Stephen Schneider’s article, Good, Clean, Fair: The Rhetoric of the Slow Food Movement, is dynamic and discerning. He provides a strong foundation and framework with which to explore the Slow Food Movement, and he is not afraid to showcase contradictions and criticisms. My understanding of Schenider’s assertions including the origin, mindset, concerns, goals, and criticism are as follows:
The Slow Food Movement was started by Carlo Petrini in the 1970s and traces back to Bra, Italy due to its ideal location. The motivation behind this movement is based in educating and shifting the mindset of the public to reflect a stronger connection between consumers and producers. Carlo Petrini urges people to consider “food [as the] primary defining factor of human identity” (388). He argues this claim based upon food’s ties to economic, political, and social acts. Specifically, Petrini admires Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin for the angle she takes on gastronomy, for she considered a complete study of food to include things beyond nutrition like “agriculture, cooking, and tasting” (391). Having said this, the Slow Food Movement is not against science so long as it complements tradition; likewise, this movement does not stand in opposition to globalization, for it finds globalization necessary to the extent that it promotes relationships between the varied partners in food production and consumption. It is important, however, to continue the discussion of the Slow Food Movement to include its main concerns and goals. As a result of food being tainted with alterations for efficiency, “the small landowner gives way to the factory farm, which churns out food that is fast, cheap, abundant, and standardized” (394). Clearly, the word fast is a stark contradiction to the objective of the Slow Food Movement. Carl Honore offers a clear distinction between fast and slow:
Fast is busy, controlling, aggressive, hurried, analytical, stressed, superficial, impatient, active, quantity-over-quality. Slow is the opposite: calm, careful, receptive, still, intuitive, unhurried, patient, reflective, quality-over-quantity. It is about making real and meaningful connections—with people, culture, work, food, everything (395).
Admittedly, the food production industry, alongside many consumers, prefers to follow Bill Gates’ “desire to do business at the speed of thought” (393). This is detrimental to the idea of changing the perspective on food as well as goes against the core values of the Slow Food Movement. For one, this movement begs both producers and consumers to consider three principles when describing the quality of food- flavor, environment, and farmers (390). Pursuing this further, Petrini strives to use his movement to promote small-scale farmers and regionally grown food. All things considered, the Slow Food Movement has not escaped criticism. Critics claim that there is a lack of structure, an inability to see the big picture, and an ignorance toward realistic thinking; yet the Slow Food Movement continues to push forward, educating and advocating for the death of the disconnect and fast-paced food production.
The Slow Food Movement was started by Carlo Petrini in the 1970s and traces back to Bra, Italy due to its ideal location. The motivation behind this movement is based in educating and shifting the mindset of the public to reflect a stronger connection between consumers and producers. Carlo Petrini urges people to consider “food [as the] primary defining factor of human identity” (388). He argues this claim based upon food’s ties to economic, political, and social acts. Specifically, Petrini admires Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin for the angle she takes on gastronomy, for she considered a complete study of food to include things beyond nutrition like “agriculture, cooking, and tasting” (391). Having said this, the Slow Food Movement is not against science so long as it complements tradition; likewise, this movement does not stand in opposition to globalization, for it finds globalization necessary to the extent that it promotes relationships between the varied partners in food production and consumption. It is important, however, to continue the discussion of the Slow Food Movement to include its main concerns and goals. As a result of food being tainted with alterations for efficiency, “the small landowner gives way to the factory farm, which churns out food that is fast, cheap, abundant, and standardized” (394). Clearly, the word fast is a stark contradiction to the objective of the Slow Food Movement. Carl Honore offers a clear distinction between fast and slow:
Fast is busy, controlling, aggressive, hurried, analytical, stressed, superficial, impatient, active, quantity-over-quality. Slow is the opposite: calm, careful, receptive, still, intuitive, unhurried, patient, reflective, quality-over-quantity. It is about making real and meaningful connections—with people, culture, work, food, everything (395).
Admittedly, the food production industry, alongside many consumers, prefers to follow Bill Gates’ “desire to do business at the speed of thought” (393). This is detrimental to the idea of changing the perspective on food as well as goes against the core values of the Slow Food Movement. For one, this movement begs both producers and consumers to consider three principles when describing the quality of food- flavor, environment, and farmers (390). Pursuing this further, Petrini strives to use his movement to promote small-scale farmers and regionally grown food. All things considered, the Slow Food Movement has not escaped criticism. Critics claim that there is a lack of structure, an inability to see the big picture, and an ignorance toward realistic thinking; yet the Slow Food Movement continues to push forward, educating and advocating for the death of the disconnect and fast-paced food production.