What do you think?
Rate this book
A Matter of Taste: A Farmers' Market Devotee's Semi-Reluctant Argument for Inviting Scientific Innovation to the Dinner Table
How farmer's markets and organic produce became synonymous with "good food" and why they shouldn't be. How did farmer's markets, nose-to-tail, locavorism, organic eating, CSAs, whole foods, and Whole Foods become synonymous with “good food”? And are these practices really producing food that is morally, environmentally, or economically sustainable? Rebecca Tucker's compelling, reported argument shows that we must work to undo the moral coding that we use to interpret how we come by what we put on our plates. She investigates not only the danger of the accepted rhetoric, but the innovative work happening on farms and university campuses to create a future where nutritious food is climate-change resilient, hardy enough to grow season after season, and, most importantly, available to all―not just those willing or able to fork over the small fortune required for a perfect heirloom tomato. Tucker argues that arriving at that future will require a broad cognitive shift away from the idea that farmer's markets, community gardens, and organic food production is the only sustainable way forward; more than that, it will require the commitment of research firms, governments, corporations, and post-secondary institutions to develop and implement agriscience innovations that do more than improve the bottom line. A Matter of Taste asks us to rethink what good food really is.
136 pages, Paperback
Published December 11, 2018
53 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 18, 2019
To be honest, I had to force myself to read this entire book since I had agreed to review it. I was frequently annoyed with the author and found her to be pompous, snarky and flat out irritating.
To start, the author is not really a "farmer's market devotee" at all. She seems to have been one in the past but she frequently insults everything about the culture. She suggests that most people who shop at farmer's markets and buy organics are basically rich and shallow and doing it so we can post perfect looking "market hauls" to Instagram. She blasts farmer's markets as overpriced and unsustainable, and makes it sound as if you need to be a multi-millionaire to afford an organic peach. She frequently makes fun of her teenage self who apparently wore "an infected nose ring" to seem cool and cared about green issues, which was just off-putting, as if it was okay to insult people who care about these issues if she says she was once one of them.
The disdain this woman holds for those of us who care about organic foods is palpable. She is NOT currently in this camp and it's frankly slimy to pretend that she still is in order to push her agenda.
Tucker is from a large Canadian city where I'm sure the farmers markets are pricey, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to find organics at lower costs. I frequently give advice on how to do that on our family blog and even have a Facebook page where I share tips about how I feed our large family mostly organic for around $100 a week or less.
Tucker quotes famous food authors heavily, but she seems to have an irrational bitterness towards them. While she clearly grew up with a mother who cared about health and grew/cooked mostly very healthy, whole foods (and seems to still get along with her poor mother, whom I actually identified with more than I did with the author), she almost seems personally offended by the entire organic/slow/natural food movement.
She even says at one point that she has to get "snarky" for a minute and I snorted out loud because the entire book seems to be composed of nothing but her getting snarky, but in a really intellectual way like you're reading a really opinionated person's doctoral thesis.
Towards the end of the book, Tucker goes into why we are all idiots for not embracing genetic engineering. She goes off on anti-GMO folks and anti-vaxxers (what exactly do vaccines have to do with the food industry?) and is smug and preachy -- even though she admits that she has no idea at all about the safety of genetically engineered foods and has chosen to take the word of people who tell her that they're safe.
Along the way she also says that science says we couldn't feed the planet if we went vegetarian or vegan because we need meat for the high calories it provides, among other things. She also says Monsanto is supporting specialized technology that can help us feed the planet (besides their GMO and Roundup enterprises). She never says a word about the health risks of pesticides, to those who eat foods raised with them or for the workers whose health is compromised by them.
Tucker also takes offense at the idea of labeling foods as "good" or "bad." A lot. That's quite a long winded diatribe that I don't have the energy to repeat.
As a mother of five who feeds my kids mostly organic foods while living on a very small income, I cannot tell you how often I took offense at this book. It read like a really long op-ed and offered nothing but snobbish anti-organic derision.
I can tell you that it is quite possible to eat healthy food on a budget. If the author wanted to actually help people do that, she could have asked those of us who do it. She doesn't seem to really want to know though, but rather wants to find an excuse to go back to eating her Triscuits. That's absolutely fine, but she doesn't need to write a book to insult those of us who make different choices and she certainly doesn't need to pretend that it's not possible to eat good (yes, good) food on a budget.
I read a temporary digital ARC of this book for the purpose of review.
To start, the author is not really a "farmer's market devotee" at all. She seems to have been one in the past but she frequently insults everything about the culture. She suggests that most people who shop at farmer's markets and buy organics are basically rich and shallow and doing it so we can post perfect looking "market hauls" to Instagram. She blasts farmer's markets as overpriced and unsustainable, and makes it sound as if you need to be a multi-millionaire to afford an organic peach. She frequently makes fun of her teenage self who apparently wore "an infected nose ring" to seem cool and cared about green issues, which was just off-putting, as if it was okay to insult people who care about these issues if she says she was once one of them.
The disdain this woman holds for those of us who care about organic foods is palpable. She is NOT currently in this camp and it's frankly slimy to pretend that she still is in order to push her agenda.
Tucker is from a large Canadian city where I'm sure the farmers markets are pricey, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to find organics at lower costs. I frequently give advice on how to do that on our family blog and even have a Facebook page where I share tips about how I feed our large family mostly organic for around $100 a week or less.
Tucker quotes famous food authors heavily, but she seems to have an irrational bitterness towards them. While she clearly grew up with a mother who cared about health and grew/cooked mostly very healthy, whole foods (and seems to still get along with her poor mother, whom I actually identified with more than I did with the author), she almost seems personally offended by the entire organic/slow/natural food movement.
She even says at one point that she has to get "snarky" for a minute and I snorted out loud because the entire book seems to be composed of nothing but her getting snarky, but in a really intellectual way like you're reading a really opinionated person's doctoral thesis.
Towards the end of the book, Tucker goes into why we are all idiots for not embracing genetic engineering. She goes off on anti-GMO folks and anti-vaxxers (what exactly do vaccines have to do with the food industry?) and is smug and preachy -- even though she admits that she has no idea at all about the safety of genetically engineered foods and has chosen to take the word of people who tell her that they're safe.
Along the way she also says that science says we couldn't feed the planet if we went vegetarian or vegan because we need meat for the high calories it provides, among other things. She also says Monsanto is supporting specialized technology that can help us feed the planet (besides their GMO and Roundup enterprises). She never says a word about the health risks of pesticides, to those who eat foods raised with them or for the workers whose health is compromised by them.
Tucker also takes offense at the idea of labeling foods as "good" or "bad." A lot. That's quite a long winded diatribe that I don't have the energy to repeat.
As a mother of five who feeds my kids mostly organic foods while living on a very small income, I cannot tell you how often I took offense at this book. It read like a really long op-ed and offered nothing but snobbish anti-organic derision.
I can tell you that it is quite possible to eat healthy food on a budget. If the author wanted to actually help people do that, she could have asked those of us who do it. She doesn't seem to really want to know though, but rather wants to find an excuse to go back to eating her Triscuits. That's absolutely fine, but she doesn't need to write a book to insult those of us who make different choices and she certainly doesn't need to pretend that it's not possible to eat good (yes, good) food on a budget.
I read a temporary digital ARC of this book for the purpose of review.
August 3, 2021
I came from a similar southern Ontario town and had a similar upbringing as the author, which meant the book met me where I was with my understanding of “good” and “bad” food and my perspective on what choices I should be making as a consumer. The book had an overall goal of helping the consumer grasp the role of technology in food production and criticize their own habits (what does ethical food consumption actually mean—farmers markets?? Locavorism?? Artificial meat??—and what do some major food thinkers have to say about it), which came across without being preachy. If you’re someone who tries to make “good” food choices when shopping, I think you’ll find this book interesting.
January 21, 2024
The conclusion was honestly the best part but this book covered a variety of topics surrounding food sustainability and technology
February 22, 2019
It is refreshing to see someone looking at the "clean food" movement from the perspective of reality -- how this fits in with our modern lives. Organic and non-GMO fruits and vegetables aren't always better for us or for the environment. They can be less sustainable and they can be more expensive, making it harder for people with lower incomes to access fresh foods. I found the author to be well-informed and her arguments are well-supported, with references and quotes from people on both sides of the discussion.
We each need to make decisions about what we put into our bodies based on what we believe is best for us, but sometimes we need to cut through the hype and recognize it for what it is, and when something is a real concern and when it is just marketing and food-shaming.
We each need to make decisions about what we put into our bodies based on what we believe is best for us, but sometimes we need to cut through the hype and recognize it for what it is, and when something is a real concern and when it is just marketing and food-shaming.
February 14, 2019
I am reviewing this book ‘A Matter of Taste’ for Rebecca Tucker, Coach House Books and NetGalley who gave me a copy of their book for an honest review.
I don’t think the author came out with anything groundbreaking in this book. Everything she says made sense such as more focus required towards genetically modified foods to help shortage and future problems. There are mentions of other books too so you dig deeper if you require more info. To me though, there was plenty of information here. I also expected the book to have some pictures and images in it.
I don’t think the author came out with anything groundbreaking in this book. Everything she says made sense such as more focus required towards genetically modified foods to help shortage and future problems. There are mentions of other books too so you dig deeper if you require more info. To me though, there was plenty of information here. I also expected the book to have some pictures and images in it.
April 27, 2019
This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking look at our food prejudices (good/bad foods) and ideas for identifying food problems and solutions.
December 15, 2018
What we eat has become a moral issue of the kind that makes life harder for people whose life is already hard. Nearly everyone laments the loss of the family farm to big industrial farming, displacing the agrarian life with Roundup Ready crops and maltreatment of poultry and livestock. We want to eat good food, not just food that is healthy for us, but also safe for the environment, our communities, and the world. We want our food to taste good and feel good at the same time. In A Matter of Taste. Rebecca Tucker looks at how framing food as morally good or bad has kept us from addressing urgent issues such as how to ensure the billions of people on our planet have healthy and nutritious food while reducing damage to the environment and to our climate.
We have come to see some food as good and other food as bad on a moral level. This is a morality reserved for those who can afford to pay high prices for artisanal, organic, locally-sourced foods. As someone who relies on Food Bank’s Harvest Share to make my food dollars stretch, I think a system that requires disposable income to be “good” is not really a moral system, it’s a system of in-group and out-group class markers. Being able to name the farm where your heirloom tomato was grown is the Hermes bag of the comfortable class.
Additionally, the idea that slow and local is more sustainable than large and distant is not necessarily correct. We assume it is better for the environment to produce 1000 tomatoes that travel 50 miles than 10,000,000 tomatoes that travel 4,000 miles but really, which contributes more to climate change? If a large-scale farmer uses a high tech combine to make sure he is seeding the optimum seeds per acre using GPS and years of data, reducing waste and water, isn’t that better for the environment? We disparage the employment of underpaid migrant workers and ignore the employment of unpaid interns. The problem is, sometimes small is not better and sometimes the technologies that repel those infatuated with the agrarian past are better for the environment.
We need better, more honest conversations about how we plan to feed our growing world population, but those conversations won’t happen so long as there is a Manichean divide between good food and bad food.
As someone who relies on the Food Bank and Harvest Share’s produce to stretch my food dollar, I have no idea where my fruits and vegetables are sourced, but I assume that they won’t be classified as morally good. I reject any system that ascribes a negative moral value to not being able to afford expensive food. So, you would think I would love A Matter of Taste, but I did not.
I found much of the book interesting and I agree with Tucker that we need a middle ground that is not fractured by moralistic judgments. However, I think she wrote the book before she has settled her own mind. You see, she wants the morally good food, the locally-grown, the organic, the know-your-farmer food. She just does not want to be judged when she eats Triscuits.
Then there is the snarkiness. This makes me think this is a collection of essays written for an online magazine where snark is desirable, but snark is not the stuff persuasive writing is built on. If her goal is to persuade both sides to come together, she needs to be less judgmental of the well-off who spent $8 for a peach. Besides, you know she really wants to spend that $8 for that peach. Her heart is with the “good” food and her head is with the “bad” food. She needed to bridge that distance to write a more persuasive and coherent argument.
A Matter of Taste will be published December 11th. I received a copy for review from the publisher.
A Matter of Taste at Coach House Books
Rebecca Tucker on Twitter
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
We have come to see some food as good and other food as bad on a moral level. This is a morality reserved for those who can afford to pay high prices for artisanal, organic, locally-sourced foods. As someone who relies on Food Bank’s Harvest Share to make my food dollars stretch, I think a system that requires disposable income to be “good” is not really a moral system, it’s a system of in-group and out-group class markers. Being able to name the farm where your heirloom tomato was grown is the Hermes bag of the comfortable class.
Additionally, the idea that slow and local is more sustainable than large and distant is not necessarily correct. We assume it is better for the environment to produce 1000 tomatoes that travel 50 miles than 10,000,000 tomatoes that travel 4,000 miles but really, which contributes more to climate change? If a large-scale farmer uses a high tech combine to make sure he is seeding the optimum seeds per acre using GPS and years of data, reducing waste and water, isn’t that better for the environment? We disparage the employment of underpaid migrant workers and ignore the employment of unpaid interns. The problem is, sometimes small is not better and sometimes the technologies that repel those infatuated with the agrarian past are better for the environment.
We need better, more honest conversations about how we plan to feed our growing world population, but those conversations won’t happen so long as there is a Manichean divide between good food and bad food.
As someone who relies on the Food Bank and Harvest Share’s produce to stretch my food dollar, I have no idea where my fruits and vegetables are sourced, but I assume that they won’t be classified as morally good. I reject any system that ascribes a negative moral value to not being able to afford expensive food. So, you would think I would love A Matter of Taste, but I did not.
I found much of the book interesting and I agree with Tucker that we need a middle ground that is not fractured by moralistic judgments. However, I think she wrote the book before she has settled her own mind. You see, she wants the morally good food, the locally-grown, the organic, the know-your-farmer food. She just does not want to be judged when she eats Triscuits.
Then there is the snarkiness. This makes me think this is a collection of essays written for an online magazine where snark is desirable, but snark is not the stuff persuasive writing is built on. If her goal is to persuade both sides to come together, she needs to be less judgmental of the well-off who spent $8 for a peach. Besides, you know she really wants to spend that $8 for that peach. Her heart is with the “good” food and her head is with the “bad” food. She needed to bridge that distance to write a more persuasive and coherent argument.
A Matter of Taste will be published December 11th. I received a copy for review from the publisher.
A Matter of Taste at Coach House Books
Rebecca Tucker on Twitter
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
January 27, 2019
tw mention of eating disorders!
thank you to netgalley, the publisher, and the author for providing me with a copy of a matter of taste! first off, the very good: rebecca tucker denounces the false morality so many people apply to food, and repeatedly asks the reader to let go of their ideas of 'good' and 'bad' food. i fully agree with her here. a food item is not inherently good, nor is it bad. it's just food. it can be healthy, it can be unhealthy, it can be sustainable or mass-produced or homegrown—but at face value, eating tomato won't make you any better of a person than if you'd eaten a candy bar, and shaming foods in this way only serves to fuel eating disorders, guilt trip poor folks for the food insecurities that are out of their control, and ultimately, creates countless new issues with humanity's relationship to food.
i also agree wholeheartedly that we should be looking towards genetic modifying foods to help combat modern problems; drought or disease resistant crops for example, are inarguably relevant to this era. it's refreshing to see someone include humanity in their definition of what's sustainable. after all, if only the top 1% can afford something, then surely it is not the right path forward. if our idea of health and sustainability leaves behind marginalized groups, then what's the point of it?
but this is far from a perfect book. much of what tucker offers here is collated ideas from other works, rather than her own thoughts or research. it's useful in that it holds all this research in one easily consumed place, but i would've liked to read more of tucker's own thoughts on the process. furthermore, as an author, she seems very much torn. the title says this is a 'semi-reluctant argument', and that shows. tucker goes back and forth, clearly still in love with the much lauded, now lambasted, view of sustainability as friendly/local farmers, even as she supposedly argues for innovation and technology. she also glosses over some of the very relevant critiques of companies like monsanto, whose deplorable practices have done a great deal to turn people off from GMOs. perhaps this was an intentional choice, to keep things focused on the concept of GMOs rather than the current practice, but it seems neglectful at best to leave those discussions out (because GMOs may not be bad, but monsanto is disgusting).
tucker ultimately concludes that she doesn't know what we should do, only that we should employ some kind of moderation between the many opposing food ideologies in our society: a true enough statement, but not a particularly groundbreaking one.
thank you to netgalley, the publisher, and the author for providing me with a copy of a matter of taste! first off, the very good: rebecca tucker denounces the false morality so many people apply to food, and repeatedly asks the reader to let go of their ideas of 'good' and 'bad' food. i fully agree with her here. a food item is not inherently good, nor is it bad. it's just food. it can be healthy, it can be unhealthy, it can be sustainable or mass-produced or homegrown—but at face value, eating tomato won't make you any better of a person than if you'd eaten a candy bar, and shaming foods in this way only serves to fuel eating disorders, guilt trip poor folks for the food insecurities that are out of their control, and ultimately, creates countless new issues with humanity's relationship to food.
i also agree wholeheartedly that we should be looking towards genetic modifying foods to help combat modern problems; drought or disease resistant crops for example, are inarguably relevant to this era. it's refreshing to see someone include humanity in their definition of what's sustainable. after all, if only the top 1% can afford something, then surely it is not the right path forward. if our idea of health and sustainability leaves behind marginalized groups, then what's the point of it?
but this is far from a perfect book. much of what tucker offers here is collated ideas from other works, rather than her own thoughts or research. it's useful in that it holds all this research in one easily consumed place, but i would've liked to read more of tucker's own thoughts on the process. furthermore, as an author, she seems very much torn. the title says this is a 'semi-reluctant argument', and that shows. tucker goes back and forth, clearly still in love with the much lauded, now lambasted, view of sustainability as friendly/local farmers, even as she supposedly argues for innovation and technology. she also glosses over some of the very relevant critiques of companies like monsanto, whose deplorable practices have done a great deal to turn people off from GMOs. perhaps this was an intentional choice, to keep things focused on the concept of GMOs rather than the current practice, but it seems neglectful at best to leave those discussions out (because GMOs may not be bad, but monsanto is disgusting).
tucker ultimately concludes that she doesn't know what we should do, only that we should employ some kind of moderation between the many opposing food ideologies in our society: a true enough statement, but not a particularly groundbreaking one.
September 14, 2024
This book starts by questioning why we wrap up morality (and class) with food, and ends with the author ogling fancy $10 organic eggs but guiltfully purchasing the $6 carton because that's what she can afford. Her argument in favor of scientific advancement for agriculture boils down to a begrudging acknowledgment that it's the only way to keep fresh produce accessible to The Poors (of which she is one, but at least she knows an heirloom tomato from a grocery store knockoff). It's pretentious and concludes in an unsatisfying manner having argued in circles for too many pages
January 28, 2020
I generally like books about food and nutrition however I did not enjoy this book. I received it as a gift and did my best to get through it. Some of the topics were interesting, but the way the book was written having several long dashes or multiple commas within a sentence to keep adding in ideas, made it very difficult to read.
July 20, 2020
A punchy critique of the good food movement, A Matter of Taste argues there are many other approaches we must include to achieve sustainable food production. See my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2019...
January 7, 2019
This book is great: focus on how promoting the good/bad food moral dichotomy doesn’t help anyone, how food shaming the poor is reprehensible, +finding a middle ground together is the only way ahead. Bonus points for *really* respecting farmers, not paying lip service to it.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews