New York Times columnist Mark Bittman unfortunately misses the point when he argues that healthy food is in fact less expensive the unhealthy food. His solution, that all that needs to change is the consumer culture surrounding food, privileges consumer activism over more substantial interventions such as changing production systems or the farm bill. Bittman is arguing, like most bourgeoisie, that all we need for food outcomes to change is for the poor to adopt the culture of the middle class and wealthy. This disavows bearers of this "legitimate culture" from any responsibility for food systems change, placing the onus squarely on the shoulders of the poor.
Bourdieu has shown that the poor and working people develop a taste for necessity. The most basic foods that are high in salt, sugars, and fats are the easiest to prepare and the most readily accessible; therefore, working class food culture emerges around the consumption and preparation of this sort of food. This culture is a function of the social position of the bearer of working class culture.
The best and most lasting way to change the food practices associated with working class culture is to change the social position of the bearer of that culture. In other words, wealth and prestige are far more important in transforming unhealthy food practices than somehow getting the poor to change their culture. Culture does not change in the manner that Bittman proposes - it changes in concert with changes in the social structure; also, it is quite patronizing to tell poor and working people how to eat.
What should be the focus instead is the creation of an urban food system in so-called food deserts that will increase incomes and remove the stigma of poor and working people. People's culture will then change as a result, becoming congruent with a food system that produces both good jobs and healthy food.
