Walk into any health food store in the U.S., and you’ll see products like these:[ul][li]Fruitopia - for the mind, body, planet[/li][li]Rainforest Crunch[/li][li]Annie’s Peace Pasta (with a mail-in offer for a free “Be Green” bumper sticker)[/li]Certified Organic produce, with blurbs touting the environmental benefits of organic farming every bit as much as they tout the health benefits of not eating non-organic pesticides[/ul]Why is there this seeming link between “health food” and environmentalism, pacifism, and other notions commonly associated with left-wing politics? What does getting enough fiber in my diet have to do with voting for Ralph Nader or saving the ozone layer?
Well, it tells me that even the granola head crowd is not immune to obvious consumer manipulation. By appealing to the political, emotional and mental softspots of their market segment these hucksters are trying to ensure their own survival in the food chain (pardon the pun).
Capitalism uber al is!
Simple. We outlive you. We take over.
Aha! It’s a commie plot to make conservatives associate healthy eating with being a flaming hippie. Then, when all the conservatives die of colon cancer and congestive heart failure, the flaming hippies take over the world! 
Yep. You want fries with that?
Another way to frame the question might be:
Why are conservative or right-leaning people less inclined to be interested in health foods? It seems to me that eating quality foods, reducing pesticide consumption, weight loss, and longevity should be be issues that cross the political spectrum.
So I wonder what it is about conservative values that is incompatible with health food? BTW, I am the manager of a large local natural foods store, and I can definately say that 80% of the employees in the industry are left-leaning to say the least, and guess about the same percentage of the customers are. When I hire, I could care less about political beliefs, just show up on time and do the job. But that’s who applies.
One answer might lie in the coziness between the health food movement and the environmental movement. Why the environmetal movement is left-leaning opens another whole debate.
However, the local Chairwoman of the City Republican Party is a very regular shopper --(Not to mention Dave Matthews).
Conservatives don’t like change by definition. Moving to a non-“meat&potatos” diet is like converting to Hinduism for some.
It’s probably self reinforcing too. Because alternative diets are associated with alternative politics I’m sure some conservatives worry that switching to vegetarian or non-GE food might turn them into some kind of “tree-hugger”.
Most “Health Food” is a fraud.
Most Liberal political ideas today don’t work. (Many liberal political ideas that do work have already been implemented. Most of what remains isn’t realistic.)
The link is, Liberals are gullible.
Well, december makes an unshakeable case. Such clarity! So much irrefutable evidence!
I’m convinced.
Oh yeah, december just reminded me. Most conservatives like to wear blinders and not think of the future consequences of actions. Therefore “hamburger tastes good now” equals “hamburger is good”.
This is an interesting question. I wonder if this is a matter of regional political and cultural preferences having influence over diet, more than a real “liberals like health food” preference. Is it that the Midwest and the South have different cultures, and, thus, different diets than the East and West Coasts? (There are pockets of interest even in the Midwest that are interested in organic / health food, and they don’t correspond directly with liberalism – I was surprised to see the number of natural food stores in northern Wisconsin, for example.)
I think another link may be that vegetarianism and natural foods are linked in the minds of many. As a vegetarian, it has only been recently that I have been able to get a lot of products directly intended for the vegetarian market in major stores. It hasn’t been that long since I’ve had to make a special trip for Gardenburgers and such at the local natural foods store. Liberalism is linked with vegetarianism and ecological interests; surely, that’s a factor.
I could also see this as a product of the connection between age and political leaning. Younger people are often the buyers of natural and organic foods, and are more likely to abandon the “meat and potatoes” type of food favored by our parents’ generation. The young also tend to be more liberal; hence, liberalism is connected with natural/health/organic foods (which are “new”).
Also, eating organic foods is often not a health-driven decision. It would make sense that this would occur more among liberals, as they are more associated with environmental concern and conservation. This would seem to be a very likely reason for the correlation.
No, liberalism or radical environmentalism does not cure the influence of marketing and, as QuickSilver put it, “consumer manipulation”. However, it’s obvious (despite december’s half-hearted claims to the contrary) that this is hardly evidence of liberals being more gullible than anything else. Think of how often “old-fashioned”, “country style”, “homestyle”, or “traditional” feature on food products.
Since there’s no shortage of WAG’s so far, I’ll add another. The conservative philosophy is tied to the idea that the individual should choose for him or herself and receive the consequences. The liberal philosophy is that individuals must be protected from themselves, hence pushing any idea that is considered ‘good for you.’
It doesn’t help that yesterday’s health food fad is rejected today as being scientifically unsound.
Actually, I’d like to point out that there are some conservatives who are big on health food, vitamins, alternative medecine etc. In particular, survivalists (who are usually right wing) are big on simple nutrition, multivitamins, et cetera. Moreover, some groups that overlap with survivalism (including some militias and white supremacist groups) also follow the same line. For a fairly extreme exapmple of this, Clay Douglas, far right loony extraordinaire, has his own line of nostrums that he promotes via his magazine and radio broadcasts. I think that in general, however, the reason for health foods’ association with the left wing has a lot to do with its association with left wing hippies especially.
Linda McCartney was a vegetarian and health food nut since before most people even heard of the stuff.
Shouldn’t she have lived a little longer?
Maybe? :smack:
To avoid hijacking this thread for political issues unrelated to the topic at hand, I’ve put my reply to this post in in this Pit thread. Enjoy.
Having spent almost the last fifteen years in the health food profession, I resent the statement that most health food is fraud—no matter how dubious the source of the statement.
The majority of the “health” food we sell is accepted readily by the scientific community as being good for the consumer–especially in comparison to the average American meal. Whole grains are good. Fresh produce is good. Snacks for kids (and adults) without a lot of sugar are good. Packaged foods without a lot of processed ingredients and empty calories are good. Less red meat in the diet is good.
Sure there are health food advocates that die young just like there are smokers who live to ripe old ages. If you want guarantees, try religion. However, the majority of Americans eat poorly and their health is adversely affected by it. Just because studies often contradict each other is no reason to throw up one’s hands and down another Big Mac.
Eating health food will likely help you live a longer and better life. Many health food customers like organic foods for a variety of reasons. This debate has come up many times in GD, and it serves no purpose to bring it up again. For me personally, its an environmental issue. Wasn’t there a report out just this week stating that there were no longer any streams left in the Continental USA free from pesticide contamination?
Our store supports local small farmers. We purchase from other local venders in part to help support a local independent economy. You often get same-day picked local produce from your small independent health food stores. Some vitamins in fresh produce break down quickly. It’s nutritionally better to buy and eat fresh foods.
You can point to the occasional dubious claims of various hucksters regarding certain supplements and herbs. Fine. We’re glad to have these people and their products off the market. I sure don’t see any more fraudulant claims in the health food business than I see in the marketing and promotion of conventional foods. However, to therefore portray health food and the people who sell it as frauds— that’s way out of line. I’d further wager that most conservatives would not label health food that way at all.
Conservatives can eat twigs too. In and of itself, ‘health food’ does not make one conservative or liberal.
Of course, your position on imposing a ‘fat tax’ on what some people deem to be unhealthy does tend to point you out as a liberal or conservative.
Modern factory farming with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and antibiotics only came into widepsread use in the mid-20th century and thereafter. Previous to that, from time out of mind until sometime before World War II, all food was “natural,” “organically grown,” “whole food” — only that folks didn’t know it. To them, in those simpler times, it was just “food.”
Likewise, until the second decade of the 20th century, medicaments were mostly herbal, botanical. Modern pharmaceuticals didn’t displace herbal medicine until—again—the 1920s or 1930s.
So when Jethro Kloss wrote Back to Eden in the 1930s, he was calling for a reversal of recent trends, for people to get back to natural ways that were still fresh in living memory. Whole grains, unprocessed food, natural herbal medicine. Kloss was a fundamentalist Christian, a strictly foursquare hidebound conservative in his social attitudes. For him, the older, natural ways of his grandparents down on the farm in Wisconsin were part of his old-timey Christian faith.
Then in the 1960s and 70s, the hippies rediscovered Back to Eden and the book was reprinted many times as it went through a fresh burst of popularity. One way the youth rebellion counterculture found expression was in crunchy granola (advocated by Jethro Kloss, who published granola recipes), whole grains, unprocessed food, and natural herbal healing. It was all of a piece with preferring the humble, common folk over the big-business Establishment. Just as the New Left’s origin was tied in with the acoustic-guitar folk music of the early 60s. Blue jeans and granny dresses replaced three-piece suits.
By then, the older generation who had been brought up to believe that Science! Technology! Industry! Plastics! Synthetics! Atoms! were the outward signs of capitalist America’s postwar success (there’s the infamous “Puritan ethic” rearing its head), and their capitalist, establishment ideals were invested in the domination of Big Business, Big Industry, Big Agriculture, along with the war in Vietnam. The New Left youth counterculture rebelled against all that. Yes, the hippies and yippies in their “granny dresses” and “granny glasses” and crunchy organic back-to-nature lifestyle.
Now, who are the real conservatives here?
In Jethro Kloss’s time, the sweeping away of the old ways by plastic/synthetic/Big Business was the radical modern Wave Of The Future, which old-timey Jethro protested in vain. But by the 1960s, it had become The Establishment, something for conservatives to try to hang onto.
Meaning that the term “conservative” has a way of shifting in meaning, depending on the time frame and cultural circumstances.
It’s just like beards on men and makeup on women. In 1880, it was normal for all men to have beards. Including the staunch conservative Christians and Republicans. With the dawn of the 20th century, beards went out of fashion, and eventually, the “Christian fundamentalists” and “Mormons” and “conservatives” had banned beards, and the only beards to be seen were on rebellious beatniks!!!
In 1900, no respectable conservative Christian woman would dare to wear makeup. Only a “fallen woman,” a “scarlet woman,” as they said back then, would be seen in makeup. Fast-forward to the 1970s, and “conservative,” “Republican” women are expected to wear makeup. Only a hippie chick, a nature-child on a commune, would dare to go without. (Leaving aside Pentecostals for the moment.)
In India, vegetarianism is the province of stodgy archconservative Hindus, while the younger, snazzier, hip, Zee-TV generation often forsakes vegetarianism and chows down on Big Macs. I haven’t seen much evidence that anyone in India is yet conscious of the natural foods or organically-grown movement such as it is known in America and Europe. However, the same Western natural foods movement loves to adopt Hindu vegetarian food. Just goes to show that this whole question is culturally contextual.
[minor hijack to respond to hijack]
Enjoy the pit fluiddruid. When you want a civilized discussion, take it out of the basement.
[/hijack]
Um, as an active Mormon, I can positively state that Mormons never “banned” beards. Joseph Smith in fact, was clean shaven all his life (granted, he died in 1848).