foodie debate, part dos.

And now, from the creator of the Slow Food movement, Signor Slow, via Ode Magazine.

From the Slow Food USA website:

"Slow Food is an idea, a way of living and a way of eating. It is a global, grassroots movement with thousands of members around the world that links the pleasure of food with a commitment to community and the environment."

They promote food that is good, clean, and fair:

"Good:

The word good can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. For Slow Food, the idea of good means enjoying delicious food created with care from healthy plants and animals. The pleasures of good food can also help to build community and celebrate culture and regional diversity.

Clean:

When we talk about clean food, we are talking about nutritious food that is as good for the planet as it is for our bodies. It is grown and harvested with methods that have a positive impact on our local ecosystems and promotes biodiversity.

Fair:

We believe that food is a universal right. Food that is fair should be accessible to all, regardless of income, and produced by people who are treated with dignity and justly compensated for their labor."

From my understanding, Slow Food is also about integrating food issues into a lifestyle that takes time to understand and value all the processes behind and components of our daily activities.

I like all that, but I also wonder if the movement isn't also alienating (and maybe a bit idealistic?) My question is, even if you're not doing it just to be trendy, how can you support a trendy position on a popular issue without alienating people? How can Slow Food people not come across as rich snots--is it possible?