I do not believe that consumers are the main beneficiaries of recent trends in the centralisation and industrialisation of food production. Convenient, perhaps, but safe and affordable? At what price?

The big problem with the “all food is processed” and “everything is a chemical” arguments is that they fail to speak the same language as the people for whom “processed” and “chemical” have other meanings. I prefer to ask who benefits from the processing and the chemicals.

Where to push for greater food safety as food supply systems change is such a difficult question, as discussed in my podcast with Shirley Tarawali and Delia Grace @ILRI https://www.eatthispodcast.com/in-praise-of-meat-milk-and-eggs/

TIL that there is such a thing as a non-food interpretation of 🌮

Thanks. That's a very small part of his argument, and we've just had another good chat in which I asked specifically whether the UK could exclude or tax food imports. He said, absolutely. Look at Japan. Food is a strategic issue and outside the WTO. My fear remains that after Brexit there still won't be good food system policies.

Maybe it is because I had already noted a Washington Post piece about "real" food people ignoring the Magnolia cookbook, but I found Grant McCracken's piece about Martha Stewart doing the same so trenchant and also so sad. http://web.archive.org/web/20190514114829/https://medium.com/@grant27/martha-stewart-the-old-guard-d...