverty tourism nonetheless is irksome.)
Finally, it’s irritating because despite its flaws, the book works. Its shortcomings make it easy to want to hate, but the story is captivating enough to engross and sway. But if the trade-off is reading again, for example, about Walmart’s competition-killing practices while learning the reasons fresh produce is harder to come by in Detroit, or how Applebee’s doesn’t cook its food so much as assemble it, the trade-off—suffering through some oft-told tales—seems fair.
While covering the poverty beat for a magazine, McMillan had a minor revelation when a teenaged interview subject with bad eating habits let her in on a secret: She eats poorly because it’s cheap. Vanessa, the young interviewee, loves fresh vegetables but can rarely afford them, and asks McMillan, “If you want people to eat healthy, why make it so expensive?” McMillan acknowledges Vanessa hasn’t said anything groundbreaking, but she’s hit on a truth: “Eating poorly is easier than eating well.”
It’s irritating—even disheartening—that, for many Americans, eating fast food or prepackaged food is a simpler, less headache-inducing (though possibly more artery clogging) alternative to searching out, purchasing, and then preparing fresh food. Why shouldn’t the poor have easy, affordable access to the same foods the affluent have? Everyone has to eat, and eating fast food each day may kill you (just ask Morgan Spurlock).
So McMillan goes undercover as a member of the working poor to determine why eating poorly is the standard and whether it’s possible to eat, for example, fresh produce while living off the wages earned by picking grapes in a field. She also picks peaches and garlic at California farms where she’s the only white person in the fields. (Her standard cover story is that she has lots of problems and doesn’t want to work at a job where she has to deal with customers.) She moves onto working at Walmart supercenters—the stores with groceries—in Michigan. Finally, she works the line at an Applebee’s restaurant in Brooklyn.
“What would it take for us to all eat well?” McMillan asks herself at her journey’s beginning. The low-paying jobs—she sets aside some startup cash in each location to find an apartment, but that’s about it—make it easier for her to live and spend as an actual farm worker, grocery clerk, or food runner would. In each location, McMillan charts her take-home pay and expenses, including her food budget. She does some meticulous planning to keep from going hungry in each spot. Not surprisingly, she hits some stumbling blocks.
Shortly after starting a stint cutting garlic, McMillan feels pain in her arm. “The pain is actually so great I cannot cut a single garlic stalk,” she writes. “This is all it took? Two weeks in the field and I’m debilitated.” She receives medical care—she has tennis elbow—but leaves farming. “It comes down to my arm or the fields,” she writes.
- 1
- 2
There are two pressures that shape the American diet.
1. The food budget - you've got to be able to afford the ingredients and equipment to prepare non-processed meals.
2. The time/effort budget - you've got to be able to afford the time and energy to prepare a meal. If you are exhausted from cutting garlic stalks all day, can you afford to sacrifice the time to make good food when you need to rest before starting your shift at your second job?
Unfortunately, for the worker and the poor, the choice between immediate exhaustion and future diabetes is not a really a choice once you hit your physical limits, and those limits are more frequently reached when the value of work drops near or below the cost of living.
Not that we care about those who fall behind the cost of living:
http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/welfare-reform-revisited-7949859
Meanwhile diabetes is just another externality to the makers of processed food. Chips and doughnuts don't carry a tax to reflect the cost their consumption brings to the medical system, vegetables and fruit don't carry a subsidy to reflect how their consumption can reduce the cost to the medical system.
You can't even get decent school lunches at the cost of "14 cents a meal" extra without "[f]ood companies including ConAgra, Del Monte Foods and makers of frozen pizza like Schwan" accusing the "Agriculture Department" of going "too far in trying to improve nutrition in school lunches."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/politics/congress-blocks-new-rules-on-school-lunches.html
Yeah, pink slime is just right for our kids needs. Anything healthier is radical and soshalist.
The American way of eating is driven by cheap labor buying cheap products provided by expensive interests who will generate expensive future costs to society.
As long as society functions on cheap labor serving expensive interests, with the government acting as a facilitator of the transactions, none of this is going to change.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 11 Apr 2012 at 03:27 PM
Speaking of pink slime:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/04/11/bad-meat-standards/
Whole bunch of worthwhile links to follow in that post.
And on the school lunch front, there are stories about LA school children rejecting healthy lunches and throwing them away. I got suspicious because in some of the reports, in the bottom paragraphs, they talk about how:
"some students said they still are not eating — including those who liked the food at the taste tests.
Andre Jahchan, a 16-year-old sophomore at Esteban Torres High School, said the food was "super good" at the summer tasting at L.A. Unified's central kitchen. But on campus, he said, the chicken pozole was watery, the vegetable tamale was burned and hard, and noodles were soggy.
"It's nasty, nasty," said Andre, a member of InnerCity Struggle, an East L.A. nonprofit working to improve school lunch access and quality. "No matter how healthy it is, if it's not appetizing, people won't eat it.""
So I started wondering if there were issues with food preparation. If the amount of skill required to pull off a good chicken pozole was more than the people - who were accustomed to making buckets of fries and pink slime burgers - had, then perhaps you had a low skill labor problem, not a menu problem. This is an interesting story worth exploring and I found one article that went into the issue a bit:
http://www.laweekly.com/2011-06-16/news/why-los-angeles-school-kids-get-lousy-meals/
A well written and multi-faceted look at how school lunches get done in LA, and it even covers chicken posole (posole, pozole, is a rose by any other name less tasty?).
Bottom line? Kids don't have the time to eat, schools don't have the kitchens to prepare (never mind the qualified staff), and kids don't have the necessary exposure to enjoy healthy foods.
We're teaching kids the American way to eat, and the way is in the microwave for 30 seconds and on the go.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 11 Apr 2012 at 08:44 PM
I bought, read, and liked Tracie McMillan's book. And I didn't find in it the superficiality which Riedel seems to think lies within.
I'd hoped she would choose to spend more time (at least twice as much as she did) in each position, but given the physical injuries she suffered in the fields, and the sexual assault she suffered from an Applebee's co-worker, I can't fault her in the least for choosing to limit her time spent in research.
I do fault any intelligent reader who thinks any less of her effort.
#3 Posted by Avery Johnson, CJR on Fri 4 May 2012 at 08:17 PM