The other day at the farmers’ market I tasted a slice of Pink Pearl apple and fell in love at first bite: more tangy than sweet and a gorgeous pink color to the core. When I went to choose some to buy I was taken aback by the misshapen and worm-pocked orbs—were these my beautiful apples? Meanwhile another customer asked what kind of spray was used; the answer was “none,” hence their appearance. I bought a bagful. I’d rather have a delicious piece of fruit and cut away the blemishes, than a pretty (farmed with pesticides) apple with insipid flavor.

There was an excellent article on the related issue of the aesthetics of cooking shows called “Debbie Does Salad” in Harper’s (two years ago, I think). The porn connection is made in that article as well, hence the catchy title.

The question is: are we superficial eaters? Do we want to be seen with the lumpy misshapen produce or the sleek, celebrity produce? Whither, then, the hubbard squash?

Hubbard squash is the only blue food I love (blueberries being purple when it comes right down to it). I think the key is approaching food with more than a visceral sense . . . thinking through what makes food good.

Missed the Harper’s article but saw this about what TV chefs wear — women chefs that is: “Bosomy, clingy tops, preferably in an expensive, hard-to-wash fabric like cashmere.”

Bottom line: Ratings rule.

I wrote an article on this subject in a small British journal of the Food Ethics Council. Much of the problem in most countries begins with the ‘grading’ of fruit, for instance, by inspectors, based on government requirements. I object as it’s the government which ‘pushes’ the idea that there’s a right look for an apples, for instance. The article follows (not too long, I hope):
‘Lookism’ and Perfect Fruit
---------------------------------

It is illegal in the UK to advertise for a secretary who is ‘blonde, blue-eyed, long-legged’ and from October 2006 it is even illegal to specify an age-range. But the laws against ‘lookist’ prejudices in people selection are reversed when it comes to fruit selection.
On June 19th Waitrose announced that it would sell Grade II fruit in cheaper large-lots called “Not Quite Perfect”. Waitrose said that, actually, the taste of “Not Quite Perfect” produce remained as perfect as Grade I fruit – indeed, it’s from the same crops, the same farms, “the only difference being that it may be slightly misshapen or slightly bruised”. Instead of wanting consumers to accept that variations in appearance are natural, and acknowledging that a reduction of the shameful volume of food-waste in Britain involves changing attitudes about so-called ‘misshapenness’, Waitrose clings to some spurious standards.
At present the government has entirely ‘lookist’ standards in 45 fruits and vegetables that judge a piece of Nature entirely by size, colour and typical shape – not by the smell at the stem-end of the fruit, not by its weight in the hand relative to its size, not by the ‘squeeze’ that shoppers everywhere in the world seem to do the same way. In the West the shopper’s judgment has atrophied because ‘Perfection’ is now reductible. The forces against ‘Imperfection’ are stifling diversity, forcing fruit-growers in other cultures to conform to an idea of perfection that’s not their own if they want to import to us, and turning farming into a science-of-appearances.
My attempts to discuss these implications of the situation with Waitrose fuit buyer Tom Richardson failed because “he is not media trained,” his Spa Way press agent told me. The Q&A by email was banal. I turned to the equivalent people at Marks and Spencer, and Hugh Mowat, the senior agronomist there, said that although M&S will not venture, like Waitrose, into selling Class II fruit, he did think that Class I and II distinctions belonged to another era. They
“were invented as a trading standards quality guarantee to protect customers in the days when wholesale markets dominated the supply of the nation’s food. ... Arguably these standards are outdated for supermarkets where product specifications are set and monitored. The standards are still valid and useful for the catering trade who continue to buy from wholesale markets.”
Why sustain to them for the public now? why ask the unprofessional shopper rely on less rather than more information? This query to Waitrose came back: “Waitrose has simply followed EU standards”.
On April 1st of this year, the responsibility for this Class I and Class II distinction moved out of Defra into the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). These crude I and II classifications are explained on the RPA website as relying on --
- The Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964
- The Grading of Horticultural Produce... etc 1982
- The Horticultural Produce Act 1986
- The amendment to 1986 in 1973
Sorry, but now we are now half a century from the intentions of this legislation. We see how food-waste in Britain begins with the ‘sorting’ that occurs between the farm and the retailer. As Ian Hewett of the RPA explains, as an example, “In Class I apples
the fruit can only have a maximum of 1 cm squared of skin defects and 1 cm squared of light bruise. In Class II they can have up to 2.5 cm squared of skin defects and 1.5 cm squared of bruising that can be discoloured.” And our taxes are paying for these assessments!

RPA inspector, Lauren Harris, to her credit says that the situation is changing. “Most organic fruit and vegetables are labelled as Class II as often they show imperfections in appearance due to irregular shape or defects such as slight pest damage.” Of course: so some of us are willing to pay more for Class II fruit when it has other assets.
I am certainly not opposed to Waitrose selling symetrical tomatoes at £2.48/kg and others, good for pasta sauce, at £1.98/kg. When it comes Waitrose’s wider price-difference in plums (£3.98/kg vs £2.99/kg), I am even more enthusiastic, as anybody who has cooked plums will appreciate. But actually, I am going to eat the £2.99/kg plums fresh as well – just as, I hope, I would hire a weedy-looking young man as a secretary.
-ENDS-
(c) Michele Field
For footnote: All the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) standards can be found on
http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/UIMenu/6332FD65A87EFA178025712A00439A33?Opendocument