For this post I want to talk about the “Broccoli and Desire” reading by Peter Benson and Edward Fisher. Reading about Susan’s trip to Kroger (on the first page of the reading) reminded me of what I see when I take a trip to the grocery store. In fact, as I write this at a friends house, there are three bunches of bananas sitting in the fruit basket, along with a few other fruits. Each of the bunches has a different sticker: one is “Whole Trade” from Peru, the other is “Dole” from Guatemala, and the third is “Chiquita” from Guatemala. In other classes we have talked in depth about the controversy surrounding companies like Dole and Chiquita, and I do think it’s a rather tough situation. On the one hand, these workers need us to keep purchasing so they can stay employed, but on the other hand, it doesn’t feel very good to support companies who exploit their workers, among other things.

Referring to Benson and Fisher’s idea of “needs” versus “desires”, apart from being a great example of globalization, being able to buy fruits and vegetables year-round, fresh or frozen, is what being driven by desire looks like. And that’s not to say it’s intentional or that it comes from a place of greed, but it’s the reality. When it comes to food, privileged people like me and Susan always have a choice, and we use our desires to make these choices. If we’re craving watermelon in January, we can easily get it. But as Benson and Fisher state, this is only possible because of the “low returns and high risks” that farmers face. As Benson and Fisher state: “There is much more at stake in Pablo’s relationship to broccoli than Susan’s” (801). Susan’s is driven by desire, whereas Pablo’s is driven by need. I’m running out of words, but the last thing I want to say is that the ways in which Benson and Fisher explain and compare “desires” and “needs” are very interesting and really got me thinking beyond the basic surface-level definition of these two words.