In Defense of Gwyneth and Accused Food Elitists (Foodists?)

I like Gwyneth Paltrow. I loved her in Shakespeare in Love and Great Expectations, and thought she rocked it on Glee. With Goop, I chalk up her highly-satirized ability to recommend $5,000 kitchen accessories or designer leather booties as 'essentials' as part of her privileged (albeit highly skewed) charm. I'm a fan of her turn as lifestyle maven; from macrobiotic to now sometime-gluten-dairy-wheat-free foodist, her highly-publicized diets have provoked my curiosity (I'm fascinated by nutrition and the effects of different foods on different bodies). I find it incredibly amusing when someone with Paltrow's visibility is called an elitist, privileged crackpot for her 'crazy' diet ideas - and subsequently sells millions of cookbooks and gets more people talking about whether gluten or dairy could also be their personal version of the digestive devil. Clearly, it pays to have a thick skin.

The core accusation underlying Gwyneth's criticism is that of elitism. How can she recommend a nutritional lifestyle that eschews so much (coffee, alcohol, gluten, wheat, dairy, deep-water fish, shellfish, meat, etc.) and costs so much, when the vast majority lacks access to her resources? I'm not denying there's a grain of truth behind that - it's true of many individuals that, with and increase in wealth, comes a loss of perspective on what is accessible and essential to the 'other half'. But there's a difference between sharing your informed choices and tools for feeling better with others - and shoving those choices and tools down their throats, then proceeding to look down on them for not making those same choices. Until I know or see that Gwyneth is doing the latter, I think the popular 'elitist' accusation is rather judgmental on its own - at least when it comes to her dietary choices.

The same accusation of elitism is also often flung at the far less 'elite' who chose a nutritional lifestyle that excludes certain foods or methods, focuses on others - and comes with a price tag. Grass-fed beef, Whole Foods, farmer's market and organic produce devotees are often labeled as privileged yuppies; partially because it's generally a particular socio-economic group that can afford these choices frequently, and partially (and more annoyingly to many) because they feel so good eating this way they can't stop talking about it. So, with generalizations like these, are we really saying that being selective about what you eat and where it comes from - and being willing to pay more for it - make you 'elitist'?

I believe people toss the 'elitist' label around not as an accusation towards someone that is able to afford their choices, but rather to draw a line to prevent those 'elite' choices from becoming the norm that they are now expected to afford and conform to (or be judged, tarred and feathered for if they don't). Which makes sense when we're talking about a $1,000+ handbag as a "weekend essential" - but ceases to make sense when you're talking about access to whole, organic, or non-GMO food as essential to your diet.

I think the problem is actually in our expectations of what is 'essential' and acceptable when it comes to food. Much of the food industry (admission: I've previously worked for it) has done a wonderful job convincing us that mass produced, chemically treated and processed foods are good enough for us because they are widely available, cheap to produce, and subsidized. And its not just the processed foods that come in boxes and cans - an entire agricultural ecosystem and food supply has been engineered to provide faster, cheaper and more profitable food product - corn and soy are plentiful because they're genetically modified to grow anytime, anywhere. Meat production is vastly industrialized and chickens are fed antibiotics and hormones to grow fatter, faster. But it's just that: food PRODUCT. Not whole, organic food that is susceptible to nature and takes time to grow, dependent upon climate and season. It's a product designed for business, and it's no wonder more people than ever have sensitivities and allergies to things like gluten or dairy - they've been processed and treated with chemicals that nature (and your digestive system) never intended. But you will eat it and you will like it, damn it. While the real food grown naturally, at lower volumes - but to the benefit of nature and the people that consume it - require a higher price tag to sell and sustain.

So perhaps we should drop the name-calling and 'elitist' moniker altogether when it comes to food and nutrition, and instead question the industrialization practices that have led us to believe that chemically treated, processed or genetically modified foods are perfectly acceptable. They're making many people sick. I don't know what the precise answer is to cleaning up the US food supply, but I know other countries have started by requiring GMO labeling on all food products. So what I choose to do is continue reading and informing myself on food industry practices, push for legally-mandated GMO labeling and vote with my dollars. I buy organic produce, grass-fed beef and wild-caught seafood, and forego certain foods completely. And yes, I'll be pulling out Gwyneth's cookbook for recipe inspiration :)

Would love your thoughts,
- Paloma