
From $85 tomato leaf soap to $2,300 Hellmann's mayo handbags, everyday food is now a status symbol
Take a look around your kitchen pantry, and what do you see?
Boxes of pasta stacked high, maybe, alongside tins of sardines or a jar of olives. Maybe you have some fresh fruit lurking, olive oil or a bag of rice.
But food motifs might also be popping up in your closet or living room. Perhaps some tinned fish on a T-shirt or a farfalle-shaped candle? The notion might seem strange, but across home decor and fashion, even luxury sectors, there's been an influx of food-centric design. And it's costing a pretty penny.
A stool resembling corn on the cob, made famous by influencer Emma Chamberlain? $245. A T-shirt stamped with tins of sardines on sale at the famed Lisa Says Gah boutique? $78. Not to mention, lamps made from real croissants ($88), a purse mirroring a Barilla pasta box ($1,500 resale), and a faux-diner experience where, instead of the real, affordable food such restaurants are known for, one can pay $40 for a stuffed waffle (now out of stock online).
See also the hype around tomato-scented hand soap, of which there are many variations: Loewe's $85 version, or Flamingo Estate's, a steal at $46.
And these are just some examples. Seemingly everywhere one looks, there's an example of an expensive, designer food item. Not the thing you might cook and eat; instead, food imagery has somehow become caught up in our ever-churning trend machine. And while these items (corn, a tomato, a box of pasta) might be accessible pantry staples, they've now been transformed into symbols of luxury.
This trend of food on clothing and in design has been percolating for a few years, but it's flourishing now as everyday foods, like eggs and produce, are becoming increasingly inaccessible.
Food is no longer just something we eat, this current moment seems to signal. In the midst of an escalating tariff war, food iconography — both in what we wear and what we buy — has become a status symbol, too.
The incorporation of food imagery in design predates the present moment. Antoine Vollon's 'Mound of Butter,' a 19th century still life of a heaping tuft of butter, highlights the importance of familiar ingredients, while Salvador Dalí used lobsters as a motif for sex and pleasure — also inspiring Elsa Schiaparelli's 1937 design of a billowing, off-white evening gown with a giant lobster printed across the front.
The Pop art movement also frequently featured food motifs, (perhaps best exemplified by Andy Warhol's 1962 Campbell's Soup can artwork), while drawing on everyday mass culture and consumerism for inspiration.
But what has led us to the current wave of such designs today?
It starts with Millennials and their pantries, said Andrea Hernández, the founder of food and beverage trend newsletter Snaxshot. Millennials were the first to embrace a sort of 'premium pantry' item, she said, i.e. buying a higher-end version of an everyday item, like viral olive oil in a squeeze bottle (rather than grocery store bottles of extra virgin) or luxury hot sauce (versus Tabasco).
Those higher-end versions may purport to be 'better' in some ways than household brands — better ingredients, healthier, or maybe just more aesthetically pleasing — but they also come with a higher price tag. (Cloud23, Brooklyn Beckham's hot sauce label, comes in a textured glass bottle and promises 'authentic ingredients' and peppers grown in 'organic soil.' A pack of two costs $34.99.)
It's a type of affordable affluence, Hernández said. And it's everywhere: see viral Brightland olive oil ($37 per bottle), Fishwife tinned sardines ($32 for 3), and Fly By Jing chili oil ($15). If none of those interest you, what about Hot Girl Pickles ($12.99 for a 32-ounce jar)?
This isn't to say these items aren't worth their price tags, but they often cost more than their supermarket equivalents. And they look nicer, with colorful, vibrant packaging that screams 'trendy product.'
'We can't afford cars, we can't afford houses, we can't afford anything,' Hernández said. 'It comes down to the last chair of a musical chair game, which is 'okay, I can still buy food, snacks.''
This normalization of high-end food items goes beyond the pantry. Think of Erewhon Market, that renowned Los Angeles grocery shop that in recent years has become known for its celebrity smoothie collaborations. Its famous Hailey Bieber collab is a $20 strawberry smoothie blended with hyaluronic acid and sea moss gel. While you're there, you can also grab one of its signature tote bags, which recently cameoed in an episode of HBO's 'White Lotus,' at just $52.
Even Walmart has gotten in on the affordable affluence trend, launching a new private label last year, called bettergoods, clearly a more modern and Millennial and Gen Z-friendly approach than its other private label, Great Value. (Among items branded as 'bettergoods': organic chocolate milk, plant-based mozzarella cheese and single origin Colombian coffee).
Put bluntly, Millennials and Gen Z are willing to spend more money at the grocery store for products they deem 'better' than the budget option, Hernández said — or at the very least, marketed better. In the case of Gen Z, spending money at the grocery store has become a way to splurge, according to a report from McKinsey, at a time when many people are tightening their belts amid a worsening economy. Call it a lipstick effect for the post-pandemic era.
Now, this elevation of everyday grocery items is also leaking into design and fashion.
As hype around regular grocery items grows, food has also wedged its way into advertising and luxury designs.
Part of this surge is just practical, said Elizabeth Goodspeed, a graphic designer and writer. Food is an affordable prop for brand photoshoots, cheaper than flowers or other products that may bear another brand's imagery. Especially now, with everything being expensive, brands may be even more motivated to use food as a prop in their imagery. (Notice the way French fashion brand Jacquemus stamps its label on whole butter next to gold croissant earrings, or New York-based La Ligne's use of crusty baguettes in another campaign).
Yet there is still, she noted, some class signaling. The same person that might be able to spend money on a bushel of picturesque apples from the farmers market, Goodspeed said, might also have the disposable income to spend $2,000 on a luxury bag. Follow the same logic for small-batch butter or bread fresh from a local bakery.
But these luxury connotations have leapt from the glossy pages of magazine adverts and into real life. Food isn't just pictured alongside the luxury good, it's the luxury good itself. It's the corn on the cob stool, the pasta box purse, the Jacquemus milk carton, the Kate Spade BLT purse, er, the Kate Spade Heinz Ketchup purse.
You could dismiss these examples as just kitschy trends, a way to weave personality and vibrancy into a drab mainstream aesthetic. And of course these products can be cute, said Jess Rauchberg, who studies digital culture at Seton Hall University in New Jersey. But what's beyond the cuteness?
'It's important to understand how is this being shown to us, and what does it mean?' she said. 'What does it mean when we see an egg plushie that's really cute, but thinking about the cost, thinking about are eggs accessible for every single American consumer right now? And if not, who has access to these products and to these consumer goods?'
This sort of food-inspired trend has happened before. In the 2010s, we had cupcakes on dresses and bacon on everything — a shorthand for a gendered Americana energy. Today, there's been a slight change; we've traded our emblazoned bacon and cupcakes for pickles, olives, tinned fish, preserved lemons, heirloom tomatoes, ramps and butter. Case in point: Circa 2016, quirky American designer Rachel Antonoff embossed dresses with a multicolored tropical fruit print. Almost 10 years later, she's swapped the design for rainbow chard on knits and blue coffee cups on puffer jackets.
'It's just that the foods that we have assigned the value to have shifted,' Goodspeed said.
So if people are spending more money on groceries and pantry items, and these items are seeping into luxury fashion and design, then what exactly does that indicate about us, the consumers?
Buying certain kinds of products says something about ourselves or the way we want to live, Goodspeed said. A tinned fish shirt might say you care about seafood sustainability or accessibility. Spending $100 on the Loewe tomato leaves scented candle might say you care about organic produce or you enjoy the outdoors — see also the aptly named tomato girl summer aesthetic, featuring silk scarves, sunglasses and a coastal state of mind.
What we ate used to be a largely private experience. We grocery shopped, we cooked, we dined, with little fanfare to those not under the same roof. But the advent of social media put that entire process into the spotlight, opening it up to critique from everyone in our circles. Now, there's pantry videos analyzing not just what snacks you have in your pantry, but how neatly it's organized (Khloe Kardashian's pantry has become a gold standard). We can observe how others landscape their fridges, or their freezers, eyeing what interesting products and organizational bins they have. And we can compare ourselves to what others are doing online.
'What you eat is being dissected and observed as much as anything else that you do,' Goodspeed said.
And so food, especially seemingly modest ingredients, have become another way to signify wealth and luxury tastes. Fashion and design becomes an extension of that. By wearing food as an accessory, or as a design choice, we are signaling both that we have a palate for that product and that we can afford it. I'm wearing this $78 shirt with Fishwife tinned fish, which means I can also afford to spend $10 on a single tin of sardines, which means I have disposable income — and so it goes.
This logic extends even to foods that might not usually be expensive, like corn or tomatoes, Rauchberg said. These humble ingredients become luxury emblems.
'It signals that I don't have to worry about where I'm getting my next meal,' Rauchberg said. 'Or I don't have to worry about these very basic life requirements because they've already been fulfilled.'
In other words, removed from the anxiety surrounding grocery bills, these items are then elevated in fashion and decor.
That this trend is coming to a head now, when grocery prices — especially seafood, fresh fruits, and vegetables — are poised to see a sharp increase with proposed tariffs, might be significant. As eggs, and eventually other staples, became more inaccessible to the average person, they may show up even more in fashion and other consumer products, Rauchberg said.
You might not be able to have fish for every meal, she explained, or eggs, or even fresh produce. But just by wearing something with the product on it is a status symbol, she said.
'The purse, the T-shirt, the dress, the Jellycat, is a sign that you're able to be part of that consumer environment,' Rauchberg said. 'And status right now means everything.'
As food prices rise, there will be people unable to buy once-affordable staples. But for those with the income, they might shell out $2,300 for a designer bag inspired by Hellmann's mayonnaise, just because they can.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Vogue
an hour ago
- Vogue
No Beach in Sight, but Jennifer Lawrence Is Dressing for Surfer Dude Summer
For Jennifer Lawrence, a novelty baseball cap and graphic tee makes a transeasonal, go-to fit. Now the temperatures are climbing up again, she's back to adding the classic jorts into her wardrobe rotation. Despite there being no beach in sight of the West Village, she channeled her inner surfer dude. Photographed yesterday in New York City, the No Hard Feelings actor headed out with her son, opting for a casual, laidback look. She wore a beige graphic MORRIS tee emblazoned with a cat's face, a navy baseball cap, light wash gabby denim jorts, and a pair of red and black thong style flip flops from The Row. Even with her most relaxed looks, Lawrence always makes sure to add an elevated, luxury basic or accessory. Think: a statement bag or archival purse du jour, set of Khaite sunglasses, or a simple shoe from her beloved, The Row. Less tie-dye tops and shell necklaces, more Issey Miyake and vintage Fendi. She's also got an arsenal of slogan tees, including her Loewe 'I Told Ya' tee. And the jorts feel like a pull from J-Law summers gone by. In the warmer months, you can catch her pairing tailored Bermuda shorts from The Row with light shirts and ballet flats, or wearing more chill boxer shorts, and linen shorty co-ord sets.


Washington Post
a day ago
- Washington Post
Carolyn Hax: Husband taken aback by wife's ‘raunchy' novel based on her past
Dear Carolyn: My wife, 'Lisa,' and I have been happily married for 30 years, raised three great children and look forward to a very comfortable retirement. I couldn't have asked for a better wife and partner. Over the years, besides her day job, Lisa has made many forays into creative writing and has been pretty successful. She's published articles and several short stories. Her blog is popular, so she decided to attempt the novel she's always talked about. She told me I could read it anytime, and now that it's in the hands of her agent, I did. The novel is about a 'wild child' of the late 1980s, and I immediately knew Lisa had based it loosely upon herself. It is very entertaining but quite raunchy, so I mentioned that she must have embellished quite a lot — but she said no, she left a lot out. I am stunned. Lisa told me when we were dating that she had a 'misspent youth,' and I knew she had a lot more partners than I did, but I never imagined anything like this. I have two problems now: First, her past is bothering me, and I know that's stupid after all these years. Second, she's completely unconcerned that our friends, relatives and, worst of all, our kids might figure out this isn't exactly a work of fiction. How am I to deal with this without coming right out and forbidding her to publish this nonsense? — Stunned Stunned: Whoa. I was nodding along with you there — it'll be 'gently amused sympathy' in my fictionalized memoir — till 'forbidding' and 'nonsense.' Then you lost me faster than a wild child's impulse control. The two most efficient ways to detonate your snow-globe marriage are to control your beloved wife and talk down to her. So, no to those offensive blunt instruments. Plus, why use them when there are simple, obvious, low-drama options that target your specific concerns respectfully? For your fear of everyone's discovery, simply talk to your wife again. Ask whether she ever intends to reveal publicly what she told you. A calm ask, not an aggressive one. She may have no intention of deviating from the line that her book is fiction, even if, say, her kid asks her point-blank. If she hadn't thought this far, then suggest she ask authors who've been there? A calm suggestion, not an aggressive one. If she responds that she has nothing to be ashamed of or hide — then, ideally, you would agree that's both a fair point and her prerogative. But if you don't, then better to say, 'I need time to clear my mind' — calmly — than to try aggressively to change hers. You may have noted a theme. Pushing your distress onto her will only make things worse. I say this even though I don't agree it's 'stupid' for you to feel bothered. I mean, it's not smart or useful, let's not get carried away — but not everyone is ready to read their spouse's youthful sex diaries, so I think you can let yourself feel normal for flinching. Then forgive yourself. Then decide the bad feelings are too stupid to risk dwelling on at the expense of everything you've built. Because remember, your wife's entire past — not just the parts you're okay with — made her into the person you love and trust. So discuss your wife's plans with the book, yes. But it's not her job to make you feel better about her life before she met you. A few solo therapy sessions might help you — since I assume you won't run this by friends.


Vogue
2 days ago
- Vogue
How Jacinda Ardern Changed the Look of Leadership
In my 20s, I believed that to hold power, you had to project 'gravitas.' Not just certainty, but a kind of impermeable seriousness. You didn't smile too much. You didn't laugh to put people at ease. You spoke as though everything you thought was self-evidently right, and you carried yourself like you were the only person who could save the room, the meeting, the country. The politicians I saw on TV projected that certainty with force—aggressive in debate, unflinching in tone, never showing doubt. In the professional world, the men and women who held power negotiated with the same posture of strategic dominance. I admired them, and in some ways wanted to be them. But I also felt like in becoming them, I would have to give up some essential part of myself: my openness, my reflex to make others comfortable, the little ways I softened sharp edges in conversation. And then there was Jacinda. A woman just a couple of years older than me, with indisputable power, standing at a press conference with a kind of presence I'd never seen. It was liberating to watch. It felt like permission. I'm not the only one who felt this way. In the years since, Ardern has become an icon for a particular kind of Millennial and Gen X woman—emotionally attuned, politically engaged, and skeptical of institutional performance. The women I know admire her for her compassion, her humor, her realness. 'She [showed] me that not only would motherhood not mean the end of your personal goals, but that showing up for your family at the same time as standing up for what's right is possible and important,' reflects Rhiannon, an operational strategist in her early 40s. 'She just seems like a genuinely good person,' says my friend Julia, who works in government. Ardern's decision to bring her baby to the UN General Assembly, and the visibility of her partner Clarke Gayford adjusting his schedule around hers, quietly challenged the idea that women—especially mothers—must shape their ambitions around someone else's.