Dictionary.com defines a foodie as: “A person who has an ardent or refined interest in food; a gourmet.” Since this may be somewhat unclear on what “a refined interest in food” means, a definition of gourmet, (the definition of foodie implies these words are interchangeable), will be provided to clear up any misunderstandings. Dictionary.com defines a gourmet as “A connoisseur of fine food and drink; and epicure.” Since the definition of a connoisseur is someone who is fit to pass critical responses on things, a person must have adequate experience consuming fine food and drink in order to be considered a connoisseur of fine food. Quite clearly and intuitively, it is apparent that for someone to adequately fit the definition of a “connoisseur of fine food and drink” they must have a truly disposable income to splash on more expensive food products, but this is impossible for most people in the world. The majority of the world in the 21st century barely has enough income to get by, and everyday is a constant struggle for survival. Money is only spent on the necessary items to live, so for these unfortunate people food only serves one purpose: providing the necessary nutrition for survival. Unfortunately many people still cannot acquire enough food to prevent starvation which results in malnutrition and sometimes even death. If people do not have the money to acquire enough food to keep themselves alive then they surely don’t have enough money to spend on fine food and drink. In theory it may be very easy to mistakenly believe that being a foodie requires nothing more than a good appetite, but the cold hard truth is that lots of people do not even have the income to provide enough food to adequately nourish themselves, much less the income to dapple in fine food and drink.
In almost every country in the world, there is some degree of poverty, but it is much more conspicuous in some countries than others. One country which has an ungainly amount of poverty, and a large population who clearly don’t have the income to considered foodies, is Haiti. The numbers are staggering, 76% of the people in Haiti live on a daily income of less than $2 U.S. and 56% live on less than $1 U.S. per day (“Haiti”, 1). As a result of this the people of Haiti do not have the money to buy enough food and are severely malnourished. About 5 to 9 percent of children suffer from acute malnutrition, and chronic malnutrition affects 24 percent of the population (“Haiti, 1). Starvation in Haiti has gotten so bad that some people are even forced to eat mud to try to keep themselves alive (Niman 1). This information alone should be more than enough to support the fact that a person needs some sort of minimum income to become a foodie. It is impossible to be considered a connoisseur of fine food and drink when one is starving, malnourished, and so poor they have to eat mud in a hapless attempt to feel full. Mud isn’t even a food, though eating mud gives the allusion of being full, it contains no nutritional value whatsoever and many people in Haiti end up starving to death. A good guess as to how many of those people were foodies: zero. For starving people in Haiti, anything that most Americans would call food would seem nothing short of heaven, so it would surely seem incorrect to call these people “connoisseurs of fine food and drink.” This is nothing against them as a people, surely one or two of them could have developed a Ruth Reichl like taste index and become superb foodies. They only thing lacking is the proper income to be able to eat.
People arguing the opposite position might label the situation in Haiti as an extreme situation and a worst case scenario exception but the truth is that this is not only happening in Haiti, but all around the world. A significant percentage of people in the world do not have enough money to spend on enough food to keep them nourished, let alone become connoisseurs of fine food and drink. Southern Africa is another place which is hard hit by starvation, and another place where being a foodie is impossible for many people. The only difference between problems here and in Haiti is that many more people are affected in Southern Africa. 16 million people are threatened by starvation and the death toll for starvation and malnutrition could be as high as a staggering 50,000 people a month, 50,000 people a month and this only includes one part of Africa (Fleshman 1). The reason for this is that the people there are very poor, as African nations continuously fill the U.N.’s top 25 poorest nations list. Once again, a person cannot be expected to be able to regularly consume fine food and drink when they can’t buy enough food to keep them alive, especially when people like this (in third world countries) spend an average of 50 to 80 percent of their income on food, compared to about 10 percent for the more foodie friendly country of the United States (Niman 1).
Surely intelligent supporters of the opposite side of the argument will come up with apparently logical counter arguments that might seem at first to make sense to the uninformed observer. They will no doubt be laid out in the best possible manner. The only problem is they are mostly wrong. The opposite side will most likely make the claim that the reason why nations such as Africa are impoverished and starving has to do with the failure of their agricultural system. They could argue that their failure to produce their own crops has led to their starvation and subsequent lack of ability to become foodies, and money had nothing to do with it. However in the modern world of international trade this argument loses its standing. If the people living in Africa and Haiti were very rich, they could afford to import most of their food products. People might say that this is dysfunctional because it is too expensive, but that is often not the case. In 2005 the United States imported about 16% of its food by volume, but only 6% by cost (Jerardo 1). Clearly importing foods is not always more costly, but the reason why countries like Haiti and African countries can’t import enough food to feed their people is that they don’t have enough money to compete with richer nations like the United States, who will always pay a higher price. There is a limited amount of food on this earth, and it is generally distributed based on wealth. Richer nations like the U.S. can consume loads of food, and starvation is not as widespread a problem. If an average American is interested food, they have the ways and the means (money) to pursue this interest become a foodie. In poorer nations, starvation is a huge problem, and many people there likely have no idea what a foodie is nor have any interest in how food tastes, as long as it keeps them alive.
Someone of the opposite side might counter all of the points that have been introduced so far by saying that this discussion should be limited only to people who have realistic opportunities to become foodies, or in other words people in developed countries. This point of view is extremely flawed. There is no good reason why this discussion should only be limited to people who live in richer countries, and any attempt to do so would destroy the premises of this argument. Clearly a lack of money inhibits people who are starving from being foodies, but the opposite side may ignore these people either because they overlook them or because they don’t see them fit to include in the discussion. The former is innocent naivety, the latter is malicious disregard. Also, even if Americans are the only people taken into consideration, there are even some Americans who lack the socioeconomic status to become foodies. Though hunger in America is clearly not at the same horrible level in Africa or Haiti, according to the Associated Press one in eight Americans were not adequately fed before the economic crash of 2008 (“More Americans Went Hungry this year,” 1). The number likely got worse after the economic downturn. Once again becoming a foodie is difficult when a person does not even have the funds to properly feed themselves, and there is no way around this point.
In order to fulfill the definition of a foodie and have knowledge of fine food and drink one must clearly have a fairly high socioeconomic status on a world scale. This cannot include the people all around the world who are starving because they cannot afford enough food to nourish themselves. In order to fulfill the requirement of a foodie, an effective connoisseur of fine food and drink, at bare minimum, one must be well fed. The fact that a significant amount of the world population does not meet this requirement is more than enough proof that it takes some socioeconomic standing to become a foodie. It easy to believe that a quiet American suburb is a microcosm of the world and that everyone has the opportunity to explore the tastes they like and dabble in the art of food, but this, however, this is sadly not the case. Not when millions of people are starving in Haiti, Africa, America, and nearly every other place in the world because they don’t have enough money to spend on food.
References:
Fleshman, Michael. "Millions Threatened With Starvation." United Nations.org. United Nations, Sept. 2002. Web. 24 Oct. 2009. http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol16no2/%20.
"Foodie." Dictionary.Reference.com. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foodie.
"Gourmet." Dictionary.Reference.com. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gourmet.
"Haiti." World Food Program.org. World Food Program, 2009. Web. 24 Oct. 2009. http://www.wfp.org/countries/%20.
Jerardo, Andy. "What Share of U.S. Food is Imported." U.S. Department of Agriculture.gov. U.S.D.A., Feb. 2008. Web. 24 Oct. 2009. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/%20.
"More American Kids Went Hungry Last Year." MSNBC.com. MSNBC, 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
Niman, Michael I. "Food Fight." Artvoice, 7 May 2008. Web. 24 Oct. 2009. http://artvoice.com/issues/v7n19/getting_a_grip#.
No comments:
Post a Comment