These are similar to food fetishes but more ephemeral.

“What I hear as I talk to people is this phenomenal sense of despair about their inability to do anything about climate change, or the disparity between rich and poor,” she says. “But when they go into a grocery store they can do something—they can make decisions about what they are buying and send a very clear message.”

hmmm, not exactly. The message sent isn't likely to be the one intended, as it mainly identifies the tards trying to use food fashions as political semiotics, as idiots.

. . . the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is “ridiculous” because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. . .

organic farming actually requires more energy per tonne of food produced, because yields are lower and weeds are kept at bay by ploughing. . . only one-fifth of the energy associated with food production across the whole food chain is consumed on the farm: the rest goes on transport and processing.

Too rigid an insistence on organic farming's somewhat arbitrary rules, then—copper, a heavy metal, can be used as an organic fungicide because it is traditional—can actually hinder the adoption of greener agricultural techniques. . .

. . . the low price of commodities such as coffee is due to overproduction, and ought to be a signal to producers to switch to growing other crops. Paying a guaranteed Fairtrade premium—in effect, a subsidy—both prevents this signal from getting through and, by raising the average price paid for coffee, encourages more producers to enter the market. This then drives down the price of non-Fairtrade coffee even further, making non-Fairtrade farmers poorer.

. . . the most cogent objection to Fairtrade is that it is an inefficient way to get money to poor producers. Retailers add their own enormous mark-ups to Fairtrade products and mislead consumers into thinking that all of the premium they are paying is passed on. Mr Harford calculates that only 10% of the premium paid for Fairtrade coffee in a coffee bar trickles down to the producer. Fairtrade coffee, like the organic produce sold in supermarkets, is used by retailers as a means of identifying price-insensitive consumers who will pay more. . .

The DEFRA report, which analysed the supply of food in Britain, contained several counterintuitive findings. It turns out to be better for the environment to truck in tomatoes from Spain during the winter, for example, than to grow them in heated greenhouses in Britain. And it transpires that half the food-vehicle miles associated with British food are travelled by cars driving to and from the shops. Each trip is short, but there are millions of them every day. Another surprising finding was that a shift towards a local food system, and away from a supermarket-based food system, with its central distribution depots, lean supply chains and big, full trucks, might actually increase the number of food-vehicle miles being travelled locally, because things would move around in a larger number of smaller, less efficiently packed vehicles.

Research carried out at Lincoln University in New Zealand found that producing dairy products, lamb, apples and onions in that country and shipping them to Britain used less energy overall than producing them in Britain. (Farming and processing in New Zealand is much less energy intensive.)

It has been said that there's one born every minute. I suspect that this is a conservative estimate. That consumers are being bilked due to their ignorance and gullibility is obvious. That those who are bilking them are fully aware of this seems an important issue. This is profoundly dishonest as well as being environmentally destructive, exploits the poorest of the poor in developing countries, squanders energy (and so increases emissions) and empowers some of the worst among us. This is worth noting well since these folks are clamoring for your support - everything from donating funds to buying their tawdry books to voting for their favorite politicians. Why would anyone want to support these hucksters?

Food is central to the debates on the environment, development, trade and globalisation—but the potential for food choices to change the world should not be overestimated. The idea of saving the world by shopping is appealing; but tackling climate change, boosting development and reforming the global trade system will require difficult political choices. “We have to vote with our votes as well as our food dollars,” says Mr Pollan. Conventional political activity may not be as enjoyable as shopping, but it is far more likely to make a difference.

Well, no, it won't. These aren't proper political issues. If you actually care about them then vote against those who seek to exploit them politically. They will say anything but that's all you will get: let them eat rhetoric. These folks are all hat. What little they actually do most often makes things worse if anything.

All of these points have been made in earlier posts, and so it seems like beating a dead horse to bring them up again. But it's semi-interesting that the ideas have at long last percolated up to a laggard zine like The Economist. If even they are getting some clues then perhaps things will at some point become a bit more rational.