Yeah, OK, so I've been MIA forever, and probably, that's likely to continue. Georgie's family leave ends today, and I'll be finally taking on the full reality of what I set out to do when I left the Globe almost three years ago — be the full-time caregiver for my child. (His name is Joe; you can view photos here if you want.)

But the Food Network hired someone to identify the top 10 food trends for 2010, and I am a sucker for that combination of "science" and soothsaying. The whole thing is here. But what stirred me to drop in and blog for a moment were numbers 1, 5, and 6, which could have been combined into one.

Taken together, they predict much more authenticity in food, because consumers will demand it. Fewer non-food items, less processing, less eating out, effects that are the confluence of heightened desire for health and simplicity in food, and reduced disposable income leaving less money for eating out and providing more time to cook.

I don't know if they're right, but a) I hope they are, and b) they are certainly describing me. I cook often, almost always from scratch, using food from our CSA share and from Wilson Farms, which does import food but also grows a lot of its own. Our processed foods are generally to support our tendency toward eating vegetarian, which I don't think will ever result in our being vegetarian, but still necessitates lots of tofu and tempeh, and I've been thinking of making my own seitan as well.

I didn't infer that the writers are all that excited about these trends, however. Here's the text of number 5, under the headline "Food vetting":

You are what you eat, and we are big into understanding ourselves! That’s what’s leading this trend—our constant need for assurance that we are eating the right things, that our food is safe, that we are not ingesting pesticides or anything that will someday prove harmful. If we can provide jobs, help the economy, protect animals and ensure a sustained food supply at the same time, well, that’s all the better. Call it food vetting, sourcing or whatever you want—the issue is that people are asking where their food comes from. We call it the “new luxury food” because it can be more expensive to include that traceability into delivery, but we want it anyway.

I particularly react to the "we are big into understanding ourselves" snark, exclamation point and all. Well, "our constant need for assurance..." too. What's the implication, that we're sissies for wanting to know what's in our food, and that it's all some weenie encounter exercise? This from a network that has series devoted to several forms of junk food.

But I'm down with their description of the trend as the "new luxury food," no matter how perverse that idea is. I think it is akin to paying the phone company NOT to print your listing in the directory. Why should it cost more to get the basic stuff? Why is the McDonald's meal heaviliy subsidized, but fresh fruit and vegetables aren't? I do feel the crosscurrents of thrift in this desire to eat more healthy, but I'm working on it.