nowardays it might be different but just like the farmers market in europe in asia there’s alot of “permenant farmers’ market ” as well. where local farmers and food producers have permenant stalls to sell their goods year round. at least when i was growing up. this type of market was cheaper than shopping at supermarket where you’re paying for the packaging and shipping cost..and the savvy housewives and grandmas knows which specific vendor in the market to go to get the best tasting fish/freshest free range chicken or seasonal veggies.

it’s funny the slow food movement in this nation is actually completely opposite. more elitist and more expensive..i donno why that is..

also i often say to friends when we’re out eating in restaurant that more american restaurants should open a side window where they sell smaller amounts of food (ie. a sandwich version of their famous steak, which would be smaller and cheaper and on the go) instead serving everything sit-down style as a complete meal.

in this economic hard time serving in cheaper and smaller portions and on the go woudl not be a bad thing.

going back to the street food in asia. often the portion served is very small. but since usually street food congregates and there are many vendors at the same location. you go thru one vendor after another tasting everything(very much like slow food pavalium except you pay vendor individually for what you eat instead of the steep $65 price to the organizer ;-) and you know what, at the end of the evening you prob. spend $65 as well btw you and a friend but you’re both super full and entirely satisfied b/c you prob. tasted about 10 different items..

it’s similar to , food court in malls except with smaller portion, and smaller price. and instead of chain restaurants it’s local food vendors..

why isn’t there something like this here..

i have to go back to asia every few years mainly b/c i miss this street food experience.

this relates to

No need to apologize; clarification much appreciated. I’m not sure how to address “disconnected” (from what or whom exactly?), and there are quite a few possibilities, so I’d rather not speculate. As to “overly ambitious and simultaneously lacking focus,” though, I think much of that rings quite true — perhaps even lacking focus BECAUSE overly ambitious. I bet if we took a poll of people who are in general on board with the (however-capitalized) slow food movement, the considerable majority would be happier being members of Slow Food USA, or would be more likely to join, if SFUSA became less ambitious and narrowed its focus.

The problem, I think, would lie in the answer to the follow-up question: What should that focus be?

Some would say Slow Food should be a locavore movement. Others think that it should emphasize the environment. Still others think that it should serve the underprivileged first and foremost. Others would say taste education and biodiversity should be the core of what Slow Food does.

I tend to see the movement in more holistic terms, with good food as its lodestone — not because I’m a slave to my tongue, but because everything else flows from that. If you really value good food, you’ll eat more locally, not just for the sake of eating locally but because it tastes so good. You’ll eat meat that was raised with care, because it’s better. You’ll become an environmentalist, because food and the environment are intricately linked. You’ll work to improve the food system for everyone. I know I’m preaching to the converted on all of this, right… but the point is, narrow your focus to any one of these things, like local food or biodiversity, and all of the others DON’T necessarily follow.

So I take the point that SFUSA lacks focus. But when I try to imagine an alternative — a latter-day gourmet society without environmental values, or a hunger group, or a locavore group, without everything else that Slow Food entails — I personally find it less appealing. Maybe the downside to a lack of focus is a lack of efficacy in particular areas… but if the upside is an increase in appeal, it might be a wash. I really don’t know. In any event, that possible tradeoff is definitely worth pondering further.

But perhaps these are the birth pangs and first steps and the next event will be better. I do hope so, and I hope they take to heart your commentary, and that the next event is both better organized. I also hope it will be far more vertical with fewer tent shows and more local events. I am imagining a version of the Worlds Fair, with many many local vendors and shops doing small events all over the city or region – or even (like Earth Day) the country or world.

I’m not quite clear on what you’re saying about the $65 admission cost. If your point is that it was too much given what was there, I’m afraid I wasn’t able to attend SFN myself, so I can’t comment on whether $65 was too much or too little to charge for the Taste Pavilions — I just don’t know. If your point is that no Slow Food event should cost $65 because a price tag that high is inherently exclusionary… well, that’s a genuinely hard problem. Because if you put that ceiling on the price for any event, what you’re saying is that some foods or combinations of foods are never, ever going to be served at a Slow Food event because they’re too expensive.

It’s not clear to me that Slow Food needs to give up either possibility. I mean, clearly a food group in which every event is inaccessible to low-income people is not serving its community as fully as it could. But if event budgets are severely restricted, it might be hard to bring attention to small producers or growers of obscure or endangered foods.

A quick example: We just came back from a pawpaw festival. Pawpaws never caught on commercially because they ripen quickly and didn’t travel well, but they’re locally viable (and regionally and beyond, with refrigeration). But they don’t sell because no one knows what they are — Catch-22. So the only way we can be sure to get them for an event is via Fed-Ex — $100 for 12 pieces of fruit. We might be able to feature pawpaws at a premium today, in the hopes that doing so will spread demand and create a market for them, thereby lowering the price tomorrow. For everyone. But we can’t make the pawpaws cost less ourselves, today, right now. (We tried. We asked if there would be a way to get a reduced rate for a Slow Food event. No dice.)

Your point about Slow Food not being the only organization working to improve the food system is totally fair. I found the Ahmadi post a little baffling, though, in that it seems to call for Slow Food to reject diversity within its organization rather than become more inclusive. (Trying to imagine doing what everyone wants Slow Food to do can be paralyzing sometimes….) In our case, we’re fortunate to have a great sibling organization in Local Matters — http://www.local-matters.org/wp/ . They were founded at about the same time we were, and now that we’re both reasonably well established, once the harvest is over we’ll be getting together to try to coordinate our efforts. It’s a great example of how Ahmadi’s idea can work, though it’s based more on comparative advantage than on class.

And to Mandy… if you can elaborate, I might have more of a sense of what you mean. At a quick Google, I find “Tending to exclude; causing exclusion; exclusive.” Tending to exclude? Well, all organizations do, technically, as long as there’s one nonmember, so that doesn’t seem helpful. Causing exclusion has more of a bite because it suggests intent: those excluded are intentionally kept out. Exclusive seems to focus more on the attainment or achievement of the members than on the converse, so it’s probably not useful either. “Causing exclusion,” then?

I felt disheartened as well, but more in the lack of communication I received versus the very blatant and offensive communication you received!

I’m not sure the above response by Dominic does much more than prove that the behemoth created by the stretched-thin folks at SFN became too much for them to handle.

I agree with a comment Gordonzola posted on my blog, that next year it would behoove SFN to reach out when feeling overwhelmed and enlist the help of other groups and organizations who share the same mission.

To Bear: Instead of ‘elitist,’ how about ‘exclusionary?’

And about donated product: I think we’re being compensated at a set rate for our product used in the Pavilion. There’s no way I’d donate AND feel “unwelcome to the table!”

But now it seems someone with actual authority has responded. It’s your blog Stephanie, so I won’t get into like I would in my own. but all I can say to this,

“There was no intension that anyone should feel anything but a sense of excitement of having been part of this community effort to raise awareness towards issues around the food movement.”

Is that in the words of the internet: EPIC FAIL!

Thanks again for writing this post.

To your comments – passed onto me by the SFN staff – which were read throughout the office and saddened all who had worked so very hard with so little to make so much happen. However, the overall goal of SFN was for open dialogue, and so your comments are welcome, if hard to hear. Our aim was that everyone would enjoy the experience, not just the 60,000 guests, but everyone involved. There was no intension that anyone should feel anything but a sense of excitement of having been part of this community effort to raise awareness towards issues around the food movement.

In terms of volunteer commitment, we did realize – as we approached the event – that this experience may be overwhelming for some, and so we wrote the passages you quoted prior to the event to ensure we did not surprise those so generous with their time and energy. We wanted to set real expectations about the potential experience. With 1800 volunteer shifts to fill, and despite the best intentions, we realized that we would not be able to offer volunteers much beyond a sense of inclusion in the amazing community work done to get this movement off the ground, though from our limited production funds, we did try to provide everyone with branded fair- trade aprons, we secured gourmet platters from Wholefoods, and we ensured there were free events that would allow all to attend some element of the SFN experience.

What I do hope you will appreciate was the complexities of the great numbers of volunteers who made this event possible, from the 1800-volunteer shift we had to fill, to all the volunteer architect and curators, volunteer speakers and guests chefs, volunteer staff – even your friend who invited you into the experience volunteered to make this all possible. There was only a handful of paid staff – everyone else gave their time for a positive community-building experience to ensure our joint voices were heard over concern for the our current food production system.

And while we did our best, we realize there is always room for improvement. Everyone should be treated with respect and appreciation. So sincerest apologies for any bad experiences, real appreciation for all the time committed, thanks for taking the time to make this comment and a commitment that we will create a means for all volunteers to voice their opinions – good and bad, so we can integrate them into improved programs for next time.

I then went on to explicate the attitude and treatment we rec’d as a volunteers, which I feel is the more salient point here.