The new F-word?

The always-interesting Eatocracy has waded into it with an attack on foodies. Or, I should say, the definition of foodies given by chefs interviewed for the blog. It quotes a former Atlanta pastry chef thusly:

“Many seem to have the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ syndrome. Whatever the current trend says is fabulous MUST be fabulous! Foodies will flat-out drop some cash on the worst pile of crap if they saw it on ‘Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives’ or if Bobby Flay threw it down. They have no real opinion of their own.”

Read the rest here. Thoughts, y’all? I feel  that there can be a negative connotation to the term “foodie,” and it’s been thrown around so much that it’s becoming cliche. That’s why I don’t use it to describe myself or others. But I know plenty of people who see it differently, who see it as a term for someone who supports good, local food.

Between that post and the recent anti-foodie rant in The Atlantic, are we seeing a backlash against study and appreciation of food? (If that’s even the right thing to call it – I’m struggling for a description.)

I’ve met people who are so determined in their eat-local, all-natural, super-organic philosophy that they are almost caricatures. I’ve met people who collect their connections to chefs and food writers like trading cards. Hasn’t this sort of thing always happened in some way? (See Billy Joel, “Big Shot.”) To quote Dickens, the trendy will be with us always.