The SAGE Encyclopedia of Food Issues (3 Volume Set) [1-3] 9781452243016

Citation preview

The SAGE Encyclopedia of

Food Issues

The SAGE Encyclopedia of

Food Issues Editor

Ken Albala University of the Pacific

1

Copyright © 2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

FOR INFORMATION: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: [email protected] SAGE Publications Ltd. 1 Oliver’s Yard

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. DISCLAIMER: All information contained in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Food Issues is intended only for informational and educational purposes. The information is not intended to diagnose medical problems, prescribe remedies for illness, or treat disease. We recommend that you always seek the advice of a health care professional with respect to any medical condition, illness, or disease.

55 City Road London, EC1Y 1SP

Printed in the United States of America.

United Kingdom SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The SAGE encyclopedia of food issues / editor, Ken Albala, University of the Pacific.

India SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. 3 Church Street

3 volumes cm “A SAGE reference publication.”

#10-04 Samsung Hub Singapore 049483

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4522-4301-6 (set : hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Food— Encyclopedias. I. Albala, Ken, editor.

Acquisitions Editor: Jim Brace-Thompson Editorial Assistant: Jordan Enobakhare Developmental Editor: Carole Maurer

TX349.S237 2015 363.19'203—dc23

Production Editor: Tracy Buyan Reference Systems Manager: Leticia Gutierrez

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Reference Systems Coordinators: Anna Villaseñor, Laura Notton Copy Editors: QuADS Prepress (P) Ltd. Typesetter: Hurix Systems (P) Ltd. Proofreaders: Annie Lubinsky, Lawrence W. Baker, Kristin Bergstad Indexer: Joan Shapiro Cover Designer: Candice Harman Marketing Manager: Carmel Schrire

15 16 17 18 19 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2015007071

Contents Volume 1 List of Entries vii Reader’s Guide xiii About the Editor xix Contributors xx Introduction xxix Entries A B C

1 93 159

D E F

335 381 429

Volume 2 List of Entries vii Entries F G H I

477 701 755 821

J K L M

859 869 877 929

Volume 3 List of Entries vii Entries N O P R S

1011 1053 1103 1175 1223

T U V W X

1343 1393 1417 1453 1499

Appendix: Resource Guide 1503 Index 1509

List of Entries Advertising and Marketing of Food Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children Aflatoxins Agrarianism Agricultural Acts. See Farm Bills Agritourism Airline Meals Alar Alcohol Alcohol Industry, Regulation and Taxation of Alcohol Regulations, History of Animal Rights Anthropophagy Antibacterial Soaps, Detergents, and Dishwashing Liquids Antibiotics and Superbugs Anti-Globalization Movements/World Trade Organization Antioxidants Antitrust Laws Apps for Food Aquaculture/Fish Farming Aquaponics Art Depicting Food Art Using Food as a Medium Artificial Sweeteners Artisanal Foods Artisanal Spirits Atkins Diet. See Low-Carbohydrate Diets Authenticity of Cuisines Ayurveda and Diet

Barter and the Informal Economy Bees and Colony Collapse Disorder Beverage Industry Bible-Based Diets Biodynamic Food Biofuels Biopiracy Bioterrorism Blogging Botulism Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. See Mad Cow Disease Boycotts Branding. See Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables Bread Processing Breastfeeding Buffets/All You Can Eat Butterflies and Other Lepidoptera, Decline in Population of Cafeterias, Noninstitutional Cancer-Fighting Foods Cannabis in Food Canned Goods Canning Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet Cardiac Disease and Diet Casual Dining Chains Catering Business, Off-Site Cattle Industry Celebrity Chefs Charitable Organizations Chemical Fertilizers Childhood Obesity Children’s Foods Chinese Traditional Medicine and Diet

Baby Food Bakeries Bankruptcy Laws Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related Bar Food vii

viii

List of Entries

Chocolate Cholesterol, LDL and HDL Christian Food Restrictions Church Suppers Circular Food Systems Class Actions. See Litigation Concerning Food Issues Climate Change Codex Alimentarius Codex Alimentarius Commission Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops College Dining Services Commodity Chains Community Gardens Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Farmers’ Perspective Competitive Eating Composting Confined Animal Feeding Operations. See Factory Farming Consistency of Food Products/Ingredients Consumer Trust Contract Laws Convenience Foods Convenience Stores Cookbooks and the Publishing Industry Cooking as Leisure Activity Cooking Competitions Cooking Temperatures, Minimum Cooking Temperatures, U.S. Department of Agriculture Guidelines for Cooperatives Corporate Food Service Coupons Crop Insurance Crowdsourced Reviews of Restaurants Culinary Diplomacy Cultural Identity and Food Dairy Industry Dead Zones in Fisheries Deforestation for Agriculture Deli Counter in Grocery Stores Design and Decor of Restaurants

Deskilling Diabetes Dietary Guidelines and Graphics Dietary Supplements. See Vitamins and Other Dietary Supplements Diners Disgust Distribution Centers DIY Food Movement Domestic Food Insecurity Donut Shops E. coli Economic Cost of Western Diet Education in Food Service Industries Elderly Nutrition Employment: U.S. Food Sector Endangered Species Equal Opportunity Employment/Discrimination Ethnic Foods, Marketing of Ethnic Grocery Stores Ethnic Restaurants Exotic Food and Strange Food Expiration Dates Exports Factory Farming Fair and Carnival Food Fair Trade Family Farms and Rural Depopulation Family Meals/Commensality Famines Farm Bills Farmers’ Markets Farmers’ Markets, Cooking With Seasonal Produce Farmers’ Markets, Farmers’ Perspective Farmworkers Fast Food Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease Fats, Role in Diet Federal Trade Commission Fiber, Role in Diet Fine Dining Fish Contaminants Fisheries Certification Programs

List of Entries

Fishing for Sport Fishing Industry Fishing Policies Food Additives Food Advertisements in School Hallways and Cafeterias Food Aid Food Allergies Food Allergies: Impact on Life Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Banks Food Carts Food Deserts Food Fairs and Festivals Food in Popular Media Food Insecurity Food Justice Food Lobbying Food Magazines Food Miles Food Policy Councils Food Pyramid. See Dietary Guidelines and Graphics Food Riots Food Safety Food Safety Agencies Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities Food Sovereignty Food Sovereignty, Policy and Regulation Food Stamps and WIC Food Trends Leading to Diminished Species Food Trucks Food TV Food Waste Food Writing in Books Foodborne Illness Foraging Forestry Management Fracking, Impact on Food and Water Fraud Freegans and Dumpster Diving Free-Range Meats and Poultry French Paradox

Fresh Food Front Groups Frozen Food Fruitarianism Functional Foods Gastropubs Gender and Foodways Generic Brands Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Ghostwriters for Celebrity Chefs Global Food Security Act of 2009 Global Warming and Future Food Supply Gluten-Free Foods Gourmet and Specialty Foods Grain Elevators/Hoarding and Speculation Grass-Fed Beef Green Revolution, Future Prospects for Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences Grocery Stores and Supermarkets Growth Hormones and Other Drugs in Meat Products Guerrilla Gardening Halal Food Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Health Food Stores Herbicide Resistance Heritage Breeds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Hindu Food Restrictions Holidays Centered on Food Holistic Medicine (New Age) and Diet Home Fermentation Homesteading Hospital Food Human Right to Adequate Food Hunger Hunting Hypermarkets Ice Cream Parlors Identity and Food Imported Food

ix

x

List of Entries

In Vitro Meat Industry Labor and Labor Unions Intellectual Property Law and Recipes Intellectual Property Rights International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Study International Food Security Invasive Species Investigative Journalism. See Media Portrayals of Food Issues Irradiation Junk Food, Consumption Junk Food, Impact on Health Kosher Food Kyoto Protocol Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified Labeling, Legislation and Oversight Labeling, Nutrition Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables Lactobacilli Land Grant Colleges/Extension Units Landrace Last Meals Liquor Stores Listeria Litigation Concerning Food Issues Locavorism Locust Infestations Low-Carbohydrate Diets Low-Fat Foods Low-Sodium Foods Macrobiotics Mad Cow Disease Magazine and Newspaper Advertising Manure Lagoons/Methane Marketing Boards Meat Processing Media Portrayals of Food Issues Microloans Migrant Labor

Military Rations Milling Minerals, in Nutrition Mini-Marts Mixology Mobile Markets Molecular Gastronomy Monoculture Monopolies Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) Mormon Food Practices Muckraking. See Media Portrayals of Food Issues Multifunctionality in Agriculture Multinational Conglomerates Music About Food Natural and Artificial Flavors and Fragrances Naturally Raised and Fed Meats Newspaper Food Columns Nitrate, Nitrite, and Cured Versus Uncured Meats Noise in Restaurants North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Nutraceuticals Nutrient Density Nutrition Education Nutritionism Obesity Epidemic Olive Oil Online Advertising Online Shopping Open Kitchens Organic Agricultural Products, Policies on Organic Foods and Health Implications Organic Production Organic/Biodynamic Farming Overfishing and Fisheries Depletion Oxalic Acid and Oxalates Oyster Bars Packaged Food and Preservatives Packaging Paleo Diet

List of Entries

Paleodietary Reconstruction, Modern Techniques in Pancake Houses and Breakfast Joints Pay-What-You-Can Cafés Pellagra Performance Art Using Food Permaculture Pest Control Pesticides Pet Food Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production Pizzerias PLU. See Price Look-Up Codes Population and Food Supply Portion Sizes Poultry Industry Preservatives Price Fixing. See Sherman Antitrust Act Price Look-Up Codes Price Wars Prison Food Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) Raw Diets Raw Milk and Pasteurization Recalls. See Food Safety; Food Safety Agencies; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Recipe Testing Refrigerator Design and Size Religion and Food Practices. See Christian Food Restrictions; Halal Food; Hindu Food Restrictions; Kosher Food; Mormon Food Practices; Religions and Foods, Requirements and Labeling; Seventh-day Adventist Food Practices Religion and Foods, Requirements and Labeling Restaurant Chefs Restaurant Cooking Technologies Restaurant Inspections Restaurant Management Restaurant Menu Design Restaurant Reviews Restaurant Reviews, Online. See Crowdsourced Reviews of Restaurants

Restaurant Waitstaff Restaurants, Design and Decor. See Design and Decor of Restaurants Rickets Roadside Stands Salmonella School Food School Lunches School Wellness Programs Scurvy Seed Banks Seed Conservation Seed Exchange Networks Seed Sterility Technology. See Terminator Technology Self-Checkout in Grocery Stores Sell-By Dates. See Expiration Dates Seventh-day Adventist Food Practices Shelf Life Shelving and Product Placement Sherman Antitrust Act Slow Food Smoking Regulations in Restaurants Smuggling Snack Foods Social Media and Food Soil Degradation and Conservation Solar Cookers Soup Kitchens. See Food Banks South Beach Diet. See Low-Carbohydrate Diets Soy and Phytoestrogens Special Programme for Food Security, United Nations Sports Nutrition Sprouts Standards and Measures Steroid Hormones in Food Storage and Warehousing Street Food Strikes Subliminal Advertising Subsidies Supper Clubs and Clandestine Dining Supply and Distribution Networks Sushi

xi

xii

List of Entries

Sustainable Agrifood Systems Sustainable Agrifood Systems, Effect on Environment Tagging and Tracking Foods From Origin to Point of Retail Sale Take-Out Foods Tariffs Taxation, Fat Tax Taxation, General Television Advertising Terminator Technology Terroir Terrorist Threats to Food and Water Supplies Threats to Clean Drinking Water Tourism, Food Toxicity Testing Traceability. See Tagging and Tracking Foods From Origin to Point of Retail Sale Trademarks Trans Fat and Hydrogenation Trophy Kitchens Umami Underground Economies UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage and World Cuisines United Nations, Food Standards. See Codex Alimentarius Commission Urban Farming and Rooftop Gardens Urbanization of Agricultural Land

U.S. Department of Agriculture Use-By Dates. See Expiration Dates Values-Based Food Supply Chains Veganism Vegetable Oils Vegetarianism Vegetarianism and Veganism, Health Implications Vending Machines Vertical Integration Veterinary Science Vitamins and Other Dietary Supplements Warehouse Clubs and Supermarket Loyalty Cards Water, Bottled Versus Municipal Water in Global Agrifood Chains Water Rights Websites on Food Weight Loss Diets Wet Markets and Hawking Whaling for Food Wine Worker Safety World Health Organization, Food Standards. See Codex Alimentarius Commission World Trade Organization World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF) Xerophthalmia

Reader’s Guide The Reader’s Guide is provided to assist readers in locating articles on related topics. It classifies articles into 16 general topical categories: Agriculture, Husbandry, and Fisheries; Consumption: Eating Out and Gastronomy; Consumption: Home and Home Cooking; Environment and Ecosystem; Food Ideologies; Food in Popular Media and Popular Events; Food Processing; Food Safety; Food Science; Government Policy and Regulation; Health; Hunger and Poverty; Labor; Marketing and Advertising; Retail and Shopping; and Trade and Distribution. Entries may be listed under more than one topic. Agriculture, Husbandry, and Fisheries

Green Revolution, Future Prospects for Guerrilla Gardening Herbicide Resistance Heritage Breeds Homesteading International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Study Land Grant Colleges/Extension Units Landrace Monoculture Multifunctionality in Agriculture Naturally Raised and Fed Meats Organic Production Permaculture Pest Control Pesticides Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production Poultry Industry Roadside Stands Seed Banks Seed Exchange Networks Subsidies Sustainable Agrifood Systems Urban Farming and Rooftop Gardens Veterinary Science World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF)

Agrarianism Agritourism Aquaculture/Fish Farming Aquaponics Bees and Colony Collapse Disorder Biodynamic Food Biofuels Cattle Industry Chemical Fertilizers Circular Food Systems Commodity Chains Community Gardens Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Farmers’ Perspective Cooperatives Crop Insurance Dairy Industry Factory Farming Family Farms and Rural Depopulation Farm Bills Farmers’ Markets, Farmers’ Perspective Fishing for Sport Fishing Industry Fishing Policies Forestry Management Free-Range Meats and Poultry Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Grass-Fed Beef xiii

xiv

Reader’s Guide

Consumption: Eating Out and Gastronomy

Airline Meals Authenticity of Cuisines Bar Food Buffests/All You Can Eat Cafeterias, Noninstitutional Casual Dining Chains Catering Business, Off-Site Chocolate Church Suppers Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops College Dining Services Competitive Eating Corporate Food Service Design and Décor of Restaurants Diners Disgust Donut Shops Ethnic Restaurants Exotic Food and Strange Food Fair and Carnival Food Fast Food Fine Dining Food Carts Food Trucks Gastropubs Hospital Food Ice Cream Parlors Last Meals Military Rations Mini-Marts Mixology Molecular Gastronomy Noise in Restaurants Open Kitchens Oyster Bars Pancake Houses and Breakfast Joints Pay-What-You-Can Cafés Pizzerias Portion Sizes Prison Food Restaurant Cooking Technologies Restaurant Menu Design School Food Smoking Regulations in Restaurants Street Food

Supper Clubs and Clandestine Dining Sushi Take-Out Foods Tourism, Food Umami Consumption: Home and Home Cooking

Alcohol Baby Food Breastfeeding Children’s Foods Convenience Foods Cooking as Leisure Activity Cultural Identity and Food Deskilling DIY Food Movement Family Meals/Commensality Farmers’ Markets, Cooking With Seasonal Produce Food Waste Foraging Gender and Foodways Holidays Centered on Food Home Fermentation Hunting Identity and Food Junk Food, Consumption Olive Oil Pet Food Refrigerator Design and Size Snack Foods Solar Cookers Trophy Kitchens Vegetable Oils Wine Environment and Ecosystem

Butterflies and Other Lepidoptera, Decline in Population of Chemical Fertilizers Climate Change Composting Dead Zones in Fisheries Deforestation for Agriculture Endangered Species

Reader’s Guide

Fisheries Certification Programs Food Fads Leading to Diminished Species Fracking, Impact on Food and Water Global Warming and Future Food Supply Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences Invasive Species Kyoto Protocol Manure Lagoons/Methane Organic/Biodynamic Farming Overfishing and Fisheries Depletion Seed Conservation Soil Degradation and Conservation Sustainable Agrifood Systems, Effect on Environment Threats to Clean Drinking Water Urbanization of Agricultural Land Water in Global Agri-Food Chains Whaling for Food

Food Ideologies

Animal Rights Anthropophagy Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related Bible-Based Diets Christian Food Restrictions Freegans and Dumpster Diving Fruitarians Halal Food Hindu Food Restrictions Kosher Food Locavorism Low-Carbohydrate Diets Macrobiotics Mormon Food Practices Paleo Diet Paleodietary Reconstruction, Modern Techniques in Raw Diets Seventh Day Adventist Food Practices Slow Food Terroir Veganism Vegetarianism Weight Loss Diets

xv

Food in Popular Media and Popular Events

Apps for Food Art Depicting Food Art Using Food as a Medium Blogging Celebrity Chefs Cookbooks and the Publishing Industry Cooking Competitions Crowdsourced Reviews of Restaurants Food Fairs and Festivals Food in Popular Media Food Magazines Food TV Food Writing in Books Ghostwriters for Celebrity Chefs Media Portrayals of Food Issues Music About Food Newspaper Food Columns Performance Art Using Food Recipe Testing Restaurant Reviews Social Media and Food Websites on Food Food Processing

Artisanal Foods Artisanal Spirits Beverage Industry Bread Processing Canning Frozen Foods Meat Processing Milling Multinational Conglomerates Oxalic Acid and Oxalates Nitrate, Nitrite, and Cured Versus Uncured Meats Packaging Vertical Integration Food Safety

Aflatoxins Alar Antibacterial Soaps, Detergents, Dishwashing Liquids

xvi

Reader’s Guide

Antibiotics and Superbugs Bioterrorism Botulism Codex Alimentarius Commission Consistency of Food Products/Ingredients Consumer Trust Cooking Temperature Recommendations, U.S. Department of Agriculture Guidelines Cooking Temperatures, Minimum E. coli Fish Contaminants Food Allergies Food Allergies: Impact on Life Food Safety Food Safety Agencies Foodborne Illness Global Food Security Act of 2009 Growth Hormones and Other Drugs in Meat Products Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Imported Food Irradiation Labeling, Legislation and Oversight Listeria Locust Infestations Mad Cow Disease Religion and Foods, Requirements and Labeling Salmonella Special Programme for Food Security, United Nations Standards and Measures Steroids in Food Temperature Recommendations for Cooking Terrorist Threats to Food and Drinking Supplies Toxicity Testing Water, Bottled Versus Municipal Food Science

Artificial Sweeteners Food Additives Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) High-Fructose Corn Syrup In Vitro Meat Irradiation Natural and Artificial Flavors and Fragrances Oxalic Acid and Oxalates Terminator Technology Government Policy and Regulation

Alcohol Industry, Regulation and Taxation of Alcohol Regulations, History of Antitrust Laws Bankruptcy Laws Biopiracy Cannabis in Food Codex Alimentarius Contract Laws Culinary Diplomacy Fishing Policies Food Aid Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Lobbying Food Pyramids and National Dietary Guidelines Food Sovereignty, Policy and Regulation Food Stamps and WIC Fraud Intellectual Property Law and Recipes Intellectual Property Rights Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified Litigation Concerning Food Issues Microloans Nutrition Education Organic Agricultural Products, Policies on Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) Raw Milk and Pasteurization Restaurant Inspections School Lunches Smoking Regulations in Restaurants Taxation, Fat Tax Taxation, General U.S. Department of Agriculture

Reader’s Guide

UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage and World Cuisines Water Rights

xvii

Trans fat and Hydrogenation Vegetarianism and Veganism, Health Implications Vitamins and Other Dietary Supplements Xerophthalmia

Health

Antibiotics and Superbugs Antioxidants Ayurveda and Diet Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related Cancer-Fighting Foods Carcinogens and Relation of Cancer to Diet Cardiac Disease and Diet Childhood Obesity Chinese Traditional Medicine and Diet Cholesterol, LDL and HDL Diabetes Elderly Nutrition Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease Fats, Role in Diet Fiber, Role in Diet Food Allergies French Paradox Functional Foods Gluten-Free Food Holistic Medicine (New Age) and Diet Junk Food, Impact on Health Labeling, Nutrition Lactobacilli Low-Fat Foods Low-Sodium Foods Minerals, in Nutrition Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) Nutraceuticals Nutrient Density Nutritionism Obesity Epidemic Organic Foods and Health Implications Packaged Foods and Preservatives Pellagra Rickets School Wellness Programs Scurvy Soy and phytoestrogens Sports Nutrition Sprouts

Hunger and Poverty

Charitable Organizations Domestic Food Insecurity Famines Food Banks Food Deserts Food Insecurity Food Justice Food Riots Human Right to Adequate Food Hunger International Food Security Population and Food Supply Labor

Boycotts Education in Food Service Industries Employment: U.S. Food Sector Equal Opportunity Employment/Discrimination Farmworkers Industry Labor and Labor Unions Migrant Labor Restaurant Management Restaurant Waitstaff Restaurants Chefs Slavery (virtual) Strikes Worker Safety Marketing and Advertising

Advertising and Marketing of Food Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children Coupons Ethnic Foods, Marketing of Food Advertisements in School Hallways and Cafeterias Food Policy Councils Front Groups

xviii

Reader’s Guide

Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables Magazine and Newspaper Advertising Marketing Boards Online Advertising Shelving and Product Placement Subliminal Advertising Television Advertising Trademarks Retail and Shopping

Bakeries Canned Goods Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective Convenience Stores Deli Counter in Grocery Stores Ethnic Grocery Stores Expiration Dates Farmers’ Markets Fresh Food Frozen Food Generic Brands Gourmet and Specialty Foods Grocery Stores and Supermarkets Health Food Stores Hypermarkets Liquor Stores Mobile Markets Online Shopping Price Look-Up Codes Price Wars Self-Checkout in Grocery Stores Shelving and Product Placement

Vending Machines Warehouse Clubs and Supermarket Loyalty Cards Wet Markets and Hawking Trade and Distribution

Anti-Globalization Movements/Word Trade Organization Barter and the Informal Economy Distribution Centers Economic Cost of Western Diet Exports Fair Trade Federal Trade Commission Food Miles Food Sovereignty Grain Elevators/Hoarding and Speculation Imported Food Invasive Species Monopolies North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Preservatives Shelf Life Sherman Antitrust Act Smuggling Storage and Warehousing Supply and Distribution Networks Tagging and Tracking Foods From Origin to Point of Retail Sale Tariffs Underground Economies Values-Based Food Supply Chains World Trade Organization

About the Editor 4-volume Food Cultures of the World Encyclopedia and is now series editor of Rowman and Littlefield Studies in Food and Gastronomy, for which he has written Three World Cuisines: Italian, Chinese, Mexican (winner of the Gourmand World Cookbook Awards best foreign cuisine book in the world for 2012). He has also co-authored two cookbooks: The Lost Art of Real Cooking and The Lost Arts of Hearth and Home. His latest works are The Food History Reader: Primary Sources and a translation of the 16th-century cookbook Livre fort excellent de cuysine. His 36-episode course Food: A Cultural Culinary History is available on DVD from the Great Courses company.

Ken Albala is Professor of History and Director of Food Studies at the University of the Pacific and author or editor of 22 books on food including Eating Right in the Renaissance, Food in Early Modern Europe, Cooking in Europe 1250–1650, The Banquet, Beans (winner of the 2008 IACP Jane Grigson Award), Pancake, and recently Grow Food, Cook Food, Share Food and Nuts: A Global History. He was co-editor of the journal Food, Culture and Society and has also co-edited The Business of Food, Human Cuisine, Food and Faith and edited A Cultural History of Food: The Renaissance and The Routledge International Handbook to Food Studies. Albala was editor of the Food Cultures Around the World series, the

xix

Contributors Joshua D. Abrams University of Roehampton

Cynthia D. Bertelsen Independent Scholar

Polly Adema Independent Scholar and Consultant

Noel A. Bielaczyc Boston University

Ken Albala University of the Pacific

Sherman J. Bigornia University of Massachusetts Lowell

Alison Hope Alkon University of the Pacific

Jean-François Bissonnette Université Laval

Rachel A. Ankeny University of Adelaide

Megan K. Blake University of Sheffield

Steven J. Archambault New Mexico State University

Alison Blay-Palmer Wilfrid Laurier University

Bonnie Azab Powell Bon Appétit Management Company

Warren M. Bobrow Wild River Review

Tracy Bacon University of Arizona

Rutgerd Boelens Wageningen University

Peggy F. Barlett Emory University

Jay B. Bost University of Hawai’i

Scott Alves Barton New York University

Caitlin M. Boston HUGE

Dean Bavington Memorial University of Newfoundland

John S. Bowman Independent Editor/Author

Maggie Beidelman Filmmaker

Brynn Brigham Prairie View A&M University

Anne C. Bellows Syracuse University

Hellen Brink

Abigail Bennett Duke University

Andrea Broomfield Johnson County Community College

Israel Berger University of Sydney

Michael S. Bruner Humboldt State University

Justin Bergh University of Minnesota

Christopher Buccafusco Chicago-Kent College of Law xx

Contributors

April Bullock California State University, Fullerton

Emily J. H. Contois Boston University

Leigh Bush Indiana University

Suzanne Cope Manhattan College

Diana Caley New York University

John Coveney Flinders University

Joseph M. Carlin Independent Writer

Christine Crawford-Oppenheimer Culinary Institute of America (Retired)

Bryce A. Carlson Purdue University

Nathan C. Crook The Ohio State University

Brídín Carroll National University of Ireland, Galway

Sarah E. Crowell

Glenn R. Carroll Stanford University Walter F. Carroll Bridgewater State University Christine C. Caruso Touro College of Health Sciences Stephanie Cavagnaro Food Writer Christina M. Ceisel Hamilton College Tovar Cerulli University of Massachusetts Amherst H. M. Chandola Gujarat Ayurved University Madeline Chera Indiana University

Grace Curran Ohio University Giada Danesi Centre Edgar-Morin/IIAC/EHESS Robert E. Davenport Independent Consultant Charlotte, J.S. De Backer University of Antwerp Carolyn de la Peña University of California, Davis Erika Derkas New Mexico Highlands University Jonathan Deutsch Drexel University M. Ruth Dike University of Kentucky

Janet Chrzan University of Pennsylvania

Sara B. Dykins Callahan University of South Florida

Kate Clancy Johns Hopkins University

Ryan S. Eanes University of Oregon

Sierra Clark New York University

Emily Earhart Independent Scholar

Manny J. L. Coker-Schwimmer University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Michael R. Eaton Kingbird Farms

Kathleen Collins John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Mark Evan Edwards Oregon State University

Thomas M. Conroy Lehman College

Megan J. Elias Queensborough Community College

xxi

xxii

Contributors

Charlene D. Elliott University of Calgary

David Grumett University of Edinburgh

Paul Fieldhouse University of Manitoba

Kathleen Guillozet Virginia Tech

S. Margot Finn University of Michigan

Sitaji Gurung Brooklyn College, City University of New York

Len Fisher University of Bristol Janet A. Flammang Santa Clara University Beth M. Forrest Culinary Institute of America Kimberly E. Fox Bridgewater State University Olivia Fraga Food Writer Constanze Frank-Oster Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz Alexandra C. Frantz The Real Food Challenge Joshua J. Frye State University of New York Bernard Gallois Stevens Institute of Technology Manisha Garg Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta Mary Gee University of California, San Francisco Michael Eden Gertler University of Saskatchewan

Laura K. Hahn Humboldt State University Nicolette Hahn Niman Rancher, Lawyer, Author Adrienne Hall Drexel University Billy Hall Florida International University Clara Hanson Boston University Wenonah Hauter Food & Water Watch Nell Haynes Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Carol Helstosky University of Denver Deborah Hemming Independent Julie Henderson Flinders University Chris Hergesheimer University of British Columbia

Annie Goldberg

Carrie Herzog University of Guelph

Phillip J. Granberry University of Massachusetts Boston

Shawn M. Higgins University of Connecticut

Arthur Green Okanagan College

Melissa Hills Grant MacEwan University

Jessica B. Greenebaum Central Connecticut State University

Ai Hisano University of Delaware

Aaron S. Gross University of San Diego

Jennifer L. Hostetter Independent Food Researcher

Contributors

J. Andrew Hudson Institute of Environmental Science and Research

Irena Knezevic Mount Saint Vincent University

Arianna Huhn San Diego State University

Rebecca Knibb School of Life and Health Sciences at Aston University

Clarissa Hyman Freelance Food Writer Ellen M. Ireland Indiana University at Bloomington JoAnn Jaffe University of Regina Mikko Jauho National Consumer Research Centre Bill Jeffery Centre for Science in the Public Interest (Canada)

Christine Knight University of Edinburgh Jane Kolodinsky University of Vermont Jason Konefal Sam Houston State University Balazs Kovacs University of Lugano Kristine Kowalchuk University of Alberta

Nancy Harmon Jenkins Freelance Writer and Scholar

Bruce Kraig Roosevelt University

Sarah Jewitt University of Nottingham

Leslie Land (deceased) The New York Times

Kimberly E. Johnson Syracuse University

John T. Lang Occidental College

Josée Johnston University of Toronto

Julia L. Lapp Ithaca College

Michael Owen Jones University of California, Los Angeles

Anna B. Lappé Small Planet Institute

Soo Kang Colorado State University

Frances Moore Lappé Small Planet Institute

Charity Kenyon Slow Food USA

Paula Lee Tufts University

Alex D. Ketchum McGill University

Richard Philip Lee Newcastle University

Chi-Hoon Kim Indiana University

David W. Lehman University of Virginia

Hilary King Emory University

Aintzane Legarreta Mentxaka University College Dublin

Robert P. King University of Minnesota

Nadine Lehrer Chatham University

Judith Klinger World-Eats

Teagan Lehrmann Independent Scholar

xxiii

xxiv

Contributors

Larry Lev Oregon State University

Jason Mark Earth Island Journal

Todd LeVasseur College of Charleston

Sarah J. Martin University of Waterloo

Jane Levi Silphium Consulting Ltd.

Esther Martin-Ullrich Boston University

Laura R. Lewis Washington State University

Tama Matsuoka Wong Meadows and More

Wendy Leynse New York University

Vicki Mavrakis Flinders University

Vivian Liberman Independent Scholar

Kristin M. McAndrews University of Hawaii–Manoa

Yin-Ling Lin Manchester Metropolitan University Arthur Lizie Bridgewater State University Vivienne Lo University College of London Lucy M. Long Center for Food and Culture Sarah Lyon University of Kentucky Ellen M. Maccarone Gonzaga University Jeremy MacClancy Oxford Brookes University Glenn R. Mack Le Cordon Bleu Atlanta

Alex McIntosh Texas A&M University Alice L. McLean University of the Pacific Debra L. Merskin University of Oregon Ellen Messer Tufts Robyn Metcalfe Samantha Meyer University of Waterloo Jeffrey P. Miller Colorado State University Alfonso Morales University of Wisconsin–Madison Donnie Moreland Prairie View A&M University

Tanya MacLaurin University of Guelph

Raquel Moreno-Peñaranda United Nations University

Heather Mallory Duke University

Deeksha Nagar Folklorist and Education Consultant

Giorgios Maltezakis Tasting Crete Culinary Excursions

Joylin Namie Utah Valley University

Loreen Mamerow University of Basel

Marion Nestle New York University

Q. Marak North-eastern Hill University

P. K. Newby Boston University

Teresa Mares University of Vermont

Kara S. Nielsen CCD Innovation

Contributors

xxv

Mari Niva National Consumer Research Centre

Alexandra Rodney University of Toronto

Emily Northrop Southwestern University

Casey Rogers Chatham University

Zachary Nowak The Umbra Institute

Bernard E. Rollin Colorado State University

M. Daniela Núñez Burbano de Lara University of Hohenheim

Annu Ross Boston University

Travis E. Nygard Ripon College

Signe Rousseau University of Cape Town

Brian K. Obach State University of New York at New Paltz

Kimberly Royster Lone Star College

Gbadebo Odularu Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA)

Michael D. Royster Prairie View A&M University

Olusola A. Olufemi University of Ibadan

Elisa Rull Autonomous University of Barcelona

Marcia Ostrom Washington State University

Valentí Rull Botanic Institute of Barcelona (IBB-CSIC-ICUB)

Alissa Overend MacEwan University

Audrey Russek Gustavus Adolphus College

Faidra Papavasiliou Georgia State University

Valerie Ryan Boston University

Alison Pearlman California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Amelia Saltsman Cookbook Author

Wendy Petty Food Writer and Teacher

Rachelle H. Saltzman University of Oregon

Michel Pimbert Coventry University

Sajay Samuel Pennsylvania State University

Sarah Portnoy University of Southern California

Laura Sayre Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

Elaine M. Power Queen’s University

Martin P. Schreibman Brooklyn College, CUNY

Joe M. Regenstein Cornell University

Joseph G. Sebranek Iowa State University

Daniel Remar University of South Carolina

Colleen Sen Independent Scholar

Analiese M. Richard University of the Pacific

P. Simran Sethi University of Melbourne

Jonnell A. Robinson Syracuse University

Hari Sharma Ohio State University

xxvi

Contributors

Emilie Sibbesson University of Southampton

Donald D. Stull University of Kansas

Amy E. Singer Franklin and Marshall College

Alexandra J. M. Sullivan The Graduate Center, City University of New York

Nicholas J. Sitko Michigan State University Andrew F. Smith New School University Matthew Smith University of Strathclyde Ulrica Söderlind Stockholm University Lesley Jacobs Solmonson Author Tammara Soma University of Toronto Leni A. Sorensen Retired Kelly A. Spring University of Manchester Nicolette Spudic Chatham University Carol Price Spurling Independent Scholar Nancy Stalker University of Texas, Austin Denis Stearns Seattle University School of Law Jasia Steinmetz University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point Rita Hansen Sterne University of Guelph George Stevenson University of Wisconsin Claire Stewart New York City College of Technology, City University of New York Steve Striffler University of New Orleans

Gina Szabady University of Arizona Michelle K. Szabo University of Toronto Ileana F. Szymanski University of Scranton Anne Taylor University of Adelaide Laura N. Thomas Cornell University Kirrilly Thompson Central Queensland University Keith G. Tidball Cornell University Rebekah L. Torcasso Washington State University Maria Idalí Torres University of Massachusetts Boston Jennifer Trieu Trinity College Dublin Leena Trivedi-Grenier Independent Scholar Nilaja E. Troy Baruch College, City University of New York Deborah Valenze Barnard College, Columbia University Erna van Duren University of Guelph Craig Van Pelt University of Oregon Paul Van Reyk Freelance Food Writer Karin Vaneker Independent Researcher

Contributors

xxvii

Jeroen Vos Wageningen University

Annabelle Wilson Flinders University

Kimberly Wilmot Voss University of Central Florida

Marisa Wilson University of the West Indies

Silvana Vukadin-Hoitt Freelance Writer

Mark Winne Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future

Laurie A. Wadsworth St. Francis Xavier University

Doris Witt University of Iowa

Tom Wakeford Coventry University

Hannah Wittman University of British Columbia

Paul Ward Flinders University

Catherine A. Womack Bridgewater State University

Evan Weissman Syracuse University

Andrea R. Woodward Berea College

Justine Wells University of South Carolina

Simon Young Umbra Institute

Elizabeth Williams Southern Food and Beverage Museum

catherine a. zagare Chatham University’s Falk School of Sustainability

Karmen S. Williams Prairie View A&M University

Natale A. Zappia Whittier College

P. Williams-Forson University of Maryland

Willa Zhen Culinary Institute of America

Introduction Food can be frightening, contentious, and sometimes downright baffling. It can also be the source of immense personal pleasure and social bonding. Most of us eat every day, ideally a few times; nonetheless, every day it becomes harder to answer what must have once been a simple question: what’s for dinner? Of course, we have more choices today and our food is generally safer than at any time in the past. But there are still outbreaks of food poisoning, often enough to question everything that goes into your mouth. Some items are suddenly hailed as wonder foods, others equally quickly vilified. Today, eat blue foods, drink pomegranate juice, eat more kale, but make sure it’s organic, and best of all raw, and pulverized in a shake. Everyone has a stake in telling us to eat this or avoid that: the people who grow the food, the processors, the retailers, the scientists, the diet gurus, the religious leaders, even the food scholars. The nutrition information on the side of packages is supposed to make choosing easier, but do we really need to know that a box of mints has 0 grams and 0% of the daily value of saturated fat, 0% vitamin A, 0% vitamin C, 0% calcium, et cetera—or that it’s gluten free and is made in a factory that processes nuts and chocolate? Allergies are a serious matter, but can so many people suddenly have developed wheat intolerance when Western civilization has thrived on wheat for the past 10,000 years? Or is it simply that we grow a different kind of wheat nowadays and process it differently? Should we blame the food industry for this and the myriad issues that can be so confusing? Moreover, why are we so susceptible to the power of suggestion? Can it just be that marketers and advertisers do a brilliant job getting us to buy

their products? Or is it the way flavor is engineered into food so that we become addicted to the highly processed and more expensive packaged items? And how is it that what was designed specifically as health food one day is deemed poisonous the next? Just think of hydrogenated trans fats. Why did people trust manufacturers of these products in the first place? Why do miracle diets come and go so quickly; do we really know that little about basic nutrition or what will make people gain or lose weight? It is no wonder that we are schizophrenic about our food, that we are the most over nourished and yet malnourished of people. We can buy fresh local produce an aisle away from junk food, but when it becomes difficult to distinguish the two because the junk food is organic and who knows what pesticides linger within the shiny fruits and vegetables, then it is clear we really need some unbiased help. What about the information that’s not on the box? Do we really need to be better informed about genetically modified organisms and are they as safe as some have promised? The ultimate paradox is how can they be patented and yet ruled to be substantially equivalent to conventional produce and therefore not require Food and Drug Administration testing? Does it make sense when food workers can barely get by on minimum wage and our taxes support social programs that ultimately amount to subsidizing big corporations? Does it matter that our food supply is cheap when we pay a much greater cost in the long run due to environmental degradation? Does it make sense that our tax dollars support farmers who grow soy and corn and that products derived from these go into junk food—the very foods we are told not to eat? Can anyone in good

xxix

xxx

Introduction

conscience sit down to a lavish restaurant meal while there are people around the world starving? These are difficult questions with no simple answers. This encyclopedia does not try to answer them one way or another either. It takes no sides. The purpose of this work is to clarify, present the facts, and inform readers so that they can make better choices. Advocates on either side of the fence may cry foul, because they have a vested interest in doing so. The contributors to this work, experts on over 400 topics, have been forthright and their only purpose is to help us navigate the confusing world of food and all the issues surrounding it. These experts range from food scientists and scholars to cookbook authors and engaged practitioners. The only thing they all have in common is the goal of making a vast, complicated, and confusing field easier to understand for anyone who is concerned with what we eat. This includes students, consumers, recreational cooks, parents, and people within the industry who may know a lot about their own bailiwick but little about other aspects of the food system. I cannot even begin to describe how much I learned from this project. This work is also intentionally inclusive and global in orientation, covering not only the food issues we hear about in the news, but what goes on behind the scenes: aspects of the food chain we never see, which includes the farmers and laborers as well as the people who transport the food, serve it in restaurants, or conduct research to make food safer, healthier, and more humane toward the sentient beings we rear. It also includes the consumption side of the story: how religion influences food choice, the various different nutritional systems around the world, and how we communicate about food. Probably the most confusing aspect of our food system is the laws, so these are covered in detail. So too are the interesting places we eat, from fast food joints to Michelin-starred temples of gastronomy. We discuss the issues of home cooking and what goes on in ordinary kitchens, and ways of eating, ranging from fruitarians to dumpster divers, from kosher food to terrorist

threats to the food supply. With such a wide range of entries, we have included a Reader’s Guide to assist readers in locating entries in various topical categories: Agriculture, Husbandry, and Fisheries Consumption: Eating Out and Gastronomy Consumption: Home and Home Cooking Environment and Ecosystem Food Ideologies Food in Popular Media and Popular Events Food Processing Food Safety Food Science Government Policy and Regulation Health Hunger and Poverty Labor Marketing and Advertising Retail and Shopping Trade and Distribution

In addition, each entry contains cross-references to a handful of other related entries as well as Further Readings, which can serve as a road map for more in-depth study. There is no doubt that food has become a hot topic, in the popular media and in the halls of academe. But with that popularity also comes a responsibility to act in the most just, fair, responsible way we can and naturally to get the most honest pleasure we can from our food without harming ourselves, the environment, the animals we eat, or the people who work so hard to bring food to the table. This is a difficult task, admittedly, but hopefully with this encyclopedia in hand or on your screen you will be better equipped to deal with all the complex food issues surrounding us.

Introduction

Acknowledgments In editing this encyclopedia I owe immense thanks above all to the contributors who cheerfully volunteered their time and energy for this massive project. Your collective wisdom astounds me. Thanks also to Jim Brace-Thompson who first recruited me, it seems like so many years ago, on a rainy day in Thousand Oaks, California. Thanks to the editorial team at SAGE including Carole Maurer, Diane Axelsen, Kate Peterson, Laura

xxxi

Notton, and Tracy Buyan. Thanks to my indefatigable assistant and former student Annu Ross who helped me recruit contributors. Special thanks to Leslie Land, who took this assignment knowing it would be the very last thing she wrote. And most importantly, to my partner in crime who kept me in good spirits via email from the beginning to end, Anna Villaseñor, who happily dealt with every little bump in the road. Ken Albala

SAGE was founded in 1965 by Sara Miller McCune to support the dissemination of usable knowledge by publishing innovative and high-quality research and teaching content. Today, we publish more than 750 journals, including those of more than 300 learned societies, more than 800 new books per year, and a growing range of library products including archives, data, case studies, reports, conference highlights, and video. SAGE remains majority-owned by our founder, and after Sara’s lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures our continued independence. Los Angeles | London | Washington DC | New Delhi | Singapore | Boston

A ADVERTISING OF FOOD

AND

by which to reach the consumer today, frequently using humor, wit, and tongue-in-cheek jokes. Additionally, buzzwords that coordinate with particular food trends have been particularly successful. The fundamental messages of the plethora of branding campaigns, however, have remained the same over the decades of food advertising and marketing: If you eat this, you will become that; if you serve that, your guests will think this about you; transform yourself, your family time, and your home into someone or something superior by using our particular food product, by shopping at our store, or by using our culinary tools. In this industry, and in all marketing and advertising, the bottom line is about cause and effect. Eat your Wheaties so you grow up big and strong! By using our product, you have become better. This entry examines the history of food marketing, the role of social media, the power of food bloggers, the use of buzzwords, and changes in food marketing strategies.

MARKETING

Marketing and advertising are essential practices in every business. Marketing is the planning and implementation of business strategies that help sellers transfer their products to buyers, while advertising is a paid message by a sponsor as a call to action to the consumer. To successfully sell their products, food-centered businesses have adopted a unique set of practices that enable them to achieve desired results and remain competitive. At the outset of marketing a new product or line, food companies must determine how to brand themselves or their product—that is, how to use marketing and advertising to create a specific identity. Whether by way of a particular phrase or mascot, branding is essential to success on both a small and large scale. Some branding campaigns can be so successful that they are remembered over decades, a memorable example of which is the famous Wheaties byline, “Eat your Wheaties to grow up strong!” While techniques employed to establish branding have changed over time to incorporate the varied media of contemporary society, a singular truth has emerged from this evolution: It is not about talking at the consumer any longer, it is about talking with them. To accomplish this dialogue, interactive and social media–based marketing and advertising have become a popular avenue

We Can Make It Better Than It Was— Better . . . Stronger . . . Faster: The Developments of Food Marketing Strategy Food marketing has had a varied history that generally follows the advertising fads of the day. Humans have gone from peddling their wares in the street or directly to their consumers to bringing the customers to them in droves by adjusting 1

2

Advertising and Marketing of Food

marketing and advertising schemes. Marketing in the 18th century rarely involved newspapers, as the lower classes were not in the habit of reading them daily. Businesses therefore resorted to billposters, leaflets, handouts, signs in shop windows, and the town crier. These short, colorful advertisements caught the eye of passersby, encouraging them to enter the shops as they strolled past. Such advertisements touted the benefits of food products and food-related remedies, claiming that their usage would restore lost health by way of high-quality foodstuffs. Advertising suggested that the consumer should shop only at this store to impress his or her guests and establish a place within society. During the 19th century, similar methods were still employed (minus the energetic town crier), but newspaper as a form of media became more widespread and with them printed advertising. Stringent limitations on length and visibility were placed on the advertisements: no large lettering, no illustrations, only lines of text in regular sized print. By the mid-19th century, print advertising and marketing emerged as a force. Although businesses were initially reluctant to admit the benefits of advertising, by the end of the 19th century, print advertising became the medium of choice, including the use of full-page color photos in magazines, aimed at the desired consumer demographics. Magazines became increasingly popular as they could be individualized with regard to demographics; there were magazines for the gentleman, for the lady, and even children. Ad agencies began creating ad campaigns and marketing strategies that included a popular slogan, a strategy that has been a staple since then. Finally, in the 20th century, new technologies made food marketing and advertising even more exciting than before. Ad agencies and businesses utilized shorter “catch your eye” (and ear) forms of advertising. Gone were the days of tiny print and long paragraphs and in were the days of catchy tunes, memorable slogans, and self-service shopping experiences. Radio was introduced in the 1920s, bringing with it a need for attentiongrabbing advertising and marketing strategies. Jingles became a fashion, and the first jingle ever was introduced by none other than a large food business—General Mills for their cereal Wheaties.

After purchasing a radio station, on the off-chance radio would become popular, General Mills introduced a jingle titled Have You Tried Wheaties? on Christmas Eve in 1926. The impact was immediate. Radio ads and jingles enumerated the ways in which food products would benefit the regular consumer by using the “short and sweet” technique. Thus, ad copywriting that maximized this strategy became essential to the success of any large-scale food business. Radio programs geared toward the everyday housewife followed these advertisements, and soon cooking programs became popular. Even Betty Crocker, a pioneer of good housekeeping, joined in and had a radio station dedicated to preserving family values in the form of good, old-fashioned cooking and family time. And then came television. Though television was introduced in the late 1920s, it did not become a common household medium until the 1950s, followed by color television in the 1960s. Food commercials became even more engaging through the combination of moving images, sound, and the magic of color to emphasize both the enjoyable qualities and beneficial qualities of all types of food products. Commercials, aired at the beginning of movies, advertised delicious snacks and candy that could be found at concession stands, while television ads touted the benefits of items like frozen baby food to homemakers. Cereal advertising used animation to appeal to children while at the same time letting moms know that the breakfast food would help their child grow up big and strong. With television and premovie advertising, and product placement in movies and television, a practice that had been implemented early on in cinematic history, food and snack sales exploded. Television and movie advertising remained the main form of food marketing technique and strategy up until the advent of the Internet in the first decade of the 21st century. While previous marketing strategies remained in play, food businesses of ilk began embracing platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and other forms of social media. By creating an Internet presence, food companies were able to increase their sales and success, but at the same time, they unleashed accountability

Advertising and Marketing of Food

to their customers. With consumers having greater access to the companies that provide desired food products, marketing has shifted to focusing on interacting with their empowered customers rather than preaching the benefits of their products to them.

We’re Here to Listen to You: Social Media in Food Advertising Interactive, or business-to-consumer, marketing in the food industry has become an essential way to do business. While food companies had traditionally touted benefits to their customers, they now invite discussion with their customers. Gone are the days when customers were content to listen to companies and believe what they were told; they now demand greater information. Ever more sophisticated consumers want to know “why choose this product?” One of the many ways strategists have met this challenge is through social media marketing and advertising. Social media marketing is the new “word-of-mouth” advertising, embracing the ability to “share” posts, “Retweet” interesting information, and “like” things that resonate with the consumer. Additionally, such social media accounts bring customers to websites where they can get a better idea of company ideals and goals, as well as have a more comprehensive look at the food products on offer. Food companies are recognizing the benefits of quick, to-the-point advertising. Twitter allows for rapid bursts of information in 140 characters or less, and the more engaging and eye catching the Tweet, the better. Today’s consumers enjoy a bit of humor or quick factoids. Add to the mix the human element of Tweeting and it brings more trust into the business–consumer relationship. If the customers hate the potato chips they are eating, they’re able to Tweet at the offending company and know that there is a real person on the other end who will read the comment and, in a matter of minutes to hours, will respond in an effort stave off criticism to resolve the issue. With the advent of social media, the power of the consumer is amplified dramatically as is the experience of being valued and considered.

3

With such a wide range of social media platforms available, it has become easier than ever before for food businesses to customize their marketing techniques and focus on their goals. From Facebook business pages to Twitter accounts to Instagram, there is a type of social media that works for every business. For small and mediumsized businesses, this has been a blessing. Unable to afford mass marketing or a high-powered ad agency input, small and medium-sized food businesses have taken to social media as a way to promote themselves. The benefit is customers know that they are speaking directly, albeit virtually, to someone closely involved in the company. It is even possible that the consumer could be communicating with the owner of the business. Social media enables businesses to get the word out about their products at an order of magnitude greater than ever before—faithful customers will Retweet or share posts on different platforms, exposing their friends and acquaintances to that very same food product, resulting in a larger, extremely dedicated following. Large corporations have followed the lead of the small and medium-sized businesses but with one major difference: They have the budget to employ a full-time marketing and social media staff to handle problems that arise and respond to customer feedback swiftly and directly. The effect can be dramatic. The individual customer, the regular person, now appears to be able to command the attention of name brand businesses. And so they should, because social media can make or break a company. As communication techniques have become more immediate, all Tweets, posts, and images must be carefully attended by food companies and their marketing teams to avoid any unwanted complaints or customer dissatisfaction that have the potential of going “viral,” or of spreading through the cyber network at destructive speed.

All Hail the Bloggers: Food Bloggers as a Form of Marketing Nowadays, food bloggers reign supreme on the Internet. Thus, it has become common practice to utilize them as another advertising platform. Companies, both large and small, send all manner

4

Advertising and Marketing of Food

of food products to well-known or up-and-coming bloggers to use, review, and promote. The most common products sent are ingredients or kitchen tools—OXO might send bloggers new and improved spatulas to use for baking, KitchenAid may offer stand mixers to extremely popular bloggers, and small-batch producers of spices may send samples to everyone and anyone. The benefit of such practices is that for the price of a single item, food businesses can leverage a great deal of publicity. The blogger gets free stuff, and the company gets virtually free advertising, resulting in a win– win for all involved. The use of blogger reviews is an excellent marketing technique, not only because it works as extremely powerful word-of-mouth advertising but also because potential customers tend to trust bloggers more than they would trust the advertising done by the company itself. For example, Leite’s Culinaria features a column titled “Leite’s Loves,” where David Leite reviews the ingredients, tools, and even the apps he enjoys. Whereas television commercials, magazine advertisements, and social media posts come directly from the company, blogger reviews come from an actual person using the product in a (close to) real-life setting to which readers can relate. On the blog, potential consumers can view detailed, realistic photos of the product in action as well as a description of its pros and cons. A favorable blogger review can work wonders for a brand or product, again leveraging the extraordinary power of communication that the Internet provides. One popular practice that has emerged in the past few years is the “contest” hosted by wellread food blogs. Commonly used with cookbooks and culinary tools, bloggers review a product sent by a company and end the post with a chance to win the product just reviewed. Readers compete for the product by leaving a comment explaining how they plan to use the item or relate a story about it. If successful, the winning respondent would be the owner of that new stand mixer, ice cream cookbook, or spatula. Although the producer may have given away the particular item, what they gain is the wide visibility that comes

from desire and the lucky winner who will likely spread the good word about their product.

To See Is to Eat: YouTube, Viral Videos, and Images in Food Advertising and Marketing Shorter attention spans have led the way to more exciting advertising strategies. Television and product placement advertising is still popular, but in a world of viral videos, YouTube is the most powerful tool. Food businesses employ the famous YouTube elite as well as create online advertising in the style of popular or viral videos. YouTube allows commercials to be viewed again and again, so the funnier or more touching that commercial might be, the better. Large companies have even begun using their commercials to make political and social statements, such as a 2013 Cheerios commercial that featured gay, interracial, single parent, and nuclear families with the clear message that all people deserve to be loved and respected equally. For maximum impact, smaller companies, on the other hand, resort to extremely creative, if not truly strange, commercials distributed primarily through YouTube to reach as many viewers as possible. An example is that of a Philadelphia-based ice cream company called Little Baby’s Ice Cream. In their commercial, “This Is a Special Time,” a man made of ice cream is eating himself accompanied by an ad-libbed narration by a local voice actor. That commercial has more than 6 million views qualifying as viral and caused their business to expand. Personal videos have even moved into the realm of marketing tools. Large businesses will invite customers to create their own video featuring their love of a certain food product and then share them through social media or on their websites. Frito-Lay has taken this technique one step further with their Doritos Super Bowl commercials. They invite lovers of Doritos to create their own ads that are then voted on by consumers. The winning advertisement is used during the Super Bowl. This contest is repeated every year with increasingly impressive results.

Advertising and Marketing of Food

Static images have resurfaced as a common trend in food advertising, but not the full-page print ads of the past. Now food businesses use platforms such as Instagram and Pinterest, where they are able to share behind-the-scenes peeks at how the company runs or images that represent the company’s ideals. For example, small pickling companies post images of their employees happily grinning over barrels of freshly made pickles on Instagram, while larger ones Pin recipes that utilize their food product.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Giving Consumers a Choice Food marketing strategies have begun to embrace consumers’ input more than ever before. They actively seek suggestions for the next flavor of jellybean or potato chip, giving the consumer more influence in the marketplace. Empowering consumers in this way, giving them the feeling that their feedback truly matters, makes them more likely to purchase the same product again. To encourage this type of relationship, large companies may release several flavors of snack food at once and invite customers to vote for the next flavor. This is particularly common with potato chips. Customers sample every flavor, then they visit the correlating website where they cast a vote, not unlike the popular television program American Idol. The flavor with the most votes becomes the next permanent chip flavor proving that customer participation does matter, and matters significantly.

It’s All-Natural, Naturally: Buzzwords and Humor Buzzwords in food advertising are nothing new. Today’s buzzwords invoke the idea of high quality, health, and general well-being. Even snack foods have begun embracing the health-related buzzwords in an effort to increase sales. Commonly used buzzwords and phrases are all-natural, organic, gluten-free, free-range, whole grain, antioxidant, authentic, and artisan.

5

While labels such as “organic” and “gluten-free” can only be carried under certain governmental restrictions, they are invaluable in the promotion of a particular product or brand. Such buzzwords denoting high quality or healthfulness can be applied to myriad products. The words can, however, be misleading as in the case of “antioxidant” being used in association with juices and sodas high in sugar. The opposite is true of the buzzwords “authentic” and “artisan.” They denote quality and small-batch production, implying that the food item with their designation has been made with more care than the average product, and with more attention paid to the traditional, and therefore involve better methods of making it. These particular buzzwords are more common with small to medium-sized businesses, but they have been adopted by larger businesses over time. Consumers look for more than just buzzwords, however. They want clever marketing and advertising campaigns. In the world of short viral videos and memes, consumers are looking for a laugh, even if it is related to their favorite food product. The wittier the advertisement, the better, and the weirder the advertisement, the more viral. In Japan, it is common for food advertisements to make a limited amount of sense. This preference likely comes from a natural distrust the Japanese have for ads that are too honest or too easy to understand. Some Western products have followed suit, in particular Skittles, whose bizarre television spots tend to make little to no logical sense but which are nonetheless quite successful and entertaining.

It’s What the Consumer Wants A critical difference between food marketing and advertising of the present versus that of the past is that today companies no longer attempt to tell customers what they should want. Instead, they are telling them what the consumer believes they already want. By appearing to or actually listening to the consumer and incorporating that input into their marketing approach, the contemporary market strategy is to provide the response the customer

6

Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children

hopes to hear. In so doing, food companies “partner” with the consumer, thereby increasing their trustworthiness and propagating a relationship that reinforces consumer loyalty. Food marketing and advertising have become truly interactive, a reflection of the digital age in which we live. Esther Martin-Ullrich See also Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children; Ethnic Foods, Marketing of; Magazine and Newspaper Advertising; Marketing Boards; Online Advertising; Social Media and Food; Subliminal Advertising; Television Advertising; Trademarks

Further Readings Innes, S. (2000). Kitchen culture in America: Popular representations of food gender and race. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Parkin, K. J. (2007). Food is love: Advertising and gender roles in modern America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.” Advertising derives from the Old French avertissement (a giving notice or announcement) and from the Latin advertere (to “turn toward” or “turn one’s attention to”). An advertisement includes any representation used for the purpose of promoting the sale of a good or service. The aim of food marketing and advertising, then, is to influence food and brand preferences, purchases, and consumption. However, the evergrowing problem of childhood obesity has pulled food marketing and advertising into the spotlight. This entry explores the history and current state of food marketing to children. It outlines some critiques of food marketing to children, examines the ways in which various players (including government, public health authorities, and food marketers) have proposed to address the negative influences of food marketing on children, and discusses the shortcomings of these efforts.

History of Food Marketing to Children

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING FOOD TO CHILDREN

OF

Food marketing to children is a sophisticated, expansive, and multibillion dollar industry. It currently spans a broad range of promotional techniques, including advertising (television, radio, print, digital/websites), advergames (brand-integrated videogames), product placement, packaging and labeling, character licensing, cross promotions, brand mascots and characters, and word-of-mouth or viral marketing (e.g., persuading people to forward ads to friends, often through games or video clips). Food marketing to children is also now a global phenomenon that typically uses multiple messages across diverse channels to attract attention. Marketing refers to any commercial message that works to advertise or promote a product or service. The American Marketing Association defines marketing as “the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and

Foods have been promoted to children in various ways. The lollipop has been a popular children’s treat since its debut in England in the 1780s, and penny candies were widely available and popular with North American children by the mid-1800s. Yet the first packaged food explicitly targeted at children was Cracker Jack. Introduced to a mass audience at the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893, Cracker Jack was the first company to put toy “surprises” in every package sold. Starting in 1912, children could find a miniature car, animal, gun, airplane, pair of scissors, or similar item in each box. The product was advertised with the slogan “A Prize in Every Box” to emphasize the treat’s special nature: The prizes were not just intermittent (as was the case with coupons found in packages at the time or prizes offered afterward by competitors)— every box of Cracker Jack promised a prize. Cereal companies started using this strategy in the 1940s to attract customers, with Kellogg in 1945 marketing to children by placing a “prize” of a tin pin-back button into each box of Pep cereal.

Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children

They also offered the buttons in series, including five series of comic characters with 18 different buttons in each set. In 1949, Post Cereal introduced an early variant of Mr. Potato Head (originally called the Funny Face Man) to children by offering the plastic facial features in specially marked boxes of cereal. Many examples of selling food with a toy exist. Perhaps the best known is McDonald’s application of this idea to fast food, with the Happy Meal introduced in 1979. The popularity of this children’s meal (which comes with a toy) has made McDonald’s one of the largest toy distributors in the world. However, McDonald’s Happy Meals have come under particular scrutiny in recent years with allegations that the toys entice children to eat unhealthy foods. Some American city councils have banned (or have attempted to ban) the toy giveaway, for example, and advocacy groups have called for bans and/ or have launched lawsuits against McDonald’s because of its sale of a fast food meal with a toy. These critics label the toy a deceptive marketing device that encourages children to pester their parents to purchase a product that the children otherwise would not desire. Leveraging the influence of children in household purchases has typified much of early American advertising to children. Popular radio shows of the 1940s often announced premium offers to children and encouraged them to nag their parents to buy the product. Marketers later named this selling strategy “pester power” or the “nag factor.” For example, along with offering insignia buttons in each box of cereal starting in 1945, the makers of Kellogg’s Pep cereal aired radio commercials telling child listeners that the buttons are “so easy to get . . . you just make sure mother gets you a package of that super delicious whole-wheat flake cereal Kellogg’s Pep. Then, inside you’ll find a prize . . . there’s a button in every package.” Early radio commercials for Tootsie Roll Pops similarly urged children to “remind your moms to buy,” and food manufacturers often sponsored children’s radio programming. Cream of Wheat, for instance, was one of the first advertisers to sponsor a children’s radio program, a 15-minute musical

7

entertainment show titled the Cream of Wheat Menagerie, which first aired in December 1928. This strategy continued when television emerged as a commercial medium in the late 1940s. Some of the earliest programming included special shows directed at child audiences, although it is important to note that children’s programming was quite restricted in the early years of television because advertisers did not recognize children as a market for goods themselves. Because children themselves had little money, advertisers were more inclined to sponsor “family programs.” For example, General Mills’ Cheerios began sponsoring The Lone Ranger radio show in 1941 and the television show that debuted in 1949. It continued the sponsorship until the last television show aired in 1957. Programs like the popular Howdy Doody Show targeted children through what is called “host selling.” This strategy, which is now prohibited, had commercials integrated right into the content of various shows. For instance, the Howdy Doody Show’s host Buffalo Bob would promote Wonder Bread to children as part of the show (“It builds strong bodies twelve different ways!”). By the late 1950s, Saturday morning programming was in place. This provided the opportunity for cereal makers to create a range of characters to sell their products to children on television (e.g., Tony the Tiger, Rice Krispies’ Snap, Crackle, and Pop, and the Trix Rabbit). Marketers from this point forward increasingly began to see children as a powerful demographic in their own right—and one with a noteworthy influence on household purchasing decisions. The marketer James McNeal is largely credited for promoting the idea that kids were a legitimate and valuable target for marketers with his Kids as Customers: A Handbook of Marketing to Children. Marketers had fully embraced this philosophy by the late 1970s. In 1978, in light of concerns over television advertising to children (particularly for highly sugared foods), the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated a rule-making process that sought to place significant restrictions on television advertising to children. After 3 years of consultation and legislative hearings that produced more

8

Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children

than 6,000 pages of transcripts, the rule-making procedure was ultimately rendered impotent. The FTC’s final report indicated that child-oriented television advertising was a legitimate cause for public concern, but there did not appear to be “workable solutions” available to the FTC through rule making at that time. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed a law that took away from the FTC any powers to implement this type of regulation on children’s advertising. The law signaled a new era of deregulation and relatively unfettered access to the child market by advertisers in the United States.

Contemporary Food Marketing Food marketing to children is currently a multibillion dollar industry. In the United States, the top 48 food and beverage companies spent $9.65 billion in 2009 on promotional activities. Of this, $1.79 billion was spent on food marketing to children and youth. The FTC’s 2012 report, A Review of Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents, details the wide range of strategies marketers use to reach young people, stating that “marketing campaigns are heavily integrated, combining traditional media, Internet, digital marketing, packaging, and often using cross promotions with popular movies or TV characters across all of these” (Leibowitz, Rosch, Ramirez, Brill, & Ohlhausen, 2012, p. ES1). Food packaging and labels may prominently display characters from popular child-targeted television shows, cartoons, or movies. Similarly, food packages may direct children to websites where children can enter contests, connect with friends by sending them a (food) branded e-card, collect “points” to redeem for premiums, or play advergames that typically feature the food product in the game. The FTC further reported that the 48 companies monitored marketed 625 food and beverage products to young people in 2006 and 2009 combined.

Efforts to Regulate Food Marketing to Children Concerns over the nutritional quality of foods most advertised to children have resulted in a series of recommendations and initiatives. For

example, the World Health Organization has conducted regulatory environment scans on the commercial promotion of foods worldwide. The U.S.-based Institute of Medicine and the U.K. Food Standards Agency, along with other national organizations, have undertaken comprehensive studies on the effects of food marketing on the diets and health of children. The study initiated by the U.K. Food Standards Agency, Review of Research on the Effects of Food Promotion to Children, sometimes known as the Hastings Review (Hastings et al., 2003) provided the first systematic study of the effects of food promotion on children. The Hastings Review concludes that food promotion affects children’s preferences, purchase behavior, and consumption and that “this effect is independent of other factors and operates at both a brand and category level” (p. 3). The 2005 Institute of Medicine report Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? documented similar findings. It indicated that food and beverage television advertising influences children to prefer and purchase foods of poor nutritional quality. It is important to underscore that most of the studies on food advertising to children up until this point had focused on television advertising. Furthermore, some assessments of the Hastings Review commissioned by opponents (including advertising associations) have critiqued the findings. Nonetheless, the World Health Organization (WHO) has repeatedly underscored the need to protect children against food marketing. In its 2004 Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, the WHO affirmed that food and beverage advertisements should not exploit children’s inexperience. It recommended that governments, industries, and consumer groups work together to develop strategies to limit the marketing messages that encourage unhealthy dietary practices. In 2006, an international scientific taskforce on obesity drafted the Sydney Principles, which sought to limit children’s exposure to the marketing of obesogenic foods and beverages. The same year, similar regulatory measures were recommended by the European Region’s European Charter on Counteracting Obesity.

Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children

Since its 2004 report, the WHO has made increasingly stern recommendations to limit food and beverage marketing to children. Its 2010 Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children calls for efforts to protect children against food marketing with high levels of fat, sugar, or salt because unhealthy diets put them at risk. Even the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, called for effective policies to limit food and beverage marketing to children, while emphasizing the importance of consuming nutrient-rich food and beverages. The issue of food marketing to children does not rank as high on the agenda in developing countries. Regulatory Prohibitions

While many countries have general regulations on children’s advertising, an increasing number have developed explicit policies on food marketing to children. These are referenced in national health policies, plans, or strategies. Since 1980, the Canadian province of Quebec has prohibited commercial advertising targeted to children less than age 13, on the grounds that advertising to children is per se manipulative since it seeks to persuade those who will “always believe.” Norway and Sweden later implemented similar laws. In 2006, the U.K. government announced a ban on television commercials aired during children’s programming (or around shows with high percentage of child viewers) for foods lacking nutritional value. A full ban on all television advertising of unhealthy foods and beverages on children’s channels was implemented by 2009. Self-Regulatory Efforts

Although government-mandated regulation exists in some jurisdictions, industry self-regulation is the norm in many developed countries. There exist self-regulatory programs within the advertising industry such as the U.S. Children’s Advertising Review Unit and the Advertising Standards Canada, which outline what is (and is not) allowed when speaking to children. Such

9

provisions state that advertising directed to children must not exploit their lack of experience or present information that might lead to physical, emotional, or moral harm. Codes of conduct for “responsible” food advertising to children have been developed by industry rather than mandated by government. The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, adopted in the United States, Canada, and many other countries, is one such initiative. As part of the initiative, participating companies have committed to either (a) not advertise to children less than age 12 or (b) promote only “better-for-you” products or “healthy dietary choices” to children. Companies themselves created the criteria defining acceptable nutrient content for foods advertised to children. Each country’s initiative is similar but not identical, leading to variance in the products advertised. The initiative has been recognized for generating nutritional improvements in some children’s foods, and the guidelines for food companies have evolved since the inception of the program. The U.S. initiative, for example, released uniform nutrition guidelines for its participating companies. But the program has also been criticized for the types of foods that have been advertised as “healthy dietary choices” to children. Products such as Kool-Aid, Dunkaroos Chocolatey Chip cookies, Fruit Gushers fruit snacks, Lucky Charms cereal, and Froot Loops cereal have all  been labeled “healthier-for-you” under the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative and advertised to children. Certain groups (and parents) have therefore questioned the designation of the products as healthy. Other critiques extend beyond the nutritional profile, noting, for example, that industry participation is voluntary. Another criticism is that definitions of children’s media and programs are too narrow and consequently the application of the standards is inadequate. Charlene D. Elliott See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Childhood Obesity; Children’s Foods

10

Aflatoxins

Further Readings American Marketing Association. (2013). About AMA: Definition of marketing. Retrieved from http://www .marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/ DefinitionofMarketing.aspx Hastings, G., Stead, M., McDermott, L., Forsyth, A., MacKintosh, A. M., Rayner, M., . . . Angus, C. (2003). Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children. London, UK: Food Standards Agency. Hawkes, C. (2007). Regulating and litigating in the public interest: Regulating food marketing to young people worldwide: Trends and policy drivers. American Journal of Public Health, 97(11), 1962–1973. Hawkes, C., & Lobstein, T. (2011). Regulating the commercial promotion of food to children: A survey of actions worldwide. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 6(2), 83–94. Leibowitz, J., Rosch, J. T., Ramirez, E., Brill, J., & Ohlhausen, M. (2012). A review of food marketing to children and youth: Follow-up report. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission. McGinnis, J. M., Gootman, J. A., & Kraak, V. I. (Eds.). (2006). Food marketing to children and youth: Threat or opportunity? Washington, DC: National Academies Press. McNeal, J. (1992). Kids as customers: A handbook of marketing to children. New York, NY: Lexington Books. Schor, J. B. (2004). Born to buy. New York, NY: Scribner. World Health Organization. (2010). Set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and nonalcoholic beverages to children. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

AFLATOXINS Aflatoxins are a group of poisonous chemicals that are produced by certain species of molds that can grow on food. Aflatoxins are among the most studied types of mycotoxins, which are fungal toxins produced by molds, yeasts, or mushrooms. Two species of fungus, Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, can produce aflatoxins, although other types of fungi are also known to produce them. Foods in which aflatoxins are

commonly found include corn, peanuts, rice, sorghum, dried fruit, tree nuts, and spices that have been stored under damp conditions. People who consume foods contaminated with aflatoxins can become ill with mild to serious liver disease. This entry describes the major aflatoxins that affect humans, aflatoxicosis and other effects, and efforts to prevent and monitor aflatoxins in the food supply.

Classification of Aflatoxins The term aflatoxin refers to the fact that the first substance in this class of structurally related mycotoxins was recognized in peanuts that were contaminated with A. flavus. Today, there are approximately 16 known types of aflatoxins. The four major aflatoxins that cause illness in humans are designated B1, B2, G1, and G2, based on the color of florescence (B for blue and G for green) under ultraviolet light. A less toxic metabolite (the intermediates and products of metabolism) of aflatoxin (M1) is produced by farm animals that consume aflatoxin-contaminated feed. Dairy cows, for example, are able to convert B1 aflatoxin to M1 in their milk. Even though it is less toxic than the B1 parent compound, M1 in dairy milk can cause liver illness in humans, particularly among infants and children. In the United States and other developed countries, regular monitoring of the food supply and strict regulations on the concentration of aflatoxins allowed in animal feed and dairy milk have helped minimize aflatoxin-related illness.

Symptoms and Prevalence of Acute and Chronic Aflatoxicosis Illness related to aflatoxin is referred to as aflatoxicosis. Acute aflatoxicosis can occur in humans and animals consuming high doses of aflatoxins over a short period of time. In humans, consumption of aflatoxin-contaminated food sometimes leads to severe liver injury and, rarely, death. Other symptoms include hemorrhage (bleeding), edema (swelling of body tissue), and changes in metabolism and nutrient absorption, which can lead to

Aflatoxins

malnutrition. As of 2014, the most recent outbreak—more than one case from a single food source—occurred in rural Kenya in 2004–2005, when 317 people became sick and 125 died of acute aflatoxicosis. The outbreak was traced to a supply of maize (corn) that had become contaminated with aflatoxins during storage under damp conditions. Documented outbreaks of acute aflatoxicosis in India (1974), Malaysia (1988), and Kenya (1982 and 2004–2005) indicate a mortality rate as high as 60%. Chronic exposure to low or moderate amounts of aflatoxins—a more common problem than acute aflatoxicosis—can also cause liver and immune system problems in humans and animals. More important, certain aflatoxins, such as B1, are among the most potent carcinogens (cancer-causing substances) ever identified and are believed to contribute to liver cancer. Although the cause-andeffect relationship between aflatoxin consumption and liver cancer in humans is difficult to prove, long-term epidemiologic studies suggest a strong association. The risk of liver cancer appears to be much higher for people infected with hepatitis B, a virus that causes liver inflammation.

Prevention and Monitoring of Aflatoxins in the Food Supply Food crops can become contaminated with aflatoxinproducing fungi during production, harvest, storage, transport, and processing, making it difficult to eradicate potential sources of contamination. Although the prevention of aflatoxin formation in the food supply chain is difficult, a number of strategies can be used to reduce the risk of contamination during agricultural production and storage. Common preharvest strategies include testing for toxin-producing molds on seeds or in storage containers, using genetically resistant varieties of crops, good agronomic practices (e.g., proper timing of irrigation and harvest), biological controls (application of atoxigenic strains of A. flavus), and chemical controls (application of fungicides). During harvest, controlling moisture content and minimizing exposure to mold spores can reduce the risk. During postharvest handling and storage,

11

reducing moisture prevents or eliminates the growth of A. flavus. Industrial farming operations often use sophisticated equipment to mechanically dry crops and to regulate moisture content and temperature during storage. Farmers must consider differences in climate, weather, crop type and varieties, and postharvest infrastructure in customizing plans for preventing aflatoxin formation. To limit human exposure, most developed countries routinely screen for the level of aflatoxins in agricultural crops and food products. Because these aflatoxins are considered unavoidable contaminants in the food supply, low levels are usually allowed in nuts, seeds, grains, and other agricultural products. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture monitor food supplies to ensure compliance with strict regulatory limits first put into place in 1971. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration provides aflatoxin testing and certification services to farmers and food processors to ensure that agricultural products are not contaminated with levels of aflatoxins above the Food and Drug Administration cut points (20 parts per billion for raw peanuts and 100 parts per billion for corn used for animal feed). Foods contaminated with aflatoxins above the allowable limits must be reconditioned (cleaned, sorted, and retested) under strict guidelines before being allowed into the food supply. As a result, no outbreaks of acute aflatoxicosis have been recorded in the United States. Peanuts and other nuts for human consumption are among the most regularly tested crops in the United States today since they are likely to contain low levels of aflatoxins. Today, aflatoxicosis is largely a problem in the developing world where many people produce and store their own foods. Inadequate drying of nuts and grains allows aflatoxin-producing fungus to contaminate homegrown crops. Aflatoxin levels in homegrown food sources are generally not monitored in developing countries, so an estimated 4.5 billion people globally may be chronically exposed to these toxins. While it is impossible to completely avoid exposure to low levels of

12

Agrarianism

aflatoxins, consumers everywhere can reduce their risk by discarding nuts or seeds that are moldy, shriveled, or discolored. Diana Caley and Marion Nestle See also Dairy Industry; Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Food Safety; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

Further Readings Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Aflatoxins. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ hsb/chemicals/aflatoxin.htm Knechtges, P. (2012). Food safety: Theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Lawley, R. (2006). “Aflatoxins.” In D. Barug, D. Bhatnagar, H. P. van Egmond, J. W. van der Kamp, W. A. van Osenbruggen, & A. Visconti (Eds.), The mycotoxin factbook: Food & feed topics (p. 233). Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic. Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetywatch.com/public/482.cfm U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Aflatoxin handbook. Retrieved from http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/ publications/fgis/handbooks/afl_insphb.html U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Aflatoxin resources. Retrieved from http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/ pathogens-and-contaminants/natural-toxins/aflatoxins U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Bad bug book, foodborne pathogenic microorganisms and natural toxins (2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Author.

AGRARIANISM When used in discussions of contemporary food issues, the term agrarianism most commonly refers to a cumulative mix of philosophy and ethics, political platform and critique, the social critique of industrialization, the environmental critique of industrial farming, and a prescribed normative way of life. It takes as its central premise that humans are inherently tillers of soil and that they need to produce and thus consume products of photosynthesis and their derivatives, including

especially livestock, in order to survive. Given this human role and the 10,000-year history of humans as agriculturalists, agrarians believe that the healthiest way to produce food for land, soil, and culture, and the healthiest way to structure society, is as self-sufficient, internally reliant farming communities that are built around the art of agriculture. For contemporary agrarians, this art should ideally employ sustainable farming practices, and there is an implicit recognition that scale—of farm acreage, of human settlement patterns, and of consumptive lifeways—matters ecologically, politically, aesthetically, and culturally. Thus, ideal agrarian communities are smaller in scale, largely independent, and based on face-to-face interaction and sharing, and they cultivate the virtues of thrift, fidelity to place, ingenuity, independence, holism, and frugality. In its most recent manifestation, agrarianism criticizes industrial agriculture, industrial culture, and the politics of consumption and perceived corporate takeover of food supplies and politics that such industrial lifeways generate.

Evolution of the Concept The term agrarianism itself is derived from lex agraria, an ancient Roman law that mandated the equal sharing and division of lands that were conquered by and thus belonged to the Roman Empire. This history hints of socialism, so that when the concept entered into mainstream political and cultural discourse in the 1700s and 1800s in the United States and Europe, there was concern about governmental interference with land ownership. A concern with land ownership is found in contemporary agrarianism, but it focuses on the perceived takeover of farmland by corporate agribusiness interests. Yet the larger point remains and has been present since the onset of agrarianism: shared ownership, and thus shared responsibility, in undertaking agriculture and in having farming act as the bedrock of civilization and society. Hinted above is the recognition that the term has had varied meanings throughout Western history. These meanings have ranged from social and political opprobrium, especially in parts of the

Agrarianism

United States in the 1700s and 1800s, to being a synonym for the term agricultural (German agrarisch and French agrarian, derived from the Latin agrarius, which stems from ager/agr-, “field”), to being used to refer to political and economic land disputes and issues about land tenure. The latter disputes arose with the onset of European mercantile capitalism, land clearances, and industrialization. The term can also refer to disputes that arose with the agrarian economy of the southern states in the United States, as well as farming and land disputes in colonial and postcolonial countries around the world. Scholars who have attempted to trace the intellectual and historical linage of the term all comment on its contested, polysemous use. The way the term is used in contemporary food movements and discussions about food only adds to this varied history. For example, James Montmarquet (1989) argues that the term has had associations with concepts of nobility and landed gentry, or what he calls “aristocratic agrarianism”; with yeomanry middle-class family farming, as seen in the works of Hesiod, Virgil, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson; with the perceived ameliorative impacts of farm labor on physical and societal health; with rebellions fomented by the rural poor during the shift from European feudalism to market economies; and with agrarian radicalism, as seen in the Diggers and Thomas Paine. According to Montmarquet, agrarianism has also been a recurring motif in the romantic tradition, such as in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and in the linage of pastoralism, especially exemplified in the Southern Agrarians, also known as the Vanderbilt Agrarians. It has also been used in connection with a unique American agrarianism that encompasses Henry David Thoreau, Liberty Hyde Bailey, the Vanderbilt Agrarians, and especially, Wendell Berry.

New Agrarianism Berry is seen as the contemporary agrarian par excellence and is often credited as single-handedly birthing what is referred to as “new agrarianism.” New agrarianism is the grafting of traditional

13

agrarian virtues onto contemporary agricultural values, ideals, and embodied practices, where the concern is creating sustainable communities that both shape and are shaped by agricultural places. It is also the flourishing of sophisticated agrarian treatises, poetry, literature, films, and other cultural productions, all of which criticize industrial society and its perceived lack of humility and restraint in relations with the natural world, and the perceived crushing of human creativity and spirit that occurs due to industrialized lifeways. The University Press of Kentucky publishes the Culture of the Land series of books dealing with the new agrarianism. The contemporary agrarian theologian Norman Wirzba, the series editor, describes it on the series website as follows: This series is devoted to the exploration and articulation of a new agrarianism that considers the health of habitats and human communities together. . . . It demonstrates how agrarian insights and responsibilities can be worked out in diverse fields of learning and living: history, science, art, politics, economics, literature, philosophy, religion, urban planning, education, and public policy. Agrarianism is a comprehensive worldview that appreciates the intimate and practical connections that exist between humans and the Earth.

Overall, the normative claims of new agrarianism are based on the larger history of agrarianism, where a healthy society and culture are seen as being deeply grounded in citizen-led agriculture. New agrarianism builds on various traditional agrarian values and can be divided into the following interrelated categories: ecological agrarianism, urban agrarianism, religious agrarianism, and literary agrarianism. All four branches rest on two key insights: (1) that “in most of the primary choices we make in our everyday lives, we are implicated in the fate of agriculture” (Major, 2011, p. 1) and (2) that “farming has been from the beginning one of the most demanding intellectual exercises ever to employ the human mind” (Holthaus, 2009, p.  177). New agrarianism takes farming to be a

14

Agrarianism

noble art, but only farming of a certain kind, based on stewardship of farmlands and, thus, stewardship of farming cultures. These cultures are based on the cultivation and development of sophisticated knowledge that is related to food and culture: food rituals, food production, and food consumption. Such knowledge contributes to agrarian practices that result in cultural flourishing where such flourishing is seen as being deeply dependent on and intimately connected with sustainable farming and healthy food activities. New agrarianism is at odds with the dominant view of agriculture and farming that has developed in the United States and parts of Europe over the past 100 years. This dominant view has been aided by the mechanization and corporatization of industrialized agriculture and by successes in yields resulting from technologies of the Green Revolution. It is a view in which large sections of American, Canadian, and European cultures see farming as backward, quaintly rural, anachronistic, without much value intellectually, and peripheral to the healthy functioning of modern democracy. Such views, broadly held, are seemingly reinforced by demographics in the United States, where less than 1% of the population is engaged in agriculture and agriculture-related activities. Ecological Agrarianism

The environmental studies scholar Kim Smith argues that Berry has contributed the most to bridging the gap between democratic and traditional agrarianism, on the one hand, and the new agrarianism of today, on the other. Without Berry and his corpus of work—nonfiction, fiction, essays, and poems—there might not be a contemporary agrarianism, nor would the sustainable food movement be nearly as vibrant. Berry is a literary scholar, essayist, and accomplished farmer. He uses traditional husbandry and sustainable agriculture practices to farm his family’s land in rural Kentucky. This intimate connection to his local land deeply influences his written work and his understanding of agrarianism, as does his own study of Western

literature, from the Bible to 19th- and 20th-century agrarians such as Liberty Hyde Bailey and Sir Albert Howard. His ability to synthesize and comprehend the past 50 years of the ecological sciences further influences his understanding of agrarianism. Berry thus combines sensibilities that reflect his membership in a farming culture, his training and study of Western literature, and his understanding of ecology into a unique, modern-day ecological agrarianism. It is on Berry’s ecological agrarianism that the other forms of new agrarianism are grafted. Motifs that consistently emerge in Berry’s corpus include critiques of the industrial and globalized economy, industrial agriculture, and mechanistic and reductionist science; a lament over the passing of rural farming communities and the knowledge they held; the pivotal role farming plays in maintaining a functioning democracy; and the need for humans to practice restraint and thrift in their interactions with the natural world. As Smith (2003) explains, For much of American history agrarians had little interest in environmental issues, and environmentalists for their part have had little good to say about farming. Berry’s importance to the evolution of these traditions lies precisely in his ability to resolve their fundamental ideological differences. (p. 7)

For Berry, and thus for ecological agrarians, the land is the locus of ultimate value, so that culture and the production of food are derivatives. Cultural flourishing depends on land, so the land must be kept healthy for culture to be healthy. Healthy land results from sustainable stewardship and farming, occurring in such a way that wilderness areas and biodiversity are maintained and freshwater is not depleted. Last for Berry comes the recognition that there is no such thing as a postagrarian economy. Rather, a healthy human economy is one that resides within the natural limits and rhythms of the land on which it is based. This is seen in a common motif found in new agrarian writing: “nature as measure.” Ecological agrarianism therefore fuses together environmental concerns that have emerged

Agrarianism

since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published in 1962, insights from ecological economics, and the agrarian tradition of valuing farming knowledge and the farming economy. While Berry is seen as the key figure in new agrarianism, other ecological agrarians have had a huge influence in the development of ecological agrarian themes that have emerged since the 1970s. Second in influence is Berry’s longtime friend and collaborator, Wes Jackson. Jackson is a plant geneticist who founded the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas. He and his research team are endeavoring to breed perennial polycultures— diverse plantings of grain, seed, and grass crops, such as mixed fruit and nut orchards and perennial grains—that they hope will become a sustainable foundation for America’s breadbasket. Their vision is that good farming practices and animal husbandry will make it possible to repopulate and reform agrarian communities throughout the Midwest. A motivating concern of the Land Institute is the recognition that the global community has reached the peak of oil production. According to the Land Institute, peak oil, coupled with dwindling natural gas stocks used to provide cheap fertilizer, will make it necessary for Americans to migrate away from the coasts and return to food production. Like Berry, Jackson’s agrarian vision is also informed by the ecological sciences, and he too is deeply critical of reductionist, mechanistic science and industrial agriculture. Other leading ecological agrarian voices include the philosopher Paul Thompson of Michigan State University; the organic farmer and philosopher Fred Kirschenmann, who is a Distinguished Fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Ames, Iowa; and the physicist and food activist Vandana Shiva, who runs Navdanya, a farm and teaching center in rural India. There exist a variety of ecological agrarian farming practices, which have as their goal the production of healthy, nutritious food that is good for the land, good for human and animal bodies, and good for the economy. These practices include, but are not limited to, growing methods such as biodynamic agriculture, permaculture, certified organic agriculture, natural

15

systems farming, and natural farming. They also include animal husbandry, the use of animals for traction, and selective breeding of animals for specific landscapes. There is also a strong push to preserve species of domesticated farm animals and to use and preserve heirloom seeds, as ecological agrarians are concerned with the loss of genetic diversity of traditional food sources. Ecological agrarians may also participate in agroforestry and develop sustainable timber products on their lands. There has also been a rebirth of interest among ecological agrarians about foraging wild edibles for food, canning, and utilizing all animal parts in food production rather than just a few choice cuts. Last, there is a slow but steady interest among those younger than 40 years in learning ecological agrarian practices, with many young agrarians willingly walking away from urban jobs to participate in agrarian lifeways. Those younger than 30  years also learn by participating in internship programs and the programs offered through WWOOF (World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms). Urban Agrarianism

While agrarianism tends to romanticize and hold as its ideal self-sustaining rural farm communities of thrift and conviviality, the reality is that most people in industrialized countries live in suburban or urban areas. Given environmental and public health trends, how these people can access nutritious, sustainably grown food is an emerging issue. New agrarians recognize that most citizens will not leave urban areas to begin farming. Instead, what is occurring is the emergence of urban agrarianism, which is the attempt to embody agrarian virtues and to follow ecological agrarian philosophies while living in population dense regions. A variety of urban agrarian practices have been developed in the past 20 years, including vertical farming and rooftop gardening, exchanging and saving heirloom seeds, canning, and fermenting. Urban agrarian practices also include vermiculture and backyard composting. Many urban agrarians are now participating in community supported agriculture programs, where members can

16

Agrarianism

buy shares of produce, bread, meat, and/or seafood. More and more urban residents are also buying many of their seasonal food items from farmers’ markets. Urban residents and food retailers are equally becoming more familiar with concepts such as farm-to-table and food miles. There are also a growing number of edible school gardens and place-based curricula that emphasize relationships between food, land, and the community. Such efforts are intended to cultivate new agrarian sensibilities in urban residents, especially youth who attend public and private schools. Many communities are also seeking to begin or expand already existing community gardens, which are also learning centers where food and farm workshops occur. Last, there is a growth in agritourism, with urban residents vacationing and sometimes working at sustainable farms located in rural areas. Religious Agrarianism

Berry’s corpus covers themes about ecological sustainability and integrity, philosophy of science, literary agrarianism, political critique, and religion. As a lifelong Baptist, Berry willingly brings his Christian views about creation, food, and human nature into his writings. He does not make normative claims about what religion someone should follow, but he does freely discuss how, as social creatures shaped by culture, we are influenced by religious story, myth, and custom. Other new agrarians have taken this opening and pushed it wider, building on Berry’s own nascent religious agrarianism. Theologians such as Norman Wirzba and Ellen Davis are at the forefront of developing an agrarian hermeneutics of the Bible, while issues of food justice, sustainable agriculture, and dietary health are increasingly coming to be taught at seminaries and considered in communities of faith, from the institutional to the individual level. More faith communities, from multiple religious traditions, are beginning to develop gardens at their meeting houses, are volunteering at food banks and shelters, are donating produce to shelters, are joining community supported agriculture programs for religious reasons, and are active in the

political realm in terms of advocating for sustainable agriculture. Religious agrarians are motivated to engage in these new agrarian practices in urban, suburban, and rural areas, and they do so because of their respective religious teachings, ethics, and commandments as these relate to food and also ecological issues. Literary Agrarianism

New agrarian, and especially ecological agrarian, motifs have recently proliferated in popular culture venues. Best-selling books, award-winning documentaries, art exhibits, websites, culinary shows, and blogs with new agrarian themes and content have all been produced in the past 10 years. Some of the best known authors include Michael Pollan, Barbara Kingsolver, and Wendell Berry. Many new agrarian-themed films have attracted wide audiences. These include Dirt! The Movie, Food Inc., Super Size Me, Fresh, and The Future of Food. Magazines related to new agrarianism, new agrarian ecocriticism and ecoliterature, and the development of a homesteading genre have also influenced popular and academic realms of literary culture and the popular press. Such trends are likely to continue to grow in popularity and influence, in large part because the new agrarian criticisms of industrial agriculture and the industrial economy, coupled with mounting evidence about the ill-effects industrial agriculture has on planetary, soil, animal, and human health, have gained traction in the popular imagination.

Limitations of Agrarianism No discussion of agrarianism is complete without a mention of some of its dangers and shortcomings. For new agrarianism to continue to flourish, these should be addressed and worked through, and many new agrarians recognize the following limitations and take them seriously. One critique of agrarianism focuses on elements of nativism and provincialism; indeed, some of the most prominent agrarian voices exhibit Eurocentric (and Caucasian/male) tendencies, and there has been inadequate attention to the real and/or perceived

Agritourism

lack of cultural diversity and more diverse options within the new agrarian milieu. Some new agrarian thinkers themselves have acknowledged that the movement needs to recognize the relevance of race and gender in articulating the agrarian vision. Other shortcomings lie in the movement’s failure to adequately address socioeconomic inequalities and its romanticization of agriculture and agrarian communities. As a result, agrarians may find it difficult to balance agrarian ideals and the realities of living in industrial society—an issue that can be especially challenging for young agrarians with minimal income, high student debt, or both. For these youth, and for lower income people generally, agrarianism may be considered a fad relevant only to the upper and upper middle classes. New agrarianism must deal with race/gender/economic disparities and navigate the balance between agrarian ideals and the realities of living in industrial society. There is also a need for more concrete programs to promote the learning of agrarian skills. Given these concerns, future research on agrarianisms must include research on indigenous agrarianism, feminist/womanist agrarianism, and agrarianism from the perspectives of people of color and the global South. Todd LeVasseur See also Agritourism; Community Gardens; Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective; Family Farms and Rural Depopulation; Food Justice; Food Sovereignty; Migrant Labor; Multifunctionality in Agriculture; Sustainable Agrifood Systems

17

Govan, T. (1964). Agrarian and agrarianism: A study in the use and abuse of words. Journal of Southern History, 30(1), 35–47. Guthman, J. (2004). Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley: University of California Press. Holthaus, G. (2009). From the farm to the table: What all Americans need to know about agriculture. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Major, W. (2011). Grounded vision: New agrarianism and the academy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Montmarquet, J. (1989). The idea of agrarianism: From hunter-gatherer to agrarian radical in Western culture. Moscow: University of Idaho Press. Smith, K. (2003). Wendell Berry and the agrarian tradition: A common grace. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. Smith, K. (2004). Black agrarianism and the foundations of Black environmental thought. Environmental Ethics, 26(3), 267–286. Thompson, P. (2010). The agrarian vision: Sustainability and environmental ethics. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Wirzba, N. (Ed.). (2002). The art of the commonplace: The agrarian essays of Wendell Berry. Washington, DC: Counterpoint. Wirzba, N. (Ed.). (2003). The essential agrarian reader. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

AGRICULTURAL ACTS See Farm Bills

Further Readings

AGRITOURISM

Bizzell, W. B. (1926). The Green Rising: An historical survey of agrarianism, with special reference to the organized efforts of the farmers of the United States to improve their economic and social status. New York, NY: Macmillan. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Freyfogle, E. (Ed.). (2001). The new agrarianism: Land, culture, and the community of life. Washington, DC: Island Press/Shearwater Books.

Agritourism (also referred to as agrotourism and farm tourism) can be both narrowly and broadly defined. The former sense considers agritourism from the point of the view of the tourist and so defines it narrowly as a journey in which people travel a significant distance to a farm, preferably one in a relatively unfamiliar locale; spend at least some overnights at the destination; pay an appreciable sum for this privilege; and take notice of,

18

Agritourism

and possibly even participate in, some of the activities of the farm. In the broadest sense, agritourism can include virtually any kind of activity that takes place on a farm and draws paying clients. This approach tends to view agritourism from the point of view of the farm owners. Under this concept, agritourism may involve little more than travel to nearby locales to visit petting farms for children, pick-your-own-fruit farms, or vineyards that offer wine tasting. Similar programs involving either fishing operations or cattle ranches usually get included as forms of agritourism. Whatever the type and level of agritourism practiced, it has become an increasingly popular activity for an international public and an increasingly profitable activity for farmers in many parts of the world. As such, agritourism is coming to play a minor role in influencing the foods that are cultivated and consumed.

The Evolution of Agritourism At least since Marie Antoinette and her lady friends dressed up as shepherdesses and played at tending sheep at Versailles, people well removed from the hard realities of farming have often romanticized its appeal. However, so long as most people actually did live and labor on farms, there was not much of a population interested in playing at farming. People who had spent their youth working on the family farm all summer and through the harvest season and had now moved on to urban careers would not find much appeal in paying to spend their vacation milking cows or digging carrots. This population balance began to change in the 20th century, especially in the industrialized Western world, and eventually some people far removed from the labors of farming began to consider it enjoyable to at least briefly experience farm life. Often, this meant little more than spending a restful vacation on a relative’s farm. Not until after World War II did significant numbers of people begin to volunteer—and pay— for the experience of working on a stranger’s farm. In some instances, this was directly related to the end of the war, when decimated and weakened

European populations welcomed young American volunteers willing to pay their own travel expenses to help on farms. A special instance of this were the Israeli kibbutzim (Hebrew for “gatherings”)— these communal farms had been started in the early 1900s, and in the aftermath of World War II, many young American and other non-Israeli Jews would spend a year or more working on these farms. One of the oldest variations on agritourism, at least in the United States, were dude ranches (aka guest ranches). These began to operate in the late 1800s as the American West, now “cleared” of Indians, was idealized as offering an authentic American experience. Patrons of these ranches probably did little productive work, and often the ranches were more like hunting and fishing camps, but these early guest ranches did expose a small, elite population—often including Europeans—to the work of cattle ranchers. Later dude ranches have no longer been limited to the wealthy, but they offer not much more than horseback riding, and the clientele do little more than tend to their horses.

Contemporary Agritourism None of these were true examples of what began to emerge only in the last quarter of the 20th century and has become the now flourishing phenomenon of agritourism. No specific farm or locale can take credit for inaugurating this phase, but Italians were among the first to start promoting “vacations” on farms, where the clientele expected at least to observe, if not to participate in, some of the actual functions. Agritourism has now become a major segment of the European tourist industry. Other countries that have taken up agritourism in a big way include the United States, Canada, and Australia, and it is now spreading to Central and South America and Asia, including India, Japan, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka. However, this contemporary form of agritourism has often come to mean little more than visitors’ paying to spend some time on a rural farm—instead of an urban hotel—and enjoying

Agritourism

produce from that farm at mealtime. Most of these visitors are not expecting—nor are they expected— to engage in any physical activities on the farm. At most, they might be invited to tour and observe the fields, barns, and various activities, but for many visitors, such farms have become little more than bed-and-breakfasts, enhanced by the produce of the farm at mealtime. It is also expected that the proprietors of the farm are on the scene and ready to answer questions, even if—in the case of foreigners—some translation is required. This development of agritourism has meant an almost complete shift in both the concept and its presentation. Originally, it was promoted to tourists who might be interested in visiting a working farm as an opportunity to save some money while having an unusual, authentic, pleasant, informative, or healthy experience—ideally reaping all benefits. This form of tourism is promoted online, in guidebooks, and by travel agents. But even more so, agritourism is now being promoted as a form of income for farmers. Government agencies at virtually every level now allocate funds, personnel, and materials for encouraging and educating farmers to undertake some form of agritourism. The emergence of such support can be confirmed by seeking out websites or published materials on agritourism, many of which are now devoted to the practicalities and economics of using one’s farm to attract tourists. (The subtitle of one book is Cultivating Tourists on the Farm.) Behind this is often the explicit message that, in the face of decreasing income from one’s farm products, agritourism is a way to “save the family farm.”

Variations on Agritourism In many nations, agritourism takes the forms described in the preceding section, with the participating farms primarily engaged in growing crops. But especially in the United States, almost anything that is intended to draw visitors to farms now counts as agritourism: a crop maze, cut-your-own Christmas trees, a new season of maple syrup tasting, hay and sleigh rides, even a roadside farmstand. Property owners may invite visitors to hunt or

19

fish—or even just camp—on their land. Agricultural fairs are sometimes treated as a form of agritourism. This trend is recognized in the suggestion that another name for agritourism is “agritainment.” Part of the growth of agritourism may be attributed to the fact that it has now come to cross paths with various other current developments involving food, such as the locavore movement, which encourages people to seek out farms that serve the food they produce. (Concurrent with this is the increasing popularity of farm markets in urban settings.) It may also be linked to the organic food movement, if the farms involved promote their produce in this way. Even the popularity of cooking shows on TV, the phenomenon of celebrity chefs, the magazines devoted to food, the endless stream of cookbooks, the large amount of space given to food and wine in newspapers, the ratings of restaurants in travel articles and guidebooks— all these have made people far more conscious of the sources of their food and inspired a desire for firsthand encounters with these sources. Meanwhile, the linking of agriculture to tourism has also crossed paths with—and to some degree, parallels the progress of—still larger contemporary trends in specialty or niche tourism. In fact, agritourism may be seen as a genre equivalent to other genres known as geotourism, ecotourism, and nature tourism. Each of these tends to stress one particular facet of an interrelated movement of which agritourism is a member. These in turn may be perceived as part of the still larger environmentalism movement. Agritourism has links to yet another current phenomenon: the growth of more and more alternative forms of tourism to satisfy the increasing numbers of people who have “been there, done that” and are looking for something novel. People who have visited all the major archaeological sites they care about will pay a considerable sum to spend weeks digging at an actual excavation. People who have seen everything in Paris that interests them will enroll in a cooking school attached to a farm in Provence. Finally, agritourism has even been regarded by some as a variety of what is known as “adventure travel.” A week on a

20

Agritourism

farm may not be as challenging as climbing Mount Kilimanjaro or going on a safari through Africa, but it can be made to sound quite adventurous to people whose entire lives have been spent in urban apartments. At the other extreme, some agritourism is promoted as therapeutic—a restful and healthy retreat from the demands of urban life.

Economic Impact of Agritourism Although agritourism involves only a small percentage of farms in any country (e.g., an estimated 2.5% of the total number of U.S. farms), it is playing an increasingly larger role in the economics of both farming and tourism. For example, sometimes agritourism is linked to sustainable agriculture because it allows small farmers to survive while avoiding either bankruptcy or selling out to corporate farming. Because visitors to farms often express their appreciation for rural scenery as a welcome change from urban environments, agritourism appears to contribute to at least some communities’ setting aside large tracts of rural land for preservation from development. Meanwhile, in economically less developed countries, agritourism is being promoted as more than a tourist attraction; it is being linked to social cooperatives, to saving farms and farmers, and to reorganizing and modernizing the entire business of food production. Some national governments are drawn to agritourism because it does not require much in new infrastructure and helps direct income to otherwise economically deprived areas. Detaching themselves from commodity farming that pushes them to plant only one or two crops, small farmers engaging in agritourism can shift to agricultural products that they favor and/or that they believe visitors will appreciate: different varieties of salad greens, heirloom tomatoes, exotic fruits, unusual cheeses, different varieties of poultry, and other such novelties. Guests at their farms find themselves eating meals with unfamiliar ingredients that they may then seek out when returning home, and although these products may appear only in local farmers markets, they affect people’s tastes and preferences and ultimately may show up in supermarkets. When all the countries that now

engage in agritourism are considered, we find that it is having an increasing impact on what people will be eating. John S. Bowman See also Family Farms and Rural Depopulation; Farmers’ Markets, Farmers’ Perspective; Roadside Stands; Sustainable Agrifood Systems; Sustainable Agrifood Systems, Effect on Environment; Tourism, Food

Further Readings Adams, B. B. (2008). The new agritourism: Hosting community and tourists on your farm. Auburn, CA: New World. Beus, C. (2008). Agritourism: Cultivating tourists on the farm: Vol. 2020 (Extension bulletin): Farming the Northwest. Pullman: Washington State University. Butler, R. W., Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. (1998). Agritourism and recreation in rural areas. New York, NY: Wiley. Carpio, C. E., Wohlgenant, M. K., & Boonsaeng, T. (2008). The demand for agritourism in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economies, 3(2), 254–269. George, H., & Rilla, E. (2011). Agritourism as nature tourism in California (Publication No. 3484). Berkeley: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hall, D. R., Kirkpatrick, I., & Morag, M. (Eds.). (2005). Rural tourism and sustainable business (aspects of tourism). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. National Agricultural Library. (1998). Promoting tourism in rural America (Issue No. 60 of Rural Information Center Publications). Beltsville, MD: National Agricultural Library. Sznajder, M., Przezborska, L., & Scrimgeou, F. (2009). Agritourism. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Thessen, G. (2009). Measuring the economic impact of agritourism on farms. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/agritourism_thessen_ a812a9ae31310.pdf

Websites Economic Impact of International Tourism: http://92.52.122.233/research/economic-impactresearch

Airline Meals Information on Agritourism in Europe: http://www .eurogites.org Worldwide Directory of Farms Open to Agritourists: http://www.agritourismworld.com

AIRLINE MEALS Airline meals are part of the in-flight service on an aircraft. Airline catering companies prepare them, and flight crews serve them at cruising altitude. The cost, quality, and quantity of food; frequency of meal service; and structure and content of the meal vary depending on the type of carriers (budget, private, commercial), duration of flight time, port of departure and arrival, and classes of travel. Airline meals illuminate food issues surrounding catering operations, food safety, class, health and nutrition, cultural identity, and food choice. This entry focuses on the history, role and production, and types of complimentary in-flight meal service on commercial airlines.

Historical Development of Airline Meals Airline meals were first introduced in Europe during the early 1900s with the establishment of regular passenger services to and from major European cities on commercial airlines. Although it is disputed which airline first served in-flight meals, by the 1920s, all European carriers were serving food and beverages in their airborne dining rooms. Meals were either prepared onboard by stewards or directly catered from restaurants. In 1927, Air Union offered the first recorded meal service, which consisted of sandwiches, lobster salad, cold chicken and ham, Niçoise salad, ice cream, and cheese and fruit. With technological innovation in aircraft designs, which allowed built-in galleys, food became a crucial part of in-flight service. In 1938, Imperial Airways opened the first flight catering facility to increase meal service efficiency. By the 1950s, deep-frozen meals were introduced as an alternative to conventional preprepared hot meals to simplify production to meet the challenge of increasing numbers of flights and passengers.

21

The emphasis on airline meals as a staple of inflight service continued until the deregulation of U.S. airlines in 1978, which prompted airlines to cut back on operation costs while differentiating their brand through in-flight services. In the past few decades, many American airlines discontinued economy class in-flight meals altogether and shifted to selling food onboard, while others partnered with American fast food companies such as Pizza Hut and McDonald’s. In other parts of the world, airlines have continued to provide meal service as a way to manage customer satisfaction and promote their brand and national identity. For example, Japan Airlines offers sushi and bento boxes and Air France features meals designed by Michelin-starred chefs.

Role and Production of Airline Meals Airlines control the timing of the meals, the type of meal (breakfast, lunch, dinner, or snack), food options, and portion size. Meals provide order to the passenger’s concept of time with strategically scheduled service throughout the journey. Eating in the air offers a unique dining experience due to physiological changes, restricted space, and altered sense of time and taste. The prime environmental factors that differentiate air travel from other modes of transportation include the change in atmospheric pressure, low humidity, and prolonged inactivity caused by structural constraints. Airline meals are designed and prepared to overcome these environmental factors, which lead to changes in taste perception. In her research on the difference in taste perception, the scientist Andrea Burdack-Freitag discovered that airline meals have to be sweeter, saltier, and spicier to match increased taste and odor thresholds in high-altitude environments. Also, many main dishes are covered in a sauce such as cream, tomato, or curry to prevent the food from becoming dry after it is reheated. Worldwide, the airline catering industry is estimated to be an operation of 40 billion U.S. dollars per year. In the age of mass tourism and travel, inflight catering has become a complex business that balances ensuring food safety, managing passenger hunger and expectations, and considering passenger

22

Alar

dietary and religious restrictions. Airline meals are produced according to specific food safety regulations mandated by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). For example, raw eggs and micro greens are prohibited, and many catering facilities are now adopting the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point management system to decrease the risk of foodborne illnesses.

preference, religious, and medical meals. IATA organizes its special meal category into preference meals (e.g., Vegan Meal [VGML] and Children’s Meal [CHML]), medical meals (e.g., Diabetic Meal [DBML] and Gluten-Free Meal [GFML]), and religious meals (e.g., Kosher Meal [KSML] and Muslim Meal [MOML]).

Types of Airline Meals

See also Catering Business, Off-Site; Food Safety; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Tourism, Food

Complimentary meals offered onboard can be broadly categorized into first and business class meals, standard economy class meals, and special meals. Although all three types of meals are geared toward providing food that is nutritionally and culturally appropriate, the design and preparation considerations are different for each category of meal. First and Business Class Meals

Meals in first class and business class cabins are served course by course and are presented in a highend catering style on white tablecloth with silverware. Often, a meal is served in five courses with multiple options. The dining experience in the upperclass cabins is similar to that in a restaurant with wait staff, complete with menus with full description of dishes and flexibility of what and when to eat.

Chi-Hoon Kim

Further Readings Burdack-Freitag, A. (2010). Odor and taste perception at normal and low atmospheric pressure in a simulated aircraft cabin. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, 6, 95–109. International Air Transport Association. (2001). In-flight management manual (1st ed.). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Author. Jones, P. (2004). Flight catering. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Sheward, E. (2006). Aviation food safety. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Syon, G. de. (2008). Is it really better to travel than to arrive? In L. Rubin (Ed.), Food for thought: Essays on eating and culture (pp. 199–210). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Standard Economy Class Meals

Passengers in the economy class cabin are offered either a standard meal preselected by the airline or a choice of two or three main dishes depending on the length and destination of the flight. All components of the meal are served on one tray, consisting of an appetizer, a main course, and a dessert. On most airlines, economy class meals resemble deepfrozen TV dinners and use processed and brand name products to lower costs.

ALAR Alar is the trade name of a systemic plant growth regulator, daminozide, produced by Uniroyal Chemical Company beginning in 1963. It was banned in the United States in 1989 for use on food products. This entry discusses the properties of Alar and details the events leading up to the ban on Alar, including the current view on the “Alar scare.”

Special Meals

Special meals are offered as an option to accommodate passengers with a wide range of special dietary needs. In the early 1970s, the IATA first developed the special meal coding system to categorize

How Alar Affects Plants Alar strengthens fibers in plants, especially the naturally weak joint between apple stems and branches, causing some apples that would otherwise have

Alar

dropped from trees shortly after maturation to stay on trees for up to 2 weeks longer, allowing more time for picking the apples. This also caused the apples to be redder than they otherwise might be, making them more cosmetically appealing to consumers, and made them firmer and able to be stored longer. It was used mostly on Cortland, Empire, Macoun, McIntosh, Red Delicious, and Stayman apples, which tend to have weaker stem-to-branch joints than other apple varieties. Because Alar was used only on certain varieties of apples, various groups estimated that it was used on anywhere from 5% to 38% of apples in the United States. Alar was also used on other produce including brussels sprouts, cantaloupes, cherries, Concord grapes, nectarines, peaches, peanuts, pears, and tomatoes.

The Ban on Alar: The EPA and Public Outcry Although Alar was sprayed on the leaves of apple trees, it was subsequently absorbed into the apples’ flesh, so it could not be washed off the apples. Based on studies conducted at the Eppley Institute for Research in Omaha that found that breakdown products of Alar were responsible for cancers in mice, in 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified Alar as a probable human carcinogen but did not ban it. As a result, several supermarket chains said that they would no longer accept apples from orchards that used Alar and produce stands at farms sported signs saying that Alar was not used on the apples they sold. In 1986, the American Academy of Pediatrics asked the EPA to ban it. The EPA did not ban it, although in 1987, it classified it (again) as a probable human carcinogen. In 1986, an EPA administrator said that if Alar were a new product, it would not have been put on the market, but that they were requiring more studies of it, and it might take as many as 4 years to accumulate enough data to make a decision on banning it. This highlighted the difficulty of banning products once they had been registered for use. In 1989, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) published a report, Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children’s Food, denouncing the

23

U.S. government for not banning several pesticides that tests had proven to be carcinogenic. Of the 23  chemicals (22 pesticides and Alar) it tested, it found that Alar posed the greatest risk (this statement was later taken out of context by some media articles to say that Alar was the most risky of all agricultural chemicals). The report said that it had proof that the chemicals were carcinogenetic to an extent greater, sometimes far greater, than the EPA’s allowable tolerances. It also faulted the government for not taking into account the fact that children consume more fruits and vegetables than adults and have a smaller body mass, so that relative to their weight, small children received much greater exposure than adults to most of the chemicals discussed in Intolerable Risk. In response, government officials from various departments assured the public that Alar was safe. Activists were angered that the government seemed to be failing to carry out its duty to protect people. Although Intolerable Risk reviewed 23 chemicals, publicity for the report focused on Alar. And although Alar was used on several types of produce, publicity focused on its use on apples (about 75% of its use) and the subsequent appearance of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine in applesauce and apple juice. For instance, although Alar was used on peanuts, the publicity did not highlight peanut butter, another childhood staple. Apples are a symbol of health (“An apple a day keeps the doctor away”), and the idea of children eating poisoned apples (shades of Snow White) was horrifying to parents. In February 1989, the CBS investigative television program “60 Minutes” aired a segment, “A is for Apple,” based on the NRDC report. The program started with a logo of an apple covered with a black skull and crossbones. It discussed the supposed failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the EPA in regulating harmful pesticides, the fact that the EPA did not take increased risk from these chemicals to children into account, and the fact that it took too long for the agencies to ban chemicals that were probable carcinogens. This program raised public awareness of the probable carcinogenicity of Alar and caused a public

24

Alar

outcry against the use of the product. Celebrities such as Eddie Albert and Meryl Streep spoke out against its use. Ms. Streep became interested in the cause because she had young children at the time, and after thorough research, she formed a group, “Mothers and Others for Pesticide Limits.” Many schools banned apples from their cafeterias, returning them only after identifying sources for Alar-free apples. The consumer activist Ralph Nader brought a suit against the U.S. government, asking it to ban Alar, but the Supreme Court allowed a ruling throwing out the suit to stand. In May 1989, 60 Minutes aired another program about Alar, because of criticism that the original program had been one sided. The second program included opposing views but also reiterated the carcinogenicity figures included in the first program. As a result of these developments, apple growers accused activists of scaring the public over something that was not harmful; activists said that growers were refusing to stop using a dangerous chemical for cosmetic reasons. Because of the wave of public reaction against the product, the EPA decided to ban Alar for use on food crops; it would still be allowable for use on ornamental plants. However, in June 1989, before the EPA could implement the ban, Uniroyal agreed to stop selling it in the United States for use on food crops and agreed to buy back unused Alar from distributors and consumers. In November 1989, the EPA cancelled registrations of the pesticide for food use and prohibited all sales of Alar in the United States for food use. It also required Uniroyal to complete and report on cancer studies that were in progress at that time. Apple growers predicted that as a result of the ban they would lose huge amounts of money because much of the fruit they might have been able to harvest and sell as fresh fruit with application of Alar would fall off trees and would have to be sold at a much lower rate for use in apple juice or applesauce. On the other hand, they were also losing sales because of the adverse publicity about Alar, and most growers had already decided to stop using Alar. Some growers took out some or all trees of varieties that had benefited most from Alar and planted the

stronger trees of other varieties of apples, thus diminishing their crops for the next 5 to 8 years until the new trees were mature enough to bear fruit. The U.S. Department of Agriculture bought approximately $10 million worth of apples from the huge surpluses that had developed when consumers wouldn’t buy apples because they were worried about Alar, pledging that these apples would not go to school lunch programs but would go to ethanol distillers and livestock feeders. A few years later, the market for apples was booming, and the dire predictions of the apple growers had not come to pass. In November 1990, as a result of the CBS program and the resulting discontinuation of Alar, Washington State apple growers sued CBS, the NRDC, Fenton Communications (the public relations agency that the NRDC retained to help publicize Intolerable Risk), and local CBS affiliates for damages for product disparagement. In 1994, a federal judge in the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying that the 60  Minutes program had not specifically named Washington State or any apple growers in the state, so they did not have grounds to sue. Opponents of the ban criticized the tests that were used to prove Alar a carcinogen, saying a person would have to consume 28,000 pounds of apples per day for life to equal the proportion of Alar fed to mice in the tests. Scientists responded by explaining that it would be impossible to get timely results by feeding lab animals amounts of Alar that corresponded to the amounts ingested daily by people. They used a standard testing protocol in which lab animals ingest large amounts of the chemical being tested. Scientists then use results of these tests to create a statistical model to calculate risk estimates.

After the “Alar Scare” In the years following the discontinuation of Alar, there has been much discussion as to whether the ban was justified. An organization called the American Council on Science and Health, 40% of whose funding comes from corporations including the chemical industry and food processors, and which received a $25,000 donation from Uniroyal,

Alcohol

continues to argue that the controversy is a tempest in a teapot, that the scare was unjustified, and that Alar should not have been banned. Some opponents of the ban wrote articles with untrue or misleading statements about Alar, and many of the supposedly unbiased experts who were quoted against the ban actually had connections that made their statements anything but unbiased. But studies and reviews by the EPA from 1973 through 1992 repeatedly concluded that Alar is a probable carcinogen that poses an unacceptable risk. Various studies have estimated the lifetime risk of cancer from consuming Alar on a regular basis to be anything from 5 cases per million to 240 cases per million (the EPA uses lifetime cancer risk above 1 case per million as its criterion for taking action against a substance). The fact that an early carcinogenicity test of Alar was ruled invalid due to poor design is frequently cited to justify calling the removal of the product unnecessary, but later, better constructed, tests also showed Alar to be a probable carcinogen. While the term Alar scare is now used by some people to indicate an overreaction to overhyped incorrect health information about some item, Alar was indeed recognized by the EPA as of low-level toxicity and a probable human carcinogen. Christine Crawford-Oppenheimer See also Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related; Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet; Consumer Trust; Food Safety Agencies

Further Readings Environmental Protection Agency. (1993). R.E.D. [registration eligibility decision] facts: Daminozide [Online]. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/ REDs/factsheets/0032fact.pdf Environmental Working Group. (1999). Ten years later, myth of “Alar scare” persists: How chemical industry rewrote history of banned pesticide [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/alar3.pdf Hathaway, J. (1993). Alar: The EPA’s mismanagement of an agricultural chemical. In D. Pimentel & H. Lehman (Eds.), The pesticide question: Environment, economics, and ethics. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.

25

Moore, J. A. (1989). Speaking of data: The Alar controversy. EPA Journal, 15(3), 5–9. National Resources Defense Council. (1989). Intolerable risk: Pesticides in our children’s food: Summary [Online]. Retrieved from docs.nrdc.org/health/ hea_11052401.asp Negin, E. (1996). The Alar “scare” was for real: And so is that “veggie hate-crime” movement. Columbia Journalism Review, 35(3), 13–15. Raso, J., & Smith, K. (1999). An unhappy anniversary: The Alar “scare” ten years later [Online]. American Council on Science and Health. Retrieved from http:// www.acsh.org/publications/an-unhappy-anniversarythe-alar-scare-ten-years-later/ Rosen, J. D. (1990). Much ado about Alar. Issues on Science and Technology, 7(Fall), 85–90.

Website Haz-Map: Daminozide: http://hazmap.nlm.nih.gov/ category-details?id=4650&table=copytblagents

ALCOHOL Drinking alcohol is both a physical and a cultural act, and alcohol functions as food and as drug. As a food, it provides calories, vitamins, and protection from polluted water supplies. As a mild intoxicant, shared between friends, it promotes social cohesion and allows for celebrations important to secular and religious social functioning. As a drug, it intoxicates, disrupts social life, and can cause addictions. This entry discusses the history and role of alcohol in societies.

Cultural Beliefs and Practices One way to imagine these tensions is to characterize cultural beliefs and practices about alcohol use on a continuum between axes of food versus drug and intoxicant versus addiction, which allows for a conceptual mapping of how alcohol is perceived in each culture. Every society has different expectations for use, and there is much variation in rules and regulation of alcohol from culture to culture. But because alcohol also has

26

Alcohol

distinct and predictable physical effects, there is similarity across cultures as well. To begin with a focus on the intoxicant versus addictive agent scale, Dwight Heath (2000) maintains that there are predictable rules that operate in every culture that uses alcohol: 1. In most societies, drinking is a social act, embedded in a context of values, attitudes, and other norms. 2. These values, norms, and attitudes influence the effects of drinking, regardless of how important biochemical, physiological, and pharmacokinetic factors may also be to the experience of drinking. 3. The drinking of alcoholic beverages tends to be hedged with rules. Often such rules are the focus of exceptionally strong emotions and sanctions. 4. The value of alcohol for promoting relaxation and sociability is emphasized in many populations and most populations treat alcohol intake as an act of celebration or something appropriate for celebrations. 5. The association of drinking with any kind of specifically associated problems is rare among cultures throughout both history and the contemporary world. 6. When alcohol-related problems do occur, they are clearly linked with modalities of drinking, and usually also with values, attitudes, and norms about drinking. What is normal for consumption defines the abnormal that is considered a problem. Societies that consider drunkenness shameful or disgusting usually have less incidence of intoxication. 7. Attempts at prohibiting alcohol use (like Prohibition) have never been successful except when couched in terms of sacred or supernatural rules. 8. In cultures where drinking is considered heroic, masculine, or desirable it tends to be embraced. These positive evaluations may provide little defense against the risks and dangers of excessive drinking.

9. Societies in which alcohol is disallowed to the young, and in which alcohol is considered to enhance the self by conferring sex appeal or power, tend to have youth who drink too much, too fast, for inappropriate or unrealistic reasons. (pp. 196–198)

American beliefs about alcohol tend to grant it heroic status, restrict it from youth and tolerate drunken behavior, and our laws and regulations reflect these beliefs. Additionally, Americans currently view alcohol as a drug rather than as a food. According to Heath’s observations, it is a cultural construction almost perfectly designed to encourage regulation, overuse, and abuse.

History of Alcohol Use: Food or Drug? While alcohol is now regarded largely as a curse, during the colonial period, beer and cider were important sources of nutrients and fluids for men, women, and children. Alcohol was considered necessary because it was a safe drinking fluid, provided easily absorbed calories to a hard-working farming population, allowed for safe storage of grains and fruits, was an important economic product, and prevented boom and bust cycles in the farming economy because grain could be converted to easily stored and transported ale and whiskey. During the 19th century, the rise of Temperance Movement changed American ideas about alcohol; while the original intent of Temperance Movement organizers was to encourage drunkards to reform by giving up hard alcohol (spirits), over time, it morphed into a political and religious movement to outlaw production, distribution, and use of alcohol entirely. Beliefs about alcohol shifted from a healthful and enjoyable beverage to a dangerous and seductive drug. This belief predominates in the United States today, even though alcohol is legal in all 50 states with bars and liquor stores present in most cities and towns. Reimaging alcohol as a drug ignores many thousands of years of more positive human use. Alcohol has been an important agricultural product and a good source of calories since the dawn of agriculture and, possibly even before. Archeological and historical evidence suggests that alcohol was

Alcohol

considered a food by most cultures until distilled spirits, which have far higher alcohol content, became a common tipple. Alcohol has been incorporated into religious and secular rituals and has been used to produce, consolidate, and display economic and social power. While the dangers of alcohol always have been recognized, the value of the social and nutritional functions to early agricultural societies guaranteed that alcohol remained on the table and that appropriate social rules were developed to limit its danger to individuals and communities. Because early farmers may not have produced grains in large enough quantities to allow frequent beer or wine production, and since most rural and traditional societies expect people to drink together and in public, it is possible that abuse and addiction were infrequent. Alcoholism, as we currently understand it, may very well have been almost unknown in ancient societies, although the consequences of overuse and abuse would have been obvious. The nature of our relationship with alcohol changed after the development of distillation, and especially when hard alcohol became an important economic trade item. For the first time in history, alcohol was cheap and concentrated enough to encourage easy intoxication on a regular basis—only a few shots, and the drinker could be nearly insensible. The low alcohol content of beer means that drinking a sufficient volume for extreme intoxication may overwhelm the capacity of the stomach and cause vomiting. Wine is stronger than beer, and most wine-drinking cultures have social rules about how, when, where, and how much to drink. Spirits are cheap to produce, are easy to store and trade, and enable fast and dangerous drinking. Hard alcohol is a drug, not a food: While it certainly provides calories, the proof is too high to be a good source of nutrients. Drinking patterns in the United States are influenced by our particular social development as a colony established at the same time that spirits became a common drink. Unlike European cultures that had a tradition of using beer and wine as everyday foods and could contrast such use with that of distilled alcohol, the young United States was established during the period in which spirits

27

were causing widespread problems in both the Old and New Worlds. The United States is one of a handful of countries that have implemented a secular ban on alcohol sales. Prohibition (the period during which trade in alcohol was made illegal in the United States after the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1920) fueled a nationwide cocktail culture that glorified sophisticated nightlife and the martini. Hollywood romanticized drinking from the 1930s through the 1980s, when a neo-temperance movement once again made alcohol déclassé. But bars, nightclubs, and drinking events remain an important part of American social life and identity, and taking a first legal drink at age 21 remains an important rite of passage.

Cultural Roles According to Mary Douglas, alcohol performs three important social tasks. Alcohol use (how it is shared and with whom) constructs the world “as it is.” Alcohol use charts how people interact with each other and reveals unwritten rules about conduct and social life. Alcohol use also defines identities and social groupings because those who are culturally allowed to drink together often have connections in other social realms, such as marriage and/or business. Drinking together indicates a connected social world and reveals connections between people. As a second example of the world “as it is,” the rules surrounding hospitality are important in most cultures with behavioral expectations of host and guest made clear as a part of good manners. It would be a grave social error to charge for drinks at a wedding, since a wedding reception is defined as a ritual party given by the parents of the married couple for the community of friends and family. The parents are hosts and must give hospitality rather than sell it. They, in turn, derive social power and hierarchy through being hosts; their social status rises because they give away food and drink to their community members. Second, drinking constructs an ideal world by defining relations between people and giving cultural structure to the connections between gods and men. Most cultures with alcohol integrate it into religious rituals—the sacrament of communion is a good example. The communion could be

28

Alcohol

described as a representation of the covenant between God and humankind; the wine stands for the commitment between the two parties, just as the community toast at a wedding represents the social acknowledgment of the commitment the new couple bears to each other. An otherwise social union—marriage—is made “official” by shared drinking as surely as communion represents being a part of a religious community. On more humble planes, who drinks with whom, where, and when often maps culturally normative relationships between age and gender cohorts. One unwritten rule prevalent among Americans is that people of different generations shouldn’t drink (to intoxication) together; it’s considered odd, for instance, for generations up or down to join a drinking party between same-age friends. Douglas’s third function is economic; every society that uses alcohol creates economic structures for production, distribution, and consumption, and alcohol usually provides significant revenue to producers and the state. Alcohol functions economically in a number of ways. It employs millions of people in direct production and advertising, distribution, and service jobs. It demonstrates economic control and power through taxation, rights to produce and distribute, monopolies and ownership of the means of production as well as the “earned” right to drink through hard work and ability to buy. Since it is a high-status item in most cultures, ownership of alcohol production and distribution capacities is often a mark of economic distinction; a good example is desire among the wealthy to own vineyards. Consumption of branded alcohol provides a means to articulate status and identity through demonstrations of choice and purchasing power. This refers to connoisseurship as well as distribution in the gift economy. Drinking alcohol in the modern world of branded consumption has become a performance that signals social and economic characteristics of the self (unlike our ancestors, who drank a local beer and probably not much else), so what you drink and where and how you drink it becomes a matter of great social importance. Modern cultural actors use alcohol to signal something about themselves to others; like many

consumer items, it can be used to construct a sense of self while also communicating scripted personal qualities to other people. And finally, because centralized political power is often linked to alcohol production monopolies, many cultures develop alternate economies of production and distribution as resistance to mainstream power and control. Such black markets have immense social power and meaning even if not official.

Why Is Alcohol Popular? One of the finest attributes of alcohol is that it is reliably dose-dependent. Most intoxicants are far more unpredictable. Alcohol has highly predictable dose–response results, and because drinkers can usually sense the relative strength of a drink, it is not too difficult to regulate effect. This is probably one reason why alcohol tends to usurp the place of other drugs in cultures that are introduced to it through trade or cross-cultural exchange. Alcohol allows for social intake in a way in which other drugs do not. Of course, at high dosages, alcohol also promotes antisocial behaviors, from narcissistic babbling to violence, and that is why every culture has strong rules about how to drink. Cultural actors are expected to learn how to drink appropriately in order to contribute to a shared experience. Janet Chrzan See also Alcohol Regulations, History of; Artisanal Spirits; Wine

Further Readings Ames, G. (1985). American beliefs about alcoholism. In G. Ames & L. Bennett (Eds.), The American experience with alcohol (pp. 23–39). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Barr, A. (1999). Drink: A social history of America. New York, NY: Carroll & Graf. Burnett, J. (1999). Liquid pleasures. New York, NY: Routledge. Clark, N. (1976). Deliver us from evil: An interpretation of American prohibition. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Douglas, M. (Ed.). Constructive drinking: Perspectives on drink from anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Alcohol Industry, Regulation and Taxation of Engs, R. (1995). Do traditional western European drinking practices have origins in antiquity? Addiction Research, 2(3), 227–239. Gately, I. (2008). Drink: A cultural history of alcohol. New York, NY: Gotham Books. Gusfield, J. (1986). Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American Temperance Movement (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Heath, D. B. (2000). Drinking occasions: Comparative perspectives on alcohol and culture (International Center for Alcohol Policies, Series on Alcohol on Society). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Levine, H. G. (1993). Temperance cultures: Alcohol as a problem in Nordic and English-speaking cultures. In M. Lader, G. Edwards, & D. C. Drummon (Eds.), The nature of alcohol and drug-related problems (pp. 16–36). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. MacAndrew, C., & Edgerton, R. B. (1969). Drunken comportment. Chicago, IL: Aldine. McGovern, P. (2009). Uncorking the past: The quest for wine, beer, and other alcoholic beverages. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rorabaugh, W. J. (1979). The alcoholic republic: An American tradition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sherratt, A. (1995). Alcohol and its alternatives. In J. Goodman, P. E. Lovejoy, & A. Sherratt (Eds.), Consuming habits: Global and historical perspectives on how cultures define drugs (2nd ed., pp. 11–45). London, UK: Routledge. Standage, T. (2005). A history of the world in 6 glasses. New York, NY: Walker. Warner, J. (2002). Craze: Gin and Debauchery in an Age of reason. New York, NY: Four Walls Eight Windows.

ALCOHOL INDUSTRY, REGULATION AND TAXATION OF The United States has a long history of taxation and legislation concerning the alcohol industry. This entry discusses state and federal regulation and taxation of alcohol producers and distributors.

The Three-Tier System While the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment ended federal Prohibition, it did not mandate the

29

legalization of alcohol across the country. Rather, it returned the legislative authority to regulate production, sales, and distribution to state governments. At the time, all 50 states enacted what is known as the three-tier system, designed in large part to prevent the formation of industry monopolies, which were widely blamed for the excesses and abuses that prompted national Prohibition, and to facilitate industry supervision and tax collection. The system, still in place today, requires the legal separation of producers (i.e., brewers, winemakers, and distillers), distributors or wholesalers, and retailers, such that no single entity can control multiple phases of the commodity chain and all are subject to independent taxation. It thus mandates that producers sell exclusively to wholesalers who then sell to retailers such as liquor stores and restaurants. Retailers may neither make alcohol nor purchase directly from producers, although a few states allow wineries, farm distilleries, and brew pubs to sell limited amounts directly to consumers. In many states, even visitors’ centers located in production facilities are required to remain distinct entities, with the product moving physically from producer to distributor, often hours away, and back again to the sales room. Today, all states but one operate under this three-tier system. The majority of states are termed Licensed States, because they involve licensed private entities in each tier. In “Control States,” of which there are currently 18, the tiers of wholesale and, in most cases, of retail are operated by the state. Washington State, the sole exception, revoked the three-tier system through referendum in late 2011. State laws allow producers to sell directly to retailers, permitting bulk discounts and competitive pricing and a variety of other measures that critics believe threaten small producers and independent retailers. One result of state rather than federal regulatory control is broad inconsistencies pertaining to packaging, labeling, and distribution laws for alcohol. This forces producers and distributors to navigate multiple regulations if operating across jurisdictions and to print a variety of distinct bottle labels in order to adhere to individual state requirements. Laws affecting retailers are similarly

30

Alcohol Industry, Regulation and Taxation of

inconsistent. Most states restrict alcohol sales to certain hours, but the specifics differ by location. Many states limit sales in grocery stores to beer and wine or require more intensive permitting for restaurants that sell hard liquor in addition to lower proof alcohol. Many states continue to allow local jurisdictions to apply “local option” and remain dry or retain more stringent laws than those enacted at the state level. Most “dry” counties are in the south and southeast of the United States. Of the 120 counties in Kentucky, a state famous for its bourbon whiskey, 39 are completely dry and 35 are “moist,” meaning they permit alcohol sales only under limited circumstances. Famously, Jack Daniel’s, the best-selling American whiskey in the world, is distilled in a dry county in Tennessee.

Licensing All commercial producers of alcohol must hold federal permits and state licenses to operate. Beer and wine can be made for personal consumption without permits or taxes, provided that quantities do not exceed 200 gallons of either product per household of two or more adults (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: § 27 CFR 25.205). However, the home distillation of spirits, even if it is not intended for sale, is illegal without a federal license, equipment and facilities, and the payment of excise taxes, all of which make home production virtually impossible. This legal distinction between alcohols was codified with the enactment of Prohibition and an interpretation of Section 29 of the Volstead Act that allowed the making of wine and cider for personal consumption, but not of spirits. With repeal, Congress extended this by allowing home winemakers exemption from federal laws and taxes applied to all commercial wineries. At the time, beer was not included in this exemption, and thus, the home brewing of beer remained illegal until 1978, at which time, Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed a law that lifted the federal ban. These exceptions still have not been extended to home distillation of beverage alcohol, largely due to concerns about the dangers of distillation,

including the flammability of high-proof spirits, fears about concentrations of harmful methanol from poor distillation techniques, and a persistent belief that the consumption of high-proof alcohol should be more closely regulated than that of wines and beers.

Taxation Alcohol, particularly distilled alcohol, remains one of the most heavily taxed consumer products in the country. Federal taxes on alcohols are collected by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), amounting to $7.85 billion in revenue in 2012, excluding import duties. Federal taxes currently stand at $18 per barrel of beer, approximately $1 to 1.50 per gallon of wine, depending on proof, and $13.50 per proof gallon of spirits (a proof gallon is a gallon of liquid at 50% alcohol). The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States estimates that federal, state, and local taxes account for $7.86, or 54%, of the average retail price paid in 2011 for a typical bottle of spirits made in the United States (see Economic Contributions of the Distilled Spirits Industry: http://www.discus.org/economics). A number of states, including Kentucky, levy an ad valorem or “barrel tax” to be paid annually on every barrel of spirits aging in warehouses. Whiskey was among the first domestically produced goods to be taxed by the nascent national government. To fund the war debt from the American Revolutionary War, Alexander Hamilton proposed a tax of seven cents per gallon on whiskey, levied against the distillers. This tax proved enormously unpopular among distillers, especially small producers in rural Pennsylvania and Kentucky, for whom the requirements were particularly burdensome. Distillers in urban areas in the East were gauged and taxed based on actual volume produced. Small farmer-distillers in rural areas, however, could not be monitored and, thus, were taxed based on still capacity rather than output or sales, even if they only operated a few months of the year. A growing number of distillers refused to pay, harassing gauges and tax inspectors, in what is known as the Whiskey Rebellion.

Alcohol Industry, Regulation and Taxation of

George Washington led an army of 13,000 soldiers into western Pennsylvania to suppress the insurrection in 1794, marking the first occasion when the U.S. military served to enforce domestic law, and, in so doing, it reinforced the legitimacy of the new national government. The whiskey tax was revoked under Thomas Jefferson in 1802, then reinstated to pay for the debt of the War of 1812, becoming permanent only in 1862 during the Civil War. Bonding periods were instituted 2 years later in 1864, allowing distillers to store their goods for a period of 3 months before being liable for tax payment. This was changed to 1 year by 1868, gradually raised to 8 years by 1894 and to 20 years by 1958, and then basically dismantled in all but name in the 1980s. By the late 1800s, more than 50% of federal tax revenue came from the beverage alcohol industry. In fact, many argue that it took the institution of the federal income tax as an alternative source of revenue to make Prohibition economically feasible and pave the way for the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment. Since repeal, taxes have been levied continuously on commercial alcoholic beverages.

Labeling, Standards, and Packaging Although bonding laws and especially the Bottledin-Bond regulations of 1897 had already created certain standards for whiskey, it was not until the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 that the federal government instituted comprehensive regulations for the labeling of all alcoholic beverages, domestic and imported. Standards for beer and wine were set with little debate. The question of what could be called whiskey, on the other hand, created intense controversy between distillers who aged their whiskey in oak barrels and rectifiers who mixed flavored and colored often high-proof alcohol to mimic aged whiskey. After great discord, federal standards were set that reserved the word “straight” for whiskeys aged in oak containers and allowed the word whiskey to be used for any distillate of grain. While Prohibition made these standards of identity basically moot in 1919, the majority were reinstituted with some

31

modifications after repeal, and most of the standards we have today were set in law by the now defunct Federal Alcohol Administration by 1938. Today, the extensive bottling, labeling, and packaging laws for all alcoholic beverages crossing state lines are overseen by the TTB, under the mandate of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. Considerable autonomy is left to state governments to enact further restrictions, making federal standards the default and generally least restrictive. The TTB reviews all bottle designs and more than 100,000 alcohol labels annually to verify that they provide the requisite information and contain no false or prohibited claims. All products made or imported to the United States that travel across state lines must meet the requirements for a COLA (certificate of label approval) or receive an exception. Generally, unless states have specific prohibitions, the following information is required on any bottle of alcohol: percentage of alcohol by volume, the name and address of the producer or bottler, the country of origin if imported, indication of the presence of certain additives and coloring agents, and an official warning about pregnancy and impaired abilities to drive and operate machinery. Statements of age are required by federal law for matured spirits, such as whiskeys and tequilas, if they are less than 4 years old, but prohibited on the labels of white spirits, such as vodka and gin. Rules establish strict standards for how other optional information, such as the disclosure of coloring materials, flavoring agents, or treatments with wood, can be disclosed and displayed on packages. TTB operatives regularly inspect production facilities and conduct chemical analysis on products found onsite or already in the distribution chain to ensure that the information listed on alcohol packages is correct and not misleading. According to the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, the federal government is responsible for approving and governing standards of identity for alcoholic beverages through COLA and other mechanisms. In regulating names, it also regulates production methods. For example, to be called bourbon whiskey, the spirit must be distilled from grain at no more than 160 proof, barreled for

32

Alcohol Industry, Regulation and Taxation of

aging at no more than 125 proof, and bottled at no less than 80 proof. Standards of identity for imported whiskeys differ slightly, generally reflecting the laws of the country of origin. Most distilled spirits, including whiskey, vodka, gin, and tequila, may not be bottled at less than 40% alcohol, a legacy of historic efforts to protect consumers from fraud. An array of beer classes, from India Pale Ale to Stout, approved names for grape varietals that designate wine, from chardonnay to cabernet franc, and various other alcohol categories, such as cordials, are also managed by the TTB. At times, these regulations have become controversial, in particular those that regard types of alcohol associated with specific foreign regions, such as Bordeaux or Chianti. Title 27 of the TTB’s Code of Federal Regulations, the body of regulations on trade, packaging, and branding of alcohol beverages, includes an up-to-date database of generic, semigeneric, and nongeneric (or geographically specific) names. For example, tequila as a distinctive product of Mexico, must be produced under the laws and regulations of the Mexican government to bear the name. Similarly, cognac must derive from the Cognac region of France, cachaça from Brazil, and Scotch whiskey from Scotland. The most famous battle over naming of alcohols was the fight over champagne, which the French government seeks to reserve for sparkling wines from the Champagne region of France. After decades of discord, the United States entered a bilateral agreement with the European Union in 2006, which led to an amendment of the Internal Revenue Code so as to prohibit the sales of goods bearing the name champagne, along with 15 other foreign semigeneric names, including burgundy, port, sherry, and Tokay, that are not produced in the associated geographical location. Of note, the agreement included a “grandfather” clause for wineries with existing products bearing such names as, for example, Korbel California Champagne. (The category of semigeneric names under Title 27 of the TTB Code has not been altered, although the agency supports the provisions of the IRC and the U.S.–EU agreement.) Bourbon and Tennessee whiskey are the only two

alcoholic beverages protected as distinctive products of the United States, bourbon since 1964 through a Senate resolution. No imported products may bear the names, and the U.S. government promotes bilateral and multilateral trade agreements in efforts to reserve the use of the names for American-made products also in foreign markets. While retailers and consumers may buy beer and wine by the keg or barrel under certain conditions, the purchase of distilled spirits in quantities larger than 1 gallon has been illegal since the end of Prohibition. (Today the maximum size is 1.75 liters.) Until the close of the 19th century, barrels remained the standard package for the distribution and sale of whiskey, the dominant spirit at the time. Saloon keepers and wealthy consumers would use handblown, expensive glass bottles for display purposes only, and it was not until the invention of the automated bottler in 1903 that glass containers became economically practical as standard packaging. Sealed bottles permitted greater control over contents and  thus encouraged brand marketing, and they enabled better government regulation of distribution and sales. In recent years, liquor stores and restaurants have begun selecting barrels from distillery warehouses to be bottled with their private labels. However, in legal terms, they actually buy the bottles that these barrels fill, which are packaged at the distillery and then transferred through an independent distributor, in honor of the three-tier system.

The Alcohol Industry Today Despite the long history of taxation and legislation, there remain large gaps and areas of ambiguity within the laws, both federal and state. Today, considerable debate remains about the role of the government in managing the use of the terms small batch or craft. Disagreement also continues about how to accurately label flavored whiskeys, such as straight bourbon or rye combined with coloring and flavoring agents prior to bottling, such as Wild Turkey’s American Honey or Jim Beam’s Red Stag. Flavored whiskey was the fastest growing category in the country in 2012, albeit up

Alcohol Regulations, History of

from a very small base, making questions about label regulations particularly pressing. Sierra Clark See also Alcohol; DIY Food Movement; Federal Trade Commission; Wine

Further Readings Babor, T. F., Caetano, R., Casswell, S., Edwards, G., Giesbrecht, N., Graham, K., . . . Rossow, I. (2010). Alcohol: No ordinary commodity (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Carson, G. (1963). The social history of bourbon. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Painter, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Social and economic control of alcohol: The 21st amendment in the 21st century. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. McGowan, R. (1997). Government regulation and the alcohol industry: The search for revenue and the common good. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Valverde, M. (1998). Diseases of the will: Alcohol and the dilemma of freedom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

ALCOHOL REGULATIONS, HISTORY

OF

Addressing the dictums and laws surrounding alcohol production, consumption, and distribution involves issues of comportment, morality and ethics, public health, racial and gender equality, taxation and profitability, politics and political malfeasance as well as individual liberties. Since early history, alcohol and its regulation have had an integral role in foodways and drink ways. This entry examines the history of alcohol regulations, from ancient times to present day, with a focus on U.S. regulations.

Ancient Regulations Laws and regulations regarding alcohol were instated in ancient Rome, Greece, and Mesopotamia to control growth and distribution of grains; to

33

regulate the symposium rituals, sumptuary laws, funerary practices; and to assess taxes. Numa Pompilius, the second monarch of Rome, initiated Postumian Laws restricting wine from being poured on funeral pyres, the use of wine grown from unpruned vines as divine libation, and wine consumption by free and enslaved women. According to Athenaeus, women could consume passum, a sweet raisin wine used primarily for cooking. Pliny stated that Egnatius Mecennius was acquitted for killing his wife for drinking wine (Rollbston, 1927). Wine is frequently cited in the Old Testament and Deuteronomy as both a beverage associated with sacrificial rites and a salutary drink. Noah is reproved for his drunkenness in the ninth chapter of Genesis: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent . . . And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. (Genesis 9:21-24, KJV)

The Talmud categorically cited the negative effects of alcohol consumption as a temporary mental deviation, “Drink not, and thou wilt not sin.” Offenders were in violation of legal or social codes, unlike their Roman counterparts. Joseph Hirsh (1953) notes that English laws regarding drinking and drunkenness followed Hebraic precedents. Ecclesiastical law initially had been directed toward the immoderation of the clergy. It was later applied to churchmen and congregants, before evolving into secular law. The first important English secular statue addressing inebriety was enacted in 1606: Whereas the loathsome and odious sin of drunkenness is of late grown into common use within this realm, being the root and foundation of many other enormous sins, as bloodshed, stabbing, murder, swearing, fornication, adultery, and such like . . . abusively wasting the good creatures of God. (Hirsh, 1953, p. 967)

For each infraction, fines of 5 shillings or 6 hours in the stocks for the penniless were assessed. This

34

Alcohol Regulations, History of

statute, in place for 2½ centuries, set the pattern for colonial American laws, noted Hirsh.

Colonial American Laws Social and governmental codes pertaining to alcohol use and production continue to evolve through to the present. Alcohol had been considered to be a nutritious medicinal beverage and a stimulant to the system. The fermentation or distillation processes that produced alcohol caused it to be viewed as being more potable than water. Many colonists saw water as only being fit for slaves, the poorest of whites, and hard-pressed frontiersmen. Contaminated water spread disease, earning precious alcohol the name aqua vitae, water of life (Salinger, 2004, pp. 3–4). The 1629 three-month voyage of the ship Talbot from England to the Massachusetts colony included 45 tons of beer, 16 tons of Malaga and Canary casks, and 6 tons of water for 100 passengers and 35 mariners. Domestic breweries, among the first businesses to develop in the early colonies, provided a ready stream of beer at a lower tax rate than imported equivalents. And, as an encouragement to them to behave well, and to attend diligently to their Duty, the Colonel [Washington] promises to give them, so long as they deserve it, four gallons of rum, made into punch, every day.—General Orders, George Washington, August 7, 1756. (Washington, Crackel, & Lengel, 2007, p. 338)

Alcohol was seen as a tool to bind or rend social order. One’s drinking companions and where the liquor was consumed were matters of significance. Social drinking in colonial Europe and the colonies occurred in establishments with designated rules separating classes and restricting or prohibiting the consumption by slaves, Indigenous peoples, and women. In no society did women drink where men did not. Women’s drinking was more private or deemed shameful. Gendered exclusionary practices in barrooms and public accommodations continued until the National Organization of Women

and second-wave feminism confronted this heteronormative patriarchal practice with legal battles and civil disobedience between 1969 and 1972. The primary statutes establishing regulations for public inns, taverns, ale houses, tippling houses, and dram shops were alcohol licensing laws. Centuries later, in 2008, the Dram Shop Act, drawn from dram shop laws, resurfaced as a means to hold social hosts, whether barrooms or private homes, liable for injuries to a third party as a result of serving or not supervising an intoxicated guest and/or minor—through a common law negligence claim against the social host, thus violating a legislative statute, rule, or regulation. In colonial America, the elite owned the taverns, politicians issued the licenses, and the clergy monitored consumption. Spirits’ high prices divided consumption by class, limited consumption, and identified intoxication with privileged economic status. Elites sought to control consumption through economic dominance of the industry. Benjamin Franklin’s lobby for tavern elimination as a moral ill and John Adams’s project to restrict licensing were other tactics to control the poor classes. Taverns and public houses functioned as public forums galvanizing support for Revolutionary activities in defiance of elite capitalists, notes Mark Thornton (1996). A 1720 supplemental provision of the licensing laws for public houses forbade the furnishing, supply, or selling of alcohol to Negroe or Indian Servants of any Rum, Brandy, Spirits or strong Liquors whatsoever, mixed or unmixed, either within or without Doors . . . without special license from their masters. (Kross, 1997, p. 35)

Investigations following an alleged 1741 slave plot to burn New York City found flagrant disregard for licensing laws and inference of poor comportment: A large number of places sold quarts or gallons of rum “under pretence [sic] of selling what they call a penny dram to a negro . . . negroes used to

Alcohol Regulations, History of

come to the house of drink drams, never more than three at a time, according to the accused Mrs. Elizabeth Romme’s statement. Several other men and women were indicted for keeping disorderly houses which catered to blacks. (Kross, 1997, pp. 37–38)

In addition to profiting from alcohol licensing fees and local taxes, colonial administrations wished to eliminate the British control over international trade that enriched the crown at American expense. Sinful goods such as alcohol, tea, and tobacco were at the center of British colonial trade policy. The protests against the international 1733 Molasses Act, the 1764–1766 Sugar Act, and the domestic 1791–1794 Whiskey Rebellion illustrated how lucrative taxation of sweeteners or fermenting agents or leftover grain, processed into whiskey, could enrich government coffers and affect international trade. The Molasses and Sugar Acts, ingredients in the Triangle Trade, attempted to destroy the New England molasses trade through import duties, forcing a reliance on British West Indian production. The suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, launched by the treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, attempted to rebuild the depleted federal coffers following the American Revolution by taxing western grain farmers. Hamilton’s attempt to control alcohol production and consumption mimicked British models. Federal troops neutralized the rebellion, asserting the power of the national government.

Nineteenth-Century Temperance Movement Alcohol consumption surged after the Revolutionary War of 1775 to 1783 due to higher incomes and lower production costs and tax rates, epitomizing the freewheeling American spirit in the independent republic. Nineteenth century increases in production and consumption dovetailed with religious revival campaigns and intemperance associated with the War of 1812, fueling the temperance movement. The movement evolved from platforms advocating voluntary moderation, to education and

35

assistance, and finally to membership societies promoting absolute abstinence. The temperance movement’s Children’s Crusade advocated policy review regarding minors’ access to alcohol and tobacco. Temperance leadership advocated government intervention to enforce social change. By midcentury, coalitions were formed to pass “blue law” legislation that would replace liquor licensing with restrictive community ordinances, establishment of purchasing limits, and prohibitions on local sales. Temperance education entered scholastic curricula. Laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol and tobacco to anyone under 18 years and later 21 years of age were established, setting precedents for the future. Maine’s exclusionary laws galvanized other states. These laws increased fines, allowed search and seizure, reduced requirements for convictions, created mandatory prison sentences, and allowed for the destruction of confiscated liquor. In an increasingly industrialized nation, work and lifestyle patterns changed. Men working farther from home further entrenched gendered drinking patterns. Women’s ardent support of temperance was deemed as a reaction to excessive drinking and spousal abuse. The success of Maine’s law, the women’s faction, and hostile reactions to immigrants opposed to temperance fostered coercive saloon “visitations” blocking access to barrooms by a phalanx of temperance advocates. Saloons were viewed as sites of gambling, prostitution, and malfeasance. By 1895, the Anti-Saloon League campaign led to the formation of the Prohibition political party, which advocated for a national prohibition, women’s suffrage, child labor laws, and xenophobia. Coercion, propaganda, and intimidation of political candidates were the new tools for temperance. The liquor industry was vilified as a producer of alcohol and for its collusion with saloons’ blue law violations, police bribery, and political corruption. Additional restrictions limited wholesale alcohol distribution networks fostering exclusive agreements between breweries and bars in exchange for payment of annual licensing fees. The movement’s strength increased taxation, establishing alcohol taxes as the largest single domestic contributor to the national economy.

36

Alcohol Regulations, History of

Twentieth-Century Regulations The ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment on January 16, 1919, established a federal prohibition of alcoholic beverages declaring the production, transport, and sale, albeit not the consumption or private possession, of alcohol, to be illegal within the United States. The Volstead Act accompanied this Constitutional amendment that took effect on January 17, 1920, following state ratification. The Volstead Act established modes of enforcement, determined which liquors were to be prohibited, and provided for exemptions to alcoholic beverages for medicinal or religious purposes. Public policy prohibition was purposed for social and political purification and labor efficiency in an increasingly industrialized society. The 1933 ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment ended prohibition, providing the only instance of repeal of a constitutional amendment. Under prohibition, liquor production, distribution, and sales were rife with corruption, involvement of organized crime, and overtaxed law enforcement. The Twenty-First Amendment in addition to federal mandates provided each state with broad powers and authority to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol within their borders. State legislators enacted three-tier systems requiring strict separation among all participants in the alcoholic beverage industry to eliminate criminality, corruption, price gouging, and intemperance. Individual systems of alcohol beverage control were developed, following two general classifications: control and license. The 18 control states became the sole wholesalers of distilled spirits, as well as the retailers in various situations within some states. These states also license activities apart from direct state involvement in alcohol sales. The 32 license states do not participate in the sale of alcohol beverages and regulate through the issuance of licenses to industry members that do business within their states. Following prohibition, states enacted minimum legal drinking ages (MLDA), with 21 years as the standard. Between 1970 and 1975, following the social unrest of the 1960s, the Vietnam draft lottery, and the reduction in legal voting age to 18 years,

29 states elected to lower their MLDAs to 18, 19, or 20 years of age. Between 1980 and 1985, varying social mores coupled with research statistics indicating a rise in vehicular accidents among 18- to 20-year-olds caused 18 states to raise their MLDA to 21 years of age. To encourage compliance by all states, the federal government enacted the National Minimum Legal Drinking Act in 1986, whereby noncompliant states would lose federal highway funds. However, all states prohibited possession by people under 18 years of age except under presence of or with the consent of a parent/guardian or spouse. Prior to the establishment of the national law, consumers often drove between compliant and noncompliant communities to seek out alcohol. President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12358, the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving, on April 14, 1982. This order was designed to increase public awareness, establish state guidelines to systematically address and correct the problem, and enforce driving laws. Consumer advocacy groups Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Remove Intoxicated Drivers put pressure on legislators to exact compliance.

Present-Day Legislation Despite the increase in the MLDA laws, alcohol continues to be the most commonly used drug among adolescents. Numerous studies have been mounted to ascertain the nature and scope of underage and college-age drinking habits, drinking and driving patterns, and alcohol-related crimes. Adolescent or college binge drinking, fraternity parties, and jurisdictional barhopping are predominantly the purview of males. Reduction in consumption levels and alcohol-related accidents attempts to modify male drinking behaviors and mores. Communities with low to zero tolerance for underage drinking were shown to have a direct effect on law enforcement and implementation of public policy, indicating that community secondary education and class levels can factor into managing underage consumption (Wachler, 2011). Recent legislative battles defining how boutique wine is marketed and sold as inter- and intrastate

Animal Rights

commerce have led to complex infighting between states wishing to protect their local industries. Every state’s system for regulating production, distribution, and sales of alcoholic beverages includes regulations for wholesalers. The number of liquor wholesalers has decreased radically since 1950, yet wine production has increased exponentially nationally. The disparities between large and small producers, marketing and distribution networks, state regulations, wholesalers’ political influence, and threat to minors have been cited as discriminatory practices against small producers. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) decision, which ruled that political spending by corporations and associations is protected under the First Amendment, has asserted dominance for the large producers, further weakening the boutique industry. Scott Alves Barton See also Alcohol; Alcohol Industry, Regulation and Taxation of; Bar Food; Beverage Industry

Further Readings Flewelling, R. L., Grube, J. W., Paschall, M. J., Biglan, A., Kraft, A., Black, C., . . . Ruscoe, J. (2013). Reducing youth access to alcohol: Findings from a communitybased randomized trial. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 264–277. doi:10.1007/ s10464-012-9529-3 Hickey, G. (2008). Barred from the barroom: Second wave feminists and public accommodations in U.S. cities. Feminist Studies, 34(3), 382–408. Hirsh, J. (1953). Historical perspectives of the problem of alcoholism. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 29(12), 961. Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Painter, M. J. (2007). Social and economic control of alcohol: The 21st amendment in the 21st century. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Kross, J. (1997). “If you will not drink with me, you must fight with me”: The sociology of drinking in the middle colonies. Pennsylvania History, 64(1), 28–55. Martin, S. L. (2011). Wine wars—Consumers and momand-pop wineries vs. big business wholesalers: A citizens united example. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 21(1), 1–34.

37

Okamoto, M. (1999). The changing meaning of what was considered to be “taboo” in the history of the temperance movement. Japanese Journal of American Studies, 10, 55–76. Ostrander, G. M. (1956). The colonial molasses trade. Agricultural History, 30(2), 77–84. Rollbston, J. (1927). Alcoholism in classical antiquity. British Journal of Inebriety, 24(3), 101–120. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1927.tb04831.x Salinger, S. V. (2004). Taverns and drinking in early America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Thornton, M. (1996). The fall and rise of puritanical policy in America. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 12(1), 143–160. Toomey, T. L., Toben, F. N., & Lenk, K. M. (2009). The age-21 minimum legal drinking age: A case study linking past and current debates. Addiction, 104, 1958–1965. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02742.x Wachler, J. (2011). Are New York’s social host liability laws too strict, too lenient, or just right? Touro Law Review, 27, 309–337. Washington, G., Crackel, T. J., & Lengel, E. G. (2007). The papers of George Washington: Digital edition (American Founding Era collection). Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Young, A. (1846). Chronicles of the first planters of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, from 1623 to 1636: Now first collected from original records and contemporaneous manuscripts, and illustrated with notes (Vol. 3). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

ANIMAL RIGHTS Animal rights refers to a philosophy that posits animals have certain rights that should be honored by human beings, the most important of which is the right to live a life free from suffering, cruelty, neglect, or mistreatment. A popular animal rights bumper sticker from the 1980s, “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, or experiment on,” describes this belief succinctly. While vegetarianism and kindness to animals have existed for centuries, animal rights, as a coherent philosophy, political movement, and form of activism, is a relatively recent phenomenon, originating with the publication of

38

Animal Rights

Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1975), an inspirational call-to-arms for many adherents. Animal rights organizations proliferated and extended into every type of exploitation and use of animals, including the treatment of animals raised and slaughtered for food. The impact of animal rights organizations has been substantial on eating habits around the world, despite resistance and backlash from consumers. The animal rights movement has also called attention to the cruelties of industrialized meat production, raised public awareness about the consumption of exotic or endangered animals throughout the world, and allied itself with other organizations to achieve more sustainable food production systems. Although the tactics of animal rights organizations have been criticized and even vilified, their impact on food habits around the world is significant: Vegetarianism and veganism are now household words, meat alternatives abound in grocery stores, hundreds of cruelty-free cookbooks have been published, thousands of specialty restaurants thrive, and hundreds of websites and blogs devoted to eliminating meat and/or all animal products from one’s diet attract readers. Equally significant, the animal rights movement has been instrumental in getting the meat production industry in several nations to eliminate the most extreme forms of cruelty to animals.

The Prehistory of Animal Rights Before the rise of the animal rights movement in the 1970s and 1980s, there was a history of individuals and small groups who opposed the exploitation of animals (whether through hunting, vivisection, or using animals for labor or entertainment). There has also been a lengthy history of individuals refusing to eat or sacrifice animals on ethical grounds. Humans may have practiced vegetarianism for moral or health reasons, or economic concerns may have limited individual meat consumption levels, but the word vegetarian was not coined until the mid-19th century, around the time of the founding of the first secular vegetarian society in England in the 1840s. Although some

vegetarians abstained from meat for health or religious reasons, a growing number of people who supported the anticruelty and antivivisection movements of the late 19th century also abstained from meat because of their concern for all animals, not just working animals or animals used for scientific experimentation. Ethical vegetarians were viewed with much skepticism, and vegetarianism was frequently dismissed as a “fad.” Unintentional vegetarianism, born of poor economic circumstances, was widely practiced until the mid-20th century. In the late 19th century, physiologists advocated high levels of protein to furnish more labor power. Meat was considered by experts to be an optimal protein source, but for many, meat was still a scarce commodity, consumed on special occasions or when one was sick. During the two World Wars, consumers were urged to reduce their meat consumption in order to conserve scarce proteins and fats; vegetarian and vegan dishes became patriotic. After World War II, improved economic circumstances led to a steady increase in meat consumption in the United States and throughout Europe; vegetarianism once again was regarded as an odd or “bohemian” fad.

The Birth of a Movement In 1975, the philosopher Peter Singer published Animal Liberation, which he researched and wrote after a conversation with a vegetarian. Singer popularized the concept of speciesism—the subjugation of nonhuman animals for human purposes, including eating—arguing that it is morally wrong and akin to other forms of prejudicial behavior. He believes that because animals have the capacity to suffer (not think or express emotions or act like humans), animals have an interest in not suffering, and therefore, they have the right to exist without exploitation or abuse from humans. Singer argues that recognizing these rights would produce the greatest good for the greatest number of all living creatures. According to Singer’s reasoning, humans might consume animals if they could find a way to do so without causing the animal to suffer. Yet Singer argued that, given the conditions of industrial

Animal Rights

meat production and the existence of alternatives to meat, vegetarianism is the only ethically acceptable diet. Gustatory pleasure cannot outweigh the rights of the animals not to suffer. Animal Liberation deeply offended many readers because of Singer’s suggestion that animals deserve equal consideration. In the decade that followed Singer’s book, several dozen academic studies considered the rights of animals from moral, ethical, religious, and legal standpoints. Academic studies were essential in providing clear definitions, goals, and justifications for the animal rights movement. Equally important were the early activists who took direct and bold action against the individuals and entities that abused or exploited animals. In the 1970s, in England, the Band of Mercy evolved out of the Hunt Saboteurs Association. Its members damaged vehicles and committed arson to disrupt hunting and pharmaceutical testing on animals. Later, a leaderless and secret organization called the Animal Liberation Front used similar violent and illegal tactics to draw attention to animal abuse. Later, these activists would “liberate” or take animals from research laboratories or other facilities where they believed that animals were being abused. Sometimes, the activists recorded the inside of research laboratories, puppy mills, egg-laying facilities, and slaughterhouses to draw attention to the illegal treatment of animals there. Animal rights activists also obtained jobs in places where animal abuse was suspected, so that they could work “undercover” to videotape the poor conditions and mistreatment of animals. Through these recordings, the public was made aware of the treatment of animals inside places they normally would not enter. While such forms of direct action were sporadic and sometimes secretive, several major organizations emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s and catalyzed the animal rights movement. Henry Spira founded Animal Rights International, which used public shaming campaigns to force organizations and corporations to halt certain activities. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) grew rapidly by expanding their concern from animals used in experiments to animals used for fur,

39

meat, and entertainment. These early organizations were joined by dozens of others, and the animal rights movement spread from the United Kingdom and the United States throughout the world. Animal rights organizations frequently served as the voice for Animal Liberation Front, distributing information from raids to the press and the public. Animal rights is much more than a philosophy; local, national, and international organizations had to make strategic decisions about how, when, and where to help animals, decisions that have had very real impact on how people think about eating animals. As much as animal rights advocates may desire a world in which no animal is used or exploited, they have chosen to expose and combat some of the worst abuses of animals first (though not exclusively), in an effort to promote public awareness about the extent of animal abuse. Some of the worst cases of abuse have been uncovered in the meat production industries; therefore, animal rights advocates have pushed some critical issues out into the public realm regarding our consumption of animals and animal products. Such forms of direct action are as significant as the basic philosophical tenets of animal rights in influencing public opinion.

Eating Animals As the animal rights movements grew in popularity and impact throughout the 1980s, the initial targets for change were those considered egregious in terms of cruelty: manufacture and sale of fur coats, fox hunting, cosmetics testing, and certain types of vivisection (e.g., demonstrations of surgical stapling using live dogs). High-profile investigations, coupled with animal “liberations” at research facilities, focused attention on the use of animals for scientific purposes and, later, animals used for entertainment. A few organizations still in existence today sought to end the use of animals for food; for example, the Farm Animal Rights Movement uses public education and grassroots activism to increase the public commitment to veganism, and Farm Sanctuary provides shelters

40

Animal Rights

for animals rescued from stockyards, factory farms, and slaughterhouses Yet high-profile campaigns against the use of animals for food were rare, given that levels of public sympathy for animals did not yet extend to farm animals and the public was not fully aware of the potential threats posed by industrial agricultural systems. Increased public attention to the plight of animals in factory farms resulted from a constellation of events in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In the United Kingdom, the first fatalities from cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (or mad cow disease) happened in 1986; subsequently, humans acquired and died of a new variant of CreutzfeldtJakob disease, a degenerative neurological disorder with similar symptoms. The epidemic and threat to public health invited public scrutiny of factory farm practices such as feeding rendered animal parts in commercial feed to cattle. Activists and journalists also described the use of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, and fertilizers in commercial feeds and medical treatments for livestock. John Robbins’s book Diet for a New America (1987) boldly referred to “America the Poisoned” in a chapter on factory farming. Robbins urged readers to adopt veganism for health, environmental, and humane reasons. The animal rights activists in the United Kingdom and elsewhere were able to discuss the mistreatment of farm animals by referring to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, raising greater public awareness of the hidden costs of industrial meat production. The animal rights movement also targeted fast food restaurants as a substantial purveyor of factory-farmed meat. Throughout the 1980s, a growing number of individuals and organizations protested the rapid expansion of McDonald’s restaurants in Europe. Activists opposed to the “McDonaldization” of Europe came from all ideological viewpoints, but the animal rights perspective was well represented, especially in the United Kingdom, home to the “McLibel” case in which McDonald’s Corporation sued a pair of British environmental activists, who then became engaged in a 20-year battle. Once again, the public was made aware of the conditions inside factory farms and the scale of such practices in the wake of the

massive global expansion of McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants. Under pressure from animal rights and animal welfare activists, McDonald’s adopted new standards for procuring meat, and the rest of the fast food world followed suit. Public pressure campaigns have also been brought to bear on fast food outlets to get them to stop using eggs from hens housed in battery cages. These campaigns, and the fast food industry’s response, have occurred without government intervention in the United States. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been concerned about food safety, the government agency has been slow to safeguard the welfare of farm animals. For example, the socalled downer cows (cows that are sick or injured) are banned from slaughter, and they are supposed to be euthanized humanely, but other sick animals, like sheep or pigs, are allowed to be slaughtered and sold. Individuals not aligned with the animal rights movement have published exposés on the food industry (e.g., Eric Schlosser’s 2001 Fast Food Nation), raising public awareness about the treatment of animals and humans in slaughterhouses. Animal rights advocates continue to shoot video footage from inside feedlots, egg-laying facilities, hog farms, and slaughterhouses, all of which shock the public. The regularity with which these videos are released suggests that despite greater public awareness of the treatment of food animals, abuses still persist. In response, the animal rights movement urges consumers not to eat meat or animal products at all, so as not to support industrialized meat production, although some animal rights organizations also support the extension of humane legislation for the welfare of farm animals. Animal rights and animal welfare organizations were not alone in bringing public attention to the high stakes of agribusiness; the organic food movement gained strength in the1990s and 2000s from greater public awareness of pesticide and GMO (genetically modified organism) use on large farms. Although united in opposition to factory farming, animal rights and organic/local food advocates do not necessarily agree on the issue of meat consumption, especially when it comes to non-factory-farmed meat. Organic and local food advocates may support ethical meat consumption, meat produced on

Animal Rights

small family farms where the suffering of animals would be kept to a minimum. Animal rights advocates argue that the true interest of the animal is not to be eaten, and thus, they do not see ethical meat consumption as a solution to industrialized meat production.

Assessing the Impact of the Animal Rights Movement on Food Habits Through their undercover work and public education campaigns, animal rights organizations have made people in the United States and in the United Kingdom aware of how meat, eggs, and milk are produced. Although much of the news about CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) and slaughterhouse cruelty shocked the public, it failed to dramatically change eating habits, and ultimately, it had little impact on industrial meat production. Between 1970 and 2008, worldwide beef production almost doubled, pork production nearly tripled, and poultry production increased six times over. In that same time period, milk production has doubled and egg production has tripled. More recently, in the period 2010 to 2011, global beef production leveled off and decreased slightly. Hog production has increased steadily, especially in the United States, where cheap pork from industrially farmed hogs has flooded the market. In the face of such daunting figures, animal rights advocates have expanded their work beyond exposing cruelty in the animal production business. Organizations such as PETA have presented a more upbeat vision of veganism for consumers, one that highlights vegan celebrities, publicity stunts (that some have found offensive), and a social network of health tips, recipes, and lifestyle advice. Certain vegetarian campaigns have been more successful than others; the public may be sympathetic to downed cows and pigs locked in gestation crates, but less willing to give up eating chicken, fish, and lobster. Recent studies of fishing by Charles Clover (2006) and Callum Roberts (2007) highlight the dire environmental consequences of overfishing, and animal rights advocates have publicized their claim that fish do feel pain when they are hooked. However, it remains to

41

be seen as to whether consumers will renounce fish for moral or ethical reasons. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, an organization founded by the environmentalist Paul Watson in 1977, has been highly successful in raising public awareness about the impact of whaling. Their confrontational tactics against the Japanese whaling fleet have prevented whalers from obtaining their full quota of whales, many of which are sold in Japan for human consumption. Consumer desire for whale meat is at an all-time low in Japan, and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has also turned its attention to saving sharks and dolphins from human consumption. Meat production statistics tell only part of the story. It is difficult to assess in terms of exact numbers, but in nations where an animal rights movement has taken root, words such as vegetarian and vegan are more commonly understood; the public is at least aware that modern meat production methods involve animal suffering; and alternatives to meat and other animal products can be more easily obtained. It is clear that since the 1970s, food habits have been affected by the various organizations that make up the animal rights movement. In recent years, scholars have begun to assess the impact of the animal rights movement, as well as popular attitudes toward animals and the consumption of meat. Throughout North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, animal studies has come into being as an interdisciplinary method to explore the world of human–animal relations. Future research from this field will be able to more accurately assess the impact of animal rights on food habits and consumption patterns, as well as levels of resistance to the animal rights message. Carol Helstosky See also Fishing Industry; Veganism; Vegetarianism

Further Readings Baur, G. (2008). Farm Sanctuary: Changing hearts and minds about animals and food. New York, NY: Touchstone.

42

Anthropophagy

Clover, C. (2006). The end of the line: How overfishing is changing the world and what we eat. New York, NY: New Press. Fox, M. A. (1999). Deep vegetarianism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Imhoff, D. (Ed.). (2010). The CAFO reader. The tragedy of industrial animal factories. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media. Marcus, E. (2005). Meat market: Animals, ethics, and morality. Cupertino, CA: Brio Press. Roberts, C. (2007). The unnatural history of the sea. Washington, DC: Island Press. Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. New York, NY: Perennial. Scully, M. (2002). Dominion. The power of man, the suffering of animals, and the call to mercy. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York, NY: Avon Books. Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2006). The ethics of what we eat: Why our food choices matter. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press. Spencer, C. (2002). Vegetarianism: A history. London, UK: Four Walls Eight Windows. (Originally published as The Heretic’s Feast in 1993)

ANTHROPOPHAGY Anthropophagy (from Greek, anthropos meaning “human being” and phagein meaning “to eat”) is the ingestion of human tissue by a fellow human being. The practice is more popularly referred to as “cannibalism,” which denotes same-species consumption broadly. Taboos against anthropophagy are a human universal, although some societies sanction eating the dead for ritual or medicinal purpose. The practice is also typically less stigmatized where eating one’s fellows is the only available means for survival. Academics debate the practice of anthropophagy in human evolutionary history as evidence of violent and symbolic behaviors, while confessed, alleged, and conspiring cannibals regularly capture the public’s imagination. In recent decades, anthropophagy has additionally surfaced as an issue of public and personal health, a venue

for artistic expression, and a symbol of the atrocities of warfare. This entry discusses all of these topics. It begins with a background on historical evidence of anthropophagy.

Evidence of Anthropophagy Paleoanthropologists suggest that humans have long engaged in anthropophagy, thought to predate the evolution of Homo sapiens in the hominin lineage. Evidence is drawn from several telltale signatures, such as butchering marks on human bones, similar to those found on animals prepared for meals, which suggest marrow extraction, skinning, defleshing, and/or evisceration. Based on remains found in Gran Dolina (Spain), Homo antecessor may have eaten their own kind roughly 780,000 years ago. Charred bones discarded alongside food remains at Klasies River (South Africa) provide evidence of anthropophagy among anatomically modern humans roughly 125,000 years ago. The site of Moula-Guercy (France) additionally yields support for cannibalism among Neanderthals some 100,000 years ago. Archaeologists provide evidence of anthropophagy in more recent human history. Remains found in Gough’s Cave suggest cannibalism among the first settlers to repopulate England following the last Ice Age (approximately 14,700 years ago), for example, and some interpret the disposal and butchery of human remains found in Cowboy Wash, Colorado (United States), as evidence that the Anasazi roasted human flesh over fire in the mid-1100s. Distinguishing cannibalism from ritual treatment can be difficult in the archaeological record, and many supposed cases of cannibalism have ultimately been refuted or rejected by the scholarly community for lack of sufficient proof. Written reports of anthropophagy among human populations in the modern era are common. These are, however, often unsubstantiated, and sometimes clearly fabricated as a mechanism for dehumanizing neighbors or strangers in foreign lands and justifying their subjugation. Other accounts, such as those found in the Bible, are widely interpreted as allegorical. Several

Anthropophagy

populations self-report practicing ritualized anthropophagy, where a cadaver is consumed for the purpose of absorbing the deceased’s life force or personal characteristics, forgetting the dead, or guiding his or her soul.

Survival and Medicinal Anthropophagy Taboos against anthropophagy are sometimes suspended in situations where no alternative source of sustenance is available. Such was the case during the harsh winter of 1609–1610 in Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in the Americas. Residents cannibalized a 14-year-old girl, dubbed “Jane” by the forensic anthropologists who reconstructed her skeleton, and possibly others. Additional well-known cases of famished individuals preparing or exhuming corpses for consumption include the 87-person Donner Party, stranded in the Sierra Nevada mountain range en route from Missouri to California (United States) in 1846, and the 1972 crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 that left survivors isolated in the Andes for more than 2 months. Other cases of survival cannibalism involve murder. Alferd Packer, for one, allegedly killed and admittedly ate from his five companions when their prospecting trip was stymied by harsh winter weather in Colorado in 1874. A student cafeteria at the University of Colorado at Boulder memorializes Packer in name and with the sardonic slogan, “Have a friend for lunch.” The 1884 sinking of the Mignonette, an English yacht, is another infamous example of starvation-inspired manslaughter. One survivor was killed by the others and consumed for sustenance after he went unconscious. Two men were tried and convicted for the crime, setting Common Law precedent that made necessity an inadequate defense for murder. Apart from situations of starvation, culturally permitted consumption of human tissue is predominantly restricted to medicinal contexts. Advocates of placentophagy, for example, argue that ingesting one’s own placenta after giving birth to it can reduce postpartum depression, stimulate

43

milk expression, shrink the uterus, and replenish nutrients. Placentophagy gained much media attention in 2013, when the blogosphere was atwitter with rumors that celebrity moms were embracing the fad, several opting to consume the placenta after it had been dried, ground, and encapsulated. Chinese traditional herbalists have also long used dried placenta for its purported healing properties, and European physicians widely prescribed corpsederived medicines throughout the Victorian era.

In Popular Culture: “Zombie Apocalypse” The prominence of anthropophagy in popular culture is most notable in the fictional character of zombies—animated human corpses that seek out and devour the living, transforming victims into fellow zombies. The moniker and basic premise of a zombie may be drawn from African-based spiritual traditions (from Haitian Creole, zonbi), but the stock horror fiction character (and their affection for brains) was popularized in George A. Romero’s 1968 film Night of the Living Dead. Beyond the silver screen, the cannibalistic undead feature prominently in comic books and popfiction, and choreographed zombies made Michael Jackson’s 1983 music video Thriller an instant classic. In 2012, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Homeland Security played into fictional depictions of a coming zombie apocalypse (a moment of societal breakdown at which zombies take over the world) and presented separate tongue-in-cheek “zombie preparedness” and “zombie alert” social media campaigns in an effort to increase interest in disaster preparedness.

Prion Diseases There is no veritable evidence of the existence of resurrected “undead” anthropophagous corpses (zombies) or zombie-causing illnesses. Prion diseases (like mad cow disease), however, can spread through cannibalism, effecting spongiform encephalopathies (spongy brain), which leads to uncontrolled and uncoordinated muscle movements,

44

Anthropophagy

painful neurodegeneration, and dementia. Examples of human prion diseases include CreutzfeldtJakob disease, kuru, and scrapie. Researchers at the University College London controversially asserted in 2003 that common human genetic propensity for resistance to prion diseases is an evolutionary holdover from a period when cannibalism was a regular human source of protein, and only those who could resist prion disease were able to survive.

Anthropophagous Criminals Intermittent news stories of cannibalistic acts emerge from all corners of the globe. Infamous perpetrators include American serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered and consumed flesh from 17 victims between 1978 and 1991, and Albert Fish, executed in 1936 for the rape and murder of children he ultimately cannibalized. Other murderers have fed the flesh of their victims to unsuspecting consumers. For example, the German serial killer Fritz Haarmann, the “Butcher of Hannover,” is rumored to have peddled his victims’ flesh as black market pork in the early 20th century. In 2012, Brazilian police apprehended three persons for killing a woman and using her flesh to make empanadas (stuffed pastries) sold as street fare. The case was arrestingly similar to the penny dreadful (a serial fiction publication) exploits of Sweeny Todd, a fictional barber whose murder victims’ flesh is cooked into meat pies. In 2012, there was a spate of flesh-eating crimes in North America. Among these, in January, police arrested Tyree Smith for killing a homeless man, Angel Gonzalez, the previous December. Immediately following the crime, Smith allegedly ate Gonzalez’s brain and eyeball. In May, police enforcement shot dead Rudy Eugene as he chewed on the face of a homeless man, Ronald Poppo, in Miami, Florida. Media initially reported Eugene’s actions as motivated by the consumption of bath salts, a substance contemporaneously in the news for arousing violent behavior. Toxicology reports, however, did not support these claims. The same week in May, a Maryland student admitted to murdering and consuming the brain and heart of his former roommate. Shortly thereafter, a Canadian actor was

accused of murdering and cannibalizing a foreign student. Rounding out the year, authorities arrested New York police officer Gilberto Valle for allegedly plotting to kidnap, kill, and eat six women he knew, including his wife. Valle was convicted in 2013, a decision his defense lawyers argued set dangerous precedent for prosecution based on thoughts, rather than actions. Other anthropophagous criminals are notable for the legal quandaries involved in their cases. Prosecutors of German national Armin Meiwes, for example, struggled to charge him for killing and consuming 20 kilograms of flesh from the body of Bernd Brandes, with the latter’s consent, in  2001. In Germany, as in much of the world, anthropophagy is not in itself illegal, though many who engage in the practice are ultimately tried for murder or, as in the case of Meiwes, lesser crimes such as euthanasia, defiling a corpse, or disturbing the dead. A different sort of quagmire characterized the case of Issei Sagawa, a Japanese national living in France in 1981, when he killed his classmate, Dutch national Renée Hartevelt, had sex with her body, and then consumed her flesh. The French court branded Sagawa insane and extradited him to Japan but refused to release his court documents. Japanese physicians found Sagawa to be sane, though sexually perverted. With no evidence on which to try him and no reason to keep him in a mental health facility, Sagawa was released without serving a sentence and proceeded to live as a minor celebrity in Tokyo.

Art and Politics Some animal rights advocates promote placentophagy as the only acceptable form of carnivory, asserting placenta as the lone animal-derived protein that can be harvested without loss of life. Others are less narrow-minded in their cannibalistic experimentations. In 2007, the Chilean shock-artist Marco Evaristti served an exclusive dinner featuring meatballs cooked in his own fat, which had been removed during an elective liposuction surgery the previous year. He implored his guests to dine by pronouncing them not cannibals if what they were eating was considered to

Antibacterial Soaps, Detergents, and Dishwashing Liquids

be art. The Tokyo chef Mao Sugiyama, who underwent elective genital-removal surgery in line with his denial of an affiliation with either the male or female gender, cooked and served his penis shaft, testicles, and scrotal skin to five diners in 2012, at the price of $250 per plate. Eating human flesh can also be an act of terror and ultimate sublimation during times of war. Many societies report consuming the flesh of fallen enemies in an effort to deplete enemy morale and strength. Documents leaked by the dissident Chinese writer Zheng Yi in the early 1990s suggest that members of the Chinese Red Guards and Communist officials in Guangxi province tortured and ate at least 137 accused counterrevolutionaries during the Cultural Revolution. The former Liberian president Charles Taylor was accused at the Hague, the Netherlands, of ordering militia soldiers to eat the flesh of captured soldiers during regional warfare, reportedly so as to “set an example for the people to be afraid.” The rogue rebel leader of the Farouk Brigades, Khalid al Hamad, made headlines in 2013 when images were made public of his biting into a heart he had just cut out from a Syrian regime soldier. While al Hamad’s actions did not characterize those of the broader Syrian opposition, many used them to underscore the ugliness and brutality of the escalating civil war. Arianna Huhn See also Disgust; Famines; Holistic Medicine (New Age) and Diet; Hunger; Mad Cow Disease; Performance Art Using Food

Further Readings Arens, W. (1979). The man-eating myth: Anthropology and anthropophagy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Askenasy, H. (1994). Cannibalism: From sacrifice to survival. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Constantine, N. (2006). A history of cannibalism: From ancient cultures to survival stories and modern psychopaths. Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books. Parrado, N., & Rause, V. (2006). Miracle in the Andes: 72 days on the mountain range and my long trek home. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

45

Sanday, P. R. (1986). Divine hunger: Cannibalism as a cultural system. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sugg, R. (2011). Mummies, cannibals, and vampires: The history of corpse medicine from the renaissance to the Victorians. New York, NY: Routledge. Travis-Henikoff, C. A. (2008). Dinner with a cannibal: The complete history of mankind’s oldest taboo. Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Press. Walton, P. L. (2004). Our cannibals, ourselves. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Yi, Z. (1996). Scarlet memorial: Tales of cannibalism in modern China. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

ANTIBACTERIAL SOAPS, DETERGENTS, AND DISHWASHING LIQUIDS Anti when used as a prefix means “against” or “opposed to” whatever word follows; antibacterial denotes a substance used against bacteria. The terms antibacterial, antimicrobial, and antiseptic are often used interchangeably almost as synonyms, but in their purest definitions are different. An antimicrobial agent refers to the ability to reduce or inhibit the growth of various types of microorganisms such as bacteria or fungi. An antiseptic agent refers to the ability to reduce or inhibit the growth of microorganisms on living tissue. An antibacterial agent reduces or prevents the growth of bacteria (World Health Organization, 2006). Any product claiming to kill bacteria contains an antibacterial agent. There is a proliferation of consumer over-thecounter antibacterial products. The names of antibacterial ingredients, how they are regulated and by which agency, their use and functionality, and their possible limitations are presented here to enhance knowledge about these products.

Antibacterial Agents Antibacterial agents can be divided into two categories: non-residue-producing and residueproducing. Non-residue-producing antibacterial agents act rapidly to eliminate bacteria but

46

Antibacterial Soaps, Detergents, and Dishwashing Liquids

disappear quickly by evaporation or breakdown and leave no active residue behind. Examples of this type of antibacterial agents are alcohols (ethanol and isopropanol), aldehydes (glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde), halogen-releasing compounds (chlorine compounds and iodine compounds), peroxides (hydrogen peroxide, ozone, and peracetic acid), and gaseous substances (ethylene oxide and formaldehyde). Residue-producing antibacterial agents leave a long-lasting residue on the surface to be disinfected. Examples of these are anilides (triclocaraban), biguanides (chlorhexidine, alexidine, and polymeric biguanides), bisphenols (triclosan and hexachlorophene), halophenols (p-chloro-m-xylenol), heavy metals (silver compounds and mercury compounds), phenols and cresols (phenol and cresol), and quaternary ammonium compounds (cetrimide, benzaldonium chloride, and cetylpyridinum chloride) (Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, 2013; Health Council of the Netherlands, 2001).

Regulation of Antibacterial Substances Antibacterial substances are regulated by two agencies in the United States based on their use and effectiveness. Soaps containing antibacterial agents used on the body or in food processing or packaging are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If a claim is made on a cleaner or soap identifying it as an antibacterial, the product is a drug. The label of the product must list all active ingredients (FDA, 1995, 2012). If a substance is not intended for use on or in the body, it is registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Substances are registered either as public health or as non–public health antimicrobial agents (Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, 2013; Ingham, 2009).

Soaps and Detergents Categories Soaps and detergents can be grouped into personal hygiene, laundry, dishwashing, and household cleaning. The products within each category are formulated for the specific cleaning function.

Personal hygiene products include bar soaps, gels, liquid soaps, and extra strength hand cleaners. Laundry detergents are formulated as liquids or powders. Dishwashing products include detergents for hand and machine dishwashing. Hand and machine dishwashing detergents differ by their formulation. Hand washing detergents provide long-lasting suds as an indication of how much cleaning potential remains in the wash water. In addition, machine dishwasher detergents produce very few suds. Both detergents remove food particles and hold them in suspension. Machine dishwasher detergents in addition bind minerals in the water and assist in the sheeting action of water off the dishes. Household cleaners are available in liquids, gels, powders, solids, and so on for all types of surfaces and cleaning applications such as floors, windows, and other surfaces (American Cleaning Institute, 2014b).

Antimicrobial Agents in Soaps and Detergents The American Cleaning Institute (2014b) identifies pine oil, quaternary ammonium compounds, sodium hypochlorite, triclocarban, and triclosan as antimicrobial agents used in soaps and detergents to kill or inhibit the growth of microorganisms that cause diseases and/or odor. These substances work in a number of ways—by interfering with the formation of the microbial cell walls or cell membranes, usually having a microbiocidal effect. While others interfere with the synthesis of microbial proteins, nucleic acids, or essential metabolites, this effect can be either microbiocidal (kill microorganisms) or mirobiostatic (inhibit the growth of microorganisms) (ACCORD, 2014).

Soap and Water There is no conclusive scientific evidence that overthe-counter consumer antibacterial soaps are more effective at preventing illness than washing with plain soap and water followed by proper drying. Antibacterial soap products contain substances such as triclosan and triclocarban, substances that have been proven to have some risks. The FDA is

Antibiotics and Superbugs

concerned with research findings indicating that the risks associated with long-term, daily use of antibacterial soaps may outweigh the benefits. There are indications that antibacterial agents in these soaps may contribute to bacterial resistance to antibiotics and may have unanticipated impacts on human hormones (FDA, 2013; Reinberg, 2013). Tanya MacLaurin See also Fresh Food; Salmonella

Further Readings ACCORD. (2014). Laundry detergent ingredients. Retrieved from http://www.washwise.org.au/_ documents/Laundry%20detergent%20ingredients%20 info%20sheet.pdf Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics. (2013). General background: Antibiotic agents. Retrieved from http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/agents .shtml#1 American Cleaning Institute. (2014a). Soaps and detergents: Chemistry (surfactants). Retrieved from http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/clean_living/soaps__ detergents_chemistry_2.aspx American Cleaning Institute. (2014b). Soaps and detergents: Products and ingredients. Retrieved from http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/clean_living/soaps__ detergents_products__ingredients.aspx Breast Cancer Fund. (2014). Triclosan and Triclocarban. Retrieved from http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clearscience/radiation-chemicals-and-breast-cancer/ triclosan.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Wash your hands. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ features/handwashing/ Edney, A., & Coleman-Locher, L. (2013). Antibacterial hand soaps must prove germ-killing claims. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/ antibacterial-soaps-given-1-year-to-prove-safety-byfda.html Food and Drug Administration. (1995). Soap. Retrieved from http://www.j2organics.com/2/post/2010/03/soap.html Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Is it a cosmetic, a drug, or both? (or is it soap?). Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceCompliance RegulatoryInformation/ucm074201.htm

47

Food and Drug Administration. (2013). FDA taking closer look at “antibacterial” soap. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ ucm378393.htm Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. (2005). Memorandum from topical antiseptic review team. Retrieved from http://www .fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/20054184B1_01_01-FDA-Executive%20Summary.pdf Health Council of the Netherlands. (2001). Disinfectants in consumer products. Retrieved from http://www .gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/0105E.pdf Hoffman, M. (2014). Antibacterial soap: Do you need it to keep your home clean? Retrieved from http://www .webmd.com/health-ehome-9/antibacterial-soapcleaners Ingham, B. (2009). Common sense talk about antibacterial products. Retrieved from http://www .foodsafety.wisc.edu/assets/pdf_Files/ABClean.pdf Levey, S. B. (2001). Antibacterial household products: Cause for concern. Retrieved from http://wwwnc.cdc .gov/eid/article/7/7/pdfs/01-7705.pdf Mayo Clinic. (2014). Hand washing dos and don’ts. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.org/ hand-washing/art-20046253 Reinberg, S. (2013). FDA wants tighter rules on antibacterial soaps, body washes. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/beauty/skin/20131216/fdawants-tighter-rules-on-antibacterial-soaps-body-washes WebMD. (2014). Triclosan: What consumers should know. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/fda/ triclosan-what-consumers-should-know World Health Organization. (2006). World Health Organization guidelines for hand hygiene in health care. Retrieved from http://www.kalite.saglik.gov.tr/ content/files/yayinlar_yeni/who_guidelines_on_hand_ hygiene_in_health_care.pdf

ANTIBIOTICS

AND

SUPERBUGS

Antibiotics are chemicals made by microbes, used to kill other microbes. Superbugs, or antibioticresistant bacteria, are created by the misuse or overuse of antibiotics. Superbugs can cause serious illness and have no cure if they are resistant to

48

Antibiotics and Superbugs

a broad spectrum of antibiotics. Superbugs have emerged as a major threat to public health because of the widespread use of antibiotics in the food supply and misuse in the medical field and because of the very nature of bacteria to evolve rapidly. This entry examines how an antibiotic works and how antibiotic resistance develops and explains some of the most common antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Antibiotics An antibiotic is a selective poison that is designed to kill microbes—bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi—without causing major harm to the body. There are many types of antibiotics, and each one has a specific spectrum of microbe that it is effective at killing. History

Long before antibiotics were discovered, medical practitioners around the world experimented with natural substances to cure inflammatory disorders or wounds. The Greeks first used natural substances such as ground onion, woods, wine, and honey to treat infections. They also used caustic substances that triggered the immune system to fight off any bacteria that tried to enter the body through a wound. The ancient Chinese used moldy tofu to fight infection; similarly, ancient Egyptians used moldy bread to treat infected wounds and skin. Though primitive, these treatments can be considered early forms of antibiotics. Moldy bread is, after all, where Penicillium was first discovered to occur. It was not until the 20th century that physicians shed new light on these common practices. In 1928, the Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming made an important discovery. After leaving a plate of bacterial culture uncovered in his sink overnight, he discovered that a mold, Penicillium, had started growing on the plate and that bacteria had grown all over the plate except for in the immediate vicinity of the mold. He observed that the mold was also killing off nearby bacteria. Penicillin was the first true antibiotic “discovered” by people.

Superbugs

Superbugs are bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatment. They are able to survive after exposure to one or more antibiotics. Pathogens resistant to multiple antibiotics are considered multidrug resistant. The more we try to eliminate deadly bacteria with new drugs, the better bacteria get at overcoming them. When an antibiotic attacks bacteria, susceptible cells are killed—but those that can resist the drug survive. The resistant cells multiply and add to the pool of resistant genes in all bacteria, which raises the odds that their genes will spread and create more resistant bacteria. There will never be a “magic bullet” antibiotic to cure all bacteria 100% of the time because of the very nature of bacteria. Bacteria can adapt to us and to antibiotics very quickly because their reproductive rate is so fast. A new generation of bacteria is created every 20 to 30 minutes. Natural selection in microbes is far more efficient because it happens so quickly. Genetically better adapted individuals reproduce more quickly and pass genes on from generation to generation in a span of mere hours. It can take more than 10 years to develop a new antibiotic to combat a particular bacteria, and that bacteria can develop a resistance to it in just a few hours. Antibiotic Resistance

Whether or not an antibacterial is effective at killing a specific microbe depends on a variety of factors. To kill bacteria, an antibiotic must poison the biochemical pathway that the bacterium uses. The antibiotic must also be able to get into the cell wall of the bacteria and must stop the bacteria from working properly. Antibiotic resistance develops when resistant genes and antibiotic use come together. If bacteria that are present in our everyday lives at home, work, school, hospital, and so on do not have genes to withstand an antibiotic, that drug will wipe them out completely. If the bacteria have resistance genes but have not been exposed to an antibiotic, the antibiotic can again wipe them out.

Antibiotics and Superbugs

Resistance becomes complicated because bacteria that have been exposed to one drug can develop resistance to unrelated agents or antibiotics. Bacteria will also continue to carry their genetic defenses long after antibiotic exposure has stopped. The more widely an antibiotic is used, the more resistance shows up in many different bacteria. Any use of antibiotics—even appropriate therapeutic use—can promote the development of resistant bacteria. Drug resistance occurs when a bacterium resists the first-choice antibiotic, and a second, a third, or even a fourth must be used. A first-choice antibiotic is one which is preferred due to its safety, availability, and cost. Second-choice antibiotics can typically be more expensive, have more severe side effects, or can simply not be as effective. In some rare cases, a bacterium can be resistant to all antibiotics that are known to treat it. Some of the most common antibiotic-resistant bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium difficile, Streptococcus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Staphylococcus aureus S. aureus, also known as staph infection, is one of the major resistant pathogens. S. aureus is also one of the most virulent and aggressive pathogens. It is endemic in almost every hospital in the world and is the most dangerous source of hospital infection. It was one of the earliest bacteria found to be resistant to penicillin, just 4 years after penicillin was first mass produced in 1947. Half of all S. aureus infections in the United States are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline, and erythromycin. Clostridium difficile Clostridium difficile is also a common disease found in hospitals around the world. It causes diarrhea and can lead to colon inflammation. Because it is found mostly in hospitals, it mostly affects the elderly and people already taking antibiotics. When the bacteria are in a colon in which the normal gut flora has been destroyed by an antibiotic, the gut becomes overrun with

49

C. difficile. This overpopulation is harmful because the bacteria release toxins that can cause bloating and diarrhea with abdominal pain, which may become severe. Streptococcus Streptococcus can be treated with a variety of antibiotics, but resistance is increasing worldwide. It remains sensitive to penicillin. One species of Streptococcus causes strep throat; others cause meningitis, bacterial pneumonia, and even flesh-eating bacterial infections. Mycobacterium tuberculosis Mycobacterium tuberculosis was once thought to be a disease of the past, but cases have been increasing around the world over the past few years. The rise of HIV/AIDS has contributed to this. Tuberculosis (TB) that is resistant to antibiotics is called multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB). TB was once considered one of the most prevalent diseases. It did not have a cure until 1943, when Selman Waksman discovered streptomycin. It did not take the bacteria long to develop resistance. Since then, TB is usually treated with a combination of drugs because it is known to spontaneously mutate, even during treatment.

Causes of Antibiotic Resistance Almost immediately after antibiotics were identified and used, doctors noticed that disease-causing bacteria could mutate or change. Over time, they became completely resistant to antibiotics that once wiped them out. Each time an antibiotic is taken, the weakest bacteria are killed immediately, but the strongest bacteria can adapt to the presence of the antibiotic. Superbugs adapt to beat the drug, then multiply. They can pass their drug resistance on to other bacteria in the body. Even when antibiotics are used correctly, they can cause resistance in bacteria. While antibiotic resistance is a natural consequence of bacterial evolution, if antibiotics are used correctly and sparingly, they can continue to be used to fight serious infection.

50

Antibiotics and Superbugs

Overuse of Antibiotics in Treating Illness

Antibiotics are necessary to treat disease. The use of antibiotics—whether or not it is done correctly— creates resistance in bacteria. So the best way to manage antibiotic resistance is to ensure that when antibiotics are used, they are prescribed and taken correctly. Health professionals have been accused of overprescribing antibiotics to their patients, especially in cases of viral infections like cold or flu for which antibiotics are ineffective in the first place. Additionally, it is important that when an antibiotic is prescribed, it be taken for its full course so that all pathogenic bacteria are killed. If they are not all killed, the ones that remain can develop a resistance. Antibiotic Use in Food

The use of antibiotics in food animals has contributed a lot to the rise of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics are used extensively in the process of raising food animals—not only to treat disease in infected individuals but also as a preventive measure against it. Food animals are kept together in large numbers and in close proximity to one another. These conditions can cause a bacterial infection to spread rapidly through a large population. Because it is difficult to identify one sick animal in the midst of thousands, antibiotics are sometimes administered as a preventive measure. This type of antibacterial treatment, though necessary in industrial farming, is also a huge contributing factor to antibiotic resistance. In addition to killing disease-causing bacteria, antibiotics have been found to promote growth in livestock. Today, U.S. livestock consume more than 20 million pounds of antibiotics a year, in contrast to the 3 million pounds used in human medicine a year. Feeding young livestock does not result in larger livestock but speeds the time it takes for the animal to grow to maturity, which means that it costs less money to raise them. The problem with using antibiotics unnecessarily in food animals is that it can breed highly resistant pathogens in the gut of the animal and on the skin, as well as in the air, soil, and groundwater in and around livestock operations. These superbugs spread their genes as they move through the human digestive system.

Lack of New Antibiotics Being Developed One of the main problems for physicians facing an antibiotic-resistant infection is that the development of new antibiotics has slowed. Superbugs are growing fast and becoming more virulent, and yet new antibiotics are being developed more slowly than at any other time in their history. The reason for this is that pharmaceutical companies cannot gain much profit from a new antibiotic because if the antibiotic is found to be effective, the medical field will try to limit its use so that it remains so. Chances are that even if the use of the antibiotic is limited, the bacteria will become resistant to it quickly regardless. It can take more than 10 years to develop a new antibiotic and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. Annie Goldberg See also Antibacterial Soaps, Detergents, and Dishwashing Liquids; Bioterrorism; Cattle Industry; E. coli; Growth Hormones and Other Drugs in Meat Products; Listeria; Salmonella

Further Readings DiConsiglio, J. (2012). Superbugs. Chicago, IL: Raintree. Drexler, M. (2010). Emerging epidemics: The menace of new infections H1N1 flu, SARS, Anthrax, E. coli. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Häusler, T. (2006). Viruses vs. superbugs: A solution to the antibiotics crisis? New York, NY: Macmillan. Nestle, M. (2003). Safe food: Bacteria, biotechnology and bioterrorism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sachs, J. S. (2007). Good germs, bad germs: Health and survival in a bacterial world. New York, NY: Hill & Wang. Spellberg, B. (2009). Rising plague: The global threat from deadly bacteria and our dwindling arsenal to fight them. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Websites Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www .cdc.gov Infectious Disease Society of America: http://www .idsociety.org

Anti-Globalization Movements/World Trade Organization

ANTI-GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENTS/ WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION Anti-globalization movements are specific kinds of social movements. Virtually all social movements are moral confrontations between a collectivity with ideologies that do not resonate with the status quo and a targeted individual, organization, idea, practice, policy, or product that represents some perceived evil. Anti-globalization movements typically resist various neoliberal policies and practices that accompany unilateral economic and political developments. Just as there are many specific types of globalization, such as economic, cultural, and political, there are many different anti-globalization movements. Common forms of anti-globalization movements involve trade unionism, indigenous rights, opposing cultural imperialism, economic neocolonialism, multinational corporate resource extraction, environmental conservation, sustainable agriculture, and locavorism (the movement that supports local food growers/ producers). The relevance of anti-globalization movements to food issues is multifaceted and complex. According to many anti-globalization movements, the world’s food supply is increasingly controlled by a handful of multinational corporations. Domestic and international agricultural policies facilitate short-term economic growth for large agribusiness interests while expanding ecological harms. Westernized fast food franchises systematically encroach on diverse cultural traditions, identities, and lifestyles. International trade liberalization and deregulation supplant local, regional, and national agricultural economies and produce increased financial inequality. Genetically engineered seeds reduce biodiversity and circumvent the historical practice of seed selection and saving among many underresourced communities and populations around the globe. This entry provides the reader with a better and more nuanced understanding of the myriad interconnections between anti-globalization movements and global food system issues. Beginning with a historical overview of globalization, segueing into an explanation of the World Trade Organization,

51

and ending with a discussion of ideologies that are in moral conflict, the reader will be introduced to several key anti-globalization movement discourses. The primary goal is for readers to have a more informed view of the anti-globalization arguments and criticisms, which have grown in scope and volume over the past several decades and are embedded in public perceptions and discussions of global food systems.

Overview of Globalization Before delving into the ideologies and movement discourses that oppose globalization, it will be instructive to explore the recent developments of globalization itself. Globalization is a complex phenomenon of increasingly connected individuals, cultures, policies, markets, and institutions and has occurred for millennia. In recent decades, however, globalization processes have multiplied, leading to perceptions of time compression and spatial fragmentation. These effects of globalization are largely a result of new communication and transportation technologies and often result in a more reflexive consciousness. Time compression is an experience of time’s relativity and fleetingness due to a more self-conscious awareness that, for example, 12:00 noon in New York is 4:00 p.m. in London and 12:00 midnight in Beijing. Spatial fragmentation is the experience that a person could conceivably spend his or her morning in Rome, afternoon in Montreal, and evening in New York. These experiences have a potential effect of reflexivity (an act of self-reference where examination or action affects the entity instigating the examination or action). In part because of this more reflexive consciousness, humans have gained awareness of extreme disparities and inequalities among the world’s peoples as well as negative outcomes of globalization on cultures, economies, and the planet. Many of these realizations have resulted in organizing civil society resistance to globalization and articulations of moral outrage that have direct relevance to agriculture and food issues. Experts explain that it is more useful to think of globalizations as plural rather than as a unitary phenomenon. The primary facets of globalizations are political, cultural, and economic. The processes

52

Anti-Globalization Movements/World Trade Organization

and dynamics that engender globalization often overlap. For example, political processes in one part of the world have often led to economic forces and pressures in another part of the world that can have disjointed cultural impacts. An example of political globalization would be the formation of the League of Nations, which later became the United Nations. An example of cultural globalization would be the spread of yoga from India to California or distinct musical genres blending to create a cross-cultural fusion such as Reggaeton. An example of economic globalization is the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which led to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which helped usher in the World Trade Organization.

World Trade Organization The World Trade Organization, or the WTO, was founded in the latter part of the 20th century. The WTO is an international body composed of representatives of member governments but member coalitions and private sector advisors and lobbies are equally integral to decisional dynamics. The WTO was an outgrowth of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or the Bretton Woods Agreement, to stabilize the world economy after World War II. A total of 110 nations have signed the agreement that allows the WTO to be the ruling body in international trade disputes. The primary functions of the WTO are to (a) enable corporations to be treated as nations for the purposes of bidding and contracting, (b) enable corporations or nations to sue other nations that create barriers (e.g., subsidies, tariffs, protection policies) to international trade, (c) supersede other regional and national law, and (d) establish nontariff barriers such as environmental or labor barriers as actionable. It is rhetorically necessary for social movements, in their struggle to subvert, strengthen, or transform perceptions, to target an individual, organization, practice, product, or idea as the symbol of moral opposition. It would be virtually impossible for a social movement to gain followers, build support, and alter perceptions, policies, and practices

without identifying a symbolic enemy to struggle against; without negation, affirmation is not rhetorically forceful. For many, but not all, antiglobalization movements, the WTO has become the organizational figurehead to morally oppose.

Food-Related Anti-Globalization Arguments Anti-globalization movements are as diverse and numerous as the processes that have spurred globalization and accompanying perceptions, attitudes, and effects. This section highlights several specific arguments and criticisms of cultural, political, and economic consequences of globalization as they pertain to food issues by explaining important rhetorical aspects of these movements’ discourse. Cultural arguments opposing globalization hinge on temporal and spatial perceptions and experiences, derived from and in response to the globalization effects of time compression and spatial fragmentation. Two such dominant discourses that frame ideologies opposing globalization include the Slow Food and local food movements. The Slow Food movement focus is clearly temporal. Slow food rhetoric juxtaposes quickly spreading fast food, such as McDonald’s, with slow food. The Slow Food movement traces its origins to protesting the opening of a McDonald’s near the Spanish Steps in Rome, Italy, in 1986. The movement’s chief criticisms include the unwelcome intrusion of exogenous diets and the adverse lifestyle or identity change that comes along with dietary change. The local food movement traces its origins to San Francisco, California, around 2005. The local food movement has primarily a spatial criticism. Locavores are people who eat as much of their food that is grown from local sources as possible. Locavorism was awarded the Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year recognition in 2007. This movement creates a dichotomy through discourse by pitting locavorism against globavorism. While the value and volume of international trade in food have increased three- or fourfold since the early 1960s, one of the primary criticisms that underlie the local food ideology is the distribution issue. Purchasing and eating foods

Anti-Globalization Movements/World Trade Organization

that originate far from their place of consumption means that an average meal has traveled between 1,000 and 10,000 miles to arrive on a consumer’s plate. The economic cost in transporting these foodstuffs grown in an entirely different part of the planet is high. Even more important to this ideology, however, is the carbon footprint generated from a carbon-based transportation system. In other words, transporting food produced in Chile, Australia, or California to New York by plane, ship, and truck running on oil-derived fuels contributes a significant amount of carbon dioxide to global warming. This carbon footprint, as it is called, can be lessened with a locavore diet. Arguments opposing political globalizations emerge from the Indigenous Rights and Food Sovereignty movements. Because these movements are so young, there are no texts that definitively codify the ideology. Grassroots organizations such as Asian Farmers Association for Sustainable Rural Development, Food First, and La Via Campesina are championing many of the political arguments against globalizing the food system. Naming a movement can strategically help or hinder a movement’s successes. The Food Sovereignty and Indigenous Rights movements’ names gesture at an insight: the primary nature of these aforementioned anti-globalization ideologies is political. The rhetoric of both rights and sovereignty provides a political frame from which to build their arguments. Indigenous peoples from various underdeveloped nations have adopted the politically successful rhetoric of rights (think human rights, civil rights, women’s rights) to argue for domestic and international policy mandates that would protect the natural resources (e.g., water, soil, minerals, lumber) in their habitat from governmental or corporate extraction, leaving them without the necessary resource base for subsistence-level food production. The Food Sovereignty movement has also adopted highly successful political rhetoric in its framing of anti-globalization ideology. Emerging from Via Campesina in the mid-1990s, this movement’s name adopts “sovereignty” to privilege people rather than markets and corporations.

53

Although there is some ambiguity over the jurisdictional level that should be empowered over transnational corporations and international markets, this movement has made political inroads with global gatherings premised on civil society collaboration and consensus decision making. Furthermore, a number of countries—with Ecuador being the first in 2006—have begun to codify this movement’s rhetoric by integrating the language and ideological elements of “food sovereignty” into laws and even national constitutions. Economic arguments opposing globalization include the fair trade and anti-Green Revolution or anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movements. Fair trade rhetoric identifies “fair” instead of “free” trade practices and challenges the free trade ideology with production cooperatives, just labor practices, and price structures that do not externalize or minimize costs of production to create a larger profit margin but may be harmful to communities and environments. One criticism of the Green Revolution is that underlying this particular approach to making food production in underdeveloped nations more efficient are problematic assumptions about development. For instance, introducing larger scale production techniques has not eliminated hunger, even though there is more than enough food produced to feed the entire world’s population. The logical corollary to this observation is that distribution or access is more of a problem than production. The privatization of the global food system and the spread of market-based agricultural commodities expand the portion of the world’s population that is shut out of acquiring the basic foodstuffs necessary for caloric and nutritional adequacy for their households. These movements claim that the WTO is driving this economic liberalization. Another example is that in adopting the practice of monoculture crop production, the Green Revolution has contributed to the diminishment of the world’s evolved stock of biodiversity, which is important to agriculture because local heirloom seed saving, local adaptations, and resiliency in the instance of blight, failure, or infestation become less common.

54

Antioxidants

One of the primary arguments emerging from the anti-GMO movement is the economic exploitation of the Earth and various communities of indigenous peoples worldwide. In the recent past, several multinational agribusiness corporations have attempted to misappropriate traditional medicinal and culinary knowledge in the process of patenting seeds, grains, and other foodstuffs for economic profit; this process of unrightfully obtaining proprietary ownership over traditional cultural knowledge or nature is called “biopiracy.” A few cases have become emblematic of the environmental and anti-globalization arguments opposing neoliberal privatization of the global food system. Examples of a few of the more controversial and publicized cases are (a) the W. R. Grace company’s patenting of numerous neem tree seed solutions, (b) RiceTec’s efforts to patent Basmati rice, and (c)  the development of the genetically modified Golden Rice. The crux of the arguments opposing these technological and commercial agricultural developments is that once these seeds and grains have been successfully patented, genetic experimentation and price controls have the potential to disrupt ecological balance and negatively affect economic affordability for the global South. Joshua J. Frye See also Biopiracy; Cultural Identity and Food; Fair Trade; Food Sovereignty; Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences; Locavorism; Multinational Conglomerates; North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Further Readings Frye, J., & Bruner, M. (2012). The rhetoric of food: Discourse, materiality, and power. New York, NY: Routledge. Hewitt, B. (2010). The town that food saved: How one community found vitality in local food. New York, NY: Rodale. Kingsolver, B., Hopp, S. L., & Kingsolver, C. (2007). Animal, vegetable, miracle: A year of food life. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Petrini, C. (2006). Slow food revolution: A new culture for dining and living. New York, NY: Rizzoli International.

Ritzer, G. (2013). The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shiva, V. (1991). The violence of the green revolution: Third world agriculture, ecology, and politics. New York, NY: Zed Books. Shiva, V. (2000). Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food supply. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Websites Food Democracy Now! http://www.fooddemocracynow.org Food First: http://www.foodfirst.org La Via Campesina: http://www.viacampesina.org Navdanya: http://www.navdanya.org Slow Food: http://www.slowfood.com

ANTIOXIDANTS Antioxidants are chemicals that may be produced by the body or consumed in food. They mitigate the harmful effects of free radicals and have therefore been praised for their role in the prevention of certain types of cancers, heart disease, vision loss, and other chronic illnesses. However, clinical trials have largely failed to conclusively link antioxidants with their perceived benefits, and some studies have even linked consumption of antioxidant supplements with increased health risks. This entry examines the role and sources of antioxidants and discusses the use of antioxidant dietary supplements. The primary role of antioxidants is to block the effects of free radicals. Free radicals may be produced naturally in the body or may be consumed through necessary activities such as eating and breathing. Free radicals are highly reactive and damage cells by taking electrons away from other chemicals in the body. This can change strands of DNA, alter cell membranes, and trap LDL (low density lipoprotein) cholesterol in artery walls. The effects of free radicals can contribute to certain types of cancer, vision loss, and other chronic conditions over time. Antioxidants defend the body by providing free radicals with electrons without becoming a pro-oxidant, which would require additional electrons. However, antioxidant

Antitrust Laws

is a chemical property, and each antioxidant acts differently. A chemical that acts as an antioxidant in one context may become a pro-oxidant in another. There are hundreds of antioxidants, but the most familiar are vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene. Others include selenium, manganese, glutathione, coenzyme Q10, lycopene, lutein, flavonoids, phenols, polyphenols, phytoestrogens, and other carotenoids. They can be found naturally in many fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and seeds. In the 1990s, antioxidants were praised in the popular media before many initial clinical trials were complete. The supplement and food industries subsequently capitalized on the perceived positive effects of antioxidants by introducing supplements, fortifying food products, and adjusting marketing claims. To date, antioxidant-enriched foods are still popular, especially in cereal, sport bars, and energy drinks. Some even estimate that the antioxidant supplement industry is worth as much as $500 million. Although a diet low in antioxidant-rich foods may result in hindered childhood development and nutritional deficiencies, clinical trials about the effects of antioxidant supplement consumption are largely inconclusive. Lab and animal research suggest that antioxidant supplement consumption may prevent free radical damage, but research with human subjects has largely failed to demonstrate that consumption of individual antioxidants is associated with decreased health risks. One positive study linked beta-carotene consumption to reduced cognitive decline. Another showed that a mix of vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and zinc helped reduce age-related eye disease. Most studies about the effects of antioxidant consumption on cancer show either no effect or require a longer trial period for conclusive results. Some studies link antioxidant consumption with increased risk of cancer in certain populations, including smokers and people who were exposed to asbestos. Consumption of antioxidants that occur naturally in fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and other foods is necessary for health, but many health claims about antioxidants remain unsubstantiated. Clara Hanson

55

See also Cancer-Fighting Foods; Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet; Cardiac Disease and Diet; Cholesterol, LDL and HDL

Further Readings Falappino, M. (2013). The antioxidant-inflammation connection. http://www.amazon.in/gp/reader/ B00HG041ZC/ref=sib_dp_kd#reader-link Laher, I. (Ed.). (2014). Systems biology of free radicals and antioxidants. New York, NY: Springer. Snyder, M. (2011). The antioxidant counter: A pocket guide to the revolutionary ORAC scale for choosing healthy foods. Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press.

ANTITRUST LAWS Only a few companies dominate most links in America’s food chain. These firms sell the equipment and supplies farmers use every day, buy the crops and livestock from the farms, and process and sell food to consumers. These companies are the bottleneck between 2 million farmers and more than 300 million consumers and can raise costs and lower prices for farmers while reducing choices and raising prices for consumers. Many of the fundamental questions Americans are asking about their food system can be traced back to the structure of the food industry and dramatic changes that have occurred over the past several decades. For example, when consumers and farmers want more local or sustainably produced food to be available in their supermarket aisles, they run up against a few supermarket chains each with a single, national buyer responsible for supplying thousands of stores—an unreasonable model for small or midsize independent producers or processors (Domina & Taylor, 2009). Over the past three decades, concentration and consolidation have narrowed the number of businesses operating in every food and agricultural sector and subsector to a small clique of giant companies. There were about 400 food company mergers in both 2006 and 2007 (Food Industries Mergers, 2009). The Great Recession dampened the pace of food mergers, but as the economy improved

56

Antitrust Laws

for businesses, mergers increased (Table 1). Food companies continued to consolidate after 2008, and the number of mergers soon could hit the prerecession clip of 100 annually (Fusaro, 2011, 2012). These mergers have increased the market share of the four largest companies in the food and agriculture sectors, a metric known as four-firm concentration. (Four-firm concentration ratios are used here because they are publicly available from the U.S.

Census Bureau and are more commonly reported in  economic literature, government reports, and periodicals.) The agriculture and food sector are unusually concentrated. The four-firm concentration for most sectors of the economy has hovered between 40% and 45%; many economists maintain that fourfirm concentration ratios above this level can start to erode competitiveness (U.S. Senate Committee

Table 1 Selected Food Company Mergers and Acquisitions, 2012–2013 Type of Grocery

Buyer

Target

Beer

Anheuser-Busch InBev

Grupo Modelo (Corona, Modelo) for non-U.S. market; U.S. Modelo brands sold to winery company Constellation Brands, Inc. (Brasher, 2013; AB InBev, 2013).

Salad dressing

Pinnacle Foods

Purchased Wish-Bone salad dressing brand from Unilever (“Pinnacle Foods,” 2013).

Frozen dinners

ConAgra Foods

Purchased Bertolli and PF Chang frozen meals from Unilever (Boettcer, 2012).

Supermarket brands for peanut butter, cereal, crackers, cookies, and more

ConAgra Foods

Purchased major supermarket brand manufacturer Ralcorp (ConAgra Foods Inc., 2013a, 2013b).

Potato chips

Kellogg Co.

Purchased Pringles potato chips from Procter & Gamble (Kellogg Co., 2012).

Dairy/non-dairy products

Saputo, Inc.

Purchased Morningstar brands from Dean Foods (Saputo, Inc., 2013).

Bread

Flowers Foods, Grupo Bimbo

Flowers Foods purchased Wonder Bread, Nature’s Pride, Home Pride, Butternut, and Merita brands from Hostess Foods bankruptcy. Grupo Bimbo purchased Beefsteak bread business from Hostess (Isadore, 2013; Goldschmidt, 2013).

Snack cakes

McKee Foods, Apollo Global Management

McKee Foods purchased Drake’s Ring Dings, Yodels and Devil Dogs from Hostess; the investment fund Apollo Global Management bought Twinkies and Dolly Madison snack lines (Isadore, 2013; “Drake’s Cakes,” 2013; Goldschmidt, 2013).

Peanut butter

Hormel

Purchased Skippy peanut butter from Unilever (Cane & Strom, 2013; Hormel Foods, 2013).

Source: Food & Water Watch, “Grocery Goliaths” (2013), p. 5. Available at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/grocerygoliaths-how-food-monopolies-impact-consumers/. Copyright © December 2013 by Food & Water Watch. All rights reserved.

Antitrust Laws

on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 2004). In the food and agriculture sectors, the four-firm concentration ratios often exceed 50%. According to data compiled by the University of Missouri– Columbia, the four-firm concentration was 83.5% for beef packing, 80% for soybean crushing, 66% for pork packing, and 58% for broiler integrators (Hendrickson & Heffernan, 2007). These national concentration measurements can conceal much higher levels of concentration at the regional or local level.

Consolidation of Grocery Retailers Although the top four supermarket chains control half of national grocery sales, on the local level, these big four retailers can control a much bigger share of the market (Martinez, 2007; “SN’s Top 75 Retailers for 2009,” 2009). Until recently, most consumers shopped at regional and local supermarket chains. In 1997, Americans bought about one fifth of their groceries (20.8%) at the four largest grocery retailers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). But the rise of the big box food retailers like Walmart precipitated a wave of supermarket mergers, starting in the 1990s, that created a network of national supermarket chains (Kaufman, 2000; Martens, 2008; Volpe, 2011a). By 2012, more than half of the money that Americans spent on groceries (53.6%) went to the four largest retailers: Walmart, Kroger, Target, and Safeway. Walmart alone sold nearly a third (28.8%) of all groceries in 2012. On the local level, the consolidation can be much higher. In 231 metropolitan areas, just four big retailers made more than 80% of grocery sales in 2011, and Walmart made up half of all grocery sales in 35 cities (Food & Water Watch, 2013).

Consolidation of Grocery Brands The concentration of brands in the supermarkets has increased as food manufacturers continue to merge. A Food & Water Watch study examining 100 types of grocery products found that the top few companies dominated the sales of most

57

categories. The top companies controlled an average of 63.3% of the sales of the 100 types of groceries. In a third (32) of the grocery categories, four or fewer companies controlled at least 75% of the sales. In six categories, the top companies sold more than 90% of the category sales (Food & Water Watch, 2013). Federal antitrust laws are supposed to preserve some measure of competition in these markets. In theory, these laws prohibit companies from colluding to suppress competition, engaging in predatory conduct to seize or maintain a monopoly, or creating corporate mergers that significantly reduce competition in a geographic market. But while these laws are on the books, antitrust enforcers have done little to slow the growing food, agribusiness, and supermarket monopolies in recent decades.

Failed Antitrust Policy The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) prohibits competitors from price-fixing, colluding to divide up sales territory and coordinating boycotts or blacklists against suppliers or buyers, as well as using monopoly power to subvert business rivals. The Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) allows federal regulators to review proposed mergers to ensure that the newly merged companies do not significantly reduce competition. The Packers & Stockyards Act (1921), enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, prohibits meatpackers and processors from using unfair or deceptive practices against farmers and ranchers who sell livestock or using their market power to manipulate or control prices or collude with their rivals. In practice, these laws have barely been used to stop consolidation in the food and agriculture sectors. The U.S. Department of Justice has taken a deferential approach to industry consolidation (O’Brien, 2005). Almost all mergers get rubber stamp approval, and only about 2% of mergers even get close scrutiny. Regulators have approved giant mergers between meatpackers, grain companies, food-processing conglomerates, and supermarket chains that have reduced the number of firms and increased their power to levels that can

58

Antitrust Laws

even exceed the trusts of the 1800s. Efforts to pursue monopolies under the Sherman Act are only used against firms with a very high market share— sometimes more than 60% or 70% single-firm market share—and also engage in anti-competitive conduct, so almost no cases have been pursued against food companies. As a result, the biggest food and agribusiness companies have aggressively pursued acquisition and merger strategies to fuel their growth. This consolidation has been both horizontal (mergers between firms in the same subsector, such as pork processing or retail groceries) and vertical (consolidation throughout different stages in the food chain, such as beef packers owning beef cattle, feedlots, slaughter plants, and processing operations) (U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 2004). In many cases, the same firm is both the buyer of the farm good and the seller of the food product and, thus, can exert buyer or seller power to fit the market circumstances at several steps of the food chain (Taylor, 2004). These companies allegedly pursue consolidation to increase efficiency, attain larger economies of scale, expand to new geographic markets, and increase revenues (U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 2004). Some food industry analysts contend that the increased efficiency from concentration and consolidation exceeds any costs associated with increased market power and diminished market competition (Sexton, 2000). Merger-minded companies justify increased horizontal and vertical integration with promised higher efficiency that would purportedly lower prices. But consumers know that few savings are passed on as savings at the grocery store checkout aisle. Most merger efficiencies that do occur are merely captured by the companies in the form of higher profits, while consumers rarely see any benefits in the form of lower prices (Volpe, 2011b). In recent years, grocery prices for consumers have risen more quickly than inflation and wages— twice as fast between 2010 and 2012. Extremely concentrated markets also create barriers to entry for new competitors, allow economies

of scale to drive out innovation, and allow oligopolies to raise prices on captive consumers of groceries or agricultural inputs. Highly concentrated food-processing, retail, manufacturing, and slaughter markets disadvantage farmers because few buying companies are competing for the products of their farms. The large companies that use raw agricultural products as inputs also use their market power as buyers to depress the prices they pay for crops or livestock. When there are only a few buyers for agricultural products, there are not enough competing buyers to bid up prices, and farmers are forced to accept lower prices for perishable goods that must go to market (Sexton, Zhang, & Chalfant, 2003). This anti-competitive buyer power is known as “monopsony.” Iowa State University professor Neil Harl noted, “A producer without meaningful competitive options is a relatively powerless pawn in the production process” (Harl, 2003, p. 1). The growing consolidation has driven down the long-term, inflation-adjusted prices farmers receive for their crops and livestock. The real prices for hogs and cattle have steadily fallen over the past decades, and the number of hog and cattle farmers has dropped dramatically. The rise of large meatpacking and -processing companies has consolidated the market and has made it impossible for small businesses to survive. With only a few companies controlling the market, they can keep prices low, and small farmers have no other viable options to turn to for buyers for their livestock. Consolidation in the food, agribusiness, and supermarket industries has increased grocery prices, reduced consumer choice, and undermined the livelihoods of farmers. Although the industries are already highly concentrated, another wave of megamergers threatens to hyperconsolidate every link in the food chain. Although laws are in place, little has been done by regulators to take on these food and agribusiness monopolies. This has facilitated a transformation in the structure of the food system that harms farmers and consumers alike. Wenonah Hauter

Antitrust Laws See also Anti-Globalization Movements/World Trade Organization; Monopolies; Multinational Conglomerates

Further Readings AB InBev. (2013, June 4). Anheueser-Busch InBev completes combination with Grupo Modelo [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ab-inbev.com/ press_releases/hugin_pdf/565882.pdf Boettcer, R. (2012, August 17). ConAgra’s growth strategy: Buy. Omaha World Herald. Brasher, P. (2013, April 19). Justice deal guards U.S. beer competition. CQ Roll Call. Cane, J., & Strom, S. (2013, January 3). Hormel to buy Skippy peanut butter. New York Times DealBook. Retrieved from http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/ 01/03/hormel-to-buy-skippy-peanut-butter/?_ php=true_type=blogs_r=0 ConAgra Foods Inc. (2013a, January 29). ConAgra Foods completes acquisition of Ralcorp [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.conagrafoods.com/newsroom/news-ConAgra-Foods-Completes-Acquisition-ofRalcorp-1779060 ConAgra Foods Inc. (2013b, January 11). ConAgra Foods, Ralcorp announce expiration of Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period [Press release]. Retrieved from http:// www.conagrafoods.com/news-room/news-ConAgraFoods-Completes-Acquisition-of-Ralcorp-1779060 Domina, D., & Taylor, C. R. (2009, September). Organization for competitive markets: The debilitating effects of concentration in markets affecting agriculture. Retrieved from http://farmfutures.com/mdfm/Faress1/ author/2/OCM%20competition%20report.pdf Drake’s cakes are back on store shelves next week. (2013, September 20). Fox News. Retrieved from http://www .foxnews.com/leisure/2013/09/20/drake-snacks-areback-on-store-shelves-next-week/ Food & Water Watch. (2013, December 5). Grocery Goliaths. Retrieved from http://www.foodandwaterwatch .org/reports/grocery-goliaths-how-food-monopoliesimpact-consumers/ Food industry mergers & acquisitions continued upward trend in 2007, Food Institute analysis shows. (2009, March 24). Mergers & Acquisitions Week. Retrieved from http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ 20080311005860/en/Food-Industry-Mergers-AcquisitionsContinued-Upward-Trend#.VDYoM_mSyW5

59

Fusaro, D. (2011, August 31). Mergers & acquisitions activity returning to pre-2008 levels. Food Processing. Retrieved from http://www.foodprocessing.com/ articles/2011/top100-companies-mergers-andacquisitions/ Fusaro, D. (2012, August 13). Food business mergers and acquisitions up in 2011, but slow in second half. Food Processing. Retrieved from http://www.foodprocessing .com/articles/2012/top-100-mergers-and-acquisitions/ Goldschmidt, B. (2013, September). The wonder of it all. Progressive Grocer, 92(9), 90. Harl, N. E., & Curtiss, C. F. (2003, March). The structural transformation of agriculture. Presentation at 2003 Master Farmer Ceremony, West Des Moines, Iowa. Hendrickson, M., & Heffernan, W. (2007). Concentration of agricultural markets. Retrieved from http://www .foodcircles.missouri.edu/07contable.pdf Hormel Foods. (2013, January 31). Hormel Foods closes acquisition of U.S. Skippy peanut butter business. Retrieved from http://www.hormelfoods.com/ Newsroom/Press-Releases/2013/01/20130131 Isadore, C. (2013, March 1). Flowers foods buys Wonder Bread from Hostess. CNN Money. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/28/news/companies/ wonder-bread-flowers-foods/ Kaufman, P. R. (2000, May-August). Grocery retailers demonstrate urge to merge. FoodReview, 23(2), 29. Kellogg Co. (2012, May 31). Kellogg Company completes Pringles acquisition [Press release]. Retrieved from http://newsroom.kelloggcompany.com/2012-05-31Kellogg-Company-Completes-Pringles-Acquisition Martens, B. J. (2008). The effect of entry by Wal-Mart supercenters on retail grocery concentration. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 39(3), 13. Martinez, S. W. (2007, May). The U.S. food marketing system: Recent developments 1997-2006 (Economic Research Report Number 42). Retrieved from http:// www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-researchreport/err42.aspx#.VDYxnfmSyW4 O’Brien, D. (2005, January). Developments in horizontal consolidation and vertical integration. Retrieved from http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/ assets/articles/antitrust.pdf Pinnacle Foods to acquire Wish-Bone. (2013, August 12). FoodBusiness News. Retrieved from http://investors .pinnaclefoods.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=223400&p=irolnewsArticle_Print&ID=1846775

60

Apps for Food

Saputo, Inc. (2013, January 3). Saputo, Inc. completes acquisition of Morningstar Foods, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/ saputo-inc-completes-the-acquisition-of-morningstarfoods-llc-tsx-sap-1742191.htm Sexton, R. J. (2000, August). Industrialization and consolidation in the U.S. food sector: Implications for competition and welfare. Agricultural & Applied Economics Association annual meeting, Waugh lecture, Tampa, Florida. Sexton, R., Zhang, M., & Chalfant, J. (2003). Grocery retailer behavior in the procurement and sale of perishable fresh produce commodities (Contractors and Cooperators Report No. 2). Retrieved from http:// naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/32806/PDF SN’s top 75 retailers for 2009. (2009, June). Supermarket News. Retrieved from http://supermarketnews.com/top75-retailers-amp-wholesalers/sns-top-75-retailers-2009 Taylor, C. R. (2004, February). The many faces of power in the food system. Paper presented at the DoJ/FTC Workshop on Merger Enforcement, Auburn, AL. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/ workshops/docs/202608.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2000, October 2). 1997 Economic Census Retail Trade (EC97R445-SZ). Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. (2004). Economic concentration and structural change in the food and agriculture sector: Trends, consequences and policy options. Retrieved from http://www.sraproject.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2007/12/harkinconcentrationwhitepaper.pdf Volpe, R. (2011a). Evaluating the performance of U.S. supermarkets: Pricing strategies, competition from hypermarkets, and private labels. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36(3), 488–503. Volpe, R. (2011b). The relationship between national brand and private label food products (Economic Research Report No. 129). Retrieved from http:// www.ers.usda.gov/media/187072/err129_1_.pdf

APPS

FOR

FOOD

Food apps (applications) are third-party computer (laptop, smartphone, notebook) applications available for free or paid download from manufacturer

sources such as the Apple App Store and Google Play marketplaces. Food apps offer a wide variety of services such as crowdsourced reviews and food locators from Yelp, Inc., and Urban Spoon; recipes and dietary recommendations from Sara’s Kitchen or Open Source Food; and calorie counters and weight loss guides from Weight Watchers. Many specialty food apps can be used to find recipes for specific kinds of food such as cupcakes or lasagna, and many restaurants have their own apps equipped with locators, reservation-making tools, and coupon notifications. This entry examines the popularity and use of apps and some of their deficiencies.

Marketplace and Popularity Apple’s introduction of the App Store in 2008 popularized the use of third-party developed apps, and as of 2014, Apple earned the majority of all revenue created in the smartphone application market. This is due, in part, to a higher ratio of paid to free apps than in the Google Play marketplace. According to the App Store’s “Most Popular” lists, as of January 2013, the top paid food apps are Food Network in the Kitchen, Fast Paleo (a gluten-free recipe source), and Allrecipes.com. The most popular free apps are Starbuck’s, Domino’s, and Urbanspoon; however, the highest grossing food or drink app in the iTunes market is Wine Spectator’s Wine Ratings. Many of the most popular smartphone food apps were developed by chain restaurants such as Pizza Hut or Dunkin’ Donuts. Companies began developing these apps to facilitate locating branches and improve distribution of advertising material such as coupons.

Food App Reviews Most web search engines using the words “food apps” list the most popular or most useful food and drink apps from a wide variety of sources from food blogs to news sources. Search results consist of reviews and rankings of various types of apps such as best vegetarian app or must-have dessert apps. Some of the most abundant information on food apps comes from these lists that compare and

Apps for Food

contrast the usefulness of each application based on one’s dietary needs or wants. Many of the lists are devoted to utility, meaning the authors chose the most ergonomic apps within a subset such as kosher foods, gluten-free diets, dessert recipes, or crowdsourcing apps like Yelp or FoodSpotting.

Shortcomings in Food App Marketplace Smartphone food apps offer a wide variety of recipe sources, crowdsourced reviews of local restaurants, and dietary meal planning software. However, one of the shortfalls in the food app market is the presence of food allergy–friendly apps. Gluten-free recipe sources are among the more popular apps; however, few apps exist for those who have allergies to peanuts or HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup), for example. Barcode scanning applications have been used successfully by companies such as Weight Watchers to identify nutritional intake, but the usefulness of barcode scanners for determining allergen presence has recently come under scrutiny. In addition, there are few apps that offer resources for locating or purchasing from sustainable or local food and grocery sources. Many apps that search locally for groceries or restaurants include large chains in search results, but they do not specify those sources that sustainably produce foodstuffs. These deficiencies may be only temporary. Software developers are launching new apps every week, so these gaps will soon be filled. With the rapid growth of the market for sustainably produced food and meals, the expansion of the food app marketplace in the same area has lagged behind the progress of the movement itself. Some apps such as Soleil Organics provide a database of grocery stores, such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, and compare the items in the store with organic production guidelines to determine if a shopper needs to spend the extra money on organic foods. However, one app, Locavore, which provides the user with up-todate information on in-season foods and nearby markets and farms, takes a step toward mainstreaming the sustainability movement in the food app marketplace.

61

The Future of Food Apps Several smartphone applications, such as Edible Arrangements’ innovative new franchising app, help franchisees and corporate officers to communicate data and store status more freely as well as create a database of store inventories, thereby streamlining franchises. The applications developed in-house by Edible Arrangements will be marketed to other businesses that operate a franchise model for their stores. The aim of such apps is to tighten the manager’s control over store or restaurant operations, with the goal of safeguarding against loss and centralizing store information. Another development in the food app marketplace is Whisk, an app created by Nick Holzherr, a British man who was runner-up on The Apprentice UK television program. Whisk operates by logging the user in through his or her local supermarket account and uses “advanced semantic and linguistic analysis” to create shopping lists based on recipes and a database of recent purchases (to avoid double-buying) and adds them to an online shopping cart for purchase and delivery. Upcoming additions to the app include construction of recipes based on leftovers from previous meals and closer relationship with the Food Network recipe database. As a result of the industry’s youth and rapid change, very few peer-reviewed articles deal with the popularity, usage trends, and data collected from and about food apps. Wide-ranging scholarly discussion on the nature and trajectory of the food app marketplace is yet to break out of the periodical format into scholarly journals. Robyn Metcalfe See also Crowdsourced Reviews of Restaurants; Locavorism; Online Advertising

Further Readings McCue, T. (2013, January 4). 8 food apps to chew on. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forbes .com/sites/tjmccue/2013/01/04/8-food-apps-tochew-on/

62

Aquaculture/Fish Farming

Websites Huffingtonpost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/ food-apps Mashable: http://mashable.com/category/food-apps/

AQUACULTURE/FISH FARMING Aquaculture is the practice of raising aquatic life, such as finfish, shellfish, aquatic reptiles, amphibians, and plants, under controlled conditions, for all or parts of their life cycles, for the benefit of human groups. According to the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, aquaculture is understood to mean the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs, crustaceans, and aquatic plants. Farming implies some form of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc. Farming also implies individual or corporate ownership of the stock being cultivated.

Variations of aquaculture are practiced in both freshwater and saltwater environments and focus on the production of food as opposed to wild capture or gathering as a form of subsistence. Traditional aquaculture is a form of subsistence where aquatic life is contained in a nonnative space and cared for until ready to be harvested. It is a form of animal husbandry where the animals being raised are intended for human food. Many of the species of aquatic life raised through aquaculture are available in the general vicinity during parts of the year. Aquaculture ensures a more reliable supply of animal-based protein to populations settled in a semipermanent region for all or part of the year. Aquaculture has been practiced as a form of subsistence food production in many regions around the world for thousands of years. Aquaculture can be practiced on both large scale and small

scale and can be used to produce a variety of animals and plants for food.

Aquaculture in History In Australia, evidence dating back 6,000 years suggests that the aboriginals engaged in small-scale aquaculture to ensure a supply of fresh eels as a year-round food supply. To do this, they altered their environment by digging a complex of ditches and ponds to make the area conducive to raising aquatic life. Early aquaculture in China is thought to have been developed between 3,500 and 4,000 years ago in river valleys where seasonal floods trapped fish in ponds. Early Chinese aquaculturists fed the fish to keep them alive until ready to harvest. From these early experiments with aquaculture, a genetic mutation of carp led to the emergence of goldfish. In Hawaii and on other Pacific islands, the original people engaged in fish farming by constructing fish ponds out of lava rock in shallow reef flats. The porous walls allowed brackish water to pass through but kept the fish inside, making them easier to catch. Oysters grow naturally in estuarine bodies of brackish water where freshwater rivers and streams mix with seawater. As far back as 3,000 years ago, the Japanese engaged in aquaculture, in the coastal tidal flats, farming for oysters, abalone, and scallops. Clams and snails also were an important part of the Japanese diet; however, they were mostly caught from wild populations and were not farmed to the extent oysters were. Oysters were highly prized for their flesh and for the pearls that many produced. Oyster and pearl farming were also practiced by the ancient Romans more than 2,000 years ago. In addition to oyster farming, the ancient Romans also developed inland aquaculture to cultivate familiar saltwater species in ponds. This type of saltwater aquaculture required a greater level of manipulation of the animal habitat to maintain the proper salinity of water. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the 19th century, in Europe, smallscale fish farming continued following ancient

Aquaculture/Fish Farming

procedures until preservation methods and transportation networks developed sufficiently to make imported fish less expensive and more readily available. The first recorded attempts at aquaculture in the United States occurred in the 1850s when Dr. Theodatus Garlick attempted artificial propagation of brook trout in spring-fed ponds near Cleveland, Ohio. The first public fish hatchery was built in New York in 1866, where Atlantic salmon fry were produced for enhancement efforts on the Merrimac River. These developments led to the formation of the American Fish Culture Society in 1870, where early American scientists and aquaculturists first began to apply the scientific method to aquaculture production. Their goal was to discover and develop new methods of fish farming to serve as both food and enhancement to natural fisheries in the United States. Commercial production of aquatic life through aquaculture followed the developments pioneered by the American Fish Culture Society and used techniques and methods established through government and academic research that followed. Traditional aquaculture was practiced as a form of subsistence farming; but today commercial aquaculture is an important component in the industrialized food system.

Types of Aquaculture Worldwide, there are many aquatic species raised through aquaculture; however, the most common include fish, shrimp, and oyster farming and the cultivation of ornamental fish. Seaweed is also an important food produced in this way. Global aquaculture operations supply as much as one half of the fish and shellfish that are directly consumed by humans; the other 50% is made up of wild caught fish and shellfish operations. Some of the most common species raised through aquaculture for human consumption are crustaceans, such as lobster, shrimp (aka prawns), crayfish (aka crawfish, crawdads, freshwater lobsters, or mudbugs), and crab; mollusks such as abalone, squid, cuttlefish, octopus, oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops;

63

aquatic reptiles, such as turtles; and amphibians, such as frogs. Crocodilians, such as alligators and crocodiles, are raised to produce meat, leather, and other goods. Of all types of aquaculture worldwide, commercial fish farming is the most common. Fish farming involves the commercial production of fish in tanks, ponds, or ocean enclosures, usually for food. Fish raised in this manner are intended for three different purposes: (1) direct to food, (2) augmentation into wild fisheries, and (3) put-grow-and-take in recreational fisheries. Apart from raising fish for food, artificial fish hatcheries raise and transplant fish into wild fisheries such as streams, rivers and lakes to augment native population. Augmentation is used in waters that can support sustainable populations but where fishing pressure results in unbalanced populations. Put-grow-and-take fish are species started in hatcheries and intended to stock recreational fish. These fish are transplanted at small size (fingerlings) and allowed to grow to large size. Some of the varieties of fish raised through saltwater and freshwater fish farming methods are catfish, salmon, tilapia, carp, rainbow trout, flounder, cod, haddock, and rockfish.

The Business of Aquaculture According to the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center of The Ohio State University, aquaculture is the fastest growing animal food sector in the United States and the world, and it currently demands 25% of global fish meal and 36% of global fish oil supplies. Since fish do not naturally produce omega-3 fatty acids, they are accumulated by directly consuming microalgae or by ingesting prey fish that have consumed microalgae and accumulated omega-3 fatty acids. Fish farmed for food are typically fed diets of nutrient-rich, high-protein fish meal, a commercial product made from fish and the bones and offal from processed fish, supplemented with fish oils high in omega-3 fatty acids. In China and the United States, research scientists are looking for alternative protein and lipid sources, and plant-based proteins are high on the research list. For example,

64

Aquaponics

pelletized soy meal is being used to feed fish; however, it has been noted that there tends to be a higher feed intake, a higher quantity of waste, and a slower rate of growth suggesting that soy diets are not processed as efficiently in fish farmed for food as fish meal diets. Many forms of aquaculture integrate hydroponics (the practice of farming aquatic plants) with aquaculture (the practice of raising aquatic animals for human use and consumption) to form a hybrid system referred to as aquaponics. Food production methods using aquaponics have been used in many regions across the world for thousands of years. In an aquaculture system, animal waste would need to be filtered out in order to prevent the water from becoming toxic. The advantage of an aquaponic system is that the inclusion of plant life helps break down waste which then can be utilized by the plants as nutrients. The types of foods grown using aquaculture and hydroponics vary based on the region of the world. In the rice-growing regions of China, Southeast Asia, and Indonesia, rice farmers have long realized that energy cycles through the ecosystem grow rapidly, and to capture the energy, they needed to view the system as a whole. For example, rice is grown in the same paddies year after year. To fertilize the rice plants, farmers would stock the paddies with aquatic life such as fish and frogs that would eat insects and other pests. The waste generated would settle to the bottom of the paddy and enrich the soil. Ducks and other fowl would be turned into the paddy after the young rice seedlings had taken root, as in addition to feeding on insects, ducks are also fond of immature rice seedlings and would destroy the young crop. This form of subsistence farming is highly sustainable yet requires a complex network of ditches, dams, and ponds in addition to a high level of cooperation between farmers for all farmers to receive access to water for their fields.

Criticisms Some of the perceived negative effects of modern aquaculture include pollution in the form of waste, antibiotics used to keep fish healthy, and escaped

fish that might breed with wild stocks. In terms of efficiency, using one species to feed another more highly sought species has also been criticized. There have also been concerns over the welfare of the fish, as well as its flavor when compared with wild caught. Nathan C. Crook See also Aquaponics; Fish Contaminants; Fishing Industry

Further Readings McClarney, W. (2013). Freshwater aquaculture. Brattleboro, VT: Echo Point Books & Media. Nash, C. (2011). The history of aquaculture. New York, NY: Wiley. Stickney, R. (2009). Aquaculture: An introductory text. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

AQUAPONICS Traditional methods of putting fish and produce on our dinner tables have been to scour the seas and rivers with boats, nets, and hooks and to employ the ancient methods of placing seeds into the soil at the appropriate time of the year and return at a later date, after careful tending of the crop, to harvest. The face of food production is undergoing a dramatic revolution so that our traditional food producers would hardly understand or even recognize the technology of providing food to the masses in the 21st century and the centuries to come. The new technology has names like “intensive aquaculture,” “hydroponics,” and “aquaponics.” This technology, described in this entry, is certain to become a future method of producing food responsibly, addressing global hunger, and contributing to an emergent food revolution. Aquaculture is generally defined as the growth of aquatic organisms under controlled conditions. While the centuries-old method of growing fish in ponds—dug out depressions in the ground generally lined with sheets of thick rubber to hold water—is still used in many parts of the world,

Aquaponics

there has been movement to exercise greater control and to increase the yield of the harvest. Net pens, nets hung from floating structures into the water, is one method. In many parts of the world, especially where salmon are raised, the aquatic landscape of embayments and harbors has been inundated with these net pens. However, with the benefits of producing large yields in a relatively small area have come major insurmountable problems associated with pollution of local waterways. The application of onshore, indoor, and water reuse recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) enables the production of large quantities of fish in limited space and with minimal use of water, when compared with conventional aquaculture methods. This system essentially cleans the water as it courses through the connected tanks. New developments in mechanical and biological filters, hydrodynamics, and waste management facilitate yields from three quarters to a pound of edible fish per gallon of water. The systems are secure so that disease is minimal, predators are eliminated, and water quality is easily determined and maintained. Hydroponics is gaining worldwide acceptance and implementation as an agricultural approach. It offers large-scale food production systems in areas where there is inadequate water, poor soils, short growing seasons, and extreme temperatures. Additionally, it benefits weed control and reduces risks from pesticides and crop pests. Plants are grown without soil by suspension in, or roots are sprayed with, nutrient-enriched water. Moreover, yields can be up to 10 times higher than traditional farming owing to the increased density of planting, more rapid growth, and extended production season when operating in the controlled environment of greenhouses.

65

fishes’ metabolic processes, ammonia, into a useful nitrogen product (nitrate) that serves as a plant nutrient. The advantages of aquaponics over other methods of producing food are as follows: Soil is not used; expensive tracts of land are not necessary for farming. Most water is reused so that wasteful irrigation is obviated. Fertilizers or the chemical elements used in hydroponics are replaced with free plant nutrients derived from the breakdown of fish metabolic waste products. There is no fertilizer or insecticide runoff to contaminate adjacent waterways, making it environmentally sound. Considerably more food can be produced in a substantially smaller area. Aquaponic systems can be developed in just about any geographical area because they do not require valuable farm plots or extensive supply of water; this enables food production in urban or rural areas. Food can be considered organically grown because of the growth methods used and the avoidance of insecticides, hormones, and other extraneous materials. Aquaponic systems can vary greatly in size from small in-home ones to commercially scaled units. Care of aquaponic growth facilities requires less help and heavy farm equipment and has a learning curve that is easily mastered.

Aquaponics is certain to become the preferred method of growing quality food sustainably, especially in countries plagued by insufficient water supplies and poor quality soil.

Definition and Advantages Over Traditional Methods

Processing of Waste Materials

Aquaponics is a relatively recent technology that combines aquaculture and hydroponics to produce multiple crops of both fish and plants in a symbiotic process. Bacteria are also involved in this process as they serve to convert the harmful waste of the

In aquaponics and aquaculture, fish produce suspended solids and chemical wastes in significant amounts. If these waste products are not removed, fish will be physiologically challenged and will ultimately succumb. The RAS design of aquaponic

66

Aquaponics

systems is similar to those used in the intensive aquaculture production systems introduced above; there is a fish holding tank, a sedimentation tank for the separation of suspended and fine solids, and a biological filter that maintains the colonies of bacteria that break down harmful nitrogen products into useful ones. In aquaponics, growing beds for the plants are positioned in the closed recirculating water loop. The two major metabolic wastes in the system are ammonia, from the utilization of the high protein content food that fish consume, and manure, the major suspended solid waste. Manure can be captured in a separate side stream and be utilized as a fertilizer in planted fields and beds. The ammonia, secreted by the gills and urinary system of fish, is converted by two types of friendly bacteria; first by nitrosomonas bacteria to nitrites and then by nitrobacter bacteria into nitrates. The nitrates then serve as nutrient material (fertilizer) for the plants that absorb them through their roots. Thus, the plants “clean” the water as they extract the processed animal wastes.

water is then drained back to the aquaculture system. Finally, in a relatively new approach called “aeroponics,” roots from suspended plants are sprayed (rather than immersed) with the “fish water” for a period of time (e.g., 30 minutes) on an hourly cycle. Although the ratio of plant growing area to fish growing surface area is important, there is no agreed-on dogma. Plant-to-fish areas may range from 2:1 to more than 10:1. What is important is that there is sufficient nutrient material produced by the fish and bacteria to sustain the growth requirements of the plants. If the basic biological principles of the nitrogen cycle are followed, the dimensions of aquaponic units are variable and essentially limitless. Successful productive systems could range in dimension from a 20-gallon tank, which could easily fit into a bathroom or basement, to one of commercial dimensions—the fundamental principles and demands of aquaponics remain the same and must be adhered to.

Choice of Fish and Plants to Grow Systems Design Presenting fish-generated nutrient materials to the plant root may be accomplished by several methods. With the “raft” method, inert grow cubes in which seeds were germinated to form seedlings are inserted through holes in a polystyrene board so that the roots are suspended in the nutrient material. The boards, with the inserted plants, float on the water that is pumped in from the fish system into the grow beds. The water is then returned to the fish rearing components. In the widely used NFT (nutrient film technique) systems, roots of the seedlings are positioned in openings in what looks like downspouts of a home rain gutter system. Water from the fish rearing component is pumped into the tubes in a very shallow stream that bathes the roots with nutrient materials. The water is then returned by gravity to the fish tanks. In another approach, the “flood and drain” method, seedlings are supported (“planted”) in a media bed containing an inert material such as gravel or expanded shale so that the roots are exposed to nutrient water for a fixed period of time every hour. The

Aquaponic systems are symbiotic in nature; the fish provide the plants with food, and the plants, in turn, clean the water as they remove nitrogen compounds. As a result, the demands for the characteristics and quality of water must be compatible between the fish and the plant units. Currently, most aquaponic systems operate in fresh, warm water and at a pH between 6.5 and 7.0. Thus, tilapia, striped bass, barramundi, perch, and catfish farming are the most popular candidates for cultivating. Most types of plants can be grown aquaponically so long as their water and air temperature requirements are met. Saltwater aquaponic facilities are sure to gain popularity once economically valuable saltwater crops, such as seaweeds, are developed to grow with a wide variety of saltwater fish that are capable of drawing larger profit margins.

Cultivating Fish and Plants To raise the fish, all proper protocols of fish husbandry must be followed. This includes determining and maintaining appropriate water quality,

Art Depicting Food

feeding, monitoring growth, determining food conversion rates, achieving appropriate biomass, sorting, and moving. The plant growing procedures are equally demanding. Germinating seeds in inert cubes that will eventually be inserted into the polystyrene board holes or media beds until harvest requires frequent monitoring of nutrient levels of the water, growth rates, ambient conditions of the growth area, physical conditions of the plants, and the elimination of the challenges by plant pests.

67

(above), the aquaculture portion (composed of four 500- gallon tanks in a connected RAS) could yield several thousand pounds of fish per year that might include tilapia, striped bass, or rainbow trout. Martin P. Schreibman See also Fish Contaminants; Fishing Industry

Further Readings

Locating Your Facility As with indoor aquaculture and hydroponics, aquaponics may be practiced in greenhouses, thus permitting year-round production. Additionally, greenhouses expedite optimal growth conditions by simplifying the monitoring and control of such parameters as temperature, humidity, light, and predators; however, these capabilities dictate additional operating costs. Heating greenhouses during winters in the northeastern United States can be frightfully costly. In contrast, in locations with accommodating weather conditions, facilities can be located outdoors, or there can be a spatial separation of the components; fish tanks and water processing components could be housed indoors or in shelters, for greater surveillance and monitoring, while the planting beds may be outdoors with direct access to sunlight, thus reducing energy costs.

Production Rates Production rates are determined by what it is that drives your interest in food production. Growing enough food to supply your family and perhaps a few of your neighbors is different from an operation that is scaled for profit. Large-scale production requires more staff, more and critical monitoring of growing conditions, greater financial investment, and, certainly, greater risk of loss. Potentially, an 18,000-square-foot (approximately 70 feet × 28 feet) greenhouse has the ability to yield several thousand pounds per month of product ranging from consumable leafy greens and tomatoes to peppers and medicinal plants. In addition to the monthly greenhouse production

Bernstein, S. (2011). Aquaponic gardening: A step-by-step guide to raising vegetables and fish together. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: New Society. Nelson, R. L. (2008). Aquaponic food production: Raising fish and plants for food and profit. Montello, WI: Nelson & Pade. Timmons, M. B., Ebling, J. M., Wheaton, F. W., Summerfelt, S. T., & Vinci, B. J. (2002). Recirculating aquaculture system (Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center [NRAC] Publication No. 01-002). Ithaca, NY: Cayuga Aqua Ventures. (See Dr. James Rakocy’s invited chapter on aquaponics in this book)

ART DEPICTING FOOD Likely because eating is essential to human life, food is one of the most common subjects depicted in art worldwide. But what do these depictions of edible goods mean? It is tempting to interpret works of art as windows that allow us to see a different time and place and to assume that the imagery is objective and accurate. While there are images that rigorously document reality, more frequently works of art are contrived images intended to communicate ideas or to enable viewers to fantasize. To understand the significance of food depicted in any given work of art, we can ask many questions. Is the food realistic or fanciful? Do the foods have ties to specific traditions, or do they evoke certain emotions? Can the foods actually be served, as depicted? Does the quantity of food shown have significance? And is the food fresh or spoiled? Responding to such inquiries enables us to extend our understanding of images

68

Art Depicting Food

beyond the superficial identification of vegetables, fruits, meats, and breads and to see how these representations shape our cultural understanding of food. This entry explores the meanings of food in art, genre painting, and art depicting food as a persuasive device. Even a seemingly straightforward work of art, such as a painting of a bowl of fruit, can have a complex meaning. Still lifes—paintings of carefully arranged fruits, vegetables, meats, beverages, dishware, or other inanimate items—often have both a subject matter that is obviously paired with a deeper subject matter that is metaphorical. On an obvious level, such images may refer to the goodness of food, and as such, they are often displayed in dining rooms. On a metaphorical level, ripe fruits often evoke sensual pleasure generally, or even sex specifically. At the opposite extreme, images of decaying fruits and vegetables—perhaps starting to mold and being devoured by worms, insects, and snails—may evoke pain and mortality. Such images may also make food appear better, more available, or more abundant than it is in reality. Still lifes, indeed, often contain combinations of food from different places or seasons. Eating such foods together was usually impossible until the global food distribution networks of the 20th century were established, and showing them together thus represents a fantasy. Taken to its logical conclusions, food-related fantasies can become downright bizarre. The tradition of depicting the mythical Land of Cockaigne, common in the art of the Renaissance, included images of animals offering themselves to be eaten, pies sliding off roofs, and endless quantities of drink. A tradition of food-related art making that reflects how people interact with food in their daily life is genre painting. Images made in this tradition show ordinary people going about their everyday life rather than focusing on the lives of the elites in society or illustrating stories from mythology and literature. Kitchens, supper tables, taverns, and gardens are all commonly shown in these images. Rather than depicting people in highly personalized ways, the individuals in genre paintings often have vague facial features and universal clothing

because they are anchors for thinking generally about humanity. On a superficial level, they tell us about the types of foods that we grow, prepare, and eat, but there are also deeper symbolic meanings in this type of art. If a painter shows a basket of eggs that has been dropped, with the shells broken and the whites and yolks slowly spreading across the floor, then we might be looking at a scene that is about carelessness or some other folly. If we see a luscious spread of food on a table, paired with happy revelers and a musician, then we may be seeing an allegory about good, moral, living. Planting seeds, doing dishes, drinking beer, slaughtering animals, and numerous other foodrelated activities are all also correlated with human values, and they thus can convey symbolic meaning in genre paintings. Because of the strong emotional and cultural associations that people have with food, depictions of edible things are also used frequently in political propaganda. For example, Norman Rockwell’s painting Freedom From Want from 1943 was used to rally support among Americans for World War II. In it, we see a family sitting down for a Thanksgiving dinner with a huge turkey in front of them. Reproductions of the painting were featured in major magazines, and it was also used as a poster to encourage people to buy war bonds. Showing the sharing of food with family members manipulated the emotions of the public, and it linked those emotions to national values. Other posters from the world wars encouraged people to be thrifty with rationed foods and to be self-sufficient by planting gardens. Nongovernmental imagery can also be highly agenda driven, and advertising is perhaps the best example of this. Food ads can be highly expressive, and artists sometimes engaged with this imagery. The Pop artists of the 20th century did so with gusto. The results ranged from Andy Warhol’s soup cans and Coca-Cola bottles to Claes Oldenburg’s large soft French fries and hamburgers, to Wayne Thiebaud’s images of cakes and candies, to an entire pseudo-supermarket made of false food packages in 1964. On a superficial level, the objects that these Pop artists created simply

Art Using Food as a Medium

replicate the world that surrounded them. On a deeper level, however, they gesture toward the significance of images in the culture conversations that ultimately cause us to desire and eat the foods that we do. Travis E. Nygard See also Art Using Food as a Medium; Food in Popular Media

Further Readings Bendiner, K. (2004). Food in painting: From the Renaissance to the present. London, UK: Reaktion Books. Bocuse, P., & Pinard, Y. (2009). Food in the Louvre. Paris, France: Musée du Louvre Éditions in association with Flammarion. Hackforth-Jones, J. (1991). Dining with the Impressionists. New York, NY: Konechy & Konechy. Malaguzzi, S. (2006). Food and feasting in art (B. Phillips, Trans.). Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum. Pagden, S. F. (2007). Arcimboldo: 1526–1593. Milan, Italy: Skira. Riley, G. (1997). A feast for the eyes. London, UK: National Gallery. (Distributed by Yale University Press) Varriano, J. (2009). Tastes and temptations: Food and art in Renaissance Italy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Yood, J. (1992). Feasting: A celebration of food in art. New York, NY: Universe (in association with the Art Institute of Chicago).

ART USING FOOD

AS A

MEDIUM

By presenting food in a visually engaging way, the tastes, smells, and textures of edible goods are enhanced. This is because people interpret their senses syncretically—the stimuli of sights, smells, tastes, textures, and sounds interact with each other in our minds to become meaningful. To exploit this reality, foods are often cast or carved with great skill. Chocolatiers and bakers make their delicacies in numerous visual forms, and cooks form butter into beautiful shapes. Vegetables

69

and fruits can be transformed into fantastic garnishes. Even the arrangement of conventional foods on plates can be done with aesthetic consideration. Table sculptures were historically created for banqueting in Western Europe, such as fountains filled with wine—the precursor to the melted chocolate fountains that became popular at the turn of the 21st century. Marzipan sculptures of people, trees, and buildings were also featured on the banquet tables of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Such examples are best categorized as part of the culinary arts, but they are also part of a broader visual tradition. Indeed, food has been used by fine artists, as well as artists who make displays for festivals. This entry examines kinds of art made from food and the problems associated with using food as a medium.

Examples of Art Using Food Traditional fine art in the West is usually made with a narrow range of media, resulting in paintings that hang on walls and sculptures that sit on pedestals in galleries. This work is not generally meant to be eaten, but it was often made from foodstuffs. Eggs and oils were commonly used as binders for paint, and inks sometimes contained wine. With the intense artistic experimentation of the 20th century, food made its way into art galleries in a more obvious way. If we scrutinize the output of avant-garde artists, we can locate innumerable examples of art made from food, exploiting the expressive potential of, among other things, chocolate, corn, butter, vegetables, cheese, and meat. Because we can easily imagine ourselves eating any given foodstuff, the use of foods as artistic media is a strategy that artists employ to make audiences to react viscerally to their work. Most of the visual art that has been made from food celebrates the sensual experience of eating or evokes a cultural heritage. Janine Anconi’s sculpture titled Lick and Lather, for example, consists of two self-portrait busts, one of which is made from chocolate and the other from soap. Rolando Briseño’s art is inspired by Aztec culture, and he has made a sculpture of a human heart from

70

Artificial Sweeteners

chocolate, as well as used grain to make images of Aztec gods. On a popular level, the artist Carl Warner has made illusionistic foodscapes by arranging, among other things, potatoes to look like rocks, broccoli to look like trees, and meats to look like sunsets. Warner then photographs the creations, and the results delight the public. The aftermath of eating has also been explored with foodstuffs. During the 1960s and the 1970s, the artist Daniel Spoerri, for example, asked people to eat meals that he had prepared. When they were done, he carefully glued down the dirty dishes, cutlery, bones, and other remaining items before hanging the results on gallery walls. Agricultural abundance is often celebrated during harvest festivals and fairs with sculptures and buildings adorned with food. “Palaces” covered in grain mosaics were erected across the American Midwest during the 19th century, and one, the Corn Palace of Mitchell, South Dakota, remains active in 2014. Sculptures made from butter were featured at world’s fairs, such as the Centennial Exposition of 1876 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the Pan-American Exposition of 1901 in Buffalo, New York, and a long-standing tradition in Minnesota involves the carving of a bust of “Princess Kay of the Milky Way” from a block of butter.

Logistical Considerations of Art Made From Food Art that uses food as a medium is novel, and it can be difficult to display, interpret, and preserve. While the arts community has established best practices for the handling of art made from traditional media—such as paper, wood, and stone—the idiosyncratic and experimental nature of art made from food requires professionals to rethink the ways in which we interact with art in our cultural institutions. Museums often prohibit visitors from bringing food in their galleries, out of fear that the patrons will be messy or that the foodstuffs will attract insects, rodents, and other pests. If actual displays are made from food, such concerns may emerge in the gallery as people or pests eat. When contemplating a food-related display, many questions need to be pondered by arts professionals.

Does the work require a special display unit, with refrigeration, as is sometimes used when displaying butter sculptures? If a gallery is not climate controlled, then could the art melt? This is a real concern for a sculpture made from chocolate. Does the artist intend for the work of art to rot or decay? If so, will the work of art create unpleasant smells or dangerous mold? If the work is made from perishable materials, can portions of it be preserved in the long term? On a practical level, it may be possible to save a sculpture made from food by desiccation, freezing, chemical treatment, or encasing it in resin. Alternatively, it may be more appropriate to simply document it with photography. Is the work of art meant to be eaten by viewers, and if so, are there sanitary or public health concerns to be taken into consideration? Answering such questions can enable institutions to have successful displays of art made from food. Travis E. Nygard See also Art Depicting Food; Performance Art Using Food

Further Readings Cantú, N. E. (Ed.). (2010). Moctezuma’s table: Rolando Briseño’s Mexican and Chicano tablescapes. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Mintz, S. (1985). Sweetness and power: The place of sugar in modern history. New York, NY: Viking Press. Novera, C. (2010). Antidiets of the avant-garde: From futurist cooking to eat art. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Simpson, P. (2012). Corn palaces and butter queens: A history of crop art and diary sculpture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tsuchiya, Y. (with food arranger Yamamoto, M.). (1985). A feast for the eyes: The Japanese art of food arrangement (J. W. Carpenter, Trans.). Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha International.

ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS Artificial sweetener is the term used to describe a number of chemical products that are used to sweeten foods and beverages in place of caloric

Artificial Sweeteners

sweeteners such as corn syrup or sucrose. In the United States, there have been four common artificial sweeteners of which three are currently on the market: (1) saccharin, (2) cyclamates, (3) aspartame, and (4) sucralose. The last two are more commonly known by their brand names NutraSweet and Splenda. Statistics from 2007 revealed that 45% of American households regularly purchase artificially sweetened products. These numbers have grown since artificial sweetener became an ingredient in manufactured food and beverage products, often sold as a “diet” or “low-calorie” option, first in the 1950s. Between 1991 and 2007 alone, the total number of Americans using artificially sweetened foods went up from 101 to 194 million (ICIS Chemical Business, 2009). This entry provides an overview of the development and the uses of the most popular artificial sweeteners in the United States.

Saccharin Invented at Johns Hopkins University in 1879, saccharin was first manufactured in Germany, and it eventually became one of the first three products to be produced by the new chemical company Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri. It was not sold to the public directly but rather entered the U.S. food supply through carbonated beverages. Its sweetening power, roughly 200 times that of sucrose, made it a preferable substitute for many soda producers, especially given the volatile market for sugar during the era. Yet substituting an unknown chemical for sugar—widely considered an important food for health—proved unwise. When Progressive Era reformers passed Food and Drug legislation early in the new century, saccharin, while not banned directly, was revealed to consumers as an unsavory substitute. Manufacturers who had not used it wasted little time in describing the product to consumers through newspaper advertisements as an adulterant added by devious business people likely to “sicken” you. Until World War II, saccharin remained on the market available in drug stores in pill form and was used primarily by diabetics or those whose doctors told them to adopt calorie-restricted diets. During World War II, housewives attempting to

71

sweeten products with limited sugar ration coupons began to experiment with the substance. After the war, experimentation also took place, especially in California, by individuals looking for new ways to slim down as was increasingly the fashion among the white middle class.

Cyclamates Coinciding with a new era of home-grown experiments with saccharin was the discovery, development, and eventual Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the second artificial sweetener, sodium cyclamate. Found, like saccharin, by accident in a laboratory, this time at the University of Illinois, sodium cyclamate or simply “cyclamate” was patented by DuPont and in 1947 was sold to Abbott Laboratories. It was Abbott that transformed the second artificial sweetener into the first to be professionally marketed. This transformed the attitude Americans had toward artificial sweeteners and made artificially sweetened products mainstays in many American households. By marketing directly to consumers, developing cookbooks to showcase methods of cooking with cyclamate, and cobranding their products with food manufacturers, Abbott built a strong market in spite of the preexisting reservations about the safety and honesty of artificial sweeteners. Abbott’s first cookbook for home cooks was produced in 1952 and distributed free through doctors, pharmacists, and nutritionists. Other how-to guides quickly followed, many produced by female entrepreneurs who saw a market opportunity in helping others “decalorize” the family meal. These cookbooks merged with those touting the sweetening properties of saccharin (“pure gold” with “infinite possibilities”) to create a market environment that allowed manufactured products containing artificial sweeteners to succeed. But it was the introduction of cyclamates, especially, into manufactured foods that created the U.S. diet industry, one heavily dependent on artificial sweeteners. At the same time, manufactured products provided consumers with more opportunities to learn about “diet” sweeteners and to reconsider their previous connotations as secondrate sugar substitutes suitable for diabetics only.

72

Artificial Sweeteners

They also, by  their very ubiquity under trusted brand names, helped relax FDA regulations on artificial sweeteners. In 1951, Richmond Chase, a canning cooperative in northern California, began experimenting with sodium cyclamate in its line of canned fruits. Abbott supplied their sweetener free of charge, assisted with designing machines for adding it to cans on assembly lines, shared proprietary market research demonstrating that American women were increasingly concerned about weight gain and seeking weight loss, and assured Richmond Chase of the substitute’s safety. The diet product line that emerged, “Diet Delight,” along with Tillie Lewis’s “TastiDiet,” created for the first time a marketplace in which everyday products (jellies, syrups, desserts, and sodas) were sold in both regular and diet versions. In exchange for the product and data, Richmond Chase agreed to meet with members of the FDA’s National Research Council when it was considering cyclamates’ regulation. As a result, in the late 1950s, the National Research Council concluded that cyclamate could be marketed to anyone who determined that they “must restrict their intake of sugar.” Artificial sweeteners’ emergence in the U.S. market as a “diet” product with little federal regulation, as opposed to Europe, is in large part due to this early partnership between pharmaceutical and food-manufacturing companies. The first antisweetener controversy to emerge after the Progressive Era took place in 1969 when the FDA suddenly banned cyclamates after studies revealed that excessive amounts consumed could lead to an elevated risk of cancer in laboratory animals. Yet in spite of ample press coverage about the possible dangers of consumption, and consumers’ largely quick compliance with the ban (even excess supplies people had at home were often returned to markets indicating a general fear of ingestion), the number of Americans using artificial sweeteners continued to grow. Switching their loyalties to saccharin, American consumption reached a new high by 1970 when 75% of the population was found to be consuming saccharin. This may help explain the very different reaction that many Americans had to the FDA’s

announcement of its intent to ban saccharin in 1977. Hundreds of thousands wrote in protest, demanding that saccharin-sweetened products remain on the shelf. Some felt that it was essential for their diets and that without saccharin they would gain weight. Others reasoned that there were far more serious causes of cancer such as polluted water and second-hand cigarette smoke and that those issues should be addressed before one worried about the risk of consuming the equivalent of a bathtub of saccharin soda every day. Still others simply rejected the government’s right to limit consumer choice. Such arguments were undoubtedly influenced by the Calorie Control Council’s active media campaign. A consortium of saccharin’s manufacturers and producers of products containing saccharin, the Calorie Control Council responded quickly to the FDA’s announcement by enabling consumers to clip protest “coupons” from the newspaper and mail them to legislators. Other factors likely influenced such advocacy as well. By 1977, saccharin had become a mainstay in the Weight Watchers’ new diet plan. Many who wrote specifically demanded continued access to the organization’s saccharin-sweetened sodas and desserts. Saccharin-sweetened diet sodas had also become far more popular than they were a decade before. After several delays, the discussion of the ban was dropped in the early 1980s.

Aspartame In 1984, Searle Pharmaceuticals sent a package of gumballs to roughly 5 million American homes. Sweetened by aspartame, a methyl ester of aspartic acid and phenylalanine, the gumballs introduced a product called NutraSweet that would become the most popular artificial sweetener ever. Discovered first in 1965 by accident, like the sweeteners before it, this one differed in the cohesion of its research and marketing plan. Searle Pharmaceuticals had concentrated on NutraSweet for over a decade prior to introducing it into gumballs and on supermarket shelves. In 1977, when it appeared that the FDA might ban saccharin, they hired former congressman and secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld as CEO (chief executive officer), along

Artificial Sweeteners

with a successful corporate executive and lawyer as CFO (chief financial officer) and president. The addition of Ogilvy and Mather, one of the nation’s top advertisement firms, gave NutraSweet a unique advantage. The gumball campaign, accompanied by a red and white swirl placed on products containing NutraSweet, and a comprehensive promotional campaign direct to consumers contributed to the products’ overwhelming success. Advertising messages, claiming that the product was “just like fruit” and “seems too good to be true,” positioned NutraSweet, in the words of one of its promoters, as showing that “you can have pleasure without paying the price.” By 1985, U.S. consumers were ingesting roughly 800 million pounds of aspartame a year, and more than 1,200 products containing NutraSweet sat on grocery store shelves. At the same time, websites, books, and even a documentary emerged describing “NutraSweet syndrome,” a mixture of ailments ranging from headaches to vision loss to fatigue and seizures, attributed by their sufferers to ingesting large amounts of the product. Such claims have never been proven. Still, distrust of NutraSweet continues. Unease about the chemical impact on users, ongoing fears that artificial sweeteners contribute to cancer, and aspartame’s unusual regulatory history in which President Ronald Reagan replaced the FDA’s chief precisely when Searle gained approval have contributed to such unease.

Sucralose, Stevia, and Artificial Sweeteners Today Today the most popular artificial sweetener is sucralose, brand name Splenda, which like aspartame, saccharin, and cyclamates is calorie free and much sweeter per part than table sugar. In 1999, its advertising campaign “made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” touted the new sweetener as uniquely similar to sucrose in its origins. The similarity is minimal; while sucralose begins with the sucrose molecule, it undergoes a molecule replacement and an addition of chlorine that leaves it human-made in form and function. Merisant, maker of the tabletop aspartame “Equal,” argued the same in 2004, when it sued McNeil pharmaceuticals under the

73

Lanham Act for misleading advertising. In 2007, the case was settled with damages to the plaintiff, but without insistence that McNeil correct any false perception on the part of consumers. Two additional artificial sweeteners can be found in today’s marketplace. The first two, neotame and acesulfame potassium, are infrequently used in food and beverages in the United States. It is Stevia, a sugar substitute produced from the crushed leaves of the stevia plant, however, that has become the most popular current alternative to saccharin, aspartame, or sucralose for many consumers in the United States. Stevia has ancient origins but was first widely used as a sweetener in foods and beverages in Japan in the 1970s. In the United States, it has gained market share particularly since its FDA approval in 2009, and it is now commonly available as a stand-alone product and as an ingredient in prepared foods and beverages. Its plant origins, combined with an increasing distrust on the part of consumers of artificial sweeteners, has made Stevia desirable to those who want low- or no-calorie sweet foods and beverages and to those who perceive the product as more healthy. Stevia’s market share has been further bolstered by the U.S. popular culture, in which a number of authors in recent years have urged consumers to eat whole, local, organic, or slow food, and in which discomfort about artificial sweeteners’ negative health impact continue to arise. A 2005 study undertaken by the University of Texas at San Antonio illustrated that increased consumption of artificial sweeteners correlated to increased weight gain among subjects in a study. While limited in the population studied and in the long-term impact assessed, the study was widely featured in newspapers and popular women’s magazines. In spite of artificial sweeteners’ continued popularity, concerns about its efficacy are also gaining traction. Today, the artificial sweetener market continues to be strong with an estimated $1.5 billion in sales per year. Yet in the U.S. marketplace, future lowcalorie sweetener innovations will likely come in areas of natural alternatives or new approaches to sweetening altogether, given the difficulty of bringing new artificial sweeteners to market and increasing

74

Artisanal Foods

consumer concerns. One study under way explores whether our taste receptors can be altered to make our perception of sweetness more intense. If successful, this would diminish the need for artificial sweeteners since small amounts of natural sweeteners (with fewer calories) would successfully sweeten foods and beverages. While it is difficult to imagine that artificial sweeteners will disappear from our food, especially given its long-touted claim that consumers can have sweet pleasure without caloric consequence, their age of ascendency may be behind us. Carolyn de la Peña See also Diabetes; High-Fructose Corn Syrup; Obesity Epidemic

Further Readings Chang, K. (2012, June 11). Artificial sweeteners: The challenges of tricking the taste buds. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://well.blogs.nytimes .com/2012/06/11/artificial-sweeteners-the-challengesof-tricking-the-taste-buds/ de la Peña, C. (2011). Empty pleasures: The story of artificial sweetener from Saccharin to Splenda. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Fowler, S. P., Williams, K., Resendez, R. G., Hunt, K. J., Hazuda, H. P., & Stern, M. P. (2008, August). Fueling the obesity epidemic? Artificially sweetened beverage use and long-term weight gain. Obesity, 16(8), 1894–1900. ICIS Chemical Business. (2009, May 19). Artificial sweeteners market to change. Retrieved from http:// www.icis.com/resources/news/2009/05/25/9217338/ artificial-sweeteners-market-to-change/ Severson, K. (2009, April 4). Showdown at the coffee shop. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/dining/15sweet .html?pagewanted=all

ARTISANAL FOODS Artisanal is a buzz word that has gained a new foothold in the food vernacular, and it is being used to describe the recent influx of food and beverage

products from chocolates to cheese, jam, and gin that have been populating the shelves of specialty shops and crowding tables at farmers’ markets since not long after the start of the new millennium. Like so many similar monikers that have been adopted to connote a specific sense of values in production or quality—such as “natural” and “healthy”—the word is not regulated and has since been used by behemoth companies like Frito-Lay and Domino’s Pizza to describe industrial- or massproduced goods such as crackers, potato chips, and pizza. The word itself comes from the Italian word artigiano, which means an artisan or craftsman, and is understood to mean someone who makes a specific product or provides a specialized service with a high degree of skill, similar to the English word artisan. Artisanal thus means, in its broadest sense, a product that is made by an artisan and is most properly used to describe something that is handmade, unique, and of high quality—often the very opposite of mass produced. It was the industrialization of American culture’s food system—with its cheap meat and dairy, increasing monoculture, and proliferation of processed foods—that helped spark a growing revolution back toward personal gardens, small farms, and traditional forms of food preparation and preservation, both in the home and in the marketplace. Thus, with this increase in artisanal and craft food production for both personal and commercial use, issues have surfaced surrounding the recent increase in artisanal food production and craft in determining a true definition of what an artisanal good is and whether an embracing of more—and often more expensive—artisanal and craft goods in the marketplace is a move forward in regard to food culture, safety, and security. This entry examines the history and discussions surrounding the definitions and place of artisanal foods in modern culture.

History Artisanal goods have been around as long as community-based food culture. The earliest societies were organized around the procurement and preparing of food, one of the most basic necessities

Artisanal Foods

of life, and various members were given or took on specific jobs that they often performed for their families or the greater community. The preservation of food in times of plenty—such as during harvest or after killing wild game—was continually evolving by necessity, and this brought about new and refined techniques from people specializing in these methods. In fact, the development of preservation methods is often credited as the catalyst for society moving from a nomadic hunting and gathering existence to one that was settled, with farms and domesticated animals being the main source for sustenance. The development of preservation methods also facilitated travel and exploration, helping ensure that those willing to risk venturing into the unknown would not starve if food could not be found. This change toward a settled society where food preservation and preparation methods were continually being developed and refined is millennia old, with evidence of fruits or vegetables preserved in honey or brine, or meats salted or dried with spices, coming from uncovered tombs in ancient China or Egypt. It was the necessity of preserving and preparing food from various climates and areas around the world that led to the modern understanding of the term artisan. In various cultures, there would be one or a few masters of their craft—such as the local baker or butcher—who would specialize in making or preparing one food item, such as bread or preserved meat, for which others would buy and trade. Through trial and error, new understandings in science and technique, and technological advances, these artisans continually improved their craft and helped define their role in their local and regional food culture. The result was specialty artisanal food that developed in areas and regions around the world, such as fermented kimchi from Korea or aged cheeses from Italy, as well as many other examples of food local to a region prepared or preserved using traditional methods. When the first permanent settlers from England arrived in America in the early 1600s, they brought with them basic provisions from their home country; however, they quickly established working farms and learned to hunt and fish from Native Americans, soon replacing their disappearing

75

stores with locally available items. Those who had livestock had access to milk and milk products, which, due to lack of refrigeration, was often in the form of curds. In fact, the preservation of milk in the form of curds and cheese—as well as methods for preserving other foods—was continually being developed at this time to serve as nourishment for sailors making increasingly long journeys between and around the continents. Preserving foods through methods that involved salt, brine (a mixture of salt and water), fermenting, drying, distilling, and other methods was developed out of necessity for surviving harsh winters and long travel. Through the 1700s and early 1800s, there was continual migration from Europe and, forcibly, from Africa, and by 1820, Asian immigration had begun in earnest. The advent of steamships caused these numbers to increase exponentially, and with greater numbers of people from many nationalities arriving, food and cultural migration began to influence the introduction of many new flavors, ingredients, dishes, and preservation techniques. Technological advances greatly affected foodways by the mid-1800s as well. The increasing availability of refrigeration—both via transportation methods and at home—meant that fresh foods could travel far from their place of origin and stay fresh longer for consumption. However, with the introduction of Mason and Ball jars in 1958, home preserving finally became safer and more reliable. While pickling and preserving in honey had been used for millennia, the mid-1800s brought technology that lowered the price of industrial canning and also expanded the options for home canners. Furthermore, this marked a shift from taste and flavor being the primary area where food was judged to safety and uniformity becoming more important. By the early 1900s, further technological advances and the cultural shift brought on by the two World Wars also greatly influenced the movement toward mass-produced convenience foods. With more women in the workforce, less time was spent on food preparation. Packaged foods like TV dinners became popular, and the introduction of fast food chains made eating out more accessible.

76

Artisanal Foods

Agricultural trends moved toward monoculture as well, all of which helped push culinary trends toward flavor homogenization, and after the rationing of the Second World War, feeding people food of uniform quality and safety became the highest priority, rather than flavor. Common household activities from a generation prior, such as canning, pickling, and cheese making, were becoming increasingly rare in urban and suburban homes, and the offerings of these products at the local grocery store were mass produced. The “counterculture” movement of the 1960s restarted some interest in traditional preservation and preparation methods, gardening, vegetarianism, and food co-ops and brought attention to the potential health risks of the red meat– and preservative-heavy meals that had become prevalent in American homes. Ethnic cuisine was also becoming more popular, and due to a new surge in immigration, exotic foods were increasingly available. These factors influenced a shift in culinary tastes that gained speed in the 1970s when Alice Waters began to popularize “Californian” cuisine that emphasized fresh, seasonal ingredients and traditional preparation methods. This movement began to grow into a resurgent in interest in specialty cheeses, gardening, and small-farm production, which continued to a “back-to-the-land” movement in the 1980s. International travel also hastened the shift of cultural tastes, with sophisticated eaters returning from their trips interested in increasingly diversified flavors and more in touch with the traditional preparation and preservation methods that they encountered in countries like Italy that had not shifted as quickly toward mass production of popular foods like the United States had, with the Slow Food movement growing out of the desire to preserve these traditions in Italy and then farther afield. This cultural shift was apparent in a small, but influential, portion of the population into the new millennium. As the first rumblings of the recession were being felt in the mid-2000s, so rose the interest in family gardens, small-scale farming, preserving, and cheese making, and, in fact, by the year 2000, the number of cheese makers doubled

(Paxson, 2012). This interest in small-batch and artisanal food grew alongside the interest in locally sourced food and the use of the term locavore in 2005. This started a movement toward more local and sustainable food sourcing, and the prevalence of farmers’ markets in the United States grew exponentially. In fact, since the U.S. Department of Agriculture began publishing the national directory of farmers’ markets in 1994, the number of farmers’ markets had more than quadrupled nationally. With these new markets came new customers interested in local produce and products made from ingredients and by people they felt adhered to shared values of environmental and economic sustainability. In addition, these markets provide a literal marketplace where small and start-up businesses could sell their products and gain customers relatively easily and cheaply because of the lack of need for distributors. Also, at this time, people looking to cut household costs started to grow their own food, and sales of seeds spiked in 2007, with the National Gardening Association noting that more than 43 million households grew their own food in 2009 (Sanburn, 2011), an increase of 19% from the previous year. Now, not only were more households harvesting their own produce and, presumably, looking for ways to preserve their bounty, but also more people were looking for work. This led to more people trying traditional preserving and preparation methods in their home; a greater cultural interest in homemade, local, and high-quality food products; and an increased number of people starting food-based businesses. These businesses ran the gamut from a glut of food trucks serving mostly urban areas to smaller scale organic farms to specialty foods like high-end cupcakes. However, there was also a strong return to traditional methods of food and drink preparation and preservation that sought to return to the small batch—originally a term in spirits distilling indicating a small amount of liquor that had been tended with special care for taste and quality, but has extended to apply to other industries that use that same attention to detail in their product development—or “artisanal” ethos of a century ago. This can be seen most prominently in the

Artisanal Foods

recent rise of artisanal cheese, pickles, fruit preserves, charcuterie (cured and smoked meats), alcoholic spirits, and other similar artisanal purveyors. The dominant narrative in each of these industries is a desire to reclaim what the makers believe is the original, traditional, or true essence of each product—and its endless variations— because of the vast dominance of mass production that each product had endured over the course of the 20th and the early 21st centuries.

Debate on Definition of Artisanal Since there is no single definition of an artisanal good, the term is not regulated, and for myriad reasons, some small-batch purveyors are hesitant to consider themselves “artisanal” food makers. Various organizations, craftspeople, and food writers assert that a true artisanal or craft food product is made by a skilled craftsman, using high-quality ingredients and a mastered, often traditional, technique. Many also assert that artisanal foods can only be made in small batches and with ingredients that are sustainably sourced. However, with the rise in popularity of artisanal and craft goods comes success stories of artisans who initially produced all of their goods by themselves using ingredients that adhere to the strictest of values but who have expanded to include multiple employees, more readily available produce, and automated methods, such as machine-peeled garlic in their pickles, mass-processed heat preserving, or labeling of their hand-filled jars of jam. The question remains of when a good ceases being artisanal, even if it follows a similar recipe or technique of a small-batch good, but on a larger scale. Another issue among artisanal and craft food producers is whether the term encompasses the value system of environmental or locavore ethics. Many small producers begin with a philosophy to source their ingredients seasonally, organically, or from local farms, while others put an emphasis on self-assessed “quality” raw materials. These purveyors note that this philosophy is borne out of the true intent of artisans throughout history, who were fully integrated with every step of procuring

77

and creating their product. However, as these producers expand, many are forced to move on to larger or nonorganic producers or from farms that are farther away from their production facility. Furthermore, shipping heavy jars, or perishables like charcuterie and cheese, can increase the carbon footprint, or call into question the initial business philosophy of environmental sustainability. The true environmental and health costs of nonorganic and nonlocal goods, however, is often debated, with some noting that high-quality ingredients can also be sustainable, even if they do not share these distinctions. Not all artisans put a high priority on organic or local ingredients or handmade techniques, asserting that promoting artisanal goods made with whole ingredients, like dessert topping made with fresh cherries—even if with the inclusion of sugar—and less processed or unnatural ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup and food dye, is beneficial to consumers and the environment overall, even if the ingredients are not sustainably sourced or the production methods used are sometimes automated. These proponents cite that anything that keeps traditional preservation methods, fewer preservatives, or more produce and other whole foods in demand is a positive outcome. But other artisans note that they feel pressure by some consumers and fellow craftspeople to keep production as small and handmade as their business survival will allow, sometimes even eschewing automated chopping or mixing machines. Strict adherence to completely handmade can result in higher prices, more barriers toward expansion, and issues of business sustainability, depending on the industry.

Discussion of Economic Sustainability Business sustainability and affordability are issues that many artisanal producers deal with. For the home artisan, whether the material and time required to make a product for personal consumption is worth it is a personal decision. If it is a hobby or based in preserving traditions, it may be worth a higher cost. For others, using raw materials from their own farm or garden, or

78

Artisanal Foods

purchased cheaply in season, and making a large amount of an artisanal good for personal use and perhaps to trade with others in their community, is cheaper than buying the goods at retail. However, from a business perspective, often the real calculated cost of selling a jar of artisanal jam or pickles can be many times the price of the mass-produced version to reflect the true price of high-quality produce, packaging, and manual labor. While some consumers are willing and able to pay that amount, many artisans note that lowering the cost of their goods can improve their profitability and overall ability to provide what they consider quality foods to a larger population, making a case for a more liberal interpretation of the definition of artisanal production. However, others argue that while higher prices may be seen as catering to a more privileged consumer demographic, keeping standards high for defining artisanal goods is important for sustaining the movement toward more environmentally conscious foods from a system that supports smaller farms and producers and helps preserve traditionally prepared food that is becoming increasingly scarce among this increasingly mass-produced food environment.

Regulations and Food Safety With the consumer desire for artisanal and smallbatch goods growing—the National Association for the Specialty Food Trade conducted a study in 2011 that found that 26% (Raskin 2012) of specialty-food consumers seek out artisan products— and the relatively easy entrance into this market at community spaces like farmers’ markets, comes the concern of food safety. Numerous artisans often cite arduous safety or legal regulations that have been a detriment to their growing business, with a great number of craftspeople admitting that they began their business in their kitchen or some other unregulated and illegal space. Most food safety laws are regulated at the state level, although many are similar and include the need for food sold for public consumption to be produced in a certified commercial kitchen, with

other frequent requirements including the need for a food-processing license or lab tests to ensure food safety. Some exceptions to these laws include allowances for farmers who process produce they grow. Many artisanal producers note the high price of these regulations—which can reach into the thousands—and cite this as a major burden for starting a business and staying profitable. They have lobbied for more changes to the “cottage food laws,” as they are known, which have resulted in more than 30 states creating allowances for the sale of small-batch food items, often limiting the types of food that can be produced and sold, and putting a ceiling on allowed profits. However, proponents of keeping food safety laws strictly in place note the long history behind these regulations, which historically have greatly reduced illness from food produced in unsanitary environments or through questionable methods, and cite the need to keep standards high to ensure the integrity of public health.

Community Building Despite these debates over safety, sourcing, and costs, the proponents of artisanal food—both produced for profit and also for personal use—note the unquantifiable positive effect of community building. This can be seen through the exponential growth of farmers’ markets that sell artisanal goods in addition to produce, community classes teaching traditional production and preservation methods, and the myriad first-person accounts of small-batch producers who cite the help of friends, family, consumers, and even other artisans as helping them refine their process and build their business.

Summary There is no denying that artisanal food production has long been an integral part of global food culture. With increasing industrialization in the Western world in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the number of artisans—creating edible goods for

Artisanal Spirits

both commercial and personal use—dropped and mass-produced food became more popular in the vast majority of households. However, the past decade has seen a rapid return to these traditional methods of food production for a number of reasons, including the desire to explore and preserve tradition and the increased consciousness about the quality and provenance of one’s food. For commercial artisans, there are barriers to entering this increasingly crowded marketplace, including the cost of licenses and fees to operate a certified food production business and the increasing dilution of the term artisan through large businesses who seek to cash in on this growing trend. However, even with artisanal goods priced at a premium over similar mass-produced items, growth in this sector of the market is still robust, which seems to indicate that the consumer interest in true artisanal goods—and the values that these products often embody—is only increasing. Suzanne Cope See also Artisanal Spirits; Canning; Gourmet and Specialty Foods; Locavorism; Slow Food

79

McGee, H. (2004). On food and cooking: The science and lore of the kitchen (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Scribner. Muller, S. (2010, February 3). Tom Colicchio dissects rise of artisanal food. Retrieved from http://culture.wnyc .org/articles/features/2010/feb/03/tom-colicchiodissects-rise-artisanal-food-new-york/ Paxson, H. (2012). The life of cheese. Berkeley: University of California Press. Raskin, H. (2012, June 26). The artisan food movement digs for gold. Seattle Weekly. Retrieved from http:// www.seattleweekly.com/home/873163-129/story.html Roudot, A. (2004). Food science and consumer taste. Gastronomica, 4(1), 41–46. Sanburn, J. (2011, October 19). 12 things we buy in a bad economy. Time. Retrieved from http://moneyland .time.com/2011/10/21/12-things-we-buy-in-a-badeconomy/?iid=pf-article-mostpop2#gardening-seeds Shephard, S. (2000). Potted, pickled and canned. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2012, August 3). Farmers markets and local food marketing. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams .fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&leftNav= WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=WFMFarmersM arketGrowth&description=Farmers%20Market%20 Growth&acct=frmrdirmkt

Further Readings Andrews, J. (2012, August 8). Woman’s homemade sauerkraut highlights cottage food fight in AZ. Food Safety News. Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetynews .com/2012/08/womans-homemade-sauerkraut-highlightscottage-food-fight-in-az/#.UQvgEyOFyEI Artisanal Defined. (2006, October 6). CUESA. Retrieved from http://www.cuesa.org/article/artisanal-defined Donnelly, T. (2012, June 13). How big business ruined “Artisanal.” Inc. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/ tim-donnelly/how-big-brands-killed-organic-artisanalmarketing.html?nav=next Eden, T. (1999, May). The art of preserving: How cooks in Colonial Virginia imitated nature to control it. Eighteenth-Century Life, 23(2), 13–23. Kindstedt, P. (2005). American farmstead cheese: The complete guide to making and selling artisan cheeses. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Levenstein, H. (1988). Revolution at the table. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

ARTISANAL SPIRITS In recent decades, consumers of American spirits have demonstrated a willingness to pay a premium for products branded as boutique or artisanal, produced by small-scale distilleries, characteristic of a specific geography, and made with atypical, heirloom, or organic ingredients. This entry examines craft and artisanal distillers, their production methods and relationship with larger distilleries, as well as the regulation and marketing of artisanal spirits.

Categories of Distillers and Definitions It is difficult to arrive at any firm definitions for the category or distinguish clearly between craft

80

Artisanal Spirits

and mainstream distillers in terms of methods or quality of product. (Distiller refers to the person or company, and distillery is the place where the product is made.) In fact, no federal laws currently exist that regulate the use of the terms micro, craft, or artisanal for the distilling industry, and distilleries of every scale can and do speak of using craft or artisanal methods of production. Even the widely used phrase small batch remains unregulated, thereby allowing distilleries to devise their own definition of small. Tax rates and regulations are applied uniformly across the industry, regardless of distillery scale or capacity, much to the frustration of smaller operators. This differs from the policies that regulate the brewing industry, for which the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau offers a reduced tax rate for producers making less than 2 million barrels per year. Despite the absence of federal laws pertaining to scale, various trade and membership organizations have emerged to promote the interests of small-scale distillers, thus providing a number of extralegal definitions. The American Distilling Institute (ADI) caps the category of craft or artisan distilleries at 250,000 proof gallons per year, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) limits its Craft Distiller Affiliate Membership to those who produce fewer than 40,000 nine-liter cases (approximately 95,000 gallons) annually, and the nascent American Craft Distillers Association restricts its definition of craft to producers of less than 100,000 proof gallons annually. There is some disagreement about how to categorize independently operated distilleries that are owned by larger conglomerates and distilleries that buy unaged spirits to barrel and mature themselves. A few states have eased restrictions or enacted exemptions for smaller operations, such as New York, which permits more flexible sale structures for “farm distilleries” (N.Y. ABC. LAW §  61: 2-c. (a)), and Washington State, which offers a reduced tax rate, and allows the sale of spirits on premises, to distilleries making less than 60,000 proof gallons per year and sourcing

at least half of their ingredients from the state. Most states, however, treat all distilleries equally.

Historical Background: The Effects of Prohibition The lack of legal distinctions among subcategories of distillers stems in part from a history of industry consolidation. With almost no small distilleries able to reopen after Prohibition and even fewer in operation by the second half of the 20th century, there was little interest or political pressure to create separate legislation based on scale or method. Up until the 1800s, distilling in the United States was by small farmer-distillers, making whiskey predominantly for local consumption or shipping to regional markets dominated by boat. By the mid-19th century, however, a number of factors, including the widespread adoption of the continuous still, which gave competitive advantage to larger operations with sufficient capital to invest in this industrial technology, the intensification of branding from the expansion of national markets, and the growth of distribution systems from steam power and rail, resulted in a gradual but dramatic transformation of the industry. Over the course of the century, thousands of cottage distillers closed, while those that survived expanded production at a rapid pace. Prohibition brought this growth to a sudden halt, as just six distilleries were given licenses to sell whiskey for medicinal purposes from existing stocks. By 1928, stocks were so depleted that the government allowed these distilleries to resume limited production the following year. While repeal relegalized the distillation and sale of alcohol, just a handful of distilleries had sufficient capital and infrastructure to reopen. During the second half of the 20th century, consumption of domestic distilled spirits waned, business suffered, and distillery plants and brands were sold, closed, or merged. By the 1980s, fewer than 100 legal distilleries (and a similar number of illicit ones) operated in the United States. Even today, an estimated 99% of all American whiskey is made by just 8 companies at 13 distinct distilleries, 10 of

Artisanal Spirits

which are located in Kentucky. This historic concentration in a few hands has been sustained by substantial barriers to entry, extensive start-up costs and inevitable delays for aging spirits, heavy tax burdens, and the prohibition of home distilling, which continue today.

A Resurgence of Interest: Small and Large Artisanal Producers With the growing appreciation for premium wine and gourmet foods in the past three decades, consumers today have become more interested in quality and diversity for distilled spirits, a development that ultimately created the conditions for rapid industry expansion and transformation. It encouraged product diversification, particularly at the higher price points, exemplified by the explosion of premium vodka brands; the release of single barrel, small-batch, and cask strength whiskeys; and the growth of small-production gins and brandies. These trends continue to accelerate. The market for super premium bourbon and Tennessee whiskey (defined as costing $21 or more per 750-milliliter bottle), for example, grew 87% by volume and 104% by revenue in the 5 years between 2008 and 2013. (By comparison, the category grew by 20% in volume and 34% in revenue for all price points; see On America’s Whiskey Trail, DISCUS, retrieved from http://www.discus.org/assets/1/7/Bourbon_ and_Tennessee_Whiskey_2013.pdf.) The promise of higher profits revitalized larger spirits companies, many of which enlarged their portfolios to include a range of boutique products, such as Jim Beam’s Small Batch collection, BrownForman’s Woodford Reserve, Heaven Hill’s Heritage collection, and Buffalo Trace’s Antique Collection. It also encouraged the emergence of new, smaller distilleries, well positioned to capitalize on the appeal of artisanal goods and the profitability of niche marketing. It is estimated that less than 1% of the spirits produced in the United States are made at a distillery that qualifies as small under DISCUS’s definition, but the numbers are growing, and the impact of these producers far exceeds their numerical

81

position. From the low of the 1980s, the number of companies holding Distilled Spirits Plant (DSP) permits has risen to more than 400 (although not all actually distill their own spirits), 234 of which are considered craft producers by the ADI, up from 24 in 2000. Members of DISCUS’s craft category now consist of 73 distilleries located in 29 states. The influence of these smaller distilleries on practices across the industry and on consumer expectations and demand is quite dramatic. For example, many new distilleries release unaged whiskey, commonly called new make, white dog, or moonshine, to bring in revenue while the remainder of their whiskeys age in barrels. (Regulation for straight rye and bourbon requires that the spirits mature at least 2 years in barrels, although most distillers wait many more years, especially for premium products.) Distillers often promote this clear spirit with nostalgic references to moonshine, and the spirit type has captured enough attention among consumers and bartenders to make it not only profitable but worth emulating. In recent years, even larger, established distillers with no inventory pressures are releasing their own version of white dog to capitalize on the trend. Encouraged by the profitability of handcrafted, less industrial goods elsewhere in the food and beverage industry, new small-scale distillers have turned to regional ingredients, experimentation, and niche marketing to grow their brands. The portfolio at St. George Distillery (Alameda, California), for example, includes a gin called “Terroir,” French for soil or, as it is commonly used for wine, the taste of a specific place. Flavoring agents for this gin include local Douglas fir, California bay laurel, and coastal sage, all harvested from sources near the distillery. Creativity also extends to experimentation with grains, including the use of heirloom varietals and the distilling of noncorn whiskeys. Balcones Distilling cask strength “True Blue” and “Baby Blue” are both made from a mash of roasted Hopi blue corn, plus rye and barley, instead of the typical yellow flint corn. Similarly, KOVAL (Chicago) makes aged and unaged whiskey from millet, spelt, and oats. Many small distilleries procure grains from local suppliers,

82

Artisanal Spirits

such as the Finger Lakes distillery (Burdett, New York), which uses organic corn grown in nearby fields for its McKenzie Bourbon, and Breuckelen Distilling (Brooklyn, New York), which sources New York State wheat for its gins and whiskeys. Small distilleries often employ atypical mash bills and recipes, such as Charbay’s R5 Whiskey (St. Helena, California), distilled from a finished beer (Bear Republic’s Racer 5 IPA) that is brewed in a local but unaffiliated brewery. These small distillers are also experimenting with wood treatments, purchasing barrels made with “seasoned” wood (aged and air dried in the elements) or made with atypical species of oak, instead of the common quercus alba. For marketing, smaller distillers often appeal to regional markets through references to local sites, personalities, or events. Smaller distillers have proved integral to the growing interest in usual, creative spirits, attracting new consumers and propagating excitement for the category of spirits in ways that benefit all producers, large and small. Interestingly, unlike for beer, where industry giants win few competitions in comparison to smaller craft brewers, distilled spirits awards and top critic ratings are generally bestowed on the premium releases made by the country’s largest distilleries. The reasons for this are multifold and somewhat debatable, consisting of a combination of economic and social factors, including the fact that larger distillers have far larger inventories of well-aged whiskeys available for premium releases, and consumers are predisposed to prefer the existent taste profiles of the surviving big distilleries. In addition to making vodkas, gins, young, or unaged whiskey, or purchasing already aged whiskey in bulk (discussed below), smaller distillers face pressure to expedite the maturation process itself and move aged spirit onto the market as soon as possible. Many therefore decide to use smaller oak barrels than those typically utilized by American distillers (10- or 15-gallon, instead of 53-gallon barrels). While small barrels expedite the aging process in certain ways, intensifying some flavors more quickly, many critics argue that the resulting whiskey is inferior and imbalanced. In  general,

smaller distillers fare better in categories of unaged spirits, including gins and eaux de vie. In addition to a lack of legal distinctions, the complexity of industry practices and relationships make it almost impossible to draw strict boundaries between subcategories or to adequately distinguish between artisanal and mainstream distilling. Most agree that companies that package and market spirits entirely produced by others or that contract with an existing distillery for production, known as independent bottlers, should not be categorized as craft or artisan distillers. Nevertheless, many brands on the market today that are associated with the craft distilling movement are in fact made in this manner. Due to a combination of factors, including the physical difficulty of distilling rye grains and rising demand that outpaces dedicated supply, the vast majority of the American rye on the market consists of whiskey distilled, and usually aged and bottled, at a single plant owned by MPG Ingredients (formerly and still commonly known as Lawrenceburg Distillers Indiana or LDI). Many independent whiskey companies buy this rye, at most aging, blending, or bottling it themselves, and sell it under their own brand names. For example, Bulleit, High West, Redemption, and Templeton, all well-respected products, are made in this manner. MPG Ingredients also produces a significant proportion of the bulk neutral grain spirits sold to other companies to be bottled as vodka or, after redistillation with aromatics, as gin. It is nearly impossible for consumers to identify the precise biography of many spirits on the market, given the ambiguity of labeling laws and the secrecy of the industry. Some distilleries and nondistilling spirits companies are making their transactions more transparent, but in general, many benefit from a large degree of opacity. While the idea of craft and artisanal production does not necessarily relate to scale, there exists a sense that smaller distillers should engage in less industrial, more traditional or more experimental, and highly labor-intensive methods. In the case of distilling, groups such as the ADI encourage the use of pot stills rather than continuous column stills among their members. Whether these “handcrafted”

Authenticity of Cuisines

ideals are upheld by small producers remains a point of disagreement. Critics point to the practice used by some small distillers of buying premilled grains or fermented “wash” (unhopped beer) from local breweries, rather than milling and fermenting grains on site, as evidence of a less artisanal process. Many newcomers to the industry purchase unaged whiskey in bulk to barrel and age it themselves, or they buy neutral grain spirits to use as a base for gin or flavored vodkas, while they develop their own grain distilling capabilities and build up their inventory. Some criticize these practices as being antithetical to the very idea of craft production, which is generally assumed to require full involvement from unprocessed ingredients to final product. The presumed association between small scale and creativity is further complicated by the fact that experimentation on grains and mash bills, barrel treatments, distillation, and maturation techniques is pursued as rigorously by the larger distilleries as the smaller ones. In fact, some of the most public and comprehensive experimentation is undertaken by Sazerac’s Buffalo Trace Distillery, one of the largest whiskey distilleries in the country, and historically, Seagram was known for its dedication to and impressive publication of distilling research. In general, the distinction between small and large, craft and industrial, distilleries remains quite blurry, and real disagreement exists about who is producing superior or more interesting products. Sierra Clark See also Alcohol; Artisanal Foods; Home Fermentation

Further Readings Bell, D. (2012). Alt whiskeys: Alternative whiskey recipes and techniques for the adventurous craft distiller. Nashville, TN: Corsair Artisan Distillery. Davis, B. A. (2012). How to make whiskey. Seattle, WA: CreateSpace. Forbes, R. J. (1948). Short history of the art of distillation. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. McHarry, S. (2012). The practical distiller. Dublin, Ireland: Distiller Press.

83

Owens, B., & Dikty, A. (Eds.). (2009). The art of distilling whiskey and other spirits (Foreword by F. Maytag). Beverly, MA: Quarry Books.

ATKINS DIET See Low-Carbohydrate Diets

AUTHENTICITY

OF

CUISINES

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word authentic means “made or done the same way as an original” and provides the example “authentic Mexican fare.” This simple definition gives us some insight as to why this term is so contentious. How can one determine what is the original? When discussing food, is it even possible to define whether or not a particular dish is authentic or not and according to whose standards? Although one can easily imagine the difference between an “authentic” Taco Bell taco reheated in a microwave in 30 seconds and one carefully prepared by a trained taquero on the streets of Mexico City, the term remains problematic when used to label something as constantly changing and geographically specific as cuisine. This entry discusses the diverse and polemical meanings of the word authentic when applied to food. The word authenticity is applied to food in a variety of settings: cookbooks, the mass media, restaurant advertisements, restaurant reviews, and academic studies. Some refrain from using the term because of the connotations it carries and the unanswerable questions it triggers, while others use the term often and lightly. The term is inherently problematic because, as the food studies philosopher Lisa Heldke argues, authenticity is not a quality inherent to certain foods but rather one that is socially constructed. Applying it creates hierarchies, prioritizes certain relations over others, and creates an idealized, imaginary dish. José

84

Authenticity of Cuisines

Johnston and Shyon Baumann argue that for foodies, the categories that are used to discuss culinary authenticity are geographic specificity, ethnic connections, a personal connection to an individual creator or to a family tradition, and a dish’s simplicity and its historical roots. Given authenticity’s dynamic nature, what may be a classic dish in local cuisine will likely not taste the same 10 or 20 years later. Authentic cuisine varies depending on available ingredients, changes in technology, social class, as well as the influences of trade and travel. For example, chili peppers, a ubiquitous flavoring ingredient in the cuisine of modern Southeast Asia and the Sichuan region of China, were not introduced until the 16th century, and tomatoes were not included in Italian cookbooks until the end of the 17th century (Albala, 2012, p. 56). Yet today, we consider these ingredients as integral to “authentic” Southeast Asian, Chinese, and Italian dishes. Clearly, our concept of what makes a cultural product authentic is constantly evolving and, therefore, worthwhile of analysis.

Authenticity and Cookbooks The concept of authenticity is a modern value, according to Arjun Appadurai. Before the invention of the printing press, every scribe who copied a medieval manuscript produced a different variant. There was no one authentic version of works such as The Iliad and The Odyssey. Similarly, before cookbooks were mass produced across regional and national boundaries, a recipe had no standardization and every region or town had its own “authentic” version of a dish. Nowadays, the term authentic is used by cookbook writers to claim that their recipes are “authentic” versions of a dish, as though authentic were synonymous with good. In the introduction to his cookbook Rick Bayless’s Mexican Kitchen, Chef Rick Bayless points out the nuances in the use of the term. He asks if the recipes in his book are authentic and replies by saying that, for him, authentic cooking means using traditional ingredients and techniques that express “the spirit of a particular

people,” as opposed to a vision of authenticity in which recipes are just artifacts “spelled out in ethnographic detail” (1996, p. 14). In so doing, Bayless presents himself as the translator of traditional Mexican cuisine for an American audience. For Bayless, a dish is prepared authentically when it captures the spirit of the original without following it with exactitude. In this way, a cuisine can be authentic without being traditional. Celebrity chefs such as José Andrés, John Sedlar, and Enrique Olvera break with tradition while still capturing the “authentic” flavors and spirit of their cuisines. In Exotic Appetites, Lisa Heldke makes the valuable distinction between cookbooks written by insiders to a culture for other insiders as opposed to those written by outsiders in a manner that is understandable and with ingredients mostly familiar to other outsiders. Pioneer cookbook writers of “authentic” recipes for outsiders include Madhur Jaffrey and Diana Kennedy. While these cookbook writers have made invaluable contributions, the food studies scholars Meredith Abarca and Lisa Heldke have pointed out the colonialist attitudes inherent when cultural outsiders appropriate the food of another group and use authenticity to speak for others. By deeming certain foods authentic, they argue that outsiders are exerting control and authority over another cultural group, thus linking the topic of culinary authenticity with issues of race and class. In a Los Angeles Times article on “authentic” cookbooks “Desperately Seeking Authenticity,” the food historian Rachel Laudan points out that calling a cookbook authentic is problematic since doing so is not indicative of how modern-day ethnic groups shop, cook, and eat. In fact, reading “authentic” cookbooks gives you no clue of the processed ingredients used in many traditional dishes today nor to the adaptations made depending on socioeconomic level or access to ingredients. Laudan explains that “authentic” recipes, such as Bayless’s Mexican ones, would have to be altered for an English audience, for example, since corn tortillas are not as readily available in England as in the United States. Given the shifts in authenticity depending on tastes, resources, and kitchens,

Authenticity of Cuisines

Laudan says that instead of authentic what we have is our-thentic, a term that implies the power dynamics involved in conferring authenticity, since our version of authentic may not be the same as that of another group or individual.

Authenticity in the Mass Media Authenticity is a powerful term in the contemporary marketplace. It is also one that is difficult to pin down when food becomes a globalized commodity culture, as Jeffrey Pilcher points out in Planet Taco. Award-winning culinary magazine Saveur’s byline, for example, is “Savor a World of Authentic Cuisine.” Even in popular food blogs, food writers are aware that calling a dish authentic is problematic and can create artificial hierarchies (i.e., saying something is authentic implies that it is superior to the one that is not called authentic, thus creating hierarchies). In food critic Besha Rodell’s blog for the Los Angeles Weekly, she observes that the word authentic has lost its meaning; it has become a competitive term, “You think that ramen is good, but because it’s not as authentic as the ramen I ate, then my ramen is better.” In the United States, many restaurants advertise as having authentic foods, such as Chinese, Mexican, Italian, and so on. Ironically, when you visit these restaurants, you may discover that they often sell more standard Americanized fare. The Olive Garden, for example, advertises as serving “authentic Italian cuisine,” yet in recent years, the successful chain has gone so far as to make up authentic-sounding Italian names for dishes. Both Italian and Mexican food have a long history in the United States and traditionally have been adapted to meet the demands of the U.S. consumer. In the case of Mexican food, this adaptation is usually represented by the combination plate featuring rice, beans, and enchiladas or tacos smothered in cheddar cheese, food items you would not typically find together on one plate in Mexico. Are these versions of Mexican food not native to Mexico inauthentic, or are they instead an authentic representation of what Mexican food has evolved into

85

over centuries of a Mexican presence in U.S. states such as Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona? The food critic of the Los Angeles Times Jonathan Gold claims that Southern California can be considered a region of Mexico unto itself, and therefore all its diverse representations of Mexican cuisine can be considered authentic. Similarly, Orange County Weekly editor and author of Taco USA: How Mexican Food Conquered America Gustavo Arellano claims that all representations of Mexican food are Mexican and authentic if they can trace some part of their heritage to cuisine that originated in Mexico. In Planet Taco, the historian Jeffrey Pilcher tells the story of the invention of a mass-produced version of Mexican food for the global market. Yet he also recognizes that there is no single “authentic” Mexican cuisine.

Staged Authenticity When exploring ethnic restaurants and markets, diners from outside the cultural group often seek an experience with the “culinary Other.” In some cases, restaurant owners and chefs create an idealized, romantic version of a particular culture and cuisine that is pleasing and exotic to the consumer, such as wall paintings of a fictionalized landscape or pretty costumes worn by the waitresses. In her article on Mexican food in Los Angeles, Sylvia Ferrero discusses the “staged authenticity” that takes place at Mexican restaurants in cities such as Los Angeles. Ferrero argues that Mexican restaurants lead a “dual life”; some cater to local Mexicans and Mexican Americans, while others cater to non-Mexicans regarded as tourist diners who lack the knowledge to demand “authentic” cuisine. The food served at the second type of Mexican restaurant is standardized dishes, part of an invented tradition created to satisfy customers’ expectations and desire to be culinary voyeurs, a process Ferrero calls “pseudoethnicity.”

Authenticating Foods Authenticating foods can also refer to the process of verifying that the ingredients are what the label

86

Ayurveda and Diet

claims and that no other substances have been added. For example, is the basmati rice 100% basmati? Has the vanilla or olive oil been adulterated, rendering it inauthentic?

Authenticity and Globalization Authenticity is a term that brings to light questions of identity, nationalism, migration, and racial politics. The debate over authenticity provides an excellent example of hybridization in the face of globalization since generations of migrants have taken their culinary traditions with them into geographical areas where they could not acquire familiar ingredients, thus making some adaptability necessary. How has the process of migration challenged stereotypes of national or regional cuisine? What happens when immigrants have to adapt their restaurant menu so that it attracts outsiders? Is the food they make no longer authentic? As illustrated in the above section “Authenticity in the Mass Media,” there is no single authentic cuisine. Instead, globalization and migration serve to create new regional and international cooking styles.

Authenticity in Food Studies Discussions of authenticity have elicited much debate in academia as well as the mainstream media. While the term is often misused and abused in the popular press and depreciated in academia, it does serve an important purpose. It allows us to discuss how food preferences change over time and what drives them. It also elevates food studies as a field by demonstrating its valuable connections to discussions of identity, migration, social class, and globalization. Sarah Portnoy See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Celebrity Chefs; Cultural Identity and Food; Ethnic Foods, Marketing of; Ethnic Restaurants; Food in Popular Media

Further Readings Abarca, M. (2004). Authentic or not, it’s original. Food & Foodways, 12(1), 1–25.

Albala, K. (2012). Three world cuisines: Indian, Mexican, Chinese. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Arellano, G. (2012). Taco USA: How Mexican food conquered America. New York, NY: Scribner. Bayless, R. (1996). Rick Bayless’s Mexican kitchen: Capturing the vibrant flavors of a world-class cuisine. New York, NY: Scribner. Ferrero, S. (2002). Comida sin par. Consumption of Mexican food in Los Angeles: Foodscapes in a transnational consumer society. In W. Belasco & P. Seranton (Eds.), Food nations: Selling taste in consumer societies (pp. 194–219). New York, NY: Routledge. Heldke, L. (2003). Exotic appetites: Ruminations of a food adventurer. New York, NY: Routledge. Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. (2010). Foodies: Democracy and distinction in the gourmet foodscape. New York, NY: Routledge. Laudan, R. (2001). Desperately seeking authenticity. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes .com/2001/dec/19/food/fo-16368 Pilcher, J. (2012). Planet Taco: A global history of Mexican food. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rodell, B. (2012, June 29). The problem with the best, most authentic food. Los Angeles Weekly. Retrieved from http://blogs.laweekly.com/squidink/2012/06/ authentic_food.php Sukhadwala, S. (2012, May 28). The bogus quest for “authentic” food. Guardian News. Retrieved from http://m.guardiannews.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/ 2012/may/28/bogus-quest-for-authentic-food

AYURVEDA

AND

DIET

Ayurveda is a comprehensive, holistic system of natural health care that originated in ancient India. Ayurveda translates as the “Science of Life” and addresses all aspects of life, including consciousness/ mind, body, behavior, and environment. The three pillars of life considered fundamental to optimal health are Ahara (diet), Nidra (sleep), and Brahmacharya (behavior). The importance of diet cannot be underestimated in the maintenance of health and management of disease. It is addressed in detail in the ancient Ayurvedic texts. This entry discusses the

Ayurveda and Diet

Ayurvedic concepts of food and how they affect digestion, metabolism, and the interaction between the mind and the body.

Ayurvedic Concepts That Underlie the Consideration of Diet Several Ayurvedic concepts are germane to the discussion of diet, including the five Mahabhutas, three Doshas, and three Gunas. According to Ayurveda, matter is composed of five Mahabhutas (basic elements) that have the properties of space (Akasha), air (Vayu), fire (Tejas), water (Jala), and Earth (Prithivi). These combine to form the three Doshas, known as Vata, Pitta, and Kapha. The Doshas are psychophysiological principles that govern various aspects of the human body. Vata is formed from the lighter elements with properties of space and air. Pitta is formed from the elements with properties of fire and water. Kapha is formed from the heavier elements with properties of water and Earth. Vata regulates movement and communication, including blood flow, contraction of the heart, breathing, movement of food through the digestive tract, communication of cells via nerve impulses, and so on. Pitta regulates digestion, metabolism, and transformation, including energy exchange, appetite, endocrine functions, and so on. Kapha regulates structure and cohesion of the body, including strength, stability, fluid balance, weight, and so on. Each individual has a unique ratio of Vata, Pitta, and Kapha, established at the time of conception. One or two Doshas generally predominate. This ratio is the psychophysiological constitution, or Prakriti. Prakriti translates as “nature,” so this ratio of Doshas is the individual’s inherent nature. If this ratio is maintained, the individual will remain healthy. If an imbalance arises in the ratio, health will be diminished. This imbalance is known as Vikriti and can result from unhealthy diet, stressful lifestyle, or other factors. The Doshas are universal principles that function in all aspects of material creation, including the human body; the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms; the daily and seasonal cycles of nature; and the planets and galaxies. In this way, the human physiology is connected to the whole of existence.

87

The three Gunas are mental qualities known as Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Every person has all three, with a predominance of one or sometimes two. Sattva is the creative influence and is associated with purity, righteousness, intelligence, and balance. A predominance of Sattva produces qualities such as generosity, forgiveness, truthfulness, intelligence, courage, and nonviolence. These individuals are considerate of others. Rajas is the spur to activity and is associated with action and passion. Individuals with a predominance of Rajas are dynamic, passionate, greedy, materialistic, and lustful. They seek to control and dominate others. Tamas is associated with inertia and ignorance. Those with a predominance of Tamas are lazy, cruel, fearful, ignorant, and immoral. They show little consideration or regard for others. The body is regulated by the three Doshas and the three Gunas. Balanced functioning of both sets of parameters is required to maintain overall balance in the system. Imbalances in Vata, Pitta, and Kapha affect Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Conversely, imbalances in Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas affect Vata, Pitta, and Kapha. The mind affects the body, and the body affects the mind. For example, a person who is angry breathes more rapidly and has a faster heart rate. A person with chronic physical pain may experience depression. The Gunas are affected by the food that is eaten. Food is categorized as Sattvic, Rajasic, or Tamasic, according to its effect on the Gunas. Sattvic food is fresh and prepared in a balanced way, that is, not overcooked, not undercooked, not too heavily spiced, not too salty, and not too sweet. A Sattvic diet generally excludes meat. Rajasic food stimulates the system and includes food that is heavily spiced or salty. Stimulants such as coffee and tea are Rajasic. Tamasic food includes stale food, leftovers, food that is overcooked, cold food, and processed and preserved food. “Fast food” and “junk food” are Tamasic.

Diet, Digestion, and Metabolism In Ayurveda, a balanced and wholesome diet is emphasized as a means to maintain or restore health. The strength and efficiency of the individual’s

88

Ayurveda and Diet

digestive capacity is also of prime importance since digestion and metabolism of food are crucial for extracting and utilizing the nutrients contained therein. Life span, strength, immunity, enthusiasm, energy, and the nourishment and maintenance of the body’s tissues all have their basis in digestion and metabolism. Agni, which translates as “fire,” refers to the digestive and metabolic activities. Just as a proper amount of heat is required to cook food, likewise, Agni or heat is generated in various tissues to produce the chemical secretions, metabolic reactions, and functional processes required for optimal digestion. The process of digestion and transformation is not restricted to the gastrointestinal tract. Ayurveda describes 13 types of Agni that carry out metabolic activities in various parts of the body. The first and most fundamental is Jathar Agni, which governs digestion and is located in the stomach and the intestines. Jathar Agni supports the other Agnis. There are five types of Bhuta Agni, one for each of the Mahabhutas. Bhuta Agni governs cellular function in the liver, in relation to the five basic elements. Seven types of Agni known as Dhatu Agni govern transformation processes at the cellular level. To achieve optimal health, Agni must function efficiently throughout the series of transformations that occur, from the stomach all the way to the cellular level. Agni is governed by the three Doshas, therefore any imbalance in Vata, Pitta, and Kapha will produce an imbalance in Agni. Ayurveda delineates four possible states of Agni with regard to its strength. In Sama Agni, Vata, Pitta, and Kapha are balanced. In Vishama Agni, an imbalance in Vata produces an irregular digestive fire. In Tikshna Agni, an imbalance in Pitta results in a sharp, acute digestive fire. In Manda Agni, an imbalance in Kapha results in a mild, dull digestive fire. Sama Agni produces optimal health and long life. When the digestion is functioning optimally, a refined substance known as Ojas is produced, which is crucial for maintaining health and immunity. Ojas

Ojas is a subtle and refined substance that is the end product of balanced digestion and metabolism. It provides stability to the system, enhances

immunity, produces strength and contentment, and promotes balanced growth in the body. Increasing Ojas and avoiding reduction of Ojas are considered central to preventing illness and restoring health. Factors that increase Ojas are good digestion, eating in a calm and settled environment, and eating food prepared by a caring and compassionate individual. Other factors include happiness, love, and positivity in feelings, speech, and behavior. Factors that decrease Ojas include fasting, eating in a stressful environment, and eating hurriedly. Other factors include negative emotions, excessive exercise, stress, overexposure to the wind and sun, staying awake late at night, and alcoholic beverages. Whereas balanced Agni produces Ojas, imbalanced Agni leads to the production of toxins in the body, known as Ama, which generate disorders and diseases.

The Role of Taste in Nutrition The role of taste is central to the consideration of diet and nutrition. When the taste buds experience the various tastes and textures of the food, information is transmitted throughout the body, triggering basic metabolic processes. Ayurveda describes six tastes (see Table 1): (1) Madhur (sweet), (2) Amla (sour), (3) Lavana (salty), (4) Katu (pungent), (5)  Tikta (bitter), and (6) Kashaya (astringent). “Pungent” refers to hot, spicy foods, and “astringent” refers to foods with a drying, absorbent property. Ayurveda recommends that all six tastes be represented in each meal, although the proportions of the tastes will vary according to the individual’s Prakriti and Vikriti. If any taste is not included, it is likely that the individual will overeat in an effort to satisfy the body’s hunger for the missing taste. The six tastes affect the Doshas in various ways (see Table 2). For example, Vata is decreased by sweet, sour, and salty foods. Therefore, an individual with a predominance of Vata would be advised to eat foods with these tastes. However, overindulging in these foods can result in the increase of Kapha, which can lead to weight gain, so a balanced approach is necessary.

Ayurveda and Diet

89

Table 1 The Six Tastes and Examples Taste

Examples

Sweet

Grains (wheat, rice, barley, corn, etc.), dairy products (milk, cream, butter, and ghee), sugar in any form, some cooked vegetables (potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, etc.), and sweet fruits (grapes, figs, dates, coconut, etc.)

Sour

Sour milk products (yogurt, cheese, and sour cream), sour fruits (lemons, limes, sour oranges, sour pineapples, etc.), fermented products (wine, vinegar, soy sauce, sauerkraut, etc.), and carbonated beverages (soft drinks, beer, champagne, etc.)

Salty

Salt or any food with a high salt content

Pungent

Spices (chili pepper, black pepper, mustard seeds, ginger, cumin, cloves, cardamon, garlic, etc.), fresh herbs (oregano, thyme, mint, etc.), raw radish, and raw onion

Bitter

Greens, leafy vegetables (spinach, kale, collard greens, broccoli, green cabbage, brussels sprouts, etc.), olives, cocoa, fenugreek, and turmeric

Astringent

Pulses (beans, lentils, and peas), honey, most raw vegetables, rhubarb, pomegranate, persimmon, walnuts, hazelnuts, and tea

Table 2 How the Tastes Affect the Doshas Taste

Influence on the Doshas

Sweet

Vata ↓

Pitta ↓

Kapha ↑

Sour

Vata ↓

Pitta ↑

Kapha ↑

Salty

Vata ↓

Pitta ↑

Kapha ↑

Pungent

Vata ↑

Pitta ↑

Kapha ↓

Bitter

Vata ↑

Pitta ↓

Kapha ↓

Astringent

Vata ↑

Pitta ↓

Kapha ↓

meat also helps maintain Sattva, the mental quality associated with balance and purity.

Eight Dietetic Factors Ayurveda describes eight factors that are important in the consideration of diet, digestion, and nutrition. These factors are influenced by one another and are associated with beneficial or harmful effects, resulting in the maintenance of health or production of disease. Prakriti: Natural Qualities

Individual Differences in Nutritional Need Dietary recommendations in Ayurveda are personalized, based on the individual’s Prakriti and Vikriti. The main emphasis of preventive and therapeutic approaches, including nutrition, is to restore and maintain balance in the Doshas. Ayurveda has detailed dietary recommendations to pacify imbalances in Vata, Pitta, and Kapha. There are also dietary recommendations for the management of chronic disorders and diseases. A lactovegetarian diet is recommended for optimal health. Meat is considered difficult to digest and has been linked to numerous diseases. The exclusion of

An individual’s Prakriti is one’s inherent nature in terms of one’s Doshas. Food also has an inherent nature. There are 20 Gunas or natural qualities of food (see Table 3). The six main qualities are Guru (heavy), Laghu (light), Sheeta (cold or cool), Ushna (hot or warm), Snigdha (unctuous, i.e., oily), and Ruksha (rough or dry). The qualities of food affect the body in different ways (see Table 4). Eating heavy foods will increase heaviness in the body, whereas light foods will promote lightness. All the properties of the body constituents are increased by use of similar substances and decreased by use of opposites. Heavy

90

Ayurveda and Diet

Table 3 Qualities of Food and Examples Quality of Food

Examples

Heavy

Cheese, yogurt, nuts, bananas, wheat, oats, dates, honey, and carrots

Light

Barley, corn, millet, mung beans, apples, and many vegetables

Unctuous (oily)

Dairy products, butter, ghee (clarified butter), oils, coconut, and nuts

Dry

Barley, corn, millet, rye, buckwheat, beans, honey, and many vegetables

Warm

All warm foods and drinks

Cold

All cold foods and drinks

churning, storing, maturing, roasting, steaming, and so on. If food is not adequately processed and prepared, it can have deleterious effects. For example, food that is not properly cleaned is not healthy. Food not properly cooked is difficult to digest and can lead to production of Ama. Ayurveda recommends eating aged grains, that is, grains that have been stored for at least 1 year. New grains that are freshly harvested are heavier to digest, increase Kapha, and can predispose one to diabetes. In some instances, processing can lead to deleterious properties. According to Ayurveda, honey should never be heated or used in cooking or baking. Heating honey transforms the molecules into a substance that is toxic to cells and can clog the subtle energy channels of the body. It is best to use raw honey that has not been processed with heat. Samyoga: Combination

Table 4 How Qualities of Food Affect the Doshas

and oily foods increase Kapha, since it is formed from the heavier elements. Therefore, an individual with a predominance of Kapha would be advised to avoid these foods, to maintain balance. Vata is formed from the lighter elements, so Vatapredominant individuals would be advised to avoid light and dry foods.

By combining two or more substances, specific qualities can be produced that are not present in the individual substances. These qualities can be beneficial or detrimental. For example, spices and herbs added to foods can counteract undesirable effects. Cilantro has cooling properties and can be added to spicy foods to aid in digestion. Adding ghee (clarified butter) and black pepper to potatoes can counteract their tendency to produce gas. Eating food combinations that are detrimental can lead to the production of Ama. Ghee and honey mixed together in equal proportions by weight is a toxic combination. Milk should be consumed by itself or with foods that have a sweet taste. Milk is incompatible with foods that have sour, salty, pungent, bitter, and astringent tastes, so drinking a glass of milk with meals is not recommended. Milk is also incompatible with most fruits, including bananas and oranges. Fruits, in general, should be eaten by themselves, not with other foods or other fruits.

Karana: Processing and Preparation

Rashi: Quantity

Processing and preparation of food are required to modify its natural properties. This is accomplished by use of water and fire and includes cleansing,

The quantity of food is categorized as total quantity eaten in a meal (Sarvagraha) and individual quantity of each ingredient (Parigraha). One

Quality of Food

Influence on the Doshas

Heavy

Vata ↓

Pitta ↓

Kapha ↑

Light

Vata ↑

Pitta ↑

Kapha ↓

Unctuous (oily)

Vata ↓

Pitta ↑

Kapha ↑

Dry

Vata ↑

Pitta ↓

Kapha ↓

Warm

Vata ↓

Pitta ↑

Kapha ↓

Cold

Vata ↑

Pitta ↓

Kapha ↑

Ayurveda and Diet

should eat an amount that is easily digested. If too much is eaten, even if it is healthy food, it will overload the digestive fire and will not be properly digested, leading to the production of Ama. The classical Ayurvedic text known as Charaka Samhita addresses the quantity of a meal by considering the stomach to be divided into three parts. One third should be filled with solid food, one third with liquid (this includes the liquid portion of the food that is eaten), and one third left empty to allow space for churning the food. The proper quantity of individual items depends on the person’s Prakriti and digestive capacity. For example, a Pitta-predominant person should eat more foods that are cooling in nature and less foods that are heating in nature. A person with a weak digestive capacity should eat foods that are easy to digest and avoid heavy foods. Desha: Habitat

Habitat refers to the environment in two ways: (1) the place where the food is grown and (2) the place where it is eaten. For example, food grown in a marshy habitat will have a higher water content than food grown in a dry habitat. Individuals living in different climate zones will have different dietary requirements. For example, to keep their system in balance, those living in tropical environments will need to eat different types of food from those living in arctic regions, due to the effect of the environment on their physiology. Kala: Time

Time refers to daily cycles and seasonal cycles, as well as the age or life cycle of an individual. The Doshas are predominant at different times in these cycles. In the daily cycle, the digestive power is strongest during the Pitta cycle of 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., when the sun is highest in the sky. Therefore, the main meal of the day should be eaten at lunchtime. Digestive power is weaker in the morning and evening, so breakfast and dinner should be light meals that can be easily digested. The Doshas’ predominance in the seasonal cycle depends on geographic location and climate. In the

91

United States, Vata accumulates when the weather is cold, dry, and windy. Pitta accumulates when the weather is hot. Kapha accumulates when the weather is cool and wet. Diet should be adjusted according to the season. For example, in the summer when Pitta is dominant, foods with cooling properties should be emphasized, such as sweet, juicy fruits. In the winter when Vata is predominant, foods with heavy, oily properties should be eaten more often, such as a sweet potato with ghee (clarified butter). In the life cycle, Vata predominates in old age and the digestive capacity is diminished. Older individuals are therefore advised to eat foods that are easily digested. Upayoga Samstha: Rules for the Intake of Food

Ayurveda has recommendations for the intake of food to maximize its healthy effects. These relate to enhancing digestion: A. Ushna (hot): Food should be eaten soon after it is freshly prepared, while it is still hot. B. Snigdha (unctuous): Food should have adequate oiliness or moisture to facilitate digestion and stimulate peristaltic movements. C. Matravata (in due measure): Food should be eaten in the proper quantity, neither too little nor too much. D. Jirne (after full digestion of the previous food): Food should be eaten only after the previous meal has been fully digested. How long this takes will vary depending on the strength of the individual’s digestive capacity and what type of food is eaten. Indications that the previous meal has been fully digested include hunger and a feeling of lightness. E. Veerya-avirudhha (not antagonist in potency): Foods that are not antagonistic in potency should be eaten. For example, hot and cold foods should not be eaten together. In this regard, cold drinks should not be taken with meals. They dampen the digestive fire in the same manner as cold water poured on a charcoal fire. Raw and cooked foods should not be eaten together. Incompatible foods should not be combined.

92

Ayurveda and Diet

F. Ishta deshe (in a congenial place) and Ishta sarvopakarana (provided with all the required appurtenances): Food should be eaten in a pleasant and soothing atmosphere, away from any type of stress. Food should not be eaten when experiencing anger, grief, fear, sadness, and so on. Necessary appurtenances should be available, that is, plates, utensils, and so on. G. Nati-druta (not too hurriedly) and Nati-vilambita (not too slowly): Food should be eaten at a moderate pace, neither too hurriedly nor too slowly. The food cannot be savored when it is eaten too fast, and rushing while eating alters digestion. If eaten too slowly, the food will get cold before it is finished. Eating too slowly also interferes with the digestive process. H. Ajalpana (without talking), Ahasana (without laughing), and Tanmaya bhunjita (with full concentration): Food that is eaten while talking or laughing may enter the trachea instead of the esophagus. Full attention should be given to the food while it is being eaten to savor it. This enhances the digestive process. I. Atmana Abhisamikshya (with proper regard toward oneself): The person eating the food should decide what type of food to eat and how much to eat, based on his or her Prakriti and digestive capacity. It is the eater’s responsibility to consciously make these decisions, instead of eating whatever is put in front of him or her.

Upayokta: The Person Eating the Food

Charaka Samhita describes oka satmya, which is “suitability developed by practice.” Foods that are habitually eaten can become “suitable” for the  eater, even though they may not be healthy in

the strictest sense. The mind and the body become adapted to them. A good example is foods that are eaten while growing up. These foods provide nourishment and comfort and their effects are ingrained in the psyche. In general, however, it is best for the person eating the food to make dietary decisions based on conventional factors such as Prakriti, Vikriti, digestive capacity, age, and so on.

Conclusion According to Ayurveda, diet and digestion are inextricably intertwined in the production and maintenance of optimal health. The food that is eaten must be taken into consideration, and the capability to fully digest it is equally important. Dietary recommendations are personalized, based on Prakriti and Vikriti. Digestive capacity is optimized to increase production of Ojas. Hari Sharma and H. M. Chandola See also Antioxidants; Biodynamic Food; Fresh Food; Holistic Medicine (New Age) and Diet

Further Readings Sharma, H., & Clark, C. (2012). Ayurvedic healing. London, UK: Singing Dragon. Sharma, P. V. (1981). Caraka Samhita (Vol. 1) (Text with English Translation). Varanasi, India: Chaukhambha Orientalia. Sharma, P. V. (1983). Caraka Samhita (Vol. 2) (Text with English Translation). Varanasi, India: Chaukhambha Orientalia. Valiathan, M. S. (2007). The legacy of Susruta. Hyderabad, India: Orient Longman.

B baby food and the growth of the commercial baby food industry.

BABY FOOD Ideas about what babies should be fed are drawn from a combination of sources: family background, cultural norms, social class, and current advice from experts. These experts can range from a local pediatrician to national studies conducted by nutritionists. Furthermore, collective wisdom and a mother’s common sense also influence what a baby is fed. Recommendations on when to first introduce babies to solid food have ranged across generations, from within a few weeks of birth to several months. This was usually hand-strained food. Later, technology and nutritional information led to an increase in babies being fed mass-produced, store-bought baby food in cans or jars. Periodically, an interest in homemade baby food has arisen, especially after blenders became a ubiquitous kitchen appliance. Yet, mass-produced, commercial baby food continues to be a thriving business, and the researcher Amy Bentley has described the use of commercial baby food as leading to an “industrial palate” from an early age. This entry discusses the popularity and safety of commercial baby food, the resurgence of homemade baby food, and recommendations from experts on what to feed the baby and when to begin solid food. It begins with a history of

Formula and Cereal Throughout history, babies were first fed with breast milk. Prior to the invention of baby formula, mothers who did not or could not breastfeed employed a “wet nurse” to feed the baby. Inventors experimented with formulas to create infant formula during the mid-1800s. The first commercially successful infant formula was invented (in a powdered form) in the 1860s by the Swiss pharmacist Henri Nestlé. By the next decade, it was sold in Europe and the United States. By the 1880s, massproduced grain mixtures to be mixed with milk were being sold. These brands included Mellin’s and Liebig’s. Another popular alternative was condensed milk, first invented in the 1950s by Gail Borden and heavily used during the Civil War by soldiers. The milk was preserved with sugar and targeted at babies who needed more nourishment, and Borden’s emphasis on sanitation and purity in his factories made condensed milk popular also with parents. By 1924, a baby formula had been developed by the Moores and Ross Milk Company. Initially, the product was called Franklin Infant Food; it was renamed Similac a few years later and is still being sold today. Other companies soon followed suit and produced baby formula, including Abbott and Bristol-Myers.

93

94

Baby Food

In addition to formula, baby food was prepared at home. Finely ground grains such as oats, rice, or barley were mixed with a liquid. This kind of mush has always been popular and remains so today.

Commercial Baby Food Companies For several decades, Gerber dominated the field of baby food, although companies such as BeechNut, Clapp’s, and Libby’s also produced canned food. Gerber was founded in 1927 in Michigan by Daniel Gerber, who owned the Fremont Canning Company. He was inspired by his wife, Dorothy Gerber, who was hand-straining peas for the couple’s 7-month-old daughter, Sally, based on her pediatrician’s advice. By 1928, the company had developed five kinds of baby foods including the strained peas. It was soon distributed nationwide in pharmacies. In 1938, Gerber created a customer relations program that featured the then 10-year-old Sally Gerber responding to consumer letters. She went on to become a senior vice president of the company. Part of Gerber’s success was in its marketing. In 1931, it trademarked the familiar drawing of a wide-eyed, open-mouthed baby. Though it had long been rumored or believed by many in the public that the baby grew up to be a celebrity such as Humphrey Bogart, the model for the iconic image was actually a 5-month-old girl named Ann Turner Cook, who was the neighbor of the artist Dorothy Hope Smith. Cook grew up to be a wellrespected English teacher in the Tampa, Florida, area until retiring to become a mystery novelist. Other major baby food companies included Beech-Nut, Clapp’s, and Libby’s. From the beginning, these companies also did a great job of marketing. Advertisements, especially in leading women’s magazines such as Good Housekeeping and Ladies’ Home Journal, encouraged mothers to use commercial baby food. The campaigns tied good mothering to the feeding of mass-produced baby food as it was safer and healthier than food made by the mother herself. Further marketing of commercial baby food was done through the hospitals where more

American babies were being delivered. To provide perspective, in 1900, about 95% of births in the United States took place at home. By 1938, the number had shrunk to half. It was a time that the researcher Rima Apple described as the “medicalization of infant care.” At the hospitals, free samples and coupons from baby food companies were given to new mothers. Beech-Nut began producing strained baby foods using glass jars in 1931. This was at a time when cans were primarily used in food packaging. As more baby food was produced in glass jars and in a time before recycling programs, newspapers across the country ran feature stories about how to reuse the jars, for example, to organize a closet or grow a window garden. Heinz also began producing baby food in 1931. To gauge its popularity, a 1948 study of consumer shopping habits found that baby food was the most purchased processed food item in top American cities—nearly twice as much as the second item, evaporated milk. In the post–World War II years, the babies that would create the baby boom were eating solid food at 4 to 6 weeks after birth. Feeding a baby mass-produced baby food became common by the 1950s. This has been credited to changes in parenting, robust ad campaigns, and a de-emphasis on breastfeeding. Furthermore, from the late 1950s through the early 1970s, the Heinz Company sponsored seminars at local hospitals about infant care and feeding. As the use of baby food became more popular, it became more available. Previously, baby food was largely available in pharmacies. Then, it was available in the growing number of supermarkets being built in the ever-growing suburbs. In 1962, a food editor wrote a column on behalf of mothers, asking that the baby food aisle be moved to the front of the store for ease. Despite the increased popularity, the ability to purchase mass-produced baby food was considered a sign of belonging to a higher social class. Many families could not afford the store-bought baby foods. Furthermore, in some rural areas and communities without supermarkets, some mothers had to mash or even prechew food for their babies.

Baby Food

By the mid-1980s, the baby food industry was a $650 million business in America. Newspaper reports indicated that Gerber controlled two thirds of the baby food market and was introducing mango and guava. The industry had grown to $1.25 billion a year business by the early 21st century. The Swiss company Sandoz bought Gerber for $3.7 billion in 1994. It was merged with another company to form Novartis. In 2002, the Del Monte Foods Company added the Heinz baby food division to its vast stable of canned foods. By 2012, baby food was a $1.25 billion industry in the United States.

Safety of Baby Food Over the years, baby foods became less a matter of simply strained peas. Additives and preservatives were added to the vegetables and fruits, including sugar, salt, and food coloring. The debate over adding vitamins began after World War II. In 1969, the consumer advocate Ralph Nader testified before the U.S. Senate about the baby food industry. He alleged that the additives included in baby food were added to please the mother’s taste test rather than for the health of the baby. By the 1970s and 1980s, companies began to advertise about the removal of refined sugar and chemically modified starch. By the 2000s, baby food manufacturers were adding DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), which is found naturally in breast milk. Nonintended ingredients also appeared in baby food when contaminated cans and jars were found. In the 1970s, small worms were found under the metal lids of baby food jars. It was a result of the vacuum seal process used in the production process. In the mid-1980s, glass shards were found in the jars of American baby food of several companies. In Britain, in 1989, a troubling discovery of intentional contamination of razor blades, pins, and glass slivers was found in the baby food. A British official described the contamination as a form of “consumer terrorism.” It led to more concern over the safety of mass-produced baby food both in the United States and abroad.

95

In the 2000s, questions arose about the use of the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) in products fed to babies. BPA is used to stiffen plastic and line metal cans. Some studies found that this was linked to diabetes and developmental changes in children. During that decade, scientists advised the Food and Drug Administration that more study was needed on the safety of BPA.

Return to Homemade Baby Food The counterculture and health food movement eventually trickled down to baby food. A rejection of convenience foods and industrial products caused more baby food to be made at home in the late 1960s and 1970s. For decades, homemade baby food had to be hand strained—a labor-intensive process. The invention of the blender changed that. The blender was initially marketed as an equipment for the bar meant to make fruity, frozen drinks. It became more common as a kitchen equipment by the 1950s, and cookbooks encouraged home cooks to use blenders in their cooking—including the preparation of homemade baby food. It was what the industry described as the “blender boom.” By the 1980s, more mothers were returning to breastfeeding and buying mass-produced baby food. Approximately half of all mothers were breastfeeding their newborns. Part of this change was based on government and medical recommendations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the baby’s first 6 months of life. This was supported by organizations such as La Leche League. States, including New York, have enacted laws to protect the rights of women to breastfeed in public. However, by 2000, fewer than 20% of mothers were still breastfeeding their babies by their first birthday. There was a later resurgence in homemade baby food when more parents learned that massproduced baby food in jars is cooked at very high temperatures to kill bacteria, a process needed for longer storage. This process removes many of the food’s vitamins and nutrients and likely some of the taste. By the 2000s, books and motherhood blogs included numerous recipes for homemade

96

Baby Food

baby food. While this was common in certain communities, overall, only about 15% of mothers made homemade baby food.

Experts’ Recommendations Advice to mothers about what to feed their babies has changed significantly over the decades. In the early 1900s, doctors recommended not introducing solid foods until about 9 months of age. In 1914, the Children’s Bureau of the federal government first issued the booklet Infant Care, which was sent to hundreds of thousands of women over the years and reissued regularly. The advice was to adhere to a strict feeding schedule for infants and heavily emphasized the use of breast milk only. By the 1920s, home economists and dietitians were exposing Americans to the importance of vitamins. This affected what should be fed to babies. For example, mothers were encouraged to give orange juice to babies for vitamin C and cod liver oil for vitamins A and D. During this decade, the child care experts L. Emmett Holt and John B. Watson focused on a rather cold approach to parenting, noting that babies should be fed milk and left to sleep for long periods of time. The recommendations from experts did not necessarily mean that mothers were following the advice. A 1933 Cornell University study found that cereal was introduced at 7.5 months, vegetables at 9.4 months, and eggs at 10 months. Even today, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends breastfeeding exclusively for the first 6 months of life with no other food given. Yet a study released in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that babies were being fed solid foods prior to 4 months of age. Beginning in 1928, Dr. Clara Davis began experiments to see if babies could decide for themselves what foods they needed. Several babies between 7 and 9 months old were weaned from breast milk in a hospital setting. Babies were offered several kinds of solid food during three meals a day. These food options included meat, seafood, bone marrow, eggs, fruits, and vegetables. It led to what was termed self-demand or

self-selection feedings. Davis found that babies ended up well-nourished and stopped when they were full. She noted that this feeding style might not work in private homes. In addition to Davis’s work, which countered the rigid feeding schedule theory, the publication of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s best-selling book The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care in 1946 changed the philosophy of parenting and feeding babies. As its name implied, Spock encouraged parents to listen to their instincts when it came to raising their child. This included feeding the baby when the child appeared hungry rather than adhering to a strict schedule, similar to selfdemand. It involved a less strict form of feeding and required listening to the child’s needs and feeding when the baby appeared hungry. By the 1950s, some doctors recommended that babies start eating solid food as early as 4 to 6 weeks of age. The 1954 book Babies Are Human Beings, written by a Mayo clinic doctor and his wife, noted that vegetables were then routinely being fed to babies in their first month of life. Others countered that a baby’s digestive system was not developed well enough to handle solid food at such a young age. According to a 1958 study, a majority of doctors believed that while feeding a baby solids at an early age was not necessary, it did not hurt the child either. There was also some backlash to massproduced baby food by the 1950s. The alternative nutritionist Adelle Davis, who championed the health food movement, criticized the overuse of mass-produced baby food. She noted that once a baby could sit up and teeth had come in, a baby could be fed small pieces of what adults were eating at the dinner table. The debate about allergies and what babies are fed is ongoing. When beginning with solid foods, most experts recommend introducing one new item at a time to detect a potential allergy. Some studies have found that breastfeeding would help prevent allergies. Other research has resulted in recommendations to introduce at an early age highly allergenic foods such as cow’s milk, eggs, and products containing peanuts. For many years,

Baby Food

the AAP recommended that parents wait until the baby’s first birthday to introduce dairy products, the second birthday to introduce eggs, and the third birthday to add peanuts, tree nuts, and fish. In early 2008, however, the AAP amended these recommendations. The change was based on expert opinion rather than specific studies. Some allergies go away as the child ages. For example, peanut and shellfish allergies tend to persist, while egg and milk allergies often go away as children get older.

Adult Use of Baby Food In 1956, the baby food originator Daniel Gerber told newspaper food editors that while the birth of American babies had increased 11% in the past decade, the consumption of baby food had increased 43%. He said the reason was because the babies were developing increased appetites. Some newspaper food editors disagreed and noted that more home cooks were using baby food in their baking, such as jarred banana baby food in banana bread. Readers would write to them to explain that they commonly used banana baby food in cakes, cookies, and bread, or it could be found in their contributed recipes. Baby food companies had actually begun marketing baby food as a convenient food for people of all ages. Women’s magazines, such as Vogue, included articles about adults eating baby food. Several decades later, the use of baby food by adults became popular when the celebrity trainer Tracy Anderson introduced the Baby Food Diet in 2010. The premise was that small quantities of rather bland food would prevent overeating and thus promote weight loss. Experts warned that most baby food lacks fiber and only has small amounts of protein as babies have different nutritional needs compared with adults. Other cookbooks have also popularized the use of baby food or pureed vegetables in everyday cooking, recommending squash or cauliflower, for example, in dishes such as macaroni and cheese as a way to sneak vegetables into meals for children who otherwise do not favor eating vegetables.

97

Organics and Small-Batch Frozen Baby Food By the 2000s, small companies who created baby foods in small batches, vacuum packed and frozen for quick delivery, became popular. These products often had unique to traditional baby food ingredients such as shallots, asparagus, and risotto. In some organic food chain locations, entire freezers are dedicated to organic baby food. At times, these foods cost about twice as much as the traditional mass-produced jarred baby food. Again, baby food was a social class issue. Today, jars of organic baby food by companies such as Earth’s Best can be regularly found in the baby food aisle next to Gerber or Beech-Nut foods. Not to be left out, Gerber is also now producing organic baby food products. Kimberly Voss See also Children’s Foods

Further Readings Apple, R. D. (1987). Mothers and medicine: A social history of infant feeding, 1890–1950. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Bentley, A. (2006). Booming baby food: Infant foods and feeding in post–World War II America. Michigan Historical Review, 32(2), 63–87. Bowen, D. (2006, August 2). A new tasting menu in the baby section. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C07E 7DD103FF931A3575BC0A9609C8B63 Davis, A. (1951). Let’s have healthy children. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace. Davis, C. M. (1928). Self-selection of diet by newly weaned infants. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 36, 651–667. Klass, P. (2013, April 8). Advice shifts on feeding baby. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://well.blogs .nytimes.com/2013/04/08/ advice-shifts-on-feeding-baby/ Paddleford, C. (1932, May 1). Watch big business cook baby’s dinner. New York Herald Tribune. Spock, B. (1950). The pocket book of baby and child care. New York, NY: Pocket Books.

98

Bakeries

Weiner, L. (2004). Reconstructing motherhood: The La Leche League in postwar America. Journal of American History, 8, 1357–1391.

BAKERIES Bakeries are defined in the 21st century as business establishments primarily engaged in the production of fresh or frozen bread and flour-based products, including cakes and pastries, typically on a large-volume scale. Historically, bakeries are defined as the site of mixing and baking bread on a scale that meets the demand of a local community. Bakeries can also include the site of direct bread sales to household consumers. The making and baking of bread has been a common human activity that can be traced back more than six millennia, extending beyond the prehistoric Egyptians to the early agricultural societies of the Fertile Crescent around 4000 BCE. Despite the prehistoric evidence of humans baking bread, bakeries—defined as the location of a skillbased trade or professional baking business—did not become prominent in human societies until the New Kingdom of Egypt, around 1500 BCE. Since then, bakeries and the baking industry have played a fundamental and dominant role in the food supply chain across centuries and continents. Mechanization and new technologies have enabled bakeries of the 21st century to operate businesses of mass production, transforming the traditional business model of bakeries. This entry examines the historical trajectory of bakeries, the innovations that led to different operational models of bread production, and the issues that have arisen out of these changes.

History of Bakeries From the Ancient World to the Industrial Revolution

In the ancient world, bread baking was a fundamentally domestic, private activity with even largescale baking and bakeries intended for wealthy

private households or armies. The earliest evidence of bread baking as a profession exists in the tomb paintings of Egyptian pharaohs around 1500 BCE, in which large quantities of round and animalshaped loaves of bread are prepared by a cadre of bakers for the royal bakery. Around 860 BCE, bronze bands from Assyria depict men producing mounds and mounds of bread loaves for the returning victorious army. It is only with the Romans that we see the first examples of bakeries baking bread intended for general public consumption as well as the establishment of professional guilds. Roman bakeries contained both mill and oven in one site with space for citizens to inspect and order loaves. Several bakeries have been discovered in Pompeii, containing multiple stone mills, kneading troughs, and uniform loaves of bread ready to be purchased, some stamped with a baker’s name. Romans honed the use of natural yeast in creating leavened bread and took leavened bread baking skills with them as they expanded into Western Europe. The bakery assumed a central role in communities’ livelihoods throughout the ensuing thousand years of European history. Bakers held a much prized and protected position in medieval European towns, indeed one of great power. As political and social systems changed to feudal systems, bakeries too were incorporated into these power structures with monasteries controlling the use of communal ovens in Spain, and France regulating who could be a master baker and how much bread sold for and where. In fact, bakeries as a business profession did not open up to the general public as a career path until 1863 in France. One of the oldest professional baking organizations is the Baker’s Guild established in 1155 in London—now the Worshipful Company of Bakers. This guild enforced the Assize of Bread laws, regulating quality of flour, weights of loaves, and bread prices. Post-1800

By the beginning of the 19th century, bakeries continued to operate on the same principles and

Bakeries

technology of bread baking as the Romans. Bread dough was mixed by hand and baked in clay beehive ovens fired by wood with both mixing and baking occurring in the same space; fermentation of dough was a long, 12-hour process; and most bakeries were retail bakeries, selling bread in the same place where it was made. However, by the middle of the century, innovations from the Industrial Revolution began being incorporated into bakery operations. In 1830, the beehive oven gave way to the side-flue oven built of brick with a furnace fueled by coals. France began experimenting with the technology of mechanical mixers with little success in the late 18th century, but it was Glasgow, in 1850, where the first hand-powered mixers began being used in bakeries. By 1858, a steam engine–driven dough mixer was being used by bakers in London. The German company of Werner and Pfleiderer patented a twobladed dough mixer in 1879 that was so successful it led to the building of factories in Germany, Britain, Austria, and the United States. At about the same time, Angiers March Perkins, an American inventor, introduced steam pipes into ovens, reducing fuel and making baking much more efficient. Mechanical mixers adopted electric motors, and soon, every step of the bread production process became mechanized, with machines invented to mold, divide, and shape dough. By 1900, the introduction of the batch oven (allowing large quantities of dough to be baked efficiently at one time), combined with the steam ovens and mechanized mixing machines, enabled the spread of bread production in mass volume.

New Technologies, New Business Models With the tools of mechanization of bread production obtained in the 19th century, bakers in the 20th century sought to speed up the 12-hour process of fermentation. In 1926, two American scientists, Charles F. Wallace and Martin F. Tiernan, worked with John C. Baker, a cereal chemist, to develop a no-time bread-making process, called the Do-Maker process, patented in 1951. By adding extra yeast, sugar, and malt to dough, which

99

was then intensively mixed, the Do-Maker process reduced bread dough production time from 12 to 2 hours. By turning bread making into a continuous, shortened, one-stage process, the Do-Maker revolutionized the baking industry—reducing time of production, labor inputs, and production space while yielding a uniform product in mass volume. The uniform spongy loaves were an instant commercial success in America as seen in the success and iconic status of Wonder Bread; however, it did not take off with as much consumer success in Europe until 1961 with the Chorleywood bread process developed in the United Kingdom—a similar time-reducing bread-making process that relied on heavy inputs of yeast, preservatives, enzymes, and emulsifiers combined with intensive mixing. Twenty-First-Century Bakeries

The mechanization and industrialization of bread making dramatically changed the business model, operations, and social presence of modern bakeries. What has changed for the bakery? Twentyfirst-century bakeries are now categorized into one of two types of bakeries: commercial and retail bakeries. The majority of bread today is produced by commercial bakeries: high-volume production factories that are frequently removed from the sales point. Retail bakeries are typically the point of sale for bread with the production of bread either partially or wholly removed from the site. An industry profile of bakeries in the United States in 2012 by First Research shows 2,800 commercial bakeries with annual revenue of $30 billion (91% of U.S. bakery revenue) alongside 6,000 retail bakeries with annual revenue of $3 billion. The division of bread production and transactions between commercial and retail bakeries is not entirely clear-cut. The technologies of preservatives and freezing have spawned a variety of different business models for both commercial and retail bakeries. Preservatives, improvers, and emulsifiers extend the shelf life of bread, allowing bread to be sold in nonbread shops with less turnover of bread stock, such as grocery stores, corner shops, and supermarkets. Freezing allows bread dough to be

100

Bakeries

made in a commercial bakery, transported to a retail bakery, and then baked off and sold in the retail bakery, reducing the need for a skilled baker on-site of the retail shop. Some retail bakers continue the traditional bakery model of mixing, baking, and selling bread all in one place. A diversification of business operations has expanded the definition of bakeries in the 21st century.

Issues: Trends, Risks, Challenges, and Role of Bakeries Several trends as well as challenges facing the baking industry pose interesting implications for the future direction and shape of bakeries: in-store supermarket bakeries, par-baked bread, artisan breads, and gluten-free breads, volatility of energy and material costs, consolidation, and low demand growth. Increasingly, since the late 1990s, supermarket chains have been boasting in-store bakeries: selfcontained units using premixed, partially baked bread. In 1999, 12% of the bread market in the United Kingdom consisted of in-store bakeries, 34% in 2004. “Par-baked” bread, originally invented in 1949 by General Mills but becoming a popular trend only more recently, refers to bread cooked completely but at a lower temperature to prevent full browning of the crust. This method allows customers to further bake the bread at home without overcooking it to obtain the experience of “fresh bread out of the oven.” Some current trends have arisen in direct response to the industrialization of bakeries, such as artisan bread products, which seek to preserve the skill and craft of bread making through the promotion of “handmade,” “organic,” and “traditional” types of bread. Additionally, an increase in gluten intolerance in the general population has created a larger demand for gluten-free breads, using other grain flours such as rye, buckwheat, barley, khorasan wheat, spelt, millet, and rice flour. Some challenges facing bakeries in the future include a growing volatility of both energy costs in running bakeries and raw material costs (e.g., world wheat prices), increasing consolidation of bakery corporations, and the growing low demand of bread in the market. Increasing costs of

production combined with a decrease in demand of bread has meant that smaller independent bakery operations are more likely to be acquired by larger bakery firms. Since the mid-2000s, the bakery industry in the United States has been dominated by Bimbo Bakeries, which owns 14 major bread brands and oversees 20% ($6 billion) of the total commercial bakery revenue in the United States, more than twice the revenue of the second largest American bakery company, Flowers Foods. Bakeries continue to be redefined through the innovations of technology, the push toward increased mechanization and industrialization, consumer trends and preferences, market volatility, and a highly competitive capitalist economy. What the future shape of bakeries will be as professional businesses is highly subject to the role of bread in individual consumer lives: what values are attached to bread, its qualitative makeup, and its function in daily dietary choices. Emily Earhart See also Deskilling; Grocery Stores and Supermarkets; Monopolies; Multinational Conglomerates; Preservatives; Values-Based Food Supply Chains

Further Readings Alsberg, C. (1973). Combination in the American breadbaking industry: With some observations on the mergers of 1924–25. New York, NY: Arno Press. Ashton, J. (1904). The history of bread: From pre-historic to modern times. London, UK: William Clowes. Cauvain, S. P. (Ed.). (2003). Bread making: Improving quality. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead. Dupaigne, B. (1999). The history of bread (T. Roder & S. Roder, Trans.). New York, NY: Harry Abrams. Ingham, C., & Shapter, J. (2002). The world encyclopedia of bread and breadmaking. London, UK: Hermes House. Jacob, H. (1944). Six thousand years of bread (R. Winston & C. Winston, Trans.). New York, NY: Lyons Press. Kaplan, S. (1996). The bakers of Paris and the bread question: 1700–1775. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Marchant, J., Reuben, B., & Alcock, J. (2008). Bread: A slice of history. Stroud, UK: History Press. Muller, H. G. (1986). Baking and bakeries. Haverfordwest, UK: Shire.

Bankruptcy Laws

Websites American Association of Cereal Chemists: http://www .aaccnet.org American Society of Baking: http://www.asbe.org/ Baking & Snack magazine: http://www.bakingbusiness .com/ Federation of Bakers: http://www.bakersfederation.org.uk/ Retail Bakers of America: http://www.retailbakersof america.org/ Worshipful Company of Bakers: http://www.bakers.co.uk/

BANKRUPTCY LAWS Because restaurants and food businesses frequently face bankruptcy, the topic is of particular importance as a food issue. When someone can no longer pay his or her creditors, there is a reprieve that allows the person to obtain a new start. If he or she liquidates assets and creates a payment plan, this is known as bankruptcy. In the United States, bankruptcy laws help provide protection not only for individuals but also for businesses by allowing them a way to pay their creditors back through restructuring or liquidation. There are six chapters of the Bankruptcy Code: Chapters 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15. This entry describes each of these chapters of the Bankruptcy Code, including how bankruptcy laws apply to family farmers and family fishermen as two examples of food businesses and how the law applies to them.

Chapter 7 Chapter 7 is used to liquidate assets in order to pay off debts. To qualify for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, the debtor may be an individual, a partnership, or a corporation, or other business entity (11 U.S.C. §§ 101(41), 109(b)). Relief is available under Chapter 7 irrespective of the amount of the debtor’s debts or whether the debtor is solvent or insolvent. An individual cannot file under Chapter 7 or any other chapter, however, if during the preceding 180 days, a prior bankruptcy petition was dismissed due to the debtor’s willful failure to appear before the court

101

or comply with orders of the court, or the debtor voluntarily dismissed the previous case after creditors sought relief from the bankruptcy court to recover property on which they hold liens (11 U.S.C. §§ 109(g), 362(d) and (e)). In addition, no individual may be a debtor under Chapter 7 or any chapter of the Bankruptcy Code unless he or she has, within 180 days before filing, received credit counseling from an approved credit counseling agency either in an individual or group briefing (11 U.S.C. §§ 109, 111). There are exceptions in emergency situations or where the U.S. trustee (or bankruptcy administrator) has determined that there are insufficient approved agencies to provide the required counseling. If a debt management plan is developed during required credit counseling, it must be filed with the court. In Chapter 7, discharge is not available to corporations or partnerships, only to individual debtors. The right to discharge is not absolute, for some debts may not meet the requirements. To begin a Chapter 7 case, a debtor must file a petition in the bankruptcy court in the area where the individual resides or where the majority of business and assets are. Filing a Chapter 7, in most instances, automatically puts a cease and desist against collection actions. The person filing must also file with the court his or her list of assets and liabilities, a list of current income and expenditures, a statement of financial affairs, and a schedule of contracts and unexpired leases. A trustee is assigned to the case to manage the affairs and to oversee the procession of the bankruptcy. The debtor must provide the trustee with a copy of all tax returns filed during the case. The courts charge a $245 case filing fee, a $46 administrative fee, and $15 trustee surcharge that must be paid on filing. Chapter 7 is the most commonly used form of bankruptcy.

Chapter 9 Chapter 9 is used mostly by municipalities such as cities and towns. Only a “municipality” may file for relief under Chapter 9 (11 U.S.C. § 109(c)). The term municipality is defined in the Bankruptcy Code as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State” (11 U.S.C. § 101(40)).

102

Bankruptcy Laws

The definition is broad enough to include cities, counties, townships, school districts, and public improvement districts. It also includes revenueproducing bodies that provide services that are paid for by users rather than by general taxes, such as bridge authorities, highway authorities, and gas authorities. Section 109(c) of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth four additional eligibility requirements for Chapter 9: 1. The municipality must be specifically authorized to be a debtor by state law or by a governmental officer or organization empowered by State law to authorize the municipality to be a debtor. 2. The municipality must be insolvent, as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(C). 3. The municipality must desire to effect a plan to adjust its debts. 4. The municipality must do one of the following: • Obtain the agreement of creditors holding at least a majority in amount of the claims of each class that the debtor intends to impair under a plan in a case under Chapter 9 • Negotiate in good faith with creditors and fail to obtain the agreement of creditors holding at least a majority in amount of the claims of each class that the debtor intends to impair under a plan • Be unable to negotiate with creditors because such negotiation is impracticable • Reasonably believe that a creditor may attempt to obtain a preference

Chapter 11 Chapter 11 is the complete reorganization of assets and management. This is primarily for businesses. The filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not put the personal assets of the stockholders of the business at risk. It is solely for the reorganization and restructuring of a business to alleviate and pay off debt. Section 1107 of the Bankruptcy Code places the debtor in possession in the position of a fiduciary, with the rights and powers of a Chapter 11

trustee, and it requires the debtor to perform all but the investigative functions and duties of a trustee. These duties, set forth in the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, include accounting for property, examining and objecting to claims, and filing informational reports as required by the court and the U.S. trustee or bankruptcy administrator (discussed below), such as monthly operating reports (11 U.S.C. §§ 1106, 1107; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2015(a)). The debtor in possession also has many of the other powers and duties of a trustee, including the right, with the court’s approval, to employ attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons to assist the debtor during its bankruptcy case. Other responsibilities include filing tax returns and reports that are either necessary or ordered by the court after confirmation, such as a final accounting. The U.S. trustee is responsible for monitoring the compliance of the debtor in possession with the reporting requirements.

Chapter 12 Chapter 12 is used for family farmers and fishermen. Under Chapter 12, debtors propose a repayment plan to make installments to creditors over 3 to 5 years. Generally, the plan must provide for payments over 3 years unless the court approves a longer period “for cause.” But unless the plan proposes to pay 100% of domestic support claims (i.e., child support and alimony) if any exist, it must be for 5 years and must include all of the debtor’s disposable income. In no case may a plan provide for payments over a period longer than 5 years (11 U.S.C. § 1222(b)-(c)). In tailoring bankruptcy law to meet the economic realities of family farming and the family fisherman, Chapter 12 eliminates many of the barriers such debtors would face if seeking to reorganize under either Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. For example, Chapter 12 is more streamlined, less complicated, and less expensive than Chapter 11, which is better suited to large corporate reorganizations. In addition, few family farmers or fishermen find

Bankruptcy Laws

Chapter 13 to be advantageous because it is designed for wage earners who have smaller debts than those facing family farmers. In Chapter 12, Congress sought to combine the features of the Bankruptcy Code, which can provide a framework for successful family farmer and fisherman reorganizations. The Bankruptcy Code provides that only a family farmer or family fisherman with “regular annual income” may file a petition for relief under Chapter 12 (11 U.S.C. §§ 101(18), 101(19A), 109(f)). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the debtor’s annual income is sufficiently stable and regular to permit the debtor to make payments under a Chapter 12 plan. But Chapter 12 makes allowance for situations in which family farmers or fishermen have income that is seasonal in nature. Relief under Chapter 12 is voluntary, and only the debtor may file a petition under the chapter. Under the Bankruptcy Code, “family farmers” and “family fishermen” fall into two categories: (1) an individual or individual and spouse and (2) a corporation or partnership. Farmers or fishermen falling into the first category must meet each of the following four criteria as of the date the petition is filed to qualify for relief under Chapter 12: 1. The individual or husband and wife must be engaged in a farming operation or a commercial fishing operation. 2. The total debts (secured and unsecured) of the operation must not exceed $3,792,650 (if a farming operation) or $1,757,475 (if a commercial fishing operation). 3. If a family farmer, at least 50%, and if a family fisherman at least 80%, of the total debts that are fixed in amount (exclusive of debt for the debtor’s home) must be related to the farming or commercial fishing operation. 4. More than 50% of the gross income of the individual or the husband and wife for the preceding tax year (or for family farmers only, for each of the second and third prior tax years) must have come from the farming or commercial fishing operation.

103

For a corporation or partnership to fall within the second category of debtors eligible to file as family farmers or family fishermen, the corporation or partnership must meet each of the following criteria as of the date of the filing of the petition: 1. More than one half of the outstanding stock or equity in the corporation or partnership must be owned by one family or by one family and its relatives. 2. The family or the family and its relatives must conduct the farming or commercial fishing operation. 3. More than 80% of the value of the corporate or partnership assets must be related to the farming or fishing operation. 4. The total indebtedness of the corporation or partnership must not exceed $3,792,650 (if a farming operation) or $1,757,475 (if a commercial fishing operation). 5. At least 50% for a farming operation or 80% for a fishing operation of the corporation’s or partnership’s total debts that are fixed in amount (exclusive of debt for one home occupied by a shareholder) must be related to the farming or fishing operation. 6. If the corporation issues stock, the stock cannot be publicly traded.

Chapter 13 Chapter 13 is extremely similar to Chapter 7 but much easier on and more geared toward individuals with regular income levels. Any individual, even if self-employed or operating an unincorporated business, is eligible for Chapter 13 relief as long as the individual’s unsecured debts are less than $360,475 and secured debts are less than $1,081,400 (11 U.S.C. § 109(e)). These amounts are adjusted periodically to reflect changes in the consumer price index. Chapter 13 offers individuals a number of advantages over liquidation under Chapter 7. Perhaps, most significantly, Chapter 13 offers individuals an

104

Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related

opportunity to save their homes from foreclosure. By filing under this chapter, individuals can stop foreclosure proceedings and may cure delinquent mortgage payments over time. Nevertheless, they must still make all mortgage payments that come due during the Chapter 13 plan on time. Another advantage of Chapter 13 is that it allows individuals to reschedule secured debts (other than a mortgage for their primary residence) and extend them over the life of the Chapter 13 plan. Doing this may lower the payments. Chapter 13 also has a special provision that protects third parties who are liable with the debtor on “consumer debts.” This provision may protect cosigners. Finally, Chapter 13 acts like a consolidation loan under which the individual makes the plan payments to a Chapter 13 trustee, who then distributes payments to creditors. Individuals will have no direct contact with creditors while under Chapter 13 protection.

Chapter 15 Chapter 15 applies when the person or businesses filing have business and transactions in more than one country. It is the newest of the chapters. This mostly affects multinational corporations and conglomerates and thus concerns some of the largest food corporations should they become insolvent. It was created to balance out issues with international laws and jurisdictions.

Further Readings Elias, S., & Bayer, L. (2013). The new bankruptcy: Will it work for you? Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press. Ferriell, J. T., & Janger, E. J. (2013). Understanding bankruptcy. Dayton, OH: Lexis Nexis.

BANS ON FOOD, CULTURAL HEALTH-RELATED

AND

Bans on food, for a multitude of reasons, are ubiquitous in all societies. They are put in place to prohibit the consumption of particular foodstuffs that are deemed harmful to communities or in some cases, entire countries. Bans are often a point of contention in many societies because, on the one hand, they can bring about unwanted change in food practices for some members of the community, while on the other hand, for some, they are welcome alterations in the way in which communities produce and consume food. Food bans may be held in place in a particular community for centuries; other bans, such as those enforced due to concerns over contamination or food shortages, tend to be short lived in nature. Bans affect the ways in which all individuals and collective groups produce, consume, and understand food. This entry focuses on cultural and healthrelated bans on food.

Cultural Ethics and Animal Welfare

Conclusion Finally, jurisdiction for bankruptcy resides solely in federal courts. State courts cannot oversee bankruptcy cases. A clearer understanding of the complexity of bankruptcy law would be a boon to the food industry from the level of individuals and small businesses all the way to large multinational conglomerates. Brynn Brigham See also Family Farms and Rural Depopulation; Fishing Industry

Cultural ethics are intertwined with food consumption worldwide; given cultural differences between nations, ethical views concerning food production and consumption vary greatly internationally. Indeed the heterogeneity of individuals and cultural differences between societal groups within a nation make consensus on ethical issues difficult. These factors explain the regional and international differences in food regulations and bans. In many countries, traditional or shifting cultural ethics regarding food can affect government legislation on certain food products or prohibit them from sale or consumption altogether.

Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related

However, other ethical concerns also affect the adoption of bans and restrictive legislation. The correct role of government in determining what constitutes best practice and in restricting certain practices is contentious the world over. Depending on political institutions, public interest groups may have significant power to affect legislation on the banning or limiting of foodstuffs. In the United States, food bans often result from petitions or boycotts made by various public interest groups including animal rights activists, environmentalists, lobby groups, medical professionals, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), among several others. This section examines foods that have been banned due to ethical concerns over animal rights. The Production of Foie Gras

In 2006, a ban was issued on foie gras in Chicago but was repealed in 2008; in 2004, the then governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that banned the force-feeding of geese for the purposes of foie gras production; this ban was enforced in 2012. Foie gras is composed of fattened goose liver, the production method of which is a matter of contention for many animal rights groups and various other societal groups. During production, the geese are force-fed large quantities of corn using a large feeding tube with the aim of fattening the liver for human consumption. While production of foie gras is banned in most countries within the European Union (EU), it is still permitted in Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, and Spain. Production of foie gras is also permissible in Canada and, with the exception of California, throughout the United States. It should be noted that while some nations ban foie gras production, they may not ban its importation or consumption; this is the case in the United Kingdom, for example. Hunting, Distribution, and Import Prohibitions of the Ortolan

The ortolan is a small bunting bird found in the southwest of France and is considered a French

105

gastronomic delicacy. Animal rights activists argue that the hunting of ortolan has not only severely depleted its population in France but that the process by which the ortolan is prepared for human consumption is particularly cruel. This process involves catching the small birds, which typically weigh approximately 1 ounce, and then placing them in a darkened room for 1 month where they are continuously fed on a diet of millet. At the end of the month, the fattened ortolan is quickly roasted in Armagnac and served whole. Due to political pressure imposed by animal rights groups regarding this practice, the hunting of ortolan was banned in France in 1999. Both importing and selling ortolan is illegal in the United States.

Overfishing, Endangered Species, and Taboo Food While most bans differ from nation to nation, and often regionally within a country, some bans on food are issued globally. One international concern is the effect of overfishing. The depletion of fish stocks resulting from overfishing threatens the existence of many species. Overfishing is said to occur when certain species are being consumed at a rate faster than the reproduction rate of the species population. Though conservation organizations, the United Nations, and many governing bodies worldwide have made significant efforts in preventing the excess depletion of fishing stocks and the hunting of protected, endangered species, overfishing and the extinction of certain species remain contentious global issues. Antiwhaling Campaigns

Whales have been hunted for meat consumption, oil, and other uses in many parts of the world for centuries. Commercial whale hunting peaked throughout the 20th century, devastating whale levels worldwide. Consequently, whales received endangered species status, provoking a worldwide ban on commercial whale hunting; in 1986, a ban on commercial whale hunting was issued by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). However, the IWC’s legitimacy has been called into

106

Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related

question. Despite an almost universally applied ban on whaling, the IWC has permitted Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research to hunt whales for scientific research. Animal rights activists and conservationist groups have criticized the legitimacy of this research, claiming it is nothing more than illegal whaling allowing the distribution of whale meat to continue in Japan. The fact that whale meat has been found in several fish markets and restaurants across Japan is used to support this claim. In 2013, proceedings began at the United Nations International Court of Justice between the Australian government and its Japanese counterpart; the Japanese government has been accused of breaking several international treaties that promote and protect whales and other marine species. Shark Finning Ban

While the consumption of shark meat is controversial in many societies, the shark fin has been considered a delicacy in Chinese cuisine for thousands of years. China’s booming economic growth in the early part of the 21st century has led to an increased demand for luxury food items. As a result, shark fin is increasingly sought after within China and also from other countries within the region such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan. Due to ever-growing demand and consumption, many shark species are at the brink of collapse. Animal rights activists argue that the process of “shark finning” is particularly gruesome because it often involves capturing the shark, removing its fin, and then placing the bloody bodies back in the water. Moreover, sharks are particularly vulnerable to extinction due to their relatively slow sexual maturity cycle. In comparison to other marine species, sharks take up to 15 years to reach sexual maturity, and they reproduce in much lower numbers. Since 1997, conservation groups in California have been attempting to protect sharks by lobbying for the imposition of legislation that bans the hunting of specific types of sharks, including the white shark. In 2003, the EU banned shark finning but permitted companies to apply for special fishing permits that allowed them to continue finning

sharks if the fins were landed separately from the bodies. In 2013, the EU outlawed this loophole and banned finning practices altogether. Shark finning is illegal in the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada; however, conservationists, animal rights activists, and other critics are calling for further legislation to close any potential loopholes in existing anti–shark finning laws. Horse Meat Scandal in the EU

Though consumed in various countries around the world, in parts of North America and Western Europe in particular, horse meat is often considered a taboo food. In England and Ireland, unlike lambs, pigs, cattle, and other farm animals, horses are often seen as pets or companions. In 2013, traces of horse DNA were found in beef and pork products sold in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Though selling horse meat is not illegal in the United Kingdom or Ireland, consuming it is considered taboo. The mislabeling of beef, pork, and other food products prompted further inquiries in abattoirs and food-manufacturing plants throughout the EU to prevent the sale of unregulated horse meat. While the consumption of horse meat does not pose any health risks, this scandal prompted consumer concerns regarding the accuracy of product labeling and ingredient and nutritional information. Though consuming horse meat is considered taboo in the United Kingdom and Ireland, it is still consumed in many countries of Europe, including France, Belgium, and Italy.

Healthy Food Movement and Fatty Food Bans Increasing consumption of foods high in salt, sugar, and fat content worldwide has prompted proposals in many countries to ban junk food from schools, communities, and cities, and in some cases, at the national level. These bans are controversial, however, as they call into question the degree to which the state ought to intervene in the consumption habits of its citizens and whether or not such interventions are effective in transforming the ways in which individuals produce, distribute,

Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related

purchase, and consume food. This section examines health-related bans on food. Soda Ban in New York City

In 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City proposed a soda ban in efforts to fight the obesity epidemic in the United States. This ban prohibited beverages larger than 16 ounces from being sold at food service establishments regulated by New York City. Juices, diet sodas, alcohol, and beverages made up of 50% or more milk are exempt. This ban was particularly contentious because it is unclear to what extent the ban will be effective as retailers not regulated by the city of New York, including major soda retailer 7-Eleven, would be exempted from the ban. African American, Hispanic, and Korean interest groups have spoken out against the ban as it could negatively affect small business owners and independent grocery retailers. Though a New York Supreme Court judge ruled against the soda ban in March 2013, the ban is currently under review at the New York State of Appeals Court. In reaction to the proposed ban, Mississippi passed a motion in March 2013 that prohibited bans on selling large sugary beverages. Bans on Trans Fats

Trans fats are unsaturated fats that occur naturally and typically in small amounts in dairy products, beef, and lamb and in canola, soybean, and fish oils. When consumed in substantial quantities, trans fat increases LDL-cholesterol, commonly understood as “bad” cholesterol; high levels of LDL-cholesterol increase the risk of heart disease. Heavy consumption of trans fats also lowers HDLcholesterol, or “good” cholesterol, which reduces the risk of heart disease. While these fats occur naturally in some foods, they are most commonly found in processed foods containing partially hydrogenated oils. In 2003, Denmark introduced legislation that strictly prohibits the sale of foods with trans fats. Similar bans on trans fats were also imposed in

107

other countries in the EU, including Austria, Switzerland, and Sweden. Though the United Kingdom has not banned trans fats outright, efforts have been made to significantly lower the amount of trans fat found in packaged food products. In 2005, Canada was the first country to require labeling of trans fat on nutritional information of prepackaged food; the FDA in the United States followed suit in 2006 and the Philippines in 2013. In 2006, New York City was the first city in the United States to ban the use of trans fat in restaurants. Not long after, several cities and states enacted the ban in eating establishments throughout the country. A similar ban was passed in China in 2012. In 2003, the Swiss multinational conglomerate Nestlé proposed to significantly reduce or eliminate trans fat in its products. By 2006 and 2007, American fast food chains Wendy’s, McDonald’s, and Taco Bell banned the use of trans fat in their U.S. franchises. Happy Meal Toy Ban in California

In 2010, a ban placed on the distribution of Happy Meal toys in Santa Clara and San Francisco counties was passed in California. The Center for Science in the Public Interest argued that the toys were a manipulative marketing tactic designed to lure children into eating unhealthy food. In response, McDonald’s gave consumers the option of purchasing a toy with their happy meals for 10 cents at its San Francisco locations; all toy proceeds would go to the Ronald McDonald House in San Francisco. This ban was widely contentious. Supporters of the ban argued that the proposal would increase awareness of the child obesity epidemic and promote the importance of adopting a healthy lifestyle; critics of the ban argued that the toys have little effect on the consuming habits of the child. In 2011, bans against outlawing toy giveaways in high-calorie children’s meals at restaurants were issued in Florida and Arizona. By April 2012, however, the ban was dropped in California. In August 2012, Chile passed a similar law that banned the distribution of toys to children in fast food establishments.

108

Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related

Junk Food Bans

Junk food is often classified as processed, prepackaged food that is often high in calories, sugar, sodium, and fat. In 2005, California banned the sale of junk food in schools to curb child obesity rates. Under the ban, only foods with 4 gram of fat or less was permitted in every 100 calories of a food product, and food products should not exceed a total of 400 calories. By 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that a “Smart Snacks in Schools” initiative that bans the sale of junk food on school premises nationwide would take effect in 2014. Similar bans have been effective in the provinces of Ontario and Alberta in Canada. In 2013, the Delhi High Court in India banned the selling of junk food and carbonated drinks in schools and within 500 yards of schools. In the same year, doctors in Wales proposed a similar law that would ban the construction of future fast food outlets near schools. In 2006, junk food was banned from school meals in England with foods high in salt and fat being particularly targeted. Deep-fried products would be served a maximum of twice a week, and at least two servings of fruits and vegetables must be provided for each student daily. Confectionery, chocolate, crisps, and heavily processed meats were also banned from school meals. The effectiveness of this ban has been called into question, however, with a survey conducted by the School Food Trust of the United Kingdom finding that approximately 90% of schools were not complying with the ban, and junk food was still being sold in vending machines and in-school tuck shops. Banning Junk Food Advertisements

In 1980, the province of Quebec in Canada banned junk food and toy advertisements and marketing geared toward children; the ban remains in place. Norway, Sweden, and Greece have also enacted similar bans. In 2010, the World Health Organization requested that governments worldwide curb the advertising of foods high in sugar, sodium, and fat toward children. In 2012, the

Disney Corporation announced that it would be banning junk food advertisements on their television and radio programs and on their online content as well. Food Coloring Agents

Food coloring agents are additives designed to alter the color of foods. They are commonly used in processed and prepackaged foods such as candy, carbonated beverages, potato chips, corn snacks, instant noodles, and pastas. Regulations on additives vary between countries, and it is often the case that some additives widely used in some countries may be banned in others. In the EU, food additives are categorized as “E” (Europe) numbers. These categorization systems of food additives assist in preventing adulteration in food products. In 2008, the Food Standard Agency in the United Kingdom called for a ban on six E numbers; the agency cited a study conducted by the University of Southampton that found that these E numbers, otherwise known as the “Southampton Six”—sunset yellow (E110), quinolone yellow (E104), carmoisine (E122), allura red (E129), tartrazine (E102), and ponceau 4R (E124)—affected the movement, behavior, and attention of children. Some of these numbers are in the process of being phased out of foods in the United Kingdom; however, others including sunset yellow and allura red remain approved in the United States. Brominated Vegetable Oil

Brominated vegetable oil (BVO) is a food agent used to prevent the separation of ingredients in soft drinks and sports drinks including Mountain Dew, Fresca, and some types of Gatorade and Powerade. It is banned in Europe and has been recently banned in Japan but not in North America. In 2012, the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany, conducted a study that found that high levels of consumption of BVO are associated with problems with movement and coordination; other side effects include fatigue and headaches. Since then, petitions have been made in the

Bar Food

United States against PepsiCo and Coca-Cola; however, BVO remains an ingredient in some of their products. Health Canada and the FDA in the United States claim that the levels of BVO in these beverages are low, and the drinks are safe for consumption. Jennifer Trieu See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children; Boycotts; Endangered Species; Fishing Industry; Obesity Epidemic; Religion and Foods, Requirements and Labeling; Social Media and Food

Further Readings Allen, G. J., & Albala, K. (Eds.). (2007). The business of food: Encyclopedia of the food and drink industries. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Ansell, C., & Vogel, D. (Eds.). (2006). What’s the beef? The contested governance of European food safety. Cambridge: MIT Press. Friedberg, S. (2004). French beans and food scares: Culture and commerce in an anxious age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gottlieb, R., & Joshi, A. (2010). Food justice. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lang, T., & Heasman M. (2004). Food wars: The global battle for mouths, minds and markets. London, UK: Earthscan. McGinnis, J. M., Gootman, J. A., & Kraak, V. I. (Eds.). (2006). Food marketing to children and youth: Threat or opportunity? Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Nestle, M. (2002). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nestle, M. (2003). Safe food: The politics of food safety. Berkeley: University of California Press. Paarlberg, R. (2010). Food politics: What everyone needs to know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Smith, A. F. (2011). Fast food and junk food: An encyclopedia of what we love to eat. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC. Toke, D. (2004). The politics of GM food: A comparative study of the UK, USA and EU. New York, NY: Routledge.

109

BAR FOOD Bar food runs the gamut from offerings pulled from the freezer to prepackaged chip mixes (what is called in the industry yuppie-chow, a combination of nuts, both potato and corn chips, and sometimes even edible seeds) to handcrafted gourmet fare. Unfortunately, the majority of the bar food available in the United States is little more than cheap and fast feeding. Outside of the major cities, the availability of bar food varies from place to place depending on the drinking culture and the history of the region. Bars in New England may offer oysters on the half shell or seafood samplers with the requisite salt levels to keep drinkers imbibing. Bars in the Mid-Atlantic states may offer a bowl of pretzels or highly salted nuts. Salt is important in bar food because of the thirst of the drinker: If the drinker is eating salty food, he or she will drink more. For this reason, bar food is usually more assertively seasoned than dining room food. Irish-style pub favorites like shepherd’s pie, corned beef and cabbage, beef stew with Guinness, and seafood stews of all kinds often contain more added salt than normal restaurant dishes. These are commonly available around the United States in Irish-style pubs to give sustenance to the perfectly drawn pints. This entry looks at the types of bar food available across the United States.

Trends in Bar Food In recent decades, bars have begun to offer more upscale fare, such as Spanish tapas (small plates of hot or cold appetizers), house-made charcuterie (prepared meats such as sausages and ham), and artisanal bread, or even small plates for companions to share, usually cold assortments of cheeses or other foods that require no cooking. These go particularly well with handcrafted cocktails, and when bartenders are making their own bitters and maraschino cherries, decent food is not far behind. Bar foods that go well with beer are more prosaic and include chicken wings, burgers of all

110

Bar Food

kinds, hot dogs, anything deep fried, anything spicy, and many dishes that hail from Europe. These include Belgian-influenced stews that utilize heavy cream and the addition of strong Trappist Ales into the recipes. This type of bar food is designed to warm the body and feed the stomach. Good bar food should do this and give the drinker a reason to stay and another reason to come back.

Bar Food Across the United States Starting with New England, sophisticated seafood offerings with a Portuguese flair are found in even the most humble bars in places like Fall River, Massachusetts. Buffalo, New York, is well known for its classic bar “finger” food in the form of fiery chicken wings dipped into palate-cooling blue cheese dressing with crisp celery sticks on the side. This assertive cooking is deep fry heavy and potently spice driven against the bitterly cold climate of northern New York State. Eating buffalo wings is the perfect way to open the taste buds for the German-style lager beers traditional to this region. New York City has some of the best bar food in the entire country. It is common practice in New York City to offer foods like bagels with smoked salmon and cream cheese along with copies of the New York Times to attract a well-heeled clientele eating their fill on the bar owner’s ticket. Other pub foods common to New York City are oysters on the half shell, shrimp, and a wide array of pizza, burger, and chicken offerings. Bars sometimes offer selections from the menu as further enticement to encourage drinkers to stay and drink a while. It has long been a practice in Little Italy to bring in thirsty diners with a bottle of wine on the table along with unlimited amounts of antipasti and copious loaves of sesame seed–crusted Italian breads. Bars located in New Jersey in cities like Newark with a large Portuguese and Spanish population offer tapas-like bar food to keep their customers filled with savory foods. Fresh seafood is common in the Ironbound region of this sprawling megalopolis.

The purpose of freshly cooked seafood offered to a thirsty clientele is to stimulate the appetite and then augment the profit of the bar. Philadelphia is renowned as a colonial city. Here, there are bar foods as diverse as any city in the country. One bar may have the famous cheese steaks with Cheese Whiz, while the bar next door might offer a steamed bun from China to their own thirsty clientele. Philadelphia also has a rich history of seafood dishes due to its proximity to the Delaware River and, ultimately, the ocean. Oysters are satisfying fare to accompany draughts of locally brewed beer. Bars in the Washington, D.C., area can be quite sophisticated because of the international nature of the residents. Bars are long accustomed to offering their very best foods to their drinkers to keep them in their seats instead of going to the competition next door. Bar foods in D.C. offer the vast array of culinary delights that befit this multicultural town. Bars located in Virginia may put out bowls of their famous salted and spiced peanuts that traditionally are quite flavorful, stimulating further the appetite and thirst of the customers. Other foods in Virginia include the usual burgers, fries, and chicken dishes. Bar food in the Chicago area may include hot dogs with their unique pickles and celery salt on them—perfect with the many locally brewed German-style ales, pilsners, and lagers. The Midwestern bars offer sausages made in an Eastern European and Russian style with good strong mustard. These sausages can be quite assertive alone with the lighter cuts of chopped meats flavored by the omnipresent caraway seed. Bars are sometimes able to serve platters of these sausages to hungry and appreciative drinkers, driving up profits and keeping alive the craft of artisan sausage making. As you move down to New Orleans, bar food may include the standards of Cajun cooking from alligator nibbles, deep fried and served with a sweet Creole honey mustard, to the more unusual offerings of hot boudin sausages with incendiary mustard to Vietnamese bahn mi sandwiches worthy of a trip to Saigon without a plane ticket.

Barter and the Informal Economy

Moving toward the southwest, bar food becomes indigenous to the types of food enjoyed in this region. Foods like chips with spicy salsa are found in many bars of the region as well as more sturdy offerings like bean dips and long-cooked stews easily scooped by freshly fried tortilla chips. Spicy chorizo sausages define an indigenous, Mexicaninfluenced approach to bar food with the addition of pizza, burger, and fried chicken offerings making for a spicy mélange of assertively seasoned flavors. The Southern California region’s bar foods run the gamut from pizza to chicken to Mexicaninfluenced foods of all types. Health foods are often available in bars in the form of wrap sandwiches or the classic Californian finger food, sushi, which is believed to go well with most drinks. Northern California with its fickle weather brings out longer cooked foods geared to a drinking crowd along with an emphasis on fresh and seasonal ingredients. Seafood is king in San Francisco along with more typical offerings of regional Italian foods and burgers, pizza, chicken and waffles, and 1950s’ tiki bar foods. Scotch eggs are also found in San Francisco. A hard-boiled egg is wrapped in ground pork, then breaded and deep fried for a crisp finish. The Pacific Northwest with all the bounty of the sea offers an international approach ranging from the foods of the indigenous peoples to more continental foods that include the world regionalisms. Italian-style and -influenced foods are especially popular as well as more modern interpretations of traditional Pacific Rim cooking techniques and flavors. Many of these recipes translate easily to bar food, with bar chefs cooking with inexpensive ingredients. These ingredients are cooked in passionate ways whenever possible. There is also the usual panoply of burgers, fries, onion rings, and chicken wings in many bars filling out a trend that extends to the entire nation of mostly freezer-toplate cooking. Warren M. Bobrow See also Alcohol; Beverage Industry

111

Further Readings Keyhoe, K. (2007). Great bar food at home. New York, NY: Wiley. Parry, C. (2003). The food service guide to bar and beverage operation. Ocala, FL: Atlantic.

BARTER AND ECONOMY

THE INFORMAL

Food systems entail various modes of circulation and provisioning beyond conventional market exchange, and understanding them requires attention to two separate, occasionally interrelated, but frequently confused phenomena: barter and the informal economy. Barter is a common but nontechnical term to describe certain kinds of material exchange that involve the direct trade of goods or services between parties without the use of money. It possesses characteristics that both connect and differentiate it from either reciprocity or market exchange, such as the fact that it entails direct engagement between free and equal parties, who arrange the transaction without the interference of an outside structure or authority. The particularities of barter as a form of exchange resonate with the so-called informal economy, another common but nontechnical term that refers to economic activity of any scale that happens outside the realm of state authorization and monitoring. Various forms of barter are historically involved in food systems, spanning production, circulation, and consumption: from casual, everyday exchanges, such as borrowing foodstuffs or trading labor between households, to the transborder movement of commodities between specialized zones of production. Like all things, food can exist in or pass through different states of formality and informality, as diverse as petty trade and the “black market.” These processes can thus be said to play a significant role in food economies and cultures, reflecting the complexity of food as simultaneously elementary and profoundly social, cultural, and political. This entry discusses the size and scope of

112

Barter and the Informal Economy

barter and informality today, problems with defining and theorizing barter and informality, and new forms of barter and informality in food cultures under conditions of globalization.

Scale and Scope While barter and the informal economy evoke personal, small-scale transactions, they occur at all economic levels, and currently account for a significant part of the global economy, prominently including all aspects of food production and trade. Both are notoriously difficult to measure, though their economic significance is captured by the following estimates: According to the International Monetary Fund, the informal economy may account from 10% of GDP (gross domestic product) in countries like the United States to more than 50% of GDP in the developing countries. Reporting on formal trade between its members, the International Reciprocal Trade Association, furthermore, estimates more than $12 billion in barter trade, among roughly 400,000 businesses and organizations for 2009–2010. Food features prominently at all levels of these processes. In the developing world, for example, barter and informality are common channels for daily food provisioning and may serve as strategies for small-scale economic development through food entrepreneurship. An example from a different context comes from the 2000 peso crisis in Argentina, during which grassroots “barter clubs” provisioned much of the population. More recently, the financial press reported that high food prices and credit problems due to the 2008 global financial crisis led to a number of intergovernmental barter negotiations and agreements among nations, including Russia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, for basic food commodities like rice and vegetable oil.

Barter: Definitional and Theoretical Issues The term barter applies to a highly differentiated class of economic transactions that involve exchange in kind. Such exchanges are probably ubiquitous among human societies. Yet barter is

elusive and often misunderstood. Its characteristics and forms are extremely variable and derive from the particular social and cultural contexts of exchange. Social identities, such as race, class, and gender, also matter. Certain things, for example, may be the exclusive domain of men or women. Alternately, some contexts feminize barter, as is common in urban settings in the United States and Europe, while in other contexts, this gendering may be reversed. Additionally, barter typically exists alongside other modes of exchange, specifically commodity and gift exchange, and occupies an ambiguous position between them. A potential cluster of features that distinguish barter from these other modes may include the following: 1. The focus of the transaction is on the demand for specific things, goods, or services, which are qualitatively different. 2. The transacting parties are free and equal and negotiate with each other to reach agreement or to dissolve the transaction. 3. The criteria for the negotiation depend on the transacting parties: Value is determined by the desire for other’s things and not by reference to an outside system of value or price. 4. Trade may occur on the spot or may be deferred in time, which introduces issues of credit.

It should be noted that these characteristics are neither necessary nor sufficient in capturing the complexity and diversity of barter situations and arrangements. However, they illuminate its hybrid status between commodity and gift exchange. First, unlike gift exchange, the emphasis and motivation are on the objects of trade, which relegate barter to commerce and commodity exchange. Nevertheless, the exchange occurs directly between interested parties without outside institutionalization, which indicates a degree of “fairness,” as both parties reach a satisfactory conclusion, though satisfaction may be derived from, and measured by, different cultural systems of value and meaning. Last, social relations are still paramount, as successful barter entails the building of trust.

Barter and the Informal Economy

113

Barter’s ambiguity relates in part to its prominent, if contradictory, role in the narrative of the development of market exchange and capitalism. According to this widely propagated origin myth, barter is at the root of human economic nature, an original, and hence primitive and inferior form of exchange from whose dissatisfactions, limitations, and problems sprung money and markets. On the other hand, barter is also frequently represented as the rarefied essence of free-market, commodityoriented, capitalist profit seeking, with processes such as haggling seen to represent asocial market rationality. Current perspectives contradict this narrative. Anthropological research shows that barter rarely occurs between strangers, but it is frequently embedded in long-term trading partnerships that follow established cultural rules. Barter can be a significant component of regional trade systems. In Peru, for example, pastoral communities in the highlands trade meat and other animal products for agricultural staples like corn, wheat, and beans, and similar situations exist in regions where different productive niches exist for ecological or social reasons. In other contexts, however, barter is culturally scripted as noncommerce. In the United States, for example, barter is seen as an alternative and more social form to market exchange and follows different rules of negotiation and equity.

the processes involved are neither new nor unique to some sort of clearly delineated “informal sector.”

Informal Economy: Definitional and Theoretical Issues

Barter, Informality, and Food: Contemporary Manifestations

The notion of the informal economy came into prominence since the 1970s to account for economic activities that occur outside the formal, state-sanctioned framework of public and private sectors. It is currently a gloss for a range of highly diverse economic phenomena, from casual labor, petty production, and street peddling to national and international “gray” and “black” markets in both licit and illicit commodities. Despite the intuitive appeal of the term, what counts as “informal” is not clear-cut. Economic informality cannot be conceptualized outside the context of the modern and increasingly global economic system, though

The current phase of globalization expands the relevance of barter and the informal economy in additional ways. First, globalization processes such as urbanism and market liberalization, along with innovations like containerized shipping, are expanding global trade networks and, along with them, opportunities for informal activity. This includes the global illicit and “gray” trade in both staple and exotic foods. One prominent example involves the illegal trade in fish. Fish are the most widely traded animal commodity on the planet, but fisheries are also increasingly depleted by overfishing and unsustainable fishing practices. Consequently, there is a

1. “Informality” may variously refer to small-scale or casual economic activity, lack of state monitoring, legal irregularity (“grayness”), or various stages illegality. It exists globally. 2. Frequently, things flow through stages or moments of formality and informality, rather than belonging exclusively to formal or informal spheres. For example, “formal” enterprises may utilize “informal” labor, and their commodities may be shipped in improperly declared containers, before reaching formal retail markets. 3. The biggest piece of the informal economy globally does not refer to illicit commodities, such as narcotics and weapons, but ordinary consumer items, among which figure agricultural and other food commodities. Actors can be individuals, organizations, institutions, or corporations. 4. Labor issues form a different dimension of informality and include the circuit of migrant labor—documented and undocumented— increasingly involved in modern agriculture and other aspects of contemporary food production.

114

Barter and the Informal Economy

booming fish trade that exhibits multiple irregularities or outright illegalities, from rule violation to so-called pirate fishing. One area particularly hardhit is West Africa, whose fisheries are exploited by large fishing vessels that belong to countries such as China and South Korea and countries in Europe, but may fly flags from other nations, making monitoring particularly difficult. These fish, furthermore, largely end up supplying the booming markets of Europe. According to estimates by the European Commission, a considerable percentage of fish appearing in European markets are improperly or illegally fished and traded. On the other end of the spectrum, barter and informality are increasingly hailed as key strategies in food activism, sustainable development by academics, nongovernmental organizations, and alternative food and agriculture movements. Nonmonetary and alternative exchange prominently appear in the discourse and practices of the alterglobalization movement, which supports global interconnectedness but critiques and seeks to redress the negative consequences of conventional neoliberal economic globalization, such as economic inequality, social justice, and the protection of cultural and ecological diversity. Barter and informality appear as forms of resistance and, perhaps, as viable alternatives to globalization’s discontents because they are seen to privilege individual agency and evoke cooperation and fairness, while eschewing some of the structures and problems of the conventional economy. The ethnographic literature has long reflected the point that economic informality and systems like barter are not vestigial forms and should not be considered anomalous. Rather, they are viable adaptations to insufficient and dysfunctional formal economic structures and can even be vitally important for maintaining the “formal” domains. For example, ethnographic accounts of womenrun public kitchens and other street food enterprises in developing countries offer a view in which barter and informal economic activity intersect to create economic opportunities for women. Faced with the challenge of sustaining themselves and their families, women extend domestic sphere skills like cooking into an economic activity in the

public sphere, while shaping local foodscapes. Support networks of family and friends, which can provide both productive and reproductive labor, knowledge, and resources in a reciprocal, cooperative, or barter basis, are a common theme in the stories of such ventures. Women struggling to survive thus use food work to bridge economic, familial, and community activity while contributing to maintaining the economic context that created their situations. A somewhat different perspective on these themes appears in alternative economic activism, which promotes small-scale, parallel economic activities that are based on principles of cooperation and informality. For example, the role of reciprocal support based on personal relationships among sustainable farmers, and between farmers and their clients in the success of small-scale sustainable agriculture in the United States, is increasingly well documented. Similar principles are mobilized in other alternative movements, such as time banks and LETS (local exchange trading systems), forms of complementary currency economies that allow participants to trade directly between them for goods and services, without the use of standard money. While notions of entrepreneurship may be present in different complementary currency systems, much of the success of complementary currency formations involves the circulation of food, food work, or food knowledge between participants. Barter and informality, in this context, serve as central metaphors for trade based on solidarity and fairness, which promotes small-scale sustainability. Faidra Papavasiliou See also Community Gardens; Farmers’ Markets; Overfishing and Fisheries Depletion; Underground Economies

Further Readings Humphrey, C., & Hugh-Jones, S. (1992). Barter, exchange and value: Anthropological approaches. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lietaer, B., & Dunne, J. (2013). Rethinking money: How new currencies turn scarcity into prosperity. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Bees and Colony Collapse Disorder Nordstrom, C. (2007). Global outlaws: Crime, money and power in the contemporary world. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Websites International Monetary Fund: http://www.imf.org International Reciprocal Trade Association: http://www .irta.com/ New Economy Coalition (formerly New Economics Institute): http://neweconomy.net/

BEES AND COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER When one thinks of bees, one immediately thinks of honey, a food that has been used by humans since prehistoric times and that still plays a role, albeit minor, on our tables. Although there are hundreds of species of bees around the world, the one with commercial importance is the domesticated honey bee Apis mellifera of Eurasian and African origin. Honey aside, of far greater importance is the role of bees as pollinators, as a significant proportion of the plants we consume would simply not exist without bees to spread their pollen and fertilize them. Think of a world without almonds, peaches, or apples and a wide range of vegetables. Since 2007, the importance of honey bees has come under great scrutiny, as hives are suffering what is known as colony collapse disorder. An enormous proportion of domesticated beehives have simply died off as viable communities, and this directly threatens our food supply. Nearly a third of hives have died in the United States in the past decade. This entry covers the importance of bees as pollinators and possible reasons for the current collapse disorder.

115

example, in Bernard Mandeville’s 18th-century book The Fable of the Bees, and as an inspiration for the Church of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), whose organizational structure replicates that of bees, and the symbol of the beehive was meant to be a “representation of the industry, harmony, order and frugality of the people, and of the sweet results of their toil, union and intelligent cooperation” (Oman & Oman, 1980). Although how exactly beehives work has only been understood in modern times, their efficiency and order remain nothing less than a marvel. Each hive contains a single queen bee, who lays all the eggs. There are also infertile female worker bees with various functions such as feeding the larval bees in their individual cells, cleaning the hive, and foraging for honey and pollen. They also defend the hive with their stingers. Drones are the male bees; they do nothing but mate and die afterward. Honey is produced by bees that have collected nectar from flowers, and the nectar is then partially digested into simple sugars and then deposited into open cells in the wax comb, where it dries as the bees beat their wings, creating an astoundingly loud buzzing sound. The cells are finally sealed with wax as food for the hive. Notably, bees usually communicate a source of flowers to other bees with a complex “dance,” and thus, in any given period, the honey will be made from a single flower type with its own distinctive flavor. Clover honey is the most common and relatively mild, but honey can range in color and depth of flavor depending on the source of the pollen. There are the very distinctive honey types such as orange blossom and eucalyptus, the famous thyme-scented honey from Mount Hymettus among the ancient Greeks, and dark buckwheat honey. Most honey is pasteurized, though raw honey is said to promote health. Parents are discouraged from feeding honey to infants less than 1 year old, since it may carry the Clostridium bacteria that cause botulism.

The Hive and Honey Production Honey bees live in hives that are socially and organizationally remarkably complex, so much so that they have been used as a metaphor for well-ordered human societies or as political statements—for

Bee Keeping There are prehistoric images of humans collecting honey dating back 15,000 years. The domestication of honey bees occurred roughly at the same

116

Bees and Colony Collapse Disorder

time as grain crops and cattle, and the ancient Egyptians provide abundant evidence for maintaining apiaries to produce honey as a commercial activity. The tomb of Tutankhamun contained sealed jars of honey. Archaeological excavations in Israel reveal that this was indeed the land of milk and honey as hundreds of hives dating back to 900 BCE prove. The ancient Greeks and Romans were also avid beekeepers. Book IV of the Georgics by the Roman poet Virgil is all about beekeeping. Apiculture was also prevalent through medieval Europe; monks often kept bees for both honey and beeswax to use for devotional candles. Honey is also easily fermented with the addition of water and flavorings, creating mead, which was an important beverage before the prevalence of beer. Artificial hives were made from hollowed logs, clay pots, and woven straw skeps (domed baskets) in the familiar cylindrical hive shape, but only since the 18th century have they been kept in frames inside a wooden box, each of which can be removed when doused with smoke and the honey harvested without destroying the hive. This is only one function of the hive, though. Today, beekeepers are typically hired to bring the hives to a field to pollinate crops. Beekeepers may even travel hundreds of miles to provide this service. A familiar sight is a collection of white beehive boxes in an almond orchard, trucked in while the trees are in bloom. There has also been a resurgence of amateur beekeeping in recent times, both in the countryside and in cities, where bees will forage expeditiously, sometimes from sources that may dye the honey, as happened in Brooklyn in 2010 when the bees collected corn syrup from a maraschino cherry factory.

nitenpyram, nithazine, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam, all of which have been developed in recent decades. Varroa (vampire mites) and acarapis mites have also been suspected, but other pathogens and general loss of habitat may also play a role. Many researchers suspect that a combination of factors, including malnutrition, bacterial infection, and stress from moving hives, contribute to hive loss. The collapse usually involves the absence of mature bees and eventually the death of the entire hive. Losses may range in any given year from 30% to 50%, and every year, there are fewer and fewer active hives. Lawsuits have recently been filed with the Environmental Protection Agency, and legislation has been proposed in Congress, most notably the Save America’s Pollinators Act of 2013. These would ban the neonicotinoids. The most heavily affected sector of the industry is almonds in California, though many other crops depend on bees as pollinators, including peaches, apples, cherries, pears, berries, and cucurbits such as cucumbers and melons. Many vegetables such as asparagus, carrots, broccoli, and celery are also bee pollinated. About a third of crops in the United States are pollinated by bees. There has been wide media attention to colony collapse disorder and a number of documentaries, such as Silence of the Bees produced by Nature on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), have raised cause for alarm. If die off continues at current rates, the threat to the U.S. food supply and the revenues it generates may be incalculable. Ken Albala See also Botulism; Pesticides; Sustainable Agrifood Systems, Effect on Environment

Collapse Disorder and Possible Causes Although sudden dying off of worker bees is not solely a modern phenomenon, since 2006, there has been a dramatic loss of hives in North America and Europe, which is still not fully understood. It is widely suspected that this may be because of the use of a series of insecticides, especially the neonicotinoids—imidacloprid being the most important, as well as acetamiprid, clothianidin,

Further Readings Flynn, K. (2013). Colony collapse disorder. San Antonio, TX: Wings Press. Jacobsen, R. (2013). Fruitless fall: The collapse of the honey bee and the coming agricultural crisis. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Oman, R., & Oman, S. (1980). Mormon iconography. In H. Cannon (Ed.), Utah folk art: A catalog of material

Beverage Industry culture. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press. Retrieved from http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/ Beehive_Symbol U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. (2014). Honey bees and colony collapse disorder. Retrieved from http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/ docs.htm?docid=15572

Website BeesFree: http://www.beesfree.biz/The%20Buzz/ Disappearing-Honey-Bees-Infographic

BEVERAGE INDUSTRY The soft drink beverage industry produces a range of nonalcoholic beverages and is a large segment of the economy, creating jobs and generating billions in economic activity. Carbonated soft drinks make up the largest segment of the industry, despite recent declining sales. Increasing consumer concern over health issues has led the industry to diversify its product ranges, and soft drinks in the energy drink, ready-to-drink tea, and bottled water segments are expanding. Many soft drinks contain high levels of sugar, and these drinks have come under scrutiny as contributors to health risks in adults and children. Global consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks has increased in recent decades. Sugarsweetened beverages (SSBs) are drinks such as sodas, sports drinks, sweetened teas, and fruit drinks that contain added caloric sweeteners including sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, and others. Increasing consumption of SSBs has been linked to increasing obesity rates and to risks for type 2 diabetes and other health issues. Growing concerns about the link of SSBs to obesity has resulted in public health interventions. These interventions include taxes on SSBs, and this is a subject of public policy debate in the United States. Beverage industry marketing to children and adolescents is an additional subject of debate. This entry provides an overview of the soft drink beverage industry and the health implications of

117

increasing consumption of SSBs. It also covers the growing policy debate on taxation of SSBs, as well as practices used in marketing to children, and changes in nutrition standards for foods sold in schools.

Industry Background Soft drink companies manufacture, market, and sell beverage bases (concentrates and syrups) and finished soft drinks independently or in conjunction with third-party partners. The world’s largest beverage company is Coca-Cola with products sold in more than 200 countries. Coca-Cola owns or licenses and markets more than 500 nonalcoholic brands, 16 of which are in the billion-dollar category. In 2012, Coca-Cola reported a per capita consumption of its products in the United States of 401 eight-ounce servings, or 25 gallons. Almost 6 gallons per person of the company’s products were consumed worldwide in 2012. Coca-Cola’s corporate vision is to double its system revenues by 2020. The soft drink industry produces beverages that fall into six main product segments: 1. Carbonated soft drinks 2. Fruit beverages—includes 100% juice, juice drinks (contain less than 100% juice), and fruit flavored drinks (contain no juice) 3. Bottled waters—includes spring and filtered waters, flavored waters, and waters with added vitamins and minerals 4. Functional drinks—includes energy drinks, relaxation drinks, and ready-to-drink teas and coffees 5. Sports drinks 6. Other—includes dairy-based and soy-based drinks

Trade groups, such as the American Beverage Association, support the soft drink industry. These groups facilitate collaboration among their members and represent their interests in legislative, regulatory, and public relations matters. Trade associations also use a variety of media to publish

118

Beverage Industry

industry news, editorials, and other contents relevant to its members. Trade associations are involved in lobbying, advertising, and campaigning to promote industry interests. Trade associations also provide funding for research.

Health Concerns The increase in consumption of SSBs in recent decades has been linked to risks for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Experts state that Americans consume approximately 250 to 300 more calories per day now than they did several decades ago and that nearly half are from SSBs. High levels of sugar from soft drinks in the diets of children are of particular concern as studies demonstrate that obese children are more likely to be obese adults and are more vulnerable to serious health complications. A 2011 study on beverage patterns and trends among school-age children published in Nutrition Journal showed that the total number of calories from SSBs in the diets of children in the United States increased from 130 calories per day in 1989 to 212 calories per day in 2008. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that on a typical day, 80% of youth consume sugary drinks in the United States. The prevalence of obesity has increased in parallel with increased SSB consumption. The CDC reports that more than one third of adults in the United States are now obese. In addition, 17% of children and adolescents are obese, almost triple the rate since 1980. The World Health Organization reports that worldwide obesity has nearly doubled since 1980. Public health advocates point to studies that provide evidence that increasing consumption of SSBs is linked to increasing obesity rates. SSBs are thought to promote weight gain in part because calories in liquid form do not produce the same level of satiety as calories in solid form and are not fully balanced by a reduction in caloric intake from other sources. Increasing rates of regular and frequent consumption of SSBs is also significant in differentiating them from other sweet products.

Obesity increases the risk for developing a number of adverse chronic health conditions, including hypertension, stroke, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, and premature death. Researchers also suggest that increases in consumption of the high levels of readily absorbable sugars contained in SSBs may be associated with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in part because they contribute to a high dietary glycemic load that is associated with factors such as insulin resistance and inflammation. SSB consumption is associated with other chronic health issues, including increased blood pressure, reduced bone mineral density, and dental caries. Additionally, experts point out that consumption of SSBs displaces more nutritious beverages, potentially leading to inadequate intake of certain nutrients. The soft drink beverage industry disagrees that SSBs are the cause of obesity. The American Beverage Association states that obesity is not caused by any single food or beverage but by an imbalance between calories consumed and those used in physical activity. The group states that caloric intake from SSBs has declined in the past decade, while obesity rates continue to rise. They point to scientific research suggesting that there is little association between increased consumption of SSBs and increasing weight or that there is no clear relationship.

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Implementation of taxes on SSBs has been proposed as one of a number of public health measures in response to increasing obesity rates. Public health policy experts suggest that taxation would reduce intake of sugary beverages while garnering revenues for programs such as nutrition education and obesity prevention. They also suggest that revenues gained could help offset obesity-related health care costs currently paid out of public funds. Small taxes on SSBs already exist in many states. However, experts note that these taxes, which average 5.2%, are too low to influence consumption and do not generate revenue for health programs. Larger excise taxes are being proposed

Beverage Industry

in many states. Proponents believe that these taxes will be effective in part because, unlike sales taxes that are added on at the register, excise taxes are seen by consumers as selections are made, providing incentive to buy less. Public health researchers state that substantial price increases result in reduced consumption of sugary beverages. Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity reports that a SSB price increase of 10% is estimated to result in an 8% to 12.6% decrease in consumption. Experts also point to the high level of effectiveness of taxes on tobacco products in reducing consumption. Opponents dislike tax measures for a variety of reasons. Many disagree that health benefits would be derived by price increases and suggest that the taxes are designed to raise revenue to fill budget deficits, not to reduce consumption. Others express equity concerns stating that such taxes are regressive, falling on low-income groups. They argue that unlike taxes on tobacco products that only affect smokers, soda taxes are indiscriminate, as even those who consume small amounts and who are without health issues would be subject to the tax. In addition, it has been pointed out that the tax unfairly discriminates, as it does not target high-calorie beverages such as sugary coffee drinks served in coffee shops. Some fear that offsetting health care costs with a SSB tax sets a dangerous precedent, and similar taxes on other items would soon follow. The beverage industry has responded to tax initiatives with an emphasis on personal responsibility. It has also leveraged resources toward lobbying and advertising efforts in opposition to tax initiatives. In a 2012 news release, the American Beverage Association issued a statement outlining its position, which states that taxing SSBs will neither reduce obesity nor have a significant impact on obesity-related health conditions. The statement cites a review by George Mason University as finding that even a 20% tax on soda would only reduce an obese person’s body mass index from 40 to 39.98. Emphasizing personal choice, companies point out that they are offering an increased selection of low- and no-calorie and smaller portioned

119

beverages so that consumers have a broader range of options. They also point to their support of First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” campaign with the Clear on Calories initiative, which is a voluntary commitment to put clear, consumerfriendly calorie information on packaging so that consumers can make informed choices. The industry has launched strong opposition to beverage taxes through lobbying and advertising campaigns. The coalition Americans Against Food Taxes was established by the industry in opposition to initiatives. The coalition’s goals are to educate Americans and prevent the enactment of what they view as regressive and discriminatory taxes. The group has launched successful lobbying efforts and antitax campaigns. In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that the American Beverage Association increased spending on lobbying to $18.9 million in 2009, up from about $668,000 in 2008. Most of the money was spent on advertising campaigns against a federal soft drink tax. The article points out that the figures do not include money spent by local coalitions and lobbyists to battle state and local taxes.

Marketing to Children The public health advocates have been concerned about the manner in which beverages are marketed to children in and out of school settings for a number of years. Some of the ways in which beverages are marketed in schools are through exclusive contracts and event and incentive program sponsorships. Visible logos on items placed in schools and on vending machines is another form of advertising. Outside the school setting, social media are becoming a powerful marketing tool, along with traditional media outlets. Celebrities, sports figures, and cartoon characters that appeal widely to children and youth are often employed in marketing strategies. Growing pressure from public health professionals and policymakers to limit or eliminate advertising directed toward children less than 12 years of age in and out of school settings has resulted in changes in marketing practices and to industry self-regulation initiatives.

120

Beverage Industry

In 2005, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report on its comprehensive review of scientific evidence on the influence of food and beverage marketing on diets and health of children and adolescents at the request of the U.S. Congress and sponsored by the CDC. The report Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? pointed out that children and adolescents are a primary focus of food and beverage marketing initiatives. The IOM went on to point out vulnerabilities in this population stating that most children less than 8 years of age do not comprehend the persuasive intent of marketing messages, and those less than 4 years of age often cannot discriminate between television programming and advertising. The IOM concluded that food and beverage company marketing practices geared to these populations are out of balance with healthful diets and contribute to an environment that puts their health at risk. The report recommended that industry work with government, scientific, public health, and consumer groups to enforce the highest standards for marketing to children and youth. In 2008, the Federal Trade Commission issued the results of its study, Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation. The review found that the 44 food and beverage reporting companies spent more than $1.6 billion in 2006 to promote food and beverages to children and adolescents, with the largest amount spent in the carbonated beverage category. In 2006, the Council of Better Business Bureaus launched the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) to provide companies that advertise to children with a transparent and accountable self-regulation mechanism. The initiative is designed to shift the mix of advertising messaging directed to children less than 12 years of age toward healthier dietary choices and lifestyles based on established scientific and government standards. The CFBAI covers a variety of childdirected media, including television programs, websites, and G-rated movies, and requires a commitment not to advertise to children in elementary schools. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are among the companies that have committed to the initiative.

Concerns have been noted regarding aspects of the CFBAI. Exceptions to the limitation on advertising in elementary schools are viewed as substantially weakening this portion of the initiative. A 2013 Yale University Rudd Center study on food and beverage advertising on children’s websites noted limitations to CFBAI companies’ pledges and suggested stronger nutrition standards. In addition, Yale’s Rudd Center points out that many websites frequented by children do not meet CFBAI definitions of child-directed media. In 2009, the U.S. Congress commissioned the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children to develop enhanced industry selfregulatory guidelines for responsible marketing to children. This group is composed of members from the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Nutrition Standards for Schools Improving nutrition standards in schools is also a priority. In 2007, the IOM issued a report on improving nutrition standards for foods sold in schools. This report, Nutrition Standards for Healthy Schools: Leading the Way Toward Healthier Youth, includes upper limits for added sugars and limitations on soft drink type and availability. Self-regulatory initiatives have been established in response to calls for more rigorous nutrition standards in schools. The beverage industry cites its success in replacing full-calorie sodas with lower calorie, smaller portion choices as part of their implementation of the 2006 School Beverage Guidelines. The School Beverage Guidelines were developed by the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a joint initiative of the American Heart Association and the William J. Clinton Foundation working with the American Beverage Association, and leading beverage manufacturers. Under the guidelines, serving sizes were reduced, full-calorie sodas were eliminated, and the mix of choices offered in schools changed to include only water, 100% juice, and milk in elementary and middle

Bible-Based Diets

schools, while high school students have the additional option of other soft drinks with up to 66 calories per eight ounces. A study published in 2012 in the American Journal of Public Health reported that industry self-regulation has resulted in a 90% decrease in calories shipped to schools between 2004 and the 2009–2010 school year. The need for continued monitoring of the effectiveness of self-regulation programs has been emphasized.

121

or opportunity? Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Nestle, M. (2013). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wescott, R. F., Fitzpatrick, B. M., & Phillips, E. (2012). Industry self-regulation to improve student health: Quantifying changes in beverage shipments to schools. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1928–1935. World Health Organization. (n.d.). Obesity. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/topics/obesity/en/

Valerie Ryan See also Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children; Childhood Obesity; Diabetes; High-Fructose Corn Syrup; Obesity Epidemic; School Food; Taxation, Fat Tax

Further Readings American Beverage Association. (2012, May 15). Beverage industry responds to British Medical Journal paper on sugar-sweetened beverage taxes. News Releases & Statements. Retrieved from http://www .ameribev.org/news-media/news-releases-statements/ more/278/ Bauerlein, V., & McKay, B. (2010, May 23). Soda tax uncaps a fight. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704 904604575262530291194198 Brownell, K. D., Farley, T., Willett, W. C., Popkin, B. M., Chaloupka, F. J., Thompson, J. W., & Ludwig, D. S. (2009). The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(16), 1599–1605. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Overweight and obesity. Retrieved from http://www .cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html Friedman, R. R., & Brownell, K. D. (2012, October). Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: An updated policy brief. Rudd Report. Retrieved from http://www .yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/ reports/Rudd_Policy_Brief_Sugar_Sweetened_ Beverage_Taxes.pdf Lasater, G., Piernas, C., & Popkin, B. M. (2011). Beverage patterns and trends among school-aged children in the US, 1989-2008. Nutrition Journal, 10, 103. McGinnis, J. M., Gootman, J. A., & Kraak, V. I. (Eds.). (2006). Food marketing to children and youth: Threat

Website American Beverage Association: http://www.ameribev.org

BIBLE-BASED DIETS Bible diets are a subgenre of the billion-dollar diet industry that combines biblical scripture, asceticism, and the eating habits of biblical role models to advocate for healthy bodies. Ranging from vegetarian (or fruitarian) diets of Adam and Eve to the whole foods diet of Jesus Christ, the industry provides a structure for a variety of food interests. Most of the industries’ authors and subsequently its adherents are white, female, evangelical Christians. Recently, African American authors have written a few books supporting a biblical approach to eating as well. By using food as evidence of self-control, faith-based diets create a juncture between body and spirit. This entry examines the Bible-based diet and health culture.

Biblical Precedence The Old Testament and the New Testament consider slovenly dispositions and a fondness for gluttony as sinful character traits. Proverbs 23:2, 23:19, and Philippians 3:19 advise against the dangers of overindulgence. John the Baptist ate only locust and honey, while Jesus Christ and the Disciples ate simple foods like bread and fish. The Epistles of Paul also contain scriptures that support abstinence from worldly desires and material gains as a symbol of Christian adherence. This

122

Bible-Based Diets

model extended itself into the lives of the early church Desert Fathers, medieval mystics, and the pious Puritans. Each believed in the self-control of physical needs as indicative of one’s dedication to the call of faith.

Obesity and Religious Adherence According to a 2012 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one out of every three Americans is obese. Another 30% of Americans are overweight. This rate of obesity is at its highest in the Bible Belt states, where in cities like Shreveport, Alabama; Greenville, South Carolina; and Little Rock, Arkansas, more than 90% of the population identifies themselves as Christian. Neither the leadership nor laity of evangelical, Christian congregations have escaped the growing problem of obesity in the United States. Numerous factors may contribute to this trend: the emergence of the suburban car culture; the migration, by children and adults, from outdoor recreation to indoor placation; and the growing fast food nation lifestyle, to name a few. In addition, mainline and evangelical churches have a history of centering the fellowship, of the community of believers, on potluck meals, spaghetti socials, and postservice, all-you-can-eat buffets. Denomination, race, gender, and social and economic factors also determine whether those who define themselves as religious Christians will be obese. There is also a question of whether overeating is addressed as the sin of gluttony. In recent years, the evangelical church has not equated obesity with the gluttony or its companion—debauchery. The emphasis has predominantly centered on gender and sexually based sins. For example, since 1978, the conservative church has focused its political and social energies on abstinence before marriage, abortion, gay marriage, and other issues they recognize as relevant to religious morality. Gluttony appears to have become the “acceptable sin.”

History As early as the 1950s, a biblically inspired diet and health culture emerged paralleling that of the

secular calisthenics trend started by fitness gurus like Jack LaLanne. The genre equated obesity with sinful gluttony and thinness with self-control, proposing that weight loss was external evidence of the changed internal spirit of the Christian. The publication Pray Your Weight Away by Charlie Shedd formally introduced post–World War II Christians to spiritual weight loss. Its publication validated the rising secular trend of the physical body beautiful for conservative Christians, by intertwining it with the religious structures. The body as the temple of God was then consequently assigned an almost sacred reverence. Corpulence, ill health, and an undesirable appearance are defined as negative attributes because in Christ the physically profane required the practical sacrality found in controlling one’s weight. Shedd viewed his reliance on God as the only means for consistent and permanent weight loss and thinness as an avenue to social acceptability. After his first initial victory against fat, Shedd repeatedly fought with weight issues, but even in an interview produced in his mid-1980s, he continued to propose that sustained thinness required a personal relationship with God. Thinness, like righteousness, is viewed as a lifelong journey in which finishing the race was more important than the journey to the finish line. Following the success of Pray Your Weight Away, in 1960, Deborah Pierce’s I Prayed My Weight Away became the next best seller of the genre. Pierce, like Shedd, had experienced a lifelong battle with weight. The book is a prime example of the formula used by the numerous Christian dieting books. Part self-help, part biblical devotional, the book provides commonsense advice and devotional prayers to succeed in accomplishing the book’s core focus: the need for the dieter to submit to God’s will. Pierce shared a key component with Shedd in the design of her book—fat equated sin and weight loss was repentance. Corpulence was merely an external expression of an inner disease, a flawed sinful character trait. The love of food overshadowed the desire to serve God, directly breaking the first of the Ten Commandments, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3 NIV). Weight loss was

Bible-Based Diets

proof of a love of “God with all their heart, soul and strength” (Deuteronomy 6:5). These and other early titles were written by members of mainline Christian denominations. The audience was predominantly white and middle class. The books expounded much of the same rhetoric; Christian perfection was not only a godly family and a subservient heart but also a healthy body. The 1970s saw an influx of diet books including Charlie Shedd’s The Fat Is in Your Head (1972), C. S. Lovett’s “Help Lord—The Devil Wants Me Fat,” Frances Hunter’s God’s Answer to Fat: Lose It!, and Marie Chapian and Neva Coyle’s Free to Be Thin (1979). This period also began the dominance of evangelical writers into the genre. The rise in publications was accompanied by the emergence of the faith-based diet support group. The first began in 1972, when Carol Showalter, the wife of a Presbyterian minister, began meeting with women in her congregation to discuss the stresses of motherhood, discipleship, and marriage. From her observations, Showalter created the 3-D (diet, discipline, discipleship) diet plan. Showalter’s program requires participants to examine their whole life. Being overweight is not a disease or rather a sin in itself, it was a symptom of a lifestyle issue—a need to reorder the priorities of life. To change the whole person required eating right (diet), living well (discipline), and loving God (discipleship). Still a leader in the industry, Showalter’s diet program creates corporal spiritual settings for diet success. The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s saw a continued demand and desire for biblically inspired diet books and programs. Some of the more popular publications that are still in print include The Exodus Plan by Shirley Cook and What Would Jesus Eat? The Ultimate Program for Eating Well, Feeling Great, and Living Longer by Don Colbert, M.D. A board certified medical doctor, Colbert in his book introduced legitimacy to the genre. Previously, diets were written and promoted by men and women without professional credentials. Authority to provide advice on dieting was predicated on personal experience. The two denominations that have contributed very few publications to the Bible diet market are

123

the Church of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Both have foundational sumptuary restrictions on food consumption. Each prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages, with the LDS also prohibiting caffeinated drinks. The LDS also restricts excessive consumption of meats, cheeses, and oils in the summer months and requires a monthly fast day, to donate to the poor. In addition, the Seventh-day Adventist strongly encourages a vegetarian lifestyle. Of the few available titles marketed to the LDS community, Deliver Me From Bondage: Using the Book of Mormon and the Principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as They Correlate With the Twelve-Step Program to Overcome Compulsive/Addictive Behavior by Colleen C. Harrison, Joseph Smith and Natural Foods: A Treatise on Mormon Diet by John Heinerman, and The Seventh Day Diet: A Practical Plan to Apply the Seventh Day Adventist Lifestyle to Live Longer, Healthier and Slimmer in the 21st Century by Chris Rucker are recent ones.

Current Trends There are essentially two models produced by the industry: the diet that provides a program to lose weight using foods supported by biblical evidence and the self-help program containing holistic advice on lifestyle changes. Their range is broad yet parallels the latest diets produced by the secular market. The Maker’s Diet, by Jordan Rubin, requires organic eating that is focused on fruits, grains, vegetables, and game meats. What Would Jesus Eat? by Don Colbert, M.D., reflects the Mediterranean diet of whole grains, fresh foods, and fish, with little or no salt, additives, and preservatives. Hallelujah Acres, a diet plan and community founded by George Malkmus, focuses on raw food and concentrated vegan drinks. The Daniel’s Diet, based on the biblical story of the prophet Daniel, is a 10 day detox and diet plan. Although variegated in their approach, the diets are structured similarly. Testimonies of physical brokenness are accompanied by a revelatory epiphany. These authors came to the realization that their health issues stem from a misdirected attitude toward their health. By refocusing their

124

Biodynamic Food

attentions outward, toward God, rather than relying on autonomous control, they could fulfill their physical and spiritual goals. With the introduction of the Internet, apps, and social networking, new audiences have discovered faith-based diet books, plans, programs, and support groups. A site search of Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com produces more than 470 programs, devotionals, diaries, recipe books, Bible studies, and even a Biblezine dedicated to the faithbased diets. A search on Google produces 600,000 hits for Bible-based diet programs alone. Many of them are repackaged diets made popular by the secular population. The trends of gluten-free, vegan, vegetarian, macrobiotic, and carb-free diets are supported by a gospel of social responsibility and science. Faith-based diets provide an added bonus of spiritual reward by circumnavigating the boundaries between the sacred and the profane. Nilaja E. Troy See also Mormon Food Practices

Further Readings Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Overweight and obesity: Adult obesity facts. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html Ferraro, K. F. (1998). Firm believers? Religion, body weight, and well-being. Review of Religious Research, 39(3), 224–244. Gerber, L. (2012). Fat Christians and fit elites: Negotiating class and status in Evangelical Christian weight-loss culture. American Quarterly, 64, 61–84. Griffith, R. M. (2004). Born again bodies: Flesh and spirit in American Christianity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Websites Daniel’s Diet: http://danielsdiet.com Faithfully Fit: http://faithfullyfit.com First Place 4 Health: http://firstplace.org Hallelujah Diet: http://www.myhdiet.com Light Weigh: http://lightweigh.com The Maker’s Diet Revolution: http://themakersdiet.info My Body, His Temple: http://mybodyhistemple.com Weigh Down Ministries: http://wdworkshop.com

BIODYNAMIC FOOD The concept of biodynamic food grew out of some lectures on nutrition given by the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) in 1924 and developed during the 20th century by others interested in the potential of his ideas. In common with his other “anthroposophist” theories that depend on innate human wisdom operating in conjunction with cosmic forces, Steiner took a holistic approach to the question of food. This means that the concept of biodynamic food not only encompasses practical, physical aspects like agricultural practices and dietary composition but also considers these in the context of the spiritual realm. As a result, biodynamic food can be seen not simply as a particular type of produce but as containing the potential for a complete way of living and eating in positive balance with oneself and the Earth. This entry looks at the biodynamic movement in the context of the wider philosophy of anthroposophy, which is at its root. It investigates the main principles and practices of biodynamic food production and their application to biodynamic eating and cooking. In particular, it reviews those aspects that directly influence choices made about which foods to eat, when to eat, and how they should be prepared.

Producing Biodynamic Food In biodynamic agriculture, the whole farm is thought of as a single self-contained organism. The soil, the crops, the animals, and the farmer work in harmony with lunar and planetary rhythms and with one another in a system designed to promote maximum natural vitality and health in all aspects of the farm and its produce. The focus is on promoting a virtuous circle of positive interdependencies supported by natural compost and fertilizing preparations. Initially designed to address concerns about diminishing fertility in farmland and its produce, and the perception of there being reduced health-giving properties in the foods produced on such land, biodynamic principles later formed the basis of organic farming. However, biodynamic requirements are more stringent and

Biodynamic Food

far-reaching than organic, moving beyond the purely practical to involve cosmic and spiritual dimensions. Producing biodynamic food includes the use of a specific planting and harvesting calendar attuned to lunar and planetary movements, devised by Maria Thun (1922–2012), and the application of homeopathic preparations to compost, plants, and soil that aim to heal the planet actively through agriculture. A similar approach is taken to biodynamic eating, where any food taken into the body can be seen as a kind of medicine that will work on the individual for good or ill. Cooking and eating biodynamically go further than simply buying biodynamic produce. It means developing an understanding of ingredients on an “energetic” level and learning to combine them in ways that enhance the food’s—and thus the eater’s—fundamental life forces. For the cook and the diner, this includes working with seasonality, understanding the value and impact of different foods on both the body and the mind, and preparing dishes to accentuate enjoyment.

Anthroposophy and Food Anthroposophy is a set of principles for understanding nature and the self developed by Rudolf Steiner. The word means human wisdom, and it encompasses the physical, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of human life. Anthroposophy recognizes that each individual has a different constitution with specific needs and requirements that may change at different stages of life. This thinking extends to the human diet, but although anthroposophy includes clear food-based principles, there are no specific rules, and the appropriate application of the principles depends on the individual. Each person is expected to make choices based on their knowledge and needs and take responsibility for choosing the right course of action. While individuals must choose which foods are most suitable for them, anthroposophic principles apply to the individual foodstuffs and their production as much as to the person consuming them. Thus, good growth and perfect ripeness in the food is as important as its nutritional value; quality is key, and this is one of the reasons that seasonal

125

biodynamic produce, locally sourced, processed to biodynamic standards, and fairly traded, is preferred. If this is not available, then organic produce is the next best choice. Sharing food with others in a calm environment and taking sufficient time to enjoy and appreciate it with all of the senses is a component part of eating in an anthroposophic manner.

Biodynamic Certification The term biodynamic is registered as a trademark that is held by an international association called Demeter, founded in 1928, and that defines minimum standards for biodynamic farming and food processing in more than 50 countries. In the United States, Demeter Association, Inc., founded in 1980, manages certification. Farmers and producers can apply to their local Demeter organization for either the Demeter Biodynamica Farm Standard or the Demeter Biodynamic Processing Standard, both renewed annually. The farm standard requires that the farm meets stringent criteria on care of the soil, preservation of the ecosystem, enhancement of biodiversity, integration of livestock with agriculture, and appropriate care of livestock in an organic and self-contained closed system. The processing standard requires products to contain verifiable biodynamic ingredients that have been manipulated as little as possible. The specifications include rules such as that products should include no more than three food groups, no noncertified or unnatural flavorings and no GMOs (genetically modified organisms), and must be packed in recyclable packaging.

Biodynamic Nutrition A biodynamic diet emphasizes grains, fresh fruits, and vegetables (or roots, leaves, shoots, and fruit) and aims to be low in unsaturated fats. The diet is not necessarily vegetarian, but where meat or fish is used, it tends to be a relatively small proportion of a whole meal, and the use of plants, especially proteins from grains, is generally emphasized. However, not all plants are equally valued. For example, the Solanaceae or nightshade family—which includes tomatoes, peppers,

126

Biodynamic Food

potatoes, chilies, and tobacco—are used, but they are treated with caution as potential poisons due to their high alkaloid content. The potato, for example, is not a “true” root and is said to be difficult to digest. It is therefore linked to a lack of concentration and superficiality, and although it can be “improved” with intensive preparation methods such as mashing or being made into dumplings, it should be eaten far less than is usual in Western diets. The idea that what we eat is incorporated into who we are is expressed in an extensive system of analogy between foodstuffs and the human body. Items like wine or tobacco are not necessarily avoided on moral grounds but rather due to their potential for harm, whether they are seen as actively poisonous like tobacco, or acid forming and thus with the potential to make the whole person sour or cynical, like wine or red meat. Other analogies between the human body and the produce we consume assume a direct correspondence between the different parts of the plant and the different parts of the body, mirroring the human head with the roots of a plant and so on. Thus, root vegetables are said to take up salts and minerals from the soil, which act on the head or the brain; watery leaves act on the lungs; seeds strengthen the heart; and flowers that have soaked in the warmth of the sun produce oils that help to lubricate the kidneys, stomach, and intestines.

Biodynamic Menu Plants are distinguished by whether they are roots (e.g., radishes, beets, or carrots), stems (e.g., celery, chard, or rhubarb), leaves (e.g., spinach, cabbage, or lettuce), fruits (e.g., apples, tomatoes, or melons), or seeds (e.g., sunflower, pumpkin, or nuts). Each type of plant is thought to have different nutritional and mineral qualities, and over the course of the day, all of them should be incorporated into the diet. The principles of the biodynamic planting calendar can also be applied when eating the produce—the qualities of Earth, water, air, and fire associated, respectively, with root, leaf, flower, and fruit are thought to be present in

the produce, and this is taken into account when considering the right balance of plants to eat. Plants are also thought to carry and transmit the energy of their season, so it is important to eat local seasonal produce in order to be fully attuned to and present in life. Wild plants are particularly valued in this context. Just as the processes and preparations used in biodynamic agriculture are associated with planetary rhythms and seasonal variation, so are the products when they are consumed. The days of the week are associated with the celestial bodies that are the root of their names, and each one is associated with a color and a grain (Table 1). Ideally, the relevant grain and color of plant should be incorporated into the day’s menu, adapted according to the season. Other foods complement the core of plantbased foods and grains. Milk is appreciated for its role in bone formation and development and is particularly recommended for children. It is considered to be digestible and a good source of protein, whereas meat is felt to be harder to digest and therefore unsuitable for very young children and is recommended only in small quantities throughout life for those who choose to eat it. Eggs, especially the yolks, are viewed as a powerful food that strengthen the body without stimulating the mind and should therefore be eaten in moderation. Sugar is thought to have the potential to cause internal fermentation and should therefore be taken in moderation, preferably in the natural form of ripe (but not overripe) fruit, and any juices should be diluted. The most important drinks are water and herbal teas, the latter used for their homeopathic properties such as fennel for digestion, lemon balm for relaxation, and peppermint for cooling.

Biodynamic Trends Certified biodynamic wines are gathering a reputation for quality and flavor, and increasing numbers of premium winemakers in Europe, America, and Australia are converting to biodynamic production. Biodynamic restaurants are also on the rise in the United States and in Europe, where the

Biodynamic Food

127

Table 1 Summary of Biodynamic Affinities and Related Menu Recommendations Day of the Week

Grain

Beneficial Effects

Color

Planet

Monday

Rice

Digestive system

Pink

Moon

Tuesday

Barley

Connective ligaments, stomach, and intestines

Red

Mars

Wednesday

Millet

General warming

Yellow

Mercury

Thursday

Rye

Bones and head

Peach/orange

Jupiter

Friday

Oats

Stamina, disease resistance, loosening stiffness

Green

Venus

Saturday

Corn

Metabolic stimulation and muscle strength

Blue

Saturn

Sunday

Wheat

Organ system

White

Sun

Sources: Compiled by the author from Holloway (n.d.), Cook (2006), Hauschka (1967/2008), and Steiner (2008).

principles underlying biodynamic agricultural methods are frequently tied into notions of terroir and authenticity, evoking for the consumer ideas of timeless knowledge and more “natural” production processes applied to their food. Although certification standards mean that biodynamic agriculture is likely to remain a niche method, with its produce available only to a minority of consumers, a strong association has been created in the public mind between biodynamic food, high quality, good nutrition, and excellent flavor. This means that biodynamic food, even if we do not follow a fully biodynamic approach to eating, is likely to remain important in the 21st century. Jane Levi See also Composting; Health Food Stores; Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified; Organic Foods and Health Implications; Organic Production; Organic/Biodynamic Farming

Further Readings Cook, W. E. (2003). Foodwise: Understanding what we eat and how it affects us. Forest Row, UK: Clairview Books.

Cook, W. E. (2006). The biodynamic food & cookbook: real nutrition that doesn’t cost the earth. Forest Row, UK: Clairview Books. Hauschka, R. (2008). Nutrition: A holistic approach. Forest Row, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press. (Original work published 1967) Holloway, S. (Ed.). (n.d.). Park Attwood recipes: A collection of recipes aimed towards a healthy and balanced diet, and catering to special dietary needs. Trimpley, UK: Park Attwood Clinic. Lievegoed, B. C. J. (1951). The working of the planets and the life processes in man and earth. Stourbridge, UK: Experimental Circle of Anthroposophical Farmers and Gardeners. Retrieved from http://www. soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/Lievegoed.150.20.pdf Steiner, R. (2008). Nutrition: Food, health and spiritual development. Forest Row, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press. Wibolt, A, F. (2008). Cooking for the love of the world: Awakening our spirituality through cooking. Benson, NC: Goldenstone Press.

Websites Anthroposophic Medicine, Nutrition: http://www .medsektion-goetheanum.org/en/home/ikam/ care-nutrition/?view=171 Biodynamic Association: https://www.biodynamics.com Demeter Association, Inc.: http://www.demeter-usa.org Demeter International: http://www.demeter.net

128

Biofuels

BIOFUELS Biofuels, fuels derived from biomass, include principally bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass is any organic matter derived from plants available on a renewable basis. Unlike petroleum-based fuels, biofuels are considered to be carbon neutral because the plants that are used to make biofuels absorb carbon dioxide as they grow and thus offset the carbon dioxide produced when they are processed and used, mainly in transportation. This entry discusses types of first- and secondgeneration biofuels. First-generation biofuels are produced primarily from food crops such as corn and sugarcane for ethanol and soy beans and palm oil trees for biodiesel. They account currently for most of the total global supply of biofuels. Their environmental and economic sustainability has been increasingly questioned over concerns that they may displace food crops, raise food prices, affect the environment, and contribute to climate change. Second-generation biofuels, which are under intense development, would avoid the food versus fuel debate by using biomass feed stocks such as herbaceous and woody energy crop residues, algae, nonedible flora grown on poor land, and municipal organic waste.

First-Generation Biofuels Ethanol and biodiesel were the fuels used in the first automobile and diesel engines, but lower cost gasoline and diesel fuel made from crude oil became the dominant vehicle fuels. The major impetus in their resurgence over the past 10 years is that they led to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

barley contain starch, in addition to sugar, that needs to be converted to sugar. Sucrose or table sugar is a disaccharide composed of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose. In sugarcane, sucrose constitutes about one third of the chemical energy in the harvested parts of the mature plant; another third is found in the fibrous material (bagasse) left over from pressing. After harvesting, the sugarcanes are shredded and fed to a mill to collect a juice that contains 10% to 15% sucrose and bagasse, the fiber residue. The cane juice is concentrated to syrup by evaporation. A mixture of clear crystals surrounded by molasses is obtained by precipitation of the syrup. Different grades of sugar are produced from the crystals. The molasses are fermented with yeast to produce a “wine” with an ethanol content of 7% to 10% by total volume (and carbon dioxide as a by-product). The fermented wine is distilled to produce hydrated ethanol. This hydrous ethanol is the fuel used by ethanol-only and flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs). Other processing techniques are used to produce anhydrous ethanol. Producing ethanol from sugarcane is simpler than converting grain into ethanol. Corn is currently the major feedstock used for producing ethanol fuel in the United States. More than 80% of bioethanol is produced by a dry grind process in the United States: corn grain is ground up for easier processing and then mixed with water to create mash. Enzymes are added to the mash to convert starch or cellulose into sugar. The processing steps are then similar to those used in the processing of molasses from sugarcane. Many large ethanol producers use a wet-milling process, which, in addition to ethanol, also yields by-products such as high-fructose corn syrup, a sweetener in many prepared foods. Uses of Bioethanol

Bioethanol

Ethanol can be made from any crop or plant that contains a large amount of sugar or components that can be converted into sugar, such as starch or cellulose. Sugar beets and sugarcane contain natural sugar. Crops such as corn, wheat, and

Ethanol can be blended with gasoline in any proportion up to 100%. The blends are designated by the letter E followed by a number that represents the percentage of ethanol in the fuel mixture. The common E10 blend has an ethanol content of 10%. At such a concentration, ethanol acts as an

Biofuels

oxygenate—that is, an additive to reduce carbon monoxide emission and soot created during the burning of the fuel. Almost all gasoline sold in the United States is blended with up to 10% of ethanol as an oxygenating agent. The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than “pure” gasoline. Thus, vehicle mileage may decrease by up to 3.3% when using E10. All gasoline vehicles can use E10, but currently, only light-duty vehicles with a model year of 2001 or greater can use E15. Ethanol and ethanol–gasoline mixtures burn cleaner and have higher octane than pure gasoline, but these also have higher “evaporative emissions” from fuel tanks and dispensing equipment. These evaporative emissions contribute to the formation of harmful, ground-level ozone and smog. An FFV or dual-fuel vehicle uses internal combustion engines designed to run on more than one fuel, usually gasoline blended with either ethanol or methanol fuel, and both fuels are stored in the same common tank. Though technology exists to allow ethanol FFVs to run on any mixture of gasoline and ethanol, from pure gasoline up to 100% ethanol (E100), North American and European FFVs are optimized to run on a maximum blend of 15% gasoline with 85% anhydrous ethanol (called E85 fuel). Vehicles in the Brazilian automotive fleet increasingly run on E100 fuels.

129

10% of the volume of gasoline consumed in 2011 (13.9 billion gallons). Biodiesel

Biodiesel is a fuel made from vegetable oils, fats, or greases. It is the fastest growing alternative fuel in the United States. Biodiesel is produced by two major routes: transesterification and pyrolysis. Transesterification, also called alcoholysis, is the chemical reaction of an oil or fat with an alcohol, usually ethanol or methanol, in the presence of a catalyst to form esters and glycerol. It involves a sequence of consecutive reversible reactions in which triglycerides are converted to monoglycerides and these are converted to ester and glycerol. The by-product glycerol has a commercial value. Transesterification is the most viable process used so far for the production of biodiesel. Pyrolysis is a method of conversion of one substance into another through heating or heating with the aid of a catalyst in the absence of air or oxygen resulting in the cleavage of chemical bonds to yield small molecules. The material used for pyrolysis can be vegetable oils, animal fats, natural fatty acids, and methyl esters of fatty acids. The liquid fuel produced from this process has almost identical chemical components to conventional diesel.

Production of Bioethanol Together, Brazil and the United States lead the industrial production of ethanol fuel, together accounting for nearly 90% of the world’s production in 2010–2011. Brazil is the world’s second largest producer of ethanol fuel, and until 2010, the world’s largest exporter. In 2011, Brazil produced 21.1 billion liters (5.57 billion U.S. liquid gallons), representing 24.9% of the world’s total ethanol used as fuel. The United States is the largest producer of ethanol from corn. The increased use of biofuels was mandated under the Renewable Fuel Standard 2 implemented by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The production of bioethanol is subsidized by the government. Ethanol production rose steadily over the past decade to nearly

Use of Biodiesel The linear molecules in biodiesel offer a high cetane number, providing excellent ignition and combustion performance. Higher cetane fuel usually causes an engine to run more smoothly and quietly. Compared with diesel fuel made from petroleum, biodiesel produces fewer air pollutants such as particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, unburned and other hydrocarbons but more nitrogen oxides. Biodiesel is meant to be used in standard diesel engines and is thus distinct from the vegetable and waste oils used to fuel converted diesel engines. Biodiesel can be used alone or can be mixed with petroleum diesel in any percentage, from 1 to 99, which is represented by a number following a

130

Biofuels

B. For example, B5 is 5% biodiesel with 95% petroleum. B6 to B20 blends can be used in diesel equipment with no modification or only minor modifications. Various blends of heating oil and biofuel can also be used as heating fuel in domestic and commercial boilers. Production of Biodiesel Most of the biodiesel used in the United States is made from soybean oil, which is a by-product of processing soybeans for animal feed and numerous other food and nonfood products. In tropical regions, palm oil is the dominant source of biodiesel. The production of biodiesel fuels has grown rapidly over the past decade. They currently provide approximately 1.5% of global transport fuel. Environmental and Economic Sustainability of First-Generation Biofuels

While biofuels have a positive energy return on energy invested to produce the fuel, their most important property is the reduction in carbon intensity measured in grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt hour of power produced for the total life cycle. The reduction estimates on carbon intensity for a given biofuel has been much debated because it depends on the assumptions regarding many variables, including crop productivity, agricultural practices, power sources, transportation costs, and energy efficiency. Growing plants for biofuels is controversial as the land, fertilizers, and energy used to grow biofuel crops could be used to grow food crops instead. Transitioning fully to biofuels would require immense tracts of land if traditional food crops are used. The deforestation of rain forests to grow sugarcane for ethanol may exacerbate climate change. Current worldwide production of vegetable oil and animal fat is just not sufficient to replace liquid fossil fuel use. In tropical regions, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, plants that produce palm oil are being planted at a rapid pace to supply growing biodiesel demand in Europe and other markets. The expansion of these plantations poses a threat to natural rain forests and to biodiversity

because of intensive fertilization, pesticide use, and land use conversion. The issues related to water availability, quality, and potential overuse have been raised for both bioethanol and biodiesel. The food versus fuel debate grew in 2008 as a result of the international community’s concerns regarding the steep increase in food prices. Farmers may switch from producing food crops to producing biofuel crops to increase their income. As a result, the price of food will rise as fewer farmers are producing food. Increasing demand for firstgeneration biofuels may result in future price increases for some kinds of food. This has not been the case, however, for corn and cane sugar.

Second-Generation Biofuels The development of second-generation biofuels seeks to avoid the food versus fuel debate by making fuel from biomass feedstock with little or no nutritional value such as agricultural waste or from flora that can thrive on marginal agricultural land where many trees and crops will not grow. The development of biofuels from cellulosic sources presents technological challenges. The major challenge is the breaking down of cellulosic or ligneous materials into simple sugars to be then converted into fuels. Both thermochemical processes (catalysts, high temperature, and pressure) and biochemical processes (enzymes, bacteria, and algae) are under investigation. These processes must be conducted economically and on a large scale. Even if second-generation processes can be economically scaled up, the challenge would remain to provide enormous amounts of feedstock to the production facilities. Other avenues of research and development are focused on biodiesel. Several algal species are able to accumulate up to 50% oil or more in their cells. Algae can be grown on nonarable land or in marine environments, and the potential oil yields are much higher than from plants. Many companies are pursuing algae bioreactors to scale up biodiesel production to commercial levels. In an interesting twist, some are developing strains of microalgae that can produce oils, proteins, and

Biopiracy

complex sugars with specific characteristics for personal care and novel food products. Pongamia pinnata is a leguminous, oilseedbearing tree that has been identified as a candidate for nonedible vegetable oil production. Pongamia grows on land not fit for food crops and agriculture and does not require nitrate fertilizers. Jatropha curcas, a poisonous shrub-like tree that produces seeds, is considered by many to be a viable source of biodiesel feedstock oil and especially renewable jet fuel. Bernard M. Gallois See also Climate Change; Deforestation for Agriculture; Soil Degradation and Conservation; Vegetable Oils

Further Readings International Energy Agency. (2011). Technology roadmap: Biofuels for transport. Retrieved from http:// www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ Sims, R., & Taylor, M. (2008). From 1st- to 2nd-generation biofuel technologies: An overview of current industry and RD&D activities. Paris, France: International Energy Agency. Retrieved from http:// www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/

Websites U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy: http://www.eere.energy .gov/topics/bioenergy.html U.S. Energy Information Administration: http://www .eia.gov/

BIOPIRACY Biopiracy is a politicized term for the appropriation of biological resources and knowledge of these resources for purposes that do not meet the approval or have the consent of groups or individuals who have some prior claim to the resources or knowledge. In some cases, this appropriation refers to extraction and use only, but the term is

131

also applied to patenting without equitable sharing of benefits. This entry discusses the origins of the term biopiracy, the roles of researchers, examples of biopiracy cases, and the relationship of biopiracy to international policy.

The Charge of Biopiracy The biological resources at stake in biopiracy cases have included varieties of food plants, both wild and cultivated, as well as medicinal plants. The charge of biopiracy can also be applied to appropriation of livestock, fungi, and microbes, though such cases have been less common than those involving edible and medicinal plants. Often, the parties who levy charges of biopiracy have less political and economic power than those who have appropriated the resources and knowledge for their benefit; for example, many cases have involved indigenous groups, farmers’ organizations, and national governments in the biodiversity-rich global South accusing corporations and researchers in the financially rich global North of wrongful appropriation. The charge of biopiracy is meant to evoke criminal theft and attempts to draw attention to the moral and legal status of resource and knowledge extraction. Among other concerns, antibiopiracy advocates argue that privatization of resources can lead to decreased access to local food sources and livelihoods in the very places from which the resources were extracted, as patent restrictions can limit use and sale by local people. Meanwhile, critics of the discourse surrounding biopiracy argue that the concept reflects an isolationist desire to hoard resources at their sources and impedes improvement of products that could help address people’s nutritional, medicinal, and other needs. Use of biopiracy reflects a contemporary conflict over control of food resources and brings into focus debates about the ethics of privatizing knowledge and biological life forms. Biopiracy is often used in place of the less morally charged term bioprospecting, although both refer to corporate and academic researchers’ exploration and extraction of biological resources for

132

Biopiracy

the ultimate purpose of development into new food and drug products. Often, ethnographic work accompanies field exploration, so researchers can more easily identify plants that are useful to local people. Thus, local knowledge and sometimes long-standing practices of environmental management contribute to researchers’ choices of which resources to test and develop, even if particular local practices (e.g., harvesting and processing techniques and technologies) are not directly used in appropriation of the plants in new contexts. Many researchers who see themselves as bioprospecting have actively reassessed their practices and responsibilities to people and landscapes at the sites of extraction as a result of the introduction of the biopiracy concept and of international policies regarding resource extraction and intellectual property rights. Now, many corporations rely more on ex situ product discovery techniques at gene banks and labs than on sourcing directly from local in situ growth, but issues of extraction, ownership, and benefit allocation remain unresolved on the global scale.

Critiques of Extractive Practices Rural Advancement Foundation International, a nongovernmental organization now called the ETC Group, and its cofounder Pat Mooney are credited with introducing the term biopiracy in 1993 to highlight conflicting interests involved in the global exchange and commercialization of resources. Indigenous rights and environmental activists embraced the term and have since brought it into more common usage as a discursive tool to critique practices of corporate resource extraction that they find to be exploitative. The Indian scientist and activist Vandana Shiva has been a prominent denouncer of the privatization of natural resources and shared local knowledge, which she classifies as biopiracy. She links these practices to Western colonialism and questions the assumption at the heart of intellectual property regimes that nonhuman organisms can be created and owned. Her criticism of extractive practices illuminates two types of arguments made through charges of biopiracy that are interrelated

but not necessarily compatible: (1) resource and knowledge extraction and commercialization are not managed in politically and economically just ways, according to international legal principles, and (2) the systems under which resources and knowledge are extracted and commercialized are culturally biased, environmentally unsustainable, and morally problematic.

International Law and Policy International law and policy reflect some elements of the continuing debates about biopiracy. In 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognized the sovereign rights of states to control natural resources, as well as the importance of local knowledge and techniques in conserving biodiversity. The CBD encouraged benefit sharing with local people and state governments, but advocates like the ETC have critiqued the CBD for offering no mechanisms of enforcement for these pronouncements. Advocates have also critiqued the convention’s apparent condonation of bilateral agreements between commercial interests and other parties, as such arrangements might or might not meet the CBD’s stated goals of collaboration, biodiversity conservation, and equity. Even when these goals are explicitly sought, challenges to meeting them persist due to institutional complexities, including the absence of a single monitoring body, the diversity of intellectual property systems at play internationally, and the inconsistency of informed consent standards. Moreover, it has proven difficult to compensate groups fairly when resources and knowledge can be shared widely, while political and economic power can be more restricted. These challenges have led advocates to characterize several cases of extraction and privatization of foodstuffs as biopiracy. Some of these involve patents, and others do not. One well-known case is the controversy over a U.S. patent granted to Texas-based RiceTec, Inc., for basmati rice in 1997. South Asian and international nongovernmental organizations challenged the patent as a case of obvious biopiracy, since South Asian farmers have been developing for centuries the basmati rice plants, rice grains, and propagation techniques

Bioterrorism

covered under the original patent and held the plant and its cultural properties as part of the region’s heritage. This case exposed some of the political, economic, cultural, ethical, and legal challenges to appropriation of biological resources and relevant knowledge, as U.S. patent law did not recognize South Asian farmers’ prior art, since it was not protected as intellectual property. Other food-related cases include vanilla, saffron, bitter melon, kava, quinoa, Malawian groundnut, Hawaiian taro, habanero pepper, and Tuli cattle. Recently, new concerns about biopiracy have arisen as GMOs (genetically modified organisms) become more widespread. These developments create the potential for corporations to make genelevel changes to appropriated resources and knowledge, and then patent and commercialize them, without consent of or benefit sharing with other parties. Some supporters of bioprospecting would rather see local groups with claims to biological resources and knowledge formalize and protect those claims through intellectual property systems than utilize the language of biopiracy. However, international law and policy regarding appropriation of biological resources and knowledge are currently complex and inconsistent, with multiple agencies governing at different scales and with divergent goals. Local, national, and regional initiatives are growing as alternatives and complements to these international systems, in the hope that they can more effectively oversee bilateral agreements, define terms in culturally appropriate ways, and enforce benefit sharing equitably. Madeline Chera See also Antitrust Laws; Cultural Identity and Food; Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Intellectual Property Rights; International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Study

Further Readings ETC Group. (1995). Bioprospecting/biopiracy and indigenous peoples. In Patents and biopiracy. Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/bioprospecting biopiracy-and-indigenous-peoples

133

Gollin, M. A. (2001). Biopiracy: The legal perspective. American Institute of Biological Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/ gollin.html Mushita, A., & Thompson, C. B. (2007). Biopiracy of biodiversity: Global exchange as enclosure. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Robinson, D. F. (2010). Confronting biopiracy: Challenges, cases and international debates. London, UK: Earthscan. Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

BIOTERRORISM Bioterrorism is the use of a biological agent or poison to attack biological systems to cripple an area, create chaos, and maximize fear. One form of bioterrorism is to use a biological agent to disable and infect the air, food supply, water system, pharmaceutical system, or some other system to adversely affect the people living in the area. The other form of bioterrorism includes attacks on these biological systems by some other agency that is either mechanical or chemical with the same negative goals. Bioterrorism can be used within a strategy of war, directly attacking armies or important sites that affect the performance of an army. It can also be used as a psychological operation to demoralize and frighten a people, especially when it is unanticipated and unprepared for. This entry discusses the shift in attitudes toward bioterrorism, the U.S. Bioterrorism Act of 2002, federal and other organizations’ emergency preparedness, and hospital disaster plans.

The Use of Biological Weapons Historically, bioterrorism was not easy to target at the enemy. This inability to control biological agents could cause the infection of all the parties, not just the enemy. Using devices such as gas masks allowed the users of biological weapons to protect themselves from their weapons. Biological weapons generally are not limited to use against combatants, but they are also used to demoralize the

134

Bioterrorism

civilian population. In the 19th century and early 20th century, anthrax, and also glanders, was used against animals in an attempt to affect the food supply and work animals. The United States stopped producing offensive biological weapons in 1969. In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon asked the Senate to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons, and on their Destruction. But bioterrorism continued to be something that terrorists used, especially small cells. Because of the nature of biological weapons, a small amount can affect a large population. This phenomenon is a part of the appeal of bioterrorism. Additionally, modern medicine has developed antidotes and vaccines, which make it possible for terrorists to protect themselves, for example, through vaccination, from the effects of the biological agent. In 1984, there was a bioterrorist attack in Oregon in the United States. The attacker, identified as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, placed a form of Salmonella in salad bars and in other public places. More than 700 people were infected, but no one died. Another serious attack occurred in 2001 when anthrax was mailed to journalists and U.S. Congress, killing five people. These intentional acts were an important influence on the shift to include intentional acts, or bioterrorism, to attitudes about food and water safety and security. Prior to these and related events that occurred in other parts of the world, most safety and security concerns were based on an assumption that danger would derive from either an accident or a weather disaster.

Emergency Preparedness The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 was enacted by Congress in response to the attacks on the United States known collectively as 9/11. Although the 9/11 attacks were not bioterrorism, the threat that the attacks represented and the possibility of food and water security becoming targets became apparent. The official name of the act is the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and

Response Act. It is important because is it designed to protect the safety and security of both the food supply and the water supply in the United States, in particular, and other systems that are vulnerable to bioterrorism attack. Although the law is federal, it requires that local plans be developed to deal with local areas that might be subject to attack either by open violence or stealth. The emphasis on local planning also makes the action both less centralized and locally controlled, making an attack less subject to becoming widespread. The law provides for the organization of the oversight of the plan, the identification of areas of protection, specific identification of the protection of the water supply, identification of sources of bioterrorism, and the discussion of food security. The Bioterrorism Act places the power to secure the food and water supply on the Department of Health and Human Services. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with developing food and water safety regulations under the act. Both domestic and foreign food-manufacturing and -processing facilities that provide food for U.S. consumption must register with the FDA. Companies importing food must notify the FDA prior to it reaching the United States. A chain of food must be maintained by producers and manufacturers to protect food made with multiple ingredients from contamination. And the FDA is granted the authority to detain food that might cause death or serious illness to either people or animals. The law also applies to drinking water. In those cities and towns with a population of more than 3,000, the act requires that an evaluation be made of the susceptibility of the water supply to intentional attack and a plan to address those vulnerabilities against attack. The Environmental Protection Agency is the authority named by the act to maintain the vulnerability reports and plans. In addition to addressing weaknesses in security, a plan to provide clean and potable water in case of emergency must also be filed. Protecting the food and water supply requires an assessment of all the components of the food and water chain. In the food supply, this would include assessment from field to table; ports,

Bioterrorism

trains, trucking, and other shipping and distribution channels; and groceries, manufacturing, and storage. In the water supply chain, this means assessment not only of the source of water but also any disruption of the infrastructure. The job is immense and requires constant vigilance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is also tasked with preparedness in the case of bioterrorism. This agency is prepared to deal with biological agents that may affect both people and animals. Some agents infect humans, and then humans infect other humans, as is the case with smallpox. Other agents only affect those who come into direct contact with the agent. Bioterrorism threats can affect the general health of the population, as in the case of disease. These threats can also affect the population through the water and food supply chains. And the agents may be released into the air. Biological agents can make effective weapons, because they may not take effect immediately. In fact, they may take several hours or even days to cause symptoms in the population. This delay in presenting symptoms can mean that the fight against the agent may begin days after the agent has been launched, which means that the agent has infected people who are not yet symptomatic, and finding the source of the agent or even what the agent is will be delayed in relationship to the launch. During the investigation period, even more people could be affected. The Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the CDC, lists emergency preparedness measures on its website that can be taken by individuals, companies, and local government. Threats are also listed on the website. The American Red Cross is also prepared for immediate response during a bioterrorism emergency. Bioterrorism threats are divided into three categories—A to C—where A is of the highest priority. A is the most severe, causing widespread panic and death; causes disruption of business and day-today activities; and utilizes an agent that spreads easily through the population. These agents generally require an anticipated response by the CDC, having stockpiled vaccines or other treatments or mechanical barriers like gloves or special suits.

135

Category B is the middle level of threat. The agent spreads more moderately than in level A, causing illness and less death. Generally, the offices of response can ramp up quickly to deal with the threat. Level C represents the least dangerous threat, not because it is not dangerous but because it is more theoretical. Category C contains potential threats, such as possibly weaponized versions of modified common bacterial or viral agents, which have a potential to cause widespread death and panic. The preparedness for Category C is very difficult to anticipate since it is only a potential threat. It requires vigilance and imagination.

Hospital Disaster Plans Bioterrorism readiness is a part of the disaster plans of all hospitals as a part of general emergency readiness and disaster preparedness. Although each hospital’s plan will necessarily be different, especially affecting the types of bioterrorism attacks that are most likely in a particular area, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology has devised a model plan that can be adopted by hospitals. This model plan recognizes that hospitals, as the places where sick people may appear on an emergency basis, may be the first place with the opportunity to recognize that a bioterrorism threat has been launched. Being prepared to analyze the data that present to the hospital and determining when and if to notify the CDC and other agencies requires the establishment of protocols that are known throughout the hospital. These protocols will generally include infection control specialists, the hospital administration, the local public health authorities and local government, and law enforcement (including the Federal Bureau of Investigation). From the hospital, there will likely be briefings of first responders—fire departments, police, and emergency medical technicians; information shared with nonhospital health professionals who might encounter similar symptomology; and media relations. A hospital bioterrorism plan may require a cooperative approach in a community with multiple hospitals. Depending on the size, geographic

136

Blogging

location within the community, specialties of the facility, and specialized equipment, particular hospitals may be better suited to handle certain kinds of bioterrorism patients than are others. Especially when the attack includes communicable disease, as opposed to poisons, the ability to provide infection control on a mass basis is key. It could also require, depending on the scope of the disaster, for hospitals to transfer some patients to other hospitals in order to deal with the disaster effectively. Drills on a regular basis can identify weaknesses in the plans that can be addressed in plan revisions prior to the execution of the plan in an actual disaster. A bioterrorism attack can be executed by stealth and be unanticipated. In such a case, clusters of affected people are likely to appear in hospital emergency rooms. This type of attack requires an alert hospital staff. During 1998 and 1999, there were announced bioterrorism threats. Announced threats are those that can cause panic and fear in the population even if they are not carried out. The fear can make people change their behavior even without the release of the biological agent, causing adverse effects on the economy and the society in general. The 1998 and 1999 threats did not result in actual attacks, but they caused people to believe that they had been infected, placing a burden on emergency rooms and first responders. This disruption was real, although the attack was not. Hospitals and other health professionals will be required to recognize epidemiologic principles, such as an increase in the presentation of disease at an unusual time, for example, an increase in flu symptoms not during flu season, or an increase in the number of deaths in patients with similar symptoms. Patient transportation between hospitals will have to be coordinated. Cleaning, disinfection, disposal, and sterilization under very rapidly changing conditions will be required to keep the spread of the agents to a minimum. Germicidal agents must be on hand in sufficient quantity to make a difference. Sources of additional supply will have to be identified and supplies secured. Often, there will not be time to confirm through laboratory testing the actual disease, thus the disease may have to be treated quickly according to

symptom protocols in order to avoid further delay in stopping the spread of the agents. In the case of poisons, antidotes should be on hand to counteract the effects of the agents. Laboratory testing to determine the source and type of launch system used should be part of the protocols. The discharge of patients back into the community must be handled in a way that minimizes the spread of the biological agents. In addition, the handling of the fatalities has to be managed to minimize further spread of the agents and to maximize information to contain the attack. In addition, the use of public relations and the media to inform the public of proper and safe conduct, to inform the public of symptoms to be identified, and to reduce panic and anxiety is an important element of bioterrorism readiness. Elizabeth Williams See also Food Safety; Foodborne Illness; Global Food Security Act of 2009; Terrorist Threats to Food and Water Supplies

Further Readings Henderson, D. A., Inglesby, T. V., & O’Toole, T. (2002). Bioterrorism: Guidelines for medical and public health management. Atlanta, GA: American Medical Association. Ryan, J., & Glarum, J. (2008). Biosecurity and bioterrorism: Containing and preventing biological threats. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann Homeland Security. Zubay, G. (2008). Agents of bioterrorism: Pathogens and their weaponization. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

BLOGGING Blogging is an increasingly popular way for people around the world to discuss issues on food, especially issues such as food consumption, preparation, preservation, and distribution. These blogs may include items such as recipe collections,

Blogging

reviews of restaurants and food sources, critiques of particular meals, histories of ingredients and specific dishes, recommendations of other blogs, and lists of resources. Blogs on other issues that have to do with food but that do not detail its actual consumption (e.g., blogs on health and political issues such as starvation, eating disorders, dieting, chronic famine, and hunger) are usually not categorized under food blogs. The beginning of food blogging is recognized as the founding of the online discussion forum Chowhound by Jim Leff and Bob Okumura on July 2, 1997. Since then, numerous food blogs have emerged in the blogosphere. The blog counting site Technorati.com reports that in June 2013, the blogosphere was home to more than 18,000 food blogs. While some of these blogs may not be active, the total number of food blogs continues to rise. This entry begins with a brief discussion on what distinguishes a blog from other resources on the Internet and then describes the current state of affairs for food blogs.

What Is a Blog? The term blog is derived from weblog, coined by Jorn Barger in 1997. Peter Merholz is credited with abbreviating it to blog in 1999. The term blog was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2002. Blogs are sites on the Internet where individuals present views on a subject or a series of subjects and provide the opportunity for forming a community with others who have similar views or who wish to respond to the views presented by the bloggers. In many cases, blogs provide content that is not available in mainstream media, thus highlighting the individuality of the interests of the blogger(s) and the uniqueness of the space that she or he promotes for herself or himself and others. Blogs should not be understood simply as enhanced repositories of text or as closed systems of information. Indeed, blogs afford possibilities of experiences that are not available on other kinds of websites or in other media (i.e., television, printed materials, radio, podcasts). These experiences are based on two main characteristics: (1) dynamism

137

and (2) community building. The main objective of websites that are not blogs is to convey information to their readers. In many cases, this information is updated infrequently, and there is little to no input on the part of the user about the information presented. Because of this, even when a website is visited often, the door to forming a community with the site administrator(s) and other site visitors is limited to each individual visitor taking it on himself or herself to find the site administrator’s information and initiating contact or leaving a comment on the site for the administrator and other users to see, but without assurance that the comment will be seen and/or receive a response. The interaction of website administrators and site visitors, when it happens, is usually quite slow. Exceptions to this may be other kinds of websites such as those that require public participation to provide their content (e.g., Wikipedia.com); this, nevertheless, does not mean that such sites are blogs. The reason for this is that those websites convey information that neither reveals nor necessarily entails a dialogue during the editing process. Thus, even when the content of the website is provided by the public, the members need not be engaged in a reciprocal exchange about what is being posted. In addition to this, each contributing member provides content to a website that closely resembles products that are infrequently updated (in the case of Wikipedia.com, this would be traditional encyclopedias). By contrast, the nature of blogs is to resist becoming a finished product. Bloggers participate in dialogue with their readers, thus inviting others to participate in the creation of the blog with their own individual voice. The dialogue of the users with each other and with the blogger is the lifeline of the blog. This makes blogs, at least in principle, very democratic. Access to the Internet allows users equal abilities to participate by posting on a blog or by creating one regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, political preferences, religion, or disabilities. Since the success of a blog depends on the quantity and quality of the community it helps form, one of the main goals of bloggers is to achieve a

138

Blogging

large readership and foster a steady following of vibrant blog users. This is also one way in which a blogger’s reputation is established. To attain a large number of visitors and comments on their blog posts, bloggers should be in touch with their audience. This is done by responding promptly to comments on posts, posting often, and posting on other blogs. Some bloggers post on their blogs daily, while others do so on alternate days or on certain days of the week only; a smaller number of bloggers post multiple times a day. It is also recommended that bloggers provide hyperlinks to other blogs that would interest their audience members and/or aggregate those blogs to their own blog, thus creating a potentially reciprocal pathway of visitor traffic. Another way in which bloggers may expand their readership is by promoting other websites and blogs and by agreeing to be aggregated on a web feed. If the blogger does not take advantage of these resources, access to an audience may be very limited. Maintaining the interest of the readers, and drawing the same readers to the blog as return visitors, is a key part of the survival of a blog. To this effect, a web design that makes the blog easy to navigate and that is attractive to the eye are very helpful. The content of the blogs is, in some cases, searchable and usually includes text and images. It may also include videos, music, surveys, petitions, and so on. A blog’s content is usually organized in reverse chronological order. Most blogs have archives of previous content; however, the most current blog posts are generally the ones visited most frequently by the readers. In essence, blogs allow their users the opportunity to have a dialogue that is current. Depending on the promptness that the blogger (as well as other users) employs in responding to the comments on his or her posts, the more dynamic the dialogue will be, and the more reach the burgeoning blogging community will have.

Food Blogs Food seems to be particularly suitable as a subject for bloggers. Food, like blogs, is dynamic, responsive, always in flux (both in culture and nature),

and reveals the process that makes it so in its very being. Indeed, food items are not stable (they change, ripen, age, and rot with the passage of time). Food issues are also constantly changing, and moreover, they are intrinsically linked to one another. For example, food sources such as farms, community gardens, supermarkets, restaurants, school cafeterias, and food trucks are part of a complex ecological, social, and political network, both regionally and internationally. In terms of products available, brands, cuisines, and preparation and preservation techniques, what we eat now is not what was eaten 100 years ago. For instance, we may now enjoy many products out of season, at competitive prices, and acquired in many places, but at a higher environmental cost. Also, the ways in which we offer food to others (e.g., at home, on the street, in restaurants; to eat in or to go out; slow food or fast food), the times at which this is done (e.g., all-day breakfast), and the places where this takes place (eating in the car, in public transit, at the office, etc.) have also changed and, with them, the social, political, and economic practices and institutions that allow for those changes (laws, inspecting agencies, governing bodies, medical technologies, market prices, family structures, labor division, etiquette rules, etc.). Moreover, food, like blogs, by its very nature aims to form a community of those who are interested in it, and this community is formed on the basis of sharing. Indeed, the knowledge of foodstuffs, their preparation, consumption, preservation, and so on cannot be an individual effort. These interesting parallels in terms of dynamism and community building may be one of the reasons why blogging about food has been a growing trend. The popularity of food blogs as well as their commercial potential has not gone unnoticed by mainstream media outlets and the food industry. While some may believe that food blogs (in addition to electronic books) are encroaching on the market for printed media (e.g., cookbooks, newspaper food columns, and food magazines), some have found that there can be a symbiotic relationship between them. For example, the magazine Saveur created the Best Food Blog Awards in 2010. This has allowed the magazine to extend its life

Blogging

and presence online, as well as to achieve success in reaching out to bloggers, some of whom may not have been aware of that food magazine before, or who may have been otherwise removed from it due to physical location, availability, cost, or other similar considerations. Other established food magazines and cookbook authors have developed blogs of their own (e.g., Bon Appétit, Food & Wine, Dorie Greenspan, and David Lebovitz to name a few). In some cases, mainstream media has paid attention to food blogs to an extent that has allowed some food bloggers to receive book deals (three well-known examples of this are Julie Powell, Molly Weizenberg, and Joy Wilson). No doubt having noticed the commercial impact of food blogs, the book series For Dummies added a volume on food blogging in 2012. The fact that information about how to create a food blog exists in print media, and that print media make use of blogs and celebrate their impact, reveals that the community of those who blog is conversant in both worlds and seeks to enjoy more than one kind of experience: the dynamism of the ever-changing blogosphere and the comforting finished product—that is, for example, a book or a magazine. Moreover, food bloggers are paving the way for making the transition between these two worlds seamless and cooperative rather than intrusive. Food bloggers have expressed a desire to form a community with others that extends not only to the users of the blogs (some who may be occasional visitors only) but also to other bloggers who are committed to the same goal. In some cases, regional food blogger sites have emerged to provide a more constant support to its members. This online support is also seen at a national level on sites such as Foodbloggers.net and Food Blog Alliance, both at work since 2010. In addition to these resources, there are several international conferences organized by food bloggers that attempt to establish stronger bonds between them. The conferences Food Blogger Connect and International Food Blogger Conference have taken place on a yearly basis since 2009; they have brought together bloggers from different parts of the world by providing a physical space for bloggers to meet, share ideas, and learn how to make

139

their blogs more successful. A similar event is Food Blogger Camp, which began in 2011. The content of food blogs may be about food that is regional, national, or international. The topics that are explored in them range from nutritional issues to ethical, aesthetic, and political issues on food and/or cooking; they span from fine dining to street food; they may also include discussions on cocktails, wine, and beer (stand-alone blogs on those topics are also considered food blogs); and in many cases, blogs on food branch out to other interests that the bloggers have, for example, traveling, gardening, farming, and photography. As occurs in many other blogs, the private life of the bloggers also forms an integral part of the blog posts, thus allowing for a more personal connection to the community of users. A recent survey on food bloggers by Foodista and Zephyr Adventures polled 679 respondents. The survey results showed that a majority of the respondents are females between the ages of 25 and 34 living in the United States; most respondents are also married without children and are employed full time with no professional background in either the food or the writing industries. Also, most respondents said that they write food blogs because they are passionate about food. The leading trend in food blogs as of 2013 was, from the perspective of the respondents, their engagement in social media (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc.). In many cases, blogs have accounts on social media where users are alerted to new posts through such outlets. This allows for an even larger and more dynamic expanse of the community that blogs wish to promote. While passion for the subject matter is certainly a key aspect of the increasing number of food blogs and of the continuation of the existing ones, there are other reasons for this too. One of them is that blogs are user-friendly. Thus, with relative ease, they allow for many people to become not only users of blogs (that is to say, to read and comment on blogs) but also bloggers themselves. In addition, blogs have the appeal of being individual creations, allowing bloggers to go beyond (or even against) the representation of food issues in mainstream media; they also allow bloggers to express in the

140

Blogging

same forum their passion for food as well as for other subjects without the need to explain this unique confluence of interests. In addition to this, the popularity of food is a phenomenon simultaneous with the popularity of blogs in general: Just as food is an increasingly popular subject, one very much marketed by mainstream media, so also blogs are increasingly popular resources of expression. As a consequence, a significant section of the population affected by mainstream media’s showcasing of food issues will naturally seek the outlet of blogs to discuss them. Another factor that may assist in the popularity of blogs is that their design and maintenance can be relatively inexpensive. However, in the case of some blogs (e.g., blogs that are marketing sites for certain products or that wish to attract more readership through visual means), bloggers may hire professional designers for the website and perhaps even pay for extra server usage. One criticism that food blogs face is that the large number of food blogs that exist makes it difficult to gauge the authority behind the posts and of the comments on such posts (particularly if the users are identified with a pseudonym). This shows a stark contrast between blogs and printed media (both popular and academic), as the latter carry authority conferred to them by a board of editors, a publisher, and reviewers. As can be seen, this same criticism may apply to blogs on topics other than food. However, what is crucial to understand in order to reply to this criticism is that the perceived lack of a top-down system of authority is not necessarily a shortcoming of blogs in general or of food blogs in particular. Blogs are not intended to be primarily research tools that work on the topdown model described above; rather, they wish to carve a space outside of this model because they wish to promote the collaboration of the community at large in a dialogue that is continuously and dynamically updated. There is, nevertheless, a certain reputation that can be established as a food blogger, and as a user of food blogs. This reputation is closely linked to the number of posts, the visibility of the posts (or of the blog) on other sites, and, in addition, to the quality of the posts as gauged by the blogging community.

Most blogs have an announcement on the kind of comments they will admit from their users and the etiquette that should be followed on the site. Many blogs do not allow commercial sites to post advertisements on their comment fields. Since computers generate many comments of this type, a large number of blogs include fields where users need to provide an e-mail address before they post and a CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart) code to prevent spam or unwanted advertisements from being posted by automated means. In 2009, Brooke Burton and Leah Greenstein created a code of ethics for food bloggers. This code promotes accountability, civility, disclosure of bias, disclosure of gifts and offers received on account of the blog, and, last, the following of good journalism, which, in their understanding, means respect of copyright, crediting the appropriate sources and providing links to them, fact checking, research, and striving to provide accurate information. Ileana F. Szymanski See also Food in Popular Media; Food Magazines; Food Writing in Books; Online Advertising; Restaurant Reviews

Further Readings Barlow, A. (2008). Blogging America: The new public sphere. Westport, CT: Praeger. Bedell, M. (September 11, 2012). How to start a food blog [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.fromaway .com/features/how-to-start-a-food-blog Lebovitz, D. (2011, February 25). Food blogging [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.davidlebovitz.com/ 2011/02/food-blogging-food-blog/ Rosenberg, S. (2009). Say everything. New York, NY: Crown. Senyei, K. (2012). Food blogging for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Wetherell, S. (2013, May 29). Results of the 2013 food blogging survey [Online]. Retrieved from http://www .foodista.com/blog/2013/05/29/results-of-the-2013state-of-food-blogging-survey#

Botulism

Websites Food Blog Code of Ethics: http://foodethics.wordpress .com Technorati: http://www.technorati.com

BOTULISM Botulism is a potentially fatal paralytic illness caused by a highly potent toxin produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. The word botulism originates from the Latin botulus, meaning sausage, a reference to the historical association of this illness with home-fermented sausages in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. Botulism occurs in five forms: (1) foodborne, (2) infant, (3) wound, (4) adult intestinal toxemia, and (5) iatrogenic. The most relevant is foodborne botulism, a serious type of food poisoning caused by ingesting foods contaminated with botulinum toxin. In the United States, inadequately sterilized low-acid canned foods such as string beans were frequent sources of botulism. Although foodborne botulism now occurs relatively infrequently, it is considered to pose a serious public health threat; a centralized food source of botulism could, in theory, poison many individuals. This entry examines types of botulinum toxins, foodborne botulism, and recommendations to reduce the risk of botulism in foods prepared at home.

Botulinum Toxins The bacteria that produce botulinum toxins are found in soil, marine sediments, and other anaerobic (low-oxygen) environments. These bacteria produce durable spores that can withstand harsh conditions such as the heating and drying that constitute common food preservation methods. To produce the toxin, the spores must germinate under specific conditions: (a) a low-oxygen environment, (b) the right temperatures for incubation and activation, and (c) appropriate levels of moisture, nutrients, and acidity. Seven distinct types of botulinum toxins (designated A through G) cause

141

illness in humans and animals. Only Types A, B, E, and, in extremely rare cases, F, cause human sickness. Types A and B are usually associated with ingestion of home-canned low-acid vegetables and meat products, while Type E has been traced to home-preserved marine products such as fish and marine mammals.

Estimates of Botulism Illness in the United States On average, 145 individual cases of foodborne botulism are reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States each year. Since 1950, an average of 9.4 confirmed foodborne botulism outbreaks (more than one case from a single food source) have occurred annually, with an average of 2.5 individual cases per outbreak. The geographical distribution of foodborne botulism in the United States is concentrated in four western states (California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) and Alaska, which together account for more than half of all outbreaks. This is explained in part by the high concentration of (Type A) botulism in western soils. It is also explained by lower boiling points in highaltitude western states. Canning pressures for lowacid foods must be higher to compensate for lower boiling temperatures. Forgetting to account for these conditions can increase the risk of botulism in home-canned foods. In Alaska, where 16% of national outbreaks occur, all confirmed botulism cases have been associated with the improper preparation and storage of traditional Native Alaskan foods.

Causes of Foodborne Botulism C. botulinum causes illness in humans by producing heat-resistant spores that survive food preservation methods. Although different types and strains of spores are resistant to different levels of heat, many can survive temperatures above boiling. Due to the difficulty in achieving sufficiently high temperatures and pressure in a home kitchen, foodborne botulism is most commonly attributed

142

Botulism

to home-preserved foods. Few outbreaks have been traced to commercially processed or prepared foods. Most commercial food-manufacturing operations follow strict guidelines to ensure that canned products are free of toxin-producing spores. The Food and Drug Administration adopted Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulations for low-acid foods in the 1970s to reduce the risk of botulism in commercially manufactured foods.

Symptoms and Treatment of Botulism Intoxication Symptoms of botulism typically include abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. If untreated, foodborne botulism can lead to additional neurological symptoms, including blurred vision, drooping eyelids, slurred speech, dry mouth, difficulty swallowing, and muscle weakness. The incubation period for foodborne botulism is typically 18 to 36 hours after ingestion of contaminated food, although symptoms can manifest as early as 6 hours or as late as 10 days. Treatment for botulism includes the administration of antitoxin and intensive medical care, often including aggressive respiratory care. Compared with other foodborne illnesses, the mortality rate of botulism is high—5% to 10% for treated victims and as high as 60% for untreated individuals.

or off-odors, signs that may indicate possible contamination. Not all spoiled food products display these indicators, however, and new sources of botulism contamination are discovered every decade. Recent foodborne botulism cases have been attributed to chopped garlic in oil, baked potatoes wrapped in foil, and canned cheese sauce, chili peppers, and tomatoes. Consumers should always refrigerate oils that contain garlic or other herbs, and promptly refrigerate leftover potatoes baked in aluminum foil. Thorough boiling of food products—particularly home-canned foods—for at least 10 minutes prior to consumption can help reduce the risk of botulism.

Infant Botulism Infant botulism has been the most common form of botulism in the United States since 1980. This illness occurs when infants directly ingest C. botulinum spores from dust, soil, or honey. The first symptom is constipation, usually followed by neurological and muscular problems that include dull face, weak cry, weak suckling, slow movements, trouble swallowing, unusually excessive drooling, and breathing problems. Factors such as exposure to dust and soil have been documented as potential sources of infant botulism, but their role as transmission vehicles for infant botulism remain unclear. The best preventive measure is to avoid feeding honey to children under the age of 12 months.

Recommendations to Reduce Home-Induced Botulism Home cooks can reduce their risk of botulism by adhering to recommended cooking time, temperature, and pressure required to destroy C. botulinum spores. Additional techniques such as stirring, adequate refrigeration, acidification, and reheating of home-canned foods can also help reduce the risk. Consumers and home cooks should refer to the home-canning guide and food preparation procedures that are included on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s websites listed in the Further Readings section of this entry. Consumers should also avoid all commercial or home-canned food products that have a bulging lid

Diana Caley and Marion Nestle See also Food Safety; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

Further Readings Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998). Botulism in the United States, 1899–1996: Handbook for epidemiologists, clinicians, and laboratory workers. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Botulism: General information. Retrieved from http:// www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/ botulism/

Boycotts U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009). Complete guide to home canning. Retrieved from http://nchfp.uga.edu/ publications/publications_usda.html U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Food safety resources. Retrieved from http://www.usda.gov/wps/ portal/usda/usdahome?navid=FOOD_SAFETY U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Bad bug book: Handbook of foodborne pathogenic microorganisms and natural toxins (2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Author.

Website U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: http:// www.foodsafety.gov/poisoning/causes/bacteriaviruses/ botulism/index.html

143

company to alter the product or its policies in order to comply with a political agenda or to induce a change in the product; (c) protest the product itself, to induce change in the way the product is produced; or (d) change company policies that are unrelated to the product. Boycott activism may be motivated by economic, environmental, or health issues as well as other humanitarian political issues. It has been said that a boycott is a nonviolent form of consumer coercion; however, especially when coordinated with employees who participate in a larger strategy by engaging in strikes and with market interference, the boycott can cause frustration in its participants, which can result in violence.

Early Examples of Boycotts

BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY See Mad Cow Disease

BOYCOTTS A boycott is a form of political statement in which a person or group of persons acting in concert refrain from the purchase or use of something. A boycott is a political and social tool that can be used to adversely affect a company, whether large or small, by stopping a flow of money to the company through sales. It is also a practice that can affect an industry, not just a single company. This entry examines boycotts pertaining to the food industry. Boycotts have been used on many occasions against businesses in the food industry. Unlike a strike, which is a political action undertaken by employees of a company that directly affects the relationship between a company and its workers, a boycott is a political action in which consumers at any level refrain from buying a product. The boycott is designed to (a) force a company to stop producing or selling a product; (b) require the

The Boston Tea Party is perhaps the most famous American boycott, in which prerevolutionary citizens of Boston in 1773 dumped a shipment of tea in Boston Harbor in protest of what the citizens considered to be unfair taxes being levied by the British crown on the colonies. It was not aimed at a traditional corporate entity, but nonetheless, the action was motivated by a political agenda. This boycott encouraged consumers to not drink the tea being taxed, and the boycotters ensured that there was no tea to drink by destroying the tea. There was no aspect of marketing to convince consumers not to drink tea. This boycott prevented the behavior. The Boston Tea Party can be considered the inciting incident of the American Revolution. It certainly legitimizes the history of the boycott in America. It may also have influenced the drinking habits of Americans. While it was not successful in changing the taxation practices of the British government, this boycott was a clear message to the authorities that the British subjects were unhappy with the taxation. Almost two decades later, in 1791, antislavery forces in England organized a boycott of sugar produced through slave labor. Sugar produced in India was produced by paid agricultural workers. Consumers switched their sugar purchases to sugar advertised to be made by free men. This is an early example of a successful fair-trade style of boycott.

144

Boycotts

Boycotts and Labor Practices When employees have little power and might be easily replaced if they were to go on strike, they can increase the effectiveness of their position if they resort to marketing to notify consumers of the product they want boycotted and the reasons for the request in order to enlist consumer assistance in political action. This action can only work if the public perceives the employees as the victims of unjust treatment. The United Farm Workers, in an effort led by Cesar Chavez in the mid-1960s, encouraged consumers to boycott grapes and lettuce at the market in solidarity with migrant farmworkers to protest their conditions of employment. Eventually, the grape workers were able to negotiate a union contract with the grape growers of California. These boycotts were supported and widely publicized by folk singers like Joan Baez, who would enlist their fans to join the boycott through their concerts. But these boycotts were criticized because often consumers did not know which lettuce growers or grape growers were involved in the practices that were being protested by the boycott. This caused sympathetic consumers to boycott all grapes and lettuce. This meant that all growers suffered from the boycotts, even those who were not engaged in the complained about practices. It also meant that grocery stores had grapes and lettuce that spoiled on the shelves, because shoppers were participating in the popular boycott. Some grocery stores, in response to the indiscriminate boycotting by consumers, began to label the produce with the name of the farm or grower so that sympathetic growers would not be adversely affected by the boycott. Grocery stores in areas where there was widespread support of the boycott did not even buy from the offending producers, because those products could not be resold by the grocers. In the 1980s, Operation PUSH, a civil rights organization led by Jesse Jackson, held several boycotts of the products of Coca-Cola, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Anheuser-Busch. These boycotts encouraged African Americans and others who supported their political position to refrain from consuming the products of these major

companies until the companies made strides in employment of African Americans, especially in positions of leadership, in the companies. PUSH argued that African Americans were major consumers of the products of these companies. It is not clear whether the economic effect of the boycotts or the negative publicity that was received when the boycott leaders publicized the business statistics reflecting the hiring records of these companies actually caused the companies to meet with Operation PUSH. But in any case, the companies entered into agreements to change their business practices in an effort to improve their hiring records in response to the boycotts, thus ending them. In April 2010, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) rallied to bring attention to their boycott of Publix, a large supermarket chain, for poor labor practices in the tomato industry of Florida, where Publix obtains its tomatoes for sale. In 1993, the CIW called their action the Campaign for Fair Food. They successfully boycotted or threatened to boycott major companies such as Taco Bell, McDonald’s, and Whole Foods Market for the purchase by the companies of tomatoes that the CIW asserted were picked under substandard working conditions. The work of the CIW has been notably successful, especially because the workers in the tomato supply chain are not directly visible to the public. The CIW has included labor and immigration agencies in its attempt to provide improved lives for tomato workers in Florida.

International Boycotts The Swiss food company Nestlé was boycotted internationally in the 1970s. The company attempted to sell powdered baby formula to consumers in the Third World countries in Africa. The company encouraged mothers to abandon breastfeeding and to adopt the more lucrative for Nestlé practice of using formula. Many of the women did not have access to clean water nor the means to boil it, which caused them to mix the formula with unsafe water. This practice in turn caused their babies to become ill, and, in some cases, to die. If they had been using formula long enough,

Boycotts

the mothers would stop producing milk, so even if they wished to, the mothers could not resume breastfeeding. The mothers had no choice but to continue using the powdered formula. In response to the practice of encouraging the use of powdered formula, especially in places that lacked access to clean water, where cleaning bottles and boiling water were impractical, and where there was no refrigeration, many people in developed nations worldwide began to boycott all Nestlé products in protest. Some groups continue to boycott Nestlé products because of other practices of the company. As companies expand around the world, the complexities of world politics affect boycotts in different companies. For example, when the United States attacked Iraq in 2003, India called for a boycott of American companies such as Coca-Cola and McDonald’s. In another instance, Burger King, in response to a boycott in Arab countries, withdrew a restaurant from a West Bank settlement in Israel. In response to this action, pro-Israel forces in the United States began a boycott of Burger King. Although not directly involved, McDonald’s offered to make a donation to hospitals serving Palestinian children for every hamburger sold.

Legal Aspects of Boycotts Because the right to engage freely in business and commerce is protected, the corresponding right not to do business with certain businesses or to refrain from purchasing certain products is also protected. Individually deciding what products to purchase and what stores to patronize makes a boycott an individual action. A private boycott has little effect. But a person today who uses the Internet to complain about a product or a company, where that complaint is met with sympathy, can create a powerful movement. The success of the boycott stems from publicity and from public understanding of the change that is the cause of the boycott. A company can go out of business because no one buys its products. But if no one wants the product, and there is no organized refusal to buy the product, there is no boycott.

145

There may be an illegal action when a labor union engages in what is called a secondary boycott or a sympathy strike. The secondary action is prohibited by the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Taft-Hartley Act. A secondary boycott is not an individual action, but one in which a union officially encourages its members to boycott companies who supply a boycotted company. Although individuals may make their own decisions about what products to buy, the action by the union could be an unfair labor practice, because there is no direct relationship between the workers who are secondarily boycotting and the company being boycotted. An example of an improper secondary boycott is when Company A, a wholesale food supplier, is being boycotted by workers because their workers are asking for increased wages. The workers at Company B, encouraged by their union, who use the products supplied by Company A, refuse to handle the Company A products out of sympathy for the Company A workers. This adversely affects the business and productivity of Company B. The Export Administration Regulations prohibit citizens of the United States from participating in the organized boycotts sponsored by foreign governments. The purpose of this law is to prevent American citizens from becoming used by foreign governments. The provisions of the Export Administration Regulations cover import and export activities, financing, and forwarding of import and export freight. The provisions only apply to boycotts that are initiated by foreign governments.

An Unintended Consequence of Boycotts In late 2009, in Medford, Massachusetts, students at Medford High School, as reported in the Boston Globe, used both Facebook and Yahoo to boycott the lunch at the school cafeteria. They claimed that the lunches being served were unhealthy. The school countered that it was in compliance with the federal school lunch program guidelines and that it did not serve fried foods or other unhealthy foods. Also, it served a daily salad and a daily vegetable.

146

Bread Processing

In addition, the administration asserted that there were no snack foods or processed desserts. The administration took the boycott seriously, but many school lunch advocates argued that the students were aiming at the wrong culprits. This points up a problem with boycotts. By boycotting lunches and publicizing their criticism, the students put pressure on a group that was essentially powerless to fix the problem. When a problem is not within the direct control of the target of a boycott, the boycott may not have the intended result of fixing the problem. However, it may have the unintended consequence of closing a business that is not at fault.

Boycott Watch With the Ethical Food movement has come the desire to eat ethically not only with relation to the way animals are treated and food workers are treated, but the concerns have been expanded to include a desire to participate in boycotts that are politically promoted by a group. This causes coops and certain markets to maintain a boycott watch to ensure that they do not purchase foods for resale from politically marked suppliers, because they will not be able to successfully sell those products. Olympia Food Coop in Olympia, Washington, for example, posts its boycott policy online to ensure that its members are aware of it. The Park Slope Food Co-op in New York, which has many members, also takes active boycotting positions about the products it carries. Elizabeth Williams See also Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related; Cooperatives; Food Safety; Food Safety Agencies; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

Further Readings 10 Other Food Boycotts. (2012). Retrieved from http:// www.politico.com/gallery/2012/08/10-other-foodboycotts/000334-004277.html Cohen, L. (2003). A consumers’ republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar America. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Lyon, S., & Moberg, M. (2010). Fair trade and social justice: Global ethnographies. New York: New York University Press.

BRANDING See Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables

BREAD PROCESSING Until recently, the idea of not being able to eat wheat was unthinkable in Western society. Bread has been a staple of human life for 10,000 years, since the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians discovered its ability to literally rise above other grains, thanks to a protein called gluten. Gluten, which is a combination of the proteins gliadin and glutenin, gives wheat flour a certain elasticity when mixed with water that makes it easy to work with and helps hold pockets of air within the dough, allowing it to rise. Gluten intolerance has become a significant health concern in just the past decade or so. Celiac disease, an extreme autoimmune reaction to gluten, has increased fourfold since the 1950s. Whereas wheat counts for one fifth of the calories in the American diet, fully a third of American adults think that they should stop eating it. In celiac patients, gluten causes the finger-like villi in the intestine that take in nutrients to flatten, and in doing so, blocks nutrients from being absorbed into the body. It can cause permanent intestinal damage and malnutrition and even lead to other autoimmune disorders. Gluten intolerance, on the other hand, cannot be diagnosed with a simple blood test, so many people self-diagnose. What scientists do know is that it is real, though not for everyone who claims to have it, and that symptoms are similar to those with celiac. Some have estimated that 6% of Americans are gluten intolerant, but more research needs to be done. There have been three major changes in bread processing in the past 150 years or so: (1) the

Bread Processing

wheat plant itself, (2) the way flour is milled, and (3) how long bread is fermented. Each change made the process faster and more efficient, and each change could have contributed to the apparent recent rise in gluten intolerance, although it is difficult to say for sure. The changes are described in this entry.

The Wheat Plant While modern wheat varieties have been bred to have a higher yield of gluten than older varieties (note: which is different from genetically modified organisms, or GMO wheat, which is not commercially available for consumption), it is unclear if this new gluten-heavy wheat has adverse effects on digestion. High-gluten wheat, such as the popular hard red winter wheat, is commonly used in bread making. This is because the more gluten a flour has, the easier it is to work with. Modern wheat also features straighter and stronger stalks, which allow for a better harvest. Some argue that the less glutinous flours of spelt, emmer, and other heritage wheats are easier to digest. But the concept that higher gluten wheat is causing and exacerbating gluten intolerance is controversial. Some experts think that maybe it is not the plant itself but the way we process it that has changed.

Milling Today, in the United States, “whole grain” labels can be added to products as long as 51% or more of the flour is whole grain. Americans are severely lacking in potassium, magnesium, and vitamin E, nutrients that are found in the whole-wheat seed but not in modern white flour—and not as much as many people think in whole-wheat flour, either. There is evidence that deficiencies in zinc, magnesium, and other vitamins can lead to a weaker intestinal system. Some scientists say that eating modern, white wheat flour is actually exacerbating the problem of gluten intolerance. For thousands of years, wheat was ground in whole, either by hand or with a hand-powered stone-on-stone quern. As populations grew and

147

technology improved, donkeys and horses were used to pull large stone mills, grinding the grain between huge slabs of rock. Later, water-powered wheels turned the mill to grind the grain, and by the end of the 18th century, steam power was being used to turn millstones. Then, during the Industrial Revolution, the roller mill was invented. Essentially, seeds pass through a series of close-knit spinning steel cylinders and are broken down into smaller and smaller grains at each pass. Modern roller mills can be six stories tall, each floor dedicated to refining the grain as gravity pulls it downward: floor six, cleaning; floor five, tempering (adding heat to loosen seed parts); and so on. It was quick and efficient, and it made the whitest flour yet seen. But there was an important difference between the way wheat had been milled for thousands of years— called whole milling, or stone ground—and this roller milling, which we use today. The wheat seed is made up of three layers: (1) the outside fibrous layer, called the bran; (2) the chunky carbohydrate, the endosperm; and (3) the nutrient-rich oily substance in the middle, called the germ. At the first pass, roller milling strips out the bran and the germ so that the carbohydrate part of the seed, the endosperm, can be made into pure white flour. This white flour had a much longer shelf life, and so it could be shipped around the world. It was free of the oily germ in whole milled flour that can quickly become rancid. Roller milling was a brilliant invention in terms of feeding people. But in the course of the two World Wars, more people started getting sick with beriberi and other such diseases caused by vitamin deficiency—in particular, B vitamins, that are plentiful in whole-wheat bread. Generals started to worry that their troops would become malnourished and lose the strength to fight. The problem was that the bread was not as whole as it once was. Thanks to roller technology, most bread was white, and those subsisting on a white bread diet were missing out on all the vitamins and minerals from the bran and the germ that were once inevitably part of bread. And even “whole-wheat” bread was different, because millers were essentially taking white flour and adding

148

Bread Processing

back some of the separately milled bran and calling it whole. No germ, which was full of nutritious omega-3 fatty acids, was used. (Some mills claim to add back both the bran and the germ, after each has been separately milled, to make whole-grain flour.) But even the bran had lost value at this point, for though its minerals were mostly maintained in the milling process, its vitamins had been destroyed by oxidation when exposed to the air. In response, the government mandated that the lost vitamins and minerals be added back in, as supplements. Now, when you turn over a package of sliced bread at the grocery store, you will typically find niacin, riboflavin, folic acid, and other added nutrients. While roller technology has become the norm in the United States, traditional whole milling is still practiced in some mills in Europe. For white breads, the whole milled flour is sifted until the desired granulation and color is met—though a lot of the bran is sifted off, the germ, which has been ground into the endosperm, remains, along with much of the seed’s original nutrients. Even a white baguette in Paris, if made with traditional whole milled flour, will have specks of light beige—leftover bits of bran and germ—in its doughy interior. The shelf life of this flour remains a point of contention among millers. Though whole milled flour will never last as long as its starchy cousin, white flour, it is easier on the digestive track. Some people have found that although eating bread in America makes them sick, they have been able to eat bread made in Europe without issue—it is possible that the cause for this is the way the flour was milled.

Fermentation Before modern technology, all leavened breads were sourdoughs—that is, they were always made with a sourdough starter, also known as a natural yeast. Bakers let flour and water sit out in a bowl, collecting yeast from the air, periodically adding more flour and water until it started to bubble and ferment. When mixed with dough, the yeast helps the bread rise during the fermentation process. As the bread rises, the microbes from the yeast feed on

the gluten, essentially predigesting it for us. The longer the bread ferments, the more the gluten is broken down, and thus, the easier the bread becomes to digest—and the more flavorful it becomes. Some bakers ferment their dough for up to 24 hours to ensure proper flavor and digestibility. But today’s bread industry uses a different kind of yeast: Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or instant yeast. The power of this yeast was discovered by Louis Pasteur in the late 1800s. With instant yeast, like the packets of Fleischmann’s one can purchase at the grocery store, a bread only needs 3 or 4 hours to rise—an ideal scenario for an industry striving to be efficient and productive. However, this shortened fermentation meant less time to break down the gluten in the bread. Maggie Beidelman See also Bakeries; Gluten-Free Foods; Grain Elevators/ Hoarding and Speculation; Milling

Further Readings Belasco, W. J. (2006). Appetite for change: How the counterculture took on the food industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). Wheat. Retrieved from http:// www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/wheat.aspx# .UvljNKXjOMM Jacob, H. E., & Reinhart, P. (2007). Six thousand years of bread. New York, NY: Skyhorse. McKeown, N. M., Jacques, P. F., Seal, C. J., de Vries, J., Jonnalagadda, S. S., Clemens, R., . . . Marquart, L. F. (2013, March). Whole grains and health: From theory to practice—highlights of the Grains for Health Foundation’s Whole Grains Summit 2012. Journal of Nutrition, 143(5), 7445–7585. Retrieved from http:// jn.nutrition.org/content/143/5/744S.abstract?etoc Oppenheimer, T. (2012, August). Our Daily Bread. San Francisco Magazine. Retrieved from http://www .wholeliving.com/183942/our-daily-bread Rubel, W. (2011). Bread: A global history. London, UK: Reaktion Books. Whole Grains Council. (n.d.). Government guidance. Retrieved from http://wholegrainscouncil.org/ whole-grain-stamp/government-guidance

Breastfeeding

Website Whole Grains Council: http://wholegrainscouncil.org

BREASTFEEDING Humans are scientifically classed as mammals (from the Latin root mamma, meaning breast or udder), a clade based on the shared act of nourishing offspring with milk. Breastfeeding, however, is a term used to describe human lactation alone. While a natural act, the context of breastfeeding is socially constructed. The decency, importance, and means of breastfeeding are controversial issues that tie into debates regarding preventative health, discrimination, civility, and parenting, among other issues. The entry discusses breastfeeding recommendations, benefits, and techniques and controversies regarding breastfeeding.

Timing and Duration The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that mothers initiate breastfeeding within the first hour after a child’s birth. At that time, and for the first 2 or 3 days postpartum, the mother expresses colostrum—a thin, yellow antibody-rich fluid. Some cultures view colostrum as harmful and delay nursing until breast milk has matured. In the interim, newborns are sometimes offered water or mashed solid foods (prelacteal feeding). The WHO recommends that infants be exclusively fed breast milk for the first 6 months of life. The organization counsels mothers with HIV/AIDS to seek substitutes where environmental and social circumstances allow or to engage in antiretroviral intervention to reduce the chances of virus transmission via breast milk. Breast milk contains a mix of vitamins, proteins, and fats that is ideal for infant nutrition. After 6 months of age, however, WHO recommends that solid foods be added to the diet to meet the infant’s changing nutritional needs. The WHO recommends continued supplemental breastfeeding through at least 2 years of age. Experts of human biology disagree on the natural weaning age for

149

humans, but most posit a time somewhere between 2 and 7 years. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund, 76% of mothers worldwide were breastfeeding when their child was 12 to 15 months, and 50% when their child was 20 to 23 months, in the first decade of the 21st century. In the United States, these figures are much lower. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 47.2% of mothers were breastfeeding at 6 months, and 25.5% at 12 months in 2009.

Benefits of Breastfeeding In middle- and low-income countries, breastfeeding substantially lowers the risk that a baby will die from infectious diseases during the first 2 years of life. Globally, scientific studies suggest a host of additional benefits for exclusively breastfed infants, including fewer ear infections, allergies, and gastrointestinal problems; higher IQs; and lower rates of type 2 diabetes, childhood obesity, and asthma. Formula-fed babies have a higher risk of lower respiratory tract infections, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome. A 2007 report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality summarizes these findings and the associated health risks of early weaning and formula feeding. The American journalist Hanna Rosin is foremost among critics who have pointed out that many studies on which breast milk–related health claims are based rely on observational studies that compare a group of breastfed infants against a group of infants breastfed less or not at all. Demographic differences in who tends to breastfeed and who does not, and other factors affecting internal validity, make it difficult to isolate diet as the exclusive cause of observed differences. Rosin prominently ruffled feathers by declaring the conflation of nonrandomized results to be a modern manifestation of Betty Friedan’s “feminine mystique,” psychologically manipulating women into breastfeeding as a matter of identity and promoting unequal gender relations. The American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) responded directly to Rosin’s criticisms by affirming the credibility of scientific findings, and recent WHO reports point

150

Breastfeeding

out the unethical nature of nonrandomized sampling methodologies. Recent studies suggest that women may also experience health benefits from breastfeeding. The release of oxytocin associated with breastfeeding helps reduce uterine bleeding, shrink the uterus, and promote infant bonding. Some researchers hint at a correlation between breastfeeding and a lower risk of postpartum depression, but the relationship between them is poorly understood. There may be long-term health benefits to breastfeeding as well. Mothers who breastfeed are less likely to develop breast and ovarian cancers than those who never breastfeed, with health outcomes better for those women who practice exclusive breastfeeding (not given any foods or liquids other than breast milk) for longer durations. An additional benefit of breastfeeding is the cost savings over formula, though some criticize such comparisons as failing to account for the value of a woman’s time.

Breastfeeding Technique and Alternatives Lactation consultants recommend several standard breastfeeding postures for maximum comfort, including cradle and cross-cradle positions (baby placed on his or her side, across the mother’s lap), clutch or “football” hold (mother supports the baby’s head in her hand, with the baby beside her and the baby’s back along her arm), side lying (mother and baby on their sides, facing each other), and laid-back breastfeeding (mother’s head and shoulders supported while lounging, with the baby molded to her chest and stomach). A variety of pillows, chairs, stools, and slings are also marketed to help comfortably position a baby and mother for nursing. Proper posture aids the infant in latching onto the breast and drawing out a sufficient amount of milk. Correct latching also helps reduce nipple pain and irritation, including cracking and bleeding. The suckling techniques an infant uses to feed from a breast and from a bottle are distinct, and switching from one to the other can cause a baby to experience “nipple confusion,” which can impair latching. Several companies market flexible silicone

breast shields to aid in these and other circumstances, though improper use can increase a nursing mother’s risk of engorgement or inflammation of breast tissue due to blocked milk ducts or excess milk (puerperal mastitis). Thrush is another common breastfeeding complication, effected when a yeast infection is passed to the mother’s breast via the baby’s mouth. Some women choose to express their breast milk using a manual or electronic pump. Extracted milk can then be fed to an infant via a bottle, cup, syringe, or other device. The International Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine recommends storing extracted milk at room temperature for no longer than 6 to 8 hours, in an insulated bag or cooler for up to 24 hours, and in a refrigerator for a maximum of 5 days. Breast milk can also be frozen for a period varying from 2 weeks to 12 months, depending on the type of storage device used. The AAP recommends that frozen milk be thawed in the refrigerator or in a bowl of warm water rather than in a microwave.

Breastfeeding Alternatives and Support Many women choose or are forced through circumstance to not breastfeed their babies. Since ancient times, some such women have contractually hired other lactating women (wet nurses) to suckle children on their behalf. Since the late 19th century, the more popular option has been manufactured milk- or soy-based formula substitutes. Since the 1960s, various advocacy organizations, prominently led by La Leche League in the United States, have vociferously called for a return to normalized breastfeeding and the promotion of a “breast is best” motto, in part as a response to emerging data on the negative health ramifications of formula feeding. Despite the resulting community-based, national, and international efforts, breastfeeding rates remain below global targets, and in some countries suggest evidence of a peak or decline. Among factors reducing the likelihood of a woman to initiate or continue breastfeeding are an unsupportive spouse, incongruity between expectations and experiences, the

Breastfeeding

perceived inconvenience of breastfeeding, the stigma and embarrassment of breastfeeding in public, and unsupportive places of employment. Because breast milk is produced on demand, a workingwoman must express milk while away from home if she wishes to be able to breastfeed at other times. Many countries protect the rights of a woman to pump milk while at work. In countries without such protections, or where such laws are poorly enforced, some women experience difficulties in advocating for their rights, face harsh penalties for requesting them, or find themselves the butt of stigma and ridicule. Wage laborers who are required to pump on unpaid breaks face additional challenges. U.S. lawmakers have, at various times, considered expanding the parameters of the disability law to cover breastfeeding, or to classify breastfeeding as a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth, thus making it clearly discriminatory to impinge on a woman’s right to pump. Some critics argue that such a focus on ensuring pump-friendly workplaces ignores other options for enabling infants to consume breast milk, like longer (and paid) maternity leaves and on-site infant child care.

Breastfeeding Controversies Where the breast is sexualized or nudity is considered indecent, the right of women to breastfeed in public can be especially controversial and litigious. The United States has no laws prohibiting breastfeeding in public, though Illinois allows for restrictions in places of worship and Missouri requires discretion. Some states protect a woman’s right to breastfeed anywhere she is authorized to be or specify that breastfeeding cannot be considered a crime of indecent exposure. Few states, however, have enforcement provisions to protect against lactation discrimination. Stories periodically surface of women arrested or asked to leave public places and private establishments for breastfeeding. In some cases, breastfeeding advocates (or, “lactivists”) have staged nurse-ins within or nurseouts around the premises of discriminatory businesses to raise awareness and instigate change. In

151

2012, a “Great Nurse-In Action Day” took place in Washington, D.C., with similar aims. Public opinion is mixed on women’s rights to breastfeed where and how they choose. In 2012, an American University professor inadvertently sparked outrage when she breastfed her daughter while lecturing, and two Air Force National Guard servicewomen were chastised for posing in uniform while nursing. The U.S. news magazine Time also elicited strong reactions when its May 21, 2012, cover featured a mother breastfeeding her 4-year-old son. The issue marked the 20th anniversary of Dr. Bill Sears’s advocacy of “attachment parenting” as a style of child rearing that promotes co-sleeping, babywearing, and extended breastfeeding. As these controversies suggest, there is much more than prudery at stake in the public censure of unrestricted breastfeeding. It is not only breastfeeding but also breast milk that can be controversial. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration treated breast milk under the same guidelines as other liquids and gels when travel restrictions were first implemented in 2006. In 2007, breast milk was reclassified as a “liquid medicine” not subject to 3-ounce container regulations. Online marketplaces allow women with surplus milk to sell it for profit. Other women choose to donate to milk banks, which screen and process the milk before providing it to babies in need. Eats on Feets, among other organizations, advocates a more direct approach to breast milk donation through individually arranged partnerships. Critics cite the informality of community-based milk sharing as potentially dangerous, due to the possibility of unsafe handling and the passing of disease agents and other contaminants through unscreened milk. Advocates counter that milk banks use outdated pasteurization techniques and an unjust distribution model that is insensitive to cultural and religious dietary particulars. Arianna Huhn See also Baby Food; Nutrient Density; Nutrition Education; Nutritionism; Obesity Epidemic

152

Buffets/All You Can Eat

Further Readings Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Breastfeeding report card. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/ pdf/2012BreastfeedingReportCard.pdf Heymann, J., Raub, B., & Earle, A. (2013). Breastfeeding policy: A globally comparative analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 91, 398–406. Horta, B. L., & Victoria, C. G. (2013). Long-term effects of breastfeeding: A systematic review. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Ip, S., Chung, M., Raman, G., Chew, P., Magula, N., Devine, D., . . . Lau, J. (2007). Breastfeeding and maternal and infant health outcomes in developed countries (AHRQ Publication No. 07-E007; Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 153). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Li, R., Hsia, J., Fridinger, F., Hussain, A., Benton-Davis, S., & Grummer-Strawn, L. (2004). Public beliefs about breastfeeding policies in various settings. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104(7), 1162–1168. Liamputtong, P. (2011). Infant feeding practices: A cross-cultural perspective. New York, NY: Springer. Rosin, H. (2009, April). The case against breastfeeding. Atlantic, 303(3), 64–70. Stuart-Macadem, P., & Dettwyler, K. (1995). Breastfeeding: Biocultural perspectives. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter. World Health Organization. (2010). Guidelines on HIV and infant feeding. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

BUFFETS/ALL YOU CAN EAT The buffet itself generally can refer to a selfservice dining environment in the home, other private venues, or restaurants. There are several different types of buffets, including settings, where one pays by weight (usually per pound of food), by plate, or a flat rate for “all-you-can-eat.” Serving practices at various establishments are typically posted for consumers to view. There are several benefits associated with buffets including a reduced need for staffing and providing consumers the opportunity to try new and varied foods. Open buffets may accompany events or special

occasions, with a charge for such events that may include the buffet. In some contexts, buffets are common as a brunch especially on weekends. The focus of this entry is on the all-you-can-eat style of buffet found in many restaurants and hotels across the United States. All-you-can-eat buffets have gained in popularity across the United States and around the world. All-you-can-eat buffets come in many forms including mom-and-pop style eateries, ethnicthemed buffets (Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, etc.), and national chains. Sometimes, all-you-can-eat buffets are combined with menu service to provide greater dining options as well as quicker dining experiences. These food service establishments range in quality and price. All-you-can-eat buffets are especially popular in Las Vegas, which is home to some of the best-known buffets. One of the most highly rated is found at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino. Typically, at all-you-can-eat buffets, importance is placed on both variety and quantity. In addition, these venues tend to reflect a budgetoriented consumer dining orientation, though prices can range from high end to affordable.

History and Background While the origins of the all-you-can-eat buffet are not entirely well documented, it is thought to be traced to the Swedish smorgasbord (which literally translates to sandwich table). The smorgasbord itself is considered a “cold” buffet dating back to the 16th century. However, the word buffet is traced back to the 18th-century French word meaning sideboard. This form of food service did not become popular across Europe until the 19th century, and it is thought to have spread with the development of the rail system. The all-you-can-eat buffet is traced back to the 1930s in the United States, though it is difficult to pinpoint. Attention to this dining form likely came to the United States at the 1939 World’s Fair as part of a Swedish food exhibition. All-you-can-eat buffets in their current form likely trace back to restaurants in Las Vegas casinos and have, in some cases, been attributed to Herb Macdonald, a Las

Buffets/All You Can Eat

Vegas entertainment manager who is thought to have introduced the idea in the 1950s. At this time, customers would pay fixed price for unlimited selfserved food. This practice was considered to provide the maximum amount of food with the least amount of staffing, with the added benefit of keeping gamblers inside the building. Even today, Las Vegas casinos continue to be well-known venues for all-you-can-eat buffets. An important issue influencing the development and popularity of this dining form that puzzles economists is the notion of the economics of the all-you-can-eat model, wherein the average amount consumed by a customer must be less than the cost of the food consumed for the pricing of the meal. Prevailing economic theory suggests that they should not exist with a concern over adverse selection. That is to say, those who extract the most value per meal would be the heaviest users, thus leading to financial loss. However, pricing structures seem to continue to work contributing to the enduring popularity and availability of all-youcan-eat buffets despite this theoretical paradox.

Health Issues Two health concerns loom large in discussions of all-you-can-eat buffets: (1) foodborne illness and (2) overeating. Foodborne illness is a concern across the food service industry but is a particular concern in buffet restaurants. Foodborne illness is somewhat difficult to track because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not identify the type of restaurant in which an outbreak occurs. However, the specific dangers that are common conditions at all-you-can-eat buffets relate to the way food is presented in this environment, namely, laid out prepared on warming tables. It is wellknown that there are dangers associated with food sitting out at improper temperatures, which may be influenced by a desire by buffet managers to prevent the overcooking of foods resulting in temperatures maintained below health code regulations. In addition, there is concern over cross-contamination as customers come into contact with foods in this environment. However, the condition and practices

153

of restaurant kitchens are considered more important in preventing the spread of foodborne illness. Health inspectors suggest stirring foods in steam trays or scooping from the bottom rather than from the top to help access food at the most appropriate temperatures. Moreover, it is suggested that patrons visit during busy times as food turns over rapidly, and health inspector considers it dangerous to eat during off-peak times. Given the growing rates of overweight and obesity in the United States, there is serious concern regarding overeating that is encouraged by the allyou-can-eat food environment. People tend to eat more in a given sitting when faced with a large variety of foods. Brian Wansink’s work at the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University relating to portions, perceptions, and eating practices has become important to the understanding of food practices across environments, with specific investigations of dining habits in buffet restaurants. Wansink and colleagues conducted a systematic study of eating behavior at two dozen all-you-caneat Chinese buffets. They noted that different practices contribute to the amount that is eaten and suggest several strategies that can be used to prevent or minimize overeating at all-you-can-eat buffets. These strategies include the following: • • • • • •

Surveying all options available before serving Using smaller plates Sitting farther from the buffet spread Beginning by eating a plate full of vegetables Drinking a full glass of water between plating Incorporating fresh fruit into dessert

However, some experts such as David Katz at the Yale University Prevention Research Center suggest that all-you-can-eat buffets should be avoided altogether.

Waste Food waste is considered a major environmental problem and the biggest source of municipal solid waste in U.S. landfills today. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, food waste in

154

Buffets/All You Can Eat

2011 was more than 36 million tons (http://www. epa.gov/foodrecovery/). The food service industry is a major site of concern with buffets being especially problematic in contributing to pre- and postconsumer food waste. Postconsumer food is of particular concern because it cannot be rescued through the emergency food system, which redistributes food from the waste stream at the preconsumer stage to distribute in soup kitchens, food pantries, and food banks for hunger prevention. Postconsumer food, on the other hand, must be disposed of and is destined for landfills. Plate waste in buffets is considered especially problematic because consumers are encouraged by this environment to fill and refill plates indefinitely to maximize perceived value and explore variety. In addition, food can also only be set out for a finite amount of time before it must be replaced to meet health codes. Food removed is discarded contributing to the cycle of waste due to legal and health-related concerns. It is estimated that for every 10 plates that are filled in a buffet restaurant, about 4 plates of waste are produced. Some buffet establishments are working to address this issue through innovative strategies. Moderation is difficult to practice in environments that are designed to encourage overeating. Thus, some all-you-can-eat buffets are instituting plate waste or “waste not, want not” policies that provide patrons with pricing incentives to discourage them from leaving food on their plates at the end of their meals. One example is Fred’s Market in Tampa, Florida, which provides a $2 discount for diners who leave “a clean plate” (http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/at-freds-market-buffetit-pays-to-clean-your-plate/2118572). Another cost structure tactic that takes a more punitive stance is fining patrons for plate waste. One Chinese buffet in the United Kingdom, for instance, fines patrons a startling £20 for leaving food on their plates (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-2145387/Restaurant-fines-diners-Chinesebuffet-leaving-food-plates.html). However, a competing concern is that these policies may, however, encourage people to further overeat in an attempt to save money. Other strategies aimed at preventing plate waste that do not utilize pricing structures but rather

change environmental factors include providing smaller plates and removing trays from all-youcan-eat venues. Smaller plates have been linked to a nearly 20% reduction in food waste in one study of an all-you-can-eat buffet at a hotel in Europe. In addition, a switch to trayless serving practices within a university dining hall buffet setting was associated with a significant reduction in postconsumer solid waste. Ultimately, the all-you-can-eat buffet is a form of food service that appears to be here to stay, especially in a budget conscious economic climate. Patrons should use caution and be mindful to prevent health concerns such as foodborne illness and overeating, as well as the production of waste that contributes to environmental degradation. That being said, it is clear that for those who can be moderate and exercise self-control, the all-youcan-eat buffet remains an attractive and affordable dining experience. Christine C. Caruso See also Foodborne Illness; Portion Sizes

Further Readings Paris, F. W. (1984). All you can eat: Your guide to more than 1,000 U.S. smorgasbords, buffets and restaurants offering unlimited servings for $7.95 or less. Midhurst, UK: Pennywise Press. Skerrett, P. J. (2013). Survivor skills for all-you-can-eat buffets. Boston, MA: Harvard Medical School, Harvard Health Publications. Retrieved from http:// www.health.harvard.edu/blog/survival-skills-for-allyou-can-eat-buffets-201303226015 Top All-You-Can-Eat Buffets. (n.d.). Travel and Leisure. Retrieved from http://www.travelandleisure.com/ articles/top-all-you-can-eat-buffets Wansink, B. (2006). Mindless eating: Why we eat more than we think. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Websites Brian Wasink: http://brianwansink.com/ End Food Waste Now: http://endfoodwastenow.org/ index.php/issues/issues-restaurants Environmental Protection Agency, Reducing Food Waste for Businesses: http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/ Wasted Food: http://www.wastedfood.com/

Butterflies and Other Lepidoptera, Decline in Population of

BUTTERFLIES AND OTHER LEPIDOPTERA, DECLINE IN POPULATION OF Butterflies and moths, like bees, birds, and bats, are important pollinators. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from male to female flowers of the same plant species, a process necessary for plant fertilization and thus seed and fruit production. Pollination is a mutually beneficial process: In exchange for visiting the flower, the pollinator receives food (nectar or pollen) from the flower and/or a deposition site for larvae. Approximately three quarters of the world’s flowering plants depend on pollinators. These include many plants widely consumed by humans— such as apples, potatoes, peaches, melons, pumpkins, almonds, vanilla, and coffee—as well as plants used as animal feed—such as alfalfa, clover, and various grasses used as hay. Worldwide, approximately 150,000 species of Lepidoptera—the taxonomic order of butterflies and moths—have been described (National Research Council, 2007, p. 60). In some cases, interdependence of a butterfly or moth species and a flowering plant is exclusive, as is the case of the yucca and the yucca moth (genus Tegeticula); in most cases, however, butterflies and moths seem to be generalist pollinators. As they tend to travel longer distances than do other pollinating insects such as bees, butterflies and moths are important in maintaining genetic diversity of flowering plants. This entry describes the global decline in populations of butterflies and moths and the implications of this decline, particularly on agriculture.

Population Status According to the National Research Council (2007, p. 29), over the past quarter century or so, a general decline in pollinator populations has been reported across North America, Europe (where research includes more extensive long-term data than in North America), Asia, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia. A butterfly (Glaucopsyche xerces) was the first documented extinct insect species in North America. Butterflies and moths currently dominate

155

the U.S. list of endangered insect species: At the time of this writing, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed 22 species of butterflies and one species of moth as endangered, and two species of butterfly and one species of moth as threatened. Twentytwo species of Lepidoptera have recently gone extinct globally (http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct; also quoted in National Research Council, 2007, pp. 285–286). Data on butterfly populations are sparse; data that do exist are local and relatively recent. However, existing data from around the world generally reveal a trend of decline in terms of both population numbers and species diversity. For example, a 40-year study of the bay checkerspot butterfly at Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve in California shows numerous cases of extirpation (local extinction), and similar findings of related species have been documented in Switzerland’s Rhone Valley. Likewise, a 29-year study of various butterfly species in the Sacramento Valley shows a 38% decline in species diversity, as well as a serious population decline of 8 species and a slight decline of an additional 11 species (National Research Council, 2007, p. 62). No data on moth population trends exist in the United States.

Monitoring Few pollinator-monitoring systems are in place in North America, and little data exist on pollinator species, especially wild species (all species besides managed bees). Butterfly monitoring is further complicated by butterflies’ extensive travel; however, the monarch’s long-distance annual migration between Canada, the United States, and Mexico has helped attract scientific and public attention for the species, and it is one of the most closely monitored butterflies. In North America, annual or semiannual butterfly counts are gaining popularity. These generally occur on July 4 in the United States, July 1 in Canada, and September 16 in Mexico. Butterfly monitoring and research groups also exist across Europe and in Australia, Brazil, Asia, and Israel. Globally, however, there is a need for “standardized, wider-scale, long-term” systems for monitoring all pollinators (National Research Council, 2007, p. 131).

156

Butterflies and Other Lepidoptera, Decline in Population of

Causes of Butterfly Decline The suspected causes of decline among butterfly populations are numerous: habitat degradation and loss, agricultural pesticide and fertilizer use, genetic modification of crop plants, monoculture farming practices, competition from invasive species, introduced parasites and pathogens, and climate change (this last factor affects plant–pollinator relationships; for example, plants might flower earlier during the butterfly’s migration cycle). As many species of butterflies migrate, deterioration or loss of habitat of just one part of their migratory route can be detrimental to the butterfly’s population.

Effects of Butterfly Decline The decline in pollinators, including butterflies, is potentially catastrophic in a number of ways. While caterpillars can be detrimental to crops, adult butterflies sip flower nectar rather than chewing plant tissue (Van Emden, 2013, p. 125) and serve as important pollinators in the process. A drop in pollinators leads to a decrease in agricultural food production. One study has shown that canola farming that leaves one third of the land as a natural pollinator habitat is more productive and profitable than farming that utilizes 100% of the land for crop cultivation (National Research Council, 2007, p. 189). Butterfly decline also affects ecotourism in places known for butterflies and for flora. Furthermore, it affects human cultural and aesthetic pursuits relating to nature. The proliferation of butterfly conservation groups is evidence of people’s interest in recovering and maintaining butterfly populations and species. Finally, pollinators are fundamental to functioning of ecosystems. Butterfly and moth decline could contribute to a possible “extinction vortex” —interacting factors that progressively reduce small populations (National Research Council, 2007, p. 203).

Global Responses and Solutions Government, nonprofit, and citizen groups around the world are involved in monitoring and recovery

efforts of butterflies and moths, although much more research and work is needed. In 2007, the U.S. National Research Council published Status of Pollinators in North America based on a survey of all research conducted in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This study includes numerous, specific recommendations for further research, government regulations, agricultural practices, and public awareness campaigns for sustaining pollinators. The study also lists stewardship incentives and notes that in Europe, various monetary incentives encourage environmental stewardship by farmers and ranchers (National Research Council, 2007, p. 179). As general understanding and appreciation of pollinator benefits are key to pollinator recovery, nonprofit organizations have also begun public outreach programs. For example, the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, which organizes popular butterfly-monitoring programs, has established “Pollinator Week” and produces pollinator-friendly garden kits for elementary schools. The 2012 IMAX film The Flight of the Butterflies also helped raise the public’s awareness of declining monarch populations and threats to butterfly habitat. Likewise, the “Monarch Waystations” initiative led to the creation, by various public and private groups, of more than 600 monarch habitat sites along monarch migratory routes. Simple, known ways of sustaining healthy butterfly and moth habitat include organic farming, polyculture planting, tolerating native wildflowers and weeds along crop borders and in backyards, planting permanent hedgerows of native wildflowers between fields, and restoring natural habitat on farms in permanently set-aside areas. Kristine Kowalchuk See also Climate Change; Pesticides

Further Readings National Research Council. (2007). Status of pollinators in North America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Van Emden, H. F. (2013). Handbook of agricultural entomology. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Butterflies and Other Lepidoptera, Decline in Population of

Websites The Butterfly Conservation Initiative: http:// butterflyrecovery.org/ Butterfly Societies & Associations: http://butterflywebsite .com/Society/list.htm Monarch Watch: http://www.monarchwatch.org/

157

North American Butterfly Association: http://www.naba.org/ North American Pollinator Protection Campaign: http:// pollinator.org/nappc/index.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species: http:// www.fws.gov/endangered The Xerces Society: http://www.xerces.org/

C The first noninstitutional cafeteria was part of the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893. It was the first restaurant to rely on selfservice to feed both sexes. Earlier buffets in New York served only men, who ate standing up. In 1898, the first cafeteria chain opened in New York City. Childs Cafeterias catered primarily to working women. Childs was the first to offer the sliding tray so that customers could move down the line collecting their entire meal easily. Childs capitalized on the rage for hygiene that was sweeping through America. Their restaurants featured gleaming white walls and a white-clad staff. An orchestra provided entertainment to diners. Horn and Hardart’s Automat opened in Philadelphia in 1902 and in New York City by 1912. The Automat was a self-service restaurant, where diners could choose from foods on display in small glass-fronted compartments. Like the cafeteria, the Automat offered quick, inexpensive food. Unlike the cafeteria, diners dropped change into a slot and opened a door to receive their food. Due to their informality, familiar American style food, and low prices, cafeterias appealed to families with children and some disposable income. Chain cafeterias were especially popular in the Midwest and the South. There were regional variations in the foods served. There were also regional variations in the style of cafeteria service. In the South, some cafeterias had staff to carry a customer’s food from the cash register to the table.

CAFETERIAS, NONINSTITUTIONAL A noninstitutional cafeteria is a restaurant where customers are served from steam trays of premade food arranged in a line. The name cafeteria was borrowed from the Spanish name for a coffee shop. Cafeterias differ from buffets where customers serve themselves. Cafeteria customers usually carry their own trays to the table and pay for the individual items on their trays. Cafeteria cuisine is mainstream American fare: meat, potatoes, salads, and vegetables. Cakes, pies, pudding, and gelatin lead the desert selections. Cafeterias originated in the early 20th century as an inexpensive and quick dining option suitable for workers of both genders on their lunch breaks and middle-class families. Their popularity was based on cleanliness, wholesome food, and good value. Cafeterias were most popular from the 1930s to the 1990s. This entry discusses the history of cafeterias, their distinctive business models, and their geographically important chains. Cafeterias appeared in American cities in the early 20th century. At that time, restaurants were either expensive establishments that catered to businessmen and travelers or low-class establishments that served food of dubious quality to a mostly male clientele. As the number of urban workers of both sexes expanded in the early years of the 20th century, cafeterias emerged to provide an affordable and quick meal during brief lunch breaks. 159

160

Cancer-Fighting Foods

By the end of the Great Depression, cafeterias existed throughout the United States. Many cafeteria chains were family owned and managed; some lasted as family businesses for more than 100 years. By the 1990s, cafeterias had lost market share and many chains had closed down. Always a low-margin, high-volume business, cafeterias were unable to compete with the increasingly diverse set of dining choices offered by chain restaurants. One notable exception to this trend has been the state of Indiana, where cafeterias have retained their popularity. Cafeteria restaurants have also been the vehicle for unconventional business models and other innovations. A good example was Clifton’s cafeteria in Los Angeles, California. The cafeteria’s founder, Clifford Clinton, believed that no customer should be sent away hungry, regardless of their ability to pay. Known as the “Cafeteria of the Golden Rule,” Clifton’s displayed a neon sign above the door that read “Pay What You Wish.” Clifton’s employees, called “associates,” had voting power on their own governing board, and benefits (this before the New Deal). Clifton’s second location, Brookdale, California, featured an unusual decorative scheme. It was modeled to resemble a mountain lodge in a redwood forest. It was the largest commercial cafeteria in the nation. The dining room was racially integrated from the beginning. Clinton was one of the richest and most powerful men in Los Angeles in the 1940s. Luby’s cafeteria chain began in 1911 in Springfield, Missouri. The first to franchise its business, the chain quickly spread to Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Luby’s combined some of the idealistic practices of Clifton’s with now familiar business models such as the franchise. Luby’s carefully trained each store manager, rewarding them with 40% of the store profits. Other employees also eventually earned shares in the company. While managers became millionaires, employees showed their appreciation of this form of profit sharing by staying with the company for decades. A hallmark of cafeterias was their careful management of food. Because they were inexpensive and made their reputation based on cleanliness and

wholesomeness, cafeterias made their food from scratch. Luby’s managers had to know how to use carcasses for soup, prepare vegetables and baked goods, and perform every job in the restaurant. Careful menu management, avoiding waste, and providing a stable choice of favorite foods has been key to the business success of cafeterias. This is still true in the cafeterias of Indiana, a bastion of cafeteria popularity today when most other cafeteria chains have disappeared. MCL Cafeterias (now known as MCL Restaurants), Grey Brothers, and Jonathan Byrd’s Cafeteria and Banquet Facility are still alive and well. Jonathan Byrd’s features the longest cafeteria line in the world. It has remained competitive by branching out into banqueting facilities and a thriving take-out counter. April Bullock See also Buffets/All You Can Eat; Casual Dining Chains; Diners; Fast Food; Restaurant Management; Take-Out Foods

Further Readings Crowley, C. H. (2001). Meet me at the Automat: Horn & Hardart gave big city Americans a taste of good fast food in its chrome-and-glass restaurants. Smithsonian. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ history-archaeology/object_aug01.html Dawson, C., & Johnstone, C. (2006). House of plenty: The rise, fall, and revival of Luby’s Cafeterias. Austin: University of Texas Press. Rymer, R. (2003). The Cafeteria of the Golden Rule. Los Angeles Magazine, 48, 100–103, 167, 191–193. Stall, S. (2004). Tray chic: Celebrating Indiana’s cafeteria culture. Cincinnati, OH: Guild Press-Emmis.

CANCER-FIGHTING FOODS Although early links between cancer and diet were largely dismissed, evidence and some acceptance of the role of diet in cancer prevention and treatment is growing. According to the American and Canadian Cancer Societies, diet affects as much as

Cancer-Fighting Foods

one third of all cancers when combined with regular exercise. Having said this, the existing research on cancer and food is far from homogeneous or conclusive, and the precise mechanisms by which foods prevents, and/or resists, cancer growth remain largely unknown. While no single miracle food can cure or prevent cancer, some of the existing data point to a whole-food (i.e., nonrefined, nonprocessed), largely plant-based diet as one of the best to reduce one’s cancer risk. In a more speculative 2006 claim, the nutritional biochemist T. Colin Campbell argues that plantbased diets can also reverse the progression of disease, including some cancers. Similarly, Broekmans and colleagues detail that diets high in fruits and vegetables have long been associated with lowered risk for cancer in general, and for specific types of cancer including cancers of the stomach, esophagus, mouth, lung, colon, rectum, bladder, breast, prostate, pancreas, and larynx. The principal (though not exclusive) nutrients in plant foods shown to have anticancer properties are vitamins C, D, and E; carotenoids; riboflavin; folate; and folic acid. While there is incongruity in the wider research on whether any differences in antioxidant levels exist between organic and nonorganic foods, in a 2014 metaanalysis of 343 peer-reviewed publications, Baran´ski and colleagues indicate that organic crops yield higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower cadmium concentrations, and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than nonorganic crops, pointing to their potential benefit in the fight against cancer. The specific foods listed below are a summary of existing food sources (excluding herbs) recognized for their potential cancer-fighting and cancer-preventive properties and are by no means presented as definitive links, nor as foods that should be taken in isolation of a balanced diet. Avocados are rich in glutathione, a powerful antioxidant that attacks free radicals in the body by blocking intestinal absorption of certain fats. According to the National Cancer Institute, free radicals, which are formed naturally in the body, have the potential to cause damage to cells, including damage that may lead to cancer. As Zhang and

161

colleagues note, avocados also supply the body with high levels of potassium and are a strong source of beta-carotene. The American Cancer Society clarifies that while high levels of potassium in the body can be toxic, some research suggests that too low a level can promote tumor growth. The optimal levels and exact benefits of beta-carotene remain equivocal. The American Institute for Cancer Research states that beans and legumes contain isoflavones and phytoestrogens that protect cells from the potentially carcinogenic effects of alcohol. They also contain high levels of fiber, which not only help neutralize free radicals in the stomach and blood stream but also help lower estrogen levels, and, in turn, help reduce breast cancer risk. Many breast cancer tumors feed on estrogen, so reducing it may prevent tumors from developing. The American Cancer Society recommends eating fruits and vegetables of different colors, including beetroot, eggplant, purple cabbages, grapes, and other purple colored fruits and vegetables, which contain anthocyanins that can protect against cell damage from free radicals. In laboratory experiments on human colon cancer cells, Zhao and colleagues contend that anthocyanins also have the capacity to slow the growth of colon cancer cells. Bell peppers are a rich source of vitamin C, containing even higher amounts than oranges and other citrus fruits. Campbell’s research has shown that low levels of vitamin C in human blood led to higher risks of esophageal, nasopharynx, breast, stomach, liver, rectum, colon, and lung cancers than for those with recommended levels. In a 2007 study, Sun and colleagues compared antioxidant compounds and their activities in green, yellow, orange, and red bell peppers, which did not yield any significant differences. Berries contain many vitamins, minerals, plant compounds, and antioxidants known as anthocyanins that can protect against cancer. According to the American Institute of Cancer Research, all berries (and in particular strawberries and raspberries) are rich in ellagic acid. In laboratory studies, this phytochemical has shown the ability to prevent cancers of the skin, bladder, lung, esophagus, and breast.

162

Cancer-Fighting Foods

Broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables, also known as brassica vegetables (cabbages, cauliflower, bok choy, sprouts, including brussels sprouts, and kale), contain many phytochemicals, and specifically, glucosinolates, crambene, indole-3-carbinol, and isothiocyanates. These vegetables contain two known antioxidants, lutein and zeaxanthin, that may help decrease prostate and other cancers, and fiber, which helps eliminate toxins (and which binds to damaging agents in the intestine). Brassica vegetables also have a chemical component called indole-3-carbinol that is being investigated for its value in preventing breast cancer by converting a cancer-promoting estrogen into a more protective variety. Broccoli, especially broccoli sprouts, also has the phytochemical sulforaphane, a product of glucoraphanin, believed to aid in preventing some types of cancer, such as colon and rectal cancer. According to Weldon, sulforaphane induces the production of certain enzymes that can deactivate free radicals and carcinogens. Carrots and other orange colored fruits and vegetables contain high levels of beta-carotene, which, according to Weldon and Campbell, may be of value in prevention and treatment of a wide range of cancers including lung, mouth, throat, stomach, intestine, bladder, prostate, and breast. Some research indicates beta-carotene may actually cause cancer, but it has not proven that eating carrots, unless in very large quantities (i.e., 2 to 3 kilograms a day), can cause cancer. Along with other orange colored fruits and vegetables—apricots, peppers, pumpkins, yams, mangoes, cantaloupe, and winter squash—carrots are rich in carotenoids, which convert to vitamin A when needed by the body. Chili peppers and jalapeños contain capsaicin, a chemical that has been shown to neutralize certain cancer-causing substances (nitrosamines), and thus, according to Kim and colleagues, may help prevent cancers of the stomach. Dark green leafy vegetables are rich in folate and carotenoids and have been shown by Byers and colleagues to be successful in reducing the risk of tumor growth. The carotenoids include beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, lycopene, lutein, zeaxanthin, and beta-cryptoxanthin. Dark green

leafy vegetables include spinach, kale, romaine lettuce, leaf lettuce, mustard greens, collard greens, chicory, and Swiss chard. Egg yolk, along with green leafy vegetables, avocado, beans, carrots, apricots, and pumpkins, provides high levels of folic acid. Folic acid helps DNA to replicate properly and sufficiently, especially during radiotherapy. Liu notes that folate, biotin, niacin, and vitamin B6 are all B vitamins that play an important role in maintaining healthy nutrition and lowering cancer risk. Extra-virgin olive oil is a monounsaturated fat and a healthier type of fat than saturated fats found in butter, ice cream, and meat, or polyunsaturated fats found in corn or safflower oil. A 2002 study by Byers and colleagues shows that those who used at least two teaspoons of olive oil daily lowered their risk of breast cancer by as much as 73%. While research in this area is still relatively new, one speculation is that olive oil (apart from being a monounsaturated fat) also comes from olives— fruits that contain many of the therapeutic compounds, like phenols and lignans, a type of plant estrogen also found in lower quantities in grains, nuts, and beans, that have been effective in fighting cancer. Dried figs are an excellent source of antioxidants, according to a 2005 study published by Vinson and colleagues in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Antioxidants found in dried figs can guard against oxidative stress. Dried figs contain a derivative of benzaldehyde, which may play a role in fighting prostate cancer. The clinical herbalist and certified nutritionist Donald Yance notes that the benzaldehyde in figs blocks the uptake of certain compounds that inhibit adesine triphosphate levels in cancer cells, which may impede prostate tumor growth. As detailed by the American Cancer Society, some studies conducted on animals have found that fish and fish oils rich in omega-3 fatty acids suppress the formation and growth of some cancers. Studies in humans, however, have produced conflicting results. A reanalysis of 40 years of research suggests that omega-3 fatty acid supplements do not reduce cancer risk. As Colin Campbell

Cancer-Fighting Foods

explains, one reason why fish and fish oils may be effective against some types of cancer is because of their low levels of cholesterol and high levels of vitamins A and D, though he maintains that the need for all of these nutrients is better met through plant sources. Flaxseed (but not flaxseed oil) is even richer in lignans than olive oil and also supplies alphalinolenic acid—the plant form of omega-3 fatty acids. Cell and animal studies, as well as a preliminary study of 32 postmenopausal women with breast cancer, suggest that flaxseed helps reduce tumor growth and spread, according to McIntosh and colleagues. The seeds provide no nutritional or health benefits unless they are ground. Garlic has immune-enhancing allium compounds (dialyl sulfides) that appear to increase the activity of immune cells that fight cancer and indirectly help break down cancer-causing substances. Some studies have linked garlic, as well as other allium vegetables—onions, scallions, leeks, and chives—to a lower risk of stomach and colon cancer. These foods contain allicin, allixin, allyl sulfides, and quercetin, which have been reported to have anticancer effects. According to Nishino and colleagues, people who consume raw or cooked garlic regularly face about half the risk of stomach cancer and two thirds the risk of colorectal cancer as people who eat little or none. Block proposes that garlic may help prevent stomach cancer because of its antimicrobial effects against certain types of bacteria found in the stomach. The American Cancer Society notes that there is some scientific evidence that substances derived from mushrooms may be useful against cancer. Mushrooms contain polysaccharides, which are a source of beta-glucan, and contain a protein called lectin. Polysaccharides, as detailed by Varona, have been shown to inhibit cancer growth, stimulate T-cells, and increase immune ability. Huang notes that certain varieties of mushrooms (shiitake, maitake, reishi, Agaricus blazei Murill, and Coriolus versicolor) and their extracts have been shown to inhibit the growth of certain types of cancer cells. Nuts contain the antioxidants quercetin and campferol that may suppress the growth of cancers.

163

The American Institute for Cancer Research points out that Brazil nuts, in particular, contain 80 micrograms of selenium—a potent anticancer agent—which is important for those with, or at risk for, prostate cancer. Attaway, Huang, and colleagues note that oranges, grapefruits, and other citrus fruits (including lemons and limes) are rich in monoterpenes, limonene, phytochemicals, vitamin C, betacarotene, and folic acid. Monoterpenes are believed to help prevent cancer by sweeping carcinogens out of the body. Limonene can stimulate cancer-killing immune cells such as lymphocytes. And phytochemicals, in general, are suspected to protect against various cancers. Campbell’s research has shown that low levels of vitamin C in human blood have led to higher risks of esophageal, nasopharynx, breast, stomach, liver, rectum, colon, and lung cancers. Pumpkin and sunflower seeds are packed with vitamin E, which is under investigation for its ability to inhibit cancer cell growth and protect immune cells from free radicals. Byers and colleagues state that the target daily consumption of vitamin E is 300 to 600 milligrams, which and is difficult to achieve without supplements. Green vegetables, soya, and almonds are also other good sources of vitamin E. Red grapes, red wines, and grape juices contain bioflavonoids, powerful antioxidants that work as cancer preventives. Grapes are also a rich source of resveratrol, which inhibits the enzymes that can stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress immune response. Grapes also contain ellagic acid, a compound that appears to help slow the growth of tumors. Kaur and colleagues have shown that of the completed studies from various scientific groups, both grapes and grape-based products are excellent sources of various anticancer agents. The skin of grapes contains the most resveratrol, and red and purple grapes are better sources than green grapes. Wines, and especially red wines, also contain resveratrol. However, alcohol consumption has been associated with an increased risk for various types of cancer, including breast, oral, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, and liver, especially when used in excess.

164

Cancer-Fighting Foods

According to Varona, seaweed and other sea vegetables, such as nori, kombu, wakame, arame, dulse, and hiziki, contain beta-carotene, protein, vitamin B12, fiber, chlorophyll, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, and iodine and have been linked in numerous studies to cancer reduction and tumor inhibition. In a 2014 study by Shigihara and colleagues, however, the total consumption of seaweeds was not associated with a reduced risk of pancreatic cancer. Soy products, including soymilk, tempeh, miso, soy nuts, soybeans, and tofu, contain several types of phytoestrogens—weak, nonsteroidal estrogens that are being investigated for their potential to prevent both breast and prostate cancers. There are also a number of isoflavones in soy products, as well as saponins, phenolic acids, phytic acid, phytosterols, and protein kinase inhibitor that have, according to Esaki and colleagues, shown effective anticancer activity. Tomatoes and other pink or red fruits contain lycopene, an antioxidant that attacks free radicals suspected of triggering malignant cell growth. Tomatoes, like watermelon, papaya, peaches, pink guava, and pink grapefruit, also carry vitamin C and carotenoids that, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research, may prevent the development of some cancers. Whole grains are rich in fiber, vitamins and minerals, as well as hundreds of phytochemicals. The active ingredients in whole grains that may lower cancer risk, according to Varona, include fiber (soluble and insoluble types), antioxidants, phenols, lignans, phytoestrogens and saponins. Alissa Overend See also Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet; Irradiation; Olive Oil

Further Readings American Cancer Society. (2013). Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.org/healthy/index American Institute for Cancer Research. (2007). Food, nutrition, physical activity and the prevalence of cancer: A global perspective. Washington, DC: Author.

Attaway, J. A. (1994). Citrus juice flavonoids with anticarcinogenic and antitumor properties. In C. T. Ho, T. Osawa, M. T. Huang, & R. T. Rosen (Eds.), Food phytochemicals for cancer prevention: Vol. 1. Fruits and vegetables (pp. 240–248). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Baran´ski, M., Srednicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., Seal, C., Sanderson, R., Stewart, G. B., . . . Leifert, C. (2014). Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: A systematic literature review and meta-analyses. British Journal of Nutrition, 112(5), 794–811. Block, E. (1994). Flavorants from garlic, onion and other alliums and their cancer-preventative properties. In C. T. Ho, T. Osawa, M. T. Huang, & R. T. Rosen (Eds.), Food phytochemicals for cancer prevention: Vol. 1. Fruits and vegetables (pp. 84–96). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Broekmans, W. M. R., Klopping-Ketelars, W. A. A., Verhagen, H., van der Berg, H., Kok, F. J., & van Poppel, G. (2000). Effects of increased fruit and vegetables consumption on markers for disease risk: A diet controlled human intervention trial. In I. T. Johnson & G. R. Fenwick (Eds.), Dietary anticarcinogens and antimutagens: Chemical and biological aspects (pp. 404–406). London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry. Byers, T., Nestle, M., McTiernan, A., Doyle, C., CurrieWilliams, A., Gansler, T., & Thun, M. (2002). American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention: Reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 52, 92–119. Campbell, T. C., & Campbell, T. M. (2006). The China study: Startling implications for diet, weight loss, and long-term health. Dallas, TX: Benbella Books. Canadian Cancer Society. (2013). Nutrition and fitness. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.ca/en/preventionand-screening/live-well/nutrition-andfitness/?region=on Esaki, H., Onozaki, H., & Osawa, T. (1994). Antioxidative activity of fermented soybean products. In C. T. Ho, T. Osawa, M. T. Huang, & R. T. Rosen (Eds.), Food phytochemicals for cancer prevention: Vol. 1. Fruits and vegetables (pp. 253–260). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Cannabis in Food Huang, M. T., Ferraro, T., Ho, C. T. (1994). Cancer chemoprevention by phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables. In C. T. Ho, T. Osawa, M. T. Huang, & R. T. Rosen (Eds.), Food phytochemicals for cancer prevention: Vol. 1. Fruits and vegetables (pp. 2–16). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Kaur, M., Agarwal, C., & Agarwal, R. (2009). Anticancer and cancer chemopreventive potential of grape seed extract and other grape-based products. Journal of Nutrition, 139(9), 1806S–1812S. Kim, M., Hagiwara, N., Smith, S. J., Yamamoto, T., Yamane, T., & Takakashi, T. (1994). Preventative effect of green tea polyphenols on colon carcinogens. In C. T. Ho, T. Osawa, M. T. Huang, & R. T. Rosen (Eds.), Food phytochemicals for cancer prevention: Vol. 2. Teas, spices, and herbs (pp. 51–55). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Liu, R. H. (2004). Potential synergy of phytochemicals in cancer prevention: Mechanism of action. Journal of Nutrition, 134(12), 3479S–3485S. McIntosh, G. H., Jorgensen, L., & Royle, P. (1993). In K. W. Waldron, I. T. Waldron, & G. R. Fenwick (Eds.), Food and cancer prevention: Chemical and biological aspects (pp. 362–363). London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry. Nishino, H. (1993). Cancer preventative agents in processed garlic. In K. W. Waldron, I. T. Waldron, & G. R. Fenwick (Eds.), Food and cancer prevention: Chemical and biological aspects (pp. 290–294). London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry. Shigihara, M., Obara, T., Nagai, M., Sugawara, Y., Watanabe, T., Kakizaki, M., . . . Tsuji, I. (2014). Consumption of fruits, vegetables, and seaweeds (see vegetables) and pancreatic risk: The Ohsaki cohort study. Cancer Epidemiology, 38(2), 129–36. Sun, T., Xu, Z., Wu, C. T., Janes, M., Prinyawiwatkul, W., & No, H. K. (2007). Antioxidant activities of different colors sweet bell peppers (Capsicum annuum L.). Journal of Food Science, 72(2), S98–S102. Varona, V. (2001). Nature’s cancer-fighting foods. New York, NY: Penguin Putman. Vinson, J. A., Zubik, L., Bose, P., Samman, N., & Proch, J. (2005). Dried fruits: Excellent in vitro and in vivo antioxidants. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 24(1), 44–50. Weldon, G. (2002). Dietary options for cancer survivors: A guide to research on foods, food substances, herbals and dietary regimens that may influence cancer.

165

Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research. Yance, D. (1999). Herbal medicine, healing and cancer: A comprehensive program for prevention and treatment. Chicago, IL: Keats. Zhang, S., Hunter, D. J., Forman, M. R., Rosner, B. A., Speizer, F. E., Colditz, G. A., . . . Willett, W. C. (1999). Dietary carotenoids and vitamins A, C, and E and risk of breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 91(6), 547–556. Zhao, C., Giusti, M. M., Malik, M., & Magnuson, B. A. (2004). Effects of commercial anthocyanin-rich extracts on normal colon and colon cancer cell growth. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemicals, 52(20), 6122–6128.

CANNABIS

IN

FOOD

The increasing number of jurisdictions legalizing the use of marijuana, for either medical or recreational reasons, has brought with it a rise in the number of food products containing cannabis or its extracts. Many consumers want the medical or recreational benefits of marijuana consumption without engaging in smoking, which is seen as unhealthful and which may not be allowed in certain situations and locations. Food products containing marijuana and its extracts are categorized in Colorado statutes as marijuana-infused products (MIP) or “regulated marijuana products” and are placed in the same category as lotions, tinctures, and other similar products. MIP edible food products engage the food spectrum from appetizer to dessert, from sweet to salty to savory. This entry examines marijuana consumption laws in the United States and the process used to make MIP edibles. At the time of this writing, only two U.S. states, Colorado and Washington, have legalized recreational marijuana consumption. In both states, purchasers of marijuana and MIP edibles must be 21 years of age or older. Regulations around MIP edibles are similar in both states with Colorado’s being slightly more detailed. In both states, MIP edibles must be prepared in kitchens

166

Cannabis in Food

that meet state standards for commercial food preparation and are subject to regular inspection like any other commercial kitchen. The statutes in Colorado specify a number of sanitary conditions for retail establishments selling MIP edibles, including access to hand-washing facilities and premises that can be cleaned easily and protected from entry by pests. In the state of Colorado, the owner of a business preparing MIP edibles must possess ServSafe food safety training certification. All rules set forth for use of food colorings and other chemicals in foodstuffs must be followed by MIP edible producers. Most MIP edibles are given potency by using a food-based retail marijuana concentrate (FRMC). FRMC is a product that is produced by extracting cannabinoids from marijuana through the use of propylene glycol, glycerin, butter, olive oil, or other acceptable cooking fats. The cannabinoids are extracted into the cooking fat and the product is then prepared using the fat-based FMRC. For liquid-based MIP edibles, a water process or solventbased process is used to extract the cannabinoids (in a manner similar to the coffee decaffeination process), which are captured in a liquid base that is then used in the production of the product. Batches of MIP edibles are tested for potency in a manner similar to those required by other food producers. The standard for the state of Colorado is no more than 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per serving (though a package may contain multiple servings). MIP edibles are also tested for homogeneity. No more than 20% of the total THC content of the product may reside in less than 10% of the total individual product. Batches of MIP edibles are tested for acceptable levels of molds, microbes, filth, and chemical contamination as with any other food product. Potency and safety audits of MIP edibles may be requested by regulators at any time. Waste products from the MIP edibles production process must be made unusable by grinding and mixing with other solid waste products in the ratio of 1:1, which may then be transferred to a landfill or used in an approved compost system.

Washington state law limits possession of edibles to 16 ounces of marijuana-infused edible solid foods at one time and 72 ounces of marijuanainfused liquids. The limitation of MIP edibles possession is not as clearly defined in Colorado, though the limits for in-state and out-of-state residents are 28 and 7 grams, respectively. The limits of MIP edibles must be extrapolated from these limits. One of the primary social concerns in the states where marijuana is legal is the attractiveness of the MIP edibles to children. While there are some MIP edibles that are clearly geared to adult consumers, including infused coffee beans and liquid coffee concentrates, many of these products are sold in the form of sweets (e.g., candies, cookies, cakes, sweet breads) that are perceived to be attractive to children and adolescents. MIP beverages are also sold in forms that may appeal to children, including MIP-infused colas and fruit punches. MIP-infused coffee and tea are also available but are not deemed to be as attractive to children as sugar-sweetened beverages. In addition to the attractive nature of the foods, labeling of MIP edibles is often bright and colorful and may initially attract children to the product. The state of Washington forbids the use of bright colors and cartoon characters in the packaging of MIP edibles. All MIP edibles are required to be sold in child-resistant packaging as defined by 16 C.F.R. 1700.20 (1995) and ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) classification standard D3475-13, and the packaging must be opaque. Colorado requires that retail marijuana edibles be individually packaged with the name and graphic symbol of the retailer and a symbol created by the state that indicates that the product contains cannabis or cannabis extract, clear usage instructions, an expiration date, and a statement that tells if the product requires refrigeration. MIP alcoholic beverage products have been developed, but as yet none has reached the commercial market. Experiments in California suggest that white wine combines with cannabis extracts better than red wine, but testing in this area has been limited due to the regulatory environment.

Canned Goods

Home brewers have been infusing home brew with cannabis for quite some time, and there are numerous websites that explain the process for home brewers. There are currently no MIP beers, wines, or spirits on the retail market in the United States. Neither wine producers nor beer producers can use drug-related terminology on product labels due to regulations enforced by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Some brewers skirt these regulations by altering terminology used in the marijuana subculture (e.g., Dank IPA and Shastafarian), but these products are so named for marketing purposes only and contain no cannabis or cannabis extracts. As with any form of commercial activity, legislation lags practice. As the MIP edible market matures and results of current activities are observed and recorded, there will be legislative responses. Potency and packaging issues will be debated, and legislation will be modified. Legislation is currently being proposed that will reduce the upper limits of THC in MIP edibles, and other packaging and labeling issues are being discussed as well. Jeffrey P. Miller and Soo Kang See also Alcohol Regulations, History of; Exotic Food and Strange Food

CANNED GOODS Canned foods are a history of conquest of both war and taste. They have helped shape eating habits and world history, as well as being shaped by technological advances. Canned foods have also been adapted by local cultures through the processes of globalization and glocalization. Consumption continues to grow, with global sales to be an expected annual US$100 billion by 2020. This entry describes technological developments in the canning process, the role of canned foods in wartime, and canned foods as a global commodity.

167

Technological Developments Napoleon Bonaparte noted that “an army marches on its stomach,” and by 1795, the challenges of feeding the globe-spanning French military were so pronounced that the government offered a prize of 12,000 francs to the inventor who could find a way to preserve food and make it transportable. In 1810, the Parisian confectioner Nicolas Appert won the cash award when he invented a process of preserving various meats, sauces, fruits, vegetables, and milk by bottling them in glass, heating them in boiling water, and sealing them. Although Appert did not know why his methods staved off spoilage—no one yet understood the role of microorganisms— these were nonetheless the first large-scale efforts to successfully preserve food by canning it. They were costly though, as well as labor-intensive and time-consuming. Major challenges with early canning techniques centered on materials and mechanization. Throughout the 19th century, refinements to the original process centered on mass production of much cheaper and sturdier tin “canisters,” or “cans,” to safely preserve increasing amounts of food for growing populations in Europe and the United States. Bryan Donkin and Peter Durand, both from England, expanded on Appert’s success by shifting from fragile glass to metal. Durand patented the canning process and, to avoid the iron from rusting, applied a thin layer of tin, giving the moniker “tinned foods.” Donkin used this process, and Dartford Iron Works began canning meat in 1812 for the British Admiralty. Even with these improvements, problems persisted with early canned foods, which were twofold: (1) welding took time and (2) foodborne pathogens had to be controlled. The first of these translated into elevated production costs, while the second was toxic. Cans were manufactured by hand, by bending a piece of tinplate over a roller and soldering together two round disks on the top and bottom of the cylinder. By the 1880s, this process was partially industrialized when seaming the side and bottom. The top continued to be soldered after the can was filled or by leaving a small hole

168

Canned Goods

in the top of the can, filling, seaming, and soldering the small hole. These practices were problematic because of lead and heavy metal contamination, a practice that continues in some countries today. Initially, the ends of the cans were attached to the cylinder by hand crimping around a rubber gasket. An innovative change occurred when the hole-andcap can changed to the double seam top. In 1896, Charles Ams patented the double seam process and the use of mechanically made steel cans, making production much cheaper and airtight. Bacteria, however, continued to be a problem. Growing scientific understanding of microbial organisms, and how to control them through measured heating, notably by Louis Pasteur in the late 1860s, further reduced chances of foodborne illnesses. This new process did not entirely solve the issue, as witnessed by William L. Underwood, whose grandfather had brought the canning process to Boston in 1820. The continued high number of swelling and exploding cans of deviled ham compelled Underwood to approach researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology for advice. There, William Sedgwick and Samuel Prescott, of the biology department, realized that some bacterial spores withstood the pasteurization process and that a precise combination of temperature, time, and pressure, varied according to product type, would kill bacteria. This research greatly contributed to the theory of thermal death time of Clostridium botulinum, later developed in the 1920s and 1930s. Throughout the 20th century, technological advances also challenged the predominance of canned foods—with the adoption of electricity and the rise of frozen foods; faster modes of transportation, including airplanes, which allowed fresh foods to be shipped before perishing: and methods that extend the shelf life of food, including genetically modified foods and the rise of vacuum and plastic packaging.

Cultural Developments Maria Parloa, a noted expert on home economics, wrote in the 1879 edition of her cookbook, Miss

Parloa’s Kitchen Companion: A Guide for All Who Would be Good Housekeepers, that canned goods were used in almost every household. She continued to explain that, although foods were better in the far more expensive glass jars, tinned food was a blessing because seasonal foods could be eaten throughout the year. She still saw fresh foods as superior in flavor and recommended purchasing canned foods that were processed closest to where they were grown. Parloa was also an early public figure to profit on her celebrity status, promoting Liebig’s Extract of Beef, bottled in glass jars. By then, Liebig had been canning corned beef, both products capitalizing on cheap meat in South America and selling for steep profits in Europe. Liebig illustrates common practices of many canning businesses—connecting producers with distant markets and consumers and building success on brand identity through militaristic needs and civilian desires.

Military and Expeditions The growth of canned meats and vegetables came from the initial demand of French and British military and expedition needs throughout the 19th century. As early as 1819, William E. Parry brought them to explore the Artic. In the 1850s to the early 1870s, war in Europe and the United States further drove the market for canned foods. During the American Civil War, the Confederate Army purchased meat and vegetable stew, while the Union Army called for canned meats and fruits including green beans, oysters, and condensed milk, the last of which enabled the success of a previously struggling company, Borden. The 1896 Manual for Army Cooks includes a number of recipes that call for canned products. In Europe, the Crimean War, and later, the armies fighting in the FrancoPrussian war also made great use of canned food. For instance, military rule mandated that canned food be part of a unit’s menu, essentially training soldiers to develop an appetite for canned foods that they kept after the war. European, American, and Asian governments used canned foods in an attempt to feed troops

Canned Goods

and civilians in World Wars I and II. Moving canned food from high producing areas to war zones became imperative strategic efforts. Fortified canned goods were seen as nutritious and tasty and could be easily carried as part of a soldier’s rations. For soldiers and civilians, government offices produced cookbooks and informational films on how to shop and cook with rationed canned foods and were propaganda of victory. After the wars, the industrial infrastructure remained, and canned food became convenient foods across society.

Globalization and Glocalization Canned food became a global commodity because of many factors—prestige, price, and convenience. The cultural relationship between people and canned food is neither universal nor static, but it is rather a process of acculturation and adaptation. The tomato, for instance, was one of the most successful canned products. First canned in the United States and Great Britain, its novelty was marketed by an early canner, H. Crosby, in 1847, by sending samples to Queen Victoria and President James K. Polk, as well as the more pedestrian targets of hotels, restaurants, and newspapers. By the end of the 19th century, upward of 19 million cans were being produced each year, more than any other fruit or vegetable. This was despite inauspicious beginnings, when a tomato extract was judged to be “empyreumatic” at the 1861 Florence Exhibition. The lauded French chef Auguste Escoffier, in his autobiography, noted his role in canning tomato sauce, in that he had imagined improving their taste in the 1870s, when he was jarring tomatoes using empty champagne bottles. By 1892, after successful experiments, he had convinced a canning factory to produce 2,000 cans of crushed tomatoes, which he had shipped to the Savoy. The canned tomato quickly became associated with national identity. In 1885, the Italian company, Cirio, gained the legal right to paint their train cars with red, green, and white, the colors of the newly formed Italy. When Italians immigrated to America, it was largely due to the canned

169

tomato that they could easily maintain their cultural foodways. In 1886, the New York Tribune announced that tomato ketchup was America’s national condiment and J. J. Heinz profited greatly. Joseph Campbell undercut competition by making a condensed soup to be shipped at low cost, the label celebrating the gold medal from the 1900 Paris Exhibition. Not all cultures were as quick to adopt canned foods. France, perhaps surprisingly, lagged behind much of Europe in consumption. This was a combination of attitudes of the quality, they were seen as having an unpleasant metal flavor, and there was a fear of sickness from eating spoiled canned foods, widely reported at the end of the 19th century. Ultimately, the French government, through the military and public education, normalized the consumption of canned foods by tying the identity to republican virtues of thriftiness, efficiency, and hygiene, all of which were embodied in middle-class respectability. The 1922 edition of Canning Age: Devoted to the Canning, Packing and Allied Industries enthusiastically proclaimed that women were no longer cooks, but rather can openers. Indeed, benefitting from increased migration of people and their foodways, the variety of goods available in canned form continued to grow. In 1917, the Yugoslavian Martin Bogdanovich founded the French Sardine Company in California, later renamed StarKist, profiting from the opening of the Panama Canal. In 1922, La Choy Food Products Company canned a variety of popular Asian vegetables, including bean sprouts. The Fremont Canning Company, founded in 1927 by Daniel Gerber, found success when targeted to a specific market: baby food. As canned foods were manufactured and shipped on a global scale, greatly increased by the two World Wars, national and regional cultures adopted canned foods and integrated them into local identity. Dole pineapple, canned in Hawaii, and Del Monte pineapple, canned in both Hawaii and the Philippines, became popular in Americana recipes of perfection salad and as garnish to canned ham, and in West Germany’s toast Hawaii. Canned tuna appears in France’s salad Niçoise and

170

Canning

pan bagnat, Italy’s vitello tonnato, Argentina’s vitel toné, and tuna casserole in the United States. Carnation and Borden evaporated and condensed milk are integral ingredients in Mexican tres leches and in Vietnamese coffee, cap he sua da. Perhaps the best example of globalization and glocalization is Spam. Introduced by Hormel in 1937, 7 billion cans have been sold in 45 countries. Its popularity spread during World War II, when it was shipped from America to Europe and the Pacific. Postwar, it represented the wholesome and patriotic American, followed by unsophisticated and nostalgic associations. Outside the continental United States, its meaning varies. In Hawaii, Spam is used in musubi, a popular snack, and countless other local dishes, signifying a food that stands for wealth from times of dearth, convenience, and an ingredient that transcends and unites many ethnic groups living together. In the Philippines, Spam represented the culture that introduced it: military strength, freedom, and forward thinking. It also reflected the local culinary hierarchy of meat and, because it was preserved, could be used for gifts. Collectively, Spam equaled wealth and power— ideals also embraced in the Korean and Guam markets. The success of canned foods in terms of longevity and global expansion depends on a number of factors: companies have developed product lines that embrace diverse attitudes toward diet and culinary preferences, including products that offer reduced salt, sugar, and fat, and bring in global flavors of hot and spicy, barbecue, and curry. With brands adapting to the needs of the consumer, consumers also adopted the canned products to their needs in terms of cultural knowledge, price, and convenience. With the rise of advertising and brand identity, canned foods remain in the forefront of popular culture, appearing in iconic artwork, notably Andy Warhol’s 1962 Campbell’s Soup Cans, dedicated festivals, and museums. Beth M. Forrest See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Botulism; Canning; Convenience Foods; Food Miles; Frozen Food; Shelf Life; Supply and Distribution Networks

Further Readings Bruegel, M. (2002). How the French learned to eat canned foods, 1809–1930s. In W. Belasco & P. Scranton (Eds.), Food nations: Selling taste in consumer societies (pp. 113–130). New York, NY: Routledge. Collingham, L. (2012). The taste of war: World War II and the battle for food. London, UK: Penguin Books. Gentilcore, D. (2010). Pomodoro! A history of the tomato in Italy. Bognor Regis, UK: Columbia University Press. Government Printing Office. (1896). Manual for army cooks. Washington, DC: Author. Matejowsky, T. (2007). SPAM and Fast-food “Glocalization” in the Philippines. Food Culture & Society, 10(1), 23–41. Shepard, S. (2000). Pickled, potted, and canned: How the art and science of food preserving changed the world. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

CANNING Canning is a method of preserving food in sealed containers, most commonly metal or glass. The food is heat sterilized as the container is processed in a hot water bath or pressure cooker, and then sealed. Properly canned food will remain edible for several years or even longer. Typically, home canners use glass jars and commercial canners use metal cans. Commercially canned foods are also sold in other types of airtight packaging such as glass, plastic single-serving cups with foil lids, laminated pouches, and cardboard aseptic containers. Canned foods are a part of daily life almost everywhere in the world. This entry explains the history of canning, issues of food safety and canning, trends in commercial canning, and the decline and revival of home canning.

History of Canning Throughout history, people have preserved in various ways. However, almost no method resulted in portable food. Armies had no convenient way to provision their troops on the move. The Frenchman

Canning

Nicolas Appert experimented with food preservation methods shortly after the French Revolution, spurred on by the government’s offer of a monetary prize. He attained success by boiling and sealing foods in glass jars stopped with corks. His research was published in 1810, and soon after, the British refined the method using metal cans. Canning began in North America within a few years, and by the 1820s, U.S. canneries were exporting their products. When canned food was first developed, it was used mainly by the military or as a novelty by the rich. Throughout the 19th century, canned food entrepreneurs improved methods for both commercial and home canning until it was affordable by the beginning of the 20th century. The need for canned food increased in Britain as the Industrial Revolution enlarged the numbers of urban working class. Companies sprang up to meet the demand; some brands such as Heinz have endured for over a century. Australia began exporting canned meat in 1847, and South Americans joined in by 1871. The Civil War greatly increased the spread of canned foods in the United States between 1860 and 1880. Around this time, Gail Borden developed commercially canned condensed milk, and John Mason patented a glass jar with a screw cap for home canners. During the 20th century, canned food rations were issued to soldiers in both World Wars and are credited with giving many American soldiers the taste for particular foods. Hormel’s Spam has been one of the most enduring of these. Canning technology continues to develop. Glass lids with rubber seals and metal bails, and screw lids of zinc, with a glass liner to protect the contents of the jar from the metal lid, gave way to the two-part metal lid developed by Alexander Kerr in 1915 that is still standard for home canners in the United States. Commercial canners initially used tin-plated cans with lead solder for the seal, but lead solder was abandoned in the 1990s. Now, tin-coated steel is the most common metal for commercial cans. Concerns about reactions between the metal and the contents of the can led to epoxy resin–lined

171

cans. In turn, concerns about BPA (Bisphenol A) leaching into the food from the resin have led to BPA-free can linings. Concerns about BPA from lined two-part metal lids has also resulted in the manufacture of new kinds of BPA-free plastic lids, and, for those that can afford them, a return to canning with jars featuring old-fashioned glass lids and rubber gaskets.

Canning and Food Safety Food will spoil for several reasons, including the growth of bacteria, enzyme activity, loss of moisture, and reactions with oxygen. Canning accounts for all of these factors, which is why it works so consistently. The principles of pasteurization were not understood until the mid-19th century, several decades after Appert’s canning method, which employs pasteurization, was popularized. As knowledge of microbiology and foodborne pathogens has increased, canning methods have been refined. Commercial canners must follow strict Food and Drug Administration guidelines. Home canners can consult the cooperative extension service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for best practices. Home canners had followed traditional recipes pretty safely for almost a century, but the USDA issued new processing and safety guidelines for canning in the early 1990s. Extension agents discourage home canners from using recipes and techniques published in cookbooks before 1990. The main food safety issue with canning is Clostridium botulinum, a neurotoxin that causes botulism, a rare but potentially deadly food poisoning. The cells or spores that cause botulism exist all around us, on fresh food, in soil, and in the air. Under normal conditions, they are harmless, but they are not killed by boiling and they can multiply to toxic levels in certain conditions: a moist, low-acid food, a temperature between 40 °F and 120 °F, and less than 2% oxygen. These conditions can easily be created inside a container of canned food. To avoid botulism poisoning, canners must have a firm grasp on the difference between

172

Canning

low-acid and high-acid foods, and the differing methods that must be employed to safely can each type. Generally, low-acid foods include all vegetables, meats, and fish. These must either be processed with added acid (usually vinegar), or at very high temperatures in a pressure cooker. High-acid foods include fruits, which can usually be safely processed in a simple boiling water bath. Home canners who wish to process mixed foods such as salsa, relish, soup, or other mixed foods that contain both high-acid and low-acid produce are advised to only use tested and approved recipes for canning, and not to deviate from the proportions given. Botulism poisoning is very rare but is tracked carefully by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has antitoxin at the ready. There were 263 reported cases in 160 events in the United States between 1990 and 2000. Most of these involved home-canned vegetables.

Trends in Commercial Canning and Consumption Commercially canned foods are as popular as ever, as companies compete to offer a variety of canned products, including new premium products that are marketed as more like homemade or that cater to special diets, such as low-salt. (Commercially canned foods are notoriously high in sodium.) However, basic, low-cost commercially canned foods still constitute a large portion of the average American diet. This varies according to region, ethnicity, and economics. U.S. government research indicates that while overall fruit and vegetable consumption increased between 1970 and 2005, the proportion of canned fruits and vegetables has decreased. The factors involved in studying canned food consumption are complex. For instance, the amount of canned food that consumers buy as a percentage of their total food budget increases during economic recessions. Hispanic populations purchase fewer canned goods than African American populations, and Asians purchase even less than Hispanics. Research and marketing companies compile detailed

analyses of canned food manufacturing and consumer statistics on a country-by-country basis for the entire world.

Home Canning Decline and Revival In the past, a majority of households in the United States canned at least some foods. For many rural families, most of their diet was homegrown, with a large portion of their meals in the winter coming from food that had been “put up” in jars the previous summer and fall. The time required annually to grow and put up enough food to feed a family for half the year required hundreds of hours of labor, usually on the part of the woman. A significant number of households still can at home, although now, home canners are a minority. In the last half of the 20th century, the widespread acquisition of home refrigerators and freezers, the proliferation of grocery and convenience stores, and the relative affordability of commercially canned foods has made canning more of a lifestyle choice than a necessity. The USDA points out in its Complete Guide to Home Canning that home canning can be very economical if labor is not counted as a cost. Home canning requires a substantial up-front investment in a large canning pot, jars, and lids. Purchasing fresh produce for canning, instead of growing it or gathering it oneself, costs more than buying it already processed in cans. Canning know-how has become harder to gain, as the people who are experienced at it are fewer. Because of the potential for botulism, fear prevents many people from trying canning for the first time, or from progressing beyond the most simple of canning projects such as applesauce or strawberry jam. The labor-intensiveness can also be daunting. For these reasons, home canning is not as widespread as it once was. The local food movement has spawned an interest in home canning among younger people, who often did not grow up canning but now find it an alternative to industrial food. Even the chefs of a few restaurants try with varying degrees of success to can and serve as many local foods as possible,

Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet

making their own in-house pickles, juices, syrups, jams and jellies, condiments, tomato sauces, and other typically home-canned products. Canning requires very particular raw materials and equipment, as well as space, labor, accuracy, know-how, and creativity. Yet the conditions under which food has been canned have been extremely varied, and within the bounds of fixed food safety principles, there is much leeway to develop recipes to individual tastes. In a society where the handcrafted and the artisan are prized, home canning offers a wide scope. Canning is not universally popular even among locavores and foodies. Some food preservation devotees prefer methods such as fermentation that do not involve pasteurization, but rather encourage the development of good bacteria that add complex flavors to the food and may benefit the digestive system. One of the most helpful developments in recent decades is the Internet, which allows canners to access a wealth of advice, recipes, and inspiration on the many blogs and websites devoted to the subject. The cooperative extension service of the USDA offers online courses, in which one can study to be a Master Food Preserver. Canning Across America offers an extensive website to offer guidance and create community among home canners. Being able to access an authoritative guide to home canning online, or finding an experienced group open to newcomers in which to learn the principles of canning, helps some people take the first steps toward gaining this skill. Carol Price Spurling See also Artisanal Foods; Botulism; Canned Goods; DIY Food Movement; Food Safety Agencies; Home Fermentation; Mormon Food Practices

Further Readings Buzby, J. C., Lin, B.-H., Wells, H. F., Lucier, G., & Perez, A. (2008, September). Canned fruit and vegetable consumption in the United States: Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/ media/184291/ap032.pdf

173

Collins, J. (1924). The story of canned foods. New York, NY: Dutton. Davidson, A. (1999). The Oxford companion to food. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Derven, D. L. (2003). Preserving. In S. H. Katz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of food and culture (pp. 152–156). New York, NY: Scribner. McNeil, I. (1990). An encyclopedia of the history of technology (p. 798). London, UK: Routledge. Ross, A. (2005). Canning and bottling. In A. F. Smith (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of food and drink in America. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference .com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199734962.001.0001/ acref-9780199734962-e-0130?rskey=JKiVBP &result=178 Shephard, S. (2000). Pickled, potted, and canned: How the art and science of food preserving changed the world. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Thorne, S. (1986). The history of food preservation. Cumbria, UK: Parthenon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Center for Home Food Preservation. (2009). USDA complete guide to home canning. Retrieved from http://www .uga.edu/nchfp/publications/publications_usda.html U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. (2014). Cooperative extension system offices. Retrieved from http://www.csrees.usda .gov/Extension/

Websites Canning Across America: http://www.canningacrossamerica .com Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://wwwnc .cdc.gov National Center for Home Food Preservation: http:// nchfp.uga.edu

CARCINOGENS AND THE RELATION OF CANCER TO DIET Cancer describes a total of more than 100 diseases, which together represent the second leading cause of mortality in the world and in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society, with

174

Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet

heart disease being the single most common cause of death. In an increasingly sedentary world with a growing reliance on automotive transportation and access to processed, high-caloric food, people living in industrialized and developing nations may best reduce their chances of experiencing cancer by increasing their physical activity levels and eating a more nutritious diet. In fact, what people eat on a regular basis may be the single most common source of exposure to carcinogens, or chemicals that can cause cancer. Dietary choices can also lessen cancer risk by interfering with the process of cancer formation or enhancing the body’s natural ability to detect and destroy abnormal cells before they become carcinogenic. This entry focuses on the relationship of diet to human exposure to carcinogens and risk of cancer.

Global Burden of Cancer The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) estimates that 12.4 million new cancer cases occurred globally in 2008, and according to its predictions, cancer-specific death and the incidence, or new occurrence, of cancers overall will nearly double by 2030. This is because developing nations are anticipated to experience more economic development, which combined with growing urbanization will likely promote the adoption of an increasingly Western lifestyle by the global population. This lifestyle is characterized by less physical activity than alternative lifestyles and by the so called Western diet, which is a well-known source of nutritional risk factors for a variety of cancers and other chronic diseases. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported in 2008 that cancer was the cause of about 13% of all deaths worldwide. Lung cancer claims the most lives of any form of cancer, followed by cancers of the stomach, liver, colorectal, breast, and cervix. In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that lung, female breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers were the leading causes of cancerrelated death in the United States. According to the WHO, about 70% of deaths caused by cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries.

Carcinogens and the Role of Diet in Personal Exposure The risk of developing many forms of cancer can be reduced to varying degrees by altering daily lifestyle and adopting health-promoting behaviors. The WHO has estimated that approximately 30% of cancer deaths can be attributed to five potentially preventable behavioral and dietary risks: tobacco use, high body mass index, low fruit and vegetable intake, lack of physical activity, and alcohol use. Exposure to carcinogens can take place through inhalation, absorption through the skin or mucous membranes, radiation, or oral ingestion. They may occur naturally in the environment or as by-products of human activities. Although cancer is caused on a molecular scale by changes to a cell’s DNA, some carcinogens may cause cellular changes that indirectly increase the risk of cancer occurrence without directly altering DNA. In addition, carcinogens do not always cause cancer following personal exposure, since numerous factors affect personal vulnerability, such as the amount of exposure time, the dose or intensity of exposure, genetic risk, and lifestyle. Diet is a very important lifestyle factor that can be a potential source of carcinogens as well as cancer-fighting compounds. In many developing and developed countries where food is widely available to consumers, the contribution of diet to risk of cancer depends primarily on each individual’s overall pattern of personal choices about what to eat and how much food to eat.

Consideration of Carcinogens in Food Safety In virtually all countries, food producers and manufacturers are generally held accountable for the ingredients and additives they use in food products sold to consumers by government entities responsible for regulating food safety. This includes ensuring that food products are not carcinogenic to humans at normal consumption levels. In the United States, the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration together collaborate to regulate the safety of the food supply. Decisions about certifying food ingredients and

Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet

additives as safe take into consideration, among other concerns, whether they have carcinogenic properties based on existing scientific evidence. Food Additives

Food preservatives and other food additives have received growing attention in the late 20th century and the early 21st century as potential carcinogens and sources of other adverse human effects. Consumer and scientific advocacy groups have conducted research reviews independent of the Food and Drug Administration and warned the public that some additives certified as safe might pose health risks, some as potential carcinogens. However, there is no clear evidence confirming that any approved additives in the United States increase cancer risk in humans. Food Storage

Containers used to store foods and beverages are often made with chemical compounds that may leach into, or contaminate, their contents under certain conditions. An example with a recent surge of international attention is bisphenol A (BPA), which is found in many plastic products, including water bottles and baby bottles, as well as aluminum can linings. While bisphenol A’s potential as a carcinogen is unclear, other food and beverage container contaminants are more clearly toxic and carcinogenic to humans. Examples range from less common contaminants like lead to more widely used compounds like styrene, which is used to manufacture Styrofoam. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences all conduct extensive research about suspected food contaminants and educate the public or establish policies to minimize exposure as much as possible.

Nutrition That Raises Risk of Cancer The IARC and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences both classify foods and other chemicals according to their potential to

175

cause cancer in humans. Of the thousands that are evaluated, relatively few found in food products have proven or potential carcinogenic properties. Perhaps two of the most commonly consumed carcinogens are alcohol and sodium nitrite. High levels of regular alcohol consumption have been linked to higher risk of multiple cancer types, and the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends drinking no more than 2 drinks per day for men and 1 drink per day for women, on average. Sodium nitrite is recognized only as a possible carcinogen by the IARC, but existing evidence suggests that diets laden with large amounts of processed meats increase the risk of colorectal and stomach cancers. Nitrites are added to processed meats to prevent bacterial growth and add color. Eating excessively high amounts of some foods not inherently carcinogenic, in particular those rich in sugar or salt, can lead to the development of chronic conditions, which then increase risk of later complications, including cancer. In addition, excessive caloric intake in combination with not getting recommended amounts of physical activity can promote excessive weight gain, which over the course of years can also predispose people to a greater risk of cancer.

Nutrition That Lowers Risk of Cancer The ACS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that adults consume five servings of fruits and vegetables daily to promote a diet and lifestyle that lowers the risk of numerous chronic diseases related to nutrition and physical activity, including cancer. Prioritizing plant-based foods in decisions about what to eat ensures consumption of nutrients that reduce cancer risk individually or in combination with other nutrients. Although to a lesser extent, animal-based products are also sources of nutrients with the potential for lowering cancer risk. Phytochemicals

Because diets high in fruit and vegetable content are associated with improved cardiovascular health and reduced cancer risk, the naturally occurring

176

Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet

compounds in fruits and vegetables, or phytochemicals, have been the subjects of intensive scientific study. For plants, phytochemicals can function as natural defenses against predatory insects, antioxidants that protect against cellular damage from chemically unstable free radicals, or as hormones that behave as chemical signals. The chemical behavior of some phytochemicals in humans who consume them often resembles their functions in plants. These phytochemicals may confer protection against cancer development either directly through their antioxidant properties, indirectly by stimulating the formation of antioxidants in the body, for example, or through both types of mechanisms. Several common classes of phytochemicals include flavonoids, carotenoids, anthocyanins, and sulfides. Plants producing these compounds store them in their skins, leaves, fruits, shells, stems, roots, seeds, or other parts of their anatomy. Concentrations of anticancer compounds found in plants vary widely depending on the type of plant and the fertility and composition of soil in which the plants are grown. Climate and human inputs to soil can also affect the content of anticancer compounds. For instance, produce grown using organic farming methods may contain more phenolic compounds than conventionally raised produce, indicating a tendency for organic farming methods to promote the natural production of antioxidants.

Vitamins and Minerals

Certain vitamins and minerals found in animaland plant-based foods are known antioxidants and may help diminish cancer risk when consumed regularly at recommended doses. However, existing evidence for the ability of nutritional supplementation to lower cancer risk is mostly mixed and inconclusive. In fact, high-dose supplements may increase the risk for some people. Nutritional guidelines published by the ACS provide one such example, that high-dose vitamin A and beta-carotene supplements can increase the likelihood of lung cancer among current and former smokers.

Dietary Fiber

Fruits, vegetables, and grains are also sources of dietary fiber, which are plant carbohydrates that facilitate digestion by adding bulk to diet and decreasing the amount of time it takes to experience fullness. Soluble fiber absorbs water and slows digestion, and it is found in oat bran, some fruits and vegetables, nuts, seeds, and legumes. Insoluble fiber adds bulk to stool and speeds digestion, and it can be found in wheat bran, whole grains, fruit skins, and vegetables. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends eating 14 grams of fiber for each 1,000 calories consumed daily, or 25 grams for women and 38 grams for men, but the average American only eats about 15 grams while consuming 1,785 and 2,640 calories per day, respectively. A diet that includes the recommended daily intake of soluble and insoluble fiber on a regular basis may lower the risk of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers, in particular colorectal cancer. Whether it is fiber intake alone that is responsible for cancer risk reduction or other components of high-fiber diets remains unclear. Still, consuming the recommended daily amount of fiber has merit for personal health promotion.

Food Preparation and Nutrient Bioavailability Food preparation methods can also affect the bioavailability of compounds with anticancer properties, meaning the relative amount of compound available to exert a biological effect through absorption into bodily tissues. Some anticancer compounds are more bioavailable when their food sources are consumed raw instead of cooked. On the other hand, some are absorbed more successfully after being heated or sautéed. According to the ACS, microwaving and steaming vegetables are the most effective methods for cooking vegetables while preserving nutritional content, since boiling can lead to the loss of water-soluble vitamins that are otherwise available. In addition, combining antioxidantcontaining foods with certain other food items

Cardiac Disease and Diet

can also increase the body’s absorption of antioxidants more so than consuming each food item individually. For commercially available fruits and vegetables, packaging and storing methods can affect nutritional value. Frozen products are flash-frozen very soon after being harvested while ripe and may be more nutritious than fresh products, which may lose some nutrients while being transported to retail locations after harvesting. The process of canning fruits and vegetables requires high heat and so may render any heat-sensitive and watersoluble nutrients inactive. As a result, the ACS recommends consuming a mixture of frozen, canned, and fresh fruits and vegetables to ensure a healthy variety of nutrients with potential health benefits pertaining to cancer and other chronic diseases. Manny J. L. Coker-Schwimmer See also Cancer-Fighting Foods; Cardiac Disease and Diet; Food Additives; Food Safety Agencies; Obesity Epidemic; U.S. Department of Agriculture

Further Readings American Cancer Society. (2013). What is cancer? Atlanta, GA: Author. American Cancer Society. (2014). Cancer facts & figures 2014. Atlanta, GA: Author. Boyle, P., & Levin, B. (Eds.). (2008). World cancer report 2008. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Nutrition for everyone. Retrieved from http://www .cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/index.html Kushi, L. H., Doyle, C., McCullough, M., Rock, C. L., Demark-Wahnefried, W., Bandera, E. V., . . . Gansler, T. (2012). American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62, 30–67. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). ChooseMyPlate. gov. Retrieved from http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2010 (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

177

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program. (2011). Report on carcinogens, twelfth edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: Author.

CARDIAC DISEASE

AND

DIET

Cardiac disease is the leading cause of death in most industrialized countries and is predicted to become the leading cause of death worldwide. According to the World Health Organization, cardiovascular diseases killed 17.5 million people in 2012, accounting for 3 in every 10 deaths. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found that in the United States, heart diseases kill more individuals than cancer or any other illness does. While genetics and other health conditions can influence whether an individual gets cardiac disease, lifestyle decisions, like eating and smoking, are thought to be major factors in determining who gets cardiac disease and who does not. Foods high in fat, especially trans fats, leave plaque buildup on arteries, putting individuals at risk for heart attacks. Foods high in salt can raise blood pressure, especially among populations at risk of high blood pressure (African Americans, women), which could lead to heart disease and stroke. Unhealthy foods with little nutritional value, combined with a sedentary lifestyle, can lead to obesity, a major risk factor for heart disease. Just as there are foods and diets that put the individual at risk for heart disease, there are foods and diets with which the individual consumer can control, slow down, and possibly even reverse heart disease. This entry discusses the incidence of heart disease in the United States, risk factors for heart disease worldwide, cardiac diets, and public health efforts to control heart disease. Doctors have long been interested in the link between diet and longevity; after the Second World War, more systematic studies of diet and heart disease looked to populations who lived longer because they experienced fewer heart attacks and strokes. Not surprisingly, there are numerous diets one can adopt to control heart disease, and new “superfoods” and diets are discovered and

178

Cardiac Disease and Diet

promoted frequently by medical professionals and the food industries. It is not unusual, for example, to walk through a supermarket and see the words “heart-healthy” printed on a growing number of foods. Thus, the relationship between diet and cardiac disease is a two-way street, but as the number of cardiac diets increase, individuals may find the right choice a confusing one. While medical opinion varies slightly, there is clear general agreement about which types of food put one at risk for certain heart conditions and which diets might help individuals at risk for heart disease or those managing a heart condition.

Heart Disease and Public Health Heart disease is a serious public health concern in countries where individuals smoke and consume a high-fat, high-salt diet. The CDC estimates that in the United States, some 600,000 individuals die of heart disease each year; heart disease accounts for one in four mortalities in the United States. And while many people die from heart disease, many more live with some form of heart disease as a chronic health condition; the CDC estimates that 11.8% of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States manage heart disease. Heart disease is the leading disease for men and women, outpacing cancer and other chronic health conditions. Prevalence of heart disease varies by region in the United States, with the highest concentrations in the South and Midwest and the lowest concentrations in the western states. Epidemiological studies suggest that incidence of heart disease is high in these regions because of the lifestyle factors of diet and exercise. Southern and Midwestern diets are light on fruits and vegetables and heavy on fats and processed foods. Combined with a lack of exercise, this diet can have fatal consequences. Coronary heart disease was once confined to industrialized nations, where diet was higher in fats and animal proteins and smoking was more widespread. As food habits become global, so does heart disease. The World Health Organization determined that since 1990, more people died from coronary heart disease than from any other cause.

Worldwide, an estimated 17 million people die per year. While genetics plays a role in determining some heart diseases, most individuals—between 80% and 90%—who die had risk factors influenced by lifestyle choices, including diet. Of these risk factors, smoking can cause atherosclerosis, a cause of heart disease, whereas diet can cause atherosclerosis and affect blood cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and blood glucose levels, all of which can be factors in heart disease.

Changing Diet to Affect Heart Disease Since coronary heart disease is the leading cause of mortality in industrialized countries and is becoming the primary cause of death worldwide, public health policies geared toward prevention would save lives and money. Changing one’s diet to control heart disease is straightforward. Reviews of clinical, epidemiological, and research studies indicate that a diet with nonhydrogenated, unsaturated fats, whole grains, an abundance of fruits and vegetables (5 servings per day), and adequate intake of omega-3 fatty acids constitutes an optimal cardiac diet. Many reviews suggest that with regular physical exercise, avoidance of smoking, and the maintenance of a healthy body weight, the majority of cardiac disease in industrialized countries could be prevented. This suggestion should be tempered by the fact that cardiac disease rates continue to climb, indicating that many individuals either cannot or choose not to make the lifestyle choices necessary to prevent and control heart disease. Preventing and controlling heart disease through dietary choices is not difficult. Individuals need to consume fresh fruits and vegetables (5 servings or more per day), lean proteins, healthy oils, and whole grains (more than half the carbohydrates one consumes should be whole grains, not refined). Part of the problem faced by many consumers is the vast choice of convenience foods, prepared and ready in restaurants, grocery stores, and fast food franchises. Only very recently have food industry representatives made a serious effort to limit unhealthy fats, lower sodium content, and include more whole grains in these foods. The average

Cardiac Disease and Diet

American diet of convenience foods remains unhealthy, despite these largely voluntary measures. Since heart disease is such a serious health issue in this country, what is being done by officials to combat it?

Public Health Efforts to Control Heart Disease Over the past 30 years, public health officials in the United States and elsewhere have launched aggressive antismoking campaigns, including the posting of warnings on cigarette packages, making public buildings smoke free, and encouraging local initiatives to ban smoking from places where people congregate. These campaigns have placed a stigma on tobacco use or at least made the majority of citizens aware of the health consequences of smoking. When it comes to the foods that contribute to heart disease, there has been no massive public health campaign to label “bad” foods or ban the consumption of these foods in certain areas. Individuals are not as uniformly aware of which foods are bad for one’s heart, for a variety of reasons. Consumers who frequently dine either at fancy restaurants or fast food franchises have no idea how many nutrients and calories they consume. And while labels are present on all packaged foods, many consumers don’t examine these labels carefully, or they prioritize other factors (cost, taste, and availability) when making a purchasing decision. Foods that are “bad” for your heart include foods with high sodium levels, refined or highly processed carbohydrates, packaged foods that contain trans fats (including ones that do not seem like obvious suspects, like microwave popcorn, a presumably low-calorie snack), full-fat dairy products, and fatty proteins, like marbled meats. Layering these bad foods in such culinary inventions as the fried Twinkie and the bacon double cheeseburger poses an even greater threat to one’s heart health. Still, restaurants pride themselves in naming a bacon double cheeseburger served on a donut “heart attack on a plate,” as if the health consequences of consuming this meal should be taken lightly.

179

Organizations like the CDC and the American Heart Association continue to educate U.S. citizens about a heart-healthy diet, but the easy availability of so much prepared food with high fat and high sodium content suggests that some consumers aren’t choosing to listen, perhaps, until it is too late. Certainly, preventive measures can be taken early on in one’s life to avoid heart disease. Anyone can reduce the risk of heart disease by lowering one’s blood pressure, increasing good HDL cholesterol (good HDL cholesterol transports fat away from arteries and back to the liver for processing), reducing bad LDL cholesterol that forms deposits in arteries, plus maintaining a healthy weight so as to ease pressure on your heart and circulatory system. Published studies suggest that for at-risk patients, even making small steps early in life can lead to significant health gains later. For example, if teenagers, who consume lots of salty snacks, cut back sodium consumption by only a few grams a day, they can lower their blood pressure by their 20s, which is significant because high blood pressure in one’s 20s is an early indicator of cardiovascular disease.

Can Diet Reverse Heart Disease? For those individuals diagnosed with heart disease, diet could provide one means to slow down, and perhaps even reverse, the course of the disease, thereby minimizing risk of premature death. Most important, cardiac patients need to eat less and lose weight or maintain a healthy weight to lessen their risk of cardiac disease or incident. This simple fact is frequently overlooked, given the level of patient anxiety about which type of diet would work best and whether there is a diet that presents a quick fix for cardiac health. Doctors, dieticians, and nonprofessionals might make claims that their diet can reverse heart disease, or they may tout the latest “superfood” for heart health, but the remedy for cardiac disease is to eat responsibly and to get some exercise every day. Superfoods are foods that are supposed to be good for one’s heart, and they include oranges, kale, garlic, red wine, dark chocolate, sardines, lentils, almonds, walnuts, legumes,

180

Casual Dining Chains

carrots, apples, salmon, soy proteins (tofu, tempeh, and soy nuts), oatmeal, spinach, and blueberries. Most superfoods are high in antioxidants (which reduce the bad LDL cholesterol), omega-3 fats, or fiber; any of these characteristics makes the food good for one’s heart. The term superfood is misleading, however, because consumers may eat some of these foods without making substantial changes in their lifestyle, which will not help their cardiac condition. The American Heart Association does recommend certain diets, however, as a more systematic approach to control heart disease. The healthiest diets for cardiac patients include the Mediterranean diet (emphasizes fresh ingredients, whole grains, lean proteins like legumes and fish, olive oil, and few processed foods), the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet (low sodium, fresh fruits and vegetables, lean proteins, and reduced fats), and a vegetarian or vegan diet. For each of these diets, however, lifestyle changes may have to be dramatic for the diets to have any impact. Experts agree that with moderate dietary changes, one can slow down cardiac disease. The question of whether one can stop or reverse cardiac disease through diet is more debatable. Some doctors maintain that dramatic dietary changes can reverse heart disease, like Dr. Dean Ornish, who prescribes a plant-based diet, daily exercise, and yoga. Other doctors argue that a vegetarian or vegan diet, accompanied by lots of exercise, is an unrealistic solution for cardiac patients who have been eating an unhealthy diet for years and who may not be able to make such dramatic changes. Thus, moderate dietary changes can slow down heart disease and might be more successful for some patients. Carol Helstosky See also Cholesterol, LDL and HDL; Convenience Foods; Diabetes; Fast Food; Fats, Role in Diet; Junk Food, Impact on Health; Low-Fat Foods; Low-Sodium Foods; Obesity Epidemic

Further Readings Hu, F. B., & Willett, W. C. (2002). Optimal diets for prevention of coronary heart disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(20), 2569–2578.

Keys, A. (1980). Seven countries: A multivariate analysis of death from coronary heart disease. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Websites American Heart Association: http://www.heart.org Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www .cdc.gov World Health Organization: http://www.who.int

CASUAL DINING CHAINS Casual dining chains are a corporate-owned segment of the restaurant food service industry characterized by sit-down table service, a standardized menu of moderately priced food, and a range of alcoholic beverages. They fall into categories defined by cuisine type such as American bar and grill, steak, seafood, family dining, or ethnic cuisines such as Italian, Mexican, or Chinese. These themes extend beyond the menu to restaurant decor, graphics, uniforms, and logo. Food is prepared mostly off-site in commissary kitchens and delivered to individual locations to be reheated and finished by kitchen staff. Entrées prices start around $10 and average about $16 to $18. Casual dining chains can be corporate owned, operated as franchises or licensed properties, or a combination. Chains are typically owned by large restaurant groups, or parent companies that oversee multiple brands. Others are owned by management companies run by a large-scale franchisee. Private equity firms and investor groups are another type of parent company. In the 1970s and early 1980s, several large food manufacturers acquired and developed casual dining chains that later reverted to restaurant company control due to limited profit margins. Leading restaurant companies in the United States include Darden Restaurants, owners of Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse; Brinker International, owners of Chili’s Bar & Grill; Bloomin’ Brands, owned by Bain Capital, LLC, and with chains such as Bonefish Grill and Outback Steakhouse; and The Cheesecake Factory. A newer segment of casual chains has grown in prominence since the mid-2000s called fast-casual

Casual Dining Chains

dining, which offers limited table service and goodquality and often healthful food in pleasant dining rooms. The bakery chain Panera Bread and the burrito shop Chipotle Mexican Grill lead this subset that has been thriving since the economic downturn of 2008 with its affordable and trendforward fare. This entry discusses the history and offerings of popular casual dining chains in the United States.

Dining Industry Segments Corporate-owned restaurant food service is divided into several major categories by speed of service, menu variety, and price. The four primary categories are (1) casual dining, (2) family dining, (3) fast casual, and (4) quick serve, the industry term for fast food restaurants. Casual dining grew during the mid-1960s to offer a middle ground between fast food and independent upscale dining. Chains began as a single, independently owned restaurant that often grew into a regional chain. Many were steak houses or bar and grill concepts that found an audience in thriving baby boomers with ample leisure time. Casual dining chains have evolved over time to be more family focused with broad menus made from familiar food ingredients, featuring kids’ menus, low-calorie options, and indulgent, oversized desserts. Hamburgers, steaks, shrimp, pasta, and large salads are typical entrées. Bar programs offer signature cocktails, promotions with liquor companies, and elaborate alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks before and after dinner. Family dining chains include breakfast and pancake houses, diner-inspired chains, ice cream fountain–inspired concepts, and country style restaurants including IHOP, Denny’s, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Waffle House, Friendly’s, and Bob Evans Restaurants. IHOP, formerly International House of Pancakes, is one of the largest breakfast concepts with more than 1,565 locations, mostly franchised. DineEquity owns both IHOP and Applebee’s. Denny’s, billed as “America’s Favorite Diner,” has more than 1,700 units and serves a budget menu 24 hours a day. Limited-time offers of special menu items are common in family chains.

181

Fast-casual restaurants fill the gap between casual dining and quick-serve restaurants. Customers order at a counter and serve themselves beverages. Dining rooms are welcoming to promote lingering; wireless Internet service is often provided. Bakery chains like Panera Bread and Au Bon Pain offer a mix of morning baked goods, lunch sandwiches, soups and salads. Chipotle Mexican Grill serves build-your-own burritos and salad, a service model that allows diners to customize dishes. Other popular fast-casual restaurants include Five Guys Burgers and Fries representing a new growth of “better burger” chains, Einstein Bros Bagels, and Qdoba Mexican Grill. Panera is the largest fast-casual restaurant with more than 1,800 locations; Chipotle has more than 1,650. Fast-casual menu items often reflect contemporary food trends with unique sandwich breads, globally flavored mayonnaises and soups, and a wide variety of sandwich cheeses. Quality is emphasized and often meat, poultry, and seafood are natural or sustainably sourced. Fastcasual chains also leverage current nutrition trends with healthful ingredients in salads, smaller portion– size choices, and low-fat ingredient options. Quick-service restaurants have limited table service with ordering at the counter and simple, thematic menus. Food comes out in minutes and often through a drive-through window. McDonald’s, Subway, Starbucks, Burger King, Wendy’s, and Taco Bell are quick-serve leaders. Professional organizations, such as the National Council of Chain Restaurants and the National Restaurant Association, serve to represent restaurant owner members from all segments with government lobbying, food safety training, and information on laws and regulations influencing the industry.

Casual Dining Chain Concepts Casual dining chains are built around a theme that unites atmosphere, decor, service uniforms, and menus. Some themes are based on ethnic cuisine, such as P.F. Chang’s China Bistro or Olive Garden’s Tuscan-centered fare, while others specialize in a certain food item or genre, such as seafood at Red Lobster or creative pizzas at California Pizza

182

Casual Dining Chains

Kitchen. Others offer American regional cuisine such as Chili’s Bar & Grill that specializes in Southwestern food such as chili and fajitas as well as burgers, one of the chain’s mainstays since its Dallas beginnings in 1975. Other themes include rock and roll memorabilia and diner decor at Hard Rock Café and Hollywood celebrity at Planet Hollywood. A large number of casual chains base their menus around standardized American cuisine, offering a range of burgers, sandwiches, pasta dishes, and surf and turf options. The most common of these is the bar and grill concept, which underscores food coming off of a grill accompanied by beer, wine, and cocktails. Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar is the most common and generically American, featuring fried appetizer platters, American Italian pasta dishes, and Mexican-inspired items. At Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, fancy cocktails, refills on fries, and a range of abundant burgers are the focus. Regional chains also often began as generic American spots then grew into larger chains, such as O’Charley’s originally from Nashville, Tennessee. The Cheesecake Factory is known for its voluminous menu of trend-forward items as well as large portion sizes and a lengthy menu of indulgent cheesecakes. The bar concept has grown to include breweries with extensive beer offerings, including those made by the chain itself. Rock Bottom Restaurant & Brewery and BJs Restaurant & Brewery are two examples. More upscale and expensive casual dining chains offer a steakhouse environment and menu including Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, Morton’s, and The Capital Grille. These are more refined and expensive, based on independent steakhouses of an earlier era. Western and rustic theme concepts cater to a more modest crowd and include Outback Steakhouse, based on an Australian theme, Logan’s Roadhouse, and LongHorn Steakhouse. Ted’s Montana Grill is owned by the media mogul Ted Turner and features bison from the company’s own herds. On the other end of the spectrum are more casual, less expensive chains such as Buffalo Wild

Wings, which offers chicken wings and a variety of sauces in a sports bar setting, and Famous Dave’s, with a barbecue focus. Bonefish Grill, owned by Bloomin’ Brands, is a grill with a heavy seafood focus.

Casual Dining Chain Restaurant Company Leaders Several large restaurant companies dominate the industry. Darden Restaurants, Inc., is one of the biggest. It runs Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Capital Grille, and Season’s 52; in 2014, it sold off Red Lobster to an investment firm. The founder Bill Darden started in the restaurant business in 1938 as a 19-year-old running a drive-in. Following World War II, he worked at both Howard Johnson’s and Bonanza Steakhouse before opening a Red Lobster in Florida, which served fried seafood in a no-frills atmosphere. He sold the concept to General Mills in 1970 and stayed on board to grow the chain to 400 company-owned units by 1985, improving the concept over time with an expanded menu and upgraded decor. The group opened Olive Garden in 1982, which became the fastest growing brand for the company. General Mills spun off the restaurant division in 1995, which then became Darden Restaurants, Inc. New brands have been bought and sold over the 1990s and 2000s while Red Lobster and Olive Garden remained popular and numerous; Darden is intensifying its focus on Olive Garden in the wake of the Red Lobster sale. The company has expanded internationally, like many casual chain brands, and has more than 2,100 restaurant units. Applebee’s is probably America’s most familiar casual dining chain. It was founded in 1980 by Bill and T. J. Palmer in Atlanta as T. J. Applebee’s RX for Edibles and Elixirs. They sold the business in 1983, and by 1989, the new Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar numbered more than 100 units. Growth continued during the 1990s, and by 2002, the chain counted close to 1,500 restaurants. In 2007, IHOP Corporation acquired Applebee’s and created a new company called

Casual Dining Chains

DineEquity. Applebee’s serves mainstream American cuisine via a broad menu with salads, chicken, shrimp, sandwiches, and pasta dishes. The company partnered with Weight Watchers in 2004 to offer a number of low-calorie food choices, and in the same year, it introduced Carside To Go pickup service. By 2005, the company had expanded overseas to South America and the Middle East; its first location in China came in 2007. Chili’s Bar & Grill is the centerpiece property of Brinker International, Inc., which has 1,500 restaurants in 32 countries. Norman Brinker bought the 23-unit Chili’s chain in 1985 from the founder Larry Lavine, a chili lover who created the brand to serve chili and burgers in baskets in Dallas, Texas. The company expanded in 1989 with the acquisition of Romano Macaroni Grill and later opened units in Canada, in Texas, and overseas; it later sold Romano’s. Brinker also owns Maggiano’s Little Italy. Other important restaurant companies include P.F. Chang’s China Bistro; it also owns the fastcasual restaurant Pei Wei Asian Diner, based in Scottsdale, Arizona. The Cheesecake Factory, Inc., began as a small cheesecake shop in Michigan and moved to Beverly Hills in 1972. There are now 165 units across the United States, often in malls. The company also owns Grand Lux Café and Rock Sugar Pan-Asian Kitchen.

Industry Trends A number of economic and public health trends have influenced the casual dining segment in the past 5 years. The economic downturn of 2008 drove diners to economize by eating more meals at home and turning to more affordable food service alternatives when dining out. Quick-serve outlets with their value meals took a notable share of casual dining business, as did the fast-casual sector. It attracted diners on a budget with good-quality food, efficient service models, and comfortable dining rooms. To compete, casual chains added more value meals, meal deals, and smaller portions at smaller prices to their menus. Happy hour and

183

lunch time promotions were another popular strategic tactic to attract diners, along with limitedtime offers of specialty items and theme meals. Adding more small plate and appetizer dishes served to drive bar and snack business at nonpeak hours while late-night specials lured diners after hours. In an effort to stay relevant and cater to consumers’ growing needs, a number of chains have implemented operations geared to customer convenience over the past 10 years. This includes the development of curbside take-out in the mid-2000s as a way to encourage busy diners to stop by and pick up a hot meal to go without getting out of the car. A more recent effort is home delivery. Chains are also developing their own fast-casual spin-offs to compete on speed and price; Red Robin’s Burger Works is one example. The units have counter ordering and streamlined menus of signature items. Store sizes are much smaller and work well in airports, food courts, malls, and other locations. Chili’s Express and IHOP Express are two examples. The first IHOP Express opened in 2011 in San Diego’s Gaslight district. Another tactic for extending a brand and adding revenue is to sell branded packaged food. Many casual chain brands have signature items that can be packaged and sold in retail stores. Licenses for these foods are sold to food manufacturers that then produce and market the items. California Pizza Kitchen, P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Chili’s, and TGI Friday’s all have branded pizzas and meals in supermarket freezer cases. IHOP released a line of pancake syrups in 2012. The Southern comfort food chain Cracker Barrel has licensed with a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods to make and sell various products in 2013, including ham, bacon, lunchmeats, glazes, jerky, and summer sausage. Casual dining chains have long been known for abundant portions of food, much of which is fried and high in fat and sodium. This comes from embedded cultural notions of American culinary abundance and hospitality that many original storeowners in the 1960s and 1970s strove to provide in the early days of this restaurant style.

184

Casual Dining Chains

Many chains also got their start in regions of the country where plentiful plates of meat, potatoes, and desserts were part of the regular diet, such as Texas, the South, and the Midwest. As decades passed, however, the American diet has evolved to include more fresh foods, fruits and vegetables, and a wider variety of multiethnic foods and flavors. Chains serving a standardized and rather generic menu of “American” cuisine, however, are somewhat stuck in the past, leading to a call by many organizations and voices to lighten food offerings because of today’s obesity epidemic and rise of chronic diseases linked to poor diets. Public health agencies, nutritionists, dieticians, and the media have targeted many casual dining chains as contributing to these health problems with enormous portion sizes, too many fried choices, and exorbitant sodium levels when compared with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines. A popular website, Healthy Dining Finder, offers consumers an opportunity to search for healthful meals served by chains in locations around the country. Chains develop and include menu items that meet agreed-on nutritional standards, which are then listed on the site. The Healthy Dining Finder has partnered with the National Restaurant Association to create the Kids LiveWell program to help parents and children find healthful menu options when dining out. Nearly 132 restaurant chains spanning 42,000 locations now offer a child’s meal that meets the nutritional criteria set by the 2010 U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines. This includes primarily casual dining chains but also hotels, theme parks, and several quick-serve operators such as Burger King. The guidelines cover a full meal with an entrée, side, and beverage that is low in fat and sodium and features fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy.

Casual Dining Chain History Chain restaurants, mostly in the form of burger chains, ice cream fountains, and single-item specialties such as fried chicken or tacos, grew

enormously following World War II. An influx of returning servicemen opened businesses and sought work in the food service sector while families moved out of cities to populate suburbs in great numbers. Highway development and the rise in automobile culture accompanied and spurred growth of chain restaurants catering to a quick bite along motorways. Eye-catching architecture, tall signs, and bright colors were all part of the formula that also included tasty, easy-to-eat American food. Food service became a mature industry during the 1950s with the expansion of restaurant trade organizations, annual conventions, trade shows, trade journals, and government lobbies. National restaurant suppliers delivered equipment, raw and semiprepared ingredients, and supplies to chains around the country. Health and safety standards, employee training, and operational practices became standardized as chains multiplied in the 1960s. The franchise model became a key growth element for chains, allowing new investor money to come in and grow a popular local brand or small chain owned by one person or company. Howard Johnson’s is considered the first restaurant to succeed in the franchise business. The man himself opened a string of soda fountains in the early 1930s along the expanding Massachusetts highways. He partnered with an investor in 1935 to open a unit on Cape Cod and continued to perfect this model with franchises and licensing agreements. In 1940, Johnson won the contract to serve the Pennsylvania Turnpike with highway rest stops. This growth led to the creation of central commissary kitchens where all food was prepared then delivered to individual restaurants. By the 1960s, many regional casual chain restaurants began to grow catering to an emerging middle class looking for an alternative to fine dining, which was at the time often in a Continental or ethnic style, such as Italian. Young and single baby boomers were thriving in cities and sought places to mingle. TGI Friday’s, created in Manhattan in 1965 by Alan Stillman, a flavor ingredient salesman, was

Catering Business, Off-Site

one of the initial concepts catering to the singles crowd looking to meet, drink, and dine in a casual, affordable environment built around a cocktail bar. These “fern bars” served both a variety of alcoholic beverages and a menu of casual American standards like burgers. As fern bars and regional dining chains multiplied, corporate consolidation arose in the 1970s. During this era, a number of food manufacturers entered the chain restaurant business in search of expansion and portfolio diversification. Pillsbury acquired the Steak & Ale chain as well as Burger King. Quaker Oats purchased the Magic Pan crêpe restaurant chain from the original Hungarian owners, while Pepsi invested in Pizza Hut. General Mills took over Red Lobster, a five-unit chain in Florida at that point, and later developed Olive Garden to bring a more contemporary regional Italian cuisine to market. By the 1980s, large-scale franchisees began forming management groups to oversee hundreds of stores. Baby boomer–headed families dominated the population and led to family-friendly chains such as Applebee’s, Sizzler, and Fuddrucker’s. In more recent years, casual chains are trying to attract more millennials, the children of the boomers, with more multicultural dishes, bigger and bolder flavors, and sharable appetizers. New styles of casual dining chains include those featuring vegetarian and vegan dishes and food and ingredients with a healthful focus. Kara S. Nielsen See also Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops; Fast Food; Fine Dining; Restaurant Management; Restaurant Menu Design; Restaurant Waitstaff

Further Readings Aaseng, N. (2001). Business builders in fast food. Minneapolis, MN: Oliver Press. Jakle, J. A., & Sculle, K. A. (1999). Fast food: Roadside restaurants in the automobile age. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pillsbury, R. (1990). From boarding house to Bistro. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

185

CATERING BUSINESS, OFF-SITE The business of off-site catering can be defined as a public food service in which the food or drink for sale is prepared at a location different from the venue intended for consumption. An off-premise catering service can be enlisted to organize the cooking, meal planning, setup, and breakdown for special events such as weddings, graduation parties, or business dinners, and it is also becoming an increasingly common service for individual and family consumption. Off-site catering differs from on-site catering in that the event at which the food will be served and consumed takes place at a remote location from the site of production, such as at an office, home, gallery, or park. Although food can be assembled and plated on site, all major cooking and preparation must, by necessity or regulation, occur elsewhere. The domestic and international catering business has expanded rapidly, especially over the past few decades, transforming into a multimillion-dollar industry. Today, off-premise catering makes up one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. food service industry. This entry provides a brief overview of the industry and market of catering services to date.

History The social and economic history of catering is closely tied to the growth of the restaurant and hospitality industry and expansion of food as big business. Catering as a means of preparing food for large celebrations is a practice that can be traced back to royal feasts and religious celebrations of ancient times. Records indicate that in 4th millennium BCE China, and later in ancient Rome, specialized cooks were responsible for organizing and preparing the extravagant feasts thrown by the royals and aristocracy. Urban eateries, places of public consumption, were also common establishments in ancient Rome. The first modern restaurants, however, and the professional practice of preparing meals for public

186

Catering Business, Off-Site

patron consumption, were not formally established until the 18th century, in a post-Revolution France. The medieval French culinary landscape had been characterized by a strict system of city and national standards, resulting in the formation of catering guilds that specialized in specific areas of culinary production—for example, exclusively butchering or baking. The master chef Francois Massialot, author of Le Cuisinier Roial et Bourgeois (1691), was one of the first renowned chefs to work primarily as a freelance chef, outside the jurisdiction of the strict culinary guilds. Rather than specializing in one narrow field, Massialot sought personal employment as a general chef, cooking for weddings, royal parties, and other events outside the restrictions of these laws. During this time, only these master cook/caterers held the right to serve full meals to large parties. After the conclusion of the French Revolution and the upheaval of the aristocracy, the concept of freelance cooking became even more popular, gaining a footing in regional inns and taverns across continental Europe. The modern catering business in America, like the American restaurant industry, is still a relatively new endeavor. Off-site catering, in particular, is dependent on access to appropriate equipment for food production and transportation. The domestic catering industry did not fully take off until after World War II, due to a conflux of social and technological conditions. Many factories that had previously produced war materials switched to producing consumer goods and products. Polyvinyl chloride, a compound experimented with during the war, became ubiquitous in the form of wax paper, in conjunction with the popularization of aluminum foil and home refrigeration. With the popularization of these new consumer technologies, used by housewives and caterers alike, the transportation and storage of food on a large scale became a cost-efficient option. Once primarily associated with the privilege of the elite class, catered events have now become common among the upper middle class and corporate world. Today, thousands of businesses, social

groups, and large families solicit the services of an off-site caterer to provide the food for special events, meetings, or celebrations. By securing food prepared by an off-site restaurant or kitchen, the host or hostess is able to engage to a greater extent in the other activities of the event, allowing them to take on a more significant participatory role.

Industry Profile and Operations The catering industry has become one of the fastest growing U.S. food service industries to date. The National Association for Catering and Events estimates that the exclusive business of catering generates revenue of more than $7 billion annually and employs more than 130,000—not including the revenue and staff that operates within existing restaurants or hotels. Whereas the majority of food business in America is centralized among a few large corporations, the catering industry differs in that it is fragmented among various smaller companies and restaurants with no single corporation dominating a disproportionate share of the market. Today, many restaurants are pursuing off-site catering opportunities, such as pickup and delivery orders, as a way of increasing revenue and sales by serving additional customers outside of the available dining area or kitchen space. The scope of events served by catering varies widely: birthday and retirement parties, seminars and conferences, corporate events and business lunches, engagements and weddings, sports and entertainment functions, and promotions and graduations. These catered events typically fall into two categories—social and corporate catering— and the type of food and service differs accordingly, ranging from carryout and delivery for individuals to planned private parties, with staff on hand available for food service. More formal event catering can include an extensive list of services. In this case, the event caterer is not the person responsible for cooking the food, but is the one orchestrating the larger event. Their duties can include setting up the dining room or banquet hall, organizing the entirety of food preparation and the visual plating, supplying

Catering Business, Off-Site

full wait service during the event, and cleanup afterward. These multicourse events require a complex range of considerations and planning, often requiring several months of notice and consultations to book a venue, define the theme, and refine the menu. Such events are often quoted on a perperson basis, in addition to a flat fee for the remaining services, and great care is taken to ensure an overall quality of food and experience. On the other hand, business and corporate events often solicit a form of boxed-lunch catering, for pickup or delivery. These generic, individually packaged lunch meals typically include a sandwich or salad, a side, and dessert, such as chips or a cookie. These meals are priced on a per-person basis, with little to none included for services. Social catering, as a percentage of the market as a whole, has recently expanded as a result of the trend for existing restaurants and fast-casual establishments to develop catering services as an outlet for expansion and additional revenue. These items for pickup or delivery are often derived from the existing menu at an establishment and are absorbed within the day-to-day operations of the restaurant. The central strategic decision for developing a catering business is deciding on the menu, although perhaps less so for catering done from an existing restaurant. Because of the range of different styles and occasions for catering that exist, it is imperative for a caterer to establish a niche market or exhibit certain competence or distinction in an area in which he or she can excel. When choosing the food and services to be provided, the caterer has to consider the available ingredients and equipment of the catering establishment, as well as the ability of the food to withstand transport to the site of the event.

Process and Concerns The catering process begins when a client makes a request, either online, over the phone, or in person, for food service for an event at a predetermined time and location. Depending on the size and formality of the event, catering services are often booked well in advance, giving both the caterer and

187

the event planner time to prepare and coordinate. However, in quick-service establishments, catering is becoming an increasingly common and timely process. Most restaurants that offer off-site catering do so with a stipulation for 24-hour notice, but the more casual take-out or quick delivery options may accept orders the day of. For large events requiring involved food services, there exist a wide range of logistic considerations for the caterer, from food preparation to staff transportation. Due to the added complications of serving food away from the site where it is prepared, the catering manager must take into account the distance and location of the event, the practical nature of the venue and requirements for setting up (power, electricity, refrigeration, etc.), and the staffing for delivery or service. Besides the preparation and transportation of food, these caterers also need to plan for the transportation and management of additional employees. The sector of off-site catering that deals primarily with large functions and event planning is regulated and maintained by a system of professional licenses, food safety laws, and event permitting. These events typically require a formal contract detailing a list of services to be provided by the caterer, ensuring that all practical and legal considerations are taken care of. A permit often must be obtained from the city government for large offpremise events, and measures are taken by the health and fire departments to ensure that the food being served has been prepared at a licensed commercial kitchen in adherence with health and safety codes. These buildings are usually inspected once before opening and about twice each year. These inspections are meant to act as preventive measures to insure against breaches in food safety and food-related illness. For smaller events, daily catering, deliveries, and take-out, the additional considerations are dramatically reduced, given that most of the production is absorbed by a larger food service operation. Nevertheless, ensuring food safety remains a primary concern for any sector of the catering business. Foods must be held at the appropriate temperatures until time of consumption. Cold foods

188

Cattle Industry

such as salads and perishables need to be held close to, but not below, freezing temperatures, and hot foods need to remain above a threshold of 140 °F, as determined by national food safety standards.

Growth and Expansion Acting as a substitute for home-cooked meals, offsite catering shares a similar expansion of processed and preprepared foods in the modern market. With the increasing demands of the workweek, the average American has less time to devote to cooking at home. The options for take-out, delivery, or catering services allow consumers to enjoy prepared food in the comfort of their own private home. With an ever-expanding range of choices and price points, in conjunction with the increasing expendable income of American families and decreasing emphasis on home cooking, the off-site catering industry is projected to continue on a trajectory of rapid growth. Teagan Lehrmann See also Corporate Food Service; Fine Dining; Take-Out Foods

Further Readings Bradley, A. (2004). Catering for profit: Catering and food service management. Monterey, CA: Creative Cookbooks. Eastham, J. F., Sharples, L., & Ball, S. D. (2001). Food supply chain management: Issues for the hospitality and retail Sectors. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Websites National Association for Catering and Events: http:// www.nace.net National Restaurant Association: http://www.restaurant.org

CATTLE INDUSTRY The U.S. fed-cattle industry is the largest in the world. The country’s extensive grasslands are an ideal prerequisite for the production of beef.

Originally, grazing cattle was an efficient way to use the land unsuitable for crop production. Today, a growing percentage of beef is produced in feedlots, which means that the animals are fed grains instead of grass. In 2013, the United States produced 25.8 billion pounds of beef and 201.2 billion pounds of milk. Like the beef sector, the dairy industry has shifted from smaller farms with small herds to fewer large operations with a growing number of highly productive animals. These changes have led to concerns about the impact of the cattle industry on the environment, animal welfare, public health, and working conditions in slaughter houses. This entry examines these issues.

Animal Welfare Issues Dairy Cattle

The most important reason for animal welfare issues in dairy cattle is genetic selection for high productivity. During the past 40 years, the life expectancy of dairy cattle decreased with the increasing number of Holstein cattle (90% of dairy cows in the United States are Holsteins). Declining longevity and fertility among these highly productive animals suggest that breeding practices, as well as their environment, threaten their welfare. The animals are more prone to injuries of the body, extremities, and hooves. Because of their enlarged udders, they show lameness—problems moving and relaxing. They also show an increased risk of mastitis, a painful inflammation of the udder. Critics of current genetic selection practices argue that changing the criteria for genetic selection would be the single most efficient step toward ensuring animal welfare in dairy cattle. Animal welfare is also threatened by housing conditions. Most pens do not provide enough space for the animals; animals may also be tied up, which leads to aggression and trampling and keeps the animals from behaving in a social way. Inadequate flooring leads to udder infections, teat injuries, disorders of the blood circulation or reproductive system, pain, and fear. Carbon and ammonia concentrations further contribute to welfare problems by causing irritations of the respiratory system. To prevent the cows from getting diseases, antibiotics

Cattle Industry

are being used on a prophylactic basis, leading to resistant pathogens. In addition to public health issues that will be discussed in the following section, this causes animal welfare problems because painful diseases cannot be treated anymore. Because the cows are inseminated at such a high frequency, they lack important recovery time between births, and the frequent pregnancies and birthing place a considerable burden on the animals’ bodies. To prevent injuries of the tail caused by trampling, the tails are often docked. This procedure causes acute pain and decreases the animals’ ability to repel flies, which causes an increase in infections. Veal Calves

Opponents of veal production view veal calves as a waste product of the dairy industry. Dairy cows have to give birth every year in order to lactate. Because the male calves of dairy cows are not suitable for beef production, they are marketed as veal. They are usually fed a liquid diet that may cause painful ulcers in the abomasum and hypersensitive intestines. The calves are fed only a limited amount of iron to keep blood hemoglobin levels low and to ensure that the meat will be white. Such nutrient deprivation can lead to anemia in the calf. Finland has made it illegal to deliberately keep livestock on a diet that causes their health to worsen. Another way to keep veal meat white and tender is to prevent the calves from moving. Veal crates that make even the least bit of movement impossible have been banned in the European Union and in five American states but are still in use in the remaining states. Calves may also be exposed to immense concentrations of nitrate, phosphate, heavy metals, ammonia, and other gases in the air, which causes painful diseases of the respiratory system. Beef Cattle

The welfare of beef cattle is threatened by excessive mud and conditions that lead to heat stress. When feedlots lack shaded areas, the animals are unable to control their body temperature, which

189

causes stress. Mud that goes over the top of the hoof is a welfare concern as well. About 1% to 20% of each herd in the United States is affected by cancer eye, a painful form of cancer that can lead to blindness. If the disease is detected at an early stage, it can be treated; however, in a large herd, the chance of early detection is limited. Both the conditions in which beef cattle are kept and some of the industry practices are criticized by advocates of animal welfare. Castration of male beef calves is standard industry practice and is done to decrease aggressiveness both toward humans and toward other cattle. Castration also leads to the production of a higher quality of beef. The procedure may be done surgically, chemically, or by using a band to cut off blood circulation. All these methods are extremely painful when done without anesthesia, although local anesthesia is sometimes used with surgical castration.

General Animal Welfare Problems

Livestock handling is a huge welfare factor. Staff are oftentimes not adequately trained and therefore cause pain and fear in the animals. Electric prodders or tail twisting are widely used to promote desired behavior. Screaming and rough handling of the cattle cause fear, pain, and injuries. Branding and dehorning are other procedures that are painful and may cause further problems. In branding, which is done to identify an animal’s owner, a hot iron is pressed on their skin. Horns are removed to prevent horn-inflicted injuries to humans and other animals, but animal rights advocates condemn the practice. Because cattle with horns take up more space, dehorning is also done for economic reasons. When the calves are still very young, they are disbudded, which means that horn buds are removed by caustic paste, hot iron, or a knife or spoon. When dishorning takes place at a later stage, horns are removed with a saw or a guillotine. As there are nerve endings in the horns and horn buds, both procedures are very painful. In the United States, most dehorning is performed without anesthesia or analgesics. Breeding cattle without horns (“polled cattle”) is a feasible alternative.

190

Cattle Industry

Cows or calves that are unable to walk and stand because of diseases or injuries (“downer cows”) suffer immensely. According to the American Association of Bovine Practitioner’s guidelines, these animals need to be euthanized as soon as possible, ideally before they are transported to the slaughterhouse. Nevertheless, in many cases this is not done, and the animals are moved by pulling a chain that has been tied around their legs. Apart from this immediate suffering, the occurrence of downer cows are a sign of poor welfare in operations. Transport to the slaughterhouse threatens animal welfare in most cases. Animals suffer because of rough handling by the staff and ruthless driving that leads to fear, exhaustion, injuries of the skin, deep wounds, and even breaking bones. Other factors threatening welfare are temperatures in the truck that are either too high or too low, inadequate supply of food and water, insufficient freedom of movement, and new social constellations among the cattle that lead to fights and injuries. Animal welfare advocates argue that there is no good reason to believe that animal suffering matters less morally than human suffering; it is important to take the welfare of sentient beings into consideration.

Human Health Issues Public Health Problems

Animals are not the only beings whose welfare is threatened by the current practice of the cattle industry. The sector also causes immense problems for public health with respect to zoonotic pathogens, the use of antibiotics, living conditions in the vicinity of operations, foodborne illnesses, and overconsumption of animal products. The influenza A virus (H1N1) and bovine spongiform encephalopathy are examples for zoonotic diseases—that is, diseases transmitted by animals to human beings. Although not many cases of these particular diseases have been reported, zoonotic pathogens should not be underestimated. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 60% of all pathogens are of zoonotic origin, and 75% of all new pathogens

that have been reported during the past 25 years were transmitted by animals. Diseases in feedlots and on dairy farms often emerge because of suboptimal housing conditions and could also be prevented by improvements in these conditions. However, antibiotics are being used on a large scale as prophylactics, in part because they also have a growth-promoting effect and thus can increase feed efficiency. Immense quantities of antibiotics are being released, accumulate in soils and drinking water, and finally find their way into the human organism. Furthermore, pathogens develop resistance to antibiotics and therefore pose an even greater risk to human and animal health. Broadband antibiotics that have been identified as of special importance for human health by the World Health Organization are often used in the cattle industry because they are more efficient, despite the associated risks. Making pathogens resistant to antibiotics creates a health risk for humans; in addition, treatment of antibioticresistant infections costs around $30 billion per year—immense externalized costs that have to be paid for by the public. People living near intensive cattle operations (feedlots, intensive dairy farms, and intensive pasture) face even more direct problems. Drinking water in these areas is often contaminated with pathogens, many of which are resistant to antibiotics. Another issue is odor pollution, which has a negative impact on human welfare and health. Many people living in the vicinity of intensive cattle operations suffer from irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat and from headaches and dizziness. There are also considerably more cases of coughing, bronchitis, numbness, shortness of breath, tiredness, and diarrhea than in other areas. Animal products, including beef, veal, and dairy products, are the number one carrier of foodborne illnesses, according to the World Health Organization. Pathogens such as Salmonella, Listeria, and Escherichia coli can emerge because of wrong handling of the food or may already exist within the animals and may be transmitted to humans through consumption. Each year, treatment of foodborne illnesses costs around $10.8 to $54.9 billion in the United States.

Cattle Industry

The cattle industry also contributes to lifestyle diseases, which may result from the overconsumption of animal products. A diet rich in meat and high-fat dairy products can contribute to obesity, diseases of the cardiovascular system, certain types of cancer, strokes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, diabetes, asthma, and arthritis. All in all, the cattle industry contributes to a range of public health issues. Although some (overconsumption, wrong handling of food) are caused by consumer behavior, many result from industry practices. These externalities arising in the context of public health are borne by the public and are not reflected in the prices of the products that cause them. Working Conditions

Work in slaughterhouses is very dangerous because of the long hours, the need to work quickly, and the use of hazardous equipment such as knives. Slaughterhouse workers show a significantly higher risk of being injured compared with workers in production in other sectors. They also show considerably higher rates of anger, aggression, anxiety problems, phobias, as well as psychoses and are considered a high-risk group for posttraumatic stress disorder. Environmental Issues

Livestock production is the biggest anthropogenic user of land, one of the most important consumers of water, and the most effective cause of biodiversity loss. Furthermore, it is the single most effective emitter of greenhouse gases, making it one of the most important contributors to anthropogenic climate change. The cattle industry makes up a substantial percentage of livestock production. It therefore adds significantly to environmental problems and, even, is of special importance in the case of climate change; many experts have linked by-products of the cattle industry to climate change. Sulfur is being used as a fertilizer in feed production. An oversupply of sulfur decreases the productivity of forests and pastures and leads to

191

acidification of rivers and lakes. Although sulfur is also used in the production of plant food for human consumption, its use for livestock feed is exponentially higher, as approximately sixfold amount of plant protein is needed for the production of animal protein. Also, the crops that are being used as feed crops, namely, corn and soy, have especially high fertilizer requirements. As the amount of manure produced in feedlots and dairy farms by far surpasses the amount that can be safely used as a fertilizer by spraying it on fields, poisoning of soils and water as well as the air follows. Although pasture farming of cattle has been practiced in a sustainable manner for centuries, its intensification is now leading to land degradation and threatening ecosystems and therefore human beings. Livestock production accounts for 9% of worldwide carbon emissions, 35% to 40% of methane emissions, and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions. Methane is 21 times more efficient than carbon in preventing infrared radiation from leaving the planet, and nitrous dioxide is 296 times more efficient than carbon, so the greenhouse gases resulting from livestock production are a major concern with respect to global warming. Most of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the cattle industry are caused by deforestation, suboptimal usage of soils, and methane emissions. Extensive areas are being deforested to clear land for feed crop cultivation of pasture management. Because forests are an important factor in carbon sequestration (i.e., the storage of carbon in the plants so that it no longer has a destructive effect on the atmosphere), destroying them sets free large amounts of carbon, and future sequestration becomes impossible. Another cause of greenhouse gas emissions lies in the cattle’s digestive systems. Ruminants produce large amounts of methane due to inner fermentation. Their manure causes enormous emissions of nitrous dioxide. When pastures are being overgrazed, they no longer provide any carbon sequestration services. This is a huge factor given that more than half of the pastures in the United States are overgrazed. Rich biodiversity is a prerequisite for human life on this planet. The cattle industry threatens

192

Celebrity Chefs

biodiversity on a large scale. Creating pasture by destroying forests that are a habitat for large numbers of animals and plants leads to an immense loss of biodiversity. Landscape degradation and pesticide use further threaten biodiversity.

Ethical Implications It is important to keep in mind that not all of the problems mentioned above are inherent in the cattle industry; many have emerged with its intensification to produce the large amounts of beef, veal, and dairy that are being consumed today. Environmentally sustainable conduct that is considerate of animals as well as human beings is imaginable with a significant decrease in consumption. Sustainable agrifood systems seek to provide nutritious and affordable food through practices that support both environmental responsibility and economic vitality. Such efforts, along with the movement toward ethical alternatives to factory farming, are examples of ways in which some activists have suggested alternatives to the current practices of the cattle industry. Ethical concerns with respect to the cattle industry have also been raised in connection with subsidies for livestock production in the United States as well as in other OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. Tax money is being used to financially support the cattle industry, advantaging larger operations over smaller ones. Critics charge that these subsidies keep prices for beef and dairy products low artificially and lead to overconsumption of these foods. Constanze Frank-Oster See also Antibiotics and Superbugs; Climate Change; Factory Farming; Food Miles; Food Safety; Obesity Epidemic; Subsidies

Further Readings Dillard, J. (2007). A slaughterhouse nightmare: Psychological harm suffered by slaughterhouse employees and the possibility of redress through legal

reform. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 15, 391–409. Emhan, A., Yildiz, A. S., Bez, Y., & Kingir, S. (2012). Psychological symptom profile of butchers working in slaughterhouses and retail meat packing business: A comparative study. Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Kafkas, 18, 319–322. Grandin, T. (Ed.). (2009). Improving animal welfare: A practical approach. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Gurian-Sherman, D. (2009). CAFOs uncovered: The untold costs of confined animal feeding operations. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. Marlow, H. J., Hayes, W. K., Soret, S., Carter, R. L., Schwab, E., & Sabaté, J. (2009). Diet and the environment: Does what you eat matter? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89, 1699–1703. Morse, R. A., & Calderone, N. W. (2002). The value of honey bees as pollinators of U.S. crops in 2000. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 16812–16816. Rollin, B. E. (2006). Animal rights and human morality. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Singer, P. (2001). Practical ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Steinfeld, H., Mooney, H. A., Schneider, F., & Neville, L. E. (Eds.). (2010). Livestock in a changing landscape: Drivers, consequences and responses (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Island Press.

CELEBRITY CHEFS Celebrity chefs are cooks who have gained public notoriety and fame. This public acclaim may be awarded on the basis of their superior culinary skills, but often, celebrity status is ascribed due to other factors such as personality or physical attractiveness. Their fame is often enhanced and cultivated through mass media and Internet social media. Celebrity chefs dictate the parameters of taste by introducing new foodstuffs, creating culinary trends, endorsing products, promoting eating

Celebrity Chefs

establishments, and generating interesting new and different cuisines. This entry elaborates on the broad meanings of what it means to be a celebrity chef, both from a historical perspective and through a current focus, and what role these individuals play in contemporary foodways in the United States and around the world.

Defining Celebrity Chefs Often interchangeable with cook in popular vernacular, the term chef was traditionally used to denote a professional cook with leadership status. French in origin, the term chef is not exclusive to the culinary realm. In tracing its original etymology, chef simply refers to the leader or the head of a group or an organization. Applied to working cooks, this term implies superior rank and status in a professional capacity. The use of chef as a title among cooks was not in wide parlance until the development of the brigade system around the turn of the 20th century. The French chef Auguste Escoffier (1846–1935), an acclaimed celebrity chef, was inspired by military hierarchies and placed cooks in similar organizational structures. Kitchens were divided into several departments, composed of cooks who worked under the oversight of a department head cook or department chef. Each department would be responsible for an aspect of cooking, such as fish cooking or sauces, and each department chef would ultimately report to the chef de cuisine, the head chef of the kitchen. While the use of chef as established by Escoffier persists in professional kitchens, today the term chef is often accorded to anyone deemed to have culinary talent or finesse, and home cooks can find themselves lauded with the title of chef. Celebrity chefs are distinct among chefs as the wider public accords them this status. Unlike the aforementioned description, where the title of chef is used to denote a leadership role in a professional kitchen, celebrity chef status may have very little to do with professional cooking ability. This status may be attributed on the basis of culinary prowess but is often ascribed because of nonculinary factors that include, but are not limited to,

193

personality, physical attractiveness, or patronage from famous clientele. Depending on the cultural and historical context, someone may be considered a celebrity chef based on any combination of these elements. Some celebrity chefs today are amateur cooks who have built loyal fans because of their charisma and appeal. The constructions and status of celebrity chefs have shifted over time, alongside increased interest in food and wider access to different cuisines.

Celebrity Chefs Over Time Although it is difficult to define who was the very first celebrity chef, this title has been attributed to many, including Bartolomeo Scappi (ca. 1500–1570), the Renaissance cookbook writer and papal chef, and Alexis Soyer (1810–1858), a French-born chef of Victorian England whose philanthropic works were as widely praised as his cooking at the Reform Club in London. However, many culinary histories connect the rise of celebrity chefs to the professionalization of French haute cuisine in the 19th century. This change in French foodways, spurred by broader political and socioeconomic upheaval from the French Revolution (1789–1799), led to a break from antiquated culinary conventions dating to the medieval period to the establishment of haute cuisine. This separation also led to improved status among professional cooks through the establishment of regulations, culinary schools, magazines, and trade associations. As a result, Marie-Antoine (Antonin) Carême (1783– 1833), a French chef who rose through poverty to become the “king of chefs and chef of kings,” is often named the first celebrity chef. Although this title has also been accorded to others, he is often cited as the first example because of his distinguished clientele, who included Tsar Alexander I of Russia, George IV of England, Napoleon, the Rothschild banking family, and the diplomat Charles Maurice de TalleyrandPérigord. Early celebrity chefs like Carême built their celebrity status through their exclusive cooking and continued support from high-status clientele. Another example of an early celebrity chef was Escoffier. He was a talented chef whose celebrity was actualized, in part, because he served the celebrities of his

194

Celebrity Chefs

day like Australian opera singer Dame Nellie Melba, the actress Sarah Bernhardt, and the ballerina Anna Pavlova. The 1960s were a turning point for celebrity chefs in the United States, ushering new celebrity chefs whose careers were built, in part, on mass media presence rather than culinary skill and the benefaction of social elites. Post–World War II affluence in the United States marshalled a new consumer society. Among the growing, newly affluent middle classes, increased disposable incomes enabled the purchase of consumer goods like televisions and afforded greater media access. Early broadcasts of food-themed programing put Americans in touch with new foodstuffs, new cuisines, and, significantly, new food personalities. Some of the first television celebrity chefs perpetuated the importance of French cuisine, albeit democratizing it and spreading it to a wider social class of eaters. For example, Julia Child (1912– 2004) and her television show, The French Chef, made French cuisine widely accessible for the first time by targeting a middle-class viewership. This period also saw the emergence of serious food writing and journalism in the United States. Child’s cookbook, Mastering the Art of French Cooking (1961), which preceded her show, was on best seller lists. American food writers like James Beard (1903–1985) and Craig Claiborne (1920–2000) profiled famous chefs in their work, introducing them to wider audiences and demystifying their work. Some of these writers came to be admired as celebrity chefs themselves, as they introduced audiences to various regional American and ethnic foods through their writings, recipes, and cookbooks. France also experienced cultural shifts in the reception of celebrity chefs during the 1960s and 1970s. The rise of nouvelle cuisine, presented as a variation on haute cuisine emphasizing locality and freshness, attracted intense media coverage. Among these new stars were Paul Bocuse (b. 1926), Michel Guérard (b. 1933), Jean (1926–1983) and Pierre (b. 1928) Troisgros, and Roger Vergé (b. 1980). Young, attractive, and talented, these new chefs were covered widely in the French and later in the

global press, marking a change in the perception of chefs. Restaurant celebrity chefs were now as much the attraction as the food they cooked.

Contemporary Celebrity Chefs Arguably, what has changed between early celebrity chefs, who were working cooks with an elevated professional status, and contemporary celebrity chefs is the presence and relationship with mass media. Previously, celebrity chefs were accorded their status because of their culinary abilities and their service to the social elites of the day. The introduction of mass media food coverage through print journalism and television in the mid-20th century and later Internet media in the 21st century has changed the relationship between celebrity chefs and their audience. No longer contained to the social elites, food has evolved to become more democratic in reach. Resultantly, celebrity chefs have increased in number and in popularity as audiences expanded and interest in food multiplied. The biggest contemporary paradigm shift for American celebrity chef culture occurred in the 1990s. Food Network, launched in 1993, broadcast food programming around the clock on cable television. Early programs were primarily instructional in nature, although later, the programming format shifted to food as entertainment to include lifestyle shows, culinary competitions, and food travel. Launching the careers of many new celebrity chefs, some of whom are amateur cooks known more for their personalities than culinary abilities, the Food Network model of food television programming has been copied in other parts of the world. Today, there are many types of celebrity chefs, who derive their fame and fortunes in different ways. What connects them is that their fame is built on carefully cultivated public personae. There are celebrity chefs who are primarily media personalities, whose appeal is based on charisma rather than culinary skill. For instance, the Food Network star Rachael Ray’s (b. 1968) avowed lack of formal culinary training makes her relatable to American home cooks as a type of girl next door

Celebrity Chefs

with a love of food. Some play into the so-called bad boy chef persona by shouting expletive-laden language at television cameras, occasionally colored with anecdotes of sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll to perpetuate stereotypes on the gritty world of culinary work. Others are elite haute cuisine chefs who have reaped fame through their exclusive cuisine and are venerated as artisans and skilled craftsmen. Their recognition has been established, in part, through recognition in culinary guidebooks like Michelin, Gault Millau, and Zagat, and “world’s best” ranking lists like San Pellegrino World’s 50 Best Restaurants list. These guides launch and perpetuate the star status of haute cuisine chefs. Regardless of how celebrity chefs manage their fame and status, they are celebrities because they have devoted fans and attract media attention. Widespread media coverage of contemporary celebrity chefs has empowered some chefs to use their star power to take on political and social campaigns. The proliferation of mass media has also transformed the platform of celebrity chefs to extend beyond cooking, as their purview now extends to commentary on health, food systems, agricultural production, sustainability, and other social concerns. Starting in the 1970s, Alice Waters (b. 1944), and her Chez Panisse in Berkeley, California, was one of the first chefs to use food as public advocacy and social activism. Waters advocated a platform of seasonal and local foods, supporting direct buying from farmers and other food producers. The British chef Jamie Oliver (b. 1975) has used his celebrity status to fight against childhood obesity and to transform school lunches in the United Kingdom and the United States. The participation of celebrity chefs in public advocacy has been praised and criticized, with naysayers arguing that celebrity chefs should stick to the kitchen.

Celebrity Chefs Around the World In addition to their expanded role in the public realm, celebrity chefs are now attaining global fame. Before the mid-20th century, it was unlikely

195

that a celebrity chef would achieve transnational recognition. While a few early celebrity chefs did attain transnational renown, their notoriety would extend among only a small, well-connected elite who could afford to hire the chef for their services or venture into their establishment. Whereas in the past, a celebrity chef might be known only in a particular market or among a certain demographic, the global circulation of food media and expansion of consumer culture has made it such that a celebrity chef may be a celebrity in many countries. Food television shows are broadcast around the planet, recipes are syndicated in various print and online publications, cookbooks are translated into multiple languages, and online social media make it possible to attain celebrity chef status in many countries among different market segments. Nowadays, one can dine at the celebrity chef restaurants in New York, London, Paris, Dubai, Tokyo, or Rio de Janeiro, purchase their cookbooks in translation, follow their television shows from anywhere on the planet, and stay in constant contact through social media. Perhaps, this is leading to a homogenization of cuisine, particularly elite haute cuisine, across the planet through celebrity chefs. Incidentally, while celebrity chefs are expanding their presence across the globe, the concept of a celebrity chef is not expressed in the same way in different parts of the world. While cooking shows and food media are popular in many countries around the globe, cooks and chefs are neither afforded the same socioeconomic prestige nor do they have the same marketing power and media presence as they do in Western Europe and the United States. For instance, celebrity chef status is constructed differently in parts of Asia. While there are celebrity food personalities in Japan, it is more appropriate to speak of famous chefs who are revered for their skill and craftsmanship, known primarily for their culinary abilities rather than their media savvy and star power. What compounds this phenomenon is that in many non-Western countries, professional cooks maintain a relatively low socioeconomic status. Part of this difference is, perhaps, attributed to different

196

Celebrity Chefs

constructions of what it means to work as a professional cook. In Western Europe and the United States, cooking is often equated with artistry and craftsmanship, and celebrity chefs in particular can command high salaries and wide public commendation for their work. In China, for instance, cooking is still viewed as a vocation, and not a profession, and a dismal career choice for a young person. Changing social norms, partially influenced by foreign perceptions of chefs and the culinary profession, may transform this picture in the future. For example, the culinary competition show MasterChef, which originated in the United Kingdom, is now produced in 40 countries around the planet. This show has put chefs and their work on an elite celebrity platform. Increasingly, globalized media is shifting perceptions of chefs around the planet, and this may lead to reconsiderations on the value of chefs and the emergence of new types of celebrity chefs in the future.

Celebrity Chefs and the Way We Cook and Eat Given the proliferation and increased media presence of celebrity chefs over time, this raises the question of whether celebrity chefs hold influence over the way people cook. That is to say, we need to consider if individuals actually learn to cook from celebrity chefs. There is evidence to suggest that consumers of food media do follow trends and parameters of taste dictated by celebrity chefs. Food Network (the United States) regularly draws more than 100 million viewers per year, a huge portion of the American population. Celebrity chefs can also influence consumption habits. Dubbed the celebrity chef effect, in the United Kingdom, household names like Jamie Oliver can generate demand for esoteric or exotic ingredients among consumers, who are introduced to these products through television programs. Beyond television shows and cookbooks, celebrity chefs also endorse products and lend their name to other commercial ventures. Brand endorsements of products, gadgets, and restaurants, to name a few, are common ways for celebrity chefs

to earn money and to increase their market appeal. Recently, a cruise line has launched celebrity chef– themed cruises, where passengers can meet their favorite stars, sample their dishes, attend their demonstrations, and even participate in cooking competitions alongside their idols while sailing to destinations around the globe. Fans are no longer content to simply eat the food and use products approved by their favorite celebrity chefs but now want to be part of their lives—to live among their idols. As to the influence of celebrity chefs on everyday cooking practices, there is mounting evidence to suggest that there is disconnect with audiences. Americans are obsessed with food culture and celebrity chefs. They watch more than 35 hours of television per week (The Nielsen Company, 2013), a substantial portion of that time devoted to foodthemed programming. Yet Americans are cooking less and less: on average 57 minutes a day (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). Instead, they are purchasing processed foods, consuming fast food, or dining out in restaurants, choosing to consume vicariously through food programming instead of cooking for themselves. Celebrity chefs have also been criticized for promoting unhealthy eating habits and inattention to health issues. Several British celebrity chefs came under scrutiny in 2012, when researchers found that their recipes contained higher fat and calories than prepared ready-to-eat meals from supermarkets. Additionally, celebrity chefs have also been scrutinized for their endorsements of fast food and partnerships with fast food companies and processed food brands. Critics have also cited that our contemporary Western food–obsessed culture, which worships food media and celebrity chefs, exacerbates eating disorders and unhealthy body issues, although some of these claims are unsubstantiated. As public figures, some view that celebrity chefs have a responsibility toward the public to promote healthy consumption practices. Moreover, celebrity chef culture has been attacked for its absence of diversity and lack of cultural representation. In the United States, female celebrity chefs are often portrayed as domestic

Charitable Organizations

cooks in domestic environments, even if they have professional restaurant experience. Celebrity chefs of color are featured on fewer programs, or their shows are aired at less desirable time slots. The majority of celebrity chefs in the West are white males. Although dominant foodie culture espouses interest in diverse cuisines and ingredients, in the United States, celebrity chefs have Americanized ethnic and world cuisines for the dominant palate. This supposed dumbing down of taste to suit a wide consumer base has drawn consternation from critics who argue that celebrity chefs should preserve culinary heritage and present so-called authentic practices. Because dominant foodie culture is composed primarily of white Americans from relatively affluent backgrounds, celebrity chef culture focuses on serving this demographic. This demographic is privileged with the socioeconomic resources and cultural capital to follow the careers of celebrity chefs, eat at their restaurants, purchase their cookbooks, and follow their work but also seek the socioeconomic distinction of showing off the cultural knowledge of celebrity chef and global food culture—but in mediated doses.

Conclusion Celebrity chefs are a significant part of contemporary food culture. As public figures, they have the ability to influence consumption habits and cultural parameters of taste. As public figures, celebrity chefs have drawn adulation as well as ire for their work. The meanings of who is and what it means to be a celebrity chef have evolved over time. The social role of celebrity chefs will continue to evolve along increasingly transnational and global exchanges of media, technology, and food culture. Willa Zhen See also Food in Popular Media; Food Magazines; Food TV; Food Writing in Books; Ghostwriters for Celebrity Chefs; Newspaper Food Columns; Restaurant Chefs; Social Media and Food

197

Further Readings Adema, P. (2000). Food, television and the ambiguity of modernity. Journal of American Culture, 23(1), 113–123. Buford, B. (2006, October 2). TV dinners: The rise of food television. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/02/ 061002fa_fact Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Table 1. Time spent in primary activities (1) and percent of the civilian population engaging in each activity, averages per day by sex, 2013 annual averages. Retrieved from http:// www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm Collins, K. (2009). Watching what we eat: The evolution of television cooking shows. New York, NY: Continuum. Ferguson, P. P. (2004). Accounting for taste: The triumph of French cuisine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hansen, S. (2008). Society of the appetite: Celebrity chefs deliver consumers. Food, Culture & Society, 11(1), 49–67. Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. (2010). Foodies: Democracy and distinction in the gourmet foodscape. New York, NY: Routledge. Kamp, D. (2006). The United States of Arugula. New York, NY: Broadway Books. McBride, A. E. (2010). Forum: Food porn. Gastronomica, 10(1), 38–46. Mennell, S. (1985). All manner of food: Eating and taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the present. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. The Nielsen Company. (2013). A look across media: The cross-platform report Q3 2013. Retrieved from http:// www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2013/a-lookacross-media-the-cross-platform-report-q3-2013.html Pollan, M. (2009, August 2). Out of the kitchen, onto the couch. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/magazine/ 02cooking-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Rousseau, S. (2012). Food media: Celebrity chefs and the politics of everyday interference. London, UK: Berg.

CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS Charitable organizations are organizations that have an educational, cultural, religious, or social welfare or other purpose that is defined by law. In

198

Charitable Organizations

the United States, they are generally governed by both state law to establish the organization and by federal law to assess the charitable purpose and tax-exempt eligibility. It is possible to be a nonprofit organization (or nonprofit corporation or limited liability company [LLC]—these terms are used interchangeably in this entry and are in common use today, although there are some differences) that is recognized as such under the laws of a state but not be a tax-exempt organization under federal law. Becoming a tax-exempt charitable organization is a two-government process. Many food organizations that work to fight hunger, to create sustainable food practices, to encourage urban agriculture, and to fight obesity and other diseases related to food and nutritional education organizations are charitable. Understanding how they work makes it possible to establish and monitor them. This entry explores U.S. state laws regarding nonprofit corporations, and governance, tax-exemption status, and limitations of charitable organizations, using national and international food organizations as examples.

Creating a Nonprofit Corporation Historically, when a group of people came together to support a particular cause, they formed an association or club. There would be some organizing document like a constitution or articles of organization that set out the purpose of the organization, its name, and the way in which the organization would be governed. These organizations were usually membership organizations, where membership was open to the interested public and automatic on the payment of dues. The members would elect officers and perform many duties that might have been performed by staff in larger organizations. Tax and banking laws changed, making creating a bank account for the organization separate from the individual members very difficult. However, some states have maintained the association in the adoption of some form of the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act. When the nonprofit corporation, beginning in the mid-20th century, was adopted by the various

legislatures of the states, most associations, especially the larger ones, began to convert to corporations. Until this time, a corporation that was not owned by stockholders and that did not operate for the benefit of stockholders was not recognized. A nonprofit corporation has the benefit that all corporations have, that is, it is a legally recognized entity (juridical person). As a juridical person, a corporation can legally own property, have debt that belongs to the organization (and not individual members of the organization), and enter into contracts. This means that the nonprofit corporation is separate from its members, who are shielded from individual tort liability. The states have requirements for the forming of nonprofit corporations. Most corporations are created by the adoption by the subscribers of Articles of Incorporation. The Articles of Incorporation include the name of the organization, a formal address where the organization may be officially contacted, and the composition of the board of directors, the officers, and an agent for service of process. The agent for service of process is the person who is officially appointed by the corporation to accept legal service and other notice on behalf of the organization. Organizations such as Save Our Strength, most food banks, and the Food Alliance, which supports sustainable agriculture, are all charitable organizations. The articles of organization are recorded with the appropriate state office, often the Secretary of State, along with a filing fee, a list of the first board, and often an initial report. The articles are reviewed by the appropriate state office, and if all are in order, including the uniqueness of the name, the state issues a Certificate of Incorporation. The nonprofit corporation is then created in that state in accordance with the laws of that state. The entity may operate within the state in which it is incorporated. If it also wishes to do business in other states, it must register in other states according to the laws of the state in which it wishes to do business. Each state creates special benefits for nonprofit organizations. Most states exempt nonprofits from income taxes. Some exempt nonprofits from sales taxes or property taxes. Others either

Charitable Organizations

require nonprofits to apply for particular permits and licenses or exempt them. These conditions and privileges vary from state to state. In some cases, they vary based on the purpose of the nonprofit organization.

Governance and Ownership of Nonprofit Corporations A nonprofit corporation is generally a nonshareholder organization. This means that it is not owned by anyone but exists for the public purpose for which it is formed. A nonprofit corporation may be one with a board of directors that is selfperpetuating, that is, the board members elect their successors. A nonprofit corporation may be a membership organization, which means that the membership elects the members of the board. The details of the governance of the organization are adopted through bylaws. Governance includes things such as how long a board member serves on the board, how long an officer serves, and what standing committees will exist. A nonprofit corporation may make a profit, but its profit is one that is reinvested for its nonprofit purpose. There being no shareholders, the profits are not distributed to individuals, whether board members or members. Efforts are also usually made to keep the actions of the board out of conflict with the purposes of the organization. Thus, a board member would not make a contract with the organization that would be of benefit to the member. If there is a contractual relationship with the board member, there must be disclosure of the relationship and approval by the entire board.

Limited Liability Companies It is also possible today for a nonprofit organization to become an LLC, instead of a corporation. An LLC is a form of entity that has the characteristics of corporations and partnership. The law of the LLC is developing in each state, but generally, it is required to have a unique name and members. A nonprofit corporation can be a member of an LLC. The LLC does not need to have a profit

199

motive, although it may. Like corporations, LLCs are governed by state law. Within each state, nonprofit corporations are subject to reporting to the state. If they do not operate within the confines of their mission, if they commit a fraud, or if they do not respect their governing documents, they are subject to policing by various state offices, depending on the state.

Tax Status Nonprofit organizations, whether associations, corporations, LLCs, or other entities, may apply to the Internal Revenue Service using IRS form 1023 for recognition as a charitable, tax-exempt organization. The application for recognition requires that organizational documents, governing documents, projected fund-raising plans, projected budgets, and the initial board of directors be approved and reviewed by the IRS. A charitable tax-exempt organization is one that is recognized under the provisions of paragraph 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. A charitable organization has educational, artistic or cultural, religious, social welfare, or other purpose for the public good. Because it operates for the public good, the organization is neither taxed by the federal government nor usually by the various states. And donations by individuals and corporations to charitable organizations are tax deductible. It is this provision for a tax-deductible donation that enhances the value of the status. The tax deduction encourages donations from the public, which helps the organization perform its charitable purpose. The informational tax return of the charitable organization must be made available by the organization for public review on request. This requirement encourages transparency and makes it easier for potential donors to evaluate the validity and efficacy of the organization that they wish to support. Charitable organizations may be public or private. A private foundation, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, is one that derives most of its funds from a single or a limited number of sources. A private foundation is closely regulated to ensure

200

Charitable Organizations

that its funds are not merely a tax shelter for a small group. A foundation that derives its funds from many sources, such that it can be said to be supported by the public, is one that provides a larger tax exemption to its contributors. These are called public charities. The IRS uses the term foundation in its broadest sense. Some foundations merely distribute or grant the money that they have to other organizations without actually doing the work themselves. Other organizations actually perform the work for which they are created in a direct manner. These are called operating foundations. Charitable organizations, other than churches, have legally imposed limitations on the percentage of their activities that can be spent on efforts to influence legislation. They are prohibited from promoting particular political candidates. Other limitations derive from earned income. Tax exemptions may not be applicable to unrelated business income earned by the organization. This means that earned income, not passive income from investment in securities, that is derived from activities that are not related to the mission basis of the organization can be subject to taxation. For example, a nutritional consumer education organization that owns an apartment complex and derives income beyond expenses from that apartment complex may have to pay income tax on its apartment income. This is because the organization does not provide housing as a part of its mission. If a noncash donation is made to the organization, the IRS has rules that apply to the tax exemption associated with the donation. The object must be owned by the donor for more than 1 year. Then a donation equal to the market value of the thing donated is usually available. Depending on the value and the nature of the thing, an appraisal from a qualified appraiser may be needed to substantiate the gift’s value for purposes of the tax exemption. The rules that apply to noncash donations are varied. If the organization sells the donated item, and it does so at less than market value, the amount that may be deducted is the actual sale price of the item. The IRS publishes the rules for commonly

donated items like clothing and books. The rules are available on the IRS website.

International Charitable Organizations Besides the United States, many countries recognize some form of charitable organization. These organizations are similar to organizations that exist in the United States but reflect the rules of taxation in each country. These organizations have the same types of purposes and missions that are familiar in the United States. Charitable organizations are also generically called nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) outside of the United States, particularly in developing nations. Depending on the country, the organization may be formed by public charter issued by the government of that country or by application, depending on the laws of the particular country. These organizations may be aid, educational, or cultural organizations or provide some other services for the public good. Donations to foreign charities are not automatically deductible in the United States. Some NGOs have formed supporting charitable organizations under the laws of the United States, England, and Canada, for example, which allow the NGO to collect donated money in the appropriate country, which can be tax deductible. NGOs have a reputation internationally as being organizations that provide watchdog functions that keep governments honest, especially in areas where the democratic process is not in place. They are often sophisticated enough organizations that they are able to carry out what could be governmental functions, often channeling funds from larger aid organizations into action in a local environment. In addition, they are often considered civil rights organizations, aid organizations, and public health and education organizations, and they participate in advocacy in conjunction with the United Nations and other international organizations. An example of such an organization is Fairfood International, headquartered in Amsterdam. It works in developing nations to encourage food corporations with manufacturing

Chemical Fertilizers

facilities in those countries to use their hiring power to address issues of socioeconomic disparity. They have often been granted negotiating rights at various summits and conventions called by international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank. The position of NGOs as negotiators at the international table derives from the belief that NGOs are important caretakers of the rights and interests of the underrepresented people in developing nations. Stop Hunger Now Southern Africa is another example of an NGO that addresses hunger in developing nations through food distribution. In countries without an oversight function over the NGOs, there has been some criticism that they can become corrupt and act solely in their own interests and not on behalf of those for whom they are supposed to be advocating. Very often, they represent the values of the organizers and not necessarily of the persons they represent. They are not the elected representatives of those they claim to represent but only self-appointed representatives. They are often brought in from developed nations and represent those values, rather than local grassroots organizations that might spring up from local desires and demands (called local organizations or LOs). There is often no transparency as to sources of funds, governance, or use of funds. But the role of NGOs is still important in developing countries, despite criticism. Save the Children, for example, has been criticized for its fund-raising practices. Elizabeth Williams See also Cooperatives; Domestic Food Insecurity; Fair Trade; Food Banks; Food Insecurity; Food Stamps and WIC

Further Readings Barrett, C. B., & Maxwell, D. (2005). Food aid after fifty years: Recasting its role. London, UK: Routledge. Drucker, P. F. (2006). Managing the nonprofit organization. New York, NY: Harper Business. Milmo, C. (2013, December 10). The price of charity: Save the children exposed after seeking approval of energy firms. The Independent. Retrieved from

201

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ the-price-of-charity-save-the-children-exposed-afterseeking-approval-of-energy-firms-8994225.html Scott, L. (2012). From passion to execution: How to start and grow and effective nonprofit organization. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Sellars, A. W. (2013). Feeding the hungry in the first world: A step-by-step guide for starting or revamping a food pantry and/or soup kitchen. Danville, KY: Harvesting Hope.

CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS Fertilizers are used to increase crop production or yields. The word fertilizer connotes something that nourishes or enhances. The word chemical may connote something harmful or poisonous. However, chemicals could also be viewed positively if used or applied appropriately. The Soil Science Society of America defines a fertilizer as any organic or inorganic material that is added to soil to provide nutrients that facilitate an increase in soil fertility and crop production. Organic fertilizers, or biofertilizers, include naturally occurring substances, such as compost and fish and animal manure. Inorganic fertilizers are human-made, synthetic substances that are enriched with micronutrients, such as molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), boron (B), iron (Fe), and chlorine (Cl) and macronutrients, such as sulfur (S), phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), potassium (K), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), carbon (C), and hydrogen (H). Chemical (or inorganic) fertilizers are a mix/combination of substances used to enhance crop production. This entry examines the use of chemical fertilizers and their effects on the environment and human health.

Macronutrients in Fertilizers The University of Georgia’s Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories note that there are about nine macronutrients needed for

202

Chemical Fertilizers

plant growth, six of which are found in fertilizers. The most important macronutrients in fertilizers, referred to as NPK, are nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). Typically, these are present in varying concentrations in all types of fertilizers. Formation of chlorophyll (plant food) is highly dependent on the availability and quantity and presence of these macronutrients.

Effects on the Environment and Human Health Chemical fertilizers become hazardous to the environment if they are used inappropriately. Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, first published in 1962, brought attention and insight into the adverse effects of improper use of chemical pesticides and insecticides on humans and the prospective damage to the environment from the inappropriate or excessive use of these chemicals. Hansra (1993) affirms that toxic chemicals from chemical fertilizers containing arsenic and cadmium accumulate in plant products and cause health problems in humans by biomagnifications. The studies by Patil, Patil, and Pathade (2012) have shown that although chemical fertilizers enhance soils and plants with essential nutrients, they also contain heavy toxic metals such as cadmium and arsenic. As a result, they tend to be ecologically unsound. In addition to the fact that production of chemical fertilizers is expensive, studies by Patil et al. (2012) and Lema and Degebassa (2013) have shown that extensive applications of chemical fertilizers result in soil degradation, groundwater pollution, and physical health deterioration among farmers. Chemical fertilizers could also be regarded as a non-pointsource pollution, and heavy use reduces the nutritional quality of fruits and vegetables and are potentially dangerous, as observed in studies by Mozafar (1994). The World Health Organization has implemented the Global Environment Monitoring System—Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme since 1976 basically to inform governments and other relevant institutions,

as well as the public, on levels and trends of contaminants in food, their contribution to total human exposure, and their health impact. Chemical fertilizers are used to enhance agricultural productivity and food security, especially in rural areas of the world; with chemical fertilizers, plants grow faster. A few studies have also shown that most soils thrive a lot better when treated with varying proportions of chemical fertilizer and organic fertilizer mixtures. Datta, Banerjee, Sikdar, Gupta, and Mondal’s (2009) field experiment, for example, shows that the application of chemical fertilizer when used appropriately and in combination with biofertilizer and compost affects the morphological, anatomical, physiological, and biochemical parameters of soil health and environment. Usually, these reduce the amount of heavy metals that leach into the soil because a smaller amount of chemical fertilizer is applied. In addition, it is strongly recommended that farmers limit exposure by wearing correct personal protective equipment when handling chemical fertilizers. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, launched by the World Bank in Washington in 2001, examines how any disruption to the environment, whether by human action or natural events, will harm human health, food production, and natural resources. The work of Patil et al. (2012) shows that excessive and inappropriate use of agrochemicals has undeniably resulted in negative and sometimes irreparable effects on human health, environment, and the economy. Their work further indicates that degraded soils and groundwater pollution caused by chemical leaching have resulted in nutritionally unbalanced and unproductive lands. Lema and Degebassa’s (2013) research work indicates that chemical fertilizers have been used as primary means of enhancing soil fertility in smallfarm agriculture because they work quickly and supply the exact needs of the crop. But they are expensive, leached before the nutrients are taken up, and washed into the river and lakes causing ecological damage. For example, there are dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Great Lakes caused by fertilizers and agricultural runoff. Once

Chemical Fertilizers

these excess nutrients reach the ocean, they fuel algae blooms. The algae then die and decompose in a process that consumes oxygen and creates lifeless areas where fish and other aquatic creatures cannot survive. This zone can have serious impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries on the Gulf Coast. Nitrogen emissions from fertilizer use affect the ecological system, and continued use of fertilizers causes severe damage to life in lakes and rivers. As observed by Sample (2004), nitrogen is an ingredient in fertilizer, which helps feed some 2 billion people, but when it is washed from soils into water courses, it can make rivers and lakes too rich in nutrients. As the world’s population is estimated to grow to 9 billion in 40 years, food production is expected to become more intensive, requiring even more nitrogen-rich fertilizer. Divya and Belagali’s (2012) work in India indicates that chemical fertilizers are used extensively in modern agriculture to improve crop yield. However, nutrient leaching from agricultural soil into groundwater and surface water causes a major environmental and public health concern. Nitrate and phosphate concentrations were found to be higher than the permissible limits of World Health Organization standards due to leaching and surface runoff of chemical fertilizers from agricultural lands. The use of chemical fertilizer is a cause of nitrogen loss, contributing to soil and land degradation. Surface water and groundwater sources are polluted from chemical fertilizer use in irrigation farming, thus contaminating water quality. Chemical fertilizers are harmful to the environment because most of the microorganisms found in the soil decrease, which subsequently leads to a reduction in soil fertility and land degradation. Chemical fertilizers affect soil quality as well. Continuous and intense use of chemical fertilizers affects soil fertility causing resistance to pesticides and loss of natural soil nutrients that can be derived from earthworm and other microorganisms. Soil plays many functions in the environment; not only is it used for food productivities, but it also acts as a carbon sink by reducing the

203

atmospheric pollution, protecting natural resource cycles, and recovering nutrients. Food can be contaminated through soil that is heavily laced with chemical fertilizers. Contamination could also occur through environmental pollution of the air, water (irrigation water entering the soil), or soil, for example, toxic metals, pesticides, agrochemicals, and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). There is always that inherent danger in the use of chemical fertilizers on food and water safety. Pawlick (2006) notes that the amount of toxic or potentially toxic contaminants has been increasing and the nutritional content of food has been declining over the years.

Precautionary Principle The inappropriate use of chemical fertilizers causes damage to the environment and harm to human health. Chemical fertilizers have been used to enhance soil fertility, irrigated land/agricultural practices, and agricultural productivity. Chemical fertilizers are ecologically unsustainable, and their long-term effect on the environment severely affects soil and water quality. Chemical fertilizers seemingly cause groundwater contamination, land degradation, and leaching of nutrients. Food safety is compromised when there are excessive chemical fertilizers or traces of chemicals in the food produced or consumed. Education and awareness of the effects (particularly the negative effects) are very critical to the adoption and utilization of appropriate chemical fertilizers, especially in agricultural activities and food production. The Environmental Justice Foundation suggests a precautionary principle based on reduced use, reduced risk, and reduced dependence, when using chemicals (or pesticides). However, to reduce the effect of chemical fertilizers on the environment, the precautionary principles are protection of the environment and sustainable choice of fertilizer. In protecting the environment, the food system (production, distribution, consumption, and waste) and the agroecological system are protected. The toxic and noxious contaminants in the food supply are minimized

204

Childhood Obesity

when chemical fertilizers are used appropriately. Environmental protection also includes minimizing or avoiding environmental exposure of chemical fertilizers (to soil and water), effective management of chemical fertilizers, and the use of eco-friendly/ natural chemical fertilizers that would not endanger the environment. More important, reduced dependence and adoption of environmentally or ecologically adaptable chemical fertilizers would reduce the toxicity risk and harmful effects on the environment and health. The choice of fertilizer (chemical, commercial, or organic) evidently has an effect on the environment and the output or produce derived from it. Chemical fertilizer users should therefore choose wisely and choose reasonably. Olusola A. Olufemi See also Factory Farming; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Herbicide Resistance; Pesticides; Soil Degradation and Conservation

applied to tomato and onion. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(3), 274–278. Mozafar, A. (1994). Plants, vitamins: Agronomic, physiological and nutritional aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Patil, V. S., Patil, S. V., & Pathade, G. R. (2012). Comparative use of chemical and biofertilizers and pesticides and their health effects on farmers in Satara Tahsil, Maharashtra. Universal Journal of Environmental Research Technology, 2(3), 174–178. Pawlick, T. F. (2006). The end of food. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Greystone Books. Sample, I. (2004, October 9). “Global peril” of fire and fertilisers. Chemical fertilizers destroying the environment & killing ocean life. The Guardian (UK). Retrieved from http://www.organicconsumers.org/ corp/oceans101104.cfm Soil Science Society of America. (n.d.). Glossary of soil science terms. Retrieved from https://www.soils.org/ publications/soils-glossary# University of Georgia, Agricultural & Environmental Services Laboratories. (n.d.). Plant analysis handbook: Nutrient content of plant. Retrieved from http://aesl .ces.uga.edu/publications/plant/Nutrient.asp

Further Readings Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Datta, J. K., Banerjee, M., Sikdar, M. S., Gupta, S., & Mondal, N. K. (2009). Impact of combined exposure of chemical fertilizer, bio-fertilizer and compost on growth, physiology and productivity of Brassica Campestries in old alluvial soil. Journal of Environmental Biology, 30(5), 797–800. Divya, J., & Belagali, S. L. (2012). Impact of chemical fertilizers on water quality in selected agricultural areas of Mysore district, Karnataka, India. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2(3), 1449–1458. Environmental Justice Foundation. (2002). Death in small doses: Cambodia’s pesticide problems and solutions. Retrieved from http://www.share4dev.info/kb/ documents/3336.pdf Hansra, B. S. (1993). Transfer of agricultural technology on irrigated agriculture. Fertilizer News, 38(4), 31–33. Lema, A., & Degebassa, A. (2013). Comparison of chemical fertilizer, fish offal’s fertilizer and manure

CHILDHOOD OBESITY Since 1980, obesity prevalence among children and adolescents has nearly tripled. According to the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2011–2012, approximately 17% (or 12.5 million) children and youth in the agegroup 2 to 19 years are obese. Among adolescents of ages 12 to 19 years, obesity increased from 5.0% to 18.1% during the same period. Data from the national 2013 Youth Behavioral Risk Survey show that 13.7% of high school students nationwide are obese and 16.6% are overweight. The prevalence of obesity is highest for Hispanic male (19%) and black female (16.7%) high school students. Overweight children are more likely to become overweight adults compared with those of normal weight. Preventable chronic diseases, including type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease risks,

Childhood Obesity

asthma, and sleep apnea, often associated with adulthood, are becoming increasingly prevalent among overweight children. Overweight and obese youth often suffer associated psychosocial stress that can lead to low self-esteem. Hospitalization rates among youth for obesity-related diagnoses are growing, contributing to increase in the total societal cost of obesity-related health conditions. Nutritional advice has remained relatively consistent for the past century. Starting with the 1980 edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), several messages have been stressed: Eat a variety of foods, avoid too much fat, have moderate sugar and salt intake, and, more recently, maintain an active lifestyle. Overweight youth demonstrate less desirable food habits. Children consume an average of 527 “empty” (i.e., limited nutritional value) calories per day and most at home. A large and complex number of factors contribute to energy imbalance—consuming more calories than are expended—including behavioral, environmental, and, to a lesser extent, genetic factors. As a result, single-faceted approaches have failed to reduce obesity at a societal level. There have been many programs that address childhood obesity. However, we are yet to reverse obesity epidemic among children; although nationally, it has not increased since 2007. Some major cities have indicated a small drop in obesity rates, and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of obesity among children of ages 2 to 5 years has declined.

Contributors to Childhood Obesity The latest recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) build on a 2004 report that outlined how increasingly obesogenic environments inhibit households’ ability to choose, purchase, prepare, and consume a variety of fruits and vegetables. Obesogenic environments promote intake of high-calorie convenience foods and SoFAAS (solid fat and added sugars) and reduce people’s opportunities to be physically active. Many other variables contribute to food choice, including

205

price, availability, taste, value, knowledge, nutrition, and time. Among teens, nutrition knowledge is positively associated with diets consistent with the DGA and confidence in the ability to choose healthier foods. Youth who are exposed to nutrition information and education appear more likely to exceed guidelines for fruit, and the availability of healthy choices correlates with higher intake of both fruits and vegetables. Also contributing to food choice are demographics, region of residence, cultural heritage, and social influences. Energy Intake

Families who are faced with pressures of time and money often use convenience foods and restaurant meals as a way to be more efficient in their meal preparation, which can lead to higher caloric and less nutritious choices. Americans are spending less time in meal preparation, and a lack of cooking skills can lead to lower fruit and vegetable consumption and to obesity. Restaurant food is higher in energy density compared with food prepared at home, and it is often higher in sodium and saturated fat and lower in fiber and calcium. Away-from-home food expenditures account for nearly half of all food dollars spent and the number of youth eating at fast food restaurants has increased. On a typical day, 30% of youth of ages 4 to 19 years consume fast food. Consumption of fast foods is associated with decreased consumption of fruits and vegetables and milk, higher total energy intake leading to energy imbalance, and an increase in body mass index in youth. Many teens have grown up in households that report employing the following strategies to combat time constraints: replacing home-cooked meals with fast food, restaurant take-out, “meals in a box,” or microwave dinners; sacrificing nutrition for a quick meal; and eating faster. The reliance on packaged foods and foods prepared away from home may also indicate limited food preparation knowledge and cooking skills. Raw food items can require significant preparation time. Home economic courses teaching food preparation skills are no longer required in many schools.

206

Childhood Obesity

Purchasing energy-dense foods can be a moneysaving strategy because they allow people to consume a high amount of energy at a low cost and often require less time in preparation. Foods that are nutritious may be relatively costly, as calories provided by whole grains, fresh produce, and lean meats are more expensive than calories from refined grains, added sugars, and added fats. However, nutritious food is not necessarily more costly. Recent evidence shows that when measured by serving size instead of weight, many nutritious foods are relatively less expensive. “Portion distortion” is also a common feature of the U.S. food supply. Portion sizes are larger than government recommended serving sizes. Foods with the highest excess above U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) standard portion sizes are cookies (700%), pasta (480%), muffins (333%), steaks (224%), and bagels (195%). Children may fail to recognize the correct portion sizes and report preferences for larger portions of French fries, meats, and potato chips and smaller for vegetables. Lack of compensation for larger portion sizes by decreased consumption at other times in the day with or without increased physical activity leads to potential for weight gain. The Food Environment

A lack of food availability, access, and affordability are three characteristics that help define the concept of “food desert.” Contemporary literature suggests a link between living in a food desert and obesity. While no definitive causation has been established, it is a fact that the availability of grocery stores differs by geographical location and region. Smaller, more expensive stores that offer lower quality foods are more prevalent in lowincome areas, and food deserts exist in both rural and urban environments. More commonly, however, many children live in “food-rich” environments, where every shopping center, city block, and shopping mall has at least one and often several choices to purchase and consume food, from the grocery store, convenience store, deli, fast food, take-out, casual dining, formal

dining—there is food for everyone at every turn. Many of the food venue choices are common brands, and even children can discern the difference between a Walmart, a McDonald’s, and an Olive Garden. Advertising can influence food preferences of children. The food industry uses advertising techniques beyond television. Today’s children, ages 8 to 18 years, spend more than 40 hours per week in front of computer, television, and game screens— more than any other activity except sleeping. Food advertising has found its way into schools and social networking sites. A total of 27.2% of children’s exposure to nonprogram content is for food-related product advertising, while only 0.8% of total nonprogram content time exposure was for all public service announcements combined. Expenditures on food marketing to youth was $9.65 billion in 2008, representing 18.5% of all consumer-directed marketing expenditures media advertising in the United States. Money spent on soft drink advertising has increased at a faster rate than overall food-related advertising. The CocaCola Company spent more than $750 million in 2008 and PepsiCo spent more than $1 billion. Not only do food and beverage manufacturers directly target children and adolescents; advertising has been found to affect food preferences for children as young as 2 years. The amount of money spent by industry dwarfs that spent by federal and state governments to promote nutrition and other healthy behaviors. Energy Expenditure

According to the Centers for Disease Control, school-age children should participate daily in 60 minutes or more of moderate to vigorous physical activity. Evidence suggests that school-based interventions increase physical activity during the school day and decrease sedentary behaviors, including television watching (screen time), at other times. However, few teens meet a guideline of vigorous exercise for more than 20 minutes at least 3 days per week. Higher levels of physical activity in children may lead to higher levels of

Childhood Obesity

activity in adulthood. Several barriers have been identified that prevent children from meeting physical activity goals: safety of neighborhoods and walking routes, parental work demands, design of neighborhoods without sidewalks, and increased availability of screen alternatives including smart phones, computer games, video, and television.

Solutions to Childhood Obesity National Programs

Several programs at the national level have been available to people who want to make healthier food choices. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 provided the Federal Food and Drug Administration with authority to require nutrition labeling of most foods regulated by the agency and to require that all nutrient content claims (i.e., “high fiber,” “low-fat,” etc.) and health claims be consistent with agency regulations. “Most foods” do not include those served in restaurants, similar retail food establishments, and vending machines. While the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act was not specifically designed to address obesity, other programs, including MyPlate, More Matters, Let’s Move, and restaurant labeling legislation, all specifically mention reducing the obesity epidemic as part of their goals. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration released information on a new menu labeling regulation requiring restaurants and similar retail food establishments with 20 or more locations that offer substantially the same menu items and vending machine operators with 20 or more machines to list calorie content information on menus and menu boards, including those in drive-throughs. ChooseMyPlate.gov is the latest in a series of U.S. government campaigns to reinforce the DGA. The original Food Guide Pyramid was introduced in 1992 by the United States Department of Agriculture. It was a nutrition education tool that translated nutritional recommendations into the kinds and amounts of food to eat each day. It was replaced by MyPyramid in 2005 and my MyPlate in 2011. MyPlate translates the 2010

207

DGA into a graphic using a divided plate with sections for fruits, vegetables, grains, and protein, and glass for dairy. The 2010 DGA specifically mention “Adding more vegetables to your day,” “Cut back on your kid’s sweet treats,” “Enjoy your food, but eat less,” and “Make better beverage choices,” among others. All of these are tied directly to curbing the obesity epidemic. “The Fruits and Veggies: More Matters” campaign has replaced the “5 a day for better health” campaign. It is a social marketing campaign that encourages more positive nutrition behaviors. “Fruits and Veggies: More Matters,” as was the “5 a day” campaign, is a partnership between government (Centers for Disease Control, National Cancer Institute) and the nonprofit sector (Produce for Better Health Foundation). In addition to fruit and vegetable information, the campaign includes recipes, cooking ideas, and challenges for entire communities, and a specific child focused web resource, FoodChamps.org. Let’sMove.gov is a comprehensive initiative, launched by First Lady Michelle Obama, dedicated to solving the obesity problem facing the United States. It is an interagency plan that involves the White House, Health and Human Services, USDA, The U.S. Department of Education, and the Department of the Interior. It is designed to address obesity at every stage of children’s development and includes programming and messaging for early childhood, schools, caregivers, parents, food access, food affordability, and physical activity. School-Based Programs

Evaluations of school based interventions to prevent or decrease obesity show mixed results. Much of the research is not theory based and can be considered quasi-experimental. Combined nutrition based and physical activity based interventions may work better than those based on nutrition or exercise alone. Increasingly, there is a call for multicomponent approaches such as examining diet, physical activity, child and parental education. Much of the evidence focuses on primary and middle school children. New initiatives

208

Childhood Obesity

that build hands on nutrition education skills including food preparation are finding a place in school based programs, including after-school programs. These are funded federally, by individual states, and by both non- and for-profit organizations. Some of these programs include the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, Cooking Matters, and Teen Battle Chef. In addition, Farm to School programming, originally a grassroots effort, has found a home at the national level at USDA. Other programs focus on school gardens and taste tests as a way to engage students with the hope of increasing fruit and vegetable consumption. USDA uses an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption as a proxy measure for lower weights in children, completing the link between several programs that aim to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables and the obesity epidemic. Changing the Environment Making the Healthy Choice the Easy Choice

The IOM and many public health advocates are rallying around comprehensive public policy that “makes the healthy choice the easy choice.” A comprehensive approach, the IOM suggests policy making in the following areas: • Making physical activity an integral and routine part of life • Creating food and beverage environments that ensure that healthy food and beverage options are the routine, easy choice • Transforming messages about physical activity and nutrition • Expanding the roles of health care providers, insurers, and employers • Making schools a national focal point

While discussions of national campaigns, current regulations, and the school-based programs mentioned above touch on these food environment ideas, there is much to be done in the area of policy to address childhood obesity. New national school lunch guidelines that require limits on calories and fat, and increases in the variety and types of fruits and vegetables provided, have been instituted to

address childhood obesity. However, these have been met with opposition by some student athletes and parents. Tax policy that increases the price of sugar-sweetened beverages have been introduced in several states, but an excise tax specific to sugarsweetened beverages has yet to pass in any state. Many schools have banned vending machines that sell sugar-sweetened beverages. Limits on the types of foods that can be purchased using dollars in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program have been suggested, but not implemented. Local regulations that require new neighborhoods to be “walkable” have been instituted in many cities and towns across the United States. The New York City Board of Health banned the sale of “supersized” beverages (larger than 16 ounces) in 2012. There is a long way to go, however, with regard to sweeping public policy changes that may help ameliorate childhood obesity. Also, for every policy introduction, there tends to be sweeping opposition by special interest groups who may not benefit from these policy initiatives.

Conclusion The childhood obesity problem in the United States took many years to develop; it will take many years to show significant improvement. Obesity is a complex problem with no magic bullet solution. It will take efforts from all levels of society—individual, family, organizational, and public policy—to reverse the trend. Jane Kolodinsky See also Dietary Guidelines and Graphics; Food Deserts; Food Policy Councils; Food Stamps and WIC; Portion Sizes

Further Readings Bagchi, D. (2011). Global perspectives on childhood obesity. London, UK: Elsevier. Carlson, A., & Frazao, E. (2012). Are healthy foods really more expensive? It depends on how you measure the price (Economic Information Bulletin No. EIB-96). Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib96.aspx

Children’s Foods Cawley, J. (Ed.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of the social science of obesity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Childhood obesity facts. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html Federal Trade Commission. (2012). A review of food marketing to children and adolescents. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/reports/review-food-marketingchildren-and-adolescents-follow-report/121221 foodmarketingreport.pdf Institute of Medicine. (2012). Accelerating progress in obesity prevention: Solving the weight of the nation (Report Brief). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20 Files/2012/APOP/APOP_rb.pdf Kaiser Family Foundation. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8–18 year olds. Retrieved from http:// www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Hawkins, J., Harris, W. A., . . . Zaza, S. (2014). Youth risk behavior surveillance: United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(4). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ ss6304.pdf?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_ campaign=youth-risk-behavior-surveillance-unitedstates-2013-pdf Kolodinsky, J., Harvey-Berino, J. R, Berlin, L., Johnson, R. K., & Reynolds, T. W. (2007). Knowledge of current dietary guidelines and food choice by college students: Better eaters have higher knowledge of dietary guidance. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 107(8), 1409–1413. Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2012, January). Prevalence of obesity in the United States, 2009–2010 (NCHS Data Brief No. 82). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ databriefs/db82.htm Powell, L. M., Slater, S., Mirtcheva, D., Bao, Y., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2007). Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Preventive Medicine, 44(3), 189–195. Powell, L. M., Szczypka, G., Chaloupka, F. J., & Braunschweig, C. L. (2007). Nutritional content of television food advertisements seen by children and adolescents in the United States. Pediatrics, 120(3), 576–583.

209

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, & U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2005). Dietary guidelines for Americans (HHS Publication No. HHS-ODPHP2005-01-DGA-A & USDA Publication No. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Variyam, J. N. (2005). Nutrition labeling in the foodaway-from-home sector: An economic assessment (USDA-ERS Economics Research Report No. 4). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=713682 Ver Ploeg, M., Breneman, V., Farrigan, T., Hamrick, K., Hopkins, D., Kaufman, P., . . . Tuckermanty, E. (2009). Access to affordable and nutritious Food: Measuring and understanding food deserts and their consequences (Report to Congress, USDA Administrative Publication AP-036: 160). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Young, L. R., & Nestle, M. (2002). The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. American Journal of Public Health, 92(2), 246–249.

CHILDREN’S FOODS In the United States, as in many places, certain foods are commonly regarded as “children’s foods.” These foods, which vary cross-culturally, are defined and problematized in a variety of ways. American children’s foods are constructed in and across contexts, especially: at home, in school, and in the marketplace. Each context helps shape the definition of child-oriented food in America. Contemporary youth food habits and children’s foods, in particular those of youngsters preschool through adolescence (excluding baby food), are currently the subject of public debate. The greatest issue is the nutritional quality of foods that children eat. Substantial increases in childhood obesity rates and food-related child health issues over the past few decades have led public officials, activists, and some parents to scrutinize foods (including beverages) and food-related messages that are intended for children’s consumption. More implicitly, issues include views on child socialization, definitions of childhood, the role of government and industry in the food system, and

210

Children’s Foods

people’s views of what they consider good to eat. This entry focuses on child-oriented foods at home, in school, and in the marketplace, including kids’ meals at restaurants and advertising and packaging of children’s foods.

Children’s Food at Home Parents play a large role in defining child-oriented foods in a given cultural setting. At very young ages (for babies and toddlers), the physical and developmental abilities of the child are often taken into account (e.g., ability to pick up small items, self-feed, chew, swallow, and digest), which give rise to highly specialized, separate infant and baby foods. Beyond this very young stage, American parents (like many elsewhere) participate in creating “children’s foods” when they continue to feed school-age children differently than adult members of the household. Feeding practices are based on a dynamic between everyday practice and ideas about childhood. On the one hand are logistics, provisioning constraints, observation of foods that one’s children eat readily and those that they don’t, as well other household parameters. On the other hand are foods parents believe, in theory, to be “child friendly.” Beliefs are shaped individually, interactively, and contextually based on factors ranging from parents’ own childhood food memories and preferences to culturally constructed notions of what is “good” for children. In the United States, a commonly held understanding is that milk is the best drink for children because of its role in bone health and overall growth. Nutritionists cite milk’s high calcium and protein content, for example. A symbolic connection between mother’s milk and dairy milk also helps build milk’s reputation as a child’s most essential beverage. A history of dairy farming and a politically strong national dairy industry in America reinforce this image as well. Even the federal government recognizes a central role for milk in children’s diets by mandating it as part of federally subsidized school breakfast, lunch, and milk programs. In practice, American

children drink milk as their mealtime beverage much more often than adults do. American parents understand, from popular science, advertising messages, and their own experience, that small children prefer—or are hardwired—to seek sweets over sour, bitter, or savory items. As a result, the biggest selling children’s foods (and those with the biggest advertising budgets) are sweet—for example, sugary breakfast cereals, juices, cookies, and candy. Another culturally constructed perception is that foods for children should be simple, fun, and easy to eat. Children are understood to be developing their sense of taste from simple, fairly bland flavors to more elaborate ones. American youngsters are expected to play and be playful, and this trope sometimes extends to the nature of children’s foods. While parents may scold them for “playing” with their food, young children nonetheless are often given finger foods, colorful foods, and foods in “fun” shapes (like animal crackers). Here, as in the cases of milk and sweet foods, cultural constructions both reinforce stereotypes of child-oriented foods and shape children’s tastes. Paradoxically, the conformity implied in the choice of children’s foods is related to American ideas on individuality: The understanding is that a wide range of individual tastes exists in the populace and that children, from a young age, can develop individualized tastes different from their parents’ or others’ at the table and can expect these individual preferences to be satisfied. While much variety (in feeding habits) exists, based on class, race, ethnicity, region, and so on, the overall tendency is to accept individual taste preferences as inevitable. Buying or preparing a special food for one’s child is relatively common. Children’s demands on parental time, money, and patience make convenient children’s foods especially appealing. Such products often aid in management of household food work, including shopping, cooking, serving, feeding, and cleanup, not to mention the juggling of additional tasks and responsibilities of many busy, multitasking caregivers. By making fulfillment of taste desires easy, child-targeted, prepared, processed, and packaged

Children’s Foods

foods have made young eaters with conditioned tastes a strong niche market. One may ask why individual tastes are catered to in the American family setting. Buying (or making) children’s foods involves choices that are not always economically rational. According to the middleclass norm, family is considered an institution in which each member is treated as an individual and in which affective bonds are foregrounded. Hence the work of feeding a family includes attending to each member’s food preferences—real and perceived.

Children’s Foods at School Food for children in the school setting is defined by a variety of factors, as many schools give children options to eat school lunch, lunch from home, and a variety of snack items available in the cafeteria, in vending machines, and in school stores. Attempts to reform school food stem from concerns, in large part, about children’s levels of body fat and the ensuing public health issues. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that nearly one third of American youth are overweight or obese and that childhood obesity rates have tripled from the 1970s to the early 2000s (CDC, 2012; Fryar, Carroll, & Ogden, 2014). This is why food at school is an issue in contemporary American society and politics. The most important set of parameters that define food at school come from the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), a program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that was created in 1946 to feed hungry schoolchildren, to assist farmers, and to provide a market for agricultural surplus. Through this program, the U.S. government subsidizes the cost of school lunch, provides commodities to the program, and creates guidelines for a nutritionally appropriate school meal. Currently, the USDA’s 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans provide the framework for building nutritional meal models. Legislation from the 2010 Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act defines school meals by providing funding only to meal programs that meet these guidelines, with

211

specific nutritional standards in regard to calorie counts by age group; overall decreased sugars, fats, and saturated fats; and increased whole grains, low-fat dairy products, and vitamin content. Additionally, the surplus commodities offered to school lunch programs around the country also play a role in shaping children’s foods. For example, the frequent availability of cheese makes this item a common ingredient in school meals. Also, processing contracts, coupled with stringent health codes and fears of food contamination in cafeteria cooking “from scratch,” have given the food industry incentives to create school meal items that feature processed, heat-and-serve foods such as chicken nuggets, “popcorn” chicken, and French toast sticks. Furthermore, in efforts to maintain sales levels and avoid plate waste, local cafeteria food service directors often prefer to serve “kidfriendly” food they know they can sell and that they believe children will eat. Finger foods including pizza, chicken nuggets, and fries are popular choices. To satisfy new dietary guidelines, such foods are being modified through the introduction of whole-grain breading, reduced-fat cheese, and baked sweet potato fries to improve their nutritional profiles but retain their perceived childfriendly forms. In all these ways, the federal government (and the federal, state, and local agencies that oversee the NSLP programs) shape the nutritional content and form of children’s foods on millions of American school lunch trays every day. Outside the NSLP, many types of snack foods, treats, and beverages are available in vending machines, as à la carte items in cafeteria lunch lines, and in school stores. These include chips, snack bars, soft drinks, and sports drinks that have been developed and packaged specifically to appeal to children’s tastes and are marketed directly to children. Current wellness legislation, under the 2010 Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act, advises that these products be scarce at school, where items high in sugar (especially candy and soft drinks) may already be disallowed under local wellness policies. This act mandated that nutritional guidelines be developed for all food sold at

212

Children’s Foods

school (in addition to the NSLP meal guidelines). In July 2014, the “Smart Snacks in School” regulations from the Food and Nutrition Service of the USDA went into effect. These require participating NSLP schools to improve the overall school food environment by further amending their offerings in à la carte lines, school stores, vending machines, and in-school fund-raisers (including those occurring before or immediately after school). These regulations require almost all foods (including beverages) sold at school to meet the latest nutrient-based requirements regarding whole-grain rich, reduced-fat, more nutrient-dense foods that must also comply with target levels of fat, saturated fat, trans fat, whole grains, fiber, calories per serving, sugars, sodium, and certain vitamins and minerals (especially calcium, potassium, and vitamin D). The regulations are leading schools to revise or eliminate certain fund-raisers, such as bake sales; to change items available in vending machines; and to limit promotional materials and remove signage at school that features branded items, especially those that do not meet the USDA guidelines. The new rules will be phased in over time, and the most up-to-date specifics can be found online at the USDA website. This legislation, along with new industry self-regulation, will result in modification of some processed food snacks— for example, creating lower sodium chips or smaller packages—and removal of those items that are noncompliant. Lunch items brought from home permit much greater diversity, depending on cultural/ethnic, socioeconomic, and regional background. Still, most items have two things in common: (1) the perceived willingness of the child to eat it and (2) the efficiency (speed and economy) of preparing it. Foods commonly seen in children’s lunch boxes include sandwiches, yogurts, cheese, fruit, juice, and cookies. Some specific items that may have been common in the past, such as peanut butter and jelly or baloney sandwiches, have become slightly less prevalent in American lunch boxes, especially as rates of peanut allergy have increased in schools and as some parents have become aware of the hidden fats and sodium in

processed delicatessen meat products. Also, with many different cultures represented around the country, children’s foods may take on many forms and flavors, as parents pack items that they have on hand or that they feel their children appreciate, such as burritos, instant noodle soups, or sushi. Finally, the food industry has had a great influence on contemporary lunch box content; innovations in food processing, preservation, and packaging, combined with the development of children’s foods as a profitable, expanding niche market over the past few decades have led to significant changes in children’s foods. From frozen chicken nuggets to premade boxed lunches and from sweet, drinkable, yogurt squeeze packages to the very popular single-serve shelf-stable milk boxes and juice pouches, many popular convenience foods are now available to hurried parents in need of finger foods for youngsters on the go.

Children’s Foods in the Marketplace The food industry plays a very large part in defining what children like to eat and what is commonly portrayed as “children’s food.” For example, candy, sweet breakfast cereals, certain dairy products, and many snack foods are often understood to be children’s food items. Children’s food represents a very large, lucrative, and growing market for food producers. Such foods have been specifically researched, formulated, tested, packaged, and marketed to appeal to children. Thus, to understand which foods are constructed as “children’s foods” and how this is accomplished, one can look at the foods that are sold as “kids’ food” and for which advertising and marketing targets youth specifically. Food Products Created for Children

Each year, increasing numbers of products are sold in the children’s foods niche market. Aspects of food products that mark them as “kids’ food” include specific profiles of shape, color, taste, texture, and aroma. Shape has long been such a marker: animal crackers, bear-shaped cookies, and

Children’s Foods

breakfast cereals in the form of stars and hearts, as well as candy items available in a large array of shapes and sizes. Innovations in food-processing techniques now allow foods to be molded, pressed, and extruded in a variety of forms, such as dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets, smiley-faced formed potato preparations, and elaborate pasta shapes. Food items that resemble animals, dinosaurs, monsters, or licensed entertainment characters are purchased most frequently for, or by, children. Color is another category that is thought to appeal to children. Processed food designed for young eaters is often brightly colored with artificial and natural coloring agents. Sweetened breakfast cereals, children’s yogurt, juices, sports drinks, and candy are examples of colorful, processed children’s foods. (Interestingly, some recent promotions of healthy food to young people emphasize the variety and appeal of colorful fresh fruits and vegetables.) Sweetness is the taste sensation most associated with food created for this market segment. Messages about reducing excessive added sugar content from doctors, parents, state and local wellness policies, industry self-regulators, and government agencies have begun to show results. CDC health survey data reveal a somewhat reduced intake of sugars by children and teens over the past decade. Other food attributes that are managed with children in mind are flavors, aromas, and textures. For the most part, food products developed for American children tend to be simple (some say bland) in terms of their aroma and flavor profiles, because the common belief here is that young children like their food “plain” and will develop more elaborate tastes (preferences) as they grow older. Another common characteristic of children’s food is regularity of texture. Food for toddlers and young children is often made very soft (like applesauce or macaroni and cheese) or easy to chew (e.g., processed meat products), and food for older children and teens sometimes tries to appeal to the “fun” nature of food by being especially crispy, like chips and other snack foods. Finally, the size of the items is also a concern, as children are often considered to prefer finger foods—either because they

213

are very young and have not yet mastered utensil use, or because they are eating on-the-go (at school, in the car, in front of the television, between activities, or at athletic events). Food packaging is another area in which child consumers are explicitly and implicitly targeted. Many food industry resources are focused on brand and package recognition and on product placement in stores. Packaging of children’s foods often foregrounds cartoon characters, characters licensed from television and film series, and bold, colorful, eye-catching designs. In addition, many children’s foods are packaged in individual servings, such as juice pouches, squeezable yogurts, flavored and sweetened applesauce, and salty snack items. Those for very young children are sometimes in even smaller containers, for ease of handling by small fingers. In terms of physical placement in supermarkets, children’s foods are often strategically positioned on lower shelves (at child eye level), on end aisle displays (in prominent locations), and at check-out registers (for child-driven impulse purchases). Marketing and advertising techniques help children recognize the packaging and request the products. In sum, package design and package placement help define children’s foods—foods for which there is a rapidly growing market in America and beyond. Food Marketing to Children

The food industry has realized the potential and power of children in food decision making and, thus, markets an assortment of food items directly to them. U.S. Federal Trade Commission data from 44 major food companies showed that approximately $2 billion was spent in marketing food and beverages specifically to youth (ages 2–17 years) in 2006. This may be a conservative figure, with some estimates reaching $10 billion. Attempts to shape American children’s food preferences by the food industry are both effective and contested. Advertising and marketing campaigns for children’s foods are especially effective in their use of television advertisements, packaging, in-store displays, promotions, toys, entertainment tie-ins, and

214

Children’s Foods

use of new media, including corporate websites, online gaming, children’s virtual worlds, viral marketing, and social media. Cross-promotion between platforms and use of character licensing of cartoon, movie, and television characters are also very popular, especially in the marketing of sweet breakfast cereals and children’s meals at fast food restaurants. Marketing expenditures pinpoint items designed for young people. For example, Federal Trade Commission data for 2009 show that 68% of television advertising dollars targeted at children (ages 2–11 years) focused on fast food items and breakfast cereals. In new media, marketing to the same age-group focused on breakfast cereal, fast food restaurant items, and snack foods; and marketing to teens focused on carbonated beverages/soft drinks, candy, ice cream, and snack foods. Marketing and advertising are used to facilitate communication between producers and consumers, create desire for certain foods, and build consumer demand; however, in public discourse and in policy discussions, child advocates disagree with targeting youth. The question is whether or when children can be considered consumers. The American Psychological Association reports, for example, that young children are impressionable, with excellent ability to recall advertising slogans, jingles, and imagery. Exposure to advertising helps create brand loyalty at a very early age based on relatively few exposures. Advertisements and marketing campaigns make products seem particularly attractive to children, portraying it as fun, “cool,” cute, playful, or socially desirable. Furthermore, the youngest audience members (especially children under age 8) have difficulty judging the persuasive sales intent of the messages. Children then request these items, putting pressure on parental decision-making processes and influencing household food habits, shopping, and consumption patterns. Underlying issues of public health and public good arise. Many child advocates believe that advertising junk food to children damages public health (with all its associated shared and individual costs) and so works counter to the overall public

good. These issues are particularly striking in relation to food-related marketing in the school setting. Food companies employ a variety of techniques to reach children at schools, including vending machine contracts, fast food restaurant contracts in the school cafeteria, industry-produced educational posters, banners and logos for athletics sponsorship, items for school fund-raisers, and advertising on educational channels. Increasingly, American schools, responsible for shaping young minds and creating informed citizens, are questioning these practices. New attention is being paid to nutritional content, with some industry self-regulation currently developing to reduce added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium content, and to increase whole-grain and vitamin content. In 2007, the Better Business Bureau created the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative to promote industry self-regulation of advertising aimed at children of ages 12 years and younger. In 2014, stricter nutrient-based standards were agreed on and implemented by the participating 18 large food corporations. Rather than older companyspecific standards, these new shared standards mean advertising only products that meet stricter targets for nutrients such as sugar, sodium, fats, whole grains or fiber, and some key vitamins and minerals, especially calcium and vitamin D. These requirements are met, in some cases, by reformulating products or by no longer advertising during children’s television programming. Some reduction of such advertising in other forms of child-directed new media has also resulted. Restaurant Meals for Children

Restaurants are another setting in which food items are specifically directed at, or formulated for, children. This targeting is seen especially at quickservice (fast food) restaurants and family restaurants. In some, a small number of menu items (compared with the regular menu) are listed as part of a children’s menu. Portion sizes are generally smaller than adult portions, and prices are lower. An age limit is often listed, usually age 12. After

Children’s Foods

this, children are understood to be able to eat greater quantities, somewhat greater variety, and without adult assistance. Some children’s items are simply smaller portions of regular items, as many children’s menus were thus developed, historically. However, the majority of children’s menu items are those perceived to be “kid friendly”—those that children will easily and readily eat. In the United States, most of the following items are commonly listed on restaurant children’s menus: chicken nuggets, hamburgers, cheeseburgers, hot dogs, French fries, pizza, spaghetti, macaroni and cheese, ice cream, milk, juice, and carbonated beverage. Recently, the restaurant industry has begun to address the public condemnation of processed, high-fat, high-sugar, and high-sodium foods for children. Numerous family and fast food restaurants have signed on to industry initiatives to create and promote healthy options for children at restaurants. As a result, children’s menus now include a few healthier foods, such as applesauce, carrot sticks, salad, and grilled chicken. Fast food restaurants, in particular, cater to families dining out with children. They devote enormous budgets to creating and marketing meals specifically for children. Such meals may include, for example, a small hamburger, a portion of French fries, a drink, and a dessert. These meals often come in special boxes displaying games, puzzles, and cartoon and entertainment characters. Many have promotional tie-ins with children’s animated movies and include premium items, such as small toys (based on the movie protagonists). Because they are such a magnet for children, a public outcry has developed against the unhealthy nature of some of the foods included in such children’s meals. As a result, several of the biggest fast food and chain restaurants that create such meals have voluntarily reduced the calorie, sodium, and fat levels of some of their foods sold as part of the meals or have included healthier options. Wendy L. H. Leynse See also Baby Food; Childhood Obesity; Cultural Identity and Food; Dietary Guidelines and Graphics; Fair and Carnival Food; Family Meals/Commensality; Food

215

Advertisements in School Hallways and Cafeterias; Junk Food, Consumption; Nutrition Education; School Food; School Lunches; School Wellness Programs; Snack Foods; Vending Machines

Further Readings American Psychological Association. (2004). Report of the APA task force on advertising and children. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/advertisingchildren.pdf Brownell, K. D., & Battle Horgan, K. (2002). Food fight: The inside story of the food industry, America’s obesity crisis, and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Contemporary Books. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Childhood overweight and obesity. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html Council of Better Business Bureaus. (2014). CFBAI celebrates New Year with new uniform nutrition criteria for child-directed advertising. Retrieved from http://www.bbb.org/council/news-events/newsreleases/2014/01/cfbai-celebrates-new-year-with-newuniform-nutrition-criteria-for-child-directedadvertising/ DeVault, M. L. (1991). Feeding the family: The social organization of caring as gendered work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Federal Trade Commission. (2012). A review of food marketing to children and adolescents: Follow-up report. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/reports/review-food-marketingchildren-adolescents-follow-report Fryar, C. D., Carroll, M. D., & Ogden, C. L. (2014). Prevalence of overweight and obesity among children and adolescents: United States, 1963–1965 through 2011–2012. Hyattsville, MD: CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc .gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_11_12/obesity_ child_11_12.htm Institute of Medicine Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth. (2006). Food marketing to children and youth: Threat or opportunity? Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Linn, S. (2004). Consuming kids: The hostile takeover of childhood. New York, NY: New Press.

216

Chinese Traditional Medicine and Diet

Miller, D. (1998). A theory of shopping. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Nestle, M. (2002). Food politics: How the food industry influenced nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press. Poppendieck, J. (2009). Free for all: Fixing school food in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Robinson, T. N., Borzekowski, D. G., Matheson, D. M., & Kraemer, H. C. (2007). Effects of fast food branding on young children’s taste preferences. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 161(8), 792–797. Story, M., & French, S. (2004). Food advertising and marketing directed at children and adolescents in the US. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 1, 3. Retrieved from http://www .ijbnpa.org/content/1/1/3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2014). Healthier school day—Tools for schools: Focusing on smart snacks. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/healthierschoolday/ tools-schools-focusing-smart-snacks U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2014). School meals: Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/ school-meals/healthy-hunger-free-kids-act U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (n.d.). Smart snacks in school: USDA’s “All Foods Sold in Schools” Standards. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/allfoods_ flyer.pdf U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2000). Public education: Commercial activities in schools (HEHS00-156). Washington, DC: Author. Wiley, A. S. (2005). Does milk make children grow? Relationships between milk consumption and height in NHANES 1999–2002. American Journal of Human Biology, 17, 425–441.

CHINESE TRADITIONAL MEDICINE AND DIET With its rapidly changing economy and increasing urban wealth, China is at a critical moment when global cultures are changing traditional patterns

of health care, often for the worse. Despite extraordinary public health achievements in the 20th century, evident in most of the standard health indicators, the country is now facing an epidemic of obesity among its urban children and a marked increase in first world diseases such as diabetes. Where once China’s railway stations were surrounded by a multitude of small vendors hawking every kind of snack, now the ultramodern concourses are home exclusively to McDonald’s, KFC, and equivalent Chinese fast food chains. Nevertheless, at home and abroad, the older generation still keeps traditional food cultures alive and, as in other Asian cultures, that includes paying attention to seasonal eating and the nutritional qualities of ingredients and their mutual interactions according to ancient precepts. Culinary technology in China, through the manipulation of the potencies attributed to flavor, links to a history of nutritional ideas that begins in pre-imperial times and has echoes today in everyday life for more than a billion people. People in China are still inclined to have a view about the effect on their bodies of what they eat and to have an opinion about the techniques of adjusting the individual ingredients in a dish to the individual constitution and appetites. They think about their food in unique ways. This entry describes how this knowledge came about. It is not only a short historical and ethnographic survey aimed at understanding “other” people. It also considers how the legacy of Chinese nutritional ideas might remain relevant today for those who are interested in Chinese cuisine and Chinese medicine and among those who care about the relationship between local and global attitudes toward health and patterns of consumption. This entry focuses on the concepts and associated technologies of qi (the stuff of life) thought to power the body and wei (the flavors, which came to have medical potency).

Historical Background: Assigning Qualities to Food The story behind this ethnically distinctive culinary world begins in the centuries before the unification

Chinese Traditional Medicine and Diet

of China in 221 BCE. It is a 2,500-year story of ever-changing dietary rules and regulations that have shaped complex and pervasive nutritional practices, which survive to this day in many forms. Embedded in this story are certainly practices that are offensive and reprehensible today, from the consumption of rare, wild animals to the resort to eating human flesh during famine (actually a worldwide practice in premodern times). But there are also ideas that model how both individuals and communities can remain well connected with the environment and nourished socially and psychologically through what they eat and the way they eat it, suggesting how diets can be tailored to individual and community constitutions. In the ancient world, it was not only the inhabitants of the Yellow River valley who developed a science to guide dietary choices to fit their unique constitutions. The ancient Greeks also designed foods that were deemed suitable for various states of humoral imbalance according to food potencies and flavors. Most complex societies codify their foods, investing in them a significance beyond satisfying hunger. For China, this codification, which involved assigning qualities to food such as heating, cooling, and the power to support the functions of the different organs and their associated physiological systems, was a process that can be seen coming to fruition as an integrated practice over a period of a millennium or more. The notion of potent flavors was enshrined in the creation of imperial culture from the very beginning of the empire (221 BCE). According to the foundational myths of Chinese civilization, of the five culture bringers of a Golden Age in prehistory, the Yellow Emperor and the Divine Husbandman imparted knowledge of the agricultural seasons and the cultivation and relative potencies of food and medicines. Shen Nong, the Divine Farmer, in particular, is famous for his self-experimentation. He tasted 100 herbs to find out which were edible and which were poisonous, and he “thrashed every single plant with a rust-colored whip. In the end he learned their characteristics, the bland, the toxic, the cool, and the hot, taking their smell and taste

217

as a guide” (Soushenji 搜神記). Aroma and flavor were, by Han times (206 BCE to 220 CE), the key to the potencies of foodstuffs and medicine. The story of the Divine Farmer is often cited by those who hold the first of the following two extreme views of Chinese pharmacology. First, many Chinese medical practitioners suggest that Chinese drug therapy as we know it now is the product of long empirical experience. They believe that just like the Divine Farmer, early physicians tested all the substances in the materia dietetica (foodstuffs and other substances considered nutritional) for their efficacy and toxicity and recorded their findings for posterity. By today’s count, that would be a dizzying array of products, a list of foodstuffs that runs today into 1,500 species, varieties, and cultivars. On the other hand, cynics will argue that the drug and food classification system is an overworked, theoretical elaboration lacking any coherent threads. It is probable that both views have some elements of truth. It is clear that theory does play an explicit and important role in guiding therapy. It is, however, also clear that even in the most hostile view, Chinese drugs and foods contain many pharmacologically active substances, which in many cases do have effects of the kind appropriate to the condition for which they are prescribed (the most immediately obvious are the purgatives).

Earliest Evidence Historically, food and drug culture in China was not always limited to curing illness; the potential for herbal, mineral, and animal products to fortify and stimulate the body was well-known in ancient China. Food and drugs were an integral part of a regimen aimed at longevity, immortality, and even the preservation of the body beyond death. Early evidence for drug therapy appears in Wushier bing fang (52 remedies, tomb closed 168 BCE), a manuscript written on silk that was excavated from the tomb of the son of the Lady Dai in modern Changsha, Hunan, at the Mawangdui burial mound. This text records a wide range of illnesses treated with an equally wide range of preparations and magical rituals.

218

Chinese Traditional Medicine and Diet

These early remedies often combined foodstuffs and common herbs, human and animal excreta, ground insects, and household objects in simple preparations and techniques to heal specific illnesses, such as abscesses, hemorrhoids, scabies, gynecological problems, fright, and convulsion, and to increase sexual vigor. They included medicinal powders prepared from dried and ground substances and from charred raw foods and drugs that were consumed as pills or applied as pastes or ointments, often using not only wine, vinegar, and fats as binders but also honey, date pulp, birds’ eggs, blood, and resins. Yin and Yang

It took a while, however, before each individual foodstuff was systematically assigned medical efficacy according to classical Chinese scientific categories. These categories had been much more easily integrated with acupuncture theories, since the work of attributing nutritional qualities to the myriad foodstuffs was a much more complex and lengthy task than establishing the yin and yang qualities of the 12 acupuncture channels. Yin and yang represent an ancient tendency to categorize the world in terms of polarities. Something is not to be spoken of as yin or yang either absolutely or in isolation. They derive their status from their relation to other things. The “complementary opposition” of yin/yang is often expressed in the expectation that yin/yang are in temporal alternation; two examples are day/night and the warm/cold seasons of the year. When yang reaches an extreme, it transforms into yin. Regarding foodstuffs, the oppositions of heating and cooling or upward and downward (purgatives and emetics) are most often encountered. Wei and Wu Wei

The basic category assigned to a substance was its wei. The historians of Chinese medicine often translate wei as “sapors” rather than “flavor,” the common translation, to distinguish the medical rather than culinary virtues. Wu wei, the five flavors, often cited in early Chinese literature, refer

generally to the range of sensual pleasures that one might dream of while eating, but in a medical context, they were also specific flavors that could stimulate the movement of qi, the essential “stuff of life” that animated and invigorated the body, making a person astute, healthy, and effective. Carrying all the potency of their association with the five agents (wood, fire, Earth, metal, and water), the five flavors or “sapors” extended a framework of correlative knowledge that had been used to organize political, ritual, and medical life from the beginning of imperial times. In some of the earliest ritual writings, for example, the emperor’s diet was structured according to a calendar. According to season, the emperor was advised to change the color of his ceremonial robes, his rituals, and the food that he would eat.

The Medieval Synthesis: Thermostatic Qualities, Flavors, and Movement Flavors attributed to food were the same used for marking the nature of drug efficacy in medieval pharmacological treatises. Of all the dietary associations with the five agents, flavor was the most important. Controlling the flavors in diet meant more than the judicious combination of tastes for gustatory pleasure. The exact combinations were linked to specific therapeutic effects through the system of correspondences with the five agents. To summarize the main points of the mature theory, foods, like drugs, were classified according to their thermostatic qualities (hot, warm, neutral, cool, and cold), by flavor (pungent, sweet, salt, sour, and bitter), by the directions in which they induced movements within the body, by the organ system that they supported, as well as by the symptoms of illness that they could influence. Sweet, for example, was thought slightly yang in nature and promoted an upward and outward movement. It entered the stomach and spleen channels. Mildly sweet foods, such as grains, nuts, fruits, and many vegetables, should form the main bulk of any diet. Stronger sweet flavors have a very warming and nourishing effect but should be avoided by people with signs of damp. Those who

Chinese Traditional Medicine and Diet

crave sweet food would be well advised to choose from the list of mildly sweet foods such as grains. Sour and salty were slightly yin in flavor and therefore cooling. They promoted a downward movement in the body. Salt moistened the body, while sour gathered and contracted, cleansing the body and moving the blood. Salt entered the kidneys and sour, the liver. Bitter was the most yin of flavors. It caused contraction and made qi descend and move inward reducing fever and calming agitation. It was also drying and therefore good for dampness. Bitter entered the heart clearing heat and calming the spirit. In general, medical priorities demanded restraint with a distinct moral overtone aimed at the leisure classes: Too much strong meat, spice, oil, and fat would create excess heat, while raw vegetables and cold food and water were indigestible and harmed the stomach. Balance, harmony, and the careful intervention of the chef in cooking were keys to a healthy diet. If we focus on the physiological effects of the foodstuffs and the mix of food and drug stuffs in the pharmacological treatises, there is little to distinguish food from medicine. In practice, medical advice from the medieval period advised beginning with the gentler dietary therapy: Sun Simiao/mo (581–682 CE) wrote, The nature of drugs is hard and violent, just like that of imperial soldiers. Since soldiers are so savage and impetuous, how could anybody dare to deploy them recklessly? If they are deployed inappropriately, harm and destruction will result everywhere. Similarly, excessive damage is the consequence if drugs are thrown at illnesses. A good doctor first makes a diagnosis, and having found out the cause of the disease, he tries to cure it first by food. When food fails, then he prescribes medicine. (p. 464)

Thus, the best doctors diagnosed and treated the body with dietary advice before illness manifested. By attributing thermostatic and other physiological effects to every foodstuff, medical authors embraced nutrition within a larger framework of knowledge, thereby providing the rationale for

219

what became an enormous and influential tradition of food combinations and prohibitions. Sun Simiao also emphasized the importance of dietary prohibitions in his chapter on dietetics: If the qi of different foods are incompatible, the essence will be damaged. The body achieves completion from the flavors that nourish it. If the different flavours of foods are not harmonized, the body becomes impure. This is why the sage starts off by obeying the alimentary prohibitions in order to preserve his nature; if that proves ineffective, he has recourse to remedies for sustaining life. (p. 465)

He emphasized that correct patterns of eating protected the body’s essences and that medical or nutritional remedies were only appropriate when food combinations and prohibitions failed. It was not until the 14th century that a dietary treatise integrated information on each individual foodstuff with recipes. Yinshan zhengyao (Proper and Essential Things for the Emperor’s Food and Drink) integrated theories about specific foodstuffs with recipes in a woodblock print book presented to the Mongol Emperor at the Yuan court in 1330 by the court dietary physician Hu Sihui. Demonstrating the diversity of Chinese dietary culture, it presents a blend of Mongol food, Muslim spice, and often ethnically central Chinese cooking methods, overlaid with Chinese medical philosophy. The recipes themselves are sandwiched between substantial tracts on longevity, foods to avoid or not to combine, how to behave in pregnancy, and miscellaneous precepts for hygiene and deportment taken from some well-known early Chinese sources as well as lists that are unattributed and therefore presented as general knowledge. The majority of the recipes can be classified as fortifying. We also see how new foods were embraced within the local nutritional system of codification. In the description of a Mongolian favorite, roast wolf soup, for example, the dilemma is explicit: “Ancient materia medica do not include entries of wolf meat. At present we state that its

220

Chinese Traditional Medicine and Diet

nature is heating . . . it warms the five internal organs and warms the centre” (Buell & Anderson, 2000, p. 295). New food classifications were clearly established by their similarities to known foods or were loosely classified according to the obvious resonance between remedy and ailment, for example, boiled sheep’s heart treats heart energy agitation, while the loins treat lumbago.

Old Foodways for New Appetites? With the globalization of Cantonese culinary culture in our time, ready-made selections of restorative foods are commonly available on the shelves of overseas Chinatown supermarkets. Middleaged Chinese at home and abroad are generally able to tell you that crab must be eaten with ginger to counteract its “cold” qualities since ginger is warming. Walnuts are a tonic for the brain and the kidneys and increase your sexual potency, jujube enriches the blood, chrysanthemum tea and steamed fish are cooling, mandarins are heating, but cut oranges rather than peeled are cold. Many recommendations concern pregnancy: If you eat fish soup, the child will blow bubbles; if you look at a hare, the child will be born with a split lip; and steamed carp increases the flow of breast milk. Chinese dietary practice demands attention to timing and knowledge of your own and other’s constitutions: If your liver is hyperactive, don’t eat sour flavors in springtime; if you’re suffering from cold in the stomach, eat warming foods. Others appear simply to be related to culinary preference: For instance, bean curd should not be eaten with vinegar. Religious precepts survive, such that strong spices like garlic or ginger on the breath will attract the ghosts who will want to lick your lips. Where China differs, for example, from Europe is that so many of those ancient ideas and practices survive in popular culture and are increasingly the subject of modern scientific research and commercial exploitation. If you sit in any public place in China and listen to the conversations that surround you, before long, you are most likely to overhear a casual exchange about food that references the

past. Often, there will be warnings about what will be bad for your health, boost your vitality, calm your stress, or clear your headache. We can pick up shrink-wrapped packs of goujizi (Chinese wolfberry) to strengthen blood and yin, hongzao (jujube), and chrysanthemum tea in every cosmopolitan city of the world, and whether or not it is legal to print the traditional belief about their potencies on the packaging, we buy these products amid a growing, and often baffling, network of nutritional advice from family, friends, advertising, and multimedia, in our informationsoaked world. Exacerbating the problem is the current fashion for super- or power foods, those products that come with the promise of increased vitality, sexual vigor, youth, and longevity. Many of these claim an evidence base in modern nutritional science. Chinese green tea is advertised as rich in antioxidants good for combating cancer, garlic prevents bacterial infections, and epimedium (yinyang huo, aka horny goat weed) has the same active ingredient as Viagra. Perhaps the latter have grains of truth and will continue to be popular, but many of the power foods, like gouji berry, enjoyed a very short celebrity status outside of China, as the global market for superfoods is nothing if not faddish. Modern nutritional justifications do much to undergird past assumptions, pointing, for example, to the iron content of lamb and dang gui (Chinese Angelica) as the effective ingredient in the dish’s traditional use as a blood tonic for postpartum mothers. Equally, old beliefs lose much of their efficacy when they are no longer culturally relevant. Other products, mostly prepared for the aphrodisiac market of aging Asian men, have come up against the World Wildlife Fund and other bodies concerned with the protection of endangered species. Rhinoceros and deer horns, tiger bone, and bear gall are all animal products that carry with them the symbolism associated with the power of the animals themselves. These kinds of links to sympathetic magic persist in the popular imagination but are clearly outdated and inappropriate today.

Chocolate

Are the myriad dietary prohibitions and recommendations the stuff of old wives tales, the vestiges of a vanishing and irrational past? To the modern eye, Chinese dietary traditions might seem burdened with a history of ritual, religion, sexual lore, and magic. Chinese dietary lore is not so much a set of beliefs but a set of shared social practices within which ordinary people can claim a certain expertise. The older generations of Chinese still care about what they eat, as do those younger people who have not been totally seduced by fast food culture and who buy in to a tradition of gastronomic health care. Lavish imperial-style banqueting aside, ordinary people still eat plenty of grain, green vegetables, and steamed food and little meat. Therapeutic diets involve rice and millet congees, many different types of brassica, and wood ear soups with berries, slow-cooked foods that are easy on elderly digestions. A traditional Chinese diet not only pays attention to individual constitutions and allows people a framework within which to test what diet suits them but is also sustainable in global terms. Vivienne Lo See also Bans on Food, Cultural and Health-Related; Endangered Species

221

Farquhar, J. (2002). Appetites: Food and sex in postsocialist China. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Harper, D. (1998). Early Chinese medical literature. London, UK: Kegan Paul. Huang, H. T. (2000). Fermentations and food science. In J. Needham (Series Ed.), Science and civilisation in China (Vol. 6, Part 5). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lo, V., & Barrett, P. (2005, October 1). Cooking up fine remedies: On the culinary aesthetic in a sixteenthcentury Chinese. Medical History, 49(4), 395–422. Needham, J. (Series Ed.). (2000). Science and civilisation in China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shiu-ying, H. (2005). Food plants of China. Hong Kong, SAR: Chinese University of Hong Kong. Sterckx, R. (2005). Food and philosophy in early China. In R. Sterckx (Ed.), Of tripod and palate: Food, politics, and religion in traditional China (pp. 34–61). New York, NY: Palgrave. Sun, S. (1955). Qianjin yaofang. Beijing, People’s Republic of China: Renmin weisheng.

CHOCOLATE Chocolate, especially dark chocolate, contains many compounds that may benefit human health. This entry offers a short overview of the history of chocolate and then describes these compounds.

Further Readings Anderson, E. N. (1988). The food of China. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Retrieved from http://www .krazykioti.com/index.php?option=com_content&task= view&id=32&Itemid=45 Buell, P., & Anderson, E. (2000). A soup for the Qan. London, UK: Kegan Paul. Chang, K. C. (Ed.). (1977). Food in Chinese culture: Anthropological and historical perspectives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Despeux, C. (2007, January). Food prohibitions in China (P. Barrett, Trans.). The Lantern: A Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 4(1). Engelhardt, U. (2001). Dietetics in Tang China and the first extant works of Materia dietetica. In E. Hsu (Ed.), Innovation in Chinese medicine (pp. 173–191). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Early History of Chocolate When the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés landed in what is today Mexico, he found proof of the rumors of the wealth and riches of the Aztec Empire. Cortés especially noted a beverage called xocolatl made from cacao beans. Xocolatl had a great religious importance for the Aztecs and was used in ceremonies where offerings were made to the gods. According to the Aztec religion, cacao came to humans with the god Quetzalcoatl, who was worshipped as a god by the Toltecs during the period 800–1100 CE. The god himself appeared as a winged serpent and was said to have created the humans and the Earth out of chaos. Humans

222

Chocolate

learned to worship a tree called Cachuaqahitl as a source of strength and wealth, and from its fruits the beverage of the gods was made. Among the Aztecs, cacao was made into a beverage, and the cacao beans were also used as a currency. For example, a rabbit cost 4 cacao beans, a slave 100 beans. The Aztecs had introduced a feudal system over the conquered tribes whose taxes were paid in the form of cacao beans. The highly appreciated beverage was made of dried, roasted, and peeled cacao beans that were crushed to a brown, fat mass. The mass was seasoned with spices such as vanilla, chili pepper, and achiote to make it reddish, and maize was added as a thickener. After this, the chocolate was formed into small blocks to harden. When it had hardened, it was easy to create a chocolate beverage by adding warm or cold water. Such a drink using hot or cold water is still made in many parts of the world today. It is believed that the British Queen Anne’s doctor introduced the use of milk instead of water in the beginning of the 18th century. In time, he sold the recipe to the Quakers, who considered the beverage as a healthy alternative to alcohol. In due time, the beverage became known as the heavenly beverage, so named by the Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus, who named it Theobroma—food of the gods. During the 17th century, cacao became popular in Europe, first in France and then in the Netherlands, where Amsterdam very quickly became the largest harbor for import of cacao outside of Spain. From the Netherlands, the product spread via Germany north to Scandinavia and south to Italy. During the early 19th century, the chemist Coenraad van Houten invented a press to extract the fat from the beans. He also developed a method to neutralize the acids, still called Dutch processing. In this way, a product that consisted almost solely of cacao butter was produced in a form that could be ground into powder to be used as seasoning. It then became possible to both eat and drink the cacao. In 1875, cacao was combined with condensed milk, and the first milk chocolate was produced. Around the same time, the predecessor of Lindt & Sprüngli AG (the company

commonly known as Lindt) produced soft chocolates that are still in production today. Approximately 20 years later, the Hershey Company introduced it to the United States.

Cacao and the World Economy According to the World Cocoa Foundation, the largest producers are Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Indonesia, with Cote d’Ivoire producing more than a third or 35% of the world’s cacao in 2011–2012. Africa (Ghana, Nigeria, and Cameroon) produces 73% of the world’s cacao, followed by Asia and Oceania (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea) with 14% and the Americas (Brazil, Ecuador, and Colombia) with 13%. Small cacao farms provides more than 90% of the world cacao production; there are 5 to 6 million cacao farmers worldwide, and 40 to 50 million people depend on cacao for their livelihood. In Africa and Asia, a typical farm covers 2 to 5 hectares. A typical pod contains 20 to 50 beans, and approximately 400 dried beans are required to make 1 pound of chocolate. The total production has increased in absolute terms from 3.66 million metric tons in 2007–2008 to 3.98 million metric tons in 2011–2012. Change in production has not been linear and has fluctuated in various patterns in the different regions. Cacao prices are affected by various factors including stock/grind ratios, expectations for future production/demand, global food prices, and consolidation/fragmentation in cacao trade and processing industries. These components generally drive long-term trends in cacao prices, while trading by investment funds tend to determine prices in the short term.

Chocolate and Health Since the end of the 17th century, chocolate has been considered to be of medical importance. At the time, it was considered to be good for digestion, even for persons with upset or sensitive stomachs. There was also a theological debate, particularly in Spain, as to whether consuming chocolate was considered to break a religious fast

Chocolate

and whether it should be thought of as a food or simply a beverage. Especially during the 18th and 19th centuries, the so-called medicinal chocolate was highly in use, and it was mixed with several components such as raw meat, tar, or magnesium, to name a few, for different kinds of treatments and diseases. Debates over the therapeutic nature of chocolate continue to this day. Chocolate contains about 500 calories per 100 grams, and since most people do not eat a large amount of chocolate on a daily basis, it can be argued that chocolate plays a minor role when it comes to overweight. It takes the human body approximately 60 minutes to digest 50 grams of chocolate. The cacao butter contains different kinds of fatty acids, saturated fatty acids and nonsaturated fatty acids. When chocolate is consumed, the saturated fatty acids transform into nonsaturated fatty acids in the human body. Allergies to chocolate are rare and usually accompanied by other sensitivities or food allergies. Chocolate with a content of 43% cacao contains a high amount of vegetarian protein (6 grams in a chocolate bar that weighs 100 grams). One hundred grams of chocolate also contain 27 grams of lipids, 9 grams of fiber, and 53 grams of sugar. It also contains tannic acid and is a good source of potassium and magnesium. However, it is recommended that persons at risk of kidney stones avoid chocolate because it contains oxalates that prevent the body from absorbing calcium and thus may increase the formation of kidney stones. Chocolate also contains iron and vitamins such as B1, B2, B5, B6, B9, and E. One hundred grams of chocolate contain 5.3 milligrams of vitamin E, which constitutes approximately one third of the recommended daily intake for adults. Most people have a deficiency of vitamin E in their daily food intake. Other substances in chocolate are phosphorus, caffeine, theobromine, phenethylamine, and serotonin, which stimulate the central nervous system and may create a feeling of well-being when they are consumed. Other health benefits attributed to chocolate include promoting cardiovascular health. As Baba et al. (2007) note, dark chocolate with 60% cacao

223

content or above contains antioxidants, flavonoids called procyanidins, and epicatechins, which have been found to decrease low-density lipoprotein (LDL or “bad cholesterol”). According to Yale-New Haven Hospital, stearic acid and oleic acid may also have a positive effect on cholesterol levels. According to the Cleveland Clinic (n.d.), chocolate in moderation can lower blood pressure and improve blood flow to the brain and heart, promote cardiovascular health, as well as reduce cellular damage caused by free radicals. Khanafari and Porgham (2012) have reported that the sugar and cacao in chocolate have been shown to prevent the growth of Streptococcus mutans in the mouth of humans, thus helping to prevent dental caries. Ulrica Söderlind See also Cholesterol, LDL and HDL; Fair Trade; Junk Food, Impact on Health

Further Readings Baba, S., Osakabe, N., Kato, Y., Natsume, M., Yasuda, A., Kido, T., . . . Kondo, K. (2007). Continuous intake of polyphenolic compounds containing cocoa powder reduces LDL oxidative susceptibility and has beneficial effects on plasma HDL-cholesterol concentrations in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 85(3), 709–717. Beckett, S. T. (2008). The science of chocolate. London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry. Cleveland Clinic. (n.d.). Heart health benefits of chocolate. Retrieved from http://my.clevelandclinic .org/heart/prevention/nutrition/food-choices/ benefits-of-chocolate.aspx Coe, S. (2007). A true history of chocolate. London, UK: Thames & Hudson. Collister, L. (2006). Chocolate. London, UK: Ryland & Peters. Grivetti, L. E. (2009). Chocolate: History, culture, and heritage. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Khanafari, A., & Porgham, S. H. (2012). Investigation of probiotic chocolate effect on Streptococcus mutans growth inhibition. Jundishapur Journal of Microbiology, 5(4), 590–597.

224

Cholesterol, LDL and HDL

World Cocoa Foundation. (2012). Introduction to cocoa market. Retrieved from http://worldcocoafoundation .org/wp-content/uploads/Cocoa-Market-Updateas-of-3.20.2012.pdf Yale-New Haven Hospital. (n.d.). Chocolate: Food of the gods. Retrieved from http://www.ynhh.org/about-us/ chocolate.aspx

CHOLESTEROL, LDL

AND

HDL

With the rise of cardiovascular diseases, affecting the heart (cardio) and blood vessels (vascular), many people are familiar with the association between cholesterol and heart disease, given that heart disease is the number one killer of Americans (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm). Consumers are reminded by health practitioners and the food industry to consume heart-healthy foods and reduce foods that negatively affect our heart. A healthy lifestyle can keep your arteries healthy with cholesterol and lipids in balance, preventing the onset and progression of disease. Low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and cholesterol are monitored in health screenings because altered levels are associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk, a serious concern that needs early detection and intervention. The levels of these compounds relate to lifestyle choices, including the foods eaten. Food recommendations, such as including more plantbased foods and choosing healthy fats, prevent heart disease by reducing blood cholesterol levels and continue to be updated as our understanding of the effect of diet choices on lipoproteins (LDL, HDL) and cholesterol becomes better understood. Since cholesterol is naturally produced in our bodies and also found in the diet, conversations about lowering cholesterol levels can be very confusing. In this entry, the current understanding of the role of lipoproteins within the body and the significance of cholesterol level as a marker of coronary artery disease risk are explained, followed by the current discussion of diet recommendations to support optimal levels of cholesterol.

Role of Lipoproteins and Cholesterol in the Body Lipids are a class of compounds that are oily to the touch and not soluble in water. Two types of lipids in the body that are most familiar are triglycerides and cholesterol. Triglycerides are the major energy source for cells and are stored as fat within the body. Cholesterol is a building block needed for every cell membrane structure, central nervous system maintenance, and creation of other chemical structures that your body manufactures such as bile, steroid hormones, and vitamin D. Because triglycerides and cholesterol are vital for every cell and important compounds, there must be a constant supply, so the body relies on two sources: endogenous (made by the body) or dietary (obtained from foods consumed). There is an efficient maintenance of cholesterol within the body, illustrated by bile. Bile, which is made from cholesterol in the liver and stored in the gall bladder, is released into your intestines when you eat foods containing fat. Bile helps the body digest the fat and is absorbed back into the body through your intestinal lining along with the fat. Once it is reabsorbed, the bile is broken down and the cholesterol recycled to be used again as a building block within the body. To understand the role of lipoproteins in the body, it helps to visualize the blood vessels as a water-based transportation system, similar to rivers within the body. Chemicals, including the nutrients you get from your food, are transported along this blood vessel system so that each cell has a supply as well as a disposal route. Lipids are not soluble in water, so triglycerides and cholesterol are unable to be transported in the water-rich blood vessels without the lipoproteins, similar to oil separating in a water-based salad dressing. Lipoproteins (lipid and protein) are made up of the lipids—cholesterol and triglycerides— and proteins. Lipids are manufactured in the liver and intestines. The lipoproteins attach to both water and lipids and become transporters of triglycerides and cholesterol through the blood in a circular pathway from liver to muscle and organs to cell and return to the liver; similar to a cargo boat on a river. During digestion, lipoproteins also transport fat and cholesterol from the intestines to cells and liver.

Cholesterol, LDL and HDL

Lipoproteins differ in the amounts of triglyceride and cholesterol as they travel through the blood vessels. Again the analogy to a cargo boat is helpful, as the cargo boat (lipoprotein) leaves the liver and delivers its cargo, the name of the boat changes. When lipoproteins leave the liver, they are called chylomicron, which are rich in triglycerides. As the chylomicron delivers triglycerides to the cells, the name changes to very-low-density lipoprotein or blood triglycerides; then, with more delivery and composition changes, it is called low-density lipoprotein. As lipoprotein returns to the liver, the LDL picks up cholesterol and is now called high-density lipoprotein. During this transportation, the ratio of triglyceride to cholesterol and protein changes, causing a change in density and weight since triglyceride is lighter than cholesterol. This is reflected in the name such as low-density lipoprotein or LDL (rich in triglyceride) and high-density lipoprotein or HDL (less triglyceride and higher percentage of cholesterol and protein). Because of the density and weight changes, LDL is the lipoprotein transporting from liver to cells, and HDL is the lipoprotein transporting from cell to liver. Lipoproteins and cholesterol are normal and necessary within the body, as indicated from this short description of its primary function. The body is a finely balanced system and does not tolerate shortages or excess, which may indicate a disruption in health.

Concerns About Cholesterol In the development of cardiovascular disease, the blood and heart vessels are damaged over time from minimal but chronic injuries, to which the body has an inflammatory response. In the process of repairing the vessels, the body starts depositing in the damaged vessel—similar to a scab on an outside skin wound. This deposit on the internal blood vessel is called plaque. Plaque contains LDL cholesterol and other cells that can build up causing inflexibility (hardening of the arteries) and narrowing or, in other cases, expanding vessels to accommodate the plaque; this condition is known as atherosclerosis. The plaque then leads to narrowing

225

of the artery or ruptured plaque that induces clotting; tissues cannot get adequate oxygen from the blood either from narrowed or blocked arteries, resulting in the death of tissue. The damage from a heart attack (myocardial infarction or MI) or stroke is due to tissue death when there is a blocked artery and lack of oxygen. Lipoprotein cholesterol contributes to heart disease risk in a number of ways. Blood vessels are susceptible to damage from stress, either physical stress such as shear stress from high blood pressure flow through the arteries or emotional stress that causes a release of stress hormones such as cortisol and norepinephrine, the fight-or-flight response. The impact of chronic stress and other factors such as diabetes is physical damage to blood vessels and triggering the repair of the vessels. Higher circulating levels of very-low-density lipoproteins and LDL can lead to higher deposits in these susceptible artery regions. LDLs are not all uniform and have different components that may contribute different levels of risk. These can also vary in size and density, which also varies the risk. The smallest, most dense LDL lipoproteins have the highest risk. People with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes may have more of these small, dense LDL. Controlling the amount of endogenous cholesterol available in circulation in an effort to reduce plaque buildup is one of the strategies to prevent heart disease. There is an association with elevated cholesterol levels, especially LDL cholesterol, and a greater chance of having heart disease. Adequate levels of HDL, as scavengers for cholesterol within the blood vessels, are required to prevent cholesterol from being available for plaque buildup; therefore, HDL is commonly labeled “good cholesterol.” LDL delivers cholesterol to cells, so lower levels that maintain normal function but not excessive cholesterol availability is required; therefore, LDL is commonly called “bad cholesterol.”

Lipid Measurements Lipids are measured by taking a blood sample after fasting 9 to 12 hours. The results are presented as a lipid panel and include total cholesterol, triglycerides,

226

Cholesterol, LDL and HDL

LDL, and HDL measurements. Optimal levels include normal ranges of each component and a desired ratio between total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. While the total cholesterol is important, looking at the different lipoprotein levels may give a better indicator of risk. When people have unhealthy lipoprotein levels, often it is because the LDL is too high and the HDL is too low. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, determines the healthy values and various levels of risk. Levels are described as optimal or desirable, borderline high, and high; currently, the optimal values are total cholesterol less than 200 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL), LDL cholesterol less than 100 mg/dL, and HDL cholesterol more than 40 mg/dL (men) or 50 mg/dL (women). Total cholesterol includes HDL, LDL, and 20% of the triglyceride level. A cholesterol ratio is found by dividing the total cholesterol by the HDL cholesterol number. This ratio, as recommended by the American Heart Association, should be at or below 5:1, ideally 3.5:1.

Dietary Interventions to Balance Cholesterol There are many aspects of a general healthy diet that also keep the body’s cholesterol in balance. The first step is to reduce excess amounts of cholesterol and fats from the diet. Cholesterol, because it is manufactured in the liver of humans and other animals, is abundant in foods of animal origin. Meat, eggs, and dairy products contain cholesterol. Plants also have cholesterol but in insignificant amounts to the diet. So reducing animal foods or choosing more lean animal foods such as lean meats or low-fat dairy while increasing plant-based foods is highly recommended. There are more benefits to choosing more plantbased foods, such as whole grains, beans and legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds. Plantbased foods are high in fiber, low in added sugars, and low in simple carbohydrates, which reduce LDL and triglyceride levels. Insoluble fiber will trap the bile in the intestines to prevent reabsorption, thereby reducing endogenous cholesterol.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends healthy dietary guidelines and patterns, updated every 5 years. MyPlate provides a visual of a healthy plate—half of the plate includes fruits and vegetables, and another quarter includes whole grains. This visual of a plate abundant with plant-based foods helps picture and plan a healthy daily diet for cholesterol control. Saturated fats have a significant effect on cholesterol levels, compared with other fats in the diet. Saturated fats are solid at room temperature and found in foods of animal origin or baked goods. Substituting saturated fats with healthier unsaturated fats, including polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated fat, and omega-3-rich fatty acids, will help lower LDL and increase HDL levels. These beneficial fats are usually liquid at room temperature and more abundant in plant foods such as vegetable oils, nuts, seeds, and fatty fish. Trans-fatty acids have been shown to increase cardiovascular risk, resulting in the Food and Drug Administration plan to ban trans-fatty acids in commercial preparations. While some trans-fatty acids are naturally occurring in small amounts, most are created in commercial food preparation in the hydrogenation process, which adds hydrogen to change the liquid polyunsaturated fats to a more stable, solid form, have less greasy feel, or increase shelf life in products such as margarines and shortening, fats in baked goods, fried foods, and snack foods. The current recommendations are to reduce consumption of trans-fatty acids whenever possible through careful label reading and alternative food choices. Trans-fatty acids elevate LDL cholesterol levels and may reduce HDL cholesterol levels and may also change blood vessel function. Lifestyle changes, including healthy food choices, can prevent or delay the onset of serious cardiovascular disease, indicating that healthy habits developed early in life and maintained throughout life are necessary. Jasia Steinmetz See also Cardiac Disease and Diet; Diabetes; Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease; Nutrition Education; Vegetable Oils

Christian Food Restrictions

Further Reading Eckel, R. H., Jakicic, J. M., Ard, J. D., Hubbard, V. S., de Jesus, J. M., Lee, I.-M., . . . Yanovski, S. Z. (2013). 2013 AHA/ACC guideline on lifestyle management to reduce cardiovascular risk: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. Retrieved from http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/ early/2013/11/11/01.cir.0000437740.48606.d1.citation

Websites Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: http://www.eatright.org American Heart Association: http://www.heart.org National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: http://www .nhlbi.nih.gov/health/index.htm

CHRISTIAN FOOD RESTRICTIONS Restrictions on the type or quantity of food eaten, and the time or place of eating, are accepted to different degrees in different Christian denominations. Restrictions are observed in the Orthodox Churches as well as by Roman Catholics, although these are often absent from newer churches. They might apply to a particular season or day of the week and be either rule based or voluntary. Over a period of time, specific foods may be avoided (abstinence) or no food is consumed (fasting). In practice, Christian restrictions are often less codified than those of other religions and more likely to be observed from personal choice. Although they are often ignored or contested, restrictions have new relevance because of their frequently positive consequences for justice and ecology. Key sources for restrictions and their interpretation are the Bible, tradition, and church teaching. This entry discusses types of restricted foods, fasting, the social and economic context, and the current views on restrictions.

Regimes of Restriction Red meat is the food most commonly restricted. In the Old Testament, animal slaughter and meat consumption are viewed as problematic and therefore

227

governed by many rules (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14). Noah and his descendants are prohibited from consuming blood (Genesis 9.4), and this prohibition is repeated at the Council of Jerusalem in the New Testament (Acts 15.29). This suggests that the wisdom underlying the Old Testament dietary rules has some relevance for Christians, even if not all individual rules are observed. In monastic regulations like the Rule of Benedict, red meat is forbidden to all healthy adults. In most monasteries, if red meat is forbidden, then poultry is too. Nevertheless, in many monasteries today, meat consumption is no longer prohibited, on the questionable grounds that any restriction is archaic. Fish, however, is not covered by the ban. Christians in wider society are sometimes encouraged to abstain from meat and, less frequently, dairy products, fish, wine, and olive oil, during specific seasons. For Western Christians, the most important period of abstinence is Lent, a time of preparation for Easter. It begins on Ash Wednesday, when Christians traditionally avoid red meat and poultry to commemorate Jesus Christ’s 40-day fast in the wilderness (Matthew 4.1-11). The principal day of abstinence is Friday, when Jesus Christ was crucified, the day on which Roman Catholics are urged not to eat meat. Orthodox Christians sometimes abstain from meat on Wednesdays, the day on which Judas Iscariot agreed to betray Jesus (Luke 22.3-6). Another traditional day of abstinence is Saturday, when Jesus Christ lay in the tomb before his resurrection on Sunday. Among Orthodox Christians, there are four seasons of abstinence. Great Lent begins on Clean Monday and lasts 40 days. The Nativity (or Philippian) Fast, which precedes Christmas, also lasts 40 days. The Apostles’ Fast concludes on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul but varies in length according to the date of Easter. It is traced to Jesus Christ’s instruction to his disciples to fast following the Ascension (Luke 5.34-5). The Dormition Fast, prior to the feast commemorating the falling asleep of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, lasts 2 weeks. These seasons were also observed in the medieval Christian West.

228

Christian Food Restrictions

Fasting is the complete avoidance of food for a fixed time period as a means of bodily preparation, self-denial, or solidarity with Jesus Christ. Other biblical figures who fasted include Moses, Hannah, David, Elijah, Ahab, Hezekiah, Daniel, Anna, John the Baptist, and Paul. Much impetus has been given to Christian fasting by the understanding of the gluttony of Adam and Eve, in eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3.6), as the sin from which all others followed. On Sundays and other days when Christians receive communion, they are sometimes encouraged not to eat until having done so. Good Friday, the day of the crucifixion, and Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent for Western Christians, may be fast days. In monasteries, the first food of the day was not taken until a late “breakfast” meal, which might have been the only meal of the day. This practice has now fallen into wide disuse. Nevertheless, following the example of figures like John the Baptist, Anthony of Egypt, and other desert fathers, an ascetic hermit tradition persists in which individuals, often monks or nuns, live singly in isolated locations and consume extremely simple food in small quantities.

Social and Economic Context By providing a market for alternatives, restrictions raise demand for existing foods and stimulate the development of new products and recipes. Fish dishes often replace red meat and frequently feature on Friday menus. Historically, monasteries have been renowned for such dishes, and into the 1600s, abstinence from meat was promoted partly to protect fishing economies and, thereby, maritime fleets. Since the early 20th century, American Christians such as the Kellogg brothers have developed nonmeat breakfast products including cereals, peanut butter, and cracker biscuits. On Shrove Tuesday or Mardi Gras (“Fat Tuesday”), pancakes and meat burgers are often made to consume the dairy and meat items to be avoided during Lent. Indeed, the festivities preceding the start of Lent have grown into a rich culture of carnivals (literally, of saying farewell to meat).

During Lent, marzipan (made with ground almonds), dried fruits, and other nuts have been used in recipes such as simnel cake in place of dairy products. At Easter, eggs are a standard present, when they would have been in plentiful supply following their Lenten prohibition. Teetotalism also has Christian origins. An example is the preaching of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, against gin, which ruined many lives due to its strength and easy availability. During the 19th century, a movement developed in the United States to prohibit all alcohol, again under strong Christian impetus. In both cases, it was the social effects of alcohol that had originally motivated the call for restriction, rather than the view that alcohol is intrinsically bad. For Christians, it is desirable to know from where food has come and, in the case of meat, how the animal from which it comes has been slaughtered (Acts 15.29). Nevertheless, the desirability of observing restrictions needs to be balanced with the requirement to neither disrupt community life nor impede mission (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8). When either a guest or a host, whether in the company of agnostics or members of another religion, it might be necessary to consume whatever is offered or to offer different items, even if a formal restriction is thereby contravened. General rules might need to be adapted to local agricultural or economic circumstances: For instance, in an area of inland, hilly terrain unsuited to crop farming, complete meat avoidance might be difficult, whereas close to a lake, it would be far easier. Moreover, for health reasons, children, the elderly, and pregnant women are not expected to observe restrictions.

Restrictions Today Traditionally, restrictions have been defined by rules and enforced by church and civil authorities. Although such regulation continues in some churches, there is now greater emphasis on accepting restrictions voluntarily. As part of a personal rule of life while at sea, the evangelical minister John Newton abstained from meat and observed a

Church Suppers

weekly fast. John Wesley was well aware of historic Christian restrictions. He saw these as natural and as providing means through which God’s grace might act and so encouraged his followers to embrace them. Modern vegetarianism may thereby be traced to the dietary gospel of Evangelical Christianity. By taking vegetarianism and other dietary disciplines seriously, Christians today have the opportunity to reconnect with a part of their own spiritual heritage that has been widely forgotten. Modern communities in which this reconnection has been made include Hallelujah Acres in North America and Universal Life in Germany. Moreover, one baking company markets its healthy products by printing biblical verses (Genesis 1.29, Ezekiel 4.9) on the packaging. Within the mainstream denominations, developing a more practical dimension of belief might contribute to the mission, as many of the people who currently pursue secular spiritual disciplines or other religions do so in the belief that Christian spirituality lacks relevance to daily practice. In the United States, the Christian dieting movement is growing under the leadership of prominent personalities. The capacity to accept dietary restriction voluntarily is viewed here as a sign of blessing and faithfulness and as an acknowledgment that the body is God’s temple where his Spirit dwells (1 Cor. 6.19). This shows that restricting food consumption can be empowering for women, as it was for medieval women mystics such as Catherine of Siena. Nevertheless, as the example of Catherine shows, pathologies such as anorexia need to be avoided, and it is just as important for men to restrict their diet as it is for women. Restrictions also continue to be relevant to Christians today for reasons different from those of former times. For example, animals raised for meat consume massive quantities of food that could be fed to hungry humans. They also generate huge volumes of pollution in the form of greenhouse gases and waste. To promote justice and a sustainable ecology, humans will need to reduce their dietary reliance on animals. In so doing, they

229

might rediscover how dietary restrictions, if observed for good reasons, may empower both self and society. David Grumett See also Alcohol Regulations, History of; Halal Food; Hindu Food Restrictions; Kosher Food; Mormon Food Practices; Seventh-day Adventist Food Practices; Vegetarianism

Further Readings De Vogüé, A. (1989). To love fasting: The monastic experience. Petersham, MA: Saint Bede’s. Grumett, D. (2007). Vegetarian or Franciscan? Flexible dietary choices past and present. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 1, 450–467. Grumett, D., & Muers, R. (2010). Theology on the menu: Asceticism, meat and Christian diet. London, UK: Routledge. Horrell, D. G. (2005). Solidarity and difference: A contemporary reading of Paul’s ethics (pp. 166–203). London, UK: T&T Clark. Walker Bynum, C. (1987). Holy feast and holy fast: The religious significance of food to medieval women. Berkeley: University of California Press. Webb, S. (2001). Good eating: The Bible, diet and the proper love of animals. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos. Webster, R. (2003). The value of self-denial: John Wesley’s multidimensional view of fasting. Toronto Journal of Theology, 19, 25–40.

CHURCH SUPPERS Church suppers are meals prepared by volunteer members of a church and served in a church’s social hall primarily to foster a spirit of fellowship among the members who attend such events. As there is usually a minimal charge for such suppers, they may also be a means to raise some income for various activities not within the church’s budget. A common variation on the meal prepared by a small group of parishioners is a potluck supper (sometimes called a “covered dish” supper). Church suppers are often open to people in the

230

Church Suppers

community at large for they add to any profit; at the same time, such an event becomes a form of outreach and might even win over new members. Also, in some instances, people within the community who are known to be unable to afford even the minimal charge may be invited as guests as a simple act of charity. Whatever the nature of the diners, church suppers are known for the modest price charged for what is usually characterized as “home cooking,” solid meals of traditional, nofrills “comfort food.” This entry examines the nature and history of church suppers and types of food served.

A History of Church Suppers There is no known history of church suppers, but it would appear that as conducted today they are primarily a Protestant tradition. (Some Roman Catholic churches and Jewish synagogues in the United States at least do hold suppers or dinners, but theirs are usually linked to their religion’s calendars and are effectively limited to the church or synagogue members.) Church suppers are also held mainly in the English-speaking world—specifically, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Again, although there may be exceptions, this current practice appears to have emerged during the 19th century. One suggestion has been that they emerged after Protestants began to split into several denominations and, lacking support from a central hierarchy, found that they needed to raise money on the local level for their various churches. Whatever the truth of that, there are traditions and practices that have far older and far wider observance and that can be seen as prefiguring these relatively modern occasions. Special events of all kind are usually celebrated with some meal, and the early Christians held “love feasts” to signify equality and create cohesion and common purpose within the community. To “break bread” as a means of fostering good relations is a practice that is almost universally observed, and in fact the word companion derives from the Latin—meaning one with whom a person shares bread. To the

degree that most members of communities for many ages past were of the same religious faith, whenever they gathered to share a special meal, it might be regarded as the equivalent of a church supper. In the Christian community, the Last Supper can be regarded as the inspiration behind these church suppers even if it is not explicitly cited. The Last Supper is specifically invoked by the sacrament of the Eucharist: the taking of bread and wine, otherwise known as communion—again, reflecting a sense of fellowship. Thanksgiving meals are also rooted in a community’s shared gratefulness that the harvest has been good for the community at large, and if church members no longer gather for such occasions, the spirit is to be shared in individual homes and families. The overlapping of Christian communion, harvest thanksgiving, and community fellowship emerged in the 19th century, a time when the majority of people were still engaged in agriculture. Living in relatively small communities, relatively isolated, mainly homogeneous, and sharing a particular denomination, Protestants must have found that occasional church suppers were a desirable means of reinforcing their common faith as well as community. The Roman Catholic Church, with its emphasis on the Eucharist as a sacrament, and its general emphasis on the clergy as presiding over all necessary ceremonies, did not especially need to support such occasions. Church suppers today would seem to be entirely free of controversy, but in the first two decades of the 20th century, a debate did break out within several of the Protestant denominations over the question of whether they were in keeping with the Christian faith. It appears that these suppers had become so successful that some Protestants saw them as becoming moneymaking events—inappropriate for a church’s mission, especially one held on the church premises. Some critics complained that by receiving a meal for their money, parishioners were neither denying themselves anything nor practicing true Christian charity. The Rev. J. T. Mann, in his The First Church, went so far as to call church suppers a

Church Suppers

“partnership with Satan” (p. 126). This controversy faded away by the 1920s, and today, church suppers thrive so much that the most recent criticism is that they contribute to obesity among church members.

Church Suppers Today Church suppers are now a familiar presence in many North American communities, with some churches holding them monthly and some even more frequently, often on Saturday nights. They are usually advertised on the bulletin boards in front of the churches, and many local newspapers carry announcements, in some cases providing the full schedule for the coming year. Tickets to the suppers must be sold within a time frame that allows the preparers to have a solid idea of how much food to purchase. Women of the church have traditionally prepared the meals while the men washed the dishes, but men are increasingly being enlisted to take part in the preparation. Certain women are known for their specialties, and people often travel long distances when these women are known to be among the cooks. Some church suppers have one sitting, and everyone is served the same plate; some have open hours, and people turn up as they can, but all are served the same dinner; potluck, or covered dish, suppers are buffet style, and favored cooks’ offerings go quickly. The suppers are generally promoted as providing “down home” atmosphere: Diners sit family style at long tables or large round tables—sometimes with total strangers or at least people with whom they are not especially well acquainted. Some churches now offer take-out suppers, recognizing modern families’ busy schedules, and some churches have even taken to hiring caterers for their suppers—developments that somewhat undermine the notion of these suppers as occasions of fellowship.

The Food Apart from fellowship and profit, the nature of the food served at church suppers dominates much contemporary discourse about these events.

231

It is fairly characterized as “home cooking” because it has been prepared by nonprofessional members of the church. Certain dishes seem to be universal favorites at these suppers: coleslaw, mashed potatoes with gravy, green beans, chicken potpie, and roast beef. Regions of the United States tend to be known for certain specialties. New England churches are particularly famous for their baked bean suppers—and in fact they often advertise the forthcoming event as just that: “Baked Bean Supper.” In Germanic communities of the Midwest, pork hocks and sauerkraut may be served and casseroles are a fairly requisite staple, while in Norwegian communities of the upper Midwest, a specialty is lutefisk—cod that had been preserved with lye, which when cooked has a gelatinous texture. The South has its fried chicken and the Southwest its barbeques. Meanwhile, Canada’s Maritime Provinces are known for their lobster dinners. And in almost all accounts, desserts are singled out as the greatest drawing card—fresh pies and cakes. All this food has in turn given rise to a major genre in the publishing world: church supper cookbooks, either compiled by editors or assembled by the ladies of individual churches. The dynamics of the potluck type of church supper can also be interesting since participants who bring food prepare their best dishes not only as an expression of identity but also in a sense to compete for compliments. There is of course never any official winner, but contributors may nonetheless spend a great deal of time and effort perfecting a dish simply for bragging rights. On the other hand, those with dishes well loved by the community may be forced to bring the same one every year without any alteration, and these are precisely the recipes that are handed down through generations or recorded in community cookbooks, which often have their origin in church suppers. John S. Bowman See also Agritourism; Christian Food Restrictions; Family Meals/Commensality; Identity and Food; Religion and Foods, Requirements and Labeling

232

Circular Food Systems

Further Readings Anonymous. (1911, September 7). Good Church Suppers. Advance, 62, 302. Bengston, Rev. C. J. (Ed.). (1917, August 25). Bazaars, fairs and church suppers. Lutheran Companion, 25, 420. Deitz, Rev. A. E. (1904, April 18). Methods of supporting the church. Lutheran Observer, 72, 451. Mann, Rev. J. T. (1904). The first church. Atlanta, GA: Foote & Davies. O’Neill, M. (1990, August 15). To eat a church supper is to want to cry “Amen.” The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/15/ garden/to-eat-a-church-supper-is-to-want-to-cry-amen .html Putnam, R. (2012, March 8). Spend more time arranging the church suppers. Retrieved from http://www .patheos.com/blogs/slowchurch/2012/03/08/ robert-putnam-spend-more-time-arranging-the-churchsuppers/ The Spectator. (1906, September 29). The Outlook, 84, 256–257. Retrieved from http://www.unz.org/Pub/ Outlook-1906sep29-00256?View=PDF Vann, K. (2010, August 3). Church suppers: Comfort food and tradition. http://articles.courant.com/201008-03/features/hc-church-suppers-0805-20100803\

Website New England Church Suppers: http://www .theheartofnewengland.com/lifeinnewengland/Essays/ church-suppers.html

CIRCULAR FOOD SYSTEMS Modern industrial food systems are fundamentally unsustainable. The linear structure of the globalized industrial food system is based on the view that natural resources are unlimited in their supply at one end and that the planet has an endless capacity to assimilate pollution and waste at the other end. The scale of the social and environmental costs of this model of food and farming is such that “business as usual” is no longer an option today. There is now a growing consensus among scientists that the emerging context of

industrial food and farming requires a major rethink and deep structural changes to ensure food security throughout the world. The ecological and social footprints of the modern food system can be reduced through a shift from linear to circular systems that imitate the structure and function of natural ecosystems to reduce both external inputs and waste. This entry focuses on the policies and practices needed for a transition toward circular food systems in rural and urban contexts.

Toward Virtuous Circular Systems The imperative is now for transformation rather than reforms that leave the basic structure of modern food systems unchanged. Whether the primary reason for this is ensuring the security of food supplies, increasing energy and fuel costs, reducing pesticide pollution and impacts on public health, bringing about large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions—or all of these—a fundamentally different approach is required. To date, national and international policymakers have largely ignored calls for a fundamental rethink, leaving many questions unanswered. For example, can the current systems of food production, processing, packaging, distribution, and retail achieve the required cuts in greenhouse gas emissions or will alternative systems need to be developed? How will global food systems—and the transport systems they depend on—be powered following the fossil fuel era? An alternative to the dominant linear model is to develop multifunctional and productive systems that reduce external inputs, pollution, and waste (as well as dependency and costs). It has been asserted that this can be best achieved by adopting a circular metabolism that reflects the natural world. There are two ecological design principles here. The first is that nature is based on nested and interacting cycles—for example, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and water. The second is that “waste” is converted into a useful form by natural processes and cycles, ensuring that waste from one species becomes food for other species in the ecosystem.

Circular Food Systems

233

resources, and they also encourage recycling and reuse of all resources. In the process, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste are minimized (Figure 1).

When these principles are applied to human needs, it is possible to design systems and human settlements that provide food, energy, and water through reintegrating food, energy, and water systems in locally embedded circular models. To date, most sustainable food, water, energy, and waste systems have been implemented in isolation. However, greater synergy is possible when ecological agriculture, local food systems, renewable energy systems, and sustainable water and waste management systems are all integrated from the outset and developed simultaneously within a circular economy model. Circular systems minimize the consumption of fossil fuels and other finite

Key Characteristics of Circular Systems Circular systems that imitate natural ecosystems can be designed for individual farm plots and beyond— from watersheds to entire cities. This is achieved through the use of functional biodiversity, integration of complementary processes, the ecological clustering of industries, recycling, and relocalized production and consumption. Circular systems vary

Compost

Methane

Fruit production Heated glasshouse

Compost

Market garden

Cooking

Fruit

Coppiced wood and bamboo

Biogas (anaerobic digester) Sustainable biofuel feedstocks

Compost toilet

Compost system

Sustainably harvested material for building, furniture, fire wood and utensils

Animal manure

Biofuels Food waste and crop residue

Feces and urine

Vegetables and herbs

Figure 1 A Composting and Biogas System to Provide Food, Household and Farm Energy Needs, Fertilizer for Crops and Trees, and Construction Materials Source: Jones, A., Pimbert, M., & Jiggins, J. (2012). Virtuous circles: Values, systems, sustainability (p. 73). London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Copyright 2011 by the authors. Reprinted with permission of the authors.

234

Circular Food Systems

enormously in terms of their structure, function, and physical scale as they are adapted to rural and urban contexts. However, they share the following characteristics that contribute to making them resilient, sustainable, and productive. The Proximity Principle and Appropriate Scale

Detailed life cycle analyses of food products such as orange juice, yogurt, and tomato ketchup have revealed the complex structure of modern food chains and highlighted how unsustainable they are. The example of tomato ketchup (Box 1) demonstrates the need for a fundamental shift to a circular economy model rather than improvements that remain locked into the dominant linear approach. In circular systems, farm and energy inputs are sourced locally and food products are distributed locally, with few intermediaries being involved. For example, in short food chains, the number of intermediaries is minimized, with the idea being direct contact between the producer and the consumer within the same limited geographical area. Typically, food is processed on the farm or in small nearby community processing units. There is also a significant switch from centralized, large-scale electricity generation to more decentralized small-scale

renewable energy systems. The system focus is on “doing more with less,” systematic recycling and reuse, the reintegration and relocalization of production processes, and synergies and complementarities between different parts of the system. The centralized and specialized global supply chains are replaced by resilient webs of diverse food and energy systems nested at different scales—from house clusters, municipal districts, whole cities, or peri-urban belts linked with nearby farmland and the wider countryside. All this improves food and energy security and reduces dependency on fossil fuels, food and energy imports, expensive farm inputs, fickle supermarket buyers, and price volatility on international commodity markets. The shift from linear to circular systems thus can generate multiple benefits and directly contribute to the regeneration of diverse local ecologies and economies (Box 2). Diversity, Multifunctionality, and Complexity

Reliance on functional diversity is a key organizing principle in circular food systems. For example, agroecological models of production combine a diversity of carefully chosen plant and animal species to maximize economic benefits and minimize risks, while ensuring a diverse food supply. Instead

Box 1 The Hidden History of Ketchup A bottle of tomato ketchup bought in a supermarket requires more than 150 processes and transport steps for its manufacture. Like the infrastructure needed for the production of most of our food products, it is dependent on fossil fuels, the industrial production of synthetic chemicals and gases, the manufacturing of plastics and polymers, mining and other extractive industries that are all highly capital intensive, dependent on heavy machinery, as well as profligate and wasteful in their use of energy and other nonrenewable resources. By contrast, a circular economy approach to producing tomato ketchup is more resource conserving and generates less pollution and waste. By growing tomatoes using agroecological methods, the use of both synthetic fertilizers and toxic chemical pesticides is avoided. Renewable energy systems—glasshouses and biogas—help extend the growing season and enhance crop yields in cooler climates. Spices are imported and sourced through fair trade. The tomato ketchup produced is packed in sterilized and recyclable glass bottles instead of disposable plastic bottles. This relocalization of production means that there are fewer steps involved in transport and the production of tomato ketchup. As a result, fewer resources are used while pollution and waste are reduced. The social and economic benefits include the creation of local jobs, more retention of wealth in the local economy, and a tomato ketchup product that is safer for the health of consumers and the environment.

Circular Food Systems

235

Box 2 Multiple Benefits of Circular Several case studies from Latin America show that the benefits of circular systems that integrate food and energy production with water and waste management can be significant. They include large reductions in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions as well as increased food, water, and energy security. Other benefits include the following: • Increased local employment that is meaningful, secure, and rewarding • Increased income from additional output and reduced input purchases • Energy, food, and water security—supplies that are reliable, safe, and low cost (or free) once systems have been established • Improvements in the local environment—less waste, water and air pollution, vermin, and disease • Reduction in or avoidance of the risks, dependency, and costs associated with high-external inputs/supplies—for food, fossil fuels (for energy, transport, and machinery), fertilizer (and other farm inputs), and other materials • Contribution toward the creation of strong, resilient, and self-reliant communities through the development of local food webs and alternative food networks that directly reconnect consumers and producers • Cooperative, just, and socially inclusive systems based on democratic decision making and greater citizen control in rural and urban settings

of relying on monocultures in which large areas are devoted to the production of a small number of (or perhaps a single) crops or livestock, agroecology harnesses biodiversity to develop multifunctional agricultures that mimic the structure and function of natural ecosystems: agroforestry, intercropping and polycultures, genetically diverse crops and livestock, and mixed farming combining trees, crops, livestock, and aquaculture at different scales—from home gardens to whole landscapes in rural and urban settings. Agroecological alternatives and their functional biodiversity integrate biological and ecological processes, such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration, and biological pest control, into food production processes. This helps minimize dependence on suppliers of external inputs and enhance the yields of biodiversity-rich agroecosystems. For example, a major study of 286 projects covering 37 million hectares in 57 countries found that, on average, crop yields increased by 79% in such complex agroecological systems.

United Kingdom, where 40% of food is thrown away, processing mixed food waste using circular principles is estimated to generate US$1.5 billion annually for local municipalities while producing biogas and returning nutrients to agricultural soils. Local Organizations

Local organizations sustain circular systems. Local organizations—individually and collectively—play a key role in the following: • The adaptive management of the ecosystems and natural resources that sustain circular systems that combine food and energy production with the recycling of water and waste • The coordination of people, knowledge, and work to produce goods and services in the economy of these multifunctional circular systems • The decentralized governance of circular systems, including decisions about access to food, energy, water, and other resources

Systematic Reuse and Recycling

Circular economy models aim to develop zero waste by reducing inputs of external resources and by reusing and recycling organic matter, sewage, animal manure, metals, glass, plastics, and other materials that are currently treated as waste. In the

Policies and Institutions for Circular Food Systems There is an increasing number of successful initiatives that combine food and energy production with water and waste management in circular

236

Circular Food Systems

economy models at different scales—in both rural and urban settings. However, they remain isolated examples; unsustainable industrial models are still the norm in many countries. The challenge now is to replicate sustainable circular systems on a much wider scale. For both citizens and progressive policymakers, two priorities stand out: (1) removing key obstacles that limit the spread of circular systems and (2) redirecting public investments for the spread of circular systems in rural and urban areas. Achieving these two aims in practice involves several proposed actions, ranging from strengthening local organizations to upholding citizen rights to participate in policy making. Strengthening Local Organizations

Throughout history, local organizations have been important in facilitating collective action and coordinated management of food systems and their environments at different spatial scales. Several organizations with different functions, powers, and responsibilities are usually needed to coordinate different activities within food systems and their wider environment. Such “nested organizations” operate at different scales and act in complementary ways. This web of polycentric and interacting organizations provides the institutional framework needed to manage dynamic complexity of food systems and the social and ecological spheres in which they are embedded. However, many communities and their organizations are no longer in charge of managing their local food systems, and importantly, they may not be “trusted” by state bureaucracies to be able to do so. As a result, communities and their local organizations may have become incapable of managing their environments and/or sharing management rights and responsibilities with others. Reestablishing and/or strengthening local organizations can help deliver more sustainable and cheaper solutions for farming and food processing, storage, and distribution as well as for decentralized energy production and the management of water and waste. A web of interacting local organizations can also provide the basis for decentralized

governance and autonomous systems that directly respond to citizens’ needs and priorities. Promoting Gender Equitable Rights

In the face of widespread land and water grabs as well as the privatization of seeds and other natural resources, alternative policies are needed to ensure equitable rights of access, use, and control over land, water, seeds, and other natural resources in rural and urban areas. Improved security of tenure plays a vital role in the spread of agroecological innovations, ecodesigns, and resilient circular economy models. Policymakers can implement policies that strengthen customary and locally appropriate tenure systems while, at the same time, removing components that are discriminatory against women. Policymakers can replace current investment policies that favor land grabs and displacement of local communities with policies that support equitable access, use, and local control over land and territories in both urban and rural contexts. Redistributing Public Goods

Agroecological practices, ecodesigns, and circular economy models require public goods such as appropriate rural and urban infrastructure, accessible credit, and support for training and capacity building. Funding is also required for the provision of local inputs (e.g., organic manure and composting units, seeds); local and community food-processing facilities (e.g., local abattoirs, solar dryers, storage and canning units); equipment for decentralized, distributed microgeneration of renewable energies (e.g., solar, wind, biogas); and water recycling and purification. An enabling policy environment can help ensure investments in these key public goods. At the same time, policy frameworks should enhance— rather than undermine—the individual and collective investments of farmers and citizens in rural and urban areas. Transforming Research

The development of circular systems that combine food and energy production with water and waste management requires radically different knowledge from that currently offered by public

Circular Food Systems

and private sector research and disciplinary-based university departments. Investments in research and development that currently favor energy- and resource-intensive systems could be redirected to support decentralized food, energy, water, and waste management systems based on circular economy models, agroecology, ecological design, biomimicry, socioecological resilience, and democratic control. Policies that support participatory research under citizen control and oversight as well as a network of decentralized demonstration and training centers that aim to strengthen local knowledge systems, organizations, and institutions are also important to enhance capacities for local innovation and their horizontal spread to more people and places. Support Trade and Market Rules That Strengthen Resilient Local Systems

Currently, locally produced food, energy, and clean water struggle to compete with imported subsidized products. To protect the local economy, strengthen self-managed cooperatives and local businesses, and provide incentives for local food and energy production in rural and urban areas, trade rules and supply management policies can be introduced. For example, feed-in tariffs and internal markets can encourage decentralized and distributed microgeneration of renewable energies. Similarly, the spread of resilient food systems depends on the following: (a) replacing proprietary technologies and patents on biodiversity with locally adapted legal frameworks that recognize farmers’ rights and guarantee equitable access to diverse seeds and livestock breeds; (b) replacing global, uniform standards for food and safety by a diversity of locally developed food standards that satisfy food and safety requirements; and (c) introducing local food, energy, and water procurement schemes. Penalize Financial Speculations and the Externalization of Costs

Fiscal measures such as tax incentives can encourage the shift to sustainable systems. Relatively small taxes on financial exchange market speculations

237

(e.g., Tobin tax and similar proposals)—and on other global money transactions—can be introduced through a multilateral agreement. It has been argued that this institutional innovation would more or less immediately provide significant amounts of funds for the development of circular systems needed for the regeneration of local ecologies and economies. Stricter measures would also internalize the environmental and social costs of current food, energy, and transport, and the resulting revenues could then be used to support sustainable initiatives. Large corporations involved in food, agriculture, energy, water, and waste management would be the main—but not exclusive—targets of these measures. Such policies would enhance equity and enable a shift to a sustainable low carbon economy. Upholding Citizen Rights to Participate in Policy Making

Governments have an obligation to support the fundamental human right of citizens to participate in shaping policies for the public good. More direct democracy and inclusive citizen engagement in framing food policies and regulations can be encouraged by strengthening civil society and local organizations, using methods for deliberative and inclusive processes to link local voices into national and international policy making, expanding information democracy and citizen-controlled media, nurturing active forms of citizenship, and learning from the rich history of direct democracy. But citizen participation is increasingly taking place in a context in which investors and transnational corporations rely on international arbitration to protect their rights as investors in the food system. Citizens, thus, need to secure legal redress against abuses of power. However, in many cases, legal redress may not be enough. History shows that these human rights need to be claimed through the agency and social mobilization of local communities and wider coalitions of citizens. In conclusion, given the threats of climate change, peak oil, water scarcity, rising unemployment, and food insecurity, a shift toward sustainable circular

238

Climate Change

systems can provide the material basis for local food sovereignty in rural and urban contexts. Michel Pimbert See also Food Sovereignty; Food Sovereignty, Policy and Regulation; Permaculture

Further Readings Altieri, M. A., Funes-Monzote, F. R., & Petersen, P. (2012). Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: Contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32, 1–13. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy. Cowes, UK: Author. Girardet, H. (1996). The Gaia atlas of cities: New directions for sustainable urban living. London, UK: Gaia Books. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. (2008). International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Washington, DC: Island Press. Jones, A., Pimbert, M., & Jiggins, J. (2012). Virtuous circles: Values, systems, sustainability. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development. Pimbert, M. P. (2009). Towards food sovereignty. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development. Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.org/ pdfs/14585IIED.pdf

CLASS ACTIONS See Litigation Concerning Food Issues

CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change refers to sustained variations in the Earth’s climate. These changes are credited to both anthropogenic and natural origins. These natural drivers include internal forcing mechanisms such as albedo (measurement of light reflection by the Earth from the sun), volcanism, ocean

circulation, and atmospheric composition. They also include external forcing mechanisms such as the distance of the Earth from the sun, orbital variations, solar energy, sunspots, and oscillation of the Earth. Human drivers of climate change include the burning of fossil fuels, pollution from power plants, intensive agriculture, deforestation, desertification, livestock management, and overfishing. Of these human-caused warming effects, 31% are likely due to the global production and distribution of food (Lappé, 2010, p. xv). Although the Earth’s biosphere has faced natural evolution since the beginning of time, the anthropogenic life history of climate change is relatively new. While weather and climate conditions may be similar across a region, the resources and capability needed to adjust in the face of such a threat is not equally distributed. Climate changes maybe the most consistent threat to global food stability in this century. Climate change and food security are directly linked and have the potential to affect lives across the globe. The developing world tends to rely on past experiences and use their own resources, acting autonomously against climate change, while more developed areas have the power to introduce new mitigation and adaptation strategies such as shifting locations and even what to grow. As developing and developed countries choose different policies, the disparities in outcomes can only grow. Food production is very sensitive to weather and the climate. Food security and productivity levels are dependent on specific climate conditions. Changing climatic conditions have lasting impacts on crops, livestock, and fisheries, all of which provide food. Because of the sensitivity of agriculture to variable climate conditions, it is highly vulnerable to the risks and impact of climate change. Crop yields depend on average temperature, average rainfall, and other climatic information that is highly erratic and unpredictable as the climate changes. This entry considers the relationship between the Earth’s changing climate and the human production and consumption of food. It examines the causes and consequences of climate change, the

Climate Change

reciprocal impacts between climate change and the food system, and food security. It also provides a few examples of how climate change informs food systems.

Causes and Implications for the Food System Recent shifts in how food is produced, packaged, distributed, and consumed are often overlooked as being pivotal drivers in observed climatic changes. Of the total greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans (76%), the release of up to 30% of the most powerful greenhouse gases may be traced to the global food chain (Lappé, 2010). The two most powerful greenhouse gases, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO3), and the most prevalent greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), have very direct associations to our global food supplies and global food chains, mainly through the production of livestock.

Contributions From the Food and Agricultural Sectors Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Large-scale industrial farms that raise livestock, or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), provide cost-effective, highly productive, and efficient yields of meat products, dairy products, and eggs. However, they contribute 18% of yearly global greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States alone, CAFOs release 7% of greenhouse gas emissions (Hribar, 2010, p. 7). Specifically, CAFOs release large quantities of CH4 and NO3, which are respectively 23 times and 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2), another prevalent greenhouse gas that accounts for 76.7% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases are found in high quantities from an overabundance of manure, inefficient manure management systems, and enteric fermentation that occurs as part of the natural digestive process for ruminant animals. Excess manure and its associated contaminants pollute groundwater and surface water and affect ambient air quality. Large quantities of manure

239

decompose anaerobically, confounding CH4 and NO3 production. This organic matter is treated and stored in large pools, pits, or lagoons, which slow down the decomposition process. Ruminants, such as cows and sheep, also add to greenhouse gases found in the atmosphere by consuming and digesting food. Ruminate animals have four stomach chambers, known as the rumen. The rumen breaks down fibrous materials that are otherwise indigestible by a process called enteric fermentation. The total gases produced are proportionate to the quality of feed being consumed. Livestock raised in CAFOs are increasingly fed diets composed of corn and grains, which are nutritionally less beneficial and generate higher quantities of greenhouses gases than a natural grass-based diet. Food Packaging, Distribution, Consumption, and Waste

Greenhouse gas production can also be traced to food production, processing, packaging, distribution systems, consumption, and waste. Plastic bottles, plastic bags, and to-go food packaging are intended for onetime use and then deposited into landfills. Energy and fossil fuels are used to produce these packaging materials, in the process of packaging the food items, and, finally, in distribution and disposal of packaged food items. For example, bottled water consumption, which is perceived to be healthier, cleaner, and more convenient than tap water or carbonated beverages, continues to rise. Bottling water began in the 1970s, before climate change was recognized as having any human roots. Energy is supplied by petroleum, natural gas, and electricity to make polyethylene terephthalate or polycarbonate for plastic bottles. These materials take further energy input to craft into containers to fill with water. Extracting these energy sources and transporting them emit greenhouse gases. Energy is also expended during the processing process. Water, once harvested from municipal sites, springs, or groundwater, can be further treated, purified, filtrated, or deionized depending on its source. Once water is bottled and ready to be sold, it must

240

Climate Change

be distributed. Distribution systems burning fossil fuels account for most of human CO2 contribution of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas emissions are also generated by local and long-distance distribution chains that bring products to consumers. Although these gases are primarily generated during the production of food, food miles also figure into this equation. “Food miles” refers to the distance traveled from producer to consumer to deliver food. Advocates of urban agriculture and local food movements suggest that decreasing miles driven from producer to consumer reduces greenhouse gas emissions and reduces or internalizes many of the costs associated with largescale food production. Supporters of industrial and conventional agriculture suggest that energy consumption needed to transport food long distances may be less per unit than local food distribution. When analyzed in isolation and externalizing environmental costs, industrial food distribution is energy efficient but poses many risks to the environment that farmers depend on to grow food. Last, the way that waste from packaged or uneaten food products is managed on both a personal and an industrial level contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. High concentrations of CH4 are found in landfills due to concentrations of decomposing food and garbage slowed by lack of oxygen. Approximately 40% of the global food supply, which totals at roughly 55 million tons of food every year, is wasted (Gunders, 2012, p. 4). This overflow could feed many people who do not have access to enough food and reduce methane production within landfills, as well. This surplus primarily ends up in landfills producing and trapping greenhouse gases, around 1.5% of total global emissions and 12.5% of municipal solid waste in the United States. Reduction or prevention of waste and the proper use of food packaging is one way to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Contributions to the Food and Agricultural Sectors Conversely, a changing climate also has an enormous impact on food systems, food access, and natural resources. As well, shifting crop and

livestock yields bring economic consequences for producers and consumers. Climate and weather conditions are the principal determinants of the world’s food supply. Climate change is a constant factor that influences the way we feed ourselves. The year 2012 presented record high global temperatures causing climatic conditions to which farmers had to adapt. Climate change predicts erratic rainfall, increased rainfall causing flooding, or periods of drought in many regions of the world. Food crops are sensitive to these conditions along with rising concentrations of CO2, any of which could wipe out an entire crop for the year or season. Researchers have kept in mind agricultural trends, changes in human consumption, regional nuances, seasonal factors, and reproduction when addressing climate change. Farmers are constantly adjusting to altered conditions in the growing season, pest control, and the elements within their microclimates. Climate change is expected to affect the lengths of seasons, growing zones for farmers, rates of rain and snowfall, changing patterns of fish and wildlife, livestock production, continued rising temperatures, and crop production. However, these changes are erratic and difficult to predict and therefore challenging to mitigate. For example, corn and soybean crops, which are primarily grown to feed livestock on factory farms, and which constitute roughly 50% of the world’s corn and 90% of the world’s soy, have already experienced decreased yields due to delayed growing seasons. These yields are predicted to continue to shrink. Researchers estimate that an economic loss of $220 million dollars from decreased yields to China’s corn and soybean production in 2009 is due to climate change (Chen, Chen, & Xu, 2013). CO2 concentrations are one determining factor that drives the length of seasons. Consistent growing seasons aid farmers in discerning optimal times to plant crops and determine how much time plants will have to mature in order to produce the most food. Changes in agricultural productivity determine the ability of an ecosystem to sequester CO2. Carbon sequestration refers to the capture and underground storage of CO2 from within the atmosphere. Uncurbed CO2 adds to the gases

Climate Change

warming the planet, while storing CO2 reduces the emissions present in the atmosphere and some of the risks of crop failure due to higher temperatures. Higher temperatures contribute to changing crop production areas for growers. The USDA Hardiness Zone Map depicts a visual representation of average extreme annual temperatures. Zone boundaries have shifted considerably in the past 20 years. Temperature changes are reflected in the zone boundary changes. These growing zone changes can mean that a farmer’s main crop is no longer suitable to grow in the region, and a new crop must be selected that fits the new growing conditions. The zone in which food crops are grown determines what plants are best suited for growing in a particular region. Also, increased temperatures decrease plant resiliency, making them more vulnerable to drought, unwanted pests, and diseases that become more prevalent as the climate changes. Additionally, climate change influences precipitation and hydrological patterns. Rain and snowfall distribution and quantities can either support or diminish growing capacities. Some regions are at risk for either too much or too little water. Warmer temperatures can result in what would typically be melting snow, falling as rain. Changes in distribution can result in either drought or flood. For example, the 2011 drought in Somalia killed nearly 260,000 people because of food shortages and threatened the food security and livelihoods of many others across the horn of Africa (UN News Centre, 2013). Scientists believe that decreased and erratic rainfall is attributed to climate change. In the case of drought or insufficient rainfall, water can sometimes be pumped in from other places to prevent plants from damage or drying up. Climate change also affects agricultural pests and diseases. As changing ecosystems respond to changes in temperature and precipitation, new combinations of pests may surface or retreat at different times during the growing season. Weather extremes intensify pest problems by disturbing the stable relationships between predator and prey and between flora and fauna. Farmers often

241

respond by increasing the use of pesticides. For example, Colorado’s drought in 2012 invited a grasshopper infestation that destroyed many farmers’ corn crops. Farmers saw grasshoppers eating their crop and water shortages drying them out. Climate change may also cause flowers to bloom before honeybees are ready to feed on their nectar. This could affect the productivity of flowering plants such as tomatoes and watermelon. It can also hinder honey production. Fifteen billion dollars of the crop industry and 30% of crops worldwide owe their success to the survival and timely arrival of honeybees (http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/ animals/files/bees.pdf). Examples

In many tribal communities, for example, in the Columbia River Basin, people are experiencing a changing relationship with salmon, a traditional food source, which is related in part to changing climates (Hanna, 2007). Climate change then also represents and exemplifies a major threat to food sources, tribal treaty rights, and tribal livelihoods. By directly affecting the ecosystems that salmon depend on to survive and breed in, climate change affects the number of surviving and returning salmon to the Columbia River and its tributaries each year. Climate change is a major driving force in the sharp decline of salmon populations and transformation of water systems in which they live. As the temperature of the air changes, so does the temperature of the river. If temperature is presented as a barrier for migration and reproduction, salmon populations may either find alternate locations to spawn or not survive. The temperature of the water is vital to salmon reproduction. Increased global air and water temperatures create serious risk to the incubation of salmon eggs. Because salmon are born in freshwater such as the Columbia River Basin, the temperature of the water determines when eggs hatch and if they hatch. If the temperatures continue to rise, salmon may no longer be able to migrate to these waters, and therefore, reproduction could cease. The water level within this watershed has direct consequences to salmon survival rates and, in turn, food security.

242

Climate Change

Farmers in Suid Bokkeveld, southern Africa, are also highly vulnerable to the reaches of climate change (Archer, Oettlé, Louw, & Tadross, 2008). Climate change threatens the livelihoods of small livestock (sheep and goat) and Rooibos farmers who are already adapting to climate variability. Because resource bases in this region are already poor and food security is already challenged, farmers in this region are projected to continue to experience dramatic climate change in the future. The Rooibos bush is endemic to the region of Suid Bokkeveld. While this plant provides many farmers with a livelihood, a changing climate may erase this option. Increasingly, but most notable during a severe drought in 2003, farmers experience water shortages, decrease in harvestable plants, inability to work in the land, and increase in pest infestation. When livestock has less available water and less quality plant material for forage to survive, mortality rates increase. Farmers are increasing resiliency and decreasing vulnerability to climate change by conserving biodiversity of plants, many of which are endemic to the region such as Rooibos. They are also conserving soil and water and employing sustainable growing and harvesting practices. Korea’s national food, the fermented side dish known as kimchi, is also affected by climate change. On average, Koreans consume about 40 pounds of kimchi a year. Kimchi began as a way to preserve vegetables through the long winter months. Presently, Koreans are making much less kimchi at home than ever before (Xaykaothao, 2010). Weather conditions that have brought about an increase in the price of cabbage have contributed to less kimchi consumption and less homemade preparations. Adverse weather conditions have contributed to cabbage shortages, which by law of supply and demand naturally increases the price. Middle- and lower-class families cannot as easily afford to buy their own cabbage and partake in the family tradition of fermenting cabbage. It has become more expensive to make and preserve kimchi, and many families and households are turning to store-bought premade kimchi. Unfavorable weather conditions and rising

temperatures have driven markets to sell Napa cabbage—the primary ingredient in most kimchi dishes—at higher prices than ever before; 2010 weather challenges pushed the price of a typical cabbage from less than $4 each to between $10 and $14 a head. catherine a. zagare See also Cattle Industry; Deforestation for Agriculture; Food Miles; Food Sovereignty; Global Warming and Future Food Supply; International Food Security; Kyoto Protocol; Manure Lagoons/Methane; Sustainable Agrifood Systems, Effect on Environment

Further Readings Adams, R. M., Hurd, B. H., Lenhart, S., & Leary, N. (1998, December 17). Effects of global climate change on agriculture: An interpretive review. Climate Research, 11(1), 19–30. Archer, E., Oettlé, N. M., Louw, R., & Tadross, M. A. (2008). “Farming on the Edge” in arid Western South Africa: Climate change and agriculture in marginal environments. Geography, 93, 98–107. Chen, S., Chen, X., & Xu, J. (2013, August 4–6). Impacts of climate change on corn and soybean yields in China. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Washington, DC. Gleick, P. H., & Cooley, H. S. (2009). Energy implications of bottled water. Environmental Research Letters. Retrieved from http://www.container-recycling.org/ assets/pdfs/2009-BottledWaterEnergy.pdf Gunders, D. (2012). Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill (Natural Resources Defense Council, IP:12-06-B). Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/ wasted-food-ip.pdf Hanna, J. M. (2007, September 19). Native communities and climate change: Protecting tribal resources as part of national climate policy. Boulder: University of Colorado Law School, Natural Resources Law Center. Retrieved from https://adapt.nd.edu/resources/696/ download/07_RR_Hanna.pdf Hribar, C. (2010). Understanding concentrated animal feeding operations and their impact on communities. Bowling Green, OH: National Association of Local

Codex Alimentarius Boards of Health. Retrieved from http://www.cdc .gov/nceh/ehs/Docs/Understanding_CAFOs_NALBOH .pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_ syr.pdf Lappé, A. (2010). Diet for a hot planet. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Nicholson, S. E. (2012, April 30). Long-term changes in African rainfall. Weather, 44(2), 46–56. UN News Centre. (2013, May 2). Somalia famine killed nearly 260,000 people, half of them children—reports UN. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/apps/news/ story.asp?NewsID=44811#.VCDE6PldUmM U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Reducing food waste for businesses. Retrieved from http://www .epa.gov/wastes/conserve/foodwaste/ Walthall, C. L. J., Hatfield, P., Backlund, L., Lengnick, E., Marshall, M., Walsh, S., . . . Ziska, L. H. (2012). Climate change and agriculture in the United States: Effects and adaptation (USDA Technical Bulletin 1935). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Xaykaothao, D. (2010, October 6). Kimchi lovers in a pickle over cabbage prices [Interview]. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId =130370365

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS The Codex Alimentarius is a large collection of internationally recognized food standards and guidelines. These standards are devised and administered through the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and associated committees. This entry examines the evolution of the Codex, how the Codex works, and the standard-setting process. The CAC is an intergovernmental organization jointly administered by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Member governments of the CAC negotiate and agree on international food standards. According to Article 1 of the

243

Statutes of the Codex (CAC, 2010), the CAC is responsible for matters pertaining to the implementation of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme and aims to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade; promote coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and nongovernmental organizations; determine priorities and initiate and guide the preparation of draft standards through and with the aid of appropriate organizations; finalize standards elaborated and publish them in a Codex Alimentarius either as regional or worldwide standards, together with international standards already finalized by other bodies, wherever this is practicable; and amend published standards, as appropriate, in light of developments. With the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994, international agreements came into force with consequences for the CAC. The finalization of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) conferred a new status on the standards agreed in the Codex by linking them to the international trading system. The standards agreed in the Codex are not mandatory; they do not provide a substitute or alternative to national legislation. However, as Codex standards are now located within the international trade system, there is an expectation that member governments of the WTO will use the standards agreed in the Codex as a basis for national food laws. As a result, the standard-setting process within the Codex involves political, legal, economic, scientific, and public health considerations.

Evolution of the Codex The origins of the Codex are found outside of the UN system, with the formation of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus in 1958. According to Randell (1995), the CAC emerged from this European grouping that sought to establish an international food code. The notion of a European organization devoted to the production of food standards attracted

244

Codex Alimentarius

attention from nonmembers, notably the United States. In response, in 1962, the intergovernmental CAC was created as a joint agency of the FAO/ WHO. Twenty-seven member governments participated in the first session of the commission in 1963. As of 2013, the CAC comprises 186 members (governments) and 217 observers (internationally organized interest groups who participate in the process). The CAC began to undergo institutional change during the late 1980s. Before the SPS and TBT agreements were finalized in 1994, work was taking place to reconfigure the Codex in order to address the demands of integration into the trade system. In March 1991, the FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Food and Food Trade was held in cooperation with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The main outcomes of this conference were proposals to reduce the detail contained in many Codex standards, to review the scientific basis of Codex standards (given the need under the proposed General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade agreements for countries deviating from Codex standards to provide scientific evidence for doing so), to make more explicit the methods used for risk assessment in standard setting, and to increase the participation of developing countries in the CAC (McNally, 1991). While the TBT and SPS agreements came into force from January 1, 1995, the effects of the run-up to the Uruguay Round were felt from 1991 onward. In the CAC, disputes between European

Union member states and the Quad or Cairns Group (comprising the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) were occurring. As Jukes (2000) notes, tensions over the use of hormones in cattle for beef and milk production were intensified in the CAC during the early 1990s.

How the CAC Works The standard-setting work of the CAC takes place on the basis of organizational structure, the risk analysis framework, the procedure for elaborating standards, and the facilitation of consensus. Organizational Structure

Figure 1 sets out the basic organizational structure of the CAC. At the top of this organizational hierarchy sits the CAC, which operates as the highest level meeting of the organization. In the CAC, matters from all other Codex committees are addressed, final Codex standards are adopted, and wider organizational issues are discussed. The CAC meets annually, the venue alternating between FAO and WHO headquarters. Agenda items are agreed in advance, and a significant amount of time is spent adopting Codex standards, which have been agreed in draft form in other Codex committees. In this way, the CAC acts as the final place for discussion before Codex standards are adopted, although revisiting

Codex Alimentarius Commission

Executive Committee

General Subject Committees

Figure 1

Commodity Committees

Codex Secretariat

Ad-hoc Task Forces

Regional Coordinating Committees

Organizational Structure

Source: Lee, R. P. (2009). Agri-food governance and expertise: The production of international food standards. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(4), 415–431. © 2009 Richard Lee/European Society for Rural Sociology. Used with permission.

Codex Alimentarius

debates that have taken place in previous committees is discouraged. The operation of the meeting is steered by the chairperson and vice chairs (elected by CAC member governments on a regional basis). In addition, the CAC secretariat fulfills a vital role in the functioning of any meeting through the preparation of documents. In particular, the CAC secretary is seated alongside the chairperson and, with assistance from other members of the secretariat, advises the chair and makes interventions in the meeting. The secretariat provides an institutional memory and is adept at recalling the origins of contemporary discussions in Codex sessions and in ensuring that the discussion falls within the prescriptions of the Codex “Rules of Procedure.” Risk Analysis Framework

The procedures of the CAC address—among other considerations—the working principles for risk analysis. The working principles for risk analysis are of particular importance to the standard-setting process, as they provide a framework for the relationship between scientific advice and the agreement of a Codex standard. The risk analysis framework is formally divided between risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. A fourth element, risk assessment policy, has more recently been incorporated within risk management. The following definitions of these terms are applied within the Codex: Risk Assessment: A scientifically based process consisting of the following steps: (i) hazard identification, (ii) hazard characterization, (iii) exposure assessment, and (iv) risk characterization. Risk Management: The process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy alternatives, in consultation with all interested parties, considering risk assessment and other factors relevant for the health protection of consumers and for the promotion of fair-trade practices, and, if needed, selecting appropriate prevention and control options. Risk Communication: The interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk

245

analysis process concerning risk, risk-related factors and risk perceptions, among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the academic community and other interested parties, including the explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk management decisions. Risk Assessment Policy: Documented guidelines on the choice of options and associated judgements for their application at appropriate decision points in the risk assessment such that the scientific integrity of the process is maintained. (CAC, 2010)

Procedure for Elaborating Standards

While the risk analysis framework provides a basis for the relationship between scientific advice and standard setting, a procedure also exists for the elaboration of Codex standards, termed the Uniform Procedure for Standards Elaboration (hereafter the uniform procedure). Following the uniform procedure, Codex standards are advanced from a proposed draft standard initiated by the secretariat, through to draft versions subject to comment and discussion by member governments and observer groups, and finally to an adopted standard in the CAC. The procedure comprises eight steps. At Step 1, a decision is taken in the commission or subsidiary committee to undertake work on a standard in response to a Codex Executive Committee critical review. Once agreed, Step 2 requires the production of an initial draft standard. At Step 3, this initial draft standard is subject to comments by member governments and observer groups. The comments are considered in the relevant committee at Step 4 and amendments made to the standard as agreed. The amended standard can be sent to the Codex Executive Committee at Step 5 with a view to adoption (in particular, if following the accelerated procedure). If further discussion is needed, the secretariat returns the draft standard for further discussion at Step 6. At Step 7, further amendments to the draft standard can be made. Finally, when Step 8 is reached, the draft standard is sent through to the Codex Commission for adoption. It is possible, following this procedure, for the draft standard to

246

Codex Alimentarius Commission

circulate between committees, if further discussion is required. For instance, a standard may move between Step 6 and Step 7. Facilitation of Consensus

So far, three important elements of the CAC have been discussed: (1) the hierarchical organization of committees, (2) the risk analysis framework, and (3) the uniform procedure for elaborating standards. The agreement of a Codex standard is guided by all of these elements but is brought to a conclusion by the establishment of consensus over the form of the draft standard. Consensus is not strictly defined in the Codex; facilitating consensus is a responsibility of the relevant committee chairperson. The successful facilitation of consensus should negate the use of voting to agree or reject a Codex standard (though this can happen). Overall, the establishment of consensus is promoted not only by the actions of the chairperson but also by the procedures described above. There is a strong impetus to formulate an agreement over the final draft of a Codex standard.

Contention in the Codex: The Case of Dietary Fiber In the Codex standard-setting process, consensus over scientific knowledge is not always straightforward, though many technical discussions are completed with little argument. A number of issues have proved to be contentious, however, and often, this contention is confined to specialist groups of experts. One issue that fits this “lowprofile” form of contention (as opposed to, say, high-profile contention over genetically modified food) is the process of defining dietary fiber through the standard-setting process of Codex. The case of dietary fiber has been discussed in greater length elsewhere (Lee, 2012). In terms of Codex procedure, expert advice on the appropriate definition of dietary fiber came into conflict. At a crucial point in the evolution of the standard referring to a definition of dietary fiber, FAO/WHO expert advice proposed a somewhat different definition from the one that had been developed

through the Codex procedure. Furthermore, possible definitions of dietary fiber were linked to methods of analyzing food for fiber content. These debates over defining dietary fiber were longstanding but posed particular difficulties for the Codex standard-setting process. Eventually, agreement was reached on a definition, but this definition contained a number of clauses that required further scientific evidence to be produced and also allowed national governments to retain some competency. In this way, the CAC could complete its standard-setting mandate. Richard Philip Lee See also World Trade Organization

Further Readings Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2010). Procedural manual (19th ed.). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization. Jukes, D. (2000). The role of science in international food standards. Food Control, 11, 181–194. Lee, R. P. (2009). Agri-food governance and expertise: The production of international food standards. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(4), 415–431. Lee, R. P. (2012). Knowledge claims and the governance of agri-food innovation. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(1), 79–91. McNally, H. (1991). FAO/WHO conference on food standards, chemical in food and food trade. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/U5900t/u5900t09 .htm#faowho%20conference%20on%20food%20 standards,%20chemicals%20in%20food%20and%20 food%20trade Randell, A. (1995). Codex alimentarius: How it all began. In J. L. Albert (Ed.), Food, nutrition and agriculture. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ docrep/V7700T/v7700t09.htm#codex alimentarius: how it all began

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has created and promulgated a regulatory scheme that

Codex Alimentarius Commission

guides the food-related operations of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO). This body of food standards, as well as the related regulations and procedures, forms the Codex Alimentarius (Food Law). The two organizations, the FAO and the WHO, instituted the commission in 1963. The Codex is an attempt to codify food standards that can apply universally in developed nations as well as in developing ones. It must also take cultural, religious, and other practices into consideration. This entry describes the activities of the CAC. It begins with a discussion of the purposes of the Codex. The Codex states three guiding purposes for its existence. Its first purpose is to provide for and protect the health and safety of those who benefit from its programs. The second purpose is to promote and support the principles of fair trade for those who produce agricultural and other food products and those who consume them. The third purpose is to promote efficiency by coordinating the work of governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operating with the commission, to eliminate duplication, and to encourage open communication. The subject matters that are covered by the Codex include basic hygienic growth and handling of raw foods, the proper handling of foods during transportation and distribution, and ensuring that procedures are followed as food crosses country boundaries so that there is compliance with importing and exporting laws. As these matters are always changing, the Codex is in review at all times. For example, matters such as the giving of hormone supplements to animals may affect qualification for importation. Standards are written into the Codex. As agreement on various supplements and practices is reached, those matters are adopted by the commission and become part of the Codex. The commission has implemented its programs mostly in those countries where matters of hygiene and the contamination of food during growth and transport are high. The methods and standards are provided in an objective and not culturally judgmental manner so that they can be applicable as broadly as possible. There is an attempt to make

247

the procedures straightforward that can be easily applied by aid workers and other participants who work directly with farmers and those transporting food. The guidelines and procedures also protect those who are receiving aid from being sent contaminated, tainted, or otherwise unhygienic and unhealthy foods. Where necessary, the procedures address handling food, considering access to technology, clean water, and cultural practices. Two important areas of emphasis in the Codex are food security and the problems of diseasecausing organisms carried by food, such as Escherichia coli. These two issues are those that affect the very young and thus are most important to the future of those nations where food security and foodborne illnesses are particular problems. Working with the procedures set out in the Codex, the FAO and the WHO are able to work with all of the people in the food chain—the agricultural workers, the transporters, the sellers, the buyers, and the governmental and NGO workers—in order to ensure that minimum standards can be maintained. The FAO and the WHO, through the CAC, work to ensure that all 183 members are appropriately represented and that all nations, including those still developing nations, have a voice in setting standards and developing procedures adopted by the CAC. It is true that not all nations have participated in creating the Codex, especially the developing nations. Ironically, it is those nations where the Codex is most basically directed and where the standards may be most applicable. In 2003, to address some of the inequities in representation, often caused by a lack of adequate funding, the FAO and the WHO created the Codex Trust Fund. The fund raises money so that those nations that desire to participate in the setting of standards and other CAC functions may access the funds to support attendance at meetings. All of the FAO/WHO projects, including aid projects, are required to apply the standards set out in the Codex. Additionally, those foodstuffs imported and exported as a part of a project must also comply with the standards. The standards ensure that the food that is available through FAO and WHO projects is not contaminated with either

248

Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops

pesticides or improper drugging of animals and is not substandard. It keeps a country from getting rid of substandard food by passing it off to another nation. The standards requirement also makes countries with less rigorous requirements raise their standards, thus making them better able to export their products in the future. The Codex not only sets minimum standards of safety but also provides for a protocol and a program of inspection to ensure safety. Thus, foods from nations with excess production are inspected for compliance with standards even when the food is provided as aid in case of disaster, drought or other emergency condition, war, or other reason. Certification ensures food safety and security. Inspection and certification affects subject areas such as labeling (this includes ingredients, stabilizers and preservatives, and nutrition labeling), pesticide and herbicide levels, expiration dates or other freshness issues, chemicals used in raising animals, and other food safety issues. The Codex also provides information on HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) and other food handling techniques. The Codex also includes information about minimum nutritional standards such as minimum levels of vitamins, minerals, and calories. The Codex Alimentarius is considered the standard for the resolution of legal matters and disputes between nations as a part of international law and in resolving consumer protection disputes. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has declared that the Codex is the standard in food safety based on the Agreement of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade adopted in 1995. The adoption of the Codex by the WTO does not please every nation. The Codex has not been adopted by every nation, and some nonadopting nations object to the application of the Codex by the WTO. They claim that the use of the standards set by the Codex as a universal standard when it has not been adopted by every nation is a violation of due process of the nonadopting nations. The use of the Codex does not preclude the application of additional standards.

Some nations have objected to the inclusion of what it considers non–food safety matters in the Codex by the CAC. Most of these objections are political and reflect things important in nations that actively participate in the CAC. Some Americans have been concerned that the Codex might be adopted as a standard in the United States. Some interest groups consider the standards of the Codex to be very biased in favor of agribusiness. The official languages of the Codex are English, French, Chinese, Arabic, and Spanish. Elizabeth Williams See also Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); World Trade Organization

Further Readings Masson-Matthee, M. D. (2007). The Codex Alimentarius Commission and its standards. The Hague, Netherlands: T. M. C. Asser Press.

Website Codex Alimentarius Commission: http://www.codex alimentarius.org/

COFFEEHOUSES

AND

COFFEE SHOPS

The coffeehouse, cafe, and coffee shop all serve the public a commodity, but they are also physical spaces that serve to structure the social order by governing behaviors, values, and ideas. Within a given culture or society, coffeehouses are places to meet in order to discuss new ideas regarding politics, often outside the dominant culture, as well as attitudes toward class and community. Coffee, as a commodity and a drug, has been interpreted differently than other beverages, as were the places in which it has been consumed. As the coffee bean and the coffeehouse became globalized, people have given varying meanings to the establishments, according to place, time, and need. This

Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops

entry examines coffeehouses as an institution and the meaning of coffee drinking in various cultures.

Historical Developments Islamic Culture and the Birth of the Coffeehouse

By the16th century, coffee had spread from Yemen to Hijaˉz and Egypt. While coffee had been a social drink in Yemen, it was consumed as a ritual of brotherhood at the start of the dhikr, an Islamic act of devotion, among the Sufi. By the time it migrated North, it had become the center of a new institution, the coffeehouse. In 1511, in Mecca, account by Khaˉ’ir Beg alludes that coffee was consumed in places similar to taverns. Unlike taverns, however, the coffeehouses did not serve wine, a beverage expressly prohibited by Islamic law, and thus, the new institution became a meeting place, without negative social connotations, where people from all levels of society congregated. Coffee was available from three types of shops: (1) takeaway stalls, (2) coffee shops, and (3) coffeehouses. Takeaway stalls were located in the marketplace, or at times, there were mobile sellers who hung trays from their bodies. Coffee shops, small and local, had places to sit and drink coffee and listen to storytellers. Most elaborate were the coffeehouses, luxurious spaces in which to spend time. By the end of the 16th century, a Turk, traveling to Cairo, noted that there were coffeehouses at every step, frequented by pious men, who consume coffee before going to worship, which strengthens them for their prayer. On the other end, he noted, the coffeehouses were also filled with dissolute persons and opium eaters (Hattox, 1985). The physiological changes experienced from the caffeine in coffee—rapid heartbeat, staving off tiredness, loquaciousness—were viewed as culturally positive for mystical Sufis, who used coffee to achieve a state of euphoria, as well as negatively by a culture that traditionally emphasized taciturnity and moderation. Some men were also seen as slothful in that they appeared to do nothing but sit and waste the day away in the coffeehouse.

249

As an institution, the coffeehouse overlapped with preexisting institutions that fell along a sliding scale of acceptability: from the mosque, the bathhouse, the bozahane (a place where boza, a slightly fermented, thick grain beverage was served), to the tavern (bad—drinking wine). But it changed the structure of society in extending a formerly private sense of hospitality rooted in the home into broader public communities. Very early on, coffee consumption changed the cultural geography and social interaction of people in the Islamic world. By 1475, in Istanbul, Turkey, the kahvehane was a male-dominated institution, ruled in particular by the respected elders of the community, where younger men would go to gain favor and access to inner circles. Depending on the political climate, kahvehane were occasionally closed down by the authorities for fear of sedition. Over the centuries, the traditional Turkish coffeehouse faced competition from coffeehouses modeled on their European counterpart, offering breaks from the traditional hierarchy and replacing the thick, muddy Turkish coffee with European brews and, by the 20th century, espresso machines. Europe, America, and the Enlightenment

Venice claims the first coffeehouse, in 1615, followed by Vienna, when the Ottomans attempted to take the city in 1683. When the Turks retreated, an Austrian soldier who was versed in the culture of the East saw the coffee beans, purchased them, and opened the first coffeehouse in Vienna, The Blue Bottle. From the beginning, European coffeehouses were tied to both the Enlightenment and education. As institutions, they were nicknamed “penny universities” because, for the price of 1 penny, the client would receive a cup of coffee, have access to newspapers, and have access to all of the other clients at the coffeehouse, men from all stations in life, to conduct business and hear and read the news. Often located in university towns—the Café Procope in Paris and the Queen’s Lane Coffeehouse in Oxford—they became spaces whereby men

250

Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops

socialized as they discussed Enlightenment ideas and ideals, practiced the art of “rational thinking,” and ultimately shaped public opinion in a volatile age of intellectual shifts. In the West, this connection between coffeehouses and politics was well-known and worrisome to those in power, and more than one European monarch closed down coffeehouses as sites of sedition. Charles II of England, in 1675, enacted just such a short-lived effort, lifting a ban a mere 16 days later, out of fear of economic repercussions. Frederick the Great of Prussia only allowed establishments with licenses to serve coffee, and he also supported the circulation of broadsheets that declared the potential for impotence among those who consumed the beverage. Indeed, Frederick was personally concerned that excessive consumption of coffee would render his soldiers ineffective during times of war. By the last two decades of the 17th century, however, the East India Company and the Dutch East India Company grew their businesses by importing vast amounts of coffee to Europe, illustrating widespread demand. Coffeehouses were also important in that they were one of the first institutions where non-European commodities were consumed. They became physical spaces and tangible objects that, through grotesque realism, meaning the physical body— based on physical location and the very process of drinking coffee—embodied transformational processes, illustrating on a material level the lofty, theoretical ideas of Locke, Smith, and Rousseau. What this meant was that coffee became tied symbolically to ideas of political liberalism and freemarket capitalism, and those who drank it were seen as imbued with the moral traits of virtue and respectability, as opposed to those who spent their time in the taverns and drank alcohol to excess. The connection between coffee, politics, and economics also resonated in the English colonies in North America. There, the revolutionary colonists met in secret to discuss plans and their vision for a new democratic republic. En masse, the colonists largely rejected the tea that was so closely associated to oppressive British political power. In turning

to coffee drinking by the end of the 18th century (and one could argue that the Boston Tea Party of 1773 marked this decisive turning point), Americans would ultimately become the largest consumers of coffee in the world. Espresso, Speed, and Modernism in Vienna and Italy

By the end of the 19th century, European culture was a celebration of technology, growing efficiency, and forward-moving vision. Coffee was the commodity that fit all of these marks. In 1901, Luigi Bezzera, a Milanese inventor, registered a patent for a new machine that made coffee, incorporating new steam technology to produce pressure in order to send water quickly through coffee grounds. Two years later, the patent was acquired, and the Ideale, the first espresso machine, was launched. The machine quickly became popular in that a cup of coffee could be made for an individual, through a process that took less than 45 seconds. Through visual advertisements, the new machines were introduced to Italian consumers as parallels to locomotives, thus suggesting that Italy was a country on the move, into the 20th century. This new attitude, for the newly united country, resonated through the social and artistic movement known as the Futurists, who celebrated modernity. Even small practices within the coffee spaces changed to adapt to the new attitude. Espresso machines were located in what were called “American bars” and became an urban phenomenon for workers at the end of the day to either socialize or transact business. Rather than sitting and leisurely drinking one’s coffee, it instead became the norm to stand at the bar, where one would order, receive, and drink (quickly) one’s espresso. The coffeehouse also served as a social institution in fin de siècle Vienna. The Café Griensteidl had served as the meeting place for the “Young Vienna,” a group of men who wrote in the style of experimental modernism, who, after the demolition of the cafe, had relocated to the Café Central. The latter became the space in which prominent

Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops

intellectuals, including Josip Tito, Vladimir Lenin, and Leon Trotsky, as well as Sigmund Freud, spent much of their time. The coffeehouse in Vienna is a phenomenon in its maintenance as a monument of culture. Its connection with modernism, especially literature, is inescapable. Housing was cramped and expensive, so the coffeehouse became a refuge that was appealing and affordable. It was the center of information, a place where one would leave messages or take phone calls and have access to free newspapers as well as plenty of light, warmth, and space (which was decidedly not the case in the apartments of late-19th-century Vienna). There, coffee and coffeehouses became both inspiration and guide to the art form of the literary sketch, or miniature, and even the mini-essay and the feuilleton (the light entertainment section of the newspaper). According to the social critic and journalist Friedrich Torberg, in his 1959 “Treatise on the Vienna Coffeehouse,” the very ordering of a coffee was an expression of the self, whereby men would show their preferred beverage, from specifying the size of the cup to carrying a varnish color chart with them in order to show their partiality to precise coffee-to-milk ratios. This individualism, and of individual desires, gratified the modern psyche of the Viennese and allowed for one’s unique perspective on the world to be acknowledged and fulfilled in a public space. Japan and the Rejection of Traditions

According to the International Coffee Organization (ICO), Japan is one of the top coffee importers, after the United States, Germany, and Italy. Coffee appeared in Japan as early as the 17th century, when, as a commodity, it was tied to explorers, missionaries, and exchange within a colonial context. The first documented coffeehouse in the nation was established much later, however, in1888, by Tei Ei-kei. At 16, he left home to study at Yale where he was first introduced to coffee. He left (before graduating) and traveled to London where

251

he spent time at the Longbourne Coffee-House and the Café Royal. After returning to Japan, he opened the Kahiichakan (coffeehouse) where he re-created the Western coffee spaces that he believed embraced the spirit of masculinity. The Kahiichakan reflected the Japanese zeitgeist of the age in looking to the West as a means of embracing both civilization and enlightenment. Ei-kei’s coffeehouse closed, but many others had opened. In Japan, cafes at the end of the 19th century and in the first quarter of the 20th century responded to various cultural needs. The Japanese coffeehouse differed from the European coffeehouse in that its predecessor was the teahouse rather than the tavern. Unlike the teahouse, however, it did not emphasize tradition but rather the new and the changing. These coffeehouses were flexible in that they offered space that affords the individual a social meeting place and, when it first opened, through much of the 20th century, a place to showcase the postwar culture of gender, ideas of democracy and urbanity, and experimental arts rather than purely subversive activity as was experienced in Europe. It also differed from the European coffeehouse in that it frequently served as a space where one could retreat from the world instead of experiencing sociability. Counterculture and the Coffeehouse in the Mid-20th Century

During their heyday in the mid-20th century, the American coffeehouses in particular became spaces in which the personal and the political melded and in which ideas and beliefs of the counterculture seeped into the mainstream. In the 1950s, a number of notable coffeehouses rose to prominence on the East and West coasts as public venues where one could find beatnik poets, leftist theoreticians, and protest folksingers, including Pete Seeger and Phil Ochs. These spaces grew to include other music genres, which included blues, jazz, and rock, among others. The Caffe Espresso, which opened in 1958 in Portland, Oregon, was a meeting place

252

Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops

for young intellectuals, a gallery for art, and a venue for folk music, all the while serving coffee for 50 cents a cup. Last Exit on Brooklyn (1967–2000), in Seattle, Washington, was a place for folk music, chess, and radicals of all generations. Limelight coffeehouse (1954–1960), in Greenwich Village, housed the first photography gallery and hangout for some of the founders of The Village Voice, and the nearby Gaslight Café (1958–1971) served as a venue for Allen Ginsberg, and it was where Bob Dylan’s album Live at The Gaslight 1962 was recorded (and first distributed in 2005 through Starbucks). Coffeehouses and cafes like these spanned the beatnik and hippie eras and became popular because of the intimacy they gave to the performer and the audience. Soon after, their popularity inspired coffeehouses to be opened in churches. This allowed campus ministries to interact with college students, and new, diverse music and antiVietnam and social unrest brewed. As were the coffeehouses in the Enlightenment, these establishments were viewed suspiciously by the authorities, especially when acid rock and growing numbers of attendees were seen as public nuisances. By the mid-1970s, there was a decline in their prominence due to urban renewal, forcing many coffeehouse owners to lose their leases and concerts relocating to larger music venues, especially in bars and clubs.

Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops Today The Local Goes Global

Coffee-producing countries account for 30% of total consumption, while North Americans, Europeans, and Japanese consume more than half of the total coffee consumption (http://www.ico .org/news/icc-111-5-r1e-world-coffee-outlook .pdf, p. 13), but in recent decades, coffee shops have become a global phenomenon, appearing in all corners of the world. This has occurred as part of a larger process of globalization, along with the emergence of an expanding middle class in new markets, the growing demand for specialized or gourmet coffee, and the growing demand for access to the World Wide Web, which is frequently paired with cafes.

Established in 1963 under the auspices of the United Nations, the ICO is the dominant intergovernmental organization that attempts to strengthen and grow the global market by backing projects that support development and disseminate knowledge regarding technological innovation and through marketing practices, the goal of which is to increase coffee consumption. With an estimated 600 billion cups of coffee consumed each year globally, part of this has been due to targeting new markets, in particular China and Russia. Since 2001, the ICO has worked to expand niche markets that connect coffee and health, ethical concerns that deal with equitable trade, GMOs, sustainability, geographical indications (terroir), and concerns regarding quality. As the world has become tightly connected through technology, economics, and politics, a concern has grown, resulting in a perceived threat of a new type of imperialism, one where culture is imposed onto others through the spread of multinational corporations. More recently, however, scholars have argued that although foodstuffs and “chain” stores have proliferated on a global scale, local meaning can be quite diverse, through the process of “glocalization.” Shaping Taste With Diversity

Large-scale coffee consumption in the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a standardization of coffee and the mass marketing of it in America. In many markets, people drank light, bland coffee, largely in the home but also in diners and during coffee breaks in the office and factory. Coffee consumption flattened post–World War II, and the coffee shop was largely targeted to a working-class consumer, declining in the 1960s–1970s. The consumer demographic was also becoming increasingly older. The most successful large-scale resurgence of coffeehouses in terms of number has been through the establishment of Starbucks, in 1971, at Pike Place Market, Seattle, Washington. Since then, it has grown to more than 17,000 outlets, in 50 countries. Starbucks attracted an aspirational clientele, the

College Dining Services

emphasis on “masstige” (prestige for the masses), with a diverse selection of beverage options. Howard Schultz, who had been Director of Marketing at the coffeebean shop, before buying the management, convinced them to begin selling espresso products, after visiting Italian cafes. In doing so, he completely changed the business model by attempting to give consumers the experience of a “third space.” The sociologist Ray Oldenburg coined this term in his book, The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts and How They Get You Through the Day, arguing that there is a “third place” in many societies that becomes a predominant structure of one’s life. The “first place” is the home, a place of relaxation, but due to cost of hosting, not ideal for socializing. The “second place” is work, focused on economic production. It is the “third place” that acts as a point of socializing and community building. It is a place that is welcome to all and promotes conversation and interaction and, ultimately, a sense of democracy. In many cultures, it is a coffeehouse or cafe that serves that need. Today, a number of chains and independent coffeehouses dot the cultural landscape. Both small, independently owned, single-outlet cafes and globally known companies, which include Dunkin’ Donuts, Costa Coffee, Juan Valdez Café, Indian Coffee House, Doutor, and McCafé, cater to local needs, frequently modifying their offering or practices to reflect local traditions. Likewise, many coffeehouses today offer free or inexpensive Internet access that extends the concept of “third place” by virtually connecting people and communities and continue as a place to get and exchange information. Because of this, however, the coffeehouse has also blurred the lines of all three places in that they can be used as a place for relaxation, of economic enterprises, and of human interaction and community building.

253

Further Readings Cowan, B. (2005). The social life of coffee: The emergence of the British coffeehouse. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hattox, R. (1985). Coffee and coffeehouses: The origins of a social beverage in the Medieval Near East. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts and how they get you through the day. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Roseberry, W. (1996, December). The rise of Yuppie Coffees and the reimagination of class in the United States. American Anthropologist, 98(4), 762–775. Smith, W. (2002). Consumption and the making of respectability: 1600–1800. New York, NY: Routledge. Torberg, F. (2008). Tante Jolesch or the decline of the West in anecdotes (S. B. Hart, Ed.; M. P. Bauer, Trans.). Riverside, CA: Ariadne Press. White, M. (2012). Coffee life in Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Website International Coffee Organization: http://www.ico.org

COLLEGE DINING SERVICES College dining services refer to those meals provided for students by their college or university. Typically, students pay for these services in advance and use them at will. At nonresidential colleges, food services are provided on a pay-as-you-go basis. As the population of students attending colleges has steadily increased, college food services not only serve more customers but also present more job opportunities to both students and nonstudents. This entry explores the history and transformation of college dining services in the United States.

Beth M. Forrest See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Beverage Industry; Commodity Chains; Donut Shops; Fair Trade; Multinational Conglomerates; Supply and Distribution Networks

Early History When the great English universities were opened in the 12th and 13th centuries, they followed the model of monastic life. According to these traditions,

254

College Dining Services

all students dined at one time in one dining room, formally attired in academic robes. A large piece of meat and a pitcher of ale were typically placed at one end of a table and were handed down from student to student, each taking what he wanted or what was left to him. In the late 18th century, when Oxford and Cambridge began to accept “gentlemen” students as well as scholars, this new class of students preferred not to be bound by tradition and began dining in their own rooms on their own provisions or purchasing meals in local inns. This custom was frowned on by the authorities, but they ultimately had little power to prevent it. While formal meals in dining halls continued, many gentlemen absented themselves as often as they could afford to or as often as they received invitations from well-to-do friends. A different model prevailed in Europe, particularly in Germany, where students lived and ate in boarding houses, leaving university property dedicated solely to the life of the mind and not the stomach. Local rathskellers and coffeehouses thrived in the university towns. When the first colleges were established in the United States, they tended to follow the early model of the English universities. In the first college building of Harvard, built in 1642, space was set aside for the “commons,” or meals eaten together. College regulations required that all students and faculty attend meals together at set times. The president of the college, it should be noted, was exempted from this requirement, as were scholars who lived at home. While at the table, scholars who exhibited “rude or clamorous” behavior were dismissed and fined up to 5 shillings. Edward Holyoke, who attended Harvard in the early 1740s, before the Revolution, remembered that commons “breakfast was two sizings of bread and a cue of beer”—a “cue” seeming to refer to “q” or a quart, and sizing an obsolete unit of measurement perhaps denoting a slice or set weight. Dinner commons was “a pye,” most likely meat. Judge Paine Wingate, who attended during the 1760s, recalled that lunch was “meat of some kind, either

baked or boiled,” and that supper was lighter fare—“a pint of milk and half a biscuit,” or perhaps a “meat pie of some or other kind.” Although the victuals were plain, Wingate recalled, “I was young and hearty, and could live comfortably upon them” (Pierce, 1833, p. 219). Just as had been the case in England, Harvard students were loath to obey restrictions on where they could eat. Wingate remembered that he had some friends who, although they paid for commons, “never entered the [dining] Hall while they belonged to the College.” In 1760, the governing body of Harvard College prohibited students from eating at private homes in Cambridge unless they had been invited to eat for free. The rule proved very difficult to enforce, however, because the number of students living off campus was so large. It was, in the words of the college historian Josiah Quincy, “as repugnant to the interest of landlords, as to the inclination of students.” Where both demand and supply existed, tradition had little power. During the American Revolution, supplies for the commons were hard to come by. Although Harvard College law stated that “there shall always be chocolate, tea, coffee, and milk for breakfast with bread and biscuit and butter,” a 1777 amendment limited breakfast to “only bread or biscuit and milk,” indicating that students who wanted chocolate, tea, or coffee “shall procure those items for themselves” (Quincy, 1840, p. 541). Where servings seem to have been portioned out to students at the Harvard commons, their counterparts at the College of William and Mary ate in a different style. A visitor in 1798 noted that those students who dined with the president of the college, who had an apartment in the dormitory or college hotel, “constantly rose up to help themselves at the sideboard,” his italics indicating surprise. The whole atmosphere was very informal, as some of these students “were without shoes or stockings, others without coats.” In this relaxed state, they dined on “dishes of salted meat and some oyster soup.” In addition, “beer, cider, toddy, or spirits and water” but no wines were served in the dining room (College of William and Mary, 1870, p. 44).

College Dining Services

In 1803, the laws of Rhode Island College, shortly to become Brown University, not only stated that students would have three meals provided daily but also actually specified what students were to be fed. For breakfasts, they were to have coffee, tea, or chocolate to drink and white bread with butter, brown bread toasted with butter and brown sugar, or white bread with chocolate and no butter. Their “dinners” or lunches were more varied. Twice a week, they were to have salted beef and pork “with peas, beans, roots, &c. or fried with proper sauce,” whatever that mysterious phrase indicated, “and vegetables.” Once a week, they dined on “soup and fragments,” presumably leftovers from a beef and pork day. Another day, they had fresh boiled meat, again served with “proper sauce,” and also with broth (Brown University, 1803, p. 16). The remaining day of the week, they ate fresh or salted fish. With this, they were to have brown bread, beer, and cider. Supper was simply 6 ounces of bread and a pint of milk. On Sundays, students could have chocolate with dinner.

Options and Diversity: Late 19th Century to World War II At Wellesley College, founded in 1870, students ate around small tables that seated 14 and were presided over by faculty members. While dinner was a time for best behavior, lunches had become anarchic affairs by the end of the 19th century. Students came and left as was convenient and fed themselves from plates of dinner scraps with no regard as to the hunger or preferences of those who had not yet arrived at the table. They also often used the time at the table to catch up with reading for classes, lending a generally antisocial air to the meal. The advent of coeducation complicated matters for college dining halls. Insufficient dining space at Cornell University led to at least temporary and unplanned gender integration of the student population. In 1875, when Cornell opened its first dormitory for women, Sage College, there were only 30 women boarding. Male students and

255

teachers demanded access to the dining hall and, once inside, sat down at tables alongside women students, refusing all segregation. At Princeton University, students dissatisfied with the dining halls started their own eating clubs in the 1890s. These establishments, which serve as the setting for some of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel This Side of Paradise, served juniors and seniors and, in some ways, took the place of fraternities, which had been banned on campus since the middle of the 19th century. As with the Oxbridge “gentlemen” who refused to dine in hall, Princeton students asserted their class privileges over the college administration. Eating clubs were elegant establishments given over to undergraduate pleasures with exclusive membership rules that created a kind of caste system on campus. One historian notes that the 25% of students who were not admitted to one of the 14 eating clubs that had come into being by 1910 “were consigned to culinary and social purgatory.” This sense of rejection was at times so oppressive that some students left the college when they failed to gain acceptance in an eating club. To establish themselves as eating club material, freshmen and sophomores began to form their own clique-based dining clubs, further decreasing the number of students who actually used the college’s dining services. As some universities established home economics departments, campus dining options diversified. Faculty, eager for institutional management students to get hands-on experience, opened tea rooms, which served the college community while also training future managers. At James Madison University, for example, students could receive a quarter term’s credit for working in the campus tea room or dining hall. At Cornell University, the Home Economics department operated both a cafeteria and a tea room in the 1910s. By the late 1920s, the new science of nutrition was bringing change to the college dining hall. An article in The New York Times admitted that “the American academic tradition is one of plain living” (Ripperberger, 1934, p. SM14) with regard to food. Recently, however, there had been

256

College Dining Services

“a considerable change” in college dining. The change was not toward “Epicureanism” but toward both health and a sense of community. The current trend was to bring more students together in dormitories and dining halls than had been the habit in the past. There was “a new solicitude in colleges regarding the diet of the students.” This was due, the writer explained, to the work of Mary Swartz Rose, a pioneering nutritionist, who identified distinct nutritional needs for the adolescent. College food services on some, though not all, campuses redesigned their menus to provide nutritious meals for their particular clientele. Barnard, for example, attempted to alter the old student custom of just taking a cup of coffee to start the day by firmly suggesting to the woman student who attempted to shirk, to return to the breakfast line and take the full menu of “cereal, first-grade milk, coffee with cream, eggs, bacon, or sometimes in Winter, sausage” (Ripperberger, 1934, p. SM17). To keep things interesting, the college baker provided an assortment of breads, muffins, and rolls. To encourage full fueling, second helpings were free. Inspired by nutritionists’ findings, in 1934, the Yale dining halls transformed their mission from simply feeding students to feeding them with care for nutrition. Food services even provided special diets for students and faculty who asked for them, making individual nutrition the guiding theme despite the institutional nature of the enterprise. In this new golden age, an exemplary Yale dinner consisted of tomato juice cocktail, whole-wheat bread, olives, a choice of roast beef or grilled swordfish with paprika butter, parsley potatoes, Delmonico beets, grapefruit salad, tapioca cream, and the student’s choice of coffee, tea, or cocoa. This kind of lavish dining may have struck some as incongruous in the midst of the Great Depression. Behavior in dining halls was strictly policed on some campuses, leading, in at least one case, to student rebellion. At James Madison, students were required to wear sheer stockings and formal clothes for dinners and on Sundays. In 1941, the freshman class dressed themselves in blankets

and marched across campus to a faculty meeting to make a demand for more casual attire. Success came in the lifting of the requirement that stockings be worn for all dinners and students soon learned the joy of dining in socks rather than hose. The Second World War had an effect on dining services as rationing changed what could be cooked. At James Madison, this meant that glazed vegetables were off the menu, muffin recipes included half the usual sugar, and whipped cream went unsweetened and cakes unfrosted. No one was even to think of meringues.

Cafeteria Style: Postwar Mass Feeding One of the most important results of the Second World War was the sudden increase in numbers of college students. The GI Bill made it possible for veterans who had perhaps never dreamed of going to college to attend for free. Larger numbers of students made cafeteria-style dining, a format certainly familiar to the veterans, the most sensible plan. Leaving plates of food on the table à la Wellesley or sending one roast down the table as was done at Oxford would only result in hungry students and hunger often leads to anger. A fair portion of the veteran students lived in married students’ housing, which kept them largely out of the dining halls, at least for breakfast and dinner, but the universities did not see any decline in students after the first wave of GI Bill recipients, and mass feeding became a central priority of campus operations. Mass feeding, of course, is not always the best feeding. For student veterans trained on army food, it is not likely that college food could have been any worse than what they were used to, but it certainly did not win praise. By the 1970s, it was common knowledge that no one went to college for the food. Large quantities prepared and cooked in central kitchens tended to lack delicacy and to follow monotonous patterns. Casserole cooking served the needs of college cafeterias well and was by this time familiar to most Americans as “normal” food.

College Dining Services

Food writer Jonathan Probber (1987) recalled the typical experience of a dining hall meal: “the steam table: clouds billowing up around trays of mystery meats, ghosts of vegetables past and other indescribables” (pp. C1, C6). As Americans in general became more accustomed to a wider range of food cultures and types of dining, college dining services lagged behind this shift. One food service manager recalled arriving at the University of Tennessee in 1967 to find “one meal plan, three meal periods—if you didn’t make it, too bad.” Swiss steak and meatloaf were “ubiquitous.” During his own tenure at the university, however, a major change came to college dining, repositioning the student as consumer.

The Shift to Student as Consumer and Participant: 1980s to Present The new era of dining services shifted much of the action to the students. Where once eggs had been served by cafeteria workers from steam tables, by 1987, Probber found that students at Manhattanville College breakfasted on “eggs made to order, make their own waffles on waffle irons, and poach or soft cook eggs on a do-it-yourself egg boiler . . . [and] serve themselves from a yogurt bar.” An assistant director at Cornell University’s food services recalled the era of change: “Ten years ago [in 1977] there were hardly any salad bars; gravy was put on everything whether you wanted it or not, and soda was drunk all the time.” In a transformation of customer expectations, “students [of 1987] want vegetarian entrees, sauces on the side, and milk and juice at all meals” (Probber, 1987, pp. C1, C6). In the postwar era, mass feeding also became big business. The first association of college food services managers formed in 1958. As of 2013, the National Association of College and University Food Services had more than 500 members in higher education and nearly the same number of members from the food industry. While many big universities, especially those with hotel management programs, continued to run their own food services, increasingly the biggest companies in institutional

257

food—Marriot and Aramark in particular—stepped in to do the work for less money. By 1987, college food services were vying with fast food outlets in college towns to bring in students as customers. Where previous generations had had few options other than the dining hall because restaurants tended to be beyond the budget of typical students, the late-20th-century students found affordable options in places like McDonald’s and 7-Eleven. The students of the 1980s were also students of a more cosmopolitan age, children of the health food era, who expected variety from food. By the late 1990s, food service companies with contracts on campuses were competing with each other to provide not just tastier food but also a more interesting experience for student diners. In 1997, the major food industry corporation Aramark introduced “Pangeos” to compete with rival Marriot’s “Crossroads.” Both programs established as set of stations within the dining area. Pangeos included Asian, Mediterranean, Latin American, American, European, and vegetarian stations. At these stations, there were to be “no steam tables, no plastic, and no stainless steel,” previously hallmarks of the college dining experience. Salads, wraps, stir-fries, and burritos were all “created at these units” before the students’ eyes. By the beginning of the 21st century, students were beginning to seek involvement in food services, not just as consumers now but as participants and reformers, bringing contemporary food politics to campus with them. From a reaction against single-use items such as plastic forks or Styrofoam cups to earnest campaigns to compost dining hall waste, a generation of food activists has begun to change campus dining. Students at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst have been operating their own alternative to the college dining services, Earthfoods, since 1976, serving vegan and vegetarian lunches daily. Middlebury College, in Vermont, included a proviso that a significant portion of food be locally sourced in a recent contract bid for an independent company to run its food services. Student interest in sustainability and locavorism has pushed even major companies like

258

Commodity Chains

Sodexo to launch programs such as “the better tomorrow plan,” described by the company on Ithaca College’s website as, “Sodexo’s plan for a better future. It is a place where nutrition, health and wellness, local communities and the environment matter.” The program is less and less unusual, especially as more college students find themselves interested in food production and sustainability as well as cooking, subjects once considered too blue collar for campus intellectuals. Where college food services and corporations of the 1990s strove to please palates, 21st-century dining services must seek to align with student politics if they want to succeed. At the same time that some students seek to bring college dining services closer to traditional foodways, participating in the growing and preparation of their own food, others are happy to patronize the many restaurant chains that have found a foothold on college campuses. The New York Times writer Peter Appelbombe noted in 1995, “More and more the Golden Arches are entering the Ivory Tower” (p. EDUC16). Boston College had recently completed a $5.7 million food court, and Wake Forest had already welcomed Taco Bell and Pizza Hut into the student union. Chains pay a fee and partial profits to campuses and, just as important, “get [colleges and universities] out of the labor-intensive and costly food service business” (Appelbombe, 1995, p. EDUC16). The chains in return receive profits from sales and a steady supply of part-time workers. That both the trend toward sustainability and the “franchise-ification” of college dining exist simultaneously is perhaps only the newest form of recurring tensions between how students want to eat and how colleges want to serve. Megan J. Elias See also Fast Food; Locavorism

Further Readings Appelbombe, P. (1995, April 2). Franchise fervor in the ivory tower. The New York Times, p. EDUC16.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/02/ education/franchise-fervor-in-the-ivory-tower.html Brown University. (1803). The laws of Rhode Island college. Enacted by the fellows and trustees. Providence, RI: J. Carter. College of William and Mary. (1870). The history of the College of William and Mary, from its foundation, 1693 to 1870. Baltimore, MD: John Murphy. Dacin, T. M., Kamal M., & Paul, T. (2010). Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1393–1418. Krishna, P. (2014). Ultimate dining hall hacks. North Adams, MA: Storey. Lefkowitz Horowitz, H. (1987). Campus life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Miller, R. K., & Associates. (2014). College campus dining. In Restaurant, Food & Beverage Market Research Handbook 2014–2015 (Vol. 15, pp. 186–188). Loganville, GA: Author. Pierce, B. (1833). A history of Harvard University from its foundation, in the year 1636 to the period of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Brown, Shattuck. Probber, J. (1987, September 23). Dining on campus: It may not be Escoffier, but . . . The New York Times, pp. C1, C6. Quincy, J. (1840). The history of Harvard University (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: John Owen. Ripperger, H. (1934, September 23). Better food for the college man; In dining halls an effort is being made to provide a diet that promotes health. The New York Times, pp. SM14. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes .com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CE4DA103CE23ABC4 B51DFBF66838F629EDE

COMMODITY CHAINS A commodity chain is a series of links connecting the multiple, cross-border stages of production, processing, exchange, and distribution along which goods travel in the global economy. In other words, it is the path a commodity follows from the point of production to the point of consumption. Global capitalism has fostered an increasingly industrialized food system in

Commodity Chains

which agrifood commodities, or those foods and drinks produced through agriculture, traverse the globe on their way to consumers’ plates. Consequently, commodity chain analysis is a powerful tool for exploring the creation of value in our interconnected world and the implications this has for labor and environmental processes in diverse contexts. The strength of the commodity chain approach results from its ability to capture the entire structure of a particular industry from the production to the consumption of the end product, in the process delineating its global spatial scale. In short, the commodity chain framework illustrates the complexities of contemporary agrifood supply chains—both their globally dispersed and locally embedded features. This entry examines the commodity chain framework and governance, with a focus on agrifood commodity chains.

The Commodity Chain Framework The concept of commodity chains first emerged in Immanuel Wallerstein’s world systems theory, defined as a network of labor and production processes whose end result is a finished commodity. However, as an analytical tool, the framework was initially elaborated by the sociologist Gary Gereffi for the study of industrial products. It enabled researchers to focus on the interlinking of products and services in a sequence of value-added activities; the spatial configuration of enterprises constituting production and marketing networks; and the power relations that determine how resources are allocated along the commodity chain. The framework illuminated the sets of interorganizational networks clustered around one commodity or product, linking households, enterprises, and states to one another within the world economy. Over time, the commodity chain framework was increasingly applied to agrifood products, and a rich and varied scholarly literature has emerged on the topic. There are four central elements to the analysis of commodity chains: (1) the input– output structure, (2) geography, (3) institutions, and (4) governance structures.

259

Input–output structure refers to the entire process of bringing an agrifood commodity from farm to fork. The main components of the structure include research and development, production, distribution, marketing, and sales. Geography links specific nodes in the commodity chain to the physical locations where these activities are carried out. The geographic scale can vary from global to regional, to national, to local. Institutions include governments, unions, trade associations, nongovernmental organizations, multilateral agencies, and various regulatory bodies responsible for dictating the rules, norms, or standards regulating commodity chains. Governance structures highlight the authority and power relationships that control and coordinate exchanges of products, capital, technology, and brands between buyers and suppliers in commodity chains.

The global commodity chain framework, emerging at a time of rapid global economic integration, highlights the importance of coordination across firm boundaries in addition to the growing importance of new global buyers (e.g., retailers like Walmart and brand marketers) as the key drivers in the formation and maintenance of globally dispersed and fragmented production and distribution networks.

Commodity Chain Governance Governance, or the nonmarket coordination of economic activity, is a central component of commodity chain analysis. It refers to the rules, institutions, and norms that channel and constrain economic activity. Much of the commodity chain research focuses on the governance structures defining the intercountry and interfirm distribution of financial, material, labor, and organizational resources. The framework initially identified two ideal types of governance. The first is found in traditional producer-driven chains, where the concentration of capital and knowledge enables producers to dominate the industry. The second is

260

Commodity Chains

found in buyer-driven chains, where brand-name distributors dominate via control over the design process and market access. In buyer-driven chains, global buyers use explicit coordination to help create a highly competent supply base on which global scale production and distribution systems could be built without direct ownership. The initial distinction between buyer-driven and supplier-driven commodity chains was eventually abandoned in favor of a theory of governance based on three factors: (1) the complexity of information and knowledge transfer required to sustain a particular transaction, (2) the extent to which this information and knowledge can be codified and transmitted efficiently without transactionspecific investment between the parties to the transaction, and (3) the capabilities of actual and potential suppliers in relation to the requirements of the transaction. The framework articulated by Gary Gereffi and colleagues details five analytical types of governance, which range from high to low levels of explicit coordination and power asymmetry: (1) hierarchy, (2) market, (3) modular, (4) relational, and (5) captive. The last three are the most common forms of governance found in agrifood commodity chains and range from the extremes of open market transactions to vertical integration. Hierarchy is a form of governance characterized by vertical integration and managerial control. Market governance results when the costs of switching to new exchange partners are low for both producers and buyers. However, these are not always transitory relations as the commodity chains may endure over time when repeat transactions occur. Modular commodity chains refer to relations in which producers make goods according to a buyer’s specifications. Because producers typically use generic machinery and processes, they are able to limit transaction-specific investments. Modular chains are therefore characterized by frequent transactions and relative supplier independence. Relational commodity chains are characterized by mutual dependence between buyers and producers.

While spatial proximity can support relational linkages, it is not a prerequisite as trust, reputation, family, and ethnic ties can support relational forms of governance in geographically dispersed commodity chains. Relationships among actors under relational governance are shaped by norms of solidarity and cooperation, and power is generally balanced across the chain. Captive commodity chains result when small producers become transactionally dependent on larger buyers, such as major retailers and brands. Consequently, producers face significant switching costs and are subjected to a high level of monitoring and surveillance by their buyers.

Related Approaches The commodity chain framework nicely parallels industry’s increased focus on supply chain management, and it is well suited for business and development related projects, such as those aimed at improving the efficiency of agricultural production. However, it is flexible enough to be used for more political purposes, such as the drive to increase transparency and uncover the hidden labor and environmental costs of production. Within food studies, the commodity chain approach parallels similar concepts such as systems of provision, commodity circuits, and the commodity systems approach. Four additional related approaches are detailed below: (1) value chains, (2) commodity networks, (3) filière, and (4) a focus on the social and cultural dimensions of commodity chains. Value Chain

The initial commodity chain framework, articulated by Gary Gereffi and colleagues, emphasized the internal governance structure of supply chains (focusing on the distinction between producerdriven and buyer-driven commodity chains) and on the role of lead firms in establishing global production and sourcing networks. In contrast, the value chain approach highlights the value of the activities required to bring a product or service

Commodity Chains

from conception (e.g., research and development) through the different phases or production, distribution, consumption, and eventual disposal. It also serves to correct the fact that the original commodity chains framework did not adequately specify the wide variety of network forms that subsequent research uncovered. Therefore, the value chain approach is useful for moving beyond the simple dichotomy of producer- and buyer-driven commodity chains. Today, the terms commodity chain and value chain are used interchangeably, with the latter perhaps appearing more frequently.

Commodity Networks

While it is well equipped for exploring issues related to governance, geographical scale, institutional oversight, and input–output structures, the commodity chain framework is less adept at depicting the nuanced, on-the-ground realities of cross-cultural and cross-sector communication characterizing global commodity chains. Employing a network analogy (as opposed to a focus on chains) highlights the web of social and economic actors that define and uphold governance and commodity relations. The commodity network approach, clearly articulated by the sociologist Laura Raynolds and colleagues, recognizes that market activities are embedded in social as well as economic institutions while leaving analytic room for the agency and creativity of participants. Therefore, the commodity network approach provides a less structuralist view of the complex relations linking production and consumption while maintaining the critical analytical focus on issues of governance. One of the major strengths of the commodity chain framework lies in its directive to analyze relations from production to consumption. However, few studies give serious attention to the role of consumers. The commodity network approach strives to correct this through an appreciation of the symbolic as well as material construction of commodities, highlighting the complex web of both material and nonmaterial relationships connecting the social, political, and economic actors

261

populating the lives of commodities. The network approach is particularly useful in analyzing agrifood commodities, such as fair trade or organic products, which are strongly influenced by consumer groups and embedded in nonmarket norms. Filière

While the global commodity chain approach was initially developed for the analysis of industrial commodities and subsequently extended to the agrifood sector, the francophone filière approach has been primarily employed to analyze agricultural commodities. The filière tradition is not a coherent framework like the global commodity chain approach. However, it does provide insight into historical issues, quality conventions, and regulations. In particular, it is useful for exploring the institutional regulation of agricultural commodity chains, shedding light on the organizational dynamics of agrifood commodities, and for illuminating how economic power is exercised by key actors across discrete links in the production and distribution chain. The Social and Cultural Dimensions of Agrifood Commodities

Commodities are any good that is produced for sale or exchange for other goods. However, commodities can be understood as many things: the product and embodiment of social relations of production, a means of realizing an exchange value, the product of particular business and organizational geographies, and a resource allowing the objectification of social relations for consumers. Social scientists have used the commodity chain framework to explore the meaning and politics of foods as they travel across dispersed commodity chains. Within disciplines like anthropology, sociology, and geography, it is now commonplace to study global flows through the lens of a concrete substance that makes a circuit through various locales. Scholars have used the commodity chain framework to explore the “social lives” of agrifood commodities in our daily lives and communities. To date, detailed explorations of

262

Commodity Chains

agrifood products such as bananas, mutton, coffee, sushi, olive oil, noodles, milk, tea, and wine (among others) have been conducted. While the commodity chain framework has proven immensely valuable in analyzing relations of production across industries in a globalizing world, commodity chain analysis also risks a simplification by leaving out the power of ideas, images, and noneconomic actors. It can also distract from what producers and consumers have in common—in particular the fact that they exist at either end of a single agrifood commodity chain in a world of increasing economic integration. Therefore, the focus on the social and cultural aspects of commodity chains is useful for highlighting the fact that concepts of commodities are always linked to concepts of persons. This insight provides an avenue for addressing the economic and cultural analytical divide that continues to pervade the study of food.

Globalization and Transparency The production of agrifood commodities remains a central strand linking the world’s rural poor to the global economy; therefore, their importance cannot be underestimated. Historically, agrifood commodity chains were organized around a system of smallholder production of largely undifferentiated crops (e.g., coffee, bananas, grains, etc.) under national systems of regulation operating according to simple, inclusive quality conventions based on product standards. However, after decades of deregulation in agricultural markets, these commodity chains are undergoing a process of transition and becoming increasingly more differentiated and subjected to private forms of vertical coordination and often opaque quality conventions and certification standards. In other words, increasingly, the agrifood markets are subjected to captive governance in which producers must comply with the product specifications dictated by buyers. While historically agrifood commodity chains offered producers few significant opportunities for upgrading, today’s global markets offer more substantial rewards to a select number of producers

who are able to access specialty, high-end retail markets or achieve certified status in fair trade or organic networks. Consequently, commodity chain analysis is helpful for exploring the different ways in which global production and distribution systems are integrated and the possibilities for producers in developing countries to enhance their position in global markets. Therefore, the framework can provide valuable insights into agricultural policy formation and implementation. The commodity chain framework is also useful for examining the structures of food production and consumption with the goal of identifying leverage points that can effect change at a structural level. For example, commodity chain analysis can be used to argue for more sustainable systems of production or more local or regional systems of food production. It can also help shed light on the links between local consumption and global production systems, highlighting the important role that consumer demand can play in improving the terms of trade and working conditions for agrifood producers in developing nations. Sarah Lyon See also Exports; Multinational Conglomerates; Supply and Distribution Networks; Sustainable Agrifood Systems; Tagging and Tracking Foods From Origin to Point of Retail Sale; Values-Based Food Supply Chains; Vertical Integration

Further Readings Dolan, C., & Humphrey, J. (2000). Governance and trade in fresh vegetables: The impact of UK supermarkets on the African horticulture industry. Journal of Development Studies, 37(2), 147–176. Gary, G., & Korzeniewicz, M. (1994). Commodity chains and global capitalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., Kaplinsky, R., & Sturgeon, T. J. (2001). Introduction: Globalisation, value chains and development. International Development Studies Bulletin, 32, 1–8. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104.

Community Gardens Gibbon, P., & Ponte, S. (2005). Trading down: Africa, value chains and the global economy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Goodman, D., & Watts, M. (Eds.). (1997). Globalising food: Agrarian questions and global re-structuring. London, UK: Routledge. Kaplinsky, R. (2005). Globalization and unequalisation: What can be learned from value chain analysis. Journal of Development Studies, 37(2), 117–146. Phillips, L. (2006). Food and globalization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 37–57. Ponte, S., & Gibbon, P. (2005). Quality standards, conventions and the governance of global value chains. Economy and Society, 34(1), 1–31. Raikes, P., Jensen, M. F., & Ponte, S. (2000). Global commodity chain analysis and the French filière approach: Comparison and critique. Economy and Society, 29(3), 390–417. Raynolds, L. T. (2004). The globalization of organic agro-food networks. World Development, 32, 725–743. Stringer, C., & Le Heron, R. (2008). Agri-food commodity chains and globalizing networks. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Topik, S., Marichal, C., & Frank, Z. (Eds.). From silver to cocaine: Latin American commodity chains and the building of the world economy, 1500–2000. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

COMMUNITY GARDENS A community garden is any garden cultivated by a group of people. These gardens are grown through the collective efforts of any self-identified community, often members of a neighborhood, an organization, an institution such as a school or community center, or any other group. Growing both ornamental and edible plants, community gardens have historically emerged as a response to specific social crises. The contemporary expansion of community gardening throughout the United States is largely driven by popular interest in alternatives to conventional food. Community gardens are used to produce food for self-consumption, donation, or sale; as a tool for education; as places for recreation; to beautify neighborhoods; to support

263

community development; and as important public spaces. Contemporary community gardens take a variety of forms—from unsanctioned “guerrilla” gardens initiated on underutilized and unproductive land by a group of neighbors to professionally organized and staffed urban agriculture projects. This entry examines types of community gardens, their impacts, and challenges that undermine the growing movement, beginning with a brief history of community gardens in the United States.

History Community gardening in the United States officially dates to 1893 when the city of Detroit provided free land, seeds, and tools to local residents to grow supplemental food as a response to the expansion of urban hunger driven by the “Panic of 1893,” which at the time was the worst economic depression in U.S. history and resulted in massive unemployment and a dramatic growth in hunger. In his history of community gardening in the United States, Thomas Bassett (1981) explains that seven unique “movements” characterize the history of community gardening: (1) Potato Patches (1893–1917), (2) School Gardens (1900–1920), (3) Garden City Plots (1905–1910), (4) Liberty Gardens (1917–1920), (5) Relief Gardens (1930–1939), (6) Victory Gardens (1941–1945), and (7) Community Gardens (1970 to the present). In all the cases, these community gardening movements materialized in response to specific national crises, especially economic recessions and/or war. During the economic depression of the late 19th century, the Potato Patches of Detroit served as a national model after providing gardening resources to hungry citizens to promote selfsufficiency in food production. In the early 1900s, school gardens were used throughout the quickly expanding American cities to help socialize school children through a focus on self-discipline and a connection to nature, believed to be an important tool to combat the moral deficits of urban life. The Garden City Plots of the early 20th century served to beautify cities and reduce the negative social and ecological impacts of rapid industrialization.

264

Community Gardens

The most expansive and widely recognized period of community gardening in the United States occurred during the first half of the 20th century, starting with the emergence of the National War Garden Commission in 1917 and ending by the late 1940s. Known as “Liberty Gardens” during World War I and “Victory Gardens” during World War II, community gardening became a common practice on the American wartime home front. Liberty and Victory Gardens were a means to conserve resources that were desperately needed for the war effort through active participation of the civilian population. It is widely reported (although not extensively documented) that millions of community gardens produced as much as 40% of the fresh produce consumed nationally at their height during World War II. Both the symbolic and material importance of community gardens ensured widespread participation by the general public and fostered extensive support by all levels of government. During the two World Wars, gardens were an important symbol of patriotism and provided an opportunity for civilians to directly support war efforts. Materially, community gardens produced food for domestic consumption, freeing up commercial farm production capacity for U.S. military troops and allies. Self-sufficiency was a necessity to supplement rations and became a civic duty. Between World War I and World War II, Relief Gardens served to address the social and material devastation of the Great Depression by providing important and necessary spaces to grow food and offering opportunities for civic engagement. Community gardening as a grassroots social movement emerged in the 1970s. During the 1970s and into the 1980s, community gardens were tied directly to economic crisis, urban abandonment, and a growing environmental politics. During the late 1970s and through the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Urban Garden Program supported grassroots community gardening efforts. Garden organizers focused on urban ecology, public rights to urban land, and community development. Today, community gardens are best understood

as being driven explicitly, though by no means exclusively, by contemporary food politics.

The Contemporary Movement The contemporary period of community gardening is often considered an extension of the movement that began in the 1970s. Indeed, the motivations for gardening have remained fairly consistent since then, and community gardening today is still largely governed at the very local scale through grassroots efforts with some municipal and state government support. However, it might be analytically useful to understand the community gardening movement currently underway as distinct, marking an eighth community gardening movement. Contemporary community gardens are often driven by discontent with the conventional food system. These more recent community gardening efforts are more likely to emerge from the bottomup rather than the publicly supported, top-down initiatives more common throughout much of America’s history. As a result, today’s community gardens generally enjoy less state support (especially land access, resource provision, and education) than the previous community gardening movements. Food issues have become an important locus of politics throughout the United States in recent years as social and environmental concerns over food production, distribution, consumption, and waste motivate efforts to address food system contradictions. Against this backdrop, community gardens are an approach to combating a wide range of problems—such as hunger, food disparities, pesticide and herbicide use, soil and water depletion, and climate change—associated with the conventional food system. The American Community Gardening Association (ACGA) plays a key role in the contemporary community gardening movement and provides important support to community gardeners in areas such as education, information sharing, networking, and advocacy. The ACGA also hosts an annual meeting that facilitates cooperation and collaboration between community

Community Gardens

gardeners throughout the United States. In many ways, the ACGA thus fills part of the gap left by the lack of formal state support for community gardening. However, the organization enjoys neither the resources nor the formal power to provide the support necessary to reproduce the impacts of the Victory Garden era, long held up as a lofty goal for the current movement. Community gardens can take a wide variety of forms. Gardens can operate on public land or on privately owned lots, especially land owned by faith-based or not-for-profit organizations. Cultivation is done collectively or via an allotment style, whereby individuals and families cultivate small, individual plots. Most of the food produced by community gardens is for self-consumption, but donation gardens and/or plots are common, and some community gardeners grow produce for sale. In the cities, many gardeners cultivate on raised beds to avoid contaminated urban soils by growing above ground in imported soil, free of contamination. Often, community gardens are managed through governing structures created through democratically adopted rules that establish membership guidelines, rules of conduct in the garden, and leadership roles.

Impacts and Outcomes Community gardens are championed as providing a wide variety of public health, social, and ecological benefits. Community gardens are often used as a tool to address food disparities. Community gardens increase access to fresh, local produce, especially within inner-city neighborhoods where economic and geographic access to fresh produce is limited. Gardening is said to contribute positively to the quality of life for people, increasing access to green spaces and nature and providing a place for physical exercise and mental relaxation. Community gardens are also touted as a community development tool. They beautify blighted neighborhoods and bring neighbors together in support of a common goal. In addition, community garden supporters claim that they help reduce crime, boost local property values, and stimulate economic development. They also

265

serve an important platform for nutrition and horticulture education. Community gardens contribute important environmental services, particularly in urban areas, by maintaining and increasing biodiversity. Finally, community gardens can serve as important public spaces, especially in cities lacking sufficient public space and/or where communities fight for democratic rights to the city.

Continued Challenges to Community Gardening There are some important social and ecological challenges that undermine community gardening and threaten the long-term sustainability of its practice. A primary concern for community gardening is land tenure, whereby gardens located on public property often do not have the legal right to cultivate the land. Furthermore, community gardening is threatened by the “highest and best use” adage in real estate, which rarely prioritizes gardening. Finally, urban planners often view community gardens as temporary at best, rather than identifying them as permanent fixtures of the city. The prioritization of private property rights in the United States effectively undermines community garden efforts that are frequently located on public property or make claim to the right to public space. This creates a tension whereby community gardens are continually threatened by other land uses and/or are cultivated on quasi-public land, governed by land trusts, not-for-profit organizations, or other forms of private land provided for community gardening. These new structures of land tenure effectively undermine the grassroots intentions of community gardening as public space. These constraints to community gardening are often a result of the lack of state support and ensure that gardens are consistently undervalued and undermined as important to the social and ecological functioning of cities. Funding remains a constant challenge for community gardening. Community gardens generally do not require extensive financial support. Some gardens are started with little more than seeds

266

Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective

sown through guerrilla gardening. More often, however, community gardens require basic infrastructure, such as raised beds, soil, seedlings, water, tools, fencing, and storage sheds. Although the more developed community gardens are still relatively inexpensive, exponential growth in community gardening interest has not been accompanied by an equal growth in funding for community gardening efforts. Thus, there are more projects competing for the same, if not fewer, resources. Community gardening, especially in its grassroots form, is also continually undermined by the need to keep people engaged. Theft and vandalism are often a problem for community gardens, especially where community outreach efforts have failed. Gardening and community organizing both take a great deal of effort, and successful community gardening necessitates both. A common axiom expressed by gardeners is that community gardening is much more about community work than gardening. Ecological constraints, such as water access, lack of adequate and healthy soil for production, and pests and diseases, also jeopardize the viability of community gardening. Soil contamination and lack of water access can be significant challenges to community gardening. Urban air and water pollution also pose great problems to urban food production. Heavy metals, especially lead, are dangerous contaminants regularly found in urban soils. Many types of produce, especially green, leafy vegetables, easily transport such heavy metals. All of these challenges, however, have been overcome historically and have not prevented the resurgence and expansion of community gardening. Community gardening advocates regularly point to the successes of the Victory Garden era to highlight the real potential of small-scale public food production. The key challenge, then, is for grassroots advocates to directly confront these barriers and fight for more extensive forms of support to help the contemporary community garden movement flourish and grow.

The Future of Community Gardening The recent growth of grassroots community gardening in the United States and across the world

indicates that the movement is on the ascendant. In part, the expansion of community gardening and urban agriculture is attributed to increasing urbanization throughout much of the world. Community gardening is boosted by growing awareness of the many problems associated with food and an increase in environmental consciousness driven by global climate change. Community gardens can be an important space of resistance to both the contradictions of the conventional food system and urban life and can thus serve as a tool for a variety of social struggles. Evan Weissman and Jonnell A. Robinson See also DIY Food Movement; Food Justice; Guerrilla Gardening; Urban Farming and Rooftop Gardens

Further Readings Bassett, T. (1981). Reaping on the margins: A century of community gardening in America. Landscape, 25, 1–8. Lawson, L. (2005). City bountiful: A century of community gardening in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Smith, C., & Kurtz, H. (2003). Community gardens and politics of scale in New York City. Geographical Review, 93, 193–212. Staeheli, L., Mitchell, D., & Gibson, K. (2002). Conflicting rights to the city in New York’s community gardens. GeoJournal, 58, 197–205. Weissman, E. (2011). Community gardens. In N. Cohen (Ed.), Green cities (pp. 102–104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Website American Community Gardening Association: http:// www.communitygarden.org

COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSAS), CONSUMERS’ PERSPECTIVE Community supported agriculture (CSA) refers to an arrangement voluntarily formed between a farmer and a consumer, whereby the consumer

Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective

agrees to take on some of the risk of farming in exchange for a portion of the farmer’s produce. It is sometimes called subscription farming. In a typical CSA program, the consumer pays cash to the farmer before the beginning of the growing season for a CSA share (also called a membership or subscription) and, in exchange, receives a box of produce every week throughout the growing season. If the farmer’s crops fail, for whatever reason, the shareholder will not receive any produce. Most CSA farms produce a variety of crops to avoid disappointing their shareholders. CSAs are a new development in the food system, and spreading rapidly. The first one was started in the United States in 1985, and now there are more than 4,000. There is no governing body for CSA programs; each one establishes its own rules and regulations. Therefore, it is difficult to make generalizations about them. In the equation “farmer + consumer = CSA,” the farmer could be, for instance, a nonprofit organization, a business, or an individual. The consumer could be a food bank, a group of friends, a nonprofit organization, an individual, or a family. The farm itself could comprise 1,000 acres or 1 acre. What all CSAs have in common is the direct relationship between the farmer and the consumer, and their shared goal—a reasonable income or living for the farmer and reasonably priced good food for the consumer. This entry focuses on CSA from the consumer perspective, covering the history of CSA, the possible variations in CSA programs, the consumer motivations for becoming a CSA shareholder or member, and the challenges for the consumer that can cause CSA arrangements to fail.

History of CSA According to both Robyn Van En and Eve Jochnowitz, the concept of CSA was born in Japan in the 1960s, when a group of women organized to purchase milk from a nearby family farm, securing reduced prices in exchange for paying in advance. The movement was called teikei, which means partnership or cooperation. At about the same time, the movement began to grow in

267

Europe. It is not clear if the concept developed separately at the same time or if the idea began first on one continent and then spread to the other. In the United States, the idea was first tried in 1985 by Van En and Jan Vandertuin at Indian Line Farm in South Egremont, Massachusetts. With the intention of creating a more cooperative style of farming, they modeled the program on experiences Vandertuin had had in Switzerland. CSAs exist throughout the world in various forms but are most concentrated in Europe, North America, and Japan. By the beginning of the 21st century, the CSA movement had spread across the United States and Canada. Although the U.S. government does not officially track CSAs, the nonprofit organization Local Harvest keeps an up-to-date database online, which currently lists more than 4,000 in the United States. The International Network of Community Supported Agriculture, URGENCI, based in France, does not currently publish a directory of its members. Some CSA programs have gained a sort of fame. One of the most well-known is Angelic Organics near Chicago, Illinois, established in 1993. They have more than 1,500 subscribers and deliver shares to 30 share pickup sites in their region. Besides vegetable shares, they offer fruit shares from neighboring farms and extended season shares of winter storage crops. Another CSA program is Fairview Gardens, founded in 1994 in Goleta, California. Both the farms and their founders have been featured in documentary films—Angelic Organics in The Real Dirt on Farmer John and Fairview Gardens in Beyond Organic—likely because their founders work not only as farmers but also as artists and active spokespeople for their cause. Most CSAs are newer and smaller than these. Peaceful Belly Farm in Boise, Idaho, was founded in 2002 on 60 acres. They grow about 80 crops, and shareholders receive about six to eight different items each week. The farm also sells its produce at local farmers markets and to local restaurants and offers on-farm classes and dinners. The recent film The Greenhorns features a number of smaller start-up farms, many of which incorporate CSA.

268

Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective

The growth in numbers of CSA programs parallels the growth in popularity of the local food movement. Increasing numbers of consumers care about the distance their food has traveled from its source and the working conditions of the people who grew it, among other concerns. A CSA membership is the closest a consumer can get to being a farmer oneself, without actually having to do any work. It has become a badge of honor among locavores and hip foodies and an easy target of ridicule for those who are not supporters of the local food movement.

Types of CSA Programs There are many types of CSA programs. Some CSAs are formed by a group of consumers who band together and search out a suitable farmer to serve their needs. Other CSAs are created by a farmer who decides to offer shares. Legally, CSA farms can be organized just like any other farm, as sole proprietorships, partnerships, cooperatives, or corporations. The produce in a CSA share can come from a single farm, but it is also possible to include products from several farms. The CSA may serve just a few shareholders or up to hundreds or even thousands of shareholders. Typically, whoever forms the CSA must make many decisions about their particular CSA structure before launching the program. Consumers in turn must consider what type of CSA they would like to join, if they have more than one CSA farm nearby from which to choose. Important factors include how many shareholders the farm intends to support, which crops will be supplied, and how much each share will cost. The size of the farm, the length of the growing season, and the farmer’s experience will all make a difference in these decisions. Other issues include whether or not the farm will sell some produce on the open market or supply only its CSA subscribers, whether shareholders will be allowed to volunteer time in full or in partial exchange for shares, or whether shareholders will be required to work in addition to the money paid. Where, when, and how the shares will be

distributed or delivered must be established. And, while most CSA programs require the money to be paid before the growing season begins, some CSA farms allow the shareholders to pay installments throughout the season in order to make it more affordable. Not all CSA farms are certified organic, but most are committed to organic and sustainable practices to various degrees. Other types of certification are available, such as Certified Naturally Grown. Farmers who are not interested in these ideas are not likely to operate a CSA, but this may change as the popularity of the concept entices others to employ the CSA label mainly as a marketing tool rather than as a founding principle, moving the idea further away from its current grassroots definition. The concepts of “organic” and “local” food have been co-opted in this way. Some CSA farms only distribute produce that they have grown, others distribute a few items from other sources or local growers to increase the variety offered. Some include nonproduce options such as eggs, meat, baked goods, and flowers, and increasingly, CSAs are forming just for dairy products, grains, meat, storage crops, and more. Some CSAs serve primarily urban customers, but CSAs exist in rural areas as well. How all these factors play out in the operation of a CSA gives each of them a unique character. Most CSAs change a little from year to year as they learn what works best for the farmer and the members.

Consumer Motivations for Joining a CSA CSA shareholders benefit economically from committing to and paying for an entire season of produce in advance. Often, the cost of their CSA boxes of fruits and vegetables is well below what they would have had to pay for the same produce at a grocery store or farmers market. CSA shares have generally just been harvested and are therefore the freshest and most nutritious produce consumers can obtain without picking or growing their own. The varieties of fruits and

Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective

vegetables grown on small farms for local customers are often much different from produce grown for widespread distribution, and consequently, they might be much more flavorful and colorful. Many families who subscribe to CSA programs report that they eat more fresh produce and enjoy it more as a result of the CSA. CSA shareholders do not generally get to pick and choose what they will get in their box or basket, and they generally do not choose the crops or varieties that the farmer will grow, although some farmers work closely with their subscribers to make decisions regarding crops. CSA shares often contain surprises or challenges in the form of vegetables or fruits that the consumer has never cooked or eaten before. Some shareholders report feeling that their CSA box feels like a present and are motivated to attempt new recipes in order not to let their produce go to waste. Many farms try to provide recipes and tips with their boxes each week to help shareholders enjoy the food. Longestablished CSAs occasionally publish cookbooks, as Angelic Organics has done. CSA subscribers are generally very supportive of organic, sustainable, or small-scale agriculture, concerned equally about their own health and the health of their community. They are searching for an alternative to conventional and industrial food. From the consumer perspective, joining a CSA program is a direct and deliberate investment in the viability of small-scale agriculture in one’s own community, and for many CSA members, the relationship that they develop with the person who grows their food is very meaningful. The phrase “putting a face on the food” is frequently used to describe this process. Among consumers who are concerned about the existing food system and who are committed to changing it, there are various levels of commitment to the alternatives. Because of the direct relationship formed between the farmer and the consumer, and the commitment and risk that are involved, becoming a member of a CSA is considered to be more radical or more alternative than shopping at a natural foods grocery store, joining a consumer food cooperative, or shopping at a farmers’ market.

269

Some CSA members appreciate the opportunity to develop a connection not only with their CSA farmer but also with the farm itself, especially if they live in an urban area without easy access to a garden or farm. Some CSA farms, if they do not actually require shareholder participation in the work, allow visitors or volunteers, or even plan special field days to allow the public or only their members to visit the farm, see how they operate, and learn more about where and how their food grows. The opportunity to be part of a community is often a reason for wanting to join a CSA, although the various ways in which the community develops, if it does at all, are not always what the farmer or the members expect. It can be as informal and limited as conversation and recipe sharing during CSA share pickup time or as involved as regular potluck meetings of shareholders, with a dedicated group of folks who assist regularly with the CSA administration and distribution.

CSA Difficulties The success of a CSA arrangement is sometimes measured, from the farmer’s perspective, by how many members decide to sign up for another year. From the consumer’s point of view, there are many reasons why a CSA membership is not worth continuing. Somewhat similar to making New Year’s resolutions, some people sign up for a CSA share with good intentions in the spring, only to discover as the growing season wears on that what they thought they wanted was quite different from what they really want. A theoretical commitment to eating more leafy greens is one thing but a weekly supply of more chard, kale, bok choy, collards, and spinach than one knows what to do with can quickly dim enthusiasm. Consumers sometimes have unrealistic expectations of what produce they will get from their farmer and when, based on what grocery stores stock, not understanding that in their region, for example, tomatoes will not ripen until late September if at all and that broccoli is highly unlikely to succeed. Some

270

Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective

people are simply more comfortable with improvising with what is on hand in the kitchen, and others prefer to work with established recipes. For those unused to cooking with fresh produce, much less unfamiliar produce, the weekly box can become a strain. Most shareholders find themselves with too much of what they like least and not enough of what they like best. To counteract these problems, some CSA farms are able to allow their shareholders to do a limited amount of exchanging of one produce item for another or to have a say during the planning process in the off-season about what—and how much—is to be grown on the farm. A few farms even allow different levels of CSA membership, with higher tier members able to order specific items from a list of choices for their weekly boxes rather than simply taking what they are given. In all cases, the more the consumer knows about what to expect before making the commitment to a CSA, the better the end result. Another issue that can be problematic for consumers is the length and rigidity of the CSA commitment. Many people travel during the summer growing season and do not pick up their shares every week. Others find it difficult to always pick up their share in the same limited window of time each week, as their own schedules and lives change over the course of the season. The long-term commitment can be especially difficult for low-income CSA shareholders, whose lives are often less predictable and stable than shareholders with higher incomes. At the end of the season, some members decide that considering the number of times they missed getting their share, the financial commitment was not worthwhile. Some farms require their CSA shareholders to commit to a certain amount of time spent helping around the farm, with share distribution or other CSA administrative tasks. If the shareholder finds this convenient as well as rewarding, the arrangement will work. For others, who are too busy to easily spare the time, or who do not enjoy the work, the CSA will become a burden not to be repeated.

Finally, if the farmer–consumer relationship and the development of a shareholder community are important reasons for being part of a CSA, they can also be reasons for leaving. Shareholders might become attached to farmers (often married couples) and to the ideals and principles of CSA. However, farms might go out of business or lose their lease on the land, farmers’ marriages might disintegrate, or farmers can change their minds about what methods work best for their farm. Shareholders might grow to disagree with one another and/or the farmer about the CSA’s underlying principles as well as its myriad structural details or simply become bogged down in the daily grind of CSA management and administration. Farming is a risky and stressful profession. The main idea of CSA is for the consumer to be in a relationship and share in these risks and stresses with the farmer, but if the relationship breaks down or the stresses are too great, the CSA can fail despite all the participants’ good intentions. Carol Price Spurling See also Agritourism; Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Farmers’ Perspective; Cooperatives; Family Farms and Rural Depopulation; Food Miles; Locavorism; Organic Agricultural Products, Policies on; Slow Food

Further Readings Henderson, E. (with Van En, R.). (2007). Sharing the harvest: A citizen’s guide to community supported agriculture. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Jochnowitz, E. (2005). Community-supported agriculture. In A. F. Smith (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of food and drink in America [Online]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Martinez, S., Hand, M., Da Pra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., . . . Newman, C. (2010, May). Local food systems: Concepts, impacts, and issues (ERR 97). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Nabhan, G. P. (2001). Coming home to eat: The pleasures and politics of local foods. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Farmers’ Perspective

Websites Angelic Organics: http://www.angelicorganics.com Certified Naturally Grown: http://www.naturallygrown .org The Greenhorns: http://www.thegreenhorns.net International Network of Community Supported Agriculture: http://www.urgenci.net LocalHarvest: http://www.localharvest.org Peaceful Belly Farm: http://www.peacefulbelly.com

COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSAS), FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVE Community supported agriculture (CSA) is a food production and distribution structure that promotes a relationship between farmers and the communities they serve. Originally a form of alternative agriculture that originated in Asia and Europe and operated at a very local level, the CSA concept has spread throughout the United States and expanded to the regional level. The 2012 Census of Agriculture reports that there are 12,617 CSAs operating in the United States, up by about 1% from 12,500 in 2007. CSAs value a local approach to agriculture, and the ideal CSA reduces farmer risk through a membership share fee structure while increasing relationships with the local market. This approach of direct-toconsumer selling has been essential to the growth of the CSA movement in the United States. As markets have evolved, the historical advantages of the CSA model have contributed to some disadvantages. As markets mature, CSA farmers will have to increasingly adapt to the changing consumer landscape. This entry discusses CSA from the farmer perspective, focusing on the benefits and challenges of a CSA model.

271

crop failure or bumper crop. Farmers know their revenue from CSA at the beginning of the season. And receiving payment early in the season helps with the farm’s cash flow to purchase input for the upcoming season, such as seeds, soil amendments, and fertilizers. A CSA structure also provides increased social capital for communities as farmers have an opportunity to get to know the people who eat the food they grow. This facilitates obtaining direct feedback about their products, the ability to build a returning customer base, and increase in educational opportunities concerning seasonal eating and the realities of farming. Farmers have had control over their supply, choosing the product each week that is in abundance, as long as there is also variety. CSA farming also increases farmer ability to manage their time. Marketing activities to promote their CSA and recruit members are shifted to the off-growing season, freeing time for farm-related activities during the growing season. Farmers are also able to choose when and where the CSA pick up will be. The CSA model can support the different phases of a farm, from new venture to established enterprise. Beginning farmers can start off with a small CSA, which allows them to build on their farming skills while receiving early cash flow and building a customer base. As they build other accounts such as retail and wholesale and scale up their production, farmers can use the CSA as an avenue to sell produce that does not meet the requirements of more demanding customers such as restaurants and retail. When farms have been able to build up accounts and cash flow is not a problem in the beginning of the season, they may choose to stop their CSA program to focus on fewer crops and limit their interactions to fewer customers. Other farmers who enjoy the CSA can, as they gain experience, increase the number of shares they offer as well as the additional products they offer.

Benefits for Farmers Historically, the benefits of a CSA structure are numerous. CSA farming reduces financial capital risks to farmers, as they receive payment for the entire season up front. This reduces risk due to

Challenges for Farmers However, these benefits present ubiquitous and unique challenges to farmers. Some of the challenges relate to any direct-to-consumer model,

272

Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Farmers’ Perspective

including a CSA. Others have developed over time as the market for CSA farms becomes more saturated, consumers become increasingly savvy, and customer bases must grow beyond the typical localvore who has had great appreciation and a willingness to support local farmers. Using a CSA direct-to-consumer market is not a substitute for good management, including management of both production and marketing. Retail, as opposed to wholesale, distribution channels add dozens of customers that a farmer must accommodate. Farmers must estimate the number of members they can support. They must know about and deliver diversity of product. They must determine how many delivery/pickup days are manageable. They must have a good estimate on how long their season will last. These management issues make it difficult to determine a fair price for CSA shares and equally difficult to earn a livable wage. Additionally, variables outside of the farmer’s control, such as a flood or heavy insect damage, might discourage customers from coming back. Failure of CSAs can be explained by the lack of funding, inadequate farming or management skills, or inability to secure land. Managing a CSA farm is complex, as farmers need to grow a wide variety of crops to keep their members satisfied. And while the farm share “box” prepared by the farmer has been a traditional hallmark of the CSA model, as markets mature and consumer savvy increases in CSA purchase, challenges have arisen as to the best way to provide available produce to discerning consumers. As a result, the “mix and match,” or “market-style,” CSA has appeared. Instead of picking up a standard box of vegetables, members load their own boxes with some degree of personal choice, with guidance from the farmer. This adds complexity to farm management, as farmers lose some control over supply, especially if a popular crop is not abundant. Farmers may also lose some control over supply as consumers demand variety beyond produce, or demand produce that is not produced on the CSA farm. Adding value by adding products, either produced by the CSA farmer or in coordination with

other farmers, adds complexity in time management and financial capital management, reducing time that can be devoted to activities more closely associated with production. When farmers consolidate and form food hubs, it is easy to see how management becomes more complex. Some cases, including many farms in a single CSA, require hiring of outside management, decreasing many of the original benefits to farmers of the CSA approach. The direct-toconsumer aspect is somewhat lost, control over production and diversity of product can decline, the personal interaction with consumers can be lost or decreased, and autonomy over an entrepreneurial enterprise decreased. As CSAs increase in popularity, repeat members experience “wear out” of the CSA farm experience. As CSAs do not fill all market basket needs of consumers, a trip to a CSA can begin to appear as an increased time burden to consumers. Distribution styles of CSAs are changing as a result. Some CSAs deliver to a site off the farm, such as an employer, or even to individual members’ homes. While this meets consumer needs, the benefit of more time to devote to farming decreases for the farmer. The benefit of a known and guaranteed revenue stream at the beginning of the season is not a benefit for all CSA farmers. Not all customers are able to pay the full cost of a share up front. Therefore, some CSAs offer flexibility by allowing customers to make a few payments throughout the season. Some CSAs have member worker programs in which the members commit to working on the farm regularly during the season for a reduced or free share. Other CSAs have partnered with hunger reliving organizations to offer subsidized shares. As with the challenges of distribution, managing these relationships and connections can decrease the time available for production activities. As the CSA market expands, not all customers respect the notion of imperfect produce. Consumers may expect a market basket that more closely resembles the one that they can access at a supermarket. Farmer risk associated with product loss increases as consumers demand more consistency in supply and produce that more closely resembles

Competitive Eating

that of industrial agriculture. Members may complain that they get too much of certain types of produce in a given week, or members may regret getting produce that they have never heard of and do not know what to do with. With both returning members and new members, farmers must spend an increasing amount of time educating and reeducating consumers about seasonality and the fact that not all produce is perfect and that the growing season is not the same for all crops. If the customer base does not increase commensurate with the increase in the number of CSAs, balance with other distribution channels presents an increased challenge (e.g., wholesale, weekly farmers’ markets, farm stands). Technology has added an additional complication to CSA farmer management. Because the Internet has become such a central part of everyday life, it is valuable for growers to look at how they can integrate web communications into their CSA. While participating in social media may add an additional time burden to farmers, having a website can help with increasing awareness to potential customers, may be used for education, and perhaps can help with management if savvy farmers can use a preview page to gauge member demand for particular items that might be available that week.

Adapting to a Changing Market In some areas of the country, CSA farms may be at the beginning of their life cycle. In these areas, if excess consumer demand exists and CSAs are seen as innovative, farmers can experience many of the benefits outlined above. In other areas of the country, CSA farms may be reaching a point of saturating the market. In these areas, experienced CSA farmers may face some of the challenges outlined above. These farmers must adapt to a changing market and realize that they may not experience the full complement or extent of benefits available to a new market. Farmers wanting to enter these markets will have to be innovative and adapt to new challenges of direct selling through CSAs. Segmentation of the market is possible and could help farmers reach specific markets, for instance, a

273

discovery CSA would include less well-known vegetables requiring more cooking skills and time, while a basic CSA would focus on basic vegetables that any person with basic cooking skills and limited time can use. Focusing on the different size of households is also possible such as a CSA geared toward a family or toward smaller households. Jane Kolodinsky See also Locavorism; Organic/Biodynamic Farming; Sustainable Agrifood Systems; Values-Based Food Supply Chains

Further Readings Local Harvest. (n.d.). Community supported agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.localharvest.org/csa/ McFadden, S. (n.d.). The history of community supported agriculture, Part I. Community farms in the 21st century: Poised for another wave of growth? Kotztown, PA: Rodale Institute. Retrieved from http:// newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0104/csa-history/ part1.shtml Northeast Organic Food Association. (n.d.). CSAs: Community supported agriculture. Retrieved from http://nofavt.org/market-organic-food/communitysupported-agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Community supported agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.nal .usda.gov/afsic/pubs/csa/csa.shtml

COMPETITIVE EATING Competitive eating started off as a friendly game at local American fairs, typically a pie-eating contest that was more fun than competition. Today, it is considered a sport in the United States and Japan, where competitors (often called gurgitators) speed-eat food in a timed setting, often for cash prizes. The sport has two governing bodies: (1) Major League Eating (formerly known as the International Federation of Competitive Eating) and (2) All Pro Eating (formerly known as the Association of Independent Competitive Eaters). The sport rose to fame during the 1990s and

274

Competitive Eating

2000s, and since then, it has been a source of controversy, from questions of its safety and unknown long-term consequences for competitors to the display of excessive eating in a country where not everyone has food to eat. This entry focuses on the history, development, and criticisms of competitive eating.

Competitive Eating Throughout History Americans have always had an obsession with eating. This can be seen in our Puritan ancestors’ fascination with fasting and vomiting and in early American mythologies of epic eaters such as Paul Bunyan and Davy Crockett, possibly inspired by the abundance of the new continent. Pie-eating contests were a regular occurrence by the beginning of the 20th century, with the army utilizing them during World War I to encourage patriotism and boost morale. Nathan’s Famous, a hot dog stand owned by Nathan Handwerker, held their first ever hot dog–eating contest on July 4, 1916, as a promotion. It was held at noon for 12 minutes and has run off and on throughout the years, appearing more regularly from the 1970s. In the late 1980s, George Shea, whose PR firm handled Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July contest, started focusing on growing the contest by instituting qualifying events during the year. His idea paid off, and from the late 1990s through the present, the event has drawn tens of thousands of spectators every year. The first winner in 1916 consumed 10 hot dogs and buns in 12 minutes, while Joey Chestnut set the world record (at a Major League Eating–sanctioned event) in 2013, devouring 69 hot dogs and buns in 10 minutes winning $10,000. In 2001, a skinny, unassuming Japanese man named Takeru Kobayashi won the contest by breaking the current record by more than 20 hot dogs and buns, which was the start of a rise in media attention for the sport. Competitive eating contests have expanded to include a wide range of foods, from buffalo wings to butter and from pierogis to cupcakes. The competitors are known by their nicknames and occasionally larger-than-life characters. There is Joey

“Jaws” Chestnut, Takeru “the Tsunami” Kobayashi, and Sonia “the Black Widow” Thomas. Eric “Badlands” Booker has put out several competitive eating rap albums, and Bayou Boyd Bulot’s trick is to finish a competitive eating contest and then order more food to prove he is not full.

International Federation of Competitive Eaters/Major League Eating George Shea went on to found the International Federation of Competitive Eating (IFOCE) along with his brother, Richard Shea, in 1997. The organization is now under the umbrella of Major League Eating (MLE), a brand name for the competitions and competitors that the IFOCE sanctions. It is currently the largest governing body of sanctioned competitive eating events in the United States. It sanctions the annual Nathan’s Famous hot dog–eating contest along with approximately 80 other events a year. Competitors must sign a contract requiring them to only compete for MLE events, a rule that caused many players to leave and start their own league. They have the most established safety regulations on the circuit, requiring an emergency medical technician on hand at all times and a minimum age of 18 years to participate.

Association of Independent Competitive Eaters/All Pro Eating In 2004, due to disputes with their contracts with the IFOCE, former competitor Arnie “Chowhound” Chapman created an independent league from the IFOCE—the Association of Independent Competitive Eaters, or AICE. AICE is a democratic organization that allows major decision and profits to be enjoyed by all its members. In 2008, they implemented the title All Pro Eating (APE). Their main difference from the IFOCE/MLE is their encouragement to competitors to not train and their adherence to “picnic-style” competitive eating, which means competitors are not allowed to use premasticated performance-enhancing techniques. This prohibits the use of water or condiments to help competitors eat the food quicker

Competitive Eating

(dunking food in water is a common eating method in the IFOCE/MLE).

Competitive Eating Contests Rules

Every contest has a food focus (hot dogs, dumplings, etc.), an emcee who introduces the competitors and engages the audience, and a time limit, typically between 8 and 15 minutes. The emcee’s job is more that of a carnival barker, trying to make an event that is not very dramatic enjoyable to watch. Some contests also hire judges, who are required to make sure that the rules are followed and to weigh the food left over at the end to determine a winner. There are several rules that all competitive eating contests follow, and some that are only followed by individual leagues. For instance, if a competitor has to vomit during any point of any competition, he or she will be automatically disqualified in all contests (known as a reversal of fortune). Another rule followed by all contests is the rule of debris, which deducts points for excessive debris left around each competitor’s plate at the end of a contest. Some contests allow competitors to chipmunk, or to stuff as much food as possible into their cheeks before the timer runs out. Most competitors are given a short amount of time to finish the food in their mouth or have points deducted. Dunking is probably the most controversial rule. Some competitors believe that dunking their food in water or a condiment will help them eat faster—so many IFOCE/MLE contests allow it. At the Nathan’s Famous hot dog– eating contest every year, people have created eating methods around dunking their buns in water. However, all AICE/APE competitions prohibit dunking, believing that it compromises the integrity of the food and the contest by giving people an unfair advantage. Training Sessions

Many competitors choose to train their bodies in various ways for competitive eating events.

275

AICE/APE competitions do not allow training, but all IFOCE/MLE competitions do and even encourage it (winners of qualifying events for Nathan’s Famous annual contest get Nathan’s Famous hot dogs to train). Some competitors choose to focus on speed, so they train by timing their eating sessions. Many competitors prefer to exercise stretching their stomachs larger and do so by eating foods that help stretch the stomach, such as cabbage, or drinking large amounts of water (known as capacity training). Some will have training meals at buffets and ethnic restaurants where they can get a large amount of food for a small amount of money. Eric “Badlands” Booker likes to meditate about the food he is competing with before each competition, be it hot dogs or tamales. Sonia “the Black Widow” Thomas prefers not to train at all, relying on her larger than life appetite to win competitions, but she does work out several times a week to stay in shape. A recent phenomenon in the world of competitive eating has been the body type of top competitors. In the 1990s, the most successful competitors were large, overweight men. But starting slowly in the mid-1990s through today, a smaller, toned breed of competitor has been rising through the ranks. The top five eaters in the IFOCE/MLE in the beginning of 2013 were at a healthy weight, almost skinny, and one of them was a female. Former competitor Ed Kratchie, who now works as a licensed engineer, created a theory behind this shift to smaller competitors being more successful that he calls the “belt of fat.” After being beaten twice by a small Japanese man named Hirofumi Nakajima, Kratchie started reading medical journals and consulting with doctors. What he discovered was that the adipose tissues that make up the belly (known as the belt of fat) lie between the abdomen and the skin, and it pushes against the stomach, especially when it is distended from excessive eating. Kratchie hypothesized that a large gut could hinder a stomach’s capacity and was eventually able to get his theory published in a 2003 issue of Popular Science magazine. Some of the best eaters on the circuit now include regular exercise as part of their training routine, both to

276

Competitive Eating

minimize their belt of fat and also to stave off any issues from consuming so many calories and sodium.

Logistics of Competitive Eating When food first enters a competitor’s mouth, the first hurdle is to get an unusually large amount of food down the esophagus. Many competitive eaters have reported that they have learned to relax the esophagus to allow food to move easily toward their stomach. The food then arrives in the lower esophageal sphincter, or LES, whose job is to open and close not only to allow the food in but also to keep the acid out. Some competitors use capacity training (drinking at least a gallon of water a day) to train their LES to relax, causing it to go into paralysis. The food’s last task is to remain in the stomach as long as possible without causing a Roman incident (vomiting), because the stomach typically only holds enough food to fit into an average person’s loosely cupped hands. Some competitors try to make more room for food during a contest by “catching a burp” or jumping up and down to help move the food through. After a competition, what happens to the body depends on the competitor and the food eaten. Many complain of gas, nausea, cramping, diarrhea, and heartburn. Large stools or diarrhea commences as soon as 30 minutes after a competition and can last up to 24 hours. The liver, pancreas, and gallbladder work overtime to try and process a week’s work of food eaten in a short time span.

Media Exposure The coverage of competitive eating by the media started occurring in the mid-1990s and has ranged from print media to Internet coverage, documentaries, and television news reports and shows. Competitive eating has been featured in the Wall Street Journal and on Discovery Channel, and when Eric “Badlands” Booker broke the matzo ball record by eating 21 baseball-sized ones in 5 minutes and 25 seconds in 2003, it made the CNN news crawl. In fact, that same year, ESPN

bought the rights to the Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July hot dog–eating contest, first airing it live in 2004. There have been several documentaries about competitive eating competitors, including Red White and Yellow (1998, about Ed Kratchie) and Crazy Legs Conti: Zen and the Art of Competitive Eating (2004). In February 2006, MTV’s popular show True Life’s topic was “I’m a competitive eater,” and it followed superstar Takeru Kobayashi around as he trained and competed, doubling the network’s prime-time average. That same year, two different books were published about the sport: Eat This Book: A Year of Gorging and Glory on the Competitive Eating Circuit by Ryan Nerz and Horsemen of the Esophagus: Competitive Eating and the Big Fat American Dream by Jason Fagone. For 99 cents, you can download the game Major League Eating from iTunes, officially licensed by the IFOCE. Pick from a range of famous competitive eaters like Eater X or Crazy Legs Conti, pick your food of choice, and earn extra power by burping.

Criticisms and Dangers Reported Injuries and Deaths

There have been five reported deaths in the world from competitive eating, mostly from choking. In 2007, a woman in California passed away from water intoxication during a water drinking contest to win a video game system. The only reported injury from competitive eating was by Japanese competitor Takeru Kobayashi, who suffered from an arthritic jaw after years of competitive eating. The biggest fear critics of competitive eating have is the unknown effects of long-term competitive eating, which has yet to be found. The Eating Disorder Connection

To deal with the painful side effects of consuming large quantities of food in a short period of time, some competitors go to extreme measures to get the food out of their body, namely, forced vomiting or laxatives. This behavior is the same as that exhibited by people suffering from various eating

Composting

disorders, from binge eating to bulimia, which has led doctors to hypothesize that some competitive eaters may also suffer from an eating disorder, or at least have a similar psychological makeup. Additionally, binge eaters have been tested to show that their extreme eating habits have actually stretched the capacity of their stomach. This is very similar to the training method employed by many competitive eaters known as capacity training, and it is considered a dangerous practice. Leena Trivedi-Grenier See also Buffets/All You Can Eat; Cardiac Disease and Diet; Food in Popular Media; Sports Nutrition

Further Readings Ekwurtzel, K. (2012, July 4). Hot dog havoc: Health risks of competitive eating. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/hot-dog-havoc-healthrisks-competitive-eating/story?id=16705283 Fagone, J. (2006). Horsemen of the esophagus: Competitive eating and the big fat American dream. New York, NY: Crown. Frangou, C. (2006, July). Competitive eating contests baffle gastroenterologists. Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News. Retrieved from http://www.gastroendonews.com/ ViewArticle.aspx?d_id=187&a_id=6026 Kaufman, F. (2008). A short history of the American stomach (pp. 87–95, 113–115). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Nerz, R. (2006). Eat this book: A year of gorging and glory on the competitive eating circuit. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin. Ronson, J. (2012, November). Clear eyes, full plate, can’t puke. GQ Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.gq .com/news-politics/newsmakers/201211/jon-ronsoncompetitive-eating-contests-gq-november-2012?printab le=true¤tPage=5

Websites All Pro Eating Promotions/Association of Independent Competitive Eaters: http://www.competitiveeaters.com/ Major League Eating/International Federation of Competitive Eating: http://majorleagueeating.com/

277

COMPOSTING The word compost derives etymologically from the Latin word composita, meaning something put together or mixed, and appears in the 13th century in Old French as composte. At this point, it referred to a mixed dish of cooked vegetables or fruit meant to be eaten, which survives in the word compote. In English, the meaning referring to fertilizer dates from the 1580s in William Harrison’s Description of England, wherein he describes soil suitable for growing barley without compest. Shakespeare uses the word in the same sense in Hamlet (III, iv, 153): “Do not spread the compost on the weeds To make them ranker,” meaning that using fertilizer to facilitate the growth of useful plants was already a common practice. At this point, soil amendment was typically made with animal manure, human manure, or “night soil” or what was called green manure, meaning rotted vegetable matter, sometimes in the form of a cover crop, which could be simply mowed down and turned into the soil. It could also be made from rotted straw and manure taken from animal stalls. Other amendments included marl, peat, seaweed, bird droppings, and later bat guano. These kinds of fertilizers were nothing new in the early modern era, and their use is well documented even in ancient times. The Greeks and the Romans used similar fertilizers; Cato the Elder mentions them in De Re Agricultura in the 2nd century BCE and even describes the importance of worms. Dung as fertilizer is also mentioned in the Old Testament. All this preceded the advent of chemical fertilizers in the 19th century following the work of Justus von Leibig. Thus, composting is considered an older and more natural means of amending soil. Since commercial farming relies largely on chemical fertilizers, composting is used commercially primarily in organic farming and in home gardening. The return to these older, organic, practices derives from the work of Sir Albert Howard, who published the Agriculture Testament in 1943 based

278

Composting

on his earlier research in India. He promoted the development of layers of manure and vegetable matter as fertilizer in mounds. This was enthusiastically taken up by J. I. Rodale, who might be considered the father of composting in the United States, in his Organic Gardening magazine. This entry examines how composting works, home composting for the garden, and large-scale green waste recycling.

How Composting Works Practically any vegetable matter wetted down will decompose through bacterial action into a form of compost, but aeration and a good balance of leaves and food waste facilitate the development of humus. Humus is essentially fully decomposed organic matter, which becomes light and porous and helps facilitate water retention. The bacteria in thriving humus also deter pests and help prevent plant diseases, and soil amended with it is very much alive. Most important, it contains organic chemicals in forms that can be absorbed by plants. When worms are present, known as vermicomposting, they also further break down the organic materials and lighten and aerate the soil with their castings. Growing plants not only thrive in soil amended with compost, but the rootlets also extend down more easily, soak up nutrients and moisture, and the microbes even play a hormonal role in stimulating plant growth. Just as in the digestive systems of animals, which thrive symbiotically on bacteria in the gut, plants also depend on living substrate for optimal nutrition and growth. In both cases, these organisms evolve together. Just as the cow needs bacteria to digest grass, the grass needs droppings on the soil to reabsorb the nutrients it needs to grow. Organic gardening basically replicates these purely natural processes, creating its own closed systems in which nutrients are recycled. By comparison, farms and gardens that depend on chemical inputs eventually grow barren since the soil is in a sense dead and the more complex living exchanges among species have been replaced by single chemicals—nitrogen, phosphorus, and

potassium—in much the same way that human nutrition has been reduced to simple calories and vitamins in what has been described as “nutritionism.” It is not coincidental that Justus von Leibig was also a key figure in the history of human nutrition, breaking down nutritive matter into what would be called proteins, carbohydrates, and fats. We now know that there is much more involved—not only vitamins and minerals and micronutrients but also a host of as yet unknown factors. The same is true of plant nutrition.

How to Compost Although there are many forms of composting practiced around the world, and many expensive bins and contraptions that one can purchase, composting can be done very simply, directly on the ground, which is actually beneficial if one wants worms and microbes from the soil. The intention is to provide carbon from leaves or cuttings and nitrogen from table scraps. Of course, anything in the scraps, including pesticide residues, will also end up in the compost, so organic garbage is often preferred. Apart from meat and bones, any peelings, cores, vegetables that have begun to go bad, and even egg shells are good for the compost pile. Coffee grounds, lawn cuttings, ashes from the fireplace, and clean sawdust are all good additions. Some scraps, while not bad, tend to resist decomposition, such as avocado peels. All these materials can simply be piled together on the ground and watered. Periodically, the pile must be turned over to aerate, which allows the bacteria to thrive. New scraps can be worked into the pile, but normally fully decomposed piles are kept separate from fresh ones. Some people cover the pile with a tarp, though this is not strictly necessary. A composting bin or tumbler can be helpful to keep pests out and isolate odors, though a thriving compost pile will actually smell sweet and earthy. As the organic matter decomposes, it will heat up, a sign that the microbes are doing their job. The most remarkable thing is that what seems like a huge pile to start with actually shrinks down to practically nothing, and an entire year’s worth

Consistency of Food Products/Ingredients

of kitchen scraps and leaves will seem miniscule compared with what would otherwise be tossed in a garbage can. The finished compost can be simply added to the soil or some people like to soak it for several days in water to create a compost tea, which is poured onto the soil.

Industrial Composting Apart from home composting for the garden and larger operations for organic farming, composting can also be done on a massive industrial scale. Green waste from entire cities that recycle can be converted to fertilizer. This is increasingly being considered as an environmentally sound way to dispose of waste and a good alternative to landfills and sewage treatment. There is great potential not only as a way to recycle organic matter but also as a way to generate energy and fuel. Whether these operations will displace chemical fertilizers seems unlikely in the near future, but as the demand for organic produce increases, municipal authorities will find more creative ways to recycle green waste. Ken Albala See also Biodynamic Food; Chemical Fertilizers; Nutritionism; Organic Production; Soil Degradation and Conservation

Further Readings Campbell, S. (1998). Let it rot: The gardener’s guide to composting. North Adams, MA: Storey’s Down-toEarth Guides. Gershuny, G., & Martin, D. L. (1992). The Rodale book of composting: Easy methods for every gardener. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books. Scott, N. (2007). Composting: An easy household guide. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS See Factory Farming

CONSISTENCY INGREDIENTS

OF

279

FOOD PRODUCTS/

Consistency is a hallmark of mass-produced foods: Presliced bread, breakfast cereals, and snack foods taste and look the same no matter where or when they are purchased. To meet consumer expectations about uniform quality, producers strive to ensure that each product is made to the same standard and final products have identical taste, appearance, size, and shape. For the industry, it is economically efficient to produce standardized foods by using automated machinery in streamlined operations. Historically, professionals such as home economists and taste testers have developed standardized recipes and ensured uniform taste and flavor since the turn of the 20th century. Over the past few decades, the development of food technology and the establishment of quality standards have improved the consistency of food products. This entry examines how product recipe, ingredients, equipment, and quality standards all contribute to consistency in mass-produced foods.

Designing Products Food companies develop clearly defined procedures for ordering and handling raw ingredients. A basic recipe needs to be reliable and repeatable for manufacturers to produce consistent foods. Designing uniform products requires the specification of various factors, including size, shape, weight, sensory characteristics (taste, flavor, color, and texture), ingredients, proportion of ingredients, and methods of production. Manufacturers often use computers to design the physical appearance of a product, calculate ingredients and nutritional values, and plan operational flow.

Ingredients Food producers use various ingredients and food additives to make products identical. Colorings, flavorings, and other food additives are used to

280

Consistency of Food Products/Ingredients

offer consumers the same sensory experience every time they eat a particular food. For example, sodium stearoyl lactylate is an emulsifier that is often used in baking to disperse fats in the bread and maintain the texture. To manufacture a yogurt with a consistent texture, producers use additives such as gelatin, gums, concentrated milk, or skimmed milk powder. Processed food manufacturers and food service businesses, such as catering trade and chain restaurants, utilize preprepared ingredients called standard components, such as pizza bases, readymade sauces, cake mixes, frozen pastry, and stock cubes. Instead of making food products from scratch using raw ingredients, producers simply add other ingredients, which may also be standard components, to make a range of final products. Using standard components helps ensure a consistent final product because they are of a standard quality: uniform size, weight, shape, flavor, and proportion. Standard components are also quick, easy, and less expensive to use. Suppliers who specialize in prepared ingredients can manufacture products in very large quantities on a dedicated production line.

consider time settings, speed settings, cooking temperatures, and a range and shape of attachments, cutters, or templates. Throughout manufacturing processes, manufacturers check a product from each lane to ensure consistent quality of the product, and the standard continues to meet the original specification. Sensors can monitor an array of variables, including oven temperatures, chilling times, weight of individual product components, color, pH values, and moisture content. Computerized weighing machines, or electronic scales, are used to accurately weigh and measure ingredients according to the recipe. Other testing equipment includes thermostats for detecting and maintaining the temperature, food probes for the inner temperature of food, light refractors for the density and color of foods, and texture analyzers for firmness, cohesiveness, springiness, chewiness, and resilience. Because there may be some variation in the desired weight, temperature, color, or size, manufacturers determine the minimum and maximum limits of error margins for each measurement category. These margins are called designated tolerances and help producers ensure consistent quality by allowing acceptable variations of physical qualities.

Manufacturing Food manufacturers employ a wide range of equipment to produce uniform products and carefully monitor each operation in the food production process. They often use computer-programmed and computer-controlled machinery. Ingredients are cut using special machinery to ensure uniformity in size and shape. Likewise, producers cook at a constant temperature to provide uniform flavor and texture. The food extruder is used to ensure standardized shape and size of various massproduced foods, including cereals, snacks, pet food, baby food, confectionery products, and instant foods. Food extrusion is a homogeneous and consistent cooking process by which mixed ingredients are forced through dies to produce specific shapes and lengths. Selecting the correct equipment and settings is essential to maintain consistency during production. It is important to

Quality Standards To ensure that food processing consistently delivers the desired level of food safety and quality, manufacturers implement quality management systems, such as Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP). HACCP is a risk assessment method for preventing hazards in production processes from raw material handling to manufacturing and distribution of the final product. HACCP requires manufacturers to establish procedures to constantly monitor critical control points where hazards can be eliminated or controlled. In determining the standard quality of their products and evaluating manufacturing processes, producers can manage the manufacturing of uniform quality at different stages of food production. HACCP can be applied to various food products, including seafood, meat products, fresh-cut produce, and juice.

Consumer Trust

Quality and grade standards, such as U.S. Grade Standards and EU Regulation 543/2011, specify the standard for size, shape, color, and other physical properties of agricultural products. Conforming to these standards requires producers to achieve consistent food quality. Grading systems also help suppliers and retailers classify various grades of products according to the standard and market uniform products of desired quality. Ai Hisano See also Food Additives; Food Safety; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Packaged Food and Preservatives; Recipe Testing; Standards and Measures

Further Readings Booker, J., Monks, B., Roberts, H., & Stafford, J. (Eds.). (2004). Maximise your mark: Food technology revision guide. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes. Feltault, K. (2009). Trading quality, producing value: Crabmeat, HACCP, and global seafood trade. In W. Belasco & R. Horowitz (Eds.), Food chains: From farmyard to shopping cart (pp. 62–83). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mutlu, M. (Ed.). (2011). Biosensors in food processing, safety, and quality control. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Schröder, M. J. A. (2003). Food quality and consumer value: Delivering food that satisfies. New York, NY: Springer.

CONSUMER TRUST In the past two decades, food industries in developed countries have experienced increasing numbers of food scares that have resulted in increased consumer concerns about the safety of food. Concerns about the safety and quality of food have become one of the most prominent issues about food. Media coverage of incidents around food safety and the increased attention to food scares internationally (e.g., bovine spongiform

281

encephalopathy, genetic modification, pesticides, Salmonella, Listeria) have raised public concerns around food safety. As a result of food scares and food safety issues, as well as resulting media stories, there has been a decline in trust in the food supply and production. This decline in trust has led to decreased demands in the foods in question and the purchase of foods from associated companies. For example, within Western Europe, there has been a growing public unease about the health and safety of modern food production. Food-related scares have dominated the news media and have led to the erosion of public trust as well as increasing consumer confusion about food safety and diet issues. In addition, the increase in information from the media regarding what to eat, and where to eat, differs according to the “expert” in question. The results have been a decline in the authority of experts generally. This entry examines the conceptualization and scope of trust in food. The entry begins with a look at reasons for the decline in consumers’ trust in the quality and safety of the food they eat.

Reasons for Declining Trust in Food The concerns regarding food production and safety may reflect consumers’ lack of knowledge with respect to the production and technology of food. Some studies have found that many consumers harbor incorrect beliefs regarding food additives (e.g., the harms of artificial coloring) leading to concerns that may be unfounded, scientifically. However, scientific facts—especially when conveyed poorly or by vested interests—do not always pacify consumer worries, and often the legitimacy of the messenger is as important as that of the message. The lack of control and knowledge over the foods consumers purchase may in part be the result of the growing gap between the producers and the consumers of food. Modern society has become more complex and, consequently, the choices individuals make about food have become increasingly complex: What do we buy?

282

Consumer Trust

Who do we buy from? Locally or globally? Organic or nonorganic? Ethically or economically? The role of trust in food has become increasingly complex because individuals cannot possibly be knowledgeable about all of the underlying issues surrounding food choices. The need for trust stems from public realization that individuals have a level of reliance on food production, regulation, and marketing; we all have to eat. We rely on expert systems to provide us with expert information regarding the food we should eat because as lay individuals, we often do not have the resources or knowledge to adequately navigate our food choices. As the distance grows between populations and their food supplies, and as the manufactured globally available foods displace traditional diets increasingly, people now rely on a range of food institutions for guidance. These include food producers, scientific experts, the media, and governments.

How Do We Conceptualize Food Trust? Trust has been conceptualized as representing a central motif of late modernity and the demarcation between what has been called “premodern” and “modern” society. In addition, trust is seen as a vital component of salutogenesis (i.e., health creation), well-being, and happiness. Debates about food trust can be set within a landscape of multiple and competing discourses (within and between lay, media, and professional sources) around “un/healthy, risky food.” With an ever-expanding access to various forms of knowledge, the multiple truth claims and contested nature of science (e.g., food safety) have led many to suggest that we are in a state of “liminality.” The consequences of this is that lay people begin to question the validity of scientific knowledge and, hence, the “trustfulness” of both food safety “experts” and the system on which their knowledge is based. In this way, trust in the food system can no longer be simply taken for granted or expected: It has to be constantly invented and reinvented and maintained. Indeed, the process of negotiation and lack of guaranteed

trust by lay audiences may represent a deconstruction of the formally perceived dichotomy between “lay” and “expert” as, in the process, this distinction becomes increasingly meaningless and subjective. Finally, most theorists suggest that trust is operationalized at two interrelated levels: (1) interpersonal trust and (2) systems-based trust (also called generalized trust, institutional trust, or trust in abstract systems). The two levels of trust are interrelated in that the shopkeeper, butcher, or baker, for example, is the public face of the food system and, therefore, in some way will influence levels of trust in the food system. Nevertheless, the theory suggests that individuals may have trust in their butcher due to personal experience but have mistrust in the food system (e.g., due to media reporting). They may feel that their butcher is doing everything for them, within the restraints of a system that is unhelpful or inequitable. Conversely, individuals may have complete mistrust of their butcher, while still retaining trust in the system. Anthony Giddens calls the meeting points of interpersonal and systems-based trust “access points.” In this example, the supermarket is the access point where the butcher is seen to represent or be responsible for the food system. In relation to food and health, trust is crucial if consumers are to recognize and accept the benefits of new food technologies, follow expert advice on healthier eating, and feel assured that food regulation is protecting their best interests. In some countries, a lack of trust has had a detrimental effect on public confidence in the integrity of the food supply, leaving consumers vulnerable to misinformation and poor dietary choices.

How Is Food Trust Exercised? Food trust is mostly exercised as decisions at point of purchase. These decisions may be witnessed in the form of accepting or rejecting certain forms of production (accepting organic and free range foods and rejecting genetically modified foods) or through choosing alternative forms of consumption (“locavore” or vegetarian lifestyles). Consumers’

Consumer Trust

power and muscle lie in their ability to resist or ignore professional or “expert” advice. However, this resistance can only go so far; as humans, all individuals need to eat, and a large proportion of the lay population rely on systems of knowledge (expert systems of regulation, production) to provide them with the necessary information to make informed decisions about food and what to eat. Additionally, even for the reflexive informed individual, the dilemma remains as to how they find a trustworthy source of information. It has been suggested that the special separation between production and consumption has led to less reflexive consumers. It has become increasingly difficult for the public to assess food risks using physical attributes such as smell and taste. Indeed, consumers now rely on trust in regulators and the food industry to minimize the impacts of risky consumption on health. The dilemma for consumers lies in the fact that the systems on which they want or need to depend on are becoming increasingly untrustworthy in their eyes. Previously, it was widely and straightforwardly assumed by individuals that the experts were “right” and that lay people were “wrong.” However, the increase in the complexity of production and regulation in the past two decades has decreased communication or shared knowledge between the consumers and the producers. The lack of communication and the growing gap between the producers and the consumers have led to a distinct disembeddedness. The disembedded nature of the producer–consumer relationships are compounded by the differential knowledge of laypeople and experts regarding food, and food knowledge has caused anxiety in lay individuals who lack an understanding regarding food safety and food production. The changing character of the food system is reflected in the multitude of systems of control that regulate and monitor the food supply, many of which are completely invisible to consumers and are, therefore, not recognized as useful or meaningful. The number of food scares and safety issues are reminders to the public that the people or systems behind food production and regulation

283

are not impenetrable from economic, political, and bureaucratic influences.

The Scope of Food Trust No single location or culture has a monopoly on food trust issues; however, it is true that some religious practices require that consumers place trust in food labeled, for example, “halal,” “kosher,” or “contains no animal products.” Also, some jurisdictions, more than others, appear to have been required to pay more attention to rebuilding and maintaining consumer food trust. Indeed, having endured a number of scares and scandals associated with the food quality in Europe, the most recent food scare involving bean sprouts from Germany—which killed 29 people—demonstrated to consumers that there are many vulnerabilities in their food supply. Over the past 20 years, jurisdictions in Europe have experienced many such food trust problems. This has included concerns in the 1980s about the use of growth-promoting hormones in beef production, dioxins found in soft drinks and listeriosis outbreaks in France in 1999 and 2000, and foot and mouth disease starting in the United Kingdom. The most infamous of these was the bovine spongiform encephalitis (or mad cow disease) outbreak starting in the United Kingdom in 1986, and later spreading to other parts of Europe. Other jurisdictions, like Canada and Australia, by contrast, have experienced fewer cases of the same magnitude of food distrust. This is not to suggest that Australian or Canadian consumers do not experience doubt or suspicion about the safety of the food supply. Surveys show that the public are concerned about pesticides, food additives, and preservatives and that processed foods harbor undesirable chemicals or additives. These concerns go to the heart of the public’s confidence in the quality of the food supply that is available to them. Food quality problems can influence overall trust in the food supply, thereby taking a toll on the public’s faith in the systems designed to keep food safe. The levels of trust in the food supply and in the governance of the food supply have been

284

Contract Laws

dramatically affected in Europe. In the United Kingdom, for example, public trust in the governance of the food supply has been found to be low. And in other parts of the European Union, trust in food regulation and legislation has been found in many countries to be in need of improvement. Of importance is the degree of “truth telling” during times when a food scare is being experienced. On these occasions, all players along the food chain, from production to retail, come under scrutiny. Also under scrutiny are the governing bodies who are entrusted to keep food safe and, importantly, the media that conveys relevant information to public information. These various agencies and bodies have been termed food chain actors.

Impact of Food Trust on Consumers Of concern to “food chain actors” is that along with decreased trust follows increased consumer anxiety. Additionally, it has been suggested that consumer concerns about food may hamper healthy food choices. If consumers are distrusting of the systems behind food production, they will be distrusting of the information provided by those systems. It has been found in earlier research that due to a lack of trust, consumers have been found to make conscious choices to ignore government and health advice regarding vitamin intake. Although the information provided to consumers may be with regard to nutritional quality and health benefits of food, the claims must be backed by reliable sources. A lack of trust has been found to have detrimental effects on public confidence in the integrity of the food supply, leaving consumers vulnerable to misinformation and poor dietary choices. As such, the role of trust in influencing consumer choices is increasingly important. The re-embedding of trust in both the food supply as a whole and the food corporation is considered more than ever necessary.

Conclusions With expanding global markets, increasing food technologies, and the growing distance between food producers and consumers, food trust will

continue to be a food issue that will increasingly dominate government and corporate concerns. The need for quick responses to incidents when food trust has been breached, the necessary mechanisms to rebuild trust, and the necessary communication to limit the damage done will all be constant issues for the foreseeable future. John Coveney, Julie Henderson, Samantha Meyer, Loreen Mamerow, Anne Taylor, Paul Ward, and Annabelle Wilson See also Bioterrorism; Botulism; Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet; Chemical Fertilizers; Food Additives; Food Safety; Foodborne Illness; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified; Mad Cow Disease

Further Readings Coveney, J. (2007). Food and trust in Australia: Building a picture. Public Health Nutrition, 11(3), 237–245. German tests link bean sprouts to deadly E. coli. (2011, June 10). BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc .co.uk/news/world-europe-13725953 Henderson, J., Mamerow, L., Taylor, A., Ward, P., Meyer, S., & Coveney, J. (2013). The importance placed on the monitoring of food safety and quality by Australian consumers. Laws, 2, 99–114. Meyer, S. B., Coveney, J., Henderson, J., Ward, P. R., & Taylor, A. W. (2012). Reconnecting Australian consumers and producers: Identifying problems of distrust. Food Policy, 37(6), 634–640. Neth, J., Henderson, J., Coveney, J., & Ward, P. (2013). Consumer faith: An exploration of trust in food and the impact of religious dietary norms and certification. Food, Culture & Society, 16(3), 421–436. Poppe, C., & KjÊrnes, U. (2003). Trust in food in Europe: A comparative analysis (Professional Report No. 5). Oslo, Norway: National Institute for Consumer Research.

CONTRACT LAWS The law of contracts affects almost all aspects of business. Leases, sales agreements, and employment

Contract Laws

agreements are all contracts. Without a basic understanding of contract laws, it is impossible to do business. A contract is a form of agreement between two or more persons (known as parties to the contract) with the purpose of creating mutual obligations between or among the parties. This entry discusses contract laws in the United States, with examples from the food and restaurant industries. Contracts are entered into every day on an oral basis. People order something at a restaurant and pay for the food. The restaurant provides the food that was ordered. The business that is transacted via contract is commonplace and oral. The actual obligations are incurred and satisfied through the usual course of business and accepted practice. Some contracts are written. Some types of contracts are required to be in writing in order to be binding, such as real estate contracts. It is the statute of frauds that requires a written contract under certain conditions. Other times, contracts are written because they are not part of the normal course of business, because they contain complex provisions, or because they will take place over a long period of time and the writing memorializes the agreement. There are four basic components to a contract: (1) a meeting of the minds (offer and acceptance) also known as mutual assent, (2) consideration, (3) competence, and (4) legal subject matter. A meeting of the minds means that an offer that sets out the terms is communicated by the offeror to the offeree. The offer then must be accepted by the offeree. The consideration is the mutual obligation that is created by the offer and the acceptance. For example, Party A promises to pay $X per month to Party B as rent on B’s empty restaurant. Party B promises to provide the premises in a certain condition in exchange for the money. If the offeree varies the terms of the offer in the acceptance, it is not an acceptance. It is a counteroffer. A counteroffer is a new offer, turning the original offeree into a new offeror. The $X and the providing of the premises are the consideration. The price or the other considerations must be specific and ascertainable. It is not a contract when the price is whimsical or unknown.

285

The consideration must also be sufficient. This means that if the price or obligations are not roughly equivalent in value, the consideration may be insufficient, resulting in the failure to create a contract. The terms also include a legal subject matter. In those places where gambling is illegal, a debt created by losses in gambling cannot be enforced in court, because the debt is created by illegal subject matter. The sale of illegal drugs may also be unenforceable because of a lack of legal subject matter. Contracts are basic to business transactions. They are considered so essential that freedom to contract is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Contracts are based on the freedom to set terms and conditions, normal and usual business practices, special industry practices and customs, and on reasonableness. When there is a need to interpret contracts because of a dispute, the common meaning of words is used in interpretation. The exception to the common meaning rule exists when and where specific words that have a special meaning in the industry are used. These words are called words of art. When words of art are used, they are given their artful meaning in a contract. It is essential that the parties have the capacity to contract. To have capacity, the parties must be of legal age. In most cases, this means the age of majority. However, people younger than 18 can pay for and buy food at a grocery store or restaurant. If the sale is contested by the underage person, depending on the type and subject matter of the contract, the sale might be overturned. Occasionally, it is necessary to be older than the age of majority in order to enter into a contract. Such is the case in purchases of alcoholic beverages in most locations. The legal age in the United States for the purchase of alcoholic beverages is 21. Another form of incompetence other than age is incapacity due to drugs or alcohol. Another is insanity. When one party sees that the other party to a contract is incapable of true consent due to consumption of alcohol or drugs, the incompetent party can challenge the validity of the contract. A person who is incapable because of insanity (or the insane person’s guardian) can challenge the validity of a contract. A common form of incapacity in the business world is the unauthorized entering

286

Convenience Foods

into a contract. For example, a person who is not allowed to make corporate purchases beyond a certain dollar value may nonetheless enter into the contract. If the other party knows that the purchaser does not have the authority, he enters into the contract at his own risk. It could be successfully challenged at a later date. If the seller cannot tell that the purchaser lacks the authority to enter into a contract, because the purchaser reasonably appears to be authorized, then the company may be bound to honor the contract. The defenses against the requirement to honor the obligations created by a contract may be based on several factors. A common defense is mistake, in which one party is mistaken about one or more terms of the contract. Another defense is fraud. Fraud will invalidate a contract. When one party intentionally withholds information from the other party or actively hides or disguises information, it constitutes fraud and will invalidate the contract. When the purpose of the contract cannot be fulfilled, called frustration of purpose, the contract can be dissolved. For example, if a party has a contract to buy a restaurant and the building burns down before the sale, the restaurant cannot be provided in the appropriate condition and thus the sale is frustrated. Contracts only bind those who are parties to a contract. Third parties who do not have privity of contract—that is, are not a party—cannot be bound unless they have appointed someone to act as their agent. Contracts must be consensual and without coercion to be legal and enforceable. Elizabeth Williams See also Antitrust Laws; Federal Trade Commission; Intellectual Property Rights; Monopolies

Further Readings Barth, S. C., Hayes, D. K., & Ninemeier, J. D. (2001). Restaurant law basics: Wiley restaurant basics series. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Blum, B. A. (2010). Contracts: Examples and explanations. New York, NY: Aspen.

Farnsworth, W. (2007). The legal analyst: A toolkit for thinking about the law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

CONVENIENCE FOODS Convenience foods are foods that have been— fully or partly—prepared commercially and consequently require little effort by the consumer. Convenience foods range from ready meals to canned and frozen foods. The first require almost no preparation, the latter reduce the time spent on cooking, but they can still be part of a larger, even complex and time-consuming, cooking process. Convenience foods became widely available and popular in American kitchens in the 1950s and have conquered the world in the decades following their successful introduction. Quick and easy to use, and requiring little effort or skills, users of convenience food can devote their precious time and energy to other activities. Because of their ongoing popularity and controversy, the study of convenience foods will remain high on the agenda of interdisciplinary approaches to food studies. The impact of convenience foods reaches many different levels of everyday life. This entry aims at illustrating this, listing some examples of how convenience foods affect customers and societies. This entry starts with an overview of the different types of convenience foods, followed by a short historic overview embedded in the context of convenience and postmodern societies. It further discusses how convenience foods influence cooking and eating practices. Attention is given to the consumer profile of convenience food purchasers and how convenience foods affect the reputation of their buyers. Also, the impact on diet and health and the role of media use are examined. This entry finishes with a brief note on the protest against convenience foods by some groups.

Convenience Food Categories Convenience is a multifaceted term, and convenience food can also best be seen as an overarching

Convenience Foods

term for a wide range of foods. The list below should not be seen as a complete list, but rather, it aims to illustrate the various different food items that are part of convenience food research. The list starts with foods that need no preparation or mental effort at all and ends with foods that may be part of a more elaborate cooking process. Take-Out Meals and Fast Food

Take-out meals are highly processed, ready-toeat meals that are bought at a restaurant or a shop. Take-out meals require no processing or handling at all, relieving their customers from all time and energy investment of food preparation. The consumer has the intention to eat these meals at home or elsewhere. Similarly, fast food is also served ready to eat, but fast food is more often consumed “on the go.” Ready Meals and Frozen (TV) Dinners

Next in the list are ready meals. These are again highly processed foods, presented as a “meal,” yet different from take-out meals, they still need to be heated, or reheated, by the purchaser. They thus require a little more effort. Ready meals can be bought freshly made, refrigerated, or frozen. They are sometimes still called TV dinners, because ready meals are often consumed in front of the television, alone or in the company of others. Salads

Another common ready-to-eat dish is a salad. The difference between the previous types of convenience foods and salads is that the latter—partly— consists of unprocessed, raw ingredients. They share the convenience feature with take-out meals that no processing is required by the consumer. Snacks

Snacks also fall under the category of convenience foods. Snacks are often smaller in portion than a regular meal. They are generally eaten in between meals, although increasingly some people skip meals and rely mainly on snacking throughout the day.

287

Canned Food and Frozen Food

The last type of convenience foods in this list require some, or even a lot of, processing after purchasing. Canned foods and frozen foods are the most prototypical examples. They are time-saving and require little cognitive effort (skills) to be prepared for basic consumption. Yet, as part of more complex recipes, these “convenience” foods may require a substantial time investment and effort from the purchaser.

From Convenience Societies to Hyperactive Convenience Food Customers Convenience is often conceptualized as time-saving, and convenience foods mainly offer freedom of time to their consumers. Alan Warde has situated such an approach in the context of modernity and changing societies. The entry and growing popularity of convenience foods appeared in times of dual-income families becoming more common, compared with the decades before, and a blossoming service industry. Time could not only be saved by switching from home cooking to convenience foods but also other household chores could be outsourced, at least by those who could afford this. In this context, convenience foods were labor saving. Time could be compressed. However, as Warde has argued, this time-saving form of convenience is not the best explanation for the popularity of convenience foods as we know it today. At present, the popularity of ready meals and similar foods can be explained much better by time shifting and deroutinization. People are not aiming to reduce the number of activities during one day, gaining time, but increasingly plan ever more complex day schedules. Moreover, these schedules are often very individualized, even within one family, different members can have very different time–space paths. It is also in the context of these highly individual complex time–space paths that convenience foods happen to offer the ideal solution. People no longer have to be home between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. for a meal. They can personalize their schedule to their individual desires and fit in convenience foods to fuel their body along their busy roads.

288

Convenience Foods

Convenience Food, Commensality, and Cooking Shifts in time allocation to preparing and consuming everyday meals have been observed in various countries. Less time is being spent on cooking and family meals not only in the United States and United Kingdom but also in France and Belgium, which are less typically associated with convenience foods. Not surprisingly, the questions have been raised whether family meals and other commensal meals are about to become a thing of the past, and if cooking skills are in decline, because of the popularity of convenience foods. The answer to such questions is complex, because a complex web of interrelated causes is underlying these phenomena. Convenience foods play a part in this process, but it definitely cannot be pinpointed as the sole factor. Moreover, in terms of family meals and other commensal meals, it could even be argued that convenience foods may have beneficial effects. If less time needs to be devoted to the preparation of a meal, more time can be devoted to the consumption of a meal. Next, convenience foods allow for individual choice. People can join for a “shared” meal, each consuming foods of their personal choice, although it can be argued that part of the “shared” experience is lost in such a context. And the question remains if this has an impact on the perceived quality of the meal and the social relations between the people sharing this meal. Regarding the effects on time spent on cooking and the transfer of cooking skills, the result of convenience foods and related processes offer less room for positive reflections. Perhaps one major positive aspect is the relief of the everyday burden of preparing a meal based on raw, basic ingredients, which can be a daunting task, both in terms of time and effort. Not surprisingly, convenience foods have become part of everyday cooking in most households. Although individual differences are still very much noticeable when it comes to the consumption of ready meals, fewer individual differences can be observed for the use of canned and frozen food items. Consequently, the definition of “home cooking” may have to be altered, offering some room for convenience foods on the ingredients list.

From a less positive point of view, convenience foods erode food preparation skills and food literacy. The more people become acquainted with processed foods, the less they can recognize the raw, basic ingredients. And when these basic ingredients have to be transformed into a proper dish, a recipe alone is often, especially for the inexperienced cook, insufficient. Even an experienced cook, who wants to re-create an old family recipe (e.g., from a grandparent), may have to go through a process of trial and error if all he or she can rely on is a written recipe. The countless tips and tricks on how to process foods, and on how to handle basic ingredients, are often not written down but passed along via oral traditions and learning by observation. Children learn to cook when they see their parents or other people cook. Yet if a child grows up in a context of ready meals or an abundance of other convenience foods, there is little to be observed that can build and maintain their food preparation skills.

Consumers of Convenience Foods and Their Reputation Who consumes convenience foods most often? In terms of socioeconomic status, convenience foods are most appealing for lower socioeconomic groups. In many cases, convenience foods are cheaper than their fresh alternatives. Also, the work schedules of this group tends to be more strict, compared with higher educated people who more often hold jobs with more flexible work hours. Especially people working in shifts may experience difficulties in organizing home-cooked meals and opt for convenient food alternatives. Especially in the early days, convenience foods were mainly targeted toward women. Entering the market at a time when women were increasingly becoming employed outside the household, yet were most often still responsible for food planning and preparation, it seemed obvious that convenience foods would mainly relieve them from their daily household burden. Moreover, convenience foods are ideal to cater for individual demands, and if women want to express their caring via

Convenience Foods

food, what better way than preparing everyone’s favorite dish in one joint meal. Today, women are still more often responsible for food planning and preparation. The perception of convenience food consumers was rather grim, especially in the early days. In 1950, Mason Haire investigated social perceptions of consumers of preprocessed and fresh foods. Haire gave respondents a shopping list and asked them to characterize the woman shopping for these groceries. Two versions of the shopping list were used, and only one item was different on these lists. On one list, the woman bought fresh coffee (traditional drip ground). According to the alternative list, the woman bought instant coffee. In this study, the respondents regarded the woman who bought instant coffee as indolent. She was seen as an insufficient household planner. The woman who bought fresh coffee was seen as compassionate, showing concern for her family. Replicating this study, with a Blueberry Fill Pie Mix as a distinguishing product, similar results emerged. Customers who bought convenience foods were stigmatized. Studies that later replicated this design came to similar conclusions. It must be remarked, however, that at the time that most of these studies were conducted, convenience foods were less common as they are today. Perhaps today different results would emerge, or findings might not be that extreme. Moreover, the question remains if these results would be the same for healthier versus less healthy types of convenience foods.

Convenience Food, Diet, and Health Fast foods and ready meals may have a very high energy density (high calorie), which is not always clear to the consumer. As a result, people who regularly eat these types of convenience foods have an increased risk of weight gain, obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. The World Health Organization has listed obesity high on their agenda. It is a true challenge for the 21st century, since obesity is no longer an exclusive problem in high-income countries but has spread

289

around the world, particularly in urban settings. It was a fact that more than 40 million children under the age of 5 were overweight in 2011 (http:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/). It is also a fact that obesity is preventable, for instance, by reducing the intake of energy-dense foods. It must be noted, however, that not all convenient foods are energy dense and bad alternatives for healthier fresh foods. First of all, salads can also be regarded as “convenience food” and may consist of fresh foods only. Second, frozen foods are not necessarily less healthy than fresh foods. If fresh foods are frozen shortly after they have been harvested or produced, they might be more nutritious than “fresh” alternatives that are consumed a longer period after being harvested or produced. Last, several canned foods, such as canned tomatoes, do not fall under the umbrella of energy-dense foods. Therefore, a lifestyle that relies on convenience foods may still be a healthy lifestyle, if the customer makes correct choices within the variety of convenience foods offered on the market.

Convenience Foods, Media Use, and Media Effects Media use increases the intake of energy-dense convenience foods, both while watching and away from the screens (Bellisle, Dalix, & Slama, 2004; Blass et al., 2006; Hetherington, Anderson, Norton, & Newson, 2006; Higgs & Woodward, 2009). Therefore, media are often blamed for turning their consumers into fat couch potatoes. Yet the causality of this relation is open for debate. Frozen dinners are practical, because they can be eaten in front of a TV screen. However, the motive to consume frozen dinners might not always be driven by media use. Heavy media users of course benefit from convenience foods, but perhaps it is a general lifestyle rather than their use of media that can best explain both their interest in convenience foods and convenient entertainment. Nevertheless, the effects of media appear beyond the screens as well. Food advertisements play a crucial role in this process, as

290

Convenience Foods

they focus more often on convenience foods than on fresh foods. Convenience claims are practical tools for marketing. Convenience foods allow their producers and marketing people to promise their potential customers the benefits of time-saving, minimal efforts and, most often, low prices as well. A potential overturn of these negative media effects may be expected from cooking shows and related products. In many countries, cooking shows have become popular since the end of the 20th century and show no signs of disappearing. This fits a more general trend of cooking increasingly becoming more of a leisure time activity than a daily burden. Even more so, cooking is also increasingly entering the domain of social competition. Food has always been a means for displaying social status, as Pierre Bourdieu explained in his theory about “culinary capital.” Still, more than ever, and driven by media, people enter cooking competitions, prepare fancy meals for family and friends, and cooking has become a true domain of “showing off.” The role of convenience foods in this context is less obvious. It is less evident to gain credits when using sauce from a jar, compared with rivaling cooks who make any sauce from scratch, using basic ingredients only. Some popular television shows, where people enter in a cooking competition, illustrate this well. In Channel 4’s (UK) Come Dine With Me, four amateur chefs host a dinner party for one another, taking turns. Being a competitive program, they rate each other’s performance. And these shows demonstrate that people give little or no credit to hosts who use preprocessed foods (e.g., shop-bought ice cream) compared with hosts who cook from scratch. Convenience foods clearly cannot win this battle. It will be interesting to observe how this trend of leisure cooking and competitive cooking will further develop, and what part convenience foods will play in this.

Inconvenient Reactions to Convenience Food As a concluding note, it should be mentioned that despite their attractive time- and energy-saving benefits, convenience foods are not always received

well by all audiences. The Slow Food movement is a good example to illustrate this. When McDonald’s opened a restaurant in Rome in the 1980s, a group of protesters founded this movement. More recently, “Transition Culture” movements have started to emerge in different countries. They aim for a way of living that is less detrimental to our ecology and social system. Changing our food consumption and preparation patterns is also high on their agenda. These movements disapprove the grazing and snacking behavior caused by the convenience food industry. Food should not merely be seen as “fuel for the body.” There are many social processes inherent to the preparation and consumption of homecooked meals that are threatened by the entrance of convenience food. Next to these microlevel effects of convenience foods, these groups also focus on macrolevel consequences of convenience food consumption. For instance, convenience foods threaten local economic activities, endanger our ecosystem, and even influence national and international politics (Sage, 2012). Charlotte, J.S. De Backer See also Canned Goods; Convenience Stores; Deskilling; Family Meals/Commensality; Fast Food; Food in Popular Media; Slow Food; Snack Foods

Further Readings Beck, M. E. (2007). Dinner preparation in the modern United States. British Food Journal, 109(7), 531–547. Bellisle, F., Dalix, A. M., & Slama, G. (2004). Non foodrelated environmental stimuli induce increased meal intake in healthy women: Comparison of television viewing versus listening to a recorded story in laboratory settings. Appetite, 43, 175–180. Blass, E. M., Anderson, D. R., Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., Price, I., & Koleini, M. F. (2006). On the road to obesity: Television viewing increases intake of high-density foods. Psychology & Behavior, 88(4–5), 597–604. Daniels, S., Glorieux, I., Minnen, J., & van Tienoven, T. P. (2012). More than preparing a meal? Concerning the meanings of home cooking. Appetite, 58(3), 1050–1056.

Convenience Stores Davis, J. A. (1995). Family meals: A thing of the past. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 73(4), 356. Devine, C. M., Jastran, M. R. D., Jabs, J. A., Wethington, E., Farrell, T., & Bisogni, C. A. (2006). “A lot of sacrifices”: Work-family spillover and the food choice coping strategies of low wage employed parents. Social Science & Medicine, 63(10), 2591–2603. Haire, M. (1950). Projective techniques in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 14, 649–656. Harris, J., Bargh, J., & Brownell, K. (2009). Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, 28(4), 404–413. Hetherington, M. M., Anderson, A. S., Norton, G. N., & Newson, L. (2006). Situational effects on meal intake: A comparison of eating alone and eating with others. Psychology & Behavior, 88, 498–505. Higgs, S., & Woodward, M. (2009). Television watching during lunch increases afternoon snack intake of young women. Appetite, 52(1), 39–43. Kaufman, J. C. (2010). The meaning of cooking. Malden, MA: Polity Books. Mestdag, I. (2005). Disappearance of the traditional meal: Temporal, social and spatial destructuration. Appetite, 45, 62–74. Pereira, M. A., Kartashov, A. I., Ebbeling, C. B., Van Horn, L., Slattery, M. L., Jacobs, D. R., Jr., & Ludwig, D. S. (2005). Fast-food habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year prospective analysis. Lancet, 365(9453), 36–42. Prentice, A. M., & Jebb, S. A. (2003). Fast foods, energy density and obesity: A possible mechanistic link. Obesity Reviews, 4(4), 187–194. Sage, C. (2012). Environment and food. New York, NY: Routledge. Shapiro, L. (2005). Something from the oven: Reinventing dinner in 1950s America. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Vereecken, C., Todd, J., Roberts, C., Mulvihill, C., & Maes, L. (2006). Television viewing behaviour and associations with food habits in different countries. Public Health Nutrition, 9(2), 244–250. Vileisis, A. (2008). Kitchen literacy: How we lost knowledge of where food comes from and why we need to get it back. Washington, DC: Shearwater/ Island Press. Warde, A. (1999). Convenience food: Space and timing. British Food Journal, 101(7), 518–527.

291

CONVENIENCE STORES Convenience stores are small retail stores that sell various food staples and basic amenities and provide a range of services. They differ from public food markets and supermarkets in that they are often smaller in size, have a limited selection of products, and often charge higher prices for their products than other retailers. Convenience stores, both nationally and internationally, differ greatly in size, product selection, and various other attributes such as hours of operation and services rendered. These stores may exist as independent storefronts or as part of gas stations or auto body repair shops. Long hours of operation are a common feature of convenience stores with many being open 24 hours a day. Convenience stores can be found in urban centers and transportation hubs in many countries around the world; they may be owned by sole proprietors or as part of multinational chains. This entry examines the origins of convenience stores, what they sell, and their impact on food production, retailing, and consumption worldwide.

Early Developments of Convenience Retailing The earliest known convenience stores served as alternatives to the supermarket: They were opened to the public at hours in which many grocery stores were closed to serve consumers who were unable to access grocery stores during their opening times. In 1927, the Southland Ice Company in Dallas, Texas, began selling milk, bread, and eggs from their ice docks when many grocery stores were closed. Eventually, the ice docks expanded into larger convenience outlets, and by 1946, Southland Corporation had undergone several transformations, expanded their product lines, and changed their name to 7-Eleven: They were opened from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week. 7-Eleven is often cited as the first convenience store. 7-Eleven proceeded to expand in Texas, then throughout the United States, and eventually,

292

Convenience Stores

worldwide. In 2005, 7-Eleven was acquired by the Japanese retailing group Seven & I Holding Co. Though some of the first convenience stores were located in the United States, many franchises have expanded first to Europe and then to the everincreasing markets in Asia and the Middle East. Other major convenience store chains formed during the 20th century include the Dutch retailer Spar in 1932; Londis in the United Kingdom and Ireland in 1959; Mac’s in Canada in 1961 (now part of the parent company Alimentation Couche Tard); and Japan’s FamilyMart in 1981. An ever-growing convenience store presence in China continues to compete with traditional markets, supermarkets, and hypermarkets. 7-Eleven and FamilyMart maintain a strong presence in China, while newer entrants include Tesco PLC, a British supermarket chain that entered the Chinese market in 2008, opening a Tesco Express convenience store in Shanghai. Also in 2008, the American supermarket franchise Walmart launched the Chinese division of its convenience store chain, Smart Choice in Shenzen, although the company closed operations in the southern Chinese city in 2012. In 2013, the Dutch retailer Spar announced plans to expand into Lebanon with the opening of 10 stores by 2018, marking their more general commitment to an expanded presence in the Middle East. 7-Eleven opened 5,000 additional locations worldwide in 2012, raising the total number of 7-Eleven stores to more than 50,000 by January 2013. Approximately, 10,000 of these stores are located in the United States.

Convenience Store Services Worldwide Some convenience stores have in-store ATM machines, DVD rental services, and postal and banking services, while many convenience stores double as gas stations. Other convenience stores offer pharmaceutical services, car wash and repair services, dry-cleaning, and photo processing. Not only do convenience retailing services vary from store to store or country to country, but they are also both largely influenced by and fluctuate according to consumer demand. In other countries,

particularly in Asia where the number of operating convenience store franchises are increasing rapidly as urban centers grow, consumers are becoming even more dependent on convenience stores as a one-stop shop offering fax, photocopying, and printing services. In 2013, Seven & I Holdings Co. installed Wi-Fi/cloud services in their Japanese convenience store locations. Many convenience stores in Japan, Taiwan, and other countries in Asia offer financial services that enable customers to pay for insurance, utility, and mobile phone bills; movie tickets and concert tickets are available for purchase at these convenience stores as well.

Gas Stations and Mergers With Convenience Retailers Gas stations and convenience stores are often regarded as interchangeable retailers. This can be traced to the 1960s when self-service gasoline retailers and convenience stores began merging both operations. By the 1980s, oil companies, including Chevron, Mobil, and Exxon, also began opening and operating convenience stores. Gas station convenience retailers are constructed similarly to most convenience stores and stock similar food, drink, and grocery products.

Convenience Store Layout Compared with supermarkets and hypermarkets, convenience stores tend to be substantially smaller in size. As a result, convenience stores generally stock fewer items than the average grocery retailer. Convenience stores are typically divided into numerous sections: This includes a refrigerated section that stores cold beverages and chilled food and a frozen section that stores frozen food and desserts; these sections are usually located at the wall opposite the entranceway. The center of the store is typically lined with rows that store shelves of bread, packaged snacks, and a limited selection of packaged grocery items and toiletries. Most convenience stores have a section for newspapers and magazines; self-serve hot and cold beverage

Convenience Stores

293

fountains; a hot food section; small shelves lined with chewing gum, mints, and candy bars typically in front of the cash register; and tobacco products and over-the-counter medication on display behind the cash counter.

seafood; however, these stores often sell a limited number of nonperishable items such as canned soup, canned fruits and vegetables, ketchup, mayonnaise, instant coffee, tea, and instant noodles and pasta.

Convenience Store Merchandise

Food Products in Convenience Stores Worldwide

Depending on the size and location of a convenience store, it sells a limited variety of amenities compared with the average supermarket. Most convenience stores typically sell cigarettes, newspapers, magazines, prepaid phone cards, lottery tickets, and a limited selection of personal hygiene products; however, most products sold at convenience stores are food and drink items. Many convenience stores sell a variety of breakfast, lunch, and snack items. Menus have evolved with customer tastes and vary within and outside regions and countries. Like supermarkets, some convenience stores offer “own brand” product lines, of mostly packaged goods, for sale in tandem with “name brand” products.

Food Products, Snacks, and Grocery Items in North America Freshly baked and prepackaged breakfast items, including breads, muffins, doughnuts, bagels, and pastries, are offered in many North American convenience stores. Some convenience stores also offer refrigerated foods, including a limited range of prepared salads, sandwiches, and wraps for breakfast and lunch, as well as a limited amount of frozen food. Convenience stores in the United States and Canada sell hot food items such as hot dogs, hot sandwiches, nachos, chicken wings, pizzas, and tacos among others. Dessert items include brownies, cookies, and ice cream. Among the snack food items in North American convenience stores are prepackaged dry goods, including beef jerky, potato chips, corn snacks, nuts, crackers, candy, cookies, and chocolate bars. Convenience stores in North America do not typically stock perishable grocery items such as fresh fruits and vegetables or meat, poultry, or

Food products at convenience stores worldwide largely reflect regional tastes. Depending on the size of a convenience store retailer in the United Kingdom and Ireland, some hot food items, including Scotch eggs, meat pies, and pasties are sold. An increasing demand for imported food is resulting in growing sales at multinational convenience store chains throughout China. Convenience stores are found mostly in densely populated urban centers throughout the country. These retailers sell chilled and frozen items, including regional foods such as tea, eggs, and tofu, as well as carbonated beverages and chocolate bars. In Hong Kong, select convenience stores sell refrigerated dim sum items, including shrimp dumplings and chicken feet, that can be reheated in in-store microwaves. In Taiwan, many convenience stores offer an eclectic mix of Western-style breads, pastries, hamburgers, hot dogs, and spaghetti alongside chicken curries, fried rice, and Asian stews and dumplings. Some Japanese convenience stores sell food items, including prepacked rice, salted fish, processed meat, fish cakes, pickles, breads, and Japanesestyle pastries. In Thailand, many convenience stores offer hot dogs, tom-yum flavored pizza, and sticky rice to customers, while most convenience stores in Malaysia offer certified halal foods.

Beverages In North America and Europe, soft drinks, semifrozen carbonated beverages, energy drinks, milk, and water are available in refrigerated sections of most convenience stores, while hot drinks, including tea, coffee, and hot chocolate, are often sold as well. 7-Eleven’s flagship Gulp drinks are available in a range of sizes and at locations throughout the

294

Convenience Stores

United States and internationally as well; Gulps are filled by customers at self-service carbonated beverage fountains provided in-store. 7-Eleven’s Slurpee, a semifrozen fizzy drink, was launched in 1965 and is popular worldwide. Depending on the regional laws, a limited selection of alcoholic beverages may also be available for purchase at some convenience stores. In addition to carbonated drinks, energy drinks, and hot tea and coffee, convenience stores also offer a wide range of drinks popular in regional areas. Many convenience stores in Japan sell chilled tea, while other retailers in Taiwan distribute papaya milk. Coconut water and rose hip water have recently been introduced in convenience stores in Hong Kong and bubble tea in many convenience retailers in countries throughout Asia.

Product Development The products and services offered at many convenience stores worldwide have evolved as consumer demands have changed. Technological innovations have contributed to the ways in which products are sold. Some of the larger convenience store chains have developed sale-monitoring systems: The sales of particular items are monitored daily, weekly, and seasonally to determine the popularity of products. This monitoring system is not common in many independently owned grocery stores but is typically used by large franchises worldwide. This system automatically orders high-selling products to satisfy consumer demands and orders fewer or stops orders of slow-moving in-store products. In this way, inventory is largely determined by customer demand. When the preferred products are determined via these monitoring systems, subsequent orders can be made and delivered to various stores to meet consumer demands.

Fast Food and Convenience Store Retailing Over time, convenience stores have evolved from selling supplemental food staples to a wide and ever-changing range of foods; convenience retailing has adapted by providing microwaves on-site

for heating food items for purchase and establishing in-store delis. To compete with supermarkets and other food retailers, large convenience retailers began embarking on joint ventures with fast food retailers in the mid-1980s. Convenience stores in the United States began merging with fast food retailers to boost sales and customer traffic in convenience stores. In 1986, a pilot merger was launched between 7-Eleven and fast food chains Hardee’s Burgers and Church’s Fried Chicken in select stores throughout the southern and southeastern American states; in that same year, 7-Eleven joined Rocky Rococo Pizza in locations in Detroit and Los Angeles. Though these joint ventures were aborted due to transitions within Southland Corporation, the then parent company of 7-Eleven, mergers between fast food companies and convenience stores eventually expanded throughout the United States and worldwide. In the United States, one of the leading gas and convenience store operators, Little General Store Inc., has partnerships with major fast food chains, including Arby’s, Burger King, Godfather’s Pizzas, Krispy Krunchy Chicken, Sam’s Hot Dog Stand, Steak Escape, Subway, and Taco Bell. In 2013, Little General Store Inc. signed an agreement to open joint operations with Dunkin’ Donuts beginning in 2014. In 2007, the Canadian coffee chain Tim Hortons merged with Spar convenience stores throughout Ireland and the United Kingdom. As an increasing number of convenience stores and fast food retailers enter the Asian market each year, mergers between retailers are also increasing in tandem. In 2011, Yum! Brands Inc., the parent company of Pizza Hut, KFC, and Taco Bell, announced that it was expanding into China’s Sinopec gas stations, which also operate as convenience store retailers. While mergers between convenience stores and some fast food companies have strengthened corporate ties between both, competition between convenience retailing and the fast food market persists. Many large convenience store franchises are expanding their menus to compete with fast food restaurants. These menus have familiar fast

Convenience Stores

food–like products including pizza, chicken tenders, and taquitos, often at lower prices than fast food retailers.

Supermarket Expansion Into Convenience Retailing In the 1990s, supermarkets began expanding into convenience store retailing in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. In 1994, the UK food retailer Tesco opened its first Tesco Express store, while its British competitor, Sainsbury’s, opened its first Sainsbury’s local store in 2007. Since 1986, the American supermarket retailing giant Kroger has acquired convenience stores such as Quick Stop, Smith’s Express, Tom Thumb Food Stores, and Turkey Hill Mint Markets. The U.S. retailer Supervalu acquired Albertson’s Express in 2006, while Walmart entered the convenience store market with Walmart Express in 2011. The Canadian grocery retailer Sobey’s operates Sobey’s Express in select provinces across Canada.

Negative Associations With Health and Diet The growing consumer demand for fat-laden, sugary, and salty foods in the 20th century evolved with convenience stores: Eventually, convenience stores developed and continue to have a reputation as sites where unhealthy food is purchased. Most food items sold at convenience stores are often highly processed, prepackaged, and high in fat, salt, and sugars. The absence of fresh fruit and vegetables and the availability of largely fat- and sugar-laden foods at most convenience stores are often linked with ever-increasing rates of obesity in densely populated areas (Bansal, 2012; Sharkey, Dean, & Nalty, 2012). Not only are many of the fountain drinks sold at convenience stores highly caffeinated and filled with sugar, but in the United States, they are often sold in sizes ranging from roughly 20 ounces to as much as 50 ounces. As sizes rise, these beverages constitute a sizable portion of a person’s recommended daily caloric intake and may exceed recommended daily levels of fat and sugars. While

295

bottled water and a limited number of healthier drink options including juices and milk are sold at convenience stores, bottled carbonated beverages, also high in caffeine and sugar, dominate the refrigerated sections of many convenience retailers and make up a large portion of convenience store sales.

Health Reform In response to rising obesity rates in developed nations, governments have begun to intervene in the convenience store market. In 2005, the Healthy Bodegas Initiative was launched in New York City to promote the sale of healthier food items in convenience stores throughout the city. The initiative launched “interventions” and mandated the stocking of whole-grain breads, diet beverages, fresh fruits and vegetables, and low-fat milk in convenience stores. Other nonprofit organizations have also sought to induce reform. In Harlem, Greenmarket, a network of farmers’ markets that promotes healthy food and eating in New York City, has attempted to bring chefs to cooking demonstrations at local convenience stores. The Healthy Bodegas Initiative and Greenmarket have both made efforts to lower prices of healthy food in convenience stores to encourage healthier consumption. In some areas, consumer demand has shifted significantly toward healthier, less processed and less fat-laden alternatives. These new market pressures are inducing change from within the convenience store industry. In 2008, the Brooklyn Standard, a convenience store in New York City, opened as an alternative to bigger convenience store chains by providing healthier food alternatives at their store. Many independently owned convenience stores and large convenience retailing chains worldwide have followed suit. In North America, convenience store marketing is making efforts to associate convenience retailers with fresh and healthy food. Many convenience stores are attempting to challenge preconceived notions of convenience store food by providing in-store sampling of new healthy food items. In Canada, the convenience store industry is partnering with the federal government to

296

Cookbooks and the Publishing Industry

simultaneously change its image and promote healthy eating. The Dutch retailing giant Spar offers “freshline,” its own range of fresh produce and bakery products, which is available at many locations worldwide. In addition, Spar’s company website provides consumers with healthy recipes and tips on food preparation and healthy eating. Large chains now hire nutritionists and food scientists in efforts to adapt convenience stores to an increasingly health-conscious food industry. Product development has shifted from being largely governed not only by consumer tastes but also by culinary and nutritional experts. Some convenience store chains in North America, including 7-Eleven, Alimentation Couche Tard’s Mac’s, and Circle K stores, have responded to this demand by introducing a line of healthy sandwiches, yogurts, sushi, fruit bowls, and vegetable trays. These stores have also reduced portion sizes of already existing products, including tacos and doughnuts for calorie-counting customers. In Asia, a combination of a rapid rise in income, sectorial shifts in employment from blue-collar to white-collar jobs, increasingly sedentary lifestyles, and longer workdays have contributed to an increasing consumer demand for convenience products and services. The expansion of thousands of convenience stores throughout many parts of Asia, including India, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia, has significantly affected the way in which people in those countries consume. However, unlike major franchises in Western countries, there exist much fewer health initiatives. Jennifer Trieu See also Convenience Foods; Fast Food; Grocery Stores and Supermarkets; Hypermarkets; Junk Food, Consumption; Junk Food, Impact on Health; MiniMarts; Snack Foods

Further Readings Bainbridge, R. E. (2003). Convenience stores and retail fuel properties: Essential appraisal issues. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute.

Bansal, S. (2012). The healthy bodegas initiative: Bringing good food to the desert [Online]. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ archive/2012/04/the-healthy-bodegas-initiativebringing-good-food-to-the-desert/255061/ Curtis, C. (1992). New convenience foods. Norwalk, CT: Business Communications. Ishikawa, T., & Nejo, T. (1998). The success of 7-Eleven Japan: Discovering the secrets of the world’s best-run convenience chain stores. Singapore: World Scientific. Krashinksy, S. (2012). A fresh eye on convenience-store food [Online]. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ industry-news/marketing/a-fresh-eye-on-conveniencestore-food/article4106342/ Levenstein, H. (1993). Paradox of plenty: A social history of eating in modern America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sharkey, J. R., Dean, W. R., & Nalty, C. (2012). Convenience stores and the marketing of food and beverages through product assortment. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 43(3 Suppl. 2), S109–S115. Smith, A. F. (Ed.). (2007). The Oxford companion to American food and drink. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Smith, A. F. (2011). Fast food and junk food: An encyclopedia of what we love to eat. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Websites Association for Convenience & Fuel Retailing: http:// www.nacsonline.com Convenience Store News: http://www.csnews.com

COOKBOOKS AND THE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY Cookbook sales have been remarkably strong this century, avoiding the general decline that has troubled much of the publishing industry. According to Nielsen BookScan, for example, sales rose more than 4% from 2009 to 2010, compared

Cookbooks and the Publishing Industry

with industrywide book sales, which declined 4.5% during the same period. Among the spate of cookbooks published within the past 5 years, a few remarkable trends that stand out will be the focus of the following entry—namely, publishers are investing in avant-garde cookbooks, high-end publications by celebrity chefs, experimental crossmedia productions, and foreign rights and international sales. In addition, a surprising number of authors are attaining success by self-publishing. Publishers have been eager to capitalize on the surge in cookbook sales as well as on the fact that a best-selling cookbook can sell hundreds of thousands of copies in a year. In the United Kingdom, Bookseller trade magazine reported that food and drink titles earned £87 million in 2011, and in the United States, the top seller for 2012, Ina Garten’s Barefoot Contessa Foolproof, sold more than 428,000 copies the first year of its release according to Publishers Weekly. High-end and avant-garde books that contain innovative, genre-blending formats have been faring exceptionally well, indicating that readers continue to value the material cookbook despite the increasing availability of e-books. Other significant trends include books devoted to simple home cooking, healthy eating, sustainability, and foreign cuisines. Even though print cookbook sales remain strong, publishers have begun to experiment with cross-media platforms. Some digital releases, such as At Home With Madhur Jaffrey and Mark Bittman’s The Best Recipes in the World, reproduce the original print version in its entirety, in effect using electronic content to take the place of a hardcover cookbook. Other electronic books and applications are meant to complement rather than replace the hard copy version. For example, Knopf released Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of Cooking: Selected Recipes, which pairs 32 recipes with demonstration videos. Publishers also readily mine television and blogs for new authors. Books written by popular television chefs might be released with a companion website or application that contains video demonstrations. With the support of publishers, bloggers also cross successfully into the more traditional

297

print format. With Knopf behind her, Julie Powell transformed her blog into the best-selling book Julie and Julia.

Avant-Garde Cookbooks and the Celebrity Chef Cookbook publishing has recently witnessed a growing number of avant-garde cookbooks that are structurally and ideologically innovative. Many in this latter category, which includes expensive tomes such as Ferran Adria’s El Bulli and Nathan Myhrvold’s Modernist Cuisine, are meant to be collected as much for their intrinsic value as for the information they contain, much like high-end art books. Priced at around $500 each, El Bulli and Modernist Cuisine include recipes that require such technical mastery and expensive equipment to complete that they would be virtually impossible for the home cook to replicate. Others blend together a striking and innovative form by mixing together an array of formats—namely, culinary memoir, interviews, menus, illustrations, photographic essay, and cookbook. In so doing, these books have more in common with gastronomic literature, a genre that originated with the publication of Jean Anthelme Brillat Savarin’s Physiology of Taste in 1825. Containing a hodgepodge of personal reminiscences, historical facts, anecdotes, gastronomic reflection, menus, and recipes, gastronomic literature strives to educate its readers about the art of eating, often in a humorous, personable, and idiosyncratic manner. The same might be said of a new breed of 21st-century food writing exemplified by cutting-edge cookbooks such as Anthony Myint and Karen Leibowitz’ Mission Street Food, Daniel Vaughn’s The Prophets of Smoked Meat, and David Chang and Peter Meehan’s Momofuku. Part of the innovative, genre-blending breed of cookbook, Momofuku likewise belongs to another burgeoning category—that of the celebrity chef. Although high-end cookbooks by famous chefs have been around for centuries, the 21st-century version incorporates photography and narrative in such a way that it can be read as a gastronomic narrative that allows readers “to dine” at the chef’s

298

Cookbooks and the Publishing Industry

restaurant without ever leaving the comfort of their own homes. Stand-out examples of this category include Heston Blumenthal’s The Fat Duck Cookbook, Daniel Humm and Will Guidara’s Eleven Madison Park Cookbook, and Magnus Nilsson’s Fäviken. Some of these cookbooks contain recipes far too complex to be replicated in the home kitchen. Others work to translate their recipes into steps simple enough to be followed by the enthusiastic home cook. A third type of chef-authored book has begun to appear regularly on the market: one that jettisons the restaurant tie altogether to create recipes designed especially for the home kitchen. Adria, who authored one of the most expensive cookbooks of the early 21st century, has capitalized on the trend, turning out The Family Meal: Home Cooking With Ferran Adria. Other chefs to take to the home kitchen include Thomas Keller (Ad Hoc at Home) and Heston Blumenthal (Heston Blumenthal at Home). Just as readers enjoy cooking with chefs, they also enjoy traveling to foreign places with them. Many of the most popular cookbooks from 2012 include place-based favorites such as Yotam Ottolenghi and Sami Tamimi’s Jerusalem, Maricel E. Presilla’s Gran Cocina Latina: The Food of Latin America, and Naomi Duguid’s Burma: Rivers of Flavor. Whereas chef-authored cookbooks are often geared toward the armchair diner or the experienced home cook, another category of books are targeted toward teaching cooking basics. Led by instructors ranging from Martha Stewart to Mark Bittman, such books take inexperienced cooks by the hand, often relying heavily on photos and illustrations to demonstrate basic techniques. Yet other cookbooks target those with a particular passion, such as Sandor Katz’ The Art of Fermentation, Deborah Krasner’s Good Meat: The Complete Guide to Sourcing and Cooking Sustainable Meat, and Renée Elliott’s Healthy Eating for Your Baby and Toddler.

Cookbooks and Electronic Media As sales of high-end works attest, hard copy cookbooks are selling well despite predictions that e-books would cause a serious decline in their sales

figures. Well aware of the potential digital drain on traditional cookbook sales, however, publishers have been keen to embrace new technology. Many have begun to design applications and digital content to complement print cookbooks, effectively creating a fluid bridge between electronic and print media. For example, Knopf released Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking: Selected Recipes as an application compatible with the iPad and the Nook. Pairing video clips with a selection of the book’s most popular recipes, the app creates a multimedia complement to the book. In so doing, it breathes 21st-century life into the print copy rather than attempting to usurp its place altogether. New cookbooks are also taking advantage of such crossover formats. Some cookbooks, such as Ming Tsai’s Simply Ming in Your Kitchen: 80 Recipes to Watch, Learn, Cook, and Enjoy, published by Kyle Books, are complemented by a website that houses demonstration videos. Such crossover between print and electronic media cuts both ways; the recipe website Epicurious. com released The Epicurious Cookbook in 2012, and the transformation of popular blogs into cookbooks has achieved a snowball effect. Most famously, Powell parlayed her blog “The Julie/Julia Project” into the best-selling book Julie and Julia in 2005. Since then, the blog-into-cookbook trend has morphed into a cottage industry that regularly produces best sellers. Three of the top 10 bestselling cookbooks in 2012 were inspired by blogs, including Ree Drummond’s The Pioneer Woman Cooks series published by William Morrow and Deb Perelman’s The Smitten Kitchen Cookbook published by Knopf. Food Network celebrities likewise cross media platforms to create profitable cookbooks; Nigella Lawson and Ina Garten are just two examples among hundreds. Although people are still keen to purchase print cookbooks, select publishers have begun testing out the e-book market. Random House’s TasteBook, for example, publishes many best sellers in e-book form. Their lineup ranges from selected works by industry icons such as Lydia Bastianich, Madhur Jaffrey, and Alice Waters to books focused on trends such as healthy eating, fermentation, and pickling or on single-subject topics such as desserts

Cooking as Leisure Activity

or barbecue. In addition to offering e-books for purchase and download, TasteBook provides access to software that allows users to create their own cookbook. Personal recipes can be collected along with e-book favorites and bound into a hard copy, which can be professionally printed and delivered to the user for a fee.

Foreign Rights and International Sales In the United States, large publishing houses dominate the best-sellers list—24 of the 50 best-selling cookbooks of 2012 were printed by four houses: Random House, Wiley & Sons, Simon & Schuster, and Cooks Illustrated. Small presses, however, are holding their own, with many selling foreign rights to their more internationally appealing titles. On the flip side, foreign authors are gaining access to the American market, often by appearing on the Food Network. Lawson and Jamie Oliver, who are both published by Hyperion in the United States, gained many of their American fans this way. Phaidon has done well in the United States with internationally renowned chefs such as René Redzepi, whose Noma: Time and Place in Nordic Cuisine was met with acclaim by American critics and readers alike. China leads the world in its hunger for cookbook translations, including the high-end market. In a telling move, Arton, one of China’s most lucrative printers specializing in art books, has recently expanded to include cookery titles. Latin America has begun to earn acclaim in the global market, publishing a growing number of internationally renowned cookbooks. Nine of the 57 Gourmand Awards for Best Cookbook of 2010 were awarded to titles hailing from Latin American countries, including Argentina, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay.

Self-Publishing In addition to books bound for home use, selfpublished cookbooks are on the rise. In a trend that extends across book publishing at large, individuals are often choosing to undertake the publishing costs themselves, bypassing the publisher

299

altogether. Given the importance of photography to most cookbooks, this can be a costly and complicated venture. Without a publishing house to promote the book, self-publishing authors with savvy marketing skills are most likely to be successful. A few success stories include Martha Hopkins’s InterCourses, which has sold more than 300,000 copies; John Sundstrom’s Lark: Cooking Against the Grain, released with a companion app that includes step-by-step photos and videos that illustrate the recipes; and Sondra Bernstein’s Plats du Jour: The Girl and the Fig’s Journey Through the Seasons in Wine Country, which the author chose to self-publish despite the fact that her first cookbook was published by Simon & Schuster. Alice L. McLean See also Apps for Food; Celebrity Chefs; Food Magazines; Food TV

Further Readings Danford, N. (2012). Going electronic. Publishers Weekly, 259(32), 18–22. Danford, N. (2013). Thinking beyond the TV platform: Are publishers beginning to look beyond TV for cookbooks? Publishers Weekly, 260(6), 28–33. Rotella, M. (2013). Cooking by the numbers. Publishers Weekly, 260(6), 25–27. Tagholm, R. (2012). What’s cookin’ in cookbooks? China, Latin America and Digital. Retrieved from http://publishingperspectives.com/2012/02/whatscookin-in-cookbooks-china-latin-america-and-digital/

Websites GalleyCat: http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat Publishers Lunch: http://lunch.publishersmarketplace.com Publishers Weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com

COOKING

AS

LEISURE ACTIVITY

Broadly, cooking can be defined as the preparation of food for human consumption. A leisure activity, or hobby, is an activity that is done outside of paid employment and necessary domestic

300

Cooking as Leisure Activity

work, typically for its intrinsic pleasures rather than as a means to an end. Cooking as a leisure activity (or hobby), then, is food preparation in the home that is done primarily for the pleasures and satisfactions of the process rather than simply as a way to produce food for survival. While it is difficult to define a person strictly as a hobby or leisure cook—most people cook out of necessity at least some of the time—we can identify some common characteristics of leisure cooking. Cooking as a leisure activity typically involves procuring special ingredients, kitchenware, food knowledge, and culinary skills. It is usually an involved and time-consuming process with “interesting,” “exciting,” “authentic,” or “exotic” food as the goal. Hobby cooks also often construct their identities and social circles around cooking, which means that they like to share their kitchen creations with others through dinner parties, food blogs, and the like. Many leisure cooks might be described as “foodies”—people with a passion for eating and learning about food in general. A key distinction between foodies and leisure cooks is that foodies do not necessarily cook; they may indulge in their passion for food by eating out. Leisure cooking is of interest to food scholars because it is a relatively recent phenomenon. Although the incidence of leisure cooking is difficult to measure (few large-scale studies focusing on leisure vs. day-to-day cooking exist), it seems to have gained popularity around the turn of the 21st century as a result of a confluence of factors. These include the rise of food media and “foodtainment,” the popularization of “ethical” eating in a time of environmental crises, and the proliferation of convenience foods, which reduce the necessity for regular, day-to-day food preparation. Hobby cooking is also a strongly gendered phenomenon. A rare 2008 study on the topic by British market research firm the Future Foundation found that 52% of men versus 40% of women in the United Kingdom thought of cooking as a hobby and not a chore (http://futurefoundation.net/). The remainder of this entry focuses on when and why cooking came to be viewed as a leisure activity, what characteristics of cooking make it

leisurely, why it is that men in more privileged social strata are most likely to see cooking as a hobby, the competing discourse of cooking as a “chore,” and recent debates about the difficulties defining cooking as “leisure” or not.

Factors Contributing to the Rise of Leisure Cooking Leisure cooking is largely a phenomenon of modern industrial societies, where household technologies (e.g., indoor plumbing, electrical appliances) reduce the drudgery involved and the ubiquity of ready-made foods makes cooking more optional. When it is no longer labor-intensive or strictly necessary, cooking can become a pleasant pursuit one chooses to do in free time. Leisure cooking has also arisen with the narrowing of class divides. In earlier societies where the upper classes engaged in unproductive leisure to distinguish themselves from the laboring classes (e.g., hunting for sport rather than for food), food procurement and preparation were seen as debasing. Another factor contributing to the rise of cooking as a hobby is the relationship between leisure and identity in late modern capitalism. In post-Fordist economies, where the lifetime job is a thing of the past, people create their identities less through their paid work and more through their “lifestyle”—what they buy and how they spend their free time. In this context, leisure cooks are not only involved in cooking per se, but in the modern project of creating the self. A more recent contributor to the popularity of leisure cooking is the rising presence of food and “foodtainment” in popular culture. The Food Network was launched in the United States in 1993, and in the years since, there has been an explosion of TV shows, books, magazines, blogs, and websites devoted to food and cooking worldwide. In addition to raising the profile of cooking, these media take a particular approach to food. Whereas earlier cooking shows and books were primarily meant to instruct (e.g., shows from 1960s and 1970s had personalities like Julia Child in the United States and Delia Smith in the United Kingdom), food media around the turn of the 21st century are heavily

Cooking as Leisure Activity

geared to entertainment. Through cooking competitions, performances, and highly stylized food imagery, food and cooking are portrayed as a sensory spectacle. Related to this is the proliferation of gourmet cookware, kitchen gadgets, and “trophy kitchens.” According to a 2012 Euromonitor report, the global cookware (stove top and oven equipment) and kitchenware (kitchen utensils and food storage products) industry alone is now worth US$45 billion. This cooking equipment is promoted as increasing not only cooking enjoyment but also the stylishness and prestige of the home cook. One indication of the connection between kitchen products and identity is the growing availability of kitchenware in a variety of colors, which consumers can use to personalize their kitchen spaces. The idea of cooking as entertainment has also been fueled by the economic recession following the 2008 world financial crisis. Conscious of their spending, people turned away from activities like eating out to what marketers call “hometainment.” According to Euromonitor, the global cookware industry showed continuous growth from 2006 to 2011 despite the economic downturn. It should be noted, however, that cooking media and gadgets do not necessarily inspire consumers to cook. Some scholars liken recent food media to pornography in that the pleasure is not in the doing but in the watching. Likewise, kitchen paraphernalia may be more for show than for use. A final factor contributing to the rise of cooking as a leisure activity is the nature of early-21st-century food politics. With the release of highly influential films and books criticizing the industrial food system (Food Inc., The Omnivore’s Dilemma), some people see their food habits as a form of activism. It is notable that “ethical eating” contrasts with other forms of activism that emphasize self-sacrifice for the greater good (e.g., hunger strikes, ascetic rejections of consumerism). With the former, the emphasis is on how activities like cooking from scratch yield both personal pleasures, such as the good taste of freshly made food, and collective benefits, such as reducing the environmental and social harms of the processed food industry. “Ethical eating” is also strongly linked

301

to the neoliberal political ethos of this period, which promotes the idea that individual self-interest benefits society as a whole. In this sociopolitical climate, leisure cooking can be seen as an enjoyable way in which individuals can effect change.

Leisurely or Pleasurable Aspects of Cooking In qualitative research on cooking, people give a variety of reasons for enjoying cooking. Many mention the sensual pleasures of tasting, smelling, and manipulating food or the creative gratification of coming up with new dishes. Others find cooking therapeutic or relaxing. As it requires some concentration, cooking can take one’s mind off of life’s challenges. Cooking can also be fulfilling, especially when it is time- and labor-intensive, because it requires physical and mental skill and effort. It gives people a sense of challenge—planning and executing a meal—followed by one of accomplishment— feeding oneself and loved ones. For this reason, hobby cooking can be categorized with other skilled hobbies such as archery or woodworking and distinguished from more passive or unskilled hobbies such as watching TV or window shopping. Cooking is also an activity that can garner recognition, especially for leisure cooks, who tend to make relatively extravagant meals for guests rather than day-to-day meals for the household. Moreover, cooking can satisfy a desire to connect with nature and one’s subsistence. This is especially relevant in late modern capitalism, when people rarely make what they consume (e.g., food, clothing, housing) with their own hands.

Gender, Class, and Race and Leisure Cooking There are patterns in terms of which social groups tend to see cooking as a leisure activity. First, men tend to cook as a leisure activity more than women. In fact, the term gastrosexual (a combination of “gastronomy” and “metrosexual”), first coined in 2008 by the market research firm the Future Foundation, is gaining prominence in food

302

Cooking as Leisure Activity

media and on food blogs to describe men who see cooking as a passion rather than as a chore. Feminists argue that this gender distinction relates to the division of household labor. National statistics indicate that women in the early 2000s still do about twice as much cooking and cleaning up as men in North America, Britain and Australia. Moreover, it is women who tend to do the more mundane, day-to-day cooking, while men tend to cook on weekends and special occasions. This means that women often have to feed a household even when they are tired or uninspired. It also means that it is typically a woman’s job to look after potentially stressful considerations such as nutritional health, food safety, family food likes and dislikes, and food allergies. The larger division of household duties is also important. Women still do more of other types of housework and carework (e.g., child care, cleaning) than men, especially in heterosexual relationships. If a man can devote his full attention to making a meal because his female partner is changing diapers, doing laundry, or washing dishes, this makes it easier for him to see cooking as a break from daily life. Another issue related to gender and cooking approach is the recognition that people receive for their cooking. Since it is still relatively rare for men to cook in the home, and since they tend to cook more extravagant meals for special occasions, men receive praise and status for home cooking. Women’s cooking, on the other hand, is more often taken for granted. For all of these reasons, men are more often hobby cooks than are women. Food media reinforce this pattern. When men are the hosts of cooking shows, or the target readers of food writing, cooking is usually portrayed as a hobby. Women’s cooking in food media, in contrast, tends to be portrayed as routine domestic work done for loved ones. Income and food knowledge, which relates to social class, also shape the extent to which people view cooking as leisure. For cooking to hold one’s interest as a hobby, it must be taken out of the realm of the mundane. One way hobby cooks do

this is by procuring special ingredients, cookbooks, and kitchen implements. However, these can be very costly, especially over the long term, and thus out of reach for people with lower incomes. Furthermore, what is seen as necessary culinary knowledge for the hobby cook tends to be more accessible to the middle and upper classes. This is because these classes have a disproportionate influence on gourmet food writing, food TV, and other food media. Race and class hierarchies also influence who sees cooking as a leisure activity. Just as women have been obligated to cook as a form of unpaid work, so have marginalized groups who had to cook for others as forms of paid and coerced work. For example, in North America, blacks worked historically in kitchens as slaves. More recently, Latinos and Filipinos are overrepresented as domestic cooks. Many other ethnoracial minorities now own and run modest restaurants. In general, visible minorities do much of the frontline food industry work that is unpleasant, exhausting, low in prestige, or even dangerous (e.g., slaughterhouse work). As a result, some ethnoracial minorities who themselves, or whose family members, have been involved in paid or forced food labor associate cooking with oppression. It should be noted, however, that the relationship between gender, class, and leisure cooking has been more firmly established statistically than that between race and leisure cooking.

Counterdiscourses: Cooking as a Chore While much of the discourse of food media and advertising in the early 21st century portrays cooking as a leisure activity, there is also a prominent counterdiscourse in which cooking is portrayed as a chore. A major contributor to this alternative discourse is fast food and convenience food advertising. Ads of this genre typically imply that a processed food product is necessary because cooking from scratch is time-consuming and burdensome. This discourse gained prominence with women’s growing participation in the workforce and the concurrent proliferation of convenience foods over

Cooking as Leisure Activity

the 20th century. Nonetheless, the idea that cooking involves unpleasant work has been promoted by the convenience food industry since it first began heavily marketing frozen, canned, and dried products to housewives in the 1950s. This negative conceptualization of cooking also surfaced in first-wave feminist writings around the turn of the 20th century and then again in secondwave feminist thought in the 1960s and 1970s. The idea was that time spent cooking and doing other domestic tasks prevented women from becoming involved in paid work and public life, or vice versa, that paid work commitments left little time for women to enjoy cooking. As women’s workforce participation approached that of men’s in the latter decades of the 20th century, cooking was labeled a part of women’s “double day” or “second shift” (most notably in the feminist sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s book The Second Shift). Cooking thus became a symbol of gender oppression. During this time, the notion that cooking was part of an old-fashioned or oppressive domestic femininity was also evident in popular TV shows such as Roseanne (1988–1997) and Sex and the City (1998–2004). In the early 2010s, the “cooking as a chore” discourse exists alongside an opposing discourse where domesticity is celebrated as a feminist endeavor. Women dubbed “femivores” and “radical homemakers” aim to challenge environmental and social injustices by engaging in activities such as food growing, cooking from scratch, and home preserving. Though these activities are often a fulltime (and not just leisure) pursuit for these women, there is overlap with the “cooking as leisure” discourse in that leisure cooks, femivores, and radical homemakers all celebrate the sensual and social gratifications of making food.

Cooking as Leisure or Work? Feminist and Poststructural Perspectives Though people’s perceptions of cooking are often dichotomized in popular culture (they are said to conceptualize cooking as either leisure or work), it is actually difficult to draw this distinction for

303

everyday home cooks. As noted, cooking can be seen as a leisure activity when it is done primarily for the pleasures of the process rather than as a way to produce the food necessary for survival. But cooking study participants often observe that they cook both for pleasure and out of necessity. Indeed, feminist scholars point out that carework activities like child care and cooking do not neatly fit into the categories of “work” and “leisure” because these concepts grew out of conditions in the masculine/public realm. Specifically, the concept of “work” revolves to a large degree around the traditional (male) job, which is bounded in time (the workday) and space (the workplace), and can thus be easily contrasted with the times and spaces of “leisure” (e.g., evenings and weekends, often in or around the home). Housework, including cooking, is difficult to define because it takes place in both traditional “work” and traditional “leisure” contexts. Poststructural ideas about modern leisure also contribute to the idea that cooking is difficult to categorize. In knowledge economies with increasing numbers of people working from home, and modern technologies (e.g., the Internet) bringing leisure into the workplace, the boundaries between work and leisure are blurring for paid workers as well. Thus, leisure scholars increasingly see modern leisure as fragmentary and context dependent. All of these ideas challenge the supposition that cooking can be conceptualized categorically as either work or leisure. In reality, some people see cooking as more leisurely than others, and most people experience cooking as work in some contexts and leisure in others. For example, cooking might feel more like leisure when people do it as a creative outlet, or while listening to music or socializing with others, and it might feel more like work when people feel rushed or uninspired. Michelle K. Szabo See also Blogging; Celebrity Chefs; Cookbooks and the Publishing Industry; Cooking Competitions; DIY Food Movement; Family Meals/Commensality; Farmers’ Markets, Cooking With Seasonal Produce; Trophy Kitchens

304

Cooking Competitions

Further Readings Aitchison, C. (2003). Gender and leisure: Social and cultural perspectives. London, UK: Routledge. Cairns, K., Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. (2010). Caring about food: Doing gender in the foodie kitchen. Gender & Society, 24(5), 591–615. Euromonitor International. (2012). Homewares: Category overview (Global Briefing). London, UK: Author. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hollows, J. (2003). Oliver’s twist: Leisure, labour and domestic masculinity in The Naked Chef. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(2), 229–248. Hollows, J. (2006). Feminism, post-feminism and domesticity. In J. Hollows & R. Moseley (Eds.), Feminism in popular culture (pp. 97–118). New York, NY: Berg. Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. (2010). Foodies: Democracy and distinction in the gourmet foodscape. New York, NY: Routledge. Short, F. (2006). Kitchen secrets. The meaning of cooking in everyday life. Oxford, UK: Berg. Soper, K., Ryle, M., & Thomas, L. (Eds.). (2009). The politics and pleasures of consuming differently. London, UK: Palgrave. Szabo, M. (2013). Foodwork or foodplay? Men’s domestic cooking, privilege and leisure. Sociology, 47(4), 623–638. Szabo, M. (2014). Men nurturing through food: Challenging gender dichotomies around domestic cooking. Journal of Gender Studies, 23(1), 18–31.

COOKING COMPETITIONS Cooking competitions are contests during which individuals or teams of people prepare dishes that subsequently are evaluated or judged according to predetermined guidelines or rules. A primary objective of these competitive events is to determine a winner or winners. A judge or panel of judges determines the winners by evaluating and ranking the prepared foods according to predefined criteria. Among the many other possible objectives are media attention for sponsors, judges, and/or contestants; product promotion; career advancement

for judges and/or contestants; and entertainment for participants and audience members. There is much variation within the genre of cooking competitions. The nature of the competition may be friendly or fierce. The contestants might be professional chefs or nonprofessional cooks. Contestants may be amateur cooks, food hobbyists, or dedicated competitive cooks. The judges might be food professionals such as chefs or food entrepreneurs, public figures such as politicians or television personalities, or food enthusiasts. The hosting organization, which may be a corporate entity, a city or town government entity, a civic organization, or another private or public enterprise, generally determines the rules to which entrants must adhere and by which the prepared foods are evaluated. The ultimate outcome of a contest may result in the winning contestants earning monetary prizes, titular recognition, consumer goods, or a chance for employment in the food industry. These factors inform the tenor of the event, including whether it is open to the public or takes place in a private setting, whether or not an audience is present and participatory, and how the contest and its winners are promoted in media. Cooking contests have become so popular among cooks, who like to enter competitions with those who like to cook from or read contest recipes, that there are a number of websites and books dedicated to the nuances of entering cooking contests and cooking contest recipes. Within the genre of cooking competitions, there are several subgenres, each of which takes place within one of four general frameworks: (1) corporatesponsored contests, (2) contests at public festivals, (3) television programs, and (4) contests organized by and for culinary professionals. These are not mutually exclusive categories; there can be and often is overlap among the categories. This entry discusses these four categories of cooking competitions.

Corporate-Sponsored Contests Among the earliest known cooking contests were recipe contests sponsored by publishers and by food product or kitchen equipment companies.

Cooking Competitions

Newspapers, and subsequently magazines, announced contests and solicited recipes from readers. Contest winners may have received cash prizes, and winning entries were printed in the newspaper, magazine, or a cookbook. Savvy print media publishers recognized recipe contests as a way to increase circulation and promote the use of advertisers’ products. Examples of this competitive cooking contest subgenre include recipe contests organized by New York’s daily The Press in 1889 and The Los Angeles Times in 1902. The recipe contest went national with contests organized by nationally distributed publications like Better Homes and Gardens magazine, which held its first contest in 1933. Food manufacturers also recognized recipe contests as an efficient medium for introducing and increasing use of their products among consumers while also generating new recipes for their products. Early among food manufacturer–sponsored recipe contests for home cooks were a 1905 contest by KNOX® Gelatine and a 1907 contest by Crescent Manufacturing Company. Among the most famous food manufacturer–sponsored recipe contests is the Pillsbury Bake-Off®. The 100 finalists of the 1949 inaugural contest prepared their recipes live, at temporary kitchen stations, at New York City’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel. The contest, then called the “Grand National Recipe and Baking Contest,” brought this genre of recipe contest out of corporate headquarters and into a public space. Although the rules have changed since the contest’s inception in 1949, qualifying entries still are required to incorporate a specific amount of branded food product. Finalists prepare their recipes on stage in a highly charged setting. Corporate promotions and publications may incorporate winning recipes; Bake-Off® winners receive cash prizes, among the highest in the circuit of recipe and cooking contests for nonprofessional cooks. In lieu of cash prizes, other cooking competitions may award goods and products. There are publicly promoted corporatesponsored contests for food professionals (e.g., chefs, caterers), such as the one organized by Maple Leaf Farms® exclusively for professional chefs and culinary students. Others, like the Pillsbury

305

Bake-Off®, exclude food professionals from entering. Several food manufacturer–sponsored contests accept entries from professional and nonprofessional cooks, including Cuisinart®’s “Get Cooking! Contest,” open to U.S. residents, and several Kikkoman Australia’s contests, open to residents of Australia (and sometimes New Zealand). The Internet and social media have increased participation in corporate-sponsored cooking contests by generating interest in and submissions to such contests and, more recently, by engaging the public as judges. Through its website, Pillsbury (aka General Mills) invites consumers to vote for their preferred recipe. Through its contest site, Dole Food Company solicits recipe entries and holds a sweepstakes to select one judge, ostensibly selected at random, to join a panel of judges at the final, live-cooking contest. These examples of early-21st-century Internet engagement are contemporary parallels of early-20th-century print media engagement of food manufacturers with consumers.

Contests at Public Festivals Contemporary public cooking contests grew out of 19th-century agricultural fair cooking and domestic art competitions. Like corporate-sponsored cooking contests, festival- and fair-cooking contest organizers solicit recipe entries from consumers. Contest rules may dictate specific ingredients entrants can and cannot use, preparation or cooking time limitations, or methods of presentation. Early iterations of county fair–cooking contests showcased then revolutionary home-cooking stoves like Eclipse Stove Works’ “Brilliant” model, which won first place at fairs from New Orleans, Louisiana, to St. Louis, Missouri, in 1868. Around this same time, young women competed in cooking contests at county fairs in Rome, Georgia (1874), and Anderson, South Carolina (1876). At these contests, young women (generally under the age of 18) competed live during the fair, their food was judged according to standards of taste and appearance, and winners received prizes such as cash or cooking stoves.

306

Cooking Competitions

At these early contests, the actual cooking competition took place in publicly accessible spaces. The same is true for cooking contests at many contemporary festivals. Festival organizers recognize contemporary consumers’ interest in food and watching live competition. The presence and participation of a live audience are integral to festival contests: They amplify ambient energy, making a contest more exciting for participants and viewers. By comparison, at many U.S. local and county fairs, food preparation and judging of entries for food contests take place behind closed doors. Contestants prepare their food entries for submission at home in advance of the fair. Judges meet in the days or weeks before the fair opens and collectively evaluate the entries to determine the award recipients. Winning entries are displayed during the fair. In most cases, the viewing public can see but not sample foods prepared for state and county fair competitions. Contemporary iterations of traditional county fair “best of” competitions may include categories such as jams, fruit pie, nut pie, quick bread, yeast rolls, hot sauce, and more. Most often, the winner in each category is awarded a coveted blue ribbon. “Best of” competitions are one among many events comprising county and state fairs. Similarly, a cooking contest may be one among many events of a larger festival, as it is at the Gilroy (California) Garlic Festival and the Maine Lobster Festival. Alternately, a cooking competition may be the headline attraction of a festival, as it is for the Terlingua (Texas) International Championship Chili Cookoff. Nearly any food can be—and has been—featured for a festival cooking contest, from asparagus at the Stockton (California) Asparagus Festival to zucchini at the Windsor (Florida) Zucchini Festival.

Television Programs In 1999, Food Network, the first television channel in the United States dedicated 24/7 to food, began airing the Japanese show Iron Chef dubbed into English. This stylized cook-off quickly developed a cultlike following among American viewers. Televised cooking competitions resemble game shows in that they pit contestants against one another and the clock, competing under predetermined rules for predetermined prizes and often with an MC (master

of ceremony) offering entertaining commentary. In less than a decade, iterations of cooking competitions— from game shows to “smackdowns”—became fixtures of television programming. The competition-style cooking show subgenre owes some of its popularity to the rise of interest in the entertainment value of food among consumers, the growth of the reality TV genre, viewers’ intrigue in watching other people compete, and the favorable economics of producing a cooking program. Early examples of this subgenre include BBC’s (United Kingdom) MasterChef, a competitive cooking series featuring amateur cooks, which began in 1990. Its popularity inspired spin-offs including Celebrity MasterChef and in Australia MasterChef Australia and Celebrity MasterChef Australia. The BBC cooking game show Ready Set Cook (1994–2010) similarly inspired spin-offs, including the U.S. version Ready. . . Set . . Cook! (Food Network, 1995–2001), Australian Ready Set Cook (2005 to present), and German Kochduell (1997–2005). Viewers in the United States have an appetite for competitive cooking shows: notable among them are the popular Throwdown! (Food Network), during which the American chef Bobby Flay competes against another professional chef, and Chopped (Food Network), during which a changing roster of professional chefs cook against one another. Other television channels also feature competitive cooking programming. Bravo network’s Top Chef (2006–ongoing) pits professional chefs against one another for a sizable cash prize. The show proved so popular that it inspired spinoff television shows worldwide, cookbooks, a magazine, branded foods, and a computer game. Not all competitive cooking programs take place on kitchen sets. The BBC’s Come Dine With Me has nonprofessional cooks preparing meals in their homes for the other contestants, all of whom evaluate each other’s dinner party to select the winner of a cash prize. The program broadcasts internationally in Belgium, Canada, Poland, Scandinavia, and the United States. Competition for television shows and for victory among those competing on television shows remains fierce. The category, and individuals’ participation in it, will continue to evolve along with the medium.

Cooking Temperatures, Minimum

Contests by and for Culinary Professionals Competitions exclusively for and by professional chefs provide a venue for culinary professionals to display their specialized knowledge, skills, and creativity. This subgenre includes competitions organized by national and international professional chef associations such as the Professional Chefs Association (United States), the American Culinary Federation, Inc. (United States), and Verband der Köche Deutschlands (Germany). Also included in this subgenre are competitions organized by culinary corporate or gastronomic entities such as the International Jeunes Chefs Rôtisseurs Competition organized by Chaîne des Rôtisseurs. Among the most celebrated competition in this category is Bocuse d’Or International Culinary Competition, started by the acclaimed chef Paul Bocuse, based in Lyon, France. Several professional chef competitions allow or encourage nonchefs to observe the cooking, yet many others take place as part of professional conferences not open to the general public. Media coverage of these competitions certainly can help boost participating chefs’ reputation both within and outside the culinary field. While enhancing one’s reputation may be especially desirable, among the more important objectives of professional chef competitions are refining and demonstrating participating chefs’ skills and earning a level of certification or a higher level of recognition among one’s colleagues within the culinary profession. Polly Adema See also Competitive Eating

Further Readings Collins, K. (2009). Watching what we eat: The evolution of television cooking shows. New York, NY: Continuum. Gilroy Garlic Festival Association. (2005). The garlic lovers’ cookbook (Vol. 2). Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts/ Ten Speed Press. Pillsbury Editors. (2008). Pillsbury best of the Bake-Off® cookbook: Recipes from American’s favorite cooking contest. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sutherland, A. (2003). Cookoff: Recipe fever in America. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

307

Websites Contest Cook: http://www.contestcook.com/ Cooking Contest Central: http://cookingcontestcentral.com/ Pillsbury Bake-Off: http://www.pillsbury.com/bakeoff

COOKING TEMPERATURES, MINIMUM Some foods are at high risk for contamination from microorganisms; others may contain toxins that can be destroyed by heat. Recommendations for minimum cooking temperature, or in some cases for visual indicators, can decrease the likelihood of foodborne illness caused by microorganism contamination. These recommendations provide guidelines for ensuring that foods that are at risk for microorganism contamination are heated to a high enough temperature and for long enough to kill the microorganisms that are commonly found in that food. Their effects can be enhanced through health code regulations and public education on minimum cooking temperatures for individual foods. Minimum cooking temperature recommendations apply to all food preparation environments. Adherence in the food service industry, however, may be dictated by government bodies, which may also require higher temperatures, a warning that raw or undercooked products may be hazardous, and/or that certain preparations are not to be sold commercially. For example, many health departments forbid the sale of rare hamburgers while also requiring that restaurants post a notice to restaurant customers that raw or undercooked meat and eggs are health risks. In this case, the posted notice applies to other raw or undercooked meat or eggs that may be served rather than to particular foods that the health department policy or law already forbids. Before discussing the controversies associated with temperature recommendations, this entry details common minimum cooking temperature guidelines for fresh foods, referring to internal temperatures that are reached for at least 15 seconds. All casseroles and reheated foods should be heated to 165 °F (74 °C) regardless of initial cooking temperature. Marinades that have a cooked appearance, such as vinegar or

308

Cooking Temperatures, Minimum

lemon juice, do not kill all pathogenic microorganisms, so these products should be heated to the appropriate temperature despite their appearance.

Although fresh or pasteurized eggs may be served runny in restaurants, many health departments require a health warning if they allow it at all.

Beef, Gammon, Goat, Mutton, and Lamb

Fish and Shellfish

Escherichia coli is the primary microorganism of concern for beef and other meats from ungulates. It is not naturally occurring in or on the meat but can contaminate the meat when the meat comes into contact with entrails and fecal matter, typically during the slaughtering process. The cooking temperature required for beef thus depends on whether it is a solid piece of meat (which will be contaminated only on the outside) or rolled, chopped, minced, or ground (for which the previous outside is now mixed into the product). The minimum temperature for cooking a solid piece of beef is 145 °F (63 °C). For beef products that have been rolled, chopped, minced, or ground, guidelines advise that the center of the product must reach 160 °F (71 °C). Prions such as those responsible for Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (or mad cow disease) are not destroyed by cooking.

A variety of microorganisms are of concern for fish and shellfish. Many of these are easily killed at cooking temperatures, but three worms are of particular concern: Pseudoterranova decipiens (cod worm), the tapeworm Diphyllobothrium, and Anisakis worms. Although sashimi-grade fish is often eaten raw, many health departments require a health warning nonetheless. Non-sashimi-grade fish should be heated to 145 °F (63 °C). Shellfish should be thoroughly cooked, appearing opaque and firm or until the shell opens during cooking.

Chicken, Turkey, and Other Poultry The main microorganisms of concern for chicken and other poultry are Salmonellae that cause salmonellosis. Salmonellae are naturally found in the intestinal and egg-laying tract (cloaca) of chickens and other poultry and are often found in other tissues, including muscle. Poultry, regardless of its preparation, must be heated to 165 °F (74 °C) to kill Salmonellae. Stuffing should not be cooked in a large bird such as a turkey, because it does not reach 165 °F (74 °C) quickly enough. Instead, the stuffing remains at a temperature that is ideal for bacterial growth until late in the cooking process.

Eggs Like chicken, eggs are likely to contain Salmonellae. Commercial raw egg products such as mayonnaise must be pasteurized and fresh eggs must be cooked immediately to prevent the bacteria from multiplying. Eggs should be cooked until the white and yolk are firm, while egg dishes should reach 160 °F (71 °C).

Pork, Bear, Reptiles, and Wild Game The main microorganism of concern for pork is the worm Trichinella spiralis, which enters the body tissues, including the muscles and nervous system, of its host. Other Trichinella worms are found in most omnivorous and carnivorous animals in the wild. To kill the worm and its eggs, pork and other affected meats must be heated to at least 160 °F (71 °C). Precooked ham, however, may be safely heated to 145 °F (63 °C).

Vegetables Although most vegetables do not have to be cooked before being safely consumed, some, such as cassava, contain toxic chemicals in their raw state and should be thoroughly cooked before consuming. Additionally, any vegetables that may have come into contact with raw meat or eggs or any other potentially contaminated substance (e.g., a marinade that has been used with meat) should be heated to the same temperature recommended for the food from which the contamination originated.

Controversies Such guidelines have been designed by scientists from the standpoint of public health. Many chefs and home cooks may ignore them, based on their opinion that an “overcooked” piece of meat, for

Cooking Temperatures, U.S. Department of Agriculture Guidelines for

example, is not enjoyable or appetizing. In light of this, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has recently lowered its recommended cooking temperature for solid cuts of pork by 15 °F from 160 to 145 °F. Some people argue that government-recommended cooking temperatures pay little attention to gastronomic pleasure and that, especially at home, few people consistently measure the temperature of their food. Others contend that the guidelines are outdated and that trichinosis (the disease caused by Trichinella spiralis), for example, is almost completely nonexistent in today’s domestic meats, though it may still be found in wild game. An ongoing concern is whether greater health measures should be taken by growers and manufacturers to ensure safety. It has been argued that passing onto the consumer the burden of sterilizing food (by “overcooking” it) shifts the responsibility for a clean and safe food supply and encourages food producers to be lax. Although posted notices in restaurants, warning that those with compromised immune systems should beware of undercooked eggs, shellfish, and other food items, may prevent legal action in cases of foodborne illness, it may not sufficiently address the real dilemma of how to provide food that is both safe and tasty. Israel Berger See also E. coli; Food Safety; Foodborne Illness; Listeria; Refrigerator Design and Size; Restaurant Cooking Technologies; Restaurant Inspections; Salmonella

Further Readings Audicana, M. T., & Kennedy, M. W. (2008). Anisakis simplex: From obscure infectious worm to inducer of immune hypersensitivity. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 21(2), 360–379. Bryan, F. L., & Doyle, M. (1995). Health risks and consequences of Salmonella and Campylobacter jejuni in raw poultry. Journal of Food Protection, 58(3), 326–344. Cassin, M. H., Lammerding, A. M., Todd, E. C. D., Ross, W., & McColl, R. S. (1998). Quantitative risk assessment for Escherichia coli O157:H7 in ground beef hamburgers. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 41(1), 21–44. Gajadhar, A. A., Pozio, E., Gamble, H. R., Nöckler, K., Maddox-Hyttel, C., Forbes, L. B., . . . . Boireau, P.

309

(2009). Trichinella diagnostics and control: Mandatory and best practices for ensuring food safety. Veterinary Parasitology, 159(3–4), 197–205. Mercado, R., Torres, P., Muñoz, V., & Apt, W. (2001). Human infection by Pseudoterranova decipiens (Nematoda, Anisakidae) in Chile: Report of seven cases. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 96(5), 653–655. Scholz, T., Garcia, H. H., Kuchta, R., & Wicht, B. (2009). Update on the human broad tapeworm (Genus Diphyllobothrium), including clinical relevance. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 22(1), 146–160.

COOKING TEMPERATURES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GUIDELINES FOR Archaeological evidence shows that people have been eating cooked meat since prehistoric times. Cooking meat makes it more tender and easier to chew, which was an advantage from the start when most meat came from wild animals and was probably tough. Most people believe that cooking meat also improves its flavor. More recently, scientists discovered that many kinds of meat and other foods may carry pathogens and that cooking can kill these pathogens— but only if they are raised to a certain temperature for a certain amount of time. Thus, scientists conducted experiments to determine the temperatures and the required amounts of time that would accomplish this. The availability of meat thermometers has made it possible to standardize cooking recommendations. This entry focuses on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines for cooking temperatures. It also describes the use of meat thermometers and guidelines for handling raw meat and fish. Cooking temperature recommendations give guidelines for minimum internal temperatures that certain foods, including meat, poultry, fish, seafood, eggs, and leftovers, should reach to kill off potentially dangerous organisms that might cause illness. In the United States, the USDA sets these guidelines nationwide, but regional or state health

310

Cooking Temperatures, U.S. Department of Agriculture Guidelines for

departments may set stricter guidelines than the national ones. In some other countries, similar government agencies have set similar guidelines, but these guidelines are not necessarily exactly the same as those in the United States. These are only guidelines, not laws, but many local health inspection agencies take them into consideration when evaluating the safety of restaurants and other food preparation institutions, and federally inspected meat establishments must follow them. Children, the elderly, pregnant women, and those with compromised immune systems are particularly at risk for foodborne illnesses, so these recommended temperatures should be strictly followed. The most recent change in the USDA’s national guidelines for cooking temperatures came in May 2011, when the guidelines were modified to make them simpler (Table 1). The major change was to set the final internal recommended temperature for whole cuts of pork at 145 °F, down from the previous 160 °F, to make it agree with the final internal temperature for other whole cuts of meat. USDA officials felt that this would make it easier for cooks to remember the recommended temperatures of 145 °F for whole cuts of meat, 160 °F for ground meat, and 165 °F for poultry. In addition, the USDA guidelines specify that whole cuts of meat should have a 3-minute rest period after reaching the recommended temperature. Previously, in 2006, the recommended internal temperature for poultry was lowered from 180 to 165 °F. That temperature is still higher than other recommended temperatures because Salmonella, the bacterium most commonly associated with poultry, is more resistant to heat. These temperatures apply not only to foods cooked in an oven but also to those cooked in a microwave. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Part 318:10, also gives tables showing the amount of time needed to cook pork at lower temperatures or to freeze pork at various temperatures to destroy trichinosis in the meat. Cooks should use a meat thermometer inserted in the thickest part of the meat, not touching bone, fat, or gristle, to verify the temperature before removing the meat from its heat source. Thermometers

should be inserted into hamburgers through the side to the middle of the patty. Meat thermometers come in several formats. The older type needs to be inserted into the meat and left there while it cooks to register its temperature. The instant read thermometer registers the temperature almost immediately after it is inserted into the meat. The newest meat thermometer variety, Apple’s Bluetoothenabled iGrill meat thermometer, can communicate with an app loaded on one of several Apple devices up to 200 feet away. Some of the major pathogens that should be killed by these temperatures include Escherichia coli, Listeria, Salmonella, and trichinosis. The USDA emphasizes that one cannot see or smell bacteria that cause food poisoning and that one cannot judge the temperature of meat by its color. Pork can reach the recommended temperature and still be pink; hamburgers can be brown all the way through even if they have not reached the recommended temperature. Some professional chefs consider the guidelines for temperatures to be paternalistic, since many have developed recipes that use lower final temperatures, or don’t cook some meat or fish at all—for example, steak tartare and sushi. Many states require restaurants to have warnings on menus to indicate items that do not reach recommended temperatures and that at-risk groups should not eat them. For example, in 1998, California passed a law mandating internal cooking temperatures, unless restaurant patrons specifically order the food undercooked. This law excludes dishes such as steak tartar and sushi, since they are raw by definition. Raw meat or sushi should be handled carefully to avoid possible contamination of other foods in the cooking area with any bacteria that might be on them. A chef who makes dishes from raw meat such as steak tartare should prepare them immediately before serving and should remove the outside surfaces of the meat, which are most likely to be contaminated with bacteria. One reason these temperatures recommendations are necessary is that modern factory processing methods for foods can enhance the spread of bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella. Processing

Cooking Temperatures, U.S. Department of Agriculture Guidelines for

311

Table 1 Safe Minimum Internal Temperature Chart Safe steps in food handling, cooking, and storage are essential in preventing foodborne illness. You can’t see, smell, or taste harmful bacteria that may cause illness. In every step of food preparation, follow the four guidelines to keep food safe • Clean—Wash hands and surfaces often • Separate—Separate raw meat from other foods • Cook—Cook to the right temperature • Chill—Refrigerate food promptly Cook all food to these minimum internal temperatures as measured with a food thermometer before removing food from the heat source. For reasons of personal preference, consumers may choose to cook food to higher temperatures. Product

Minimum Internal Temperature & Rest Time

Beef, pork, veal & lamb Steaks, chops, roasts

145 °F (62.8 °C) and allow to rest for at least 3 minutes

Ground meats

160 °F (71.1 °C)

Ham fresh or smoked (uncooked)

145 °F (60 °C) and allow to rest for at least 3 minutes

Fully cooked ham (to reheat)

Reheat cooked hams packaged in USDA-inspected plants to 140 °F (60 °C) and all others to 165 °F (73.9 °C)

All poultry (breasts, whole bird, legs, thighs, and wings, ground poultry, and stuffing)

165 °F (73.9 °C)

Eggs

160 °F (71.1 °C)

Fish & shellfish

145 °F (62.8 °C)

Leftovers

165 °F (73.9 °C)

Casseroles

165 °F (73.9 °C)

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2014, May). Safe minimum internal temperature chart. Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/ safe-food-handling/safe-minimum-internal-temperature-chart/ct_index

large amounts of these items at one time means that even if only a few cows, chickens, eggs, and so forth, carry germs, they can spread to everything else being processed at the same time. Christine Crawford-Oppenheimer See also Consumer Trust; E. coli; Food Safety; Foodborne Illness; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Restaurant Inspections; Salmonella

Further Readings Government Printing Office. (2014). Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 9: Animals and Animal Products. Retrieved from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=4af2410411a17fcb20ae0c0c68 d2aebd&rgn=div5&view=text&node=9:2.0.2.1.19& idno=9 Johnson, D. R. (2000). HACCP & U.S. food safety guide. Elmwood Park, NJ: Food Institute.

312

Cooperatives

Liddle, A. (1998, March 23). Questions rise with mandated cooking temperatures. Nation’s Restaurant News, p. 78. National Restaurant Association Solutions. (2008). ServSafe essentials. Chicago, IL: Author. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2014a). Is it done yet? Retrieved from http:// www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safetyeducation/teach-others/fsis-educational-campaigns/is-itdone-yet/brochure/CT_Index#.UbumE5zNmEI U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2014b). Safe minimum internal temperature chart. Retrieved from http://www.fsis .usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/ get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/ safe-minimum-internal-temperature-chart/ct_index

COOPERATIVES The International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) defines a cooperative as “an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise” (http://ica.coop/ en/whats-co-op/co-operative-identity-valuesprinciples). According to the ICA, cooperatives are guided by values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity, as well as honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others. This approach is reinforced by seven co-op principles: (1) voluntary and open membership, (2) democratic member control, (3) member economic participation, (4) autonomy and independence, (5) education, training, and information, (6) cooperation among cooperatives, and (7) concern for community. The principle addressing education and information highlights the importance of democratic and participatory knowledge practices. Concern for community is shorthand for a commitment to socially, economically, and environmentally just and responsible development. This entry focuses on types of cooperatives that contribute to agriculture and food provision and explores some current challenges.

Through their affiliation nationally and internationally, and through shared history and philosophy, cooperatives belong to a worldwide movement that includes a billion co-op members. Typically, the cost of joining a cooperative is quite low. Many cooperatives are organized with assistance from other co-ops or from government, educational, religious, or philanthropic organizations. Cooperative enterprise is often a response to unfair trading practices or to problems accessing needed goods and services—including banking services in the case of saving and loans cooperatives (credit unions). While some cooperatives remain small and local, others have evolved into large, regionally and nationally important businesses. If they generate an economic surplus, cooperatives may provide their owner-members with patronage dividends, and members may also accumulate equity in an equity account. These benefits are based on the volume of business that a member does with the co-op.

Cooperatives in the Agrifood System Cooperative enterprises are important in the agrifood systems of the global North and South. Consumer cooperative members can have a more direct role in grocery sourcing decisions and gain access to safe, wholesome, foodstuffs at reasonable cost. Many retail co-ops are linked to wholesale cooperatives that provide technical services and enhanced buying power. Broadly speaking, farmer or producer cooperatives can be divided into four categories: (1) supply cooperatives, (2) marketing cooperatives, (3) bargaining cooperatives, and (4) production co-ops. Two other types of cooperatives involved in the food sector are worker cooperatives and social cooperatives. Producer Cooperatives

As relatively small buyers and sellers, farmers risk exploitation when they purchase supplies such as seeds, agrichemicals, fuels, or machinery, and when they sell commodities such as grains, milk, cotton, or wool. Unattractive terms of trade in oligopolistic markets characterized by small numbers

Cooperatives

of suppliers or buyers motivate farmers to join supply or marketing co-ops—or combined supply and marketing cooperatives. Growmark and CHS based in the United States and La Coop fédérée in Canada are examples of farm supply cooperatives that may also take on some marketing activities. Producer-owned processing and marketing cooperatives are important players in the handling, transformation, and commercialization of agricultural commodities. Examples include dairy co-ops such as Land O’Lakes in the United States, Gaylea in Canada, and FrieslandCampina based in the Netherlands; U.S. fruit processors such as Ocean Spray (cooperative), Welch’s (owned by the National Grape Cooperative Association), and Sun-Maid Growers of California; and the Canadian Lamb Producers Cooperative, an enterprise designed to gain marketing power for livestock producers. Other examples of cooperatives that market or manufacture “value-added” foods and beverages include wine co-ops in Italy and farmer cooperatives producing grape brandy in Chile. The farmer cooperative Groupe Limigrain is, among other things, a major producer of bread and pastries in France. Some farmer co-ops have been innovators in the marketing of certified organic farm products. North American examples include Organic Valley and Farmer Direct Co-operative. Supply and marketing co-ops operating in different subsectors may belong to federations that, in turn, belong to national cooperative organizations that provide coordination, support, and lobbying functions. Coop de France is an example of one such structure. Bargaining cooperatives have legal authority to represent producers of a particular farm commodity in negotiations with processors over the terms and conditions of sale of raw product. In the United States, bargaining cooperatives are used by some growers of fruits and vegetables for processing. Production cooperatives are found in the agrifood sectors of several countries. In Europe and North America, farm machinery co-ops allow producers to share specialized machinery. One model that has been imported to the province of Quebec from France is the Coopérative d’utilisation

313

de matériel agricole. In western Canada, more integrated machinery co-ops allow participating farm households to effectively and efficiently pursue joint-farming operations. Along with technical and market economies of size, these production co-ops may gain from economies of scope associated with diversification. There are safety advantages associated with working together, and group farming allows for more time off, shared learning, and opportunities for individuals to specialize within the enterprise. In Israel, a cooperative farming arrangement known as the moshav exists alongside the more famous approach to communal farming known as the kibbutz. Production cooperatives are also found in countries in the process of transition from state socialism. Examples include co-op farms in the region that was formerly the German Democratic Republic; in Vietnam, China, and Mongolia; and in Cuba, where collective farms have been reorganized into more autonomous production cooperatives. To add value to farm commodities through processing, some North American farmers have organized new generation cooperatives. These typically (but not always) conform to the co-op tenets of one member one vote and paying dividends based on patronage (use level or volume); however, construction or acquisition of a processing facility is funded through the purchase of relatively expensive shares. Each share confers a right and entails an obligation to deliver one unit of the relevant commodity, for example, sugar beets, durum wheat, or bison. No additional shares are issued unless the processing facility is being expanded. Shares can be bought and sold, but ownership is generally restricted to eligible producers. Board approval is required for all stock transfers. One risk is that an outside investor may offer to buy all the shares at a premium. If the board approves the sale, this results in demutualization of the co-op (loss of cooperative identity). In the category of agricultural producer cooperatives, one should also recognize grazing cooperatives and cooperative pastures, cattle breeder, and feeder coops, as well as cooperatives organized

314

Cooperatives

to provide regional environmental services and coordination. Moreover, producer cooperatives in the food sector are not limited to conventional farmers and ranchers. They also play significant roles in supporting fishermen and fish farmers. Fisheries co-ops have provided training and education in fishing communities and have helped develop and manage more sustainable fisheries. Through the International Co-operative Fisheries Organization, a sectoral organization within the ICA, established federations of fishing co-ops in countries such as South Korea and Japan cooperate with each other and work to support sister co-ops and co-op federations in countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines. Worker and Social Cooperatives

For worker cooperatives, a primary goal is the creation of a self-managed enterprise that provides secure and dignified employment. Worker-managed restaurants, cafés, bakeries, or food stores are found in many places and have been innovators in providing good food along with satisfying livelihoods. In several European countries, social cooperatives (known elsewhere as multistakeholder or solidarity co-ops) facilitate workforce integration for people whose health issues or life history become additional barriers to obtaining meaningful employment. In Italy, there are many social cooperatives and some operate restaurants, such as the Trattoria de Gli Amici in Rome, that provide rewarding employment for a workforce dealing with various disabilities. Consumer Cooperatives

Consumer cooperatives retail groceries and household goods to members and others living in many urban and rural settings. Examples include the Seikatsu Club Consumer Cooperative in Japan; iCOOP Korea; The Co-operative Group in the United Kingdom; Migros, the Swiss-based cooperative retailer; and the wave of smaller, natural foods co-ops established in the United States and Canada starting in the 1970s. While some consumer co-ops

were founded principally to provide members with an affordable and reliable food source, many consumer co-ops have been leaders in the widespread movement for healthy, ethical, and sustainable consumption. They have been trailblazers in sourcing from local producers; supporting diets focused lower on the food chain (e.g., various forms of vegetarianism); supporting production methods that do not depend on petrochemical-based pesticides and fertilizers; and promoting food safety, animal welfare, fair trade, family farms, and farmworker justice. Whether or not they identify themselves as part of an alternative food movement, local consumer cooperatives may hold membership in second-tier co-ops that provide business services and the market power that comes with volume purchases. Some 235 independent retail cooperatives operating in western Canada jointly own Federated Co-operatives Ltd., a wholesaler and vertically integrated supplier that provides them with grocery products, petroleum, hardware, and building supplies and with marketing, management, and related technical supports. Arctic Cooperatives, a federation of three-dozen retail co-ops supplying remote communities in the Canadian North, also looks to Federated Co-operatives Ltd., as its principal wholesaler. In the United States, the National Cooperative Grocers Association is a business services cooperative for local natural foods retail co-ops. As of 2013, its 136 member and associate co-ops operated some 180 stores with combined annual sales of more than $1.5 billion to 1.3 million consumerowners. The National Cooperative Grocers Association in turn belongs to Consumer Cooperatives Worldwide, a sectoral organization within ICA. The guiding philosophy of the Consumer Cooperatives Worldwide is that consumers have a right to reasonable standards of nutrition and food safety, to unadulterated merchandise at fair prices, and to a healthy environment. Furthermore, consumers should have an ability to influence the economy through democratic participation, and should have access to relevant information and education. Working with employees, members, and the wider

Cooperatives

public, cooperatives frequently put this philosophy into practice by building employee and member capacity and by sharing food skills and food knowledge. Providing an alternative interface between producers and consumers, farmers’ market and community supported agriculture enterprises are part of a worldwide movement to reduce geographic and social distance between producers and consumers. In North America at least, many farmers’ markets are organized as nonprofit cooperatives. Moreover, farmers who bring their produce to such markets sometimes organize themselves into small-scale producer co-ops so as to share marketing responsibilities and to be able to offer a greater variety of products. Many retail cooperatives have been leading players in the fair-trade movement that mandates the sourcing of products such as coffee, tea, sugar, chocolate, or bananas from producers organized in agricultural cooperatives. Partnership with a producer co-op in the global South promotes equity, ensures accountability, and provides an organizational vehicle for distributing the “social premiums” associated with fair-trade certification. Indeed, some fair-trade movement participants argue for cooperatives as the prescribed enterprise form at all stages of the value(s) chain. They argue that importing, processing, and distributing enterprises in the North should be consumer co-ops or worker cooperatives.

Contemporary Challenges In the context of restructuring and concentration, cooperatives reflect and experience many of the tensions inherent in contemporary food systems. They face stiff competition from major food retailers (e.g., Walmart, Costco, and Whole Foods Market) that not only benefit from market power related to volume purchases but also sell various foods that have earned some form of organic or fair-trade certification. Producer cooperatives meanwhile must find ways to remain competitive in terms of services and prices in face of the market power of diversified transnational firms such as Cargill, ADM, Nestlé, and Tyson.

315

In the context of liberalized trade and globalization, many co-ops have sought ways to respond to international competition. To achieve economies of size and to access markets beyond traditional trading regions, large agricultural co-ops in Europe, for example, have initiated a range of international activities—opening international offices to facilitate exporting and importing, entering strategic partnerships with international firms (some of which may be co-ops), acquiring foreign firms as subsidiaries (that may or may not be organized as co-ops), and merging with co-ops from other countries. Such strategies add governance complexities and bring with them risks that farmer control will be diluted. Enterprise agendas may get diverted away from the original purposes of adding value to locally produced farm products and providing farmer members with trustworthy and cost-effective services. Strong commitments to healthy eating and ecosocial justice have been hallmarks of many food co-ops, but this does not necessarily hold true to the same degree for some large consumer co-ops, some of which are also involved in selling agroindustrial inputs to conventional farmers. Large producer cooperatives also face many strains when it comes to resolving the preferences of different members and the worldviews of producers and consumers. While co-op managers and agricultural producers frequently adopt a productivist orientation, many consumers evince a heightened sensitivity with respect to issues such as the environmental and animal welfare impacts of industrialized agriculture. Even agricultural technologies such as genetically modified seeds may be a source of tension within cooperatives and between producer cooperatives and groups that might otherwise tend to support cooperative models of enterprise. This would include environmentally concerned citizens, young people, and women, who continue to shoulder disproportionate responsibilities for the feeding and well-being of family members. Cooperatives in many sectors have experienced a certain measure of institutional isomorphism, getting larger and making changes in governance and managerial style that make them appear more

316

Corporate Food Service

like their corporate competitors. In some cases, this has meant that members and employees may not be well aware that the enterprise is a co-op or that this implies any significant distinctions in terms of ownership, control, or operating principles. More recently, however, many larger cooperatives in the food and agricultural sectors have opted to more openly embrace and celebrate the cooperative difference, (re)adopting this as a core part of their identity, branding, and decision making with respect to policies and priorities. Small-scale producers continue to face many threats when they interact with markets for the goods and services that they require. Their efforts at organizing cooperative enterprises face many challenges—for example, from corporate (and cooperative) competitors, from a shortage of adequately and appropriately trained managers, and from unhelpful public policies. However, despite heightened competition that sometimes leads to the dismantling or conversion of co-op enterprises, despite increased ideological pressures in the era of neoliberalism, and despite uncertainties with respect to state support or interference, cooperation in the agrifood sector has enjoyed something of a renaissance. As a long-standing and wellorganized component of the social economy, coops are widely seen as a promising response to the thorny economic, social, political, and environmental problems associated with neoliberal globalization and corporate capitalism—as well as with many versions of state socialism. There has been some renewed support from nongovernmental organizations and international development agencies and from an international cooperative movement that came out of the 2012 International Year of Cooperatives with renewed energy and focus. Evidence of this revitalization includes the establishment of new kinds of co-ops and new experiments in intercooperation. In Uganda and Tanzania, for example, local producer cooperatives are now collaborating in integrated clusters with second-tier agricultural marketing cooperatives, rural savings and credit co-operatives, and cooperative banks. Michael Eden Gertler

See also Deskilling; Fair Trade; Fishing Industry; Food Safety; Health Food Stores; Organic Foods and Health Implications

Further Readings Da Vià, E. (2012). Seed diversity, farmers’ rights, and the politics of repeasantization. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food, 19(2), 229–242. Gertler, M. (2001). Rural co-operatives and sustainable development. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: University of Saskatchewan, Centre for the Study of Co-operatives. Gray, T. W. (2007). Co-ops focus collective action. Rural Cooperatives, 74(3), 33–35. Kimura, A. H. (2012). Feminist heuristics: Transforming the foundation of food quality and safety assurance systems. Rural Sociology, 77(2), 203–224. Li, Q., Wang, J., & Mooney, P. H. (2013). Strategies for agricultural cooperation in contemporary China. Journal of Rural Cooperation, 41(1), 27–43. Mariola, M. J., & McConnell, D. L. (2013). The shifting landscape of Amish agriculture: Balancing tradition and innovation in an organic farming cooperative. Human Organization, 72(2), 144–153. Münkner, H.-H. (2012, September). Co-operation as a remedy in times of crisis agricultural co-operatives in the world their roles for rural development and poverty reduction (Euricse Working Paper No. 41/12). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=2145317 Stofferahn, C. W. (2010). South Dakota soybean processors: The discourse of conversion from cooperative to limited liability corporation. Journal of Cooperatives, 24, 13–43.

CORPORATE FOOD SERVICE Corporate food service includes meals and snacks provided at work, usually by a third-party company contracted to do so by the employer. Corporate food service, like restaurant food service, began in the 20th century with the rise in manufacturing and food distribution. Corporate food service in America is a highly concentrated industry. Three publicly held corporations

Corporate Food Service

each have an approximate 30% market share according to the research group IBISWorld: Sodexo, Aramark Corporation (which operates some corporate food service under its LifeWorks brand), and Compass Group PLC (the parent company of such corporate food service providers as Restaurant Associates, Levy, Flik, Eurest, Canteen, and Bon Appétit Management Company). All three companies also offer food service to schools, museums, sports facilities, hospitals, and other institutions. The remaining 10% of the corporate food service market comprises small, independent companies such as Guckenheimer and the few corporations (but some big names, e.g., Apple Computer and Facebook) that directly employ their own kitchen staffs. This entry examines the history and business models of corporate food service and discusses current trends.

History Contract food services are believed to have been born in 1897, when a worker at a locomotive plant in Richmond, California, quit his job to sell lemonade for “a penny a dipper,” according to the historian Mickey Warner’s account (cited in the exhaustive “Contract Management” history for the October 1997 issue of Food Management). The plant’s managers noted a subsequent drop in the accident rate, which they ascribed to making cold drinks available—the genesis of today’s belief that good food services contribute to productivity. As Ford and other giants of manufacturing built ever more plants and factories, companies emerged to feed these expanding workforces, many of them from origins as humble as that lemonade stand. The empire of J. Willard Marriott, for example, was launched in 1927 from a nineseat root beer stand. That decade also saw advances in mechanization that gave rise to the vending machine industry. The Automatic Canteen Co., founded in 1929, was an innovative early developer of vending services and products; by 1936, Canteen had 100,000 machines in use in industrial plants, offices, and factories that offered “wet and dry” snacks, sandwiches, and beverages. Aramark commenced operations in 1935 also in the food vending category.

317

The “industrial cafe” at Coca-Cola Company headquarters was typical of an early corporate dining operation. In 1926, it offered wait-served lunch to about 120 customers, mostly made up of office workers and company officers. Mid-day meals were 35 cents each. Both the 1960s and mid-1980s saw waves of consolidation and diversification. Marriott in particular went on a spree, and in 1986, it acquired its rival Saga Corporation to become the largest contract food service provider in America, with hundreds of education, business, and health care accounts. In 1987, two former Saga employees launched Bon Appétit Management Company in San Francisco, which went on to feed the rising stars of Silicon Valley. Bon Appétit is widely credited with starting a revolution in corporate food service by being the first to hire professionally trained chefs to cook restaurant-quality food from scratch. During the 1990s, Silicon Valley thrived but other industries contracted. This corporate downsizing resulted in a tighter focus on “core” business activities and thus the outsourcing of many inhouse food operations to food service providers. These changes drove the general growth among companies during the 1990s. In 1993, the U.K.-based Compass Group acquired Canteen Vending and started building a satellite empire in America acquiring Restaurant Associates, Flik, and in 2002, Bon Appétit Management Company. The French company Sodexho also began acquiring U.S. companies in this period, in the late 1990s joining with Marriott for a spinoff company, now known as just Sodexo. And in late 2013, Aramark—which has merged, been acquired, gone public, and gone private again—announced that it had filed for an initial public offering.

Business Models and Philosophy Corporate food service operates using several different agreements between the food service provider and the contracting employer, its client. In a fully subsidized environment, the client pays the provider the entire cost of labor, food, utilities, and

318

Corporate Food Service

physical improvements. In a “part subsidy” account, the provider offers the meals at a discount made up by the client. In a “profit and loss” or P&L contract, the client is essentially just the host, inviting a restaurant group onto its campus: The provider sets the prices of the food competitively so as to attract the employee population and compete with nearby restaurants. All corporations that offer on-site food service to their employees do so as an investment in employee morale, believing that it helps them attract and retain their workforce. Many also believe that it can help spur productivity, by making it less attractive to leave work for an extended lunch. Others see it as an opportunity to help their employees eat healthily, which can pay business dividends in lower health care costs and increased productivity.

Trends in Food Service Until the late 1980s, corporate food in America was little better than that found in vending machines, with most of it being frozen or canned and then reheated. The rise of Silicon Valley titans such as Hewlett-Packard, Xerox, and others made competition for employees fierce, and all of a sudden, offering restaurant-quality food became a compelling perk. The dot-com boom of the late 1990s intensified this trend, personified by the well-known lavish food service at Google, and alone among the perks, food survived the technology bubble bursting in 2002. Corporate food service providers tend to mirror the values of their clients. These days, the driving trends in food service are the following.

1999 and committed to serving only sustainable seafood in 2002 and cage-free eggs in 2005 (followed shortly after by its parent, Compass North America)—has been recognized by many groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and the James Beard Foundation. Nutrition Education and Wellness

Offering people unlimited or highly financially subsidized access to food throughout the workday has been seen to have unintended consequences in employee health. The big corporate food service providers all now make a point of offering reducedcalorie menus, nutritional information, and special programming to help employees make healthy food choices. Mobile Computing

As America’s workforce has become digitized, food service providers have tried to keep up in order to shorten lines, engage diners, and collect data. Most corporate menus are now posted daily on a mobile accessible website or iPhone app, and many offer tools for engagement such as additional nutritional information or feedback channels. Food Trucks and Pop-Ups

Even with as many daily menu options as providers offer, food fatigue can set in. All of the big three providers are deploying new tricks such as food trucks and special food event “pop-ups” like an oyster bar or a gourmet cupcake giveaway to keep employees from getting bored with their dining options. Bonnie Azab Powell

Sustainability

Most corporate food service providers claim to source some of their food locally, have aligned themselves with a seafood sustainability group, made at least one or two animal welfare commitments, and have policies regarding food waste and disposable containers. Bon Appétit Management Company’s pioneering leadership in this area— having launched its local-purchasing program in

See also Catering Business, Off-Site; College Dining Services; Hospital Food

Further Readings Contract management. (1997, October). Food Management, 32(10), 84–91. IBISWorld. (2010). Food service contractors in the US: Market research report (Industry Report No. 72231).

Coupons Retrieved from ttps://www.ibisworld.com/industry/ default.aspx?indid=1681 Lawn, J. (2004, September). The care and feeding of Google. Food Management. Retrieved from http://foodmanagement.com/onsite-leaders/care-and-feeding-google

COUPONS Coupons allow consumers to buy goods or services for less than the list price. There are two main types of coupons, those issued by manufacturers and those issued by stores. Consumers can find paper coupons in newspapers, in the mail, or in stores. In recent years, the Internet has become a popular space for coupons. Coupons for grocery items represent a large percentage of all coupons, and most coupons for food are for snacks and cereals. Groupon (a combination of the words group and coupon) is a social coupon site. Launched in 2008, it operates in specific geographic markets, and membership is free. It offers daily deals, commonly referred to as “Groupons,” for restaurants, services, and products, often at very high discounts. Coupons for restaurants and various other food-related services and products account for a large portion of Groupon deals. This entry discusses the history and consumer use of coupons, Groupons, and other social coupon sites.

Coupons History

Asa Candler, the co-owner of Coca-Cola, created the first coupon in 1887. He took the name coupon from the French couper, meaning “to cut.” Candler used coupons to promote the soft drink. Paper tickets offering consumers a free glass of Coca-Cola, then priced at five cents, were placed in magazines, given out by sales representatives, and mailed to homes. The coupons were a success, and between 1894 and 1913, an estimated one in nine Americans had received a free Coca-Cola.

319

In 1909, Post Cereal began issuing coupons for Grape Nuts. Other industries began using coupons as well, and they became very popular during the Great Depression. In the 1940s, chain supermarkets began to use coupons to entice customers away from neighborhood shops. Coupon use continued to rise throughout the 20th century. The peak use of physical paper coupons was in 1992. Since then, online coupons have risen in popularity. Retailer Strategy

Manufacturers and stores hope to attract customers with coupons and to entice them to buy things they may not otherwise. Coupons save shoppers money, but they also may tempt them to spend money on things they might not buy at all without a discount, which increases revenues for businesses. Coupons are targeted at price-conscious shoppers who can be persuaded to buy one product over another, or shop at one store over another based on potential savings. Types of coupon deals include offering two or more products for the price of one, a percentage discount, or free services. Coupons offered by stores may be redeemed at that store, though many may accept competitors’ coupons. Coupons issued by manufacturers can be used anywhere their product is sold. The most common way for companies to distribute food coupons is through inserts in newspapers and magazines. About 41% of food coupons are distributed this way. Other methods of food coupon distribution include attaching instantly redeemable coupons to products in stores, attaching coupons to store shelves, and applying savings directly at checkout. Digital coupons are becoming more popular, and 15.1% more retailers offered them in 2012 than did in 2011. In 2012, 50.9% of digital coupons were for food items (“Infographic: Digital Coupon Use,” 2012). Most coupons carry barcodes that are scanned when the customer checks out. A coupon format called DataBar is rising in popularity. The DataBar is a barcode that is able to store more complex information than traditional barcodes can. It was introduced in 2008, when it began appearing along

320

Coupons

with Universal Product Code-A codes—a format designed to ease the transition to the DataBar. It can include complex deals and expiration dates, cuts down on scan time and entry errors, and is expected to cut down on coupon fraud. Most retailers are now equipped to accept DataBar coupons, and these coupons are expected to become the primary coupon format within a few years. Consumer Coupon Use

The average coupon user is female, has children, and is between the ages of 25 and 44. In 2011, consumers in the United States redeemed about 3.5 million coupons. Of shoppers, 41% say that they use coupons on most shopping trips (“Infographic: Coupon Use Shows Volatility,” 2012). For coupons to be attractive, they should offer discounts on products the consumer buys anyway and provide large enough discounts to make it worth the time it takes to look for, clip, and organize coupons. Some of the most commonly cited reasons consumers give for not using coupons are that they do not have time and that they cannot find coupons for the products they like to buy. Overall, coupon use in the United States declined by 17% in 2012 (NCH Marketing Services, Inc., 2013). A small percentage of consumers are known as “coupon enthusiasts.” These people spend a lot of time looking through coupons and finding ways to maximize their savings. They make up less than 10% of the American population but are responsible for 65% of redeemed coupons. They will often buy very large quantities of a product to take advantage of a deal. Their goal is to pay little to nothing for a large haul from the supermarket. This practice takes a great deal of time and dedication. Some coupon enthusiasts report spending 60 hours a week on coupons. This phenomenon became the subject of a television show called Extreme Couponing, which premiered on TLC in 2010.

Groupon History

Groupon was launched in November 2008. Andrew Mason created it with a $1 million

investment from his former boss, Eric Lefkofsky. It operates in geographically specific locations, usually cities and their surrounding metro areas. The site’s first market was Chicago, Illinois; followed by Boston, Massachusetts; New York City, New York; and Toronto, Canada. By October 2010, Groupon was operating in 150 markets in the United States and in 100 markets throughout Europe, Asia, and South America. It now serves more than 500 markets in 48 countries. In 2013, the company reported that it had about 41 million active customers. Groupon employs about 10,000 people. Business Model

Groupon sells coupons for local businesses. Its original strategy was modeled after a website called The Point, where people could start campaigns asking for money to reach a specific goal, but would only receive the money pledged to the campaign after a certain number of people committed. When Groupon started, a deal had to reach a tipping point, where a certain number of people had to buy a deal in order for it to remain available. If not enough people bought the deal, no one would get it. As Groupon became more popular, the tipping point was reached on nearly every deal, and the company did away with that concept. Groupon deals are mostly for local businesses, although some larger companies offer deals through the site as well. There are deals for many different types and sizes of stores, restaurants, and events, as well as service providers such as dentists, massage therapists, and beauty professionals. In 2011, the company launched Groupon Goods, an online retail site that provides discounts on a variety of products. Also in 2011, Groupon partnered with Expedia, an online travel–booking site, to present Groupon Getaways, which provides deals on hotels around the world. Groupon makes money by charging fees to businesses that offer deals through their site. Usually, this commission is a percentage of the revenue generated by the Groupons sold for that business. People must join Groupon to buy the deals it offers. Membership is free. When people sign up, they can choose the types of deals they are most

Coupons

interested in, such as restaurants, clothing, concerts, or beauty services. Each day, Groupon offers several deals in each of its markets, and it highlights certain deals for each customer based on their preferences. Some deals are only available to purchase for several hours, though most run for a few days. Savings are typically between 40% and 60% but are sometimes even higher. Food-related deals are very common and include restaurants, wine shops, food delivery services, gourmet treats, kitchen tools, and cooking classes. A typical deal to a restaurant might cost $20 and be good for $40 worth of food. Members pay Groupon directly for the coupon, and Groupon then gives the money to the business. Once members pay for a deal, they receive a link to their voucher via e-mail. To use their deal, they print out the voucher and take it to the business. Vouchers can also be displayed on smart phones. Two thirds of Groupon users are female. Groupon users are more affluent than the average American and are more likely to have a college degree. Fifty-seven percent of its visitors are between the ages of 35 and 64 (Nielsen, 2011).

321

will buy a deal to use at a business they may not have visited without the discount and might be unlikely to return if they have to pay full price. In 2011, 17 individual lawsuits were formed into a class action lawsuit against Groupon over their expiration date policy. The suit alleged that Groupon violated laws concerning gift certificates by requiring them to be used in one visit and by imposing expiration dates of fewer than 5 years. Groupon settled in April 2012, though they did not admit any wrongdoing. Groupon agreed to pay $8.5 million in the settlement, although as of August 2014, the settlement was not yet finalized. The company also agreed to clarify restrictions on vouchers. In 2011, Groupon ran ads during the Super Bowl that drew a great deal of criticism. The commercials were meant to be spoofs of commercials for charities. The most controversial commercial in the campaign started by talking about the plight of Tibetans and segued into a discussion of deals on Tibetan food, with a plea to “save the money.” Many viewers and commentators saw this as insensitive. The company pulled the ads soon after they aired.

Controversies

Groupon was initially hailed as a great success. By April 2010, the company was valued at $1.35 billion. Groupon’s stock price fell nearly 70% during 2012. At its initial public offering in 2011, the company sold shares for $20 each. In the spring of 2013, share price was around $6. As a result, Mason was fired as CEO (Chief Executive Officer), though he still owns about 7% of the company. Lefkofsky is the current CEO of the company. There has been some backlash against Groupon from businesses. Business owners offer deals through Groupon in the hope of attracting new customers. However, they sometimes find that their Groupon vouchers do not help their business in the way they hoped. While they increase customer volume, the discount provided may be so large that there is little increase in profit. Some find that they cannot keep up with the extra customers the deal sends their way. Groupons also do not necessarily encourage customer loyalty, as people

Similar Companies Many similar social deal sites have been launched, though Living Social is usually considered Groupon’s only serious competitor. It launched its daily deals site in 2009 and operates in 613 markets around the world. Its business model is very similar to Groupon’s. There are many daily deals websites that operate on a small scale in just one market. There are also several websites that aggregate deals from many different sites, allowing consumers to see all of the deals available to them at once. Tracy Bacon See also Grocery Stores and Supermarkets; Online Shopping; Warehouse Clubs and Supermarket Loyalty Cards

Further Readings Boon, E., Wiid, R., & DesAutels, P. (2012). Teeth whitening, boot camp, and a brewery tour: A practical

322

Crop Insurance

analysis of “deal of the day.” Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2), 137–144. Data Points. (2012). Supermarket News, 60(50), 8. Dholakia, U. M., & Kimes, S. E. (2011). Daily deal fatigue or unabated enthusiasm? A study of consumer perceptions of daily deal promotions. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Garry, M. (2012). DataBar-only coupons to flood marketplace. Supermarket News, 60(1), 1–16. Grose, J. (2013, February 28). The all-consuming pleasures of “extreme couponing.” BusinessWeek: Lifestyle. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek .com/articles/2013-02-28/the-all-consuming-pleasuresof-extreme-couponing Groupon customers offered class action payout over expiration dates. (n.d.). CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/23/technology/ groupon-lawsuit/index.htm Infographic: Coupon use shows volatility. (2012, December 17). Supermarket News. Retrieved from http://supermarketnews.com/rankings-amp-research/ infographic-coupon-use-shows-volatility Infographic: Digital coupon use up 30%. (2012, November 21). Supermarket News. Retrieved from http://supermarketnews.com/rankings-amp-research/ infographic-digital-coupon-use-305 Milkman, K. L., & Beshears, J. (2009). Mental accounting and small windfalls: Evidence from an online grocer. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 71(2), 384–394. NCH Marketing Services, Inc. (2013). NCH annual topline U.S. CPG coupon facts report for year-end 2012. Retrieved from https://www2.nchmarketing .com/ResourceCenter/assets/0/22/28/76/226/457/73594 9da63a14f209014dd04c27f1472.pdf Nielsen. (2011, April). Deal me in behind the bargainhunting audiences of local deal sites. Retrieved from http://acnielsen.it/us/en/insights/news/2011/deal-me-inbehind-the-bargain-hunting-audiences-of-local-dealsites.html

CROP INSURANCE Crop insurance in the United States is a federally subsidized, privately administered program that provides payments to farmers to compensate them

for crop losses incurred due to weather-related fluctuations in crop yields and prices. It is designed to help farmers stay in business if their crops are destroyed by extreme weather events such as floods, hail, or drought. The ways in which crop insurance is administered, while somewhat technical, matter for how much relative risk farmers, taxpayers, government, and private companies are expected to bear to ensure stability in agriculture and food production. This entry discusses the history of crop insurance in the United States, the structure of the crop insurance industry, types of crop insurance available, and implications and controversies related to the current crop insurance programs.

History of Crop Insurance in the United States Benjamin Franklin proposed a crop insurance program in 1788 that would protect farmers against crop losses from weather, insects, and diseases, but no programs were implemented until the late 1800s. Private tornado insurance was first made available in 1865, and hail insurance for tobacco farmers dates to 1880. Congress authorized a crop insurance program on the federal level in the 1930s to help farmers recover from losses sustained during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl eras. In 1938, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) was created to administer this program and provide multiple-peril crop insurance to protect against losses caused by any number of natural disasters. The FCIC’s goals were to protect farmers’ incomes in cases of crop failures and price crashes, maintain steady food supplies and prices for consumers, and ensure stable buying power and availability of farm supplies for businesses. Despite these lofty aims, federal crop insurance had low success rates, primarily because it suffered from low farmer participation. Crop insurance, like health insurance or homeowner insurance, works through a pool system, whereby participants pay a relatively small premium in exchange for indemnity (coverage) in times of loss. The revenue generated by the premiums of many insurance buyers pays

Crop Insurance

for the coverage extended to the few each year who experience losses. As such, broad participation of farmers is important to the financial success of crop insurance. In addition, because weather-related damage often occurs at once for many farmers in a given area, there is increased risk that in any given year, depending on the geographical distribution of extreme weather events, insurers will have to pay for coverage that exceeds the revenues generated by premiums. In other words, for crop insurance especially, when participation in insurance programs is low, the chance that program costs will exceed premium revenues is high. This was true for federal crop insurance in its early years, and the federal government spent the years prior to 1980 experimenting with various strategies for increasing crops covered to encourage participation, raising premiums and reducing coverage to lower costs, and otherwise making changes to try and keep revenues and expenditures balanced. The Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980 represented several changes in the administration of crop insurance programs. Crop insurance was expanded to cover many more crops and many more regions of the United States, and the government transferred administration of its insurance policies to private companies, with premiums and other costs subsidized by the federal government. However, because participation in crop insurance still remained low, Congress found itself authorizing several additional ad hoc disaster assistance/ relief bills between 1988 and 1993 to help farmers, especially those without insurance, deal with crop losses. The Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 attempted to solve the participation problem and eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster relief by making crop insurance mandatory for all farmers who participated in federal price support and loan programs. A basic catastrophic insurance was provided free of charge (except for an administrative fee), and paid out when more than 50% of the crop was lost. Farmers could also purchase additional levels of coverage. In 1996, the mandatory requirement (to sign up for crop insurance) was removed, but farmers were (and are) still required

323

to purchase coverage to receive other federal farm program benefits, or must waive any claims they might have to federal disaster assistance funds. As a complement, many banks also require that farmers purchase crop insurance to qualify for farm loans. Accordingly, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000, among other provisions, increased federal subsidies on farmer premiums. As of 2007, three quarters of all U.S. planted field crop acreage was covered by crop insurance plans. While this level of participation in crop insurance has definitely ensured the financial viability of public/private crop insurance programs, it has not necessarily, as of 2013, eliminated the use of ad hoc disaster relief programs.

Structure of the Crop Insurance Industry The FCIC is managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency, created in 1996, which contracts with 16 private insurance companies to administer crop insurance. Specifically, these insurance companies pay commissions to independent insurance agents, who in turn sell coverage to farmers. The companies are required to indemnify all farmers from eligible areas; in other words, they cannot deny coverage to a farmer they deem to be high risk. In exchange, the administrative and operating costs incurred by insurance companies in providing crop insurance are reimbursed by the federal government. The FCIC also provides reinsurance for companies to protect them in instances of unanticipated and severe loss. Eligibility for crop insurance is determined on a county-by-county basis, and coverage is purchased on a crop-by-crop basis (except for plans that insure the whole farm). Farmers can purchase insurance just to cover their losses in case of hail, or they can purchase multiple-peril insurance that covers hail, drought, flooding, and sometimes insect/disease or other damages. Premium rates are determined by the FCIC and paid partially by farmers and partially by the government. The higher the level of coverage that is chosen by the farmer, the greater is the percentage of premium

324

Crop Insurance

paid by the farmer (rather than the government). Nevertheless, overall levels of government support average about 60% of the cost of premiums. As of 2010, about 100 crops as well as livestock were considered insurable; 80% of premiums (and associated federal subsidies) go to insurance for corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton, which boast 80% to 90% coverage rates in terms of acres planted.

Types of Crop Insurance There are two basic types of crop insurance: yieldbased and revenue-based policies. Under yieldbased policies, farmers receive a payment if crop yields fall below historical average production levels (historical yields are normally calculated for each producer, although they can also be calculated using average county yield data). Farmers choose what portion of their normal yield to insure and what portion of the estimated market price they wish to receive if yield levels fall below the loss threshold selected, and their premiums vary according to these choices. Revenue-based crop insurance was introduced in 1997. Under revenue-based insurance policies, a target revenue level is established, based on a producer’s historical yield multiplied by current market prices for the commodity. The producer receives a payment when actual revenue (for the specific crop or for the whole-farm enterprise, depending on the type of policy) falls below the percentage of target revenue specified in the producer’s insurance plan. This can happen either when yields fall (as with yield-based insurance) or when prices fall (as often happens in times of higher yields/production). Thus, revenue-based crop insurance generally provides a broader and, in many cases, a tighter safety net for farmers. More than 50% of insurance policies purchased are now revenue based.

Implications of the Current Crop Insurance Structure As farmer participation in crop insurance has grown, and as revenue-based insurance policies

have replaced many of the yield-based plans, benefits have accrued both to farmers, who are more protected from crop loss than they once were, and to insurers, who are better able to balance revenues from premiums with costs to pay indemnities. However, critics have argued that the current structure of crop insurance overinsulates farmers from the marketplace, resulting in high costs to taxpayers through government subsidies. With the introduction and increasing popularity of revenue insurance plans, farmers can now receive payments both in “bad” years, when yields drop due to weather or other factors, and also in “good” years, when yields rise (and prices therefore fall), assuming that the acreage they have planted keeps them below target revenue levels at these lower prices. In addition, because insurance premiums are subsidized, farmers are able to enroll in much more expensive plans than they otherwise would, increasing costs to government for their portion of the premiums. This has been reinforced in recent years by rising overall premium costs attributed to rising crop prices. Increasing numbers of weather-related events too have increased the amount of money paid out in indemnities to farmers over the past several years. Other critics of the current crop insurance system point not so much to the problems of high government costs for programs but, instead, to an unequal distribution of payments among farmers. Crop insurance enrollment is concentrated in areas with heavy production of corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton, and within those areas, indemnities are highest in places with marginal rainfall and more variable weather. While it makes sense that the areas most at risk receive the most protection from crop insurance, this can nevertheless create incentives for farmers to grow crops in areas less well suited to agriculture (where, if the crop fails, they can still receive an indemnity payment), potentially encouraging greater problems of environmental degradation in certain regions. In addition, large producers with large liabilities tend to receive the largest crop insurance payments, in ways that concentrate government subsidies among these large-scale producers, making it harder in some cases for smaller producers to compete and survive.

Crop Insurance

Finally, although policies and premiums are set by the FCIC, some different farming practices are insured at different rates, arguably creating an additional source of inequity in crop insurance markets. For example, farmers planting genetically modified crops often qualify for lower premiums, since these crops (which are often considered to be more drought tolerant or disease resistant) are sometimes seen as a lower risk by insurance companies. Similarly, prior to 2014, organic producers faced a 5% surcharge on premiums and were only paid based on conventional (rather than the higher organic) prices in case of a loss (these provisions were changed in the 2014 farm bill). These types of policies made sense to insurance companies who seek to pass costs along to producers for practices that they see as higher risk (organic rather than chemically based management of insect and disease problems). However, they ignored the fact that many organic and sustainable farms use crop rotation and diversified planting strategies to moderate risk of insect/disease problems and other forms of crop loss, actually making them potentially lower risk clients, especially for whole-farm policies. Nevertheless, these trends toward more favorable crop insurance conditions for conventional farmers tended to reinforce the promotion of larger scale industrial styles of farming, which have been found to have greater potential for negative environmental and social impacts.

Crop Insurance Going Forward With the potential for more frequent extreme weather events, as predicted by climate change theories, government costs for crop insurance may continue to rise, especially if overprotective safety net policies create incentives for expanded production rather than preventative adaptation to climactic changes. Because crop insurance is authorized as permanent legislation rather than as part of farm bill legislation, the mechanisms for changing it differ at times from that of many other farm policies. Even so, changes to crop insurance are sometimes proposed or made as part of farm bill debates.

325

The 2014 farm bill (the latest as of this writing) made several changes to crop insurance, adding new risk management options and shifting some of the bill’s commodity crop payment mechanisms toward more insurance-oriented programs. In other words, the farm safety net for producers now rests more heavily on crop insurance than it does on commodity subsidies. Programs were also changed to provide more equal access to crop insurance for organic and beginning farmers and to ensure that farmers adhere to certain conservation standards to qualify for federally subsidized plans. Given these kinds of changes, and the controversies embedded within them, it is important for stakeholders and policymakers to understand the mechanisms through which crop insurance functions, as well as the implications inherent therein, as they seek adjustments to these and other farm policy programs into the future. Nadine Lehrer See also Climate Change; Farm Bills; Organic/ Biodynamic Farming; Subsidies; U.S. Department of Agriculture

Further Readings Babcock, B. (2009). Examining the health of the U.S. crop insurance industry. Iowa Ag Review, 15(4), 1–3. Babcock, B. (2012). Giving it away free: Free crop insurance can save money and strengthen the farm safety net. Environmental Working Group. Retrieved from http://www.ewg.org/research/giving-it-away-free Chite, R. (2008). Crop insurance and disaster assistance in the 2008 farm bill (RL34207). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Harms, S. C. (n.d.). History of crop insurance in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.rainhail .com/pdf_files/rainhailcom/uscihistory.pdf Shields, D. (2010). Federal crop insurance: Background and issues (R40532). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. (2014). 2014 Farm Bill fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.rma.usda.gov/news/currentissues/ farmbill/2014%20Farm%20Bill%20614.pdf

326

Crowdsourced Reviews of Restaurants

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. (n.d.). A history of federal crop insurance. Retrieved from http://www.cropinsurers.com/images/ pdf/crop-insurance-history/RMA_A_History_of_ Federal_Crop_Insurance.pdf

CROWDSOURCED REVIEWS OF RESTAURANTS Online websites such as Yelp provide reviews and ratings of businesses through a social network. Based on the theory that reviews are more accurate when supplied by social contacts and peers, these sites have become popular since their introduction during the 1990s. Crowdsourced reviews, so named because they aggregate reviews from a large number of peers, affect the flow of customers to dining establishments and other businesses. Users of Yelp and other such sites provide the data for each business, typically including a fivestar-based rating, hours, location, products, and services. In a 2012 study of Yelp ratings for 328 restaurants in the San Francisco Bay area, the University of California–Berkeley researchers Michael Anderson and Jeremy Magruder found that an increase of one-half star in ratings made it 19% more likely that a restaurant would be full during peak dining times (based on the availability of reservations for a party of four on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings at 6:00, 7:00, and 8:00 p.m.). They found that the effect was strongest for restaurants for which little other external information was available. The effect was weaker for restaurants with prestigious and well-known rankings such as a Michelin star. Other researchers have also examined the impact of social media on customer choices with respect to dining, and important questions remain, such as the extent of falsified reviews, the overall impact of social media on restaurant revenues, and the relative importance of the various criteria customers use in evaluating dining options. Some reviewers are designated as elite reviewers because they have reputations for writing quality

reviews. In addition to the rating itself, most online sites list the number of reviews in each rating category; a large number of reviews enhances the credibility of the overall ranking. A site moderator reviews the user-provided information before posting. Business owners cannot alter or remove listings without the site moderator approval. Advertising on the site provides the revenue for the site owner, and the service often has both a web and a mobile presence, allowing users to check in from restaurants and other food establishments. Before the arrival of online review sites, consumers relied on word-of-mouth and printed reviews, such as those provided by Consumer Reports and Zagat guides. The Zagat guides utilized crowdsourcing before the Internet became so popular. Zagat reviewers—restaurant customers—would complete survey questionnaires that enabled the publisher to rate restaurants. In 2011, Google acquired Zagat, and in 2012 the Zagat guides became free and imbedded in Google’s online services. As digital technology has made crowdsourced restaurant reviews increasingly available to consumers, a number of different approaches have appeared, including the following: 1. Many sites focus specifically on reviews of restaurants and other food outlets such as take-out food establishments and food trucks. In addition to Zagat.com, these include Urbanspoon, Chowhound, Gayot, and Foodspotting. Some, such as OpenTable, allow diners to make reservations via mobile phones. It offers crowdsourced reviews by users of its service. Dine.com gives prizes to their most prolific contributors. Many offer reviews by location. 2. Some sites, including Yelp, offer restaurant reviews as part of their ratings of a wide variety of other businesses and services. Some apps, like FoodGraphic, draw on Yelp reviews and photos of specific dishes to aid diners in their selections. 3. Sites such as Fodor’s and Frommer’s grew out of much older travel guides that included food and drink recommendations as part of printed

Culinary Diplomacy

guidebooks. Today, they offer online information on many topics related to travel, including restaurants, cooking classes, and places to picnic. 4. Online travel services such as TripAdvisor include restaurant reviews as part of their online reviewing service. TripAdvisor asks a user to select a location and a price range and can search by price and cuisine. 5. Local and national newspapers offer online, crowdsourced reviews in their travel and food sections.

In using these sites, a user can often search by price, by type of cuisine, and by ratings, which reflect the number of “likes” and the frequency of positive “likes” from their users. Many of these sites integrate recommendations for similar restaurants and offer links to other social networks so that users can share their reviews and dining experiences, increasing the impact of a single review. Some sites, such as Chowhound, incorporate crowdsourced reviews with discussion threads. One user might request information on a family restaurant in Boston, and other users will reply with suggestions, reviews, and commentary. Most of the other online review sites use the same fivestar rating system like the one used by Yelp, although Zagat uses a 30-point scale. Although many of the review sites are free, some require a paid subscription, such as those review sites sourced by newspapers and magazines that include the crowdsourced review service with their other online news pages. Users register with the site and become members of the crowdsourcing community. Crowdsourcing sites continue to multiply, with new competitors entering the market every day. The data generated by users on these sites is fast becoming a new source for consumer research, contributing to the surge in large databases ready for market researchers who are exploring new food-related products and services. Robyn Metcalfe

327

See also Apps for Food; Restaurant Reviews; Social Media and Food

Further Readings Anderson, M., & Magruder, M. (2012). Learning from the crowd: Regression discontinuity estimates of the effects of an online review database. Economic Journal, 122(563), 957–989. Howe, J. (2009). Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. New York, NY: Crown Business. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York, NY: Doubleday.

CULINARY DIPLOMACY Culinary diplomacy (sometimes called gastrodiplomacy) involves the use of foods, beverages, and national/ethnic/regional cuisines as facilitators of domestic and international diplomatic talks. Culinary diplomacy should not be confused with food diplomacy such as international food aid or sanctions. Rather, this term should refer to people invested with a certain amount of political or cultural credibility meeting with others to discuss issues diplomatically with a culinary element prominently featured during their time together. The use of the term diplomat has been applied to both governmental and nongovernmental representatives when considering culinary diplomacy. Historically, the term culinary diplomacy has been used in various ways. A 1935 Hartford Courant article used it to describe disputes between diplomats regarding food and politics. The United States Senate Restaurant that year had to remove its initialed linens (U.S.S.R.) after receiving complaints from diners. Critical analyses of culinary diplomacy might focus on how the selections of food and beverage by the hosting diplomats reflect representations of class, ethnicity, authenticity, and national heritage. The remainder of this entry

328

Culinary Diplomacy

will focus on these issues through particular examples involving the United States.

Examples of Culinary Diplomacy The 2012 film Hyde Park on the Hudson (directed by Roger Michell) retold the story of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s June 1939 meeting with King George VI and the Queen consort Elizabeth at Roosevelt’s country estate in Hyde Park, New York. Hoping to give the king and queen a taste of American culture, Roosevelt planned a casual picnic luncheon. While the picnic menu included agreeable items such as Virginia ham, cranberry jelly, and strawberry shortcake, the focus of the attendants was on the selection of hot dogs and the purported stigma associated with them: That is, their meeting involved whether the king and queen would “lower” themselves to eating the common American hot dog. According to Margaret “Daisy” Suckley’s memoirs, the king indulged and even asked for seconds. In September 1959, President Dwight D. Eisenhower met with the Soviet Union chairman Nikita Khrushchev and ambassador Mikhail Menshikov at Camp David to discuss heightened Cold War concerns over disarmament. At an otherwise uneventful luncheon, Mr. Khrushchev produced a box of chocolates given to him by pianist Van Cliburn with the specific request that Khrushchev and the president share them. When Ambassador Menshikov remarked in Russian that he preferred Russian chocolate to American, Khrushchev ordered the translator not to translate for Eisenhower. Khrushchev explained the situation immediately, calling Menshikov’s comment “tactless,” showcasing a moment of cross-cultural and political deference involving food. In 2012, the U.S. Department of State hosted chefs from around the world in an exploration of culture and food as part of the Diplomatic Culinary Partnership program. Via video message, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at this event that food is “the oldest diplomatic tool.” The chefs who attended the program, including American celebrity chefs like Jose Andres, Rick Bayless, and

Marcus Samuelsson, reported learning much about the cultures of other nations and shared a growing responsibility to promote healthy eating through diplomacy.

An Extended Analysis of President Barack Obama’s 2009 “Beer Summit” Culinary diplomacy is often invoked to showcase cross-cultural understanding. However, it can backfire in the eyes of diplomats, the press, and the population when erroneous, abnormal, or overtly “interesting” menus are prepared. The nature of why the diplomats are meeting is also of primary concern when analyzing what type of cuisine is being served. Just 6 months after his monumental first inauguration, U.S. president Barack Obama was faced with a domestic dispute “so hyped and so symbolic” (White House, 2009) that the only power strong enough to facilitate communication was beer. Like a hoppy, liquid version of the superhero team, the Fantastic Four—Bud Light, Sam Adams Light, Blue Moon, and Buckler—came to the aid of Obama, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Sgt. James Crowley, and Vice President Joe Biden in what quickly became known as the “beer summit.” (Crowley, a white police officer, had arrested Gates, a black university professor, for disorderly conduct, while investigating a potential burglary at Gates’s home. Media and the public’s attention ensued.) In diplomatic terms, the summit was not a summit, and the subject was not beer. Rather, the evening meeting was a chance to reflect on race, class, and power in the United States in 2009. Beer was the chosen diplomatic facilitator due to its U.S. connotations as an “everyman’s drink.” While beer is prohibited by certain religions and dietary restrictions, none of the participants had a problem with the choice (except Biden, who opted for the nonalcoholic Buckler). While the fascination with the choice of beverage on the part of the press and the public brought more attention to the Gates–Crowley conflict, it also took away from other important diplomatic events happening concurrently. In a White House press conference on July 30, 2009, President

Cultural Identity and Food

Obama warned the press to not let this supposed “beer summit” overshadow his meeting with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines. However, the next day, The New York Times only mentioned the diplomat from the Philippines’ visit as an aside toward the end of the article covering the “beer summit.” While the article commented on Biden’s lime slice in his Buckler, Crowley’s orange in his Blue Moon, and the silver dishes that held the peanuts the four men snacked on, it mentioned nothing more than that a meeting between the two presidents had taken place. The presidents discussed terrorism, the threat of nuclear weapons, and human rights violations, but these sober issues received very little public attention when held up against frosty mugs of beer. Shawn M. Higgins See also Celebrity Chefs; Cultural Identity and Food; Ethnic Foods, Marketing of; Food in Popular Media; Identity and Food; Media Portrayals of Food Issues; UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage and World Cuisines

Further Readings Chapple-Sokol, S. (2013). Culinary diplomacy: Breaking bread to win hearts and minds. Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 8, 161–183. Culinary diplomacy. (1935, February 25). The Hartford Courant, p. 6. U.S. Department of State. (2012). U.S. Department of State to launch diplomatic culinary partnership. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ ps/2012/09/197375.htm Ward, G. C., Roosevelt, F. D., & Suckley, M. (2009). Closest companion: The unknown story of the intimate friendship between Franklin Roosevelt and Margaret Suckley. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2009). Remarks by President Obama and President Arroyo of the Philippines in joint press availability [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-andPresident-Arroyo-of-the-Philippines-in-Joint-PressAvailability-7-30-09

CULTURAL IDENTITY

AND

329

FOOD

Food is a basic necessity for life, and thus, life and particularly culture can be understood by examining food. Although food is universal, the symbolic meanings attached to its preparation, distribution, and cultivation are culturally bound. The very determination of what is considered food is largely cultural. Anthropologists have been on the forefront of demonstrating the power that foodways, defined as food-related activities and systems that include physical, social, communicative, cultural, and other values, have in revealing subjective and fluid meaning as well as societal structural arrangements. The research includes exploring different taboos about foods, different presentations, and ethnically based and regionally based foods. Culture, defined as the ensemble of values and beliefs, customs, religion, and art that shapes the way of life of a particular group, is conveyed through literal and symbolic language. In turn, language helps maintain boundaries that differentiate certain groups from others. Culture partially determines the specific social relations developed and maintained, the symbolic ordering of the world, and food is a lens to understand these various cultural dynamics. In other words, foodways operate consciously or unconsciously as a symbolic demarcation of culture and as vehicles for maintaining, transmitting, adapting, and transforming culture. Foodways are argued to be among the earliest formed layers of culture and thus are a main component in the intricate and ever-changing system that is expressed by a particular group. Culture and foodways are fluid and involve a process of using a group’s markers of self-identification, which changes with time and the sociopolitical landscape—the impacted region, politics, economics, historical developments, migration patterns, religion, and language. This entry examines food and ethnic/group identity, the communal sharing of food in ritual and celebrations, and the relation of foodways to

330

Cultural Identity and Food

economic development. The entry begins with a discussion of how foodways create a sense of belonging, defining the limits of group identity and expressing cultural cohesion, continuity, and change that provide context for performance of group rituals. Food serves as a medium for interand intragroup communication and formation in an overlapping weave involving all factors listed above.

Community, Place, and Cultural Belonging Food practices play a key role in creating a sense of belonging to place and history through remembrance of who we are. The sense of self, family, and group identity is learned through the process of socialization occurring intergenerationally and is learned partially through various food practices. Food practices serve several intersecting functions for cultural groups, including sustaining cohesion and partially determining the relation of individuals to society and a group’s expectations attached to given roles, and they stand as reflections and reinforcement for certain patterned social relationships that create a basis for belonging. Many food practices bring people together in ways that demonstrate their interdependence and reliance on one another for overall survival or to maintain a connection to past times. Social integration and interaction are orchestrated through various food practices, which organize and pattern cultural identity, in turn reinforcing primary values. For example, the importance of the collective welfare of family in mid-19th-century Appalachia was demonstrated through the daily tasks revolving around food sustenance conducted on the family farm. These included growing, gathering, and preserving food necessary for families consisting of 12 to 13 children. Selfsufficiency, diversity, and independence marked preindustrial Appalachian farms that were vital factors for cultural stability and growth. In parts of Mexico, pigs provide household nourishment and are central to certain festivals. Adherence to community is maintained through raising, slaughtering, and preparing pigs for festivals. Thus,

within certain contexts, communal work sharing is essential for food gathering, preparing, and preservation, reinforcing cultural values and belonging. Food practices are also symbolic, representing a language that communicates and cultivates cultural belief systems and illustrates roles and expectations of cultural groups. Culture is transmitted and maintained to a great extent through multigenerational interactions. “Children are fed the tastes, traditions, and beliefs of older generations through quasi-sacramental food rites that make up the fabric of everyday life” (Christie, 2004, p. 370). The knowledge is not always directly stated but embedded within certain food activities. For instance, children learn about roles and expectations through their presence and involvement in domestic space. In patriarchal societies, girls learn as they serve food to seated family members that they are to nurture and serve others while sons see to the domesticated animals. Through cooking and tending gardens, children learn culturally specific knowledge about plant names and usage, learn raising animals for consumption, and develop overall respect for living things. Food is not only functional in providing nutrition and medicinal value, but located within food practices are the maps of societies’ and cultural groups’ organizational structures. For instance, examining contemporary eating disorders as an embodiment of social inequalities brought light to multiple contemporary issues. This is seen in black women’s struggles with the myth of the large strong black women rooted in rationalizations of white, slave-holding society and the black community’s ongoing self-determined notion of womanhood. This historic symbolism has manifested for some black women as pressure to withstand everything that comes their way and deny eating or psychological struggles. In other contexts, a multitiered fiesta menu reflects the social stratification that has been characteristic of Mexico for centuries. A hostess prepares simple menus for women and accompanying children who work with them, while the main meal is

Cultural Identity and Food

saved for guests. Several honored guests may receive a specialized menu on feast day.

Environment: Production, Harvest, and Cultivation Food sharing creates solidarity, while food scarcity undermines human community and spirit. Certain production, harvest, and cultivation traditions become key to the survival of cultural groups; in turn, cultural continuity, social networks, and community are repaired and maintained through food heritage. The particular diets of cultural groups are often a historical function of region, size of cultivation areas, and economics. People experience strong connections with food that directly link them to the environment and community. In preindustrial societies, people’s lives were tightly woven into the fabric of the passing of seasons and seasonal variation central to cultural food life. Knowledge about the natural environment is evoked and transmitted in the context of gathering and preparing food, which continue despite industrialization. For instance, kitchen gardens as extensions of the kitchen demonstrate the strong sense of connection with nature. In some places, kitchen gardens are shared by the community, where herbs rather than vegetables are cultivated. Thus, kitchen gardens are not necessarily an essential part of survival but integral to culture and bonding since many of the herb species native to various areas long used in typical cultural dishes are those most common in kitchen gardens. The work necessary for harvesting and processing food for storage reflects cultural beliefs in community and interdependence. Reciprocity networks strengthen community relations and foster alliances between traditional and regional neighborhoods. Communal gathering, harvesting, preparing, and cultivating are ways to give back to community. In industrialized societies, homemade foods may symbolize working-class efficiency or the aesthetics of custom and “home grown” tastes. The increase of factory-produced food represents a desire to increase profit making and a convenience-oriented culture.

331

Food life often revolves around rituals and practices concerning the raising and processing of domesticated animals. Pigs are economical to raise and can be prepared in multiple ways. The shared work of communal butchering provides opportunities for socializing and is found in a spectrum of activities, including Mexican fiestas and Amish homesteading. Pig domestication was facilitated by food cultures that relied on corn production. The direct experience with the food cycle in raising, slaughtering, cooking, and eating animals creates awareness that people are conscious participants in the life cycle.

Ethnic Foodways Ethnic identity, one aspect of culture, is referred to as a process or performance of identity that is symbolic, fluid, and material. Food practices are mechanisms for understanding the power sustaining continuity of ethnicity as a condition for membership in groups. Food represents certain types of articulation of self, social organization, hierarchies, and cultural heritage. There are a multitude of ways that we understand ourselves in relation to others and the experiences of our lives. The symbolic and metaphoric nature of food practices are used at times in establishing ethnic group identity and in conveying basic standards of morality used to judge the behavior of group members. This embodied knowledge occurs when individuals are involved with preparations and celebrations of a social event and simultaneously learn social obligations and moral values. At fiesta time in central Mexico, children serving fiesta attendees learn the cultural norm that every person at the table must be fed. Statements regarding ethnic identity can be made through the manipulation of food practices as in the case of Cajun people of Louisiana. Crawfish are emblems related to notions of fortitude and tenacity, central for many Cajuns’ ethnic unity, even when geographically displaced. In Mexico, traditional foods such as mole stand as symbols of family heritage and regional cultural inheritances. So when culturally appropriate dishes

332

Cultural Identity and Food

are served, they simultaneously satisfy the palate and prejudices of those who eat them while also reinforcing ethnic identity. Foodways likewise stand as emblems of difference for various ethnic groups. Ethnic identification involves maintaining and reinforcing boundaries and their definitions that originate from within a group. Consciously or unconsciously, food can be deployed as a marker of difference where certain food practices symbolize and reinforce boundaries and tensions. Tension or affection communicated across groups is seen in the acceptance or rejection of the food between groups. For instance, Hindus, who disdain the consumption of beef, may use such dietary practices to imply a sense of their own civility, seeing beefeaters as “barbaric.” Molokans believe that the consumption of pork represents an unclean social transgression. Eating chocolate during the British colonial era in India was seen as a symbol of status. In contrast, valuing food shared across social boundaries can break down barriers. This is seen in the case of festivals celebrating American pluralism often characterized by the variety of ethnic foods. The importance of food for ethnic groups is further understood by analyzing the objects unique to a group, which assist in food rituals. Special equipment used by ethnic groups helps establish continuity and connection for group members. This may include tools such as a metate in the making of corn tortillas used by many Mexicans, formal dress requirements used in preparation of certain foods, or woks used to prepare Chinese food.

Immigrants and the Diaspora Food is used to understand both the transportability of culture across regions and also the cultural transformations that occur when coming into contact with new host groups. Modifications to culturally traditional diets are inevitable but also represent attempts to maintain cultural heritage in a new and at times inhospitable context. Under such circumstances, groups engineer food practices to symbolize group affinity as seen in ethnic celebrations where certain foods stand as metaphor for the group, for example, the crawfish stand as emblems for Cajuns of southern Louisiana.

Acculturation or maintenance affects many cultural components of the new immigrant group; however, food appears as the most resistant factor to change, as it is the last component of culture to disappear. Finding as much traditional food as available helps ease adjustment in new settings and protects the continuation of old lifestyles. On a more individual level, when people engage in time-consuming, complicated food preparation, the act stands as a means to bind individuals to the group. Symbolically, the willingness to do so reinforces interpersonal bonds for those within a group preferring a certain ethnic dish. This is especially potent for immigrants who wish to carry on cultural traditions in the host community.

Recollection Cultural foods and the way they are eaten form a line with the past and help commemorate those who have passed from our lives. Our sensual experiences with preparing, touching, and eating food shapes our sensual responses, which are cognitive and embodied and emerge from culturally historic realties. Thus, the power of remembrance through food and all its connections is particularly strong. Narratives like those in oral histories, cookbooks, and recipes help preserve a community’s history and spirit as well as stand as reflections on culture and identity. Oral histories reveal information about how food was transported, cultivated, prepared, and preserved. Such oral transmissions speak volumes about the environmental and social conditions influencing certain cultural groups. They are valuable resources in a struggle to maintain cultural heritage and keep alive the maps of who we are. They are not complete, since many voices are absent, but represent a glimpse into our past and our future. Moreover, larger celebrations may also link us to the past as food can evoke strong emotions and thus is a symbolic cultural vehicle.

Commemorative Consumption Commemorative consumption refers to the communal sharing of food that chronicles history in

Cultural Identity and Food

the collective psyche of a group, whether authentically or not. Rituals and celebrations help cultural communities underline their communal and historical unity. They play a role in integrating group members and forging alliances with the outside. Vital to cultural values are the social pastimes that were connected to and evolved out of food practices. Such pastimes are often memorialized in annual holidays, events, and celebrations and often include food consumption. Thanksgiving, Easter, and clambakes all stand as examples of commemorative consumption. Commemorative consumption generally emerges at times when social stability is suddenly disrupted and thus people search for continuity. Such disruption is evident in 19th-century North America, which witnessed simultaneously industrialization, urbanization, an influx of immigrants, North–South conflict, and manufacturing that operated on constructed time rather than agriculture. Not only for nostalgic reasons, commemorate consumptions were a strategy to deal with change through eating old-fashioned foods. For example, Thanksgiving food practices created a perceived notion of unity however inaccurate the replication of actual events. Despite changes that may create cultural upheaval affecting food practices, cultural heritage can be celebrated and maintained, to a degree, through commemorative consumption celebrations that create connections to the past by establishing a system of shared meaning. For example, in central Mexico, participation in the community through the staging of historical fiestas marks the annual cycle of culture and place during a time of increased urbanization. Ritual foods are offered to the spirits of the dead, the winds, and the hills in an effort to appease the forces of nature and society. The reciprocity networks used during preparations physically bring people together, involving community members of all ages. The traditional system of mutual support throughout a region links individuals together within communities, similarly as formal visits and processions at the time of annual celebrations that connect one town with another.

333

Commemorative consumption provides opportunities for performing key cultural roles, which reaffirm participants’ sense of belonging.

Culture, Food, and the Political Economy Macrolevel foodways researchers turn to the political economy to understand how certain power relations evolve and interface with culture. The historical developments of particular regions are often intimately tied to the development of particular foodstuffs. This occurs in terms of economic development, whereby certain cash crops become central to the export viability of a nation. Relatedly, certain global structural arrangements such as a global division of labor is influenced and influences food systems. For instance, not until the late 15th century, when Europeans and North Americans became consumers, did agricultural products of the colonial world become central to world trade. Labor associated with products such as sugar, coffee, and chocolate relied solely on the institution of slavery, an institution with an enduring legacy for food consumption patterns, international relations, and cultural identity issues. Systematic attempts to improve economic development and cultural viability through the introduction of technologies enhancing food production are at the center of modernization projects. For instance, the Green Revolution that swept through much of the African and Asian continents between the 1940s and 1970s promised to jumpstart economic expansion through advanced agricultural expertise. The transfer of knowledge related to fertilizers, pesticides, and construction of irrigation systems and the development of high-yielding grains marked the approach of the Green Revolution particularly targeting the developing world. It is both celebrated as an initiative that saved millions from famine and criticized as disrupting indigenous knowledge and self-sufficiency and increasing dependency. Modernization approaches also intended to introduce modern ideology to the developing world in an attempt not only to increase economic growth but also to enhance the development of “modern” identities. Such projects inevitably influenced in varying ways the culture and identity of numerous nations.

334

Cultural Identity and Food

The concept of cultural food imperialism and colonialism refers to food practices connected to and created by Western colonialism. Metaphorically, foods practices demonstrate attitudes, intra- and intergroup relationships, and international relations informed by 19th- and early-20th-century colonial ideology. For example, Uma Narayan (1997) uses curry symbolically to explore the British colonization of India. Indian Curry, traditionally a process of bruising a varied combination of spices, became domesticated by the English and treated as a single spice bought and sold in English groceries. The process, she argues, is much like the way the English domesticated, homogenized, and designated India into one regional nation. Cultural food colonialism refers to the appropriation of culture via food as acts of power and domination. For instance, Westerners may seek out “authentic” ethnic food in ways that borrow freely, out of context, aspects of other cultures to enrich their own path of discovery. In other instances, Westerners use the context of an “authentic” ethnic restaurant to flaunt their worldliness and knowledge of the culture they are experiencing at the moment of eating with others. Exotification of the other, experiencing other cultures through food pushed by the desire to have contact with remote cultures in order to enhance one’s own sense of self represents a contemporary form of colonial relations.

In sum, the messages that food encodes can be located in the way our social relations are organized and expressed when food is cultivated, prepared, and served and in what context all this occurs. Erika Derkas See also Authenticity of Cuisines; Christian Food Restrictions; Ethnic Foods, Marketing of; Ethnic Grocery Stores; Gender and Foodways; Religion and Foods, Requirements and Labeling

Further Readings Christie, M. E. (2004). Kitchenspace, fiestas, and cultural reproduction in Mexican house-lot gardens. Geographical Review, 94, 368–390. Heldke, L. (2003). Exotic appetites: Ruminations of a food adventurer. New York, NY: Routledge. Keller Brown, L., & Mussell, K. (Eds.). (1984). Ethnic and regional foodways in the United States: Performance of group identity. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Mintz, S. (1986). Sweetness and power: The place of sugar in modern history. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Narayan, U. (1997). Dislocating cultures: Identities, traditions, and third-world feminism (pp. 159–188). New York, NY: Routledge. Sutton, D. (2001). Remembrance of repasts: An anthropology of food and memory. New York, NY: Berg.

D sterile storage facilities, high-quality feed, and reproductive technology. Processing of milk usually occurs in facilities located within a radius of suppliers. Many dairy businesses are subsidiaries of large corporations or conglomerates, which operate on a multinational basis. The impact of up-todate scientific practices and competition from large enterprises has been obvious: Milk yields in the United States have increased by two and a half times over the past 50 years. At the same time, the number of dairy farmers has plummeted (Hoard’s Dairyman, 2012; Mendelson, 2010, p.  131). Against this background, independent dairy farming has evolved along a separate path, selling milk, cheese, and butter within a niche sphere of production sustained by affluent consumers. This entry begins with a presentation of the factors involved in milk becoming a universal beverage. Then, the dairy industry—specifically cows and farming arrangements—is discussed. Last, this entry examines recent responses to industrial dairying.

DAIRY INDUSTRY The dairy industry is one of the chief suppliers of food for the general population in the modern Westernized world. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20% of all livestock and poultry products sold in the U.S. market in 2002 were of dairy origin. Fluid milk, cream, butter, cheese, yogurt, buttermilk, and ice cream, almost exclusively derived from cows, represent the major consumer items. Powdered milk, a component in many baked goods and confectionary commodities, also commands a considerable proportion of industrial output. Despite the fact that not all humans can tolerate lactose and thus absorb the nutrients in dairy products, mass-marketed goods from this sector of the Western world have blanketed the globe, and their appeal continues to expand. The reasons for this lie in the compelling aura surrounding milk, its claim to basic nutritional goodness, and the production and marketing strategies of large, multinational dairy corporations. The dairy industry can be understood as a complex alliance of farmers, processors, manufacturers, and distributors, organized along regional, national, and multinational lines. In recent years, production has developed on an ever-larger scale and thus demands expensive capitalization in the form of large herds (more than 1,000 in some operations in the western United States), milking machinery,

Milk and Dairy Foods as Essential for Everybody The idea of milk as a universal beverage emerged as recently as the 1920s. Two developments were necessary for this to happen: (1) scientific understanding of the nutritional benefits of milk, which generated a broad and urgent interest in a regular supply, and (2) practical solutions to the 335

336

Dairy Industry

problems of perishability and transport capable of supplying large urban populations with milk of acceptable quality. Railroads and refrigeration transformed the business of milk in the latter part of the 19th century. Yet even with early methods of refrigeration, milk suffered from contamination and spoilage. Public health activists traced outbreaks of diphtheria, scarlet fever, and tuberculosis to milk supplies, which were intended for an infant and child population during an age of severely high infant mortality rates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. After intense debate generated by activists, many of them women, individual states in the United States in the first two decades of the 20th century passed laws requiring pasteurization. At that time, pasteurization was achieved by heating milk to 145 °F for 20 to 30 minutes. (Techniques today heat milk to between 162 °F and 165 °F for 15 to 20 seconds.) Similar laws were passed in the 1920s and 1930s in European countries. Pasteurization demanded sterile containers (glass milk bottles) and refrigerated transport, both of which became part of the general infrastructure of the food industry in the later years of the 19th century. High standards of product quality heightened the appeal of milk to the broad population. During the Second World War, liquid consumption peaked in the United States at a per capita intake of 45 gallons per year. After the World Wars, international interest in the well-being of national populations, particularly children, drew public attention to the need to manage food resources with maximum efficiency and knowledge. The discovery of vitamins and minerals present in dairy products enhanced a long-standing belief in the essential benefits of milk, which had previously focused on its association with nature (as a perfect food produced by the breast for infants) and its comprehensive offering of the three basic components of dietary requirements (fats, protein, and carbohydrates). The institution of school milk and lunch programs in the 1940s and 1950s boosted dairy production in the United States and Europe. Governments became involved in supporting a supply of affordable milk to the larger population, prompted

by postwar activists involved in ameliorating the needs of poor and immigrant populations. Dairy industries benefited from direct involvement in government programs; supplies soared and huge surpluses mounted in Europe, producing infamous “milk lakes” in the 1960s. In the United States, surpluses reached their peak in the 1980s. Shipments of powdered milk to the developing world resulted in controversial trade policies and challenges to local producers. In India, for example, powdered milk imports threatened myriad small producers, whose dependence on small but vital income from milk production appeared archaic and inefficient to Western suppliers. A significant decline in milk consumption occurred in the United States from the mid-1970s. Competition from soft drinks and bottled water, a declining child population, and concerns about the health risks involved in cholesterol associated with dairy products led to a 30% reduction in the consumption of milk, according to Andrea S. Wiley in Re-Imagining Milk. An increasing awareness of lactose intolerance, prevalent in populations of African and Mediterranean origin, contributed to the changing view of milk as a universal food. Huge surpluses mounted during the 1980s, prompting the industry to organize campaigns to increase consumption. (The most successful example, “Got milk?” advertisements, became world famous in 1995.) The dairy industry responded to changing consumer demands by creating low-fat, fat-free, and lactose-free products, which have risen in popularity and sales. Ever versatile, the industry has developed a constantly changing array of products aimed at children and young consumers: chocolate milk, flavored yogurts, small-sized portions and containers of cheese, smoothies, and “artificial” milks made from almonds and rice. A significant portion of the milk supply is added to coffee and cereal; growth in sales of these commodities in recent decades has boosted the demand for liquid milk. As part of the quest for pure food, organic milk, which accounts for 4% of total retail sales of milk, is the fastest growing sector of the dairy industry (U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, n.d.-b).

Dairy Industry

Butter and cheese play a large role in modern diets, often as a component in prepared and processed foods. Many different cuisines employ butter as a nutritious and necessary fat. Cheese can be found in many more localized varieties, yet is nearly universally consumed, in forms ranging from creamed, sliced, or shredded to processed and packaged in individual servings. As part of the standard burger options of McDonald’s, or as an ingredient in pizza, cheese can be found in all corners of the world. More easily transportable than milk, the presence of butter and cheese in global trade, particularly to the developing world, has meant that dairy consumption has grown considerably on a worldwide basis in the latter part of the 20th century. Multinational corporations like Nestlé and Kraft have extended the reach of European, Australian, and New Zealand dairies. Milk powder, perhaps the most industrialized of all milk products, constitutes one of the key ingredients in many forms of candy and chocolate, baked goods, and infant products. It is also present in many snack foods, nutritional products, beverages, seasonings, flavorings, and processed foods, including as stabilizers in meats and seafood. Whey, the watery by-product of cheese making, has emerged as a successful commercial commodity in its own right in the past 20 years. Like milk powder, it contributes nutritional value to a variety of consumer products, such as candy bars and baked goods. The enormous global expansion of sales of inexpensive milk and dairy products can be traced to a long-distance supply chain to institutions such as schools, hospitals, military bases, and wholesale distributors around the globe. Milk has extended its reach through new preservation techniques, such as ultrahigh temperature pasteurization, and  freeze-drying, which have removed the need for costly refrigeration. A common association between physical flourishing (particularly in terms of height) and a diet including dairy has led to a worldwide belief that milk is a modern food linked to progress-oriented societies. Even in places where lactose intolerance prevails, such as China, per capita dairy intake is increasing. The common

337

assumption that calcium needs are best met by dairy products is a legacy of a particular confluence of political and economic forces in the United States and Western European nations.

Dairy Industry at the Source: Milch Cows At the heart of the dairy industry in modern Westernized countries is the milch cow (i.e., a cow kept in milking condition). Other mammals, such as sheep, goats, horses, and water buffalo, produce milk considered by some cultures as preferable to cow’s milk, but industrial-style production of such milk, outside of India (where water buffalo are important), remains minimal. The Holstein, foremost among bovine breeds in large-scale operations, has the dubious distinction of being the “milk machine” in the world of industrial dairying. It therefore occupies a familiar place in the public eye, with its black and white spotted coat and its cherished profile in the rural landscape. As a highly productive and adaptable cow, it is favored by a majority of dairy farmers in the United States, despite the fact that the fat content and tastefulness of its milk compare poorly with other breeds, such as the Jersey or Guernsey. Even before modern improvements, Holsteins set legendary records: In the 1950s, a Pennsylvania dairy cow  named Josie produced nearly 1,300 tons of human food during her career. Holsteins of the 21st century have been bred through careful genetic engineering through artificial insemination and premium diets. Average production of milk is 23,385 pounds per year, but extraordinary producers can turn out as much as 72,000 pounds. (This figure averages to more than 100 quarts a day.) Most industrial milch cows have a productive life of around 4 years, compared with domestic cows with a life span of as long as 20 years (Holstein Association USA, 2012). The pharmaceutical enhancement of dairy cow productivity became possible through the use of a synthetic hormone, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and first licensed to Monsanto in 1993. Advocates argued that the protein,

338

Dairy Industry

a copy of a naturally produced growth hormone, merely enhanced the mammary tissue of cows and saved on energy and labor costs, enabling farmers to increase output by roughly 12% per cow. Consumer groups in Europe and the United States reacted by demanding labeling on products, arguing that a possible threat to the health of consumers made such use unacceptable. Reaction against rBST led to a broader interest in organic and rBSTfree products. Use of rBST was made illegal in the European Union in 1999 and banned in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan; it remains legal in the United States. Later research indicated that increased levels of insulin-like growth factor occurred in milk produced by rBST cows, though the impact of this on humans ingesting such milk remains under debate. Recent research has suggested that early puberty in teenage girls can be traced to rBST.

Dairy Farming: Three Arrangements Three types of dairy farm arrangements predominate in the industry: (1) confinement feeding systems, (2) pasture-based dairy farms, and (3) drylot dairy operations. A confinement feeding operation technically means that cows are housed in barns, where they are given feed in stalls or allowed to move within the barn and fed at several stations. This can describe a small family dairy farm or a large operation of 1,000 cows. If animals are confined for 45 days or more within a single year, the term animal feeding operation applies to  the arrangement; if the number of animals is large and concentrated on relatively little land, the term concentrated feeding operation, or CAFO, applies to the farm. Dependent on hired labor, rigorous factory conditions, and purchased feed, CAFOs have aroused protests by environmental and animal rights groups. Such facilities, while producing low-cost milk efficiently and profitably, place cows under intensive pressure to produce milk, which can result in livestock debilities and disease that require treatment. CAFOs also risk polluting the air and water around the farm site. Pig and poultry production may be carried out in cooperation with dairying CAFOs, and this, too,

may lead to the danger of disease outbreaks that can extend to humans. Pasture-based dairy farms, derived from a Western European model, grow crops used in feeding cow populations and also utilize their own land to graze animals. A small percentage (between 10% and 20%) of farms in the northeastern United States follow this plan, which is most suitable for dairies of smaller size, particularly those that depend on family labor and little hired assistance. Advantages of these farms include lower fuel, feed, and labor costs, as well as less veterinarian assistance owing to infections. However, such farms have been suffering in the competition with large-scale dairying in the United States, and since 2008, their numbers have been in precipitous decline. Drylot dairying, at the other end of the spectrum, concentrates on large-scale milk production on relatively little land. Managers purchase all feed and must dispose of manure in a scientifically informed way, or risk damaging groundwater and surrounding environment. Given the availability of nutritionally optimal feed and breeding practices, drylot dairy cows in the western United States provide an increasing share of national output. At  the same time, the environmental impact of such operations remains an issue, particularly with regard to air and water pollution, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The number of dairy operations in the United States has declined in the past half-century, while milk production per cow has almost doubled. In 1970, roughly 650,000 dairy farms were spread across every state in the nation. According to Hoard’s Dairyman, the standard bearer of information in the world of dairy, in 1992, that number had fallen to 131,509. By 2011, only 51,481 farms remained. The average herd size is 115 cows, but farms with more than 100 cows produce 85% of the nation’s milk. Most farms (97%) are family owned and operated, but that does not mean they are independent of corporation-owned processing plants, which command prices paid for fluid milk. Similar trends have occurred in modern industrialized nations elsewhere. Without a strong cooperative movement, such as that in India, dairy

Dairy Industry

production follows the path of large-scale capital development. There is no question that the pursuit of efficiency and productivity on dairy farms, without sensitive management, can occur at considerable cost to animal well-being. Industrial dairy farming places a premium on productivity and profitability; as a result, management aims to maximize output per cow using available technological and pharmaceutical aids. Large-scale CAFOs, while operating under strict rules, confront risks and dangers involved in the mass production of milk. Because milking machinery applied to bovine teats twice and sometimes three times a day can cause mastitis (infection of the mammary gland), affected cows must be treated with antibiotics. Feeds may maximize milk output while shortening a cow’s viable life span or by affecting the quality of the milk itself. Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides may also be used in producing feeds, which then may be transmitted to milk supplies. Pathogens present on factory farms (Listeria, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella) may be communicated to surrounding areas through manure and water runoff. Consumers have become increasingly sensitive to the politics of milk: As part of the trend of wanting to know what is in the food supply, buyers suspect that industrial-produced milk and dairy products made from it may harbor hormones and unwanted chemicals. Implicit in the wish for “pure food” is a related demand that livestock receive humane treatment. A popular affection for cows has led to passionate interest in supporting the best practices in dairy farming.

Recent Responses to Industrial Dairying Organic dairy farming, part of the larger movement of alternative agriculture in the 1970s, responded to growing concerns about the use of pesticides in animal feed and the treatment of dairy cows in industrial operations. Following the negative publicity generated by the use of rBST to enhance milk output in the 1990s, organic milk surged in popularity. Most grocery store brands of organic products are, in fact, part of larger dairy corporations: Dean Foods, for example, owns Horizon

339

Organic, and Groupe Danone is majority owner of Stonyfield Farm. Yet even multinational corporations pay attention to consumer preferences when a great deal of profit is at stake. Widely publicized lawsuits have drawn negative attention to the dairy industry; in 2002, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed a suit against the California Milk Advisory Board, contending that the “Happy Cows” pictured in advertisements constituted false information, given that most of California’s cows endured unpleasant industrial farm conditions. Although the lawsuit was thrown out of court, details of factory dairy farming made an indelible impression on the public mind. A small but growing sector of the milk-consuming population seeks out raw milk for sale, arguing that its benefits, allegedly more extensive than the pasteurized product, make it worth the trouble, expense, and risk of purchasing it. Raw milk remains illegal in 11 states in the United States; it is more widely available in European countries, though in some places, such as Canada, purchasers must own shares in dairy cows to obtain legal supplies. The dairy industry retains a unique hold on the public imagination, owing to a persistent belief in special attributes of milk in relation to human sustenance. Traditional dairy farms also persist, not just because they have learned to produce artisanal products of great value to an elite style of consumption but also because their green pastures and red barns, along with their cows, serve as important reminders of a valued rural past. Deborah Valenze See also Breastfeeding; Nutritionism; Organic Agricultural Products, Policies on; Raw Milk and Pasteurization

Further Readings Berry, I., & Gee, K. (2012, December). America’s milk business in a “crisis.” Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014241 27887323316804578165503947704328 DuPuis, E. M. (2002). Nature’s perfect food: How milk became America’s drink. New York, NY: New York University Press.

340

Dead Zones in Fisheries

Fewer dairy farms left in the business. (2012, March). Hoard’s Dairyman. Retrieved from http://www.hoards .com/12mar10-2011-dairy-herd-numbers Holstein Association USA. (2012). Facts about Holstein cattle. Retrieved from http://www.holsteinusa.com/pdf/ fact_sheet_cattle.pdf Mendelson, A. (2008). Milk: The surprising story of milk through the ages. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Mendelson, A. (2010). The milk of human unkindness: Industrialization and the supercow. In D. Inhoff (Ed.), The CAFO reader: The tragedy of industrial animal factories (pp. 131–138). Berkeley, CA: Watershed Media. Milk ProCon.org. (n.d.). Historical timeline. Retrieved from http://milk.procon.org/view.timeline.php? timelineID=000018 Patton, S. (2005). Milk: Its remarkable contribution to human health and well-being. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Smith-Howard, K. (2010). Antibiotics and agricultural change: Purifying milk and protecting health in the postwar era. Agricultural History, 84(3), 327–351. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (n.d.-a). Dairy. Retrieved from http://www.ers .usda.gov/topics/animal-products/dairy/background. aspx#.UiOS6eBc—I U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (n.d.-b). Organic agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resourcesenvironment/organic-agriculture/organic-marketoverview.aspx#.VAsk0CiRm-I Valenze, D. (2011). Milk: A local and global history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wiley, A. S. (2011). Re-imagining milk. New York, NY: Routledge.

Websites Dairy Farming Today: http://www.dairyfarmingtoday.org/ Learn-More/FactsandFigures/Pages/airyFarmSnapshot .aspx Holstein Association USA: http://www.holsteinusa.com

DEAD ZONES

IN

FISHERIES

The popular term dead zones refers to bodies of water almost devoid of aquatic life-forms, except

perhaps bacteria. Increasingly recognized as a serious threat to marine ecosystems, the number of dead zones—now more than 400 worldwide and covering some 245,000 square kilometers— has roughly doubled each decade since the 1960s. Dead zones are scientifically measured by the quantity of dissolved oxygen in a given body of water, which can range from normoxia (normal to high levels of oxygen) to anoxia (devoid of oxygen). Hypoxia—the intermediate state— occurs when there is less than 2 milliliters of oxygen per liter of water. Typically, dead zones are hypoxic waters that can be graded as mild, severe, or persistent, depending on the duration and intensity of diminished oxygen levels. This entry discusses the basic mechanism, causes, and prevalence of dead zones, as well as possible remedies.

Basic Mechanism Hypoxic waters or dead zones occur when excessive eutrophication is introduced into a stratified water column. Eutrophication refers to the process of enriching water with nutrients that trigger plant growth. Water columns can be stratified by gradients of temperature and salinity, among other factors. When sharply stratified, water exchange is restricted, thereby limiting, for example, the even distribution of dissolved oxygen through the water column. The basic mechanism of eutrophication-induced hypoxia is well understood. Phytoplankton, such as algae, protists, and cyanobacteria (also called blue-green algae), are minute plant and plant-like aquatic organisms that live in the sunlit nearsurface waters. They not only fix carbon and oxygenate the water through photosynthesis but also constitute the first link in the ocean food chain. Rapid and sometimes uncontrolled blooms of cyanobacteria and other phytoplankton are triggered when the waters are enriched by excessive nutrients. When these organisms die, they sink to the seabed and are decomposed by bacteria. The respiration of these bacteria absorbs the dissolved oxygen, thereby setting the conditions for hypoxia at lower depths. The persistence of reduced levels of dissolved oxygen results in the massive die-off

Dead Zones in Fisheries

of benthic life (mussels, sea grass, crabs, and demersal fish that live on or close to the seabeds). Moreover, in persistently hypoxic waters, bacterial decomposition of the accumulated nutrients and organic matters is anaerobic and therefore releases hydrogen sulfide, which is poisonous to most aquatic life. The contrast between a healthy marine ecosystem and a dead zone is telling. The clear and well-oxygenated waters of a healthy ecosystem typically comprise a functioning food chain that supports a diversity of aquatic life. Abundant phytoplankton in the near-surface coastal waters provide food for the copepods (tiny zooplankton crustaceans) that in turn are the food source for small predatory fish species such as sardines, anchovies, and herring. These in turn nourish top predators such as whiting and cod, which breed and live in the middle depths of the oceans. The ocean floor is typically composed of large benthic communities amid meadows of sea grasses and algae. A eutrophication-induced bloom of cyanobacteria in the near-surface waters turns it green or brown, limiting the sunlight received by the plants below. The excessive growth of such phytoplankton makes these turbid waters relatively inhospitable to copepods even as they accelerate hypoxia at the lower depths caused by bacterial decomposition. Typically, jellyfish and gelatinous fauna begin to occupy such waters. Moreover, these dead-end species, so called because they are not an adequate food source for higher level predators, can multiply in great numbers. Thus, small and large predator fish either abandon the area or die off, due to low levels of oxygen and crowding out by cyanobacteria in stratified and hypoxic water columns. In contrast to healthy ecosystems, dead zones are therefore devoid of most aquatic life in the lower depths and filled with jellyfish and similar gelatinous fauna in the upper layers.

Causes and Prevalence Eutrophication-induced hypoxia can result from both natural and anthropogenic processes. All  plants, whether on land or aquatic, require three main chemicals to grow: (1) nitrogen,

341

(2) phosphorous, and (3) potassium, which is why synthetic fertilizers have an engineered proportion of these, typically 19%:12%:5%, respectively. Natural eutrophication occurs when surface waters are moved by winds drawing up nutrient-rich deep  waters. Such natural upwellings can create severe seasonal hypoxia along coastal regions; persistently in ocean depths between 200 and 1,000  meters; and permanently along the seabed and ocean floors. However, benthic life has adapted to such naturally occurring dead zones because they are predictable and recurrent consequences of tidal patterns. In contrast, the overwhelming occurrences of more recent eutrophication-induced hypoxia are caused by anthropogenic processes and located close to major population centers and watersheds. The most significant among the anthropogenic processes that cause hypoxia is the runoff of fertilizers used for commercial agriculture, on golf courses, and suburban lawns. Other factors contributing to the anthropogenic eutrophication of fresh and ocean waters include runoff deposits from soil erosion, toxic discharge such as heavy metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and hormones from sewage and industrial plants, atmospheric pollution from burning fossil fuels, and nutrient-rich waste runoff from large-scale livestock operations. Moreover, overfishing of apex predator fish such as cod and mackerel leads to increasing numbers of small prey fish whose consumption of zooplankton leave even more room for the growth of phytoplankton. This trophic cascading is an anthropogenic feedback loop that furthers the rate of hypoxia. The exponential increase in dead zones since the 1960s and 1970s lagged, by about a decade, the vast quantities of manufactured fertilizers used for industrialized farming operations. About 50% of the dead zones now occur seasonally—once a year—usually in the summer when the water is the warmest and stratification by temperature gradient the strongest. Another 25% of dead zones are more frequent but of lesser severity, lasting from days to weeks at a time. Such periodic hypoxia can be exacerbated by weather and tides that intensify water stratification. Episodic hypoxia, which occurs with less than annual frequency, is a good

342

Deforestation for Agriculture

indicator of waters that have almost reached a tipping point of eutrophication. About 17% of dead zones are characterized by such episodic hypoxia, which may on occasion extend to about 1,000 square kilometers and kill off large numbers of benthic fish. When eutrophication combines with long-lasting water stratification, hypoxia is permanent, and such waters account for some 8% of all known dead zones.

Remedies Although the factors causing dead zones are diverse, controlling the scale of fertilizer runoff from industrial farming may be the most effective in reducing the duration and intensity of dead zones. Traditional agricultural methods rely on recycling human and animal waste as fertilizers and thereby maintain roughly the balance between the extraction and infusion of nutrients into the soil. Moreover, deep tilling and mono-cropping accelerates soil erosion, and the use of dams and levees further limits the natural redistribution of nutrients that occurs with river flooding of the plains. It is unlikely that fertilizer use will ever go back to preindustrial levels. Indeed, the United Nations predicts a further 65% increase in the flow of nutrient-rich compounds into the oceans by the middle of the 21st century. Moreover, persistently hypoxic waters do not always bounce back to their original state, or if they do, such recovery can take long. Thus, the usual conservation policy seems to be the most feasible approach to lessen the growing dangers of dead zones. Reductions in the use of fertilizers and in the rate of soil erosion, recycling of animal and human waste as well as reusing inedible plant biomass as fertilizers, and limiting the flow of toxic metals such as lead and cadmium into the water may mitigate the severity of what threatens to become a global problem affecting many marine ecosystems. Sajay Samuel and Dean Bavington See also Aquaculture/Fish Farming; Chemical Fertilizers; Fish Contaminants; Fishing Industry

Further Readings Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. (2010). Scientific assessment of hypoxia in U.S. coastal waters: Interagency working group on harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and human health of the joint subcommittee on ocean science and technology. Washington, DC: Author. Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science, 321, 926–929. Heisler, J., Glibert, P. M., Burkholder, J. M., Anderson, D. M., Cochlan, W., Dennison, W. C., . . . Suddleson, M. (2008). Eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: A scientific consensus. Harmful Algae, 8, 3–13. Mee, L. (2006, November). Reviving dead zones. Scientific American, pp. 79–85. Smith, V. H., & Schindler, D. W. (2009). Eutrophication science: Where do we go from here? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 201–207. Vaccari, D. A. (2009, June). Phosphorous: A looming crisis. Scientific American, pp. 54–59.

DEFORESTATION

FOR

AGRICULTURE

The human need for calories has shaped human societies as well as the natural world. With the onset of strategic plant domestication, which began during the agricultural revolution, approximately 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, there has been a correlation between agriculture and deforestation committed by human communities. Many scholars and studies suggest that the connection between agriculture and deforestation is one of outright causation, although it is potentially problematic to make such explicit claims when it comes to biocultural evolution. However, as human societies have historically adopted settled agriculture based on domesticated annuals, especially those of the major cereal grains, there has been a marked, and oftentimes, dramatic increase in deforestation wherever such settled agriculture has occurred. Some of the earliest creation stories from the Middle East, the birthplace of the agricultural revolution, attest to this, as seen in the

Deforestation for Agriculture

Epic of Gilgamesh and in the biblical story of Cain and Abel. This entry examines the role of agriculture in deforestation, focusing on the rates of and factors that contribute to deforestation, and then presents several strategies for protecting natural forests while maintaining agricultural systems.

Agriculture’s Role in Deforestation Agriculture’s affects, especially those of modernday industrial agriculture, on the various forest biomes of the planet typically are deleterious, leading to loss and extirpation of native species of both flora and fauna, loss of topsoil, and loss of ecosystem services offered by forests and timber forest products. However, not all farming is deleterious to forests, and recent evidence suggests that the entirety of the Amazon rain forest is a result of selective agroforestry and swidden agriculture practices. The question then is not necessarily “Does agriculture always lead to deforestation?” but rather, “What type of agriculture is under discussion?” and “What is the historical relation between human communities and the forests around and within which they live?” Historically, the answers to these questions range from active management of forests via agroforestry, as is still practiced in parts of the world today, where such management can be seen to be sustainable and helps create a loose form of domesticated biodiversity, to large-scale deforestation caused by the need to meet rising demand for agricultural acreage. Other important variables must be taken into account in understanding the role agriculture plays in deforestation. One of these is human population numbers, both in local and global contexts. This variable is intimately related to agriculture in two ways. First is the growth in overall human population numbers dating to the onset of the agricultural revolution. The increased production of key calories in the form of cereal grains, coupled more recently with advances in public health in the late 1800s and early 1900s, has contributed to a global population of more than 7 billion in 2013, with

343

predictions of 9 to 10 billion by 2050. Such a level of population ratchets up demand for agricultural products, where increasing amounts of these products are grown on monoculture farms using industrial farming technologies, so that more forests are cleared to help meet this increased demand. The other side of the population variable is that more people are alive as a result of more food being grown, and many of these global citizens are aspiring to join the consumer middle class. Consumption rates are thus increasing at a global level, which further adds to deforestation as  cities must grow in size and encroach on surrounding landscapes, including forested ones. Thus, increased agriculture production in the 21st  century is a driver of deforestation in two ways, both related to increased human population levels. Modern industrial agriculture based on Green Revolution farming technologies and practices also contributes to deforestation in that as agricultural soils become eroded or lose their fertility, farmers must search out new agricultural land to farm. Often, this land is forested land, since most of the possible arable land has already been used for agriculture, with harder to farm lands and heavily forested lands being the final landscapes left to farm. One final way that modern industrial farming contributes to deforestation is via anthropogenic climate destabilization. Studies suggest that modern agriculture, and especially methane from animal-based agriculture, is one of the leading causes of climate destabilization. As the planet’s atmosphere warms, blights, invasive species, and pests, especially insects, are able to increase their habitat range where they migrate into forests at higher latitudes, leading to major deforestation. One other factor from climate destabilization is the increase in climate refugees; as this century continues, the number of refugees is expected to drastically increase, with many humans moving toward the poles. The northernmost and southernmost pre-tundra latitudes of the planet are heavily forested, so that as pests, blights, and humans encroach on these forested regions, it is

344

Deforestation for Agriculture

expected that massive loss of forests will occur. Overall, industrial agriculture’s role in creating anthropogenic climate destabilization represents both an active and a passive form of deforestation.

Rates of Deforestation Global rates of deforestation, often driven by the above variables, are sobering. The most comprehensive study of global forest resources is carried out by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Every 5 years, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations releases a global survey on a variety of forest health variables. The most recent assessment, the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, reports that forests cover 31% of total global land area, with the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, the United States, and China accounting for more than half of the total forest area. The forests in Russia and Canada are especially vulnerable to pests and climate refugees. Overall, 80% of global forests are publically owned, although there are drastic regional differences in ownership and forest management decisions. Both nationally and internationally, management regimes differ, covering a range where some forests are protected, others are sustainably managed, some are being replanted, and many are being logged at unsustainable rates, whether legally or illegally. Areas in the subtropics, where climate and soils facilitate agricultural practices, especially Brazil and Indonesia, have a lower rate of deforestation than in the 1990s, but according to the Global Forest Resources Assessment, they are still rapidly losing forests to agricultural demand. Forests in these countries are often felled by slash-and-burn farming techniques, where after approximately 5 years, soil fertility is lost and farmers and herders move on to cut more forest. Much of the deforested land in Brazil is used to grow soybeans, which are then fed to animals, so the fertility of the forests of Brazil are in effect exported to feed the demand for meat in the diets of the global North and the elite of the global South. Furthermore, when primary forests (considered to be relatively intact forests, or old-growth forests, where both

function without much human interference or management) are cleared in the subtropics, they are often replanted with monoculture agroforestry and food plantation products, such as palm, coconut, pineapple, banana, sugarcane, and other similar products, most of which are exported. Since 1990, the planet has lost 7 million hectares of forest per annum, with most of this loss occurring in developing countries. Agriculture plays a key role in this overall loss, both directly and indirectly.

Contributing Factors A variety of other factors contribute to the role agriculture plays in deforestation. Income, at familial, communal, and national levels, is a key metric when discussing deforestation and agriculture. Poor farming families tend to have more children who can help the family farm, so these larger families require food. They also tend to utilize local forest products for cooking their food, thus contributing to deforestation. Poorer communities trapped in a cycle of poverty tend to exploit forests at high rates, both to gain income from forest products and to gain an income from farming the cleared land, or using the land to grow food for personal consumption. These communities typically do not benefit from governmental social safety nets and often have low education levels. Oftentimes, this means that there is added pressure to use local resources to generate income and to grow food, and there often is a lack of education about sustainable timber management practices, as well as markets for such products. At national levels, poorer global South countries are often parties to international free trade agreements that structurally compel them to generate agricultural export products. Many of these products are grown in areas that were once forested. Another agricultural driver of deforestation occurs in nations that have higher gross national products and therefore more financial wealth. These are typically those in the global North, where citizens tend to eat animal-centered diets. The feed for such animals is typically grown on land that is kept in agricultural production so that it cannot revert to

Deforestation for Agriculture

or become forested land, or the feed is imported from developing countries, often at the expense of indigenous forest health, as in Brazil. Furthermore, some global North countries, such as Australia and the United States, subsidize cattle farming. Cattle and other grazing ruminants are heavily implicated in consuming seedlings and saplings of young trees, so that when these animals graze on public lands, including national forest lands, it is difficult for the next generation of forest trees to reach viable maturity. Grazing animals also degrade riparian habitat and contribute to soil loss, two other factors that influence forest ecosystem health. As world population continues to grow, and Green Revolution crop yields continue to level off and even decline with the onset of climate destabilization, many countries that have traditionally been food self-sufficient, like India and China, are now becoming food importers. These countries, as well as oil-rich countries in the Middle East, are beginning to lease agricultural lands in Eastern and sub-Saharan Africa, where food will be grown and then exported to feed the populations of these non-African countries. As Africa has a long history of both herding and settled agriculture, the lands being leased are already farmed by locals who will now be displaced, often forcibly, to allow for the contracted food to be grown and exported. It is expected that these displaced farmers and communities will be forced to farm largely on what forested lands remain in their communities, thus adding to overall global deforestation. Another key contemporary driver of deforestation is the rise of aquaculture farming, especially shrimp aquaculture, where the shrimp grown is largely exported to China, Japan, and the global North countries. This deforestation is occurring in various tropical and subtropical coastal regions around the globe, targeting especially mangrove swamps, where forests are cleared so that aquaculture holding pens can be constructed.

Protecting Natural Forests Despite the above trends, it is possible to generate and manage a robust agricultural system that includes agroforestry products and that allows for humans to protect the remaining natural forests

345

extant on the planet. For this to happen, though, there will most likely need to be a change in human demographics, including the empowerment of women and an increase in family-planning schemes. Another needed change is a move from industrial monoculture farming to perennial polyculture farming done at smaller scales by more farmers. Last, and importantly, changes in economic and political incentives that reward sustainable agroforestry and sustainable agriculture practices should be implemented at various scales. These incentives should represent the true cost of animal products and empower poor farmers so that they become active participants in regional planning and farm trade decisions. Todd LeVasseur See also Cattle Industry; Economic Cost of Western Diet; Monoculture; Soil Degradation and Conservation

Further Readings Angelsen, A., & Kaimowitz, D. (2001). Agricultural technologies and deforestation. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (1998). The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two years later. In K. Conca & G. Dabelko (Eds.), Green planet blues: Environmental politics from Stockholm to Kyoto (2nd ed., pp. 55–64). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/ fra2010/en/ Glacken, C. (1967). Traces on the Rhodian shore. Berkeley: University of California Press. McNeill, J. R. (2000). Something new under the sun: An environmental history of the twentieth-century world. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Nierenberg, D. (2013). Agriculture: Growing food—and solutions. In The Worldwatch Institute (Ed.), State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still possible? (pp. 190–200). Washington, DC: Island Press. Palm, C. A., Vostie, S. A., Sanchez, P., & Ericksen, P. J. (2005). Slash-and-burn agriculture: The search for alternatives. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

346

Deli Counter in Grocery Stores

Patel, R. (2012). Stuffed and starved: The hidden battle for the world food system. New York, NY: Melville House. Perlin, J. (1989). A forest journey: The role of wood in the development of civilization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. World Bank. (2006). At loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. Herndon, VA: Author.

DELI COUNTER

IN

GROCERY STORES

A deli counter in a grocery store is the section of the store that sells various cut meats and cheeses. These departments vary in size and range of products depending on the store, but in general, they provide customers with fresh meats from cattle, pork, poultry, and turkey, as well as various cheeses from markets spanning the United States and abroad, and prepared foods that are generally served hot. According to the U.S. Dairy Export Council, deli meats are the single most popular item sold at deli counters today, and deli meat sales account for roughly one third of all deli sales. Deli workers are responsible for everything from the cutting and wrapping of meats to using proper sanitation measures and customer satisfaction. All deli counters follow a scientifically based regulatory program called the Pathogen Reduction— Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Final Rule, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This rule requires deli counters to use the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point, or HACCP, principles in managing food safety. This entry focuses on regulations and standards for ensuring the health and safety of deli workers and consumers.

Deli Regulations As mentioned previously, deli counters are regulated by the Pathogen Reduction—Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Final Rule. Under this rule, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has created seven key principles of the HACCP that must be

followed: (1) conducting a hazard analysis, (2) identifying critical control points, (3) establishing critical limits for each critical control point, (4)  establishing critical control point monitoring requirements, (5) establishing corrective actions, (6) establishing record-keeping procedures, and (7)  establishing procedures for verifying that the HACCP system is working as intended. The Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for upholding the requirements set forth in a deli’s HACCP plan to ensure that proper safety procedures are being met. An example of a HACCP plan for a deli counter would be the plan for the refrigeration and storage of the various meats and cheeses being sold once they are delivered to the deli from the producer or distributor. To ensure that the foods are kept at temperatures that are cool enough to prevent spoilage, a HACCP plan would be designed to initiate a system that allows the products to be stored quickly and efficiently, with proper documentation, to assure both the grocery store and the consumer that the products were not left out to spoil.

Labor Standards in the Deli The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set forth a list of suggestions for best labor practices when it comes to the setup and everyday functions of a deli. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders: Guidelines for Retail Grocery Stores provide real-world recommendations to help grocery store employers reduce the number and severity of injuries in their workplaces. Some of these suggestions for the deli department include keeping all grinders, cutters, and other equipment sharp and in good repair because dull or improperly working equipment requires more force to operate; providing thermal gloves for use when handling frozen items; positioning the scales so that they can be used in the best work zone; and selecting cases and counters that allow workers to serve customers without excessive reaches.

Design and Decor of Restaurants

Food Safety Foods sold at the deli are considered ready to eat. Foods that are classified as ready to eat are generally foods that do not need to be prepared or cooked again before consuming. Such ready-to-eat items generally stocked in delis include meats, cheeses, and prepared hot foods such as soups, rotisserie chicken, or macaroni and cheese. Delis also typically provide regional favorites and other international specialties such as imported cheeses or prepared meals that highlight a country or province outside of the United States. In addition to hot prepared foods, premade cold foods, such as potato salad or deviled eggs, may also be available. Certain risks apply when consuming ready-toeat deli foods, but the risk can be minimal with proper staff training and following safety guidelines. Therefore, the highest food safety standards must be maintained before purchase to ensure that consumers do not get sick. Tips to help ensure that the foods one purchases from the deli are safe include the following: • Make sure the food handlers at the deli counter are wearing gloves before they handle the food. • Ensure that food handlers wash their hands, especially if they are not wearing gloves. • Make sure that the cutting boards and other preparation surfaces are cleaned with a soap solution. • Check to see that the hot ready-to-eat foods are truly hot. If foods have been in the display case for 3 or 4 hours, there is a chance that the temperature of the product has dropped below the recommended base cooking temperature of 135 °F, which can lead to germ multiplication or foodborne illness. • When purchasing meat from the deli, look at the product. Check to make sure it is not spoiled or for sale after its “use by” date. • Feel the meat and cheese in the coolers for temperature. All coolers in the deli should be set to 41 °F or lower to ensure proper storage of the products. If a product feels warm, check a package underneath it to see whether perhaps the lights from the case or the case having been

347

recently opened by another customer caused the warmth. If those packages feel warm, do not buy the product and talk to the deli worker. • When shopping, purchase hot foods last. This way, they have the shortest distance of travel before consumption or refrigeration. • Do not allow warm foods to sit at room temperature for extended periods. Letting food sit out gives germs a better environment in which to multiply.

Casey Rogers See also Antibacterial Soaps, Detergents, and Dishwashing Liquids; Artisanal Foods; Cooking Temperatures, U.S. Department of Agriculture Guidelines for; Gourmet and Specialty Foods; Grocery Stores and Supermarkets; Restaurant Cooking Technologies; Worker Safety

Further Readings Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2004). Meat and deli. Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov/ ergonomics/guidelines/retailgrocery/retailgrocery.html U.S. Dairy Export Council. (n.d.). Food safety in the deli. Retrieved from http://www.usdec.org/files/Deli/PDFs/ 2_Food_Safety.pdf U.S. Dairy Export Council. (n.d.). US deli product knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.usdec.org/files/ Deli/PDFs/3_US_Deli Meats.pdf

DESIGN

AND

DECOR

OF

RESTAURANTS

At all levels of the hospitality industry and in every type of restaurant, the question of design is a crucial one. Decisions about the style and layout of  a restaurant affect both patrons and staff, distinguishing between restaurants that will provide different experiences. For the diner, before any food is tasted, a restaurant’s decor communicates a great deal about the aims and intentions of that restaurant, often providing a sense as to the type, quality, and style of the food. From a kitchen perspective, the design of the space affects the production flow, controlling the preparation of

348

Design and Decor of Restaurants

food and its efficient operation. Design in restaurants functions on multiple levels, both psychological and practical. This entry focuses on how choices about design determine the restaurant’s operation and influence the diner, controlling and conveying the restaurant’s “personality.” While public eating and drinking houses have existed since at least Ancient Rome, often catering largely to travelers, the restaurant itself, as an establishment in which one can order an individual meal “to taste,” originated in 18th-century Paris as businesses that served health soups—condensed bouillons themselves called restaurants. Beginning a move away from the tavern/inn where all guests were served from a communal table d’hôte, design became a key distinction, as private dining rooms became spaces for assignations throughout the 19th century. Over the years, as restaurants came to offer a breadth of different experiences, and cater to a variety of guests and patron desires, design choices have in turn spanned all range of possibilities and practicalities. Restaurant design, like the theater, is concerned with the guest’s entire experience, from the visible front of house to the “backstage” kitchen. Strong design concepts carry through all levels of the restaurant, from tabletop design to the type and placement of furniture, to servers’ outfits, choices of artworks and logos, and so on. High-end dining for a long time relied on certain rules and practices, which are only recently being challenged, while fast food restaurants and large chains tend to reproduce certain templates globally, both to reassure the patrons of similar experiences as well as to set the tone for the experience. Even before entering a restaurant, the potential patron is exposed to signage and external markers that begin to imply the type of experience that the restaurant may offer. The color and font with which the restaurant announces itself communicate a great deal: For instance, bright primary colors are often felt to signify fun and accessibility—for that reason, fast food restaurants, such as McDonald’s and Burger King, as well as casual chains, such as TGI Fridays or Chili’s, often rely on bright reds and yellows for their major signage. At the other end of the spectrum, restaurants promising haute cuisine

and fine dining often use more subtle and elegant indicators; some places, such as Chicago’s Alinea or Napa Valley’s The French Laundry, do away with external signage almost altogether as a suggestion of elitism. Such external choices will often continue inside the restaurant. The size and layout of the dining room (or rooms) will typically indicate much about the type of restaurant. Patrons often enter into a type of anteroom before being taken to their seats—how separated this is from the dining area itself is a design choice that establishes the patron’s relationship to time—a quick-service restaurant will want to move diners to their seats as quickly and efficiently as possible, while still providing a space for people to wait if a table is not yet available, whereas a restaurant with a more leisurely focus may want a space that encourages lingering. Frequently, if there is such a liminal space, it may be a bar, setting a thematic tone for the restaurant. The type and number of seating within this space are crucial elements of design as well—in high-end restaurants since the 1970s, the development of a bar menu means that this area is often a more casual extension of the dining rooms. But choices between bar stools at high counters, tables and chairs, a largely open area, or perhaps comfort-exuding homestyle sofas and low tables all make key points about both the expected patronage and how they might expect to spend their time here (as well as for how long). A key feature of bar design is often bottles themselves, typically displaying premiumbrand liquors above the bar and perhaps indicating the restaurant’s focus through its organization and the impact of its displays. This anteroom also typically introduces the diner to the issue of decor—for which the Oxford English Dictionary’s primary definition points to the elements on a theater’s stage. Much like in its theatrical antecedent, restaurant decor is intended to set the tone and communicate the restaurant’s theme. For restaurants that focus on regional or ethnic cuisines, such design elements will often rely on items associated with that source: For example, for a seafood restaurant, fishing gear, such as nets and yellow mackintoshes, or images of the ocean, as well as taxidermic sea life, may be used; a Thai

Design and Decor of Restaurants

restaurant might use Buddhas, elephants, and mandalas. Typically, higher end restaurants will eschew such decor, relying on simplicity and often bare walls or unobtrusive paintings, often intended not to draw focus away from the food. A mismatch between the thematic decor and the food style in a restaurant can lead to an unclear experience for patrons and might be likely to discourage repeat business. Seat style and comfort are key design choices— busier restaurants seeking to move patrons through quickly will combine function and design in a choice of harder, less comfortable seating, perhaps benches or hard surfaces. More casual restaurants will tend to have tables clustered more tightly, indicating that patron comfort and noise levels are not necessarily a primary concern. A restaurant that wishes to convey solidity and comfort for its patrons will often allow more space between the tables, as well as using more cushioned seating, but there are still choices—for instance, between stark modernist lines and a more homestyle overstuffed armchair—that convey clearly different intent and spatial usage. New York’s Four Seasons Restaurant, in the Seagram Building, is a major landmark in mid-century modernism (more than 100 of the restaurant’s design elements are now part of the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art). It was designed in the International Style by Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson and was intended for both business lunches as well as elegant dinners; the formal shape of the furniture— metal and dark leather—conveys this double purpose. On being seated, diners are exposed to a multitude of design choices, as well as thematic choices continued throughout the restaurant. Tables may be bare or covered with tablecloths or even more explicitly conscious design choices such as butcher’s paper, perhaps to convey a sense of function or history. While traditionally bare tables (often linoleum or similar easily cleaned surfaces) were associated with fast food and casual, quick-service restaurants and starched white linens were de rigueur for formal dining, recent changes in high-end dining have opened up choice across the board. Restaurants such as the now global

349

chain Nobu, or more recently Alinea and Copenhagen’s Noma, have cemented a trend for bare, highly polished wooden tables. Table linens, if present, require color choice as well—while white is classic and “refined,” it may show stains more easily and is not necessarily conducive to rapid turnaround. Other choices will carry other meanings; for instance, for many people, a red and white checkerboard pattern immediately conveys the sort of Italian American trattoria that was so typical throughout much of the second half of the 20th century. The table provides a stage setting on which the food will perform. Restaurant design also extends to the elements on the table. Menus serve a crucial purpose in continuing to communicate a restaurant’s personality. Flatware, hollowware (metal tableware other than cutlery), glassware, and china all contribute to a restaurant’s overall design. Shape, delicacy, and style function to express the restaurant’s design concepts. Traditional white china is seen to allow the food to stand out more than heavily patterned or darker serviceware. The weight of these elements is also important—there is a large difference between fine bone china porcelain and heavier everyday ceramics. These elements may be simple and unobtrusive, or they may be more consciously designed to draw attention to themselves, perhaps in extending a thematic concept. Over the past 25 years, chefs have begun working directly with designers to custom make serviceware to display the food more enticingly. Restaurants that have developed new food concepts, such as Spain’s elBulli, produced unique plates for many dishes, such as a small slotted spoon to serve a spherified liquid olive. At Alinea and Next in Chicago, Illinois, Chef Grant Achatz brought in Martin Kästner’s Crucial Design to specially design much of the serviceware with a focus on both novelty and function. Lighting design is of major importance in restaurants, especially when considered jointly with the colors of the walls and furnishings. Darker colors may produce a sense of intimacy, while brighter colors open up rooms, making them appear larger. Colors and lighting effects tend to try to achieve a harmonious effect, but this must

350

Deskilling

take into account the geographic location of the restaurant, the layout of the space, as well as the elements of decor and the table settings. A restaurant in California might rely on brighter colors than one in New York, for instance, or a seafood chain might subtly use blues and greens to convey an impression of the sea. The patron’s experience can be drastically altered by choices of light; the common experience of the lights dimming in a restaurant while one is seated demonstrates this importance. Waitstaff outfits play a role in restaurant design on par with much of the previous discussion. While formal dining once demanded tuxedoed male waiters, more recent innovations over the past 40 years have reduced this level of formality, with staff often costumed in more casual, but still typically uniform, clothing— patterned polos, white Oxfords, or black collarless shirts each present a distinct design sense and concept. Design issues extend crucially to the kitchen as well; basic tenets of kitchen design as still practiced in most Western restaurants were codified and organized by Auguste Escoffier, a French chef at the turn of the 20th century. His 1903 Le Guide Culinaire not only organized the classical preparations of French haute cuisine but also established a modern and efficient plan for kitchen working patterns and responsibilities. Effective kitchen design is based on the flow of production, with separate stations typically demarcated for cold food (garde manger), meats (rotisseur), sauces, pastry, and so on; the most practical designs place the busiest stations out of the flow of traffic but easily accessible to the “pass,” where waitstaff pick up dishes to deliver to diners. Since the 1970s, an additional challenge has arisen for the designer in terms of the open, or show, kitchen, which serves to allow the diners to see into the kitchen while eating, linking both ends of design issues. Joshua D. Abrams See also Cafeterias, Noninstitutional; Casual Dining Chains; Diners; Noise in Restaurants; Open Kitchens; Restaurant Menu Design; Restaurant Waitstaff

Further Readings Abrams, J. (2013). Mise en plate: The scenographic imagination and the contemporary restaurant. Performance Research, 18(2), 7–14. Baraban, R. S., & Durocher, J. F. (2010). Successful restaurant design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Fengler, M. (1971). Restaurant architecture and design: An international survey of eating places. New York, NY: Universe Books. Pearlman, A. (2013). Smart casual: The transformation of gourmet restaurant style in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Petrowski, E. M. (1999). The open kitchen as theater. Architectural Record, 187(9), 171. Ryder, B. (2007). New restaurant design. London, UK: Laurence King. Spang, R. L. (2000). The invention of the restaurant: Paris and modern gastronomic culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, J. R. (2011). The restaurant: From concept to operation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

DESKILLING Against the contention that consumers are autonomous, rational choice actors and that the shape of the food system is the result of consumers voting with their dollars, the “consumer deskilling” perspective recognizes processes of consumption as strongly structured choices and reflections, in part, of the way agribusinesses have created the consumers they want and need for their products. These processes are related to the growth and development of capitalism and the many revolutions in the agrifood system that have taken place in the 20th century. Corporate food systems, shifting consumer values and identities, and societal demands have led to major shifts in food consumption and preparation practices over the past several decades. As this has unfolded, consumers have become distanced from the sites and processes of production in the multiple dimensions of time, space, and experience; they have become progressively deskilled in absolute and relative terms. This entry focuses on consumer deskilling in food provisioning

Deskilling

and consumption. It considers the social context of and social trends associated with such deskilling and discusses the complex competencies involved in knowledgeable food provisioning.

Evolution of Deskilling in Food Consumption and Production According to Harry Braverman, who coined the term in Labor and Monopoly Capital (1974), deskilling is as much about workers’ reduced autonomy and control over the labor (production) process as it is about their loss of knowledge and skill. Knowledge refers here to the capacity to understand a labor process, while control refers to the capacity to act on its mechanisms and determine its direction. Processes of technological change within capitalist industrialization have a deskilling bias, given the separation of management control from labor in the production process. The concept of deskilling, including knowledge and control, can be applied to consumption activities, which can themselves be regarded as a form of production with regard to the provisioning activities of purchasing, preparing, and eating foodstuffs. Knowledge and control can be lost in many ways. One important pathway for consumer deskilling has been through a form of “McDonaldization” in which the logic of technological rationality is extended to food provisioning activities in the home, primarily through the introduction of manufactured foodstuffs. Through the labor rationalization of McDonaldization, the work of provisioning is more efficient, predictable, and calculable, and outputs are standardized, consistent, and precisely produced. In the process, however, food provisioners lose practical knowledge and skill. Deskilling is also produced by agrifood production processes, including many biological and chemical “black box” technologies whose workings and implications are difficult for anyone but specialists to know. In general, as the system becomes more complex, it becomes increasingly difficult for any one actor or group of actors to have sufficient knowledge about, let alone influence over, other domains in which they have little expertise or practical experience.

351

It follows that there is an increasing gap between what citizen-consumers need to know to make informed food choices and what they are able or allowed to know, thereby leading to an escalating loss of control over provisioning activities and a growing capacity on the part of manufacturers and retailers to manipulate tastes and buying behaviors. Deskilling has happened progressively over decades, with each generation of food provisioners having fewer skills than the one before. As manufactured food was introduced to and eventually took over the American kitchen, women lost practical knowledge of many of the tasks that had constituted the experience of earlier generations of cooks. They were thus little positioned to resist the conquest. This deterioration of skills drove individuals and households to greater dependency on the goods and services of agribusiness firms and aided the expansion of markets into previously uncommoditized spaces or those that were at least partially insulated from commercial relations. This process turned people into new kinds of consumers— those who spent a minimum of time and effort on food. This had two important effects in the development of the food system: (1) it developed new consumers, new patterns of consumption, and new markets for food products and technologies and (2) it established food as an arena of fad, fashion, and obsolescence. Although it is popularly believed that processed and convenience foods were developed in response to social changes such as time pressures due to women working, careful research shows that the growth in the food industry has more been leading transformations than responding to consumer demand. Since the beginning of the 20th century, for example, advertising in women’s magazines and elsewhere has worked tirelessly to convince women that time and capacity are lacking to produce food that is good enough to satisfy their families and demonstrate their love.

Deskilling in Light of the Transition in Culinary Skills Deskilling can also be analyzed as a part of a culinary skills transition process whereby societies

352

Deskilling

experience a widespread transformation in the types and kinds of skills, knowledge, and practices needed to provision food in the context of broader changes in the social organization of work. Globalization and changing production and processing methods have contributed to transformations in cooking and eating through the growth of processed and prepared foods and takeaway foods, shifts in the domestic division of labor and relations, and changes in the role and meaning of food in social life. As consumers have become ever more disconnected from the processes involved in food provisioning, food practices have also shifted. The major trends that have been identified are a shortening of meal planning cycles, increased snacking in place of meals or parts of meals, greater use of prepared and semiprepared elements of meals, and, thus, increased importance of food assembly, added portability of food, longer time spent in food acquisition, and intensified individualization of consumption, including within families. Some would argue, however, that these changes call for a more nuanced view of deskilling than is often presented. The skills necessary for cooking and other activities of food provisioning should be understood and evaluated in light of a highly developed division of labor, as opposed to the knowledge and skill needed in cultures where domestic cooking is the only means by which foodstuffs are processed and eaten. One important variable is the effect of technology, which has changed the meanings, necessary skills, competencies, and practices of food provisioning. This perspective on food provisioning looks at the social context in shaping and patterning appropriate practices and the societal expectations for competent food provisioning, which varies by class, gender, ethnicity, and other factors. It is also situational in the sense that expectations differ according to the social purpose and value of the meal. Knowledge and skill are thus associated with food practices, but the relationship is not simple, and judging their application is not necessarily straightforward. This reflects the complex social nature of cooking and eating in addition to the changes wrought by technology and agribusiness.

The complex relationship between knowledge, skill, practice, social context, and the wider food system can be seen in research conducted in the United Kingdom and North America. “Proper meals,” for example, can be expected to involve the application of more skill than everyday cooking. People who cook weekend meals may give them more effort, time, and thought than they do weekday meals. They are also more likely to cook from scratch and engage with the “creative cookery ideal” in which the practical skills of feeding a family are downplayed in favor of a set of technical skills that feature creativity, variety, knowledge of terms and techniques, and professionalism. Conversely, people who cook regularly as part of their domestic responsibilities are less likely to use cooking as a means to display their individuality. Ironically, when those who are “doing the cooking” employ food preparation itself as a means to connect with others, especially children, they are more likely to use shortcuts that require less skill, such as convenience foods. In these (and other) cases, convenience foods may serve as a bridge between not cooking and acquiring skills, in that they provide a means for unskilled people to become involved with food preparation, experience some successes, and become familiar with some aspects of the multitude of skills involved in food provisioning. Those who cook for self-expression are less apt to use convenience foods but more liable to cook alone. They are thus unlikely to contribute to the acquisition of skills by others, a factor that is very important given that most people still learn to cook from their mothers and others in their immediate surroundings.

Deskilling and Reskilling? Some argue that there has been a reskilling of consumption, as evidenced by the variety and diversity of products available in many supermarkets and by the technological knowledge and capacity necessary to function in a modern kitchen. The rise in interest in gourmet, artisanal, local, and organic foods has also been pointed out—along with food TV, magazines, specialized kitchen equipment, and specialty markets. Moreover, some

Deskilling

contend that pressures toward uniformity in patterns of food consumption, and thus conformity to industry pressure to buy or eat in any particular way, are diminishing with the two major social trends of individualization and informalization. These trends are posited to contribute to the declining importance of social class in patterning consumption through a weakening in the social embeddedness and normative regulation of food provisioning activities. People now “do their own thing” as they use food provisioning to establish an identity and communicate about themselves to others. It might be argued, then, that the anxiety over deskilling is just one of many moral panics that have accompanied industrialization in which the poor have been pathologized and blamed, in this case, for their poor diets. What is claimed to be principled concern masks problems of diet across the social spectrum and the difficulty of both obtaining nutritious food and knowing how to eat healthily in the face of perverse incentives provided by subsidies to unhealthy food, food deserts, shifting discourses about nutrition, and advertising. One can overestimate, however, how individualizing and representative of individual agency or increasing of knowledge and skill these trends may be. Many of the differences in consumption are more apparent than real as the food industry seeks to domesticate and commercialize diversities in cuisines as a way of providing novelty to consumers as they search for new tastes and distinction in their consumption practices. Class remains a primary dividing line despite appearances, however, with most people consuming heavily processed, high-fructose, bulk commodity–based foods, which contain large quantities of genetically modified and pesticide-grown ingredients, and the relatively well-to-do eating more specialty and specially prepared products. While technological skills may have increased, more mundane skills have undoubtedly declined. It is arguable whether many people have the knowledge, skill, and analytical frameworks needed to make informed decisions and act on them in ways that promote their own interests in the food system. Research indicates that many food skills are being lost across the social spectrum, but the more affluent

353

are able to buy their way out of the health and social consequences of deskilling.

Types of Deskilling Although the activities involved in food provisioning are commonly regarded as fairly straightforward—leading to the equation of deskilling with the decline of cooking—in actuality, the deskilling of food provisioning involves a range of activities that draw on a complex and multidimensional assortment of knowledge and skills. Many of these skills are expressed as practical knowledge, rather than being certified or officially recognized as expertise, and are gained through experience, apprenticeship, and learning from others as they encounter the problems and challenges of everyday life and through physical interaction with materials. The following types of deskilling illustrate the complexity of knowledge and skill involved in food provisioning. Although they are here presented as distinct skill sets for analytical purposes, in reality, they overlap. In some cases, the loss of one skill can undermine the maintenance of another. Deskilling is a social as well as individual process and can be voluntary as well as involuntary. The embodied sense–perceptual and motor– manual skills underpin much of the practical knowledge of food provisioning. Their loss has been key to the overall process of deskilling. Sense–perceptual deskilling: Deficits in the ability to knowledgeably engage the senses of taste, texture, feel, smell, sight, and even hearing, in some cases (e.g., tapping a loaf of bread to know when it is done). Motor–manual deskilling: The inability to skillfully use the body in cutting, chopping, kneading, whipping, folding, mixing, and so on, both with and without tools. Practical–material deskilling: The loss of familiarity with ingredients and the types of technologies and materials used in food provisioning. Processual-systems deskilling: The process of being turned into a machine minder or knowing only one’s own part of the division of labor. Other aspects include

354

Deskilling

black boxes or remaining unimagined or unknown. This is related to loss of autonomy and control. McDonaldization: A situation in which the criteria for judgment in processing and consumption are narrowed to a limited number of measures related to standardization and efficiency that have little to do with multiple dimensions of quality. Intellectual deskilling: Deficits in knowledge about ingredients, foods, dishes, nutrition, label reading, food safety, and substitutions. This is related to professionalization in the food system in which proper knowledge is that which is held and known by proper knowers, such as nutritionists or dieticians. This is related to nutritionism in which the value of food is defined as its individual components, such as vitamins or amino acids. In this case, (nutritional) science decides which criteria should be used to judge food, and science itself is defined narrowly. Conceptual deskilling: The loss of creativity in food provisioning, as shown, for example, by being unable to put together meals from existing ingredients or to adjust recipes to those present. Organizational deskilling: The loss of ability to plan meals and menus in the short run and over time to budget and to shop appropriately and economically. Social deskilling: This complex category refers to the centrality of food-related practices in caretaking, maintaining sociality, and culture, and in cultural transmission. These skills link food provisioning to the broader sphere of social life and are interactive and involve knowing what is appropriate in what context, when, and with whom. Civic deskilling: The lack of knowledge and control about how food choices and the food system affect the rest of society.

Knowledgeable Food Provisioning Food provisioning knowledge and skills are complex and involve a broad spectrum of physical, practical, conceptual, intellectual, and organizational competencies. They include not just the skills and knowledge required to get healthy food to the table but also those that enable food choices

to contribute to healthy and sustainable societies, environments, and production systems. Few people understand how the food they consume is produced and how the production of that food may be implicated in making social, political, or environmental problems better or worse. Deskilling, however, cannot be evaluated in the abstract; it must be judged situationally, not in terms of some romantic imagined past but rather in light of current practices and the potential for food provisioning activities to further a societal and individual project of enjoyment, emancipation, citizenship, sustainability, and health. Lack of skill may be a barrier to food choice and to greater gratification through the potential pleasures of acquiring, cooking, and eating food. Understanding what makes food “good,” and how to plan, shop for, and cook a dish, is essential to good health, exercising control over diet and nutrition, and realizing the social and cultural possibilities of food. It is also a key element in the struggle over control of the food system, which is emerging in food policy councils, co-ops, farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture, and other settings, in which eating is central to ethics and identity. Knowledge and control must be relinked in reskilling. Personal knowledge and skill depend on the collective knowledge and ability of citizens to influence and remake the course of the food system so that a full range of healthy, sustainable, culturally appropriate, and biologically diverse foods are available. Although the complexity and momentum of the present food system may make this a daunting task, knowledge can be collective as well as individual. Similarly, control can be through a variety of collective, societal-, and community-level activities, arrangements, and organizations, given the potential for specialization and complementarity among participants. As is already being realized in the new social movements around food and agriculture, a redesigned, knowledgeable, citizen-controlled food system will need many vehicles and venues for creating citizen capacity for food system monitoring, oversight, regulation, and intervention. JoAnn Jaffe

Diabetes See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children; Convenience Foods; Cultural Identity and Food; Fast Food; Food Insecurity; Nutritionism; Slow Food

Further Readings Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London, UK: Routledge. Jaffe, J., & Gertler, M. (2006). Victual vicissitudes: Consumer deskilling and the (gendered) transformation of food systems. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 143–162. Lang, T., Barling, D., & Caraher, M. (2009). Food policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lang, T., & Caraher, M. (2001). Is there a culinary skills transition? Data and debate from the UK about changes in cooking culture. Journal of the HEIA, 8(2), 2–14. Oakley, A. (1985). The sociology of housework. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of society: An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life. Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press. Scrinis, G. (2012). Nutritionism and functional foods. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The philosophy of food (pp. 269–291). Berkeley: University of California Press. Shapiro, L. (1986). Perfection salad. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Short, F. (2006). Kitchen secrets: The meaning of cooking in everyday life. Oxford, UK: Berg. Vileisis, A. (2008). Kitchen literacy: How we lost knowledge of where food comes from and why we need to get it back. Washington, DC: Island Press. Warde, A. (1997). Consumption, taste and social change: Culinary antimonies and commodity culture. London, UK: Sage.

DIABETES Diabetes mellitus (or more commonly, simply, diabetes) involves high blood glucose (hyperglycemia or high blood sugar) that is not properly regulated naturally by the body. Normal blood glucose is

355

between 70 and 140 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter), and strong deviations above or below this range can cause both acute and chronic health problems. Common symptoms of hyperglycemia include excessive thirst and/or hunger and frequent urination, whereas symptoms of hypoglycemia (low blood glucose) include shakiness, headache, hunger, and sweating. Both hyper- and hypoglycemia can result in altered mental states and, if severe, unconsciousness and death as well. The term diabetes mellitus comes from Greek and Latin: diabetes comes from Greek and relates to excessive urinary output, and mellitus comes from Latin, relating to sweetness in the urine. The term diabetes mellitus was introduced by Thomas Willis in 1675, when he noted the sweet taste of diabetic urine. An archaic name for diabetes mellitus is thus Willis’s disease. The term diabetes mellitus is not to be confused with the disease diabetes insipidus, in which the kidneys are unable to reabsorb water from the urine, leading to very dilute urine that lacks the sweet taste associated with high blood glucose. Both excessive urinary output (diabetes) and sweet urine (mellitus) are symptoms that are especially characteristic of type 1 diabetes. This entry describes the characteristics and associated conditions of the various types of diabetes and then discusses the management of diabetes, with a focus on dietary control.

Characteristics and Associated Conditions Normally, blood glucose is well regulated by the pancreas’s production of insulin, and insulin facilitates the use of glucose by cells in the body. Diabetes can occur because the body’s cells do not respond to insulin or because the pancreas does not produce enough insulin. Diabetes can be divided into three main types: type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes. Type 1 diabetes involves the pancreas not producing enough insulin and is usually diagnosed early in life. People with type 1  diabetes have a loss of insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreatic islets of Langerhans, which results in an insulin deficiency. Classically, type 1  diabetes is due to autoimmune attack on the pancreas, but other reasons for lack of insulin

356

Diabetes

production include congenital defects, medications, and surgery. Children with type 1 diabetes are often thin or average in size due to the lack of utilization of glucose by the body. Symptoms develop quickly, over weeks or months. Response to insulin is normal in people with type 1 diabetes, and taking insulin is necessary for treatment. In type 2 diabetes, insulin receptors on cells are less sensitive, known as insulin resistance. Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes follows a period of insulin resistance during which the pancreas is able to overcome the decreased sensitivity of insulin receptors by producing more insulin. Type 2 diabetes is usually diagnosed later in life and is associated with poor diet, lack of exercise, and obesity. It usually has a gradual onset and may develop over years. However, in countries with high rates of obesity in younger people, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes have been reported increasingly in adolescents and young adults. Gestational diabetes is physiologically similar to type 2 diabetes. Ordinarily, gestational diabetes subsides postpartum after hormones have returned to prepregnancy levels, but the risk of developing type 2 diabetes is highest in the first 5 years after giving birth and plateaus after 10 years. Diabetes is associated with changes in cardiovascular function, with poor circulation leading to poor wound healing and tissue death, peripheral nerve damage (diabetic neuropathy), chronic kidney disease (diabetic nephropathy), paralysis of the stomach and intestines (gastroparesis), and bleeding in the retina (retinopathy). Glucose metabolites can directly damage the lens of the eye, changing its shape and resulting in blurred vision, whereas diabetic retinopathy can affect the macula of the eye, resulting in a form of macular degeneration. Rashes that occur specifically with diabetes are called diabetic dermadromes and usually occur in people with long-standing diabetes that is not well controlled and are related to changes in the cardiovascular system and thus blood supply to the tissues. They cover a range of anomalies such as waxy skin (seen in approximately 50% of people with long-standing diabetes), neuropathic ulcers (from not being able to feel pain or pressure), cheiroarthropathy (thickened skin that reduces

joint mobility), and gangrene of the extremities (especially the feet and lower limbs). Acute hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) without insulin can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis, a dangerous metabolic state involving high levels of energy-rich molecules called ketones that are normally produced during prolonged fasting. In poorly controlled type 1 diabetes, the body is tricked into behaving as though the person is fasting, because there is no insulin to facilitate glucose entry into cells. Accumulation of ketones, which are produced during the metabolism of fatty acids when the body lacks insulin, lowers the pH of the blood and can lead to death. Diabetic ketoacidosis is more common in type 1 diabetes than in type 2 diabetes for two reasons: (1) less predictable blood glucose levels and (2) complete lack of endogenous insulin. Uncontrolled type 2  diabetes can eventually lead to the pancreas becoming exhausted and no longer producing insulin, thus making diabetic ketoacidosis more likely to occur. Contributing factors for hyperglycemia include irregular eating and medication patterns, gastroparesis (which can involve unpredictable nutrient absorption), comorbid endocrine disorders, and infections. Hypoglycemia (low blood glucose) is usually due to skipping meals along with insulin or sulfonylurea overdose. As a result, hypoglycemic episodes are uncommon in people who have type 2 diabetes until they become insulin dependent. Contributing factors for hypoglycemic episodes include hypoglycemia unawareness, alcohol consumption, gastroparesis, comorbid endocrine disorders, and infections. Gestational diabetes manifests in 1 in 20 to 50  pregnancies and is often a precursor to type 2 diabetes. However, it may disappear or improve following delivery. Gestational diabetes is similar physiologically to type 2 diabetes rather than to type 1 diabetes. It typically involves a combination of inadequate insulin production and insulin resistance. Left untreated, diabetes can harm the fetus as well as the mother, so pregnancies in diabetic women must be carefully monitored to ensure the health of both the mother and the child. Risks to the fetus include cardiac, muscular, and

Diabetes

nervous system abnormalities as well as respiratory distress and macrosomia (high birth weight). The blood supply of the placenta can also be affected, resulting in death of the fetus or newborn. Although normally a period of 9 months in which a nonpregnant woman has high blood glucose might be spent attempting to reduce her blood glucose through diet, it is not uncommon for pregnant diabetic women to be put on medication and/or insulin to reduce the risks to the fetus and themselves. A scheduled caesarian section is often performed to reduce the chance of fetal distress and damage to the uterus, which may be affected by the same circulatory problems that are found throughout the body in many people with diabetes. One of the conditions associated with standard type 1 and type 2 diabetes is latent autoimmune diabetes of adults, in which type 1 diabetes occurs for the first time in adulthood. It is often misdiagnosed as type 2 diabetes, when diagnosis is made on age alone. Prediabetes, on the other hand, is a precursor to type 2 diabetes in which blood glucose levels are elevated but do not reach the clinical threshold for type 2 diabetes. Many people with prediabetes go on to develop type 2 diabetes, but it does not always happen if caught early and diet and exercise are improved. Any other genetic abnormalities, disease, or damage that affects the pancreas can also result in diabetes due to impaired insulin production (e.g., cystic fibrosis, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer).

Managing Diabetes Type 1 diabetes used to be always controlled through a combination of a strict diet and regular insulin replacement, but in recent years, people with type 1 diabetes have been encouraged to have a varied diet and calculate insulin dose based on the carbohydrate load of their meal or snack. Diet is a first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, because the early stages of type 2 diabetes are characterized by insulin resistance that can be reversed if managed appropriately. If diet is not sufficient to control the diabetes, other medications (and insulin, if necessary) are introduced. Medications include those that increase glucose sensitivity or reduce

357

glucose production. Behavioral measures such as exercise and quitting smoking can aid in maintaining heart health and good circulation. Maintaining a healthy blood pressure can also aid cardiovascular function, and regular foot and leg checks can be used to uncover nerve damage and wounds. Although some damage, particularly nerve damage, resulting from diabetes may be permanent, good regulation of blood glucose can reduce the risk of further damage and allow the body to begin healing or at least adapting. Dietary control of diabetes generally involves a combination of reducing simple carbohydrate and fat intake, increasing protein and fiber intake, and timing eating so that a stable blood glucose level can be maintained between meals. However, the proportion of carbohydrates that should be eaten is a matter of controversy. Timing meals and snacks helps to prevent hypoglycemia as well as resulting cravings for sweet and fatty foods that can have a detrimental effect on the blood glucose and overall health of people with diabetes. To decrease the risk of heart disease, sodium, fat, and cholesterol intake are also reduced. Some diabetes diets specifically increase the intake of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats while reducing overall fat intake. To control carbohydrate intake, people with diabetes may be directed to count the carbohydrates they consume. This may be in conjunction with other food label reading education or substitution of sugars for artificial or low-calorie sweeteners. Alternatively, foods from different groups may be used as exchanges such that one serving of each contains about the same amount of carbohydrates. In recent years, glycemic index (GI) has been popular among people trying to stabilize their blood glucose and avoid hunger, and many foods advertise that they are “low GI.” GI is a measurement of how processed the starches in a food are and thus how quickly the food is converted into glucose in a lab environment. The theory behind GI is that foods that are high GI will produce spikes in blood glucose and that the energy derived from low GI will last longer between meals. GI does not, however, account for absorption-related factors such as fiber or the size

358

Dietary Guidelines and Graphics

of the meal. As a result, many healthy foods that are encouraged for people with diabetes, such as whole-grain breads, are classified as high GI and may be avoided unnecessarily. An alternative way to manage the acute effects of foods on blood glucose is to consider glycemic load, calculated by multiplying GI by total carbohydrates and dividing the total by 100. Meals with lower glycemic load should cause less of an increase in blood glucose than meals with higher glycemic load. Some foods, such as cinnamon and coffee, have been shown to help maintain blood glucose level. However, these are not a substitute for an overall healthful diet that is compatible with diabetes. Basing carbohydrate intake around whole grains (particularly oats, which may also help to maintain healthy blood lipids and cardiovascular system) is the main dietary approach to maintaining blood glucose level. Eating nonstarchy vegetables, such as broccoli and spinach, can also contribute to maintaining healthy glucose levels by minimizing the presence of starch (which is readily converted to glucose) in the diet. Although there are general guidelines for diabetes diets and diabetes management more generally, the precise strategies and routines vary greatly between people, even within types. Diabetes is a chronic condition that must be managed using a combination of diet, medication, and possible insulin replacement that is appropriate for the individual and may involve multiple health professionals.

diseases. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91(5), 1220–1226. Jonker, J., Snel, M., Hammer, S., van der Meer, R. W., Jazet, I. M., Pijl, H., . . . Lamb, H. J. (2011). Sustained cardiac remodeling after a short-term very low calorie diet in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 13(S1), 328. Katsilambros, N., Liatis, S., & Makrilakis, K. (2006). Critical review of the international guidelines: What is agreed upon—What is not? In J. P. Bantle & G. Slama (Eds.), Nestlé nutrition workshop series: Vol. 11. Clinical and performance program (pp. 207–218). Minneapolis, MN: Nestlé. Kaufmann, F. R. (2002). Type 2 diabetes mellitus in children and youth: A new epidemic. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, 15(S2), 737–744. Kim, C., Newton, K. M., & Knopp, R. H. (2002). Gestational diabetes and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Care, 25(10), 1862–1868. Moses, R. G., Barker, M., Winter, M., Petocz, P., & Brand-Miller, J. C. (2009). Can a low-glycemic index diet reduce the need for insulin in gestational diabetes mellitus? A randomized trial. Diabetes Care, 31(6), 996–1000. Zimmet, P. P., Tuomi, T., Mackay, I. R., Rowley, M. J., Knowles, W., Cohen, M., & Lang, D. A. (1994). Latent autoimmune diabetes mellitus in adults (LADA): The role of antibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase in diagnosis and prediction of insulin dependency. Diabetic Medicine, 11(3), 299–303.

Israel Berger See also Artificial Sweeteners; Cardiac Disease and Diet; Childhood Obesity; Labeling, Nutrition; Nutrition Education; Nutritionism; Obesity Epidemic

Further Readings American Diabetes Association. (2012). Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care, 35(S1), S64–S71. Birlouez-Aragon, I., Saavedra, G., Tessier, F. J., Galinier, A., Ait-Ameur, L., Lacoste, F., . . . Lecerf, J.-M. (2010). A diet based on high-heat-treated foods promotes risk factors for diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular

DIETARY GUIDELINES

AND

GRAPHICS

Food is recognized as essential to our daily existence but also has short- and long-term health effects, while food choices are related to our social, emotional, economic, cultural, and political well-being. People are surrounded by messages about food from multiple media and electronic outlets, their well-meaning family, and various health care providers, which may be helpful or confusing. Although individual health, supported by wise food choices, is an immediate concern, there is also long-term concern for loved ones’

Dietary Guidelines and Graphics

quality of life as supported by optimal nutrition and a national interest in supporting a healthy population. A well-fed nation is more productive and creative, with fewer dollars spent on maintaining health or managing disease. Communities at all levels, from local neighborhoods to the nation as a whole, reap the benefits or pay the costs of the healthfulness at every stage of life. Given the importance of healthy populations, nations often provide guidance and recommendations for food choices to achieve and maintain healthy lives. In this entry, the need for and development of national dietary guidelines are presented. The considerations of these guidelines to national concerns and the development of food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) are discussed. Last, Food Pyramids, MyPlate, and other useful graphic materials that interpret the guidelines to help people make daily decisions about what to eat are introduced.

Need for National Dietary Guidelines Recommendations for foods that provide optimal health are based on the science of nutrition. Nutrition provides the components of food that meet our daily biological needs and protect against chronic disease. Many components of food are needed for the growth and functioning of a living organism. Components of food that have been identified as necessary for survival and growth are called nutrients. Nutrients can be classified as essential or indispensable, meaning the body cannot produce these internally or cannot produce adequate quantities so they must be supplied externally. Nonessential nutrients are made within our bodies from other building blocks. For humans, six groups of nutrients are needed daily: carbohydrates, protein, fat, water, vitamins, and minerals. Our bodies are constantly working, either voluntarily, as we move through our day, or involuntarily, such as nerve conduction, blood flow, and energy production; essential nutrients are needed for our bodies to perform such necessary functions. We can only obtain essential nutrients from the foods we eat. Each food has a unique combination

359

of components, which our bodies break down during digestion and either absorb or eliminate. Essential nutrients are not the entirety of food; there are other components in food that impart color, flavor, smell, and taste or have other functions for the plant or animal. The components of food may be useful for our health. For example, components in plants, called phytochemicals, have been found to be helpful in preventing chronic disease. It is not any one food that supplies the needed nutrients for optimal health but the combination of foods over time, called our food pattern, that results in optimal health. A lack of nutrients compromises the function and structure of our bodies and can lead to sudden or chronic illness and disease. Deficiencies of essential nutrients may manifest into noticeable conditions; for example, low vitamin C levels can lead to scurvy, thiamine deficiency is related to beriberi, low iron intake results in iron-deficient anemia, and adequate water intake prevents dehydration. Continuous mild deficiencies or excesses may be less noticeable, but they may also contribute to the development of chronic disease. Nutrients are further classified by recommended amounts. Macronutrients (carbohydrates, fats, and protein) are needed in larger quantities because they provide major structural or energy functions, whereas others (minerals and vitamins), called micronutrients, are required in very small units. Inadequate or excessive intake over time can lead to poor health outcomes, including poor growth and development or chronic diseases such as vascular disease or cancer. Besides the macronutrients (carbohydrates, fats, and protein), 13 vitamins and 16 minerals, as well as water, are considered essential for proper nutrition. The required amounts needed by an individual depend on his or her gender and age. Nutrition experts have developed recommended levels, which are periodically evaluated and updated. In the United States, these recommended levels are called the dietary reference intakes and include the recommended dietary allowances and are included on the nutrition labels of packaged foods. Although nutrient needs differ for each of us and change throughout our lifetime, we do not

360

Dietary Guidelines and Graphics

plan our meals using a list of nutrients; rather, we choose foods each day. Because a variety of foods are needed to meet biological requirements, there are many food choices to consider. The goal is to choose foods that meet our biological requirements while also satisfying other factors such as affordability, cultural and social preferences, individual tastes and preferences, and available food markets and gardens. Getting adequate amounts and types of food may also change with the seasons and market conditions, and food availability and accessibility differs depending on where we live. Each nation has a vested interest in its own population achieving and maintaining health, so many nations have developed dietary recommendations, taking these factors into consideration. Dietary guidelines are created to simplify food selection so people eat the required nutrients and other food components necessary for optimal health while still maintaining their individual preferences and choices. Country-specific guidelines are not only based on current nutritional science but also include recommendations that address an individual country’s diet-related health problems and the cultural context within the country’s geographic areas. Dietary guidelines and recommendations across nations have similar features because humans, in general, have similar nutrient needs.

National Dietary Guidelines Development in the United States National dietary guidelines are based on the following: recent science about optimal nutrition needs of people at different life stages; emerging concerns between nutrition, food, and health; nutrition and health impacts of available foods; nutrients, food, and chronic disease relationship; and changes in the food system that may affect health. Since 1977, the U.S. federal government has issued national guidance, evolving from an emphasis on nutrient adequacy to include concepts of moderation and diet impacts on chronic disease. In 1990, the U.S. Congress mandated a review of the dietary guidelines every 5 years. A Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), made up of

medical and scientific experts, is established for each 5-year cycle. The purpose of the DGAC is to determine whether changes to the guidelines are needed by reviewing the most recent scientific literature (e.g., studies in the Nutrition Evidence Library), hearing comments from concerned parties and individuals, and holding a public forum to discuss issues. Based on this input, the DGAC issues an advisory report. It is the joint responsibility of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services to develop the guidelines based on this report. The national dietary guidelines have significant impact because they inform national food policies, national standards, and educational efforts. For example, the dietary guidelines guide such national food programs as School Meal Programs; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program); Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children; and older adult meal programs. The guidelines also affect nutrition education by encouraging healthier diets in an effort to maintain health and to reduce nutrition-related diseases. Last, the guidelines consider both adequacy and moderation of nutrients and foods, which affect food production, processing, and distribution, resulting in changes within agriculture and food industries. The process for developing the guidelines has changed over time to ensure that it reflects current science, considers the perspective of interested parties, and is open and transparent. Many stakeholders, including health professionals, the food industry, researchers, farmers, and consumers, among others, contribute their views to the process. With current technology, persons and parties interested in the process can attend DGAC meetings, which are open to the public; watch meetings that are broadcast live and made available in the archives; and contribute comments both electronically or by mail. This process fosters a science-based approach within a collaborative deliberative atmosphere.

Food-Based Dietary Guidelines FBDG focus on the total diet rather than on individual nutrients, and they support various food

Dietary Guidelines and Graphics

patterns (i.e., food choices over time) that are consistent with good health. Such food patterns reflect the following: food accessibility (transportation), availability (food production and processing), and affordability within the cultural context of a population; social requirements such as family meals; and agricultural and environmental considerations. Thus, FBDG are specific to the needs of individual countries and their population, reflecting their specific lifestyles and public health concerns. FBDG suggest minimal changes to current dietary practices. Many FBDG consider the successful knowledge and practices of the population and may include specific recommendations that support this. For example, one of the FBDG in Japan is to “Enjoy your meals” with specific recommendations such as “Enjoy communication at the table with your family and/or other people and participate in the preparation of meals.” The rise of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and the increased globalization of the food supply have resulted in nations around the world developing similar guidelines. Recommendations discourage excessive consumption of saturated fats, salt, sugar, and alcohol, which may result from processed foods dominating food patterns. Recent global food patterns have also begun to homogenize with decreased fruit and vegetable consumption and increased animal product consumption—trends that are associated with increased chronic disease and decreased variety within food patterns. Another global concern is the rise of overweight and obesity, reflecting changes in the food supply and decreased physical activity. FBDG increasingly address nutrient density, moderation, and variety with increased physical activity in an effort to ensure balance and adequacy. To prevent foodborne illnesses, food safety recommendations specific to the food supply and household practices are frequently included in various guidelines across the world. A periodic review of the dietary guidelines are necessary, given rapidly changing societies and environments that affect food patterns, advances in scientific understanding, and emerging public health priorities. A more recent consideration of FBDG are the natural resource and environmental impacts of food patterns. Food choices are based on the resource base

361

of countries and sustainability of food and water procurement and production. Global considerations of resources such as water, soil, air, biodiversity, forest, and landscape are included in recent Brazilian and Australian guidelines, for example. Minimizing waste has been included as a strategy to maximize resources for a growing population.

Food Graphics Dietary guidance is targeted to the general public to maintain or improve the health of individuals of all ages and backgrounds. According to the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FBDG are practical, comprehensible, and culturally appropriate. To encourage adoption by individuals and families, dietary guidelines consider the literacy levels and cultural considerations within the country or region, especially of vulnerable populations. Messaging is positive and encourages enjoyment of food as a social activity. Successful adoption of the dietary guidelines by the public depends on dissemination and nutrition education strategies. Food graphics have been designed to present the guidelines to diverse audiences of varying ages; social, religious, and cultural characteristics; and literacy levels. They may differ, based on regional or geographic preference; for example, bread or rice may be used to illustrate the main grain group. The food pyramid is a common model used by many countries to illustrate recommended quantity and frequency of food groups. Other models include a rice bowl, spinning top, circular patterns, or plates. Because the public is inundated with multiple messages about food and food products, often with the food industry competing for consumers, a dedicated education campaign with wide dissemination on a regular basis is necessary for the public to adopt the recommended food guidelines. Effective communication strategies are based on evidence-based sociological and psychological practices that foster behavior change. In addition, dietary guidelines, including graphics, are tested before implementation and then periodically evaluated. Education tools, such as food graphics are then updated based on evaluation findings.

362

Dietary Guidelines and Graphics

The evolution of food graphics reflects both the science and culture of food within a country. Early models of U.S. food graphics have changed from a seven-food-group wheel to a four-food-group clover to a five-food-group pyramid model to the current four-food-group plate model. Beverages such as water or red wine have been included in some models that are targeted to specific cultural or age-groups. Some food graphics also include a physical activity message that addresses the need for daily activity as part of a healthy lifestyle. Consumer research helps identify successful models and any needed revisions. In 1992, the USDA introduced the Food Guide Pyramid (Figure 1). The Food Guide Pyramid reflected a nutrient-based approach using six food groups: bread, cereal, rice, and pasta group formed the base of the pyramid; vegetables and fruits were the two groups in the next level; the third level was divided into the milk, yogurt, cheese group and the

Fats, Oils & Sweets USE SPARINGLY

meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, and nut group. The top level included fats, oils, and sweets to indicate lower recommended consumption. This graphic included symbols in all food groups to indicate fats, sugars, and oils (added or naturally occurring). Similar to other graphics based on nutrients, the range of the recommended number of servings for each food group is also provided. MyPyramid was based on the previous Food Guide Pyramid but simplified with renamed food groups (grains, vegetables, fruits, oils, milk, meat, and beans) and emphasized the personalized approach to food choice. Educational materials for use with MyPyramid included worksheets for each of the 12 calorie levels and meal patterns recommended in the dietary guidelines. The worksheets reinforced personalized meal planning by suggesting daily food and activity goals and encouraging variability and moderation between and within food groups. The USDA also provided

KEY Fat (naturally occurring and added) Sugars (added) These symbols show fats and added sugars in foods.

Milk, Yogurt & Cheese Group 2-3 SERVINGS

Vegetable Group 3-5 SERVINGS

Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs & Nuts Group 2-3 SERVINGS

Fruit Group 2-4 SERVINGS

Bread, Cereal, Rice & Pasta Group 6-11 SERVINGS

Figure 1 Food Guide Pyramid Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library. Retrieved from http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/ myplate-and-historical-food-pyramid-resources/past-food-pyramid-materials

Dietary Guidelines and Graphics

online resources for tracking food choices and evaluating food patterns. In 2011, as a result of public health concern about the overweight and obese population and inadequate intake of fruits and vegetables, the USDA introduced the MyPlate food graphic, which simplified information regarding portion size and food groups (Figure 2). MyPlate includes five groups: fruits, vegetables, grains, and protein are distributed on a plate to reflect relative quantities and the dairy group is illustrated by a glass. Although these groups were used in previous pyramid models, the graphic MyPlate uses a simple color-coded background and excludes the fat/ oils food group that was found in previous models. Ancillary educational materials include material that has also been adapted for different age-groups and meals targeted to regions, using the MyPlate model to illustrate meal with popular regional food choices. The MyPlate design supports consumer preference for easy and simple changes and portion control with a positive message: “Enjoy what you eat, just eat less of it.” The inclusion of “My” in the title serves to reinforce the concept of personal choice.

Figure 2

MyPlate Food Graphic

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library. Retrieved from http://www.choosemyplate.gov/printmaterials-ordering/graphic-resources.html

363

FBDG are part of the continuing national and global effort to improve the health of populations by providing suggestions for food patterns that meet the nutritional needs of people across their life span while satisfying the social and cultural roles that food provides. As social and cultural roles change and populations increase, periodic revisions to guidelines and food graphics will be needed to address these and other considerations. Jasia Steinmetz See also Cancer-Fighting Foods; Cultural Identity and Food; Junk Food, Impact on Health; Labeling, Nutrition; Nutrition Education

Further Readings Brazilian Federal Ministry of Health. (2014). Dietary guidelines for the Brazilian population (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://nupensusp.wix.com/nupens#!__ english/new-brazilian-dietary-guidelines Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. (2014). A series of systematic reviews on the relationship between dietary patterns and health outcomes. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.nel.gov/vault/2440/web/ files/DietaryPatterns/DPRptFullFinal.pdf Dooren, C. van, & Kramer, G. (2012). Food patterns and dietary recommendations in Spain, France and Sweden. Woking, UK: World Wildlife Fund–UK. Retrieved from http://www.livewellforlife.eu/ wp-content/uploads/2012/05/LiveWell_A4-FoodPatterns-Report_web.pdf Dooren, C. van, Marinussen, M., Blonk, H., Aiking, H., & Vellinga, P. (2014). Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: A comparison of six dietary guidelines. Food Policy, 44, 36–46. European Food Safety Authority Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies. (2010). Scientific opinion on establishing food-based dietary guidelines. EFSA Journal, 8(3), 1460. doi:10.2903/j.efsa. 2010.1460 Health Council of the Netherlands. (2011). Guidelines for a healthy diet: The ecological perspective. The Hague, Netherlands: Health Council of the Netherlands. (Publication No. 2011/08E)

364

Diners

The Japan Dietetic Association. (2014). Japan’s dietary guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.dietitian.or.jp/ english/newsletter/jpndiet.html U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015). Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2015. Retrieved from http:// www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015.asp#overview

Websites ChooseMyPlate.gov: http://www.choosemyplate.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture: http://www.usda.gov

movies, especially the film noir genre. Additionally, a number of specialized terms for food and preparations used in diners, called diner slang, entered American vocabularies. One of the best known sobriquets for diners says a lot about American perceptions of the food served in them: “greasy spoons.” After detailing the origins of  diners, this entry discusses diner-associated issues such as health and safety, economy, and regulations.

Origins

DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS See Vitamins and Other Dietary Supplements

DINERS A diner is a particular kind of restaurant that historically sells plain, hearty American food quickly and cheaply. The diner takes several forms from railway dining cars to urban storefronts. Service counters with stools and booths are common to all diners. Of the more than 616,000 restaurants in the United States in 2013, few can be classified as true “diners.” This was not always the case, since before the 1950s, diners of various sorts were ubiquitous in North American cities and were to be found along many highways. Some appeared in Europe, most of them recent imports by restaurant chains. Diners were and, though much diminished in numbers, remain part of American folk culture. Edward Hopper’s painting called Nighthawks, depicting customers sitting in an urban diner (actually in New York City) at night, is arguably the most famous American painting (along with Grant Wood’s piece of rural Americana, American Gothic). James M. Cain’s classic pulp novel The Postman Always Rings Twice is set in a diner on a dusty road near Los Angeles, California, a place that would have been familiar to American travelers. These images translated into many

Diners originated in the northeastern part of the  United States, and the region—especially New Jersey—retains the greatest number of them. Many Americans think of diners as streamlined stainless steel and chrome structures that resemble (or in some cases had been) railroad dining cars. Johnny Rockets, an American chain with locations around the globe, and Eddie Rockets, an Ireland-based company, carry out the stainless– chrome–glass theme, sometimes in dining car–like structures. That modern diners, at least since the 1920s and 1930s, look like railway dining cars has often led to the conclusion that the former descended from the latter. In fact, diners began as lunch wagons in 1872, when Walter Scott, a Providence, Rhode Island, street vendor, put his cart inside an enclosed horse-drawn wagon. Scott’s wagon was hauled to locations where people working in urban offices could buy dinners from dusk to 4:00 a.m.—times when fixedlocation restaurants were closed. The small wagon had cutout squares on both sides where Scott could serve food and collect money more quickly than a single window could. The food, mostly sandwiches and pies, was all made at home by the proprietor rather than being cooked on the premises. The lunch wagon was such a success that many imitators followed and then improved on the original. By the late 1880s, fully enclosed “night owl” lunch wagons that permitted patrons to stand inside during inclement weather were common in Massachusetts factory towns. By 1900, enclosed wagons such as these were further developed by T. H. Buckley, among others,

Diners

and had full-scale cooking apparatuses in them. T. H. Buckley & Co. and its rivals built elaborately decorated vehicles that were advertised as rivaling famous restaurants such as Delmonico’s in New York City. The food served was nothing like that of fancy restaurants but rather quickservice fare such as sandwiches, hot dogs, egg dishes, corned beef hash (hence, another term for a place serving cheap food, “hash house”), and plenty of coffee. Lunch wagons were and remained mainly working-class eating places. Other developments leading to the modern diner were internal seating, a trend toward fixed locations, and reuse of existing vehicles. Some were built with U-shaped service counters in the middle with seating around them, while others had single service counters with grills and other cooking gear behind them and seating in front. Both types mirrored trends in fixed urban luncheonettes and the newly emerging cafeterias. Because of city regulations, by the 1910s, peripatetic wagons were increasingly built with small wheels intended only for hauling to a single location, one usually allowed by local authorities (mobile lunch vehicles became much smaller, were motorized or built into the backs of small trucks, and remain part of the lunch scene at many a work site). Diner builders such as Patrick Tierney in New York state and Jerry O’Mahoney in New Jersey set a new pattern for what were now called diners. These were prebuilt full-scale restaurants. Although still lunch wagon and railway car in shape—long and narrow—these permanently located restaurants prepared and served full meals using thick china plates and mugs, albeit still catering to customers interested in inexpensive and quickly served fare. Finally, the 1930s saw the arrival of streamlined design percolated through graphic arts, architecture, and industrial design. For the next several decades, diners were built to resemble streamlined railroad cars—and sometimes were reused ones. Gleaming stainless steel, Formica, and patterned tiles became the most popular materials. Today’s diners reflect these designs even if they are larger and boxier than their predecessors. Diners were originally owner operated, but with their development as full-service restaurants,

365

service and cooking staffs were required. These people, often women, took orders and relayed them to the short-order cooks who prepared the food. A special kind of slang developed from the late 19th century down to the present day. Indeed, slang is part of the diner’s charm, and it is an indicator of the ways in which diners and diner foods were perceived by the public. Phrases such as belch water (soda water), bloodhound in the hay (hot dog with sauerkraut), bullets or whistleberries (baked beans), mystery in the alley (side order of hash browned potatoes), hockey puck (well-done hamburger), bellywash (soup), and dirty water (coffee) describe what the food and cooking techniques were. Fried foods made on a flat griddle— from hamburgers to hot dogs, egg dishes of all sorts, bacon, fried potatoes—are staples. Pancakes, waffles, French toast, and pies are also standard diner fare. That everything is fried, anything but diet-conscious, and perceived to be made with less than standard hygienic practices make for the classic “greasy spoon” sobriquet. Similar preparations in workingmen’s cafes and truck stops in Britain occasion the same phrase.

Health and Safety Issues Early lunch wagons were fairly respectable places from which to get quick-service foods since their food turnover rate was high, and most of the dishes were made at home. If sanitary standards in the 19th century were not high by modern standards, foods such as sandwiches and pies made the night before or the same day were less likely to cause concerns. However, these early iterations of diners lacked refrigeration and running water, and the types that permitted customers inside had sawdust scattered on their wooden floors, much like butcher shops of the period. No doubt pathogens of various kinds flourished in these environments. They were horse drawn, and animal effluvia were always a problem in the pre–motor car urban world. In 1917, after eating at one of his wagons, one of the early builders of lunch wagons may have expired of “acute indigestion,” as the attending physician said. The names given to diners and dishes served

366

Diners

in them are testimony to the possibility of health issues among patrons. Diners of earlier periods concentrated on making and selling food as quickly and economically as possible. Healthy diets were not, and mainly still are not, considered important in diner fare. A simple hamburger on a bun is about 250 calories with 8 grams of fat, and much more when cheese is added; a side of hash-browned potatoes might contain 250 calories and 17 grams of fat; ham and eggs with toast has 420 calories, of which 23 grams are fat; a “short stack” of three pancakes with syrup contains some 500 calories and lots of simple carbohydrates. Salads now appear on many diner menus, but most are iceberg lettuce drenched in a high-calorie dressing. Much of diner fare is high in calories, saturated fats, simple carbohydrates, and sugars. All of the complaints about unhealthy diets leveled against the world’s fast food chains apply to diners, only they were in place long before McDonald’s and its rivals appeared in the 1950s. Other issues besides sanitation and unhealthy diets appeared around 1900. In cities across North America, horse-drawn trolley cars were being replaced by electric cars. The old wagons could be bought and fitted out as lunch wagons for very little money. These were often dilapidated and dirty, leading the public and authorities to think of them as “roach coaches” (an epithet later given to lunch trucks). Furthermore, because these wagons were open at night and into the early morning hours, they attracted drunken revelers and other unsavory types who prowled the night streets. Sanitation and appearance of run-down lunch wagons or diners added to their unsavory reputation and led to stricter municipal regulation of the business.

Economy and Regulations Simple lunch wagons were cheap ways for people of small means to get into a business. Studies show that most owners were newcomers who came from other occupations, mostly low-paying ones. With large-scale immigration from eastern and southern

Europe, the now renamed diners came to be operated by “ethnics” from these parts of the world. In particular, Greek families entered the quick-service food industry in large numbers. Beginning with food carts and hot dog stands in the late 1910s, by the 1950s, many diners (and coffee shops and “family-style” or “corner” restaurants) across North America were run by people of Greek heritage. Clearly, cheap food and low overheads could mean economic success for people who had come from humble economic backgrounds. That money could be made from inexpensive wagons is seen in the growing numbers of them in American cities around 1900. Because they crowded streets, blocked access to retail shops and restaurants, and were often decayed, city after city passed ordinances regulating them. Most had had their hours previously regulated, but these were routinely violated. Combined with the wagons’ low reputation for cheap food and undesirable clientele, regulations soon cleared many from urban streets. Operators soon came up with a solution: buy small-wheeled wagons built to new legal specifications and find fixed locations with close proximity to their customer base. In this way, the urban, and later roadside, diner was established. Health laws such as those in New York and New Jersey called for running water, refrigeration for safe storage of fresh foods, bathrooms, impermeable floor coverings, clean laundry including cloths for wiping tables, and, of course, routine inspections. However, not all greasy spoons conformed to all health regulations. Dish washing, for example, was notoriously lax; it was often done by hand in infrequently changed soapy water. Table wiping cloths carried by waitresses were not changed regularly (another feature of American popular culture). But in the current era, diners are subject to and mostly abide by the health and safety regulations that other restaurants follow. These are businesses that no longer attract entry-level, poorly capitalized would-be restaurateurs. Nor do they have the customer bases that the fast food franchises usurped from them. Rather, diners today are kinds of specialty restaurants,

Disgust

rimmed with nostalgia, and still part of North America’s food scene. Bruce Kraig See also Fast Food; Food Carts; Food Trucks; Foodborne Illness; Restaurant Cooking Technologies; Roadside Stands

Further Readings Gutman, R. J. S. (1993). American diner, then and now. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Witzel, M. Karl. (1999). The American diner. Osceola, WI: MBI.

Websites Diner Lingo: http://www.dinerlingo.com/ Roadside. Diner Finder Clickable Map: http://www .roadsideonline.com/

DISGUST Disgust is a complex emotional response, often directed toward foodstuffs and usually resulting in their rejection. One of the six “discrete” or basic human emotions (anger, fear, sorrow, joy, surprise, and disgust), disgust has been less studied historically than the other so-called moral emotions of fear and anger. However, since the 1990s, disgust has been the focus of a number of studies, often considering food as the subject of these feelings. Disgust may arise for a number of different reasons, including personal distaste for a particular food (I myself don’t like it); a perception of danger from a food (e.g., it is—or seems—rotten); and cultural ideas of inappropriateness (no one here eats that; no one should eat that). It has thus been described as having a dual role as the emotion that protects both one’s own body and oneself as a social being. A response that is usually triggered by the idea that a disgusting substance may touch us or be incorporated into us in some way, it is easy to tell when someone feels disgust from three main

367

facial expressions: a wrinkled nose; a retracted upper lip; and, especially, an open mouth with the tongue either in or out, known as the “gape.” This entry begins with a discussion of disgust as an emotion, including biological and cultural aspects. Next, it examines the bases of disgust toward food, concluding with a brief discussion of the purpose of disgust as a cultural construct.

The Emotion of Disgust Disgust is a powerful emotion. At its base are feelings of distaste directed toward foods that look or smell bad to us, combined with fear of harm to the body arising from consuming such food. This distaste is strong enough to cause us to reject these foods as inedible. It is further developed into a set of cultural expectations that direct us to reject not only foods that are instinctively revolting to ourselves but also those that our own culture has decided are inedible. Researchers describe this complex set of responses as “core disgust.” Core disgust requires that there is a possibility that the object of disgust might be eaten, that it is in some way offensive, and that it has the power to contaminate us (or we believe it does). The direct association between food and the self—implied by the notion that we are what we eat—is thus at the heart of the idea of core disgust. Disgust and the Senses

Disgust is strongly associated with the senses of smell and taste and is therefore assumed to be instinctive. We are likely to be more disgusted depending on how close we are to the offending object, and in particular the closer it is to our mouths, but we can also become disgusted simply through seeing, touching, or even imagining something disgusting. However, its developmental and cultural aspects make it more complicated than being a set of purely sensual responses. Development of Disgust

It has been argued that disgust evolved as humans evolved. This development has been

368

Disgust

associated in particular with the Neolithic period, when humans began to regularly keep and consume animal flesh and animal products, thus exposing themselves to far more potential pathogens. As settled culture developed, disgust expanded beyond an instinct that protected the body into an emotion that could shape, identify, and protect the wider culture from the potentially malign influence of outsiders, or the “other.” Finally, disgust acquired a spiritual dimension, defining conceptual, moral, and symbolic boundaries of behavior and helping humans feel distanced from other animals. Animal Response

Although disgust has highly complex moral and social dimensions that make it seem a uniquely human response, it is also a basic biological instinct directly associated with eating. It operates in the anterior insula of the human and primate brain, which is (among other things) our gustatory cortex. Research has shown that other animals— even rats, themselves often an object of human disgust—display a disgust response, including the gape, and learn to avoid foods that have been made disgusting to them, for example, a previously liked food that has made them sick. This response is also seen in humans. We can develop a total aversion to a previously favorite food from a single incidence of food poisoning associated with it. Even if it turns out that the cause was something else, an association is strong enough to engender long-term disgust.

What Food Is Disgusting? Ideas and decisions about what food is disgusting are both highly personal and culturally determined. They are largely based on what foods taste and/or smell like, or might be expected to taste like. Foods might also be thought of as disgusting because of the form they take. Taste-Based Disgust

Although it is not a requirement of disgust that one has ever actually tasted the food (in fact,

learned disgust might prevent someone from ever trying something that is actually edible), taste and smell are critical factors in generating and perpetuating this emotion. Things That Are “Inherently” Disgusting Waste products of the body such as feces, vomit, decay, and blood (especially menstrual blood) are thought of as particularly disgusting, as is anything contaminated with any of them. The idea of consuming any of these, or other foods that have been in contact with them, is fairly universally considered to be disgusting. It is often assumed that this disgust for bodily waste is inherent in humans, but, in fact, even these reactions need to be learned. Human children start to reject them only between the ages of 3 and 7 years, and feral humans have been found not to reject them at all. The notion that something could be contaminated has to be learned; to understand that danger may not be visible, and things may not be what they seem on the surface, requires abstract cognition. Things That Appear Disgusting but Are Not Humans frequently display disgust responses when faced with unfamiliar foods or difficult, often strong, tastes. We may need to “learn” to enjoy the taste, smell, appearance, or texture of olives, strong cheese, raw fish, or gamey or bloody meats. In the latter cases in particular, our disgust may be directly associated with the proximity of these foods to death and decay, which humans can find disgusting independently of food. Many dietary choices (e.g., veganism) are partly based on the active engagement of these complex layers of disgust. Things That Become Disgusting Excessive consumption can engender disgust, particularly when it is associated with extremely sugary or fatty food—even a favorite or “treat” food like cheesecake. As well as engendering this feeling in oneself after overindulgence, it is also possible to provoke it in others. In eating disorders, where conceptions of what is “too much” are

Disgust

damaged, those experiencing such disorders may feel disgust not only at the idea of their own body and its desire to consume food but also when observing others eating. Object-Based Disgust

Alien Items Worms, insects, rats, snakes, and spiders may be edible, and often are. Nonetheless, there are strong cultural biases that make consumption of many of these potential foods completely out of the question. This also applies to animals whose own consumption habits are thought to be disgusting; herbivores are generally more acceptable as food. Other items engender disgust because of their similarity to disgusting things like slugs or mucus. Where an object proposed as food is not alien enough, disgust may also be prompted, such as revulsion at the idea of cannibalism or of eating dogs or horses in cultures that see those animals as being closer to humans or as pets. When encountered as food in another culture, alien items may become emblematic of “otherness” and engender extreme disgust. If this disgust is overcome, they may conversely become objects for bonding between strangers. Undisguised Items Foods that too closely resemble their living selves, or are actually still alive, may often be thought of as disgusting. This is culturally determined. A group may unquestioningly accept the consumption of raw shellfish like oysters but not the idea of consuming a living fish, which might be unproblematic for others. Rotten Items Although decisions about how mature, say, a game bird or a cheese should be are culturally determined, there is a point at which food becomes rotten and inedible. This boundary is generally drawn in the same place across cultures, although dishes like the Swedish herring surströmming push the definition of edible rottenness to the limit.

369

Aesthetics of Disgust

It has been argued that the very fact of something’s disgustingness may be alluring, even that the disgusting object may be somehow exciting or even sublime. At the same time as being repelled, we want to draw nearer to it. While this may more often be true of objects other than food (like horror movies we can’t bear to watch but are somehow attracted to), it certainly can apply to eating. Many substances with extremely strong smells associated with rotting and decay, like pungent cheeses or durian fruit, become objects of desire for aficionados to a far greater degree than milder dairy products or fruits. As discussed, these preferences are culturally determined: If the culture is able to decide which foods are disgusting, it can also decide that certain foods that may initially appear disgusting are not and promote these items as important indicators of belonging. Such aesthetic choices may be exercised as statements of fashion, of demonstrating membership of a particular social group, or they may be accepted more widely as representing the culture at large. Often the adoption of the disgusting requires its transformation. Ingredients may be chopped, mashed, or hidden in casings to avoid confrontation with challenging offal or to dilute strong flavors and smells. For those who may be disgusted by proximity with the living object they are about to consume, foods can be mediated by their method of serving—a pork chop being much easier to face than a whole roast suckling pig; a fillet of salmon more approachable than the whole fish with its head (including eyes) and tail. For a large number of Americans, it is perfectly acceptable, even expected, that a large turkey—quite recognizably a dead bird—will form the centerpiece of the Thanksgiving table; but to serve it absolutely whole, with its head and feet, would be completely unacceptable. The cultural lines can be drawn very finely indeed. What Use Is Disgust?

As a cultural construct, disgust is extremely useful. It protects us from doing things that may be

370

Distribution Centers

thought of as degrading or corrupting of the self, making us more socialized beings. In general, people do not want to be associated with people, things, or activities that are categorized as disgusting by the wider culture; if they do choose to be associated with them, the very fact of this choice forms a forceful part of the statement they are making about themselves and their attitude to the world. Disgust is such a powerful emotion that it forces a physical and emotional response, demanding that we consider it within ourselves and in our dealings with others, and shaping our  attitudes to the foods that we will—and will not—eat. Jane Levi See also Anthropophagy; Christian Food Restrictions; Competitive Eating; Cultural Identity and Food; Endangered Species; Exotic Food and Strange Food; Hindu Food Restrictions; Veganism; Vegetarianism

Further Readings Kolnai, A. (2004). On disgust (B. Smith & C. Korsmeyer, Eds.). Peru, IL: Open Court. Korsmeyer, C. (2002). Delightful, delicious, disgusting. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60(3), 217–225. Miller, S. B. (2004). Disgust: The gatekeeper emotion. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Miller, W. I. (1997). The anatomy of disgust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Penn Arts and Sciences. (1997). Food for thought: Paul Rozin’s research and teaching at Penn. Retrieved from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/fall97/ rozin.html Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23–41. Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. R. (2008). Disgust. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 757–776). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Troop, N., & Baker, A. (2009). Food, body, and soul: The role of disgust in eating disorders. In B. O. Olatunji & D. McKay (Eds.), Disgust and its disorders: Theory, assessment and treatment implications (pp. 229–251). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Website Jamie Oliver enjoys surströmming.mp4: http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=_5CUW4bXFH8

DISTRIBUTION CENTERS Food distribution is dynamic; recent changes in food distribution organizations and processes point to new organizations, relationships, and practices involved in providing food products. However, such changes are against the backdrop of relative stability in food distribution over the past 50 to 60 years. Other tectonic changes produced the existing system, and current changes are occurring against dramatic shifts in other food system practices established during the past 40 years. Three periods of food distribution can be characterized. The first is a preindustrial system of marketplaces and vendors, characterized by particular social and political dynamics as much as economic incentives, which bled into the second, the conventional system predominantly characterized by economic concerns of efficiency that are effected by logistics organizations of various kinds; and the third, a new complex of interests, organizations, and regulations is emerging combining elements of the first two, even as the first two continue to exist. The issue of food distribution is one of conveyance, from farm to fork, and while stated simply, political and social dynamics belie various complexities—economic, legal, and of business and social organization—which individuals and communities around the world have addressed in myriad fashion. One specific issue is avoiding reductionist characterizations of food distribution. That is, rather than reducing issues of distribution to the current time and place, care should be taken to embed concerns in historical moments. Similarly, distribution cannot be reduced to a single set of dimensions— economic, legal, political, or social—because food distribution is predicated on, organized by, and responsive to many ideas and incentives.

Distribution Centers

This entry details the highlights of this history, contemporary practices and their consequences, and innovations in food distribution centers over the past 30 years. Although not pretending comprehensiveness, this overview and bibliography indicate to academics, policymakers, and practitioners the fecundity of ideas and activity in addressing food distribution dilemmas and opportunities.

A Brief History In the United States, early-20th-century political and social conflict along with rapidly growing cities gave rise to legal and infrastructural changes and new bureaucratic forms that fashioned the contemporary system of food distribution. The tractor-trailers, container ships, and logistics companies that populate the contemporary environment were born of this cauldron of competing interests and the resulting complex of organizations and associated practices. Several popular accounts of food distribution describe practices emergent and evolving over the centuries. However, scholars have elaborated the functional interconnections and developing purposes marketplaces serve. Marketplaces had a central role in the political–economic formation of early modern Europe and in the history of cities. One question much debated was whether the market or the city was more important to reestablishing trade in medieval Europe. All agree that infrastructure and organizational design were central to the emergence of modern law, trade, and the cosmopolitan society that developed in Europe and the Middle East. In the United States, marketplaces had a central role in feeding cities. According to the 1918 census of public markets, in 128 cities with populations above 30,000, there were 237 municipal markets. These markets had 17,578 open-air stands and 7,512 stands enclosed by market structures with the total value of market property estimated at US$28,000,000 (Sherman, 1937). Government reports described the role of these markets for food access, economic opportunity, and assimilating new immigrants.

371

The specifics of this history are the subject of increasing numbers of scholarly publications; however, for purposes here, it can suffice to say that infrastructure (law, transportation, and technology), business model, and organization (management style, politics, and bureaucratic organization) shaped the rise of modern food distribution centers. However, contemporary channels are being reshaped according to recent technology to serve older concerns with new immigrants and social connectedness, food access, health, and small business formation. The many forms of food distribution centers include terminal markets and warehouses, marketplaces, and food hubs. These take many organizational forms, not all are for-profit enterprises, and they serve distinct scales, local, regional, and national. This entry’s entrée to these organizational forms is through the process of supply chain management.

Food Distribution Centers in Relation to Supply Chain Management Food distribution centers rely on interconnections between producers, processors, and others that are referred to as supply chains. Supply chain management activities coordinate business functions within and across businesses to provide some products. Thus, transportation and logistics are central to supply chains and food distribution. These refer to the management and transport of goods from point of origin to point of sale and include activities such as information management, hauling, inventory, storage, handling, packaging, tracking, and security. Regardless of a food distribution center’s size or actual business model, if its aim is to distribute food, it likely engages in transportation and logistics (and by extension, supply chain management) decision making and activities. Likewise, when social or political values help organize relationships, then these chains are also called “values” chains. As such, supply chain management is a useful framework for understanding how food distribution centers are orchestrated and how they can be improved.

372

Distribution Centers

Transportation and logistics manifest at a variety of scales and levels of sophistication. In direct marketing, transportation and logistics can be as simple as a farmer coordinating deliveries to a few local restaurants on days they are in town to sell at a farmers’ market. In this instance, they will likely manage all of their own hauling and invoicing. For a producer cooperative or midscale distributor, transportation and logistics are necessarily complicated by the need to aggregate larger volumes of product and redistribute profits. Accordingly, midsize businesses may have one or more paid staff to orchestrate grading, packing, and labeling, as well as invoicing and deliveries. Finally, large mainstream distributors serving local food markets typically have highly streamlined transportation and logistics systems that allow for just-in-time delivery and sophisticated product tracking.

Food Distribution Centers in Light of Supply Chains There are three types of supply chains each fitting distribution centers in different ways. These are direct supply chains, in which food is directly delivered from the farmer to the consumer; intermediated supply chains in which local food is delivered via one or more intermediary (food hub, terminal market, or logistics company); and mainstream supply chains, which move local and  nonlocal products through national and international warehousing to provide food to major grocery stores and large institutions. One way food gets distributed is through direct supply chains in which no intermediaries are involved, so farmers are responsible for cleaning, packing, transporting, and distributing the products. Food is delivered and sold through community-supported agriculture, farmers’ markets, or food stands. This type of food distribution center maintains a direct marketing relationship with consumers, but farmers are responsible for distribution. Suited to local/regional and small-scale distribution, direct marketing is not a practical way of moving high volumes of local product into retail grocery stores and

cafeterias, even if it does promote the social and economic values associated with local food. Intermediate supply chains distribute food aggregated from collaborating partners at one or more points along the supply chain. Aggregation is the consolidation of products sourced from multiple growers with the goals of diversifying the number of product offerings and achieving a large volume of a single product. This can be accomplished at multiple points along the supply chain, each becoming in effect a distinct food distribution center. There are four points of aggregation. The first is direct marketing, which involves the farmer selling products directly to consumers with no intermediary. Typically these are small-scale farmers seeking to serve local markets. Occasionally, they might grow to serve larger markets by contracting with a freight hauler in order to transport products to other aggregation points, thus allowing the farmer to invest his or her resources in some other aspect of production. Moving up in scale are off-farm organizations (e.g., a food hub or cooperative), which collect products at a single location to ease the gathering, storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing of food products. Distribution centers at this scale mitigate economic and infrastructural barriers to aggregation, such as the availability of wholesale markets and accessible cold storage warehousing. Food hubs, farmers’ cooperatives, or collaborative groups operate at this scale, allowing farmers to work collectively to market, process, and distribute their own foods. Risks are spread among farmers while they continue direct-to-consumer marketing. At the largest scale, supply chains include broadline distributors who amass products from food hubs or from farmers to distribute to retail or wholesale buyers, processors, or other aggregation points. Broadline distributors secure a stable, yearround market share by focusing on price and availability instead of farm identity. At this level, distribution businesses might ignore local food that cannot meet demanding price points and transportation schedules. The final aggregation point is on-site aggregation and repackaging of food at retail outlets or

DIY Food Movement

food security organizations. This type of business or organization is often the local grocer whose staff combines products sourced from the three types just discussed. While local and intermediary supply chains deal with food from a region, mainstream supply chains efficiently distribute both local and nonlocal food on a larger scale. Food traveling long distances may have a lower fuel use per unit of product, but it can also be the case that marketplaces or other local distribution is actually more energy efficient. More research on this question is needed. In addition, transportation of food may utilize modes other than the truck, such as rail, water, and air, with associated implications for cost, energy use, and business organization. The three types of supply chains—direct, intermediated, and mainstream—organize food distribution centers, but in the most contemporary developments, each type of center can draw food from different types of producers and from more than one type of supply chain. In the end, this speciation (an increase in the variety of types of distribution activities) in types of distribution centers and supply chain helps produce a selfreliant and healthy food system.

Further Considerations One of the most vexing concerns in food distribution is the fair-pricing dilemma—the fact that business models that maximize farmer profits often make products too expensive for lowincome consumers. Cost-saving innovations and improved efficiency in scale-appropriate transportation and supply chain management appear to have the potential to improve farmers’ access to local and regional markets and translate to more affordable consumer prices, but experimentation with new business models and further research are needed. Alfonso Morales See also Farmers’ Markets; Grocery Stores and Supermarkets; Mobile Markets; Supply and Distribution Networks

373

Further Readings Day-Farnsworth, L., & Morales, A. (2011). Satiating the demand: Planning for alternative models of regional food distribution. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2, 227–248. Donofrio, G. A. (2007). Feeding the city. Gastronomica: Journal of Food and Culture, 7(4), 31–41. Mayo, J. M. (1993). The American grocery store: The business evolution of an architectural space. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. McPhee, J. (1979). Giving good weight. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Morales, A. (2009). Public markets as community development tools. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(4), 426–440. doi:10.1177/ 0739456X08329471 Morales, A., Balkin, S., & Persky, J. (1995). The value of benefits of a public street market: The case of Maxwell Street. Economic Development Quarterly, 9, 304–320. doi:10.1177/089124249500900402 Murray, S. (2008). Moveable feasts: From ancient Rome to the 21st century, the incredible journeys of the food we eat. New York, NY: Picador. Sherman, C. B. (1937). Markets, municipal. In E. R. Seligman (Ed.), The encyclopedia of social science (pp. 139–144). New York, NY: Macmillan. Tangires, H. (2003). Public markets and civic culture in nineteenth-century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tropp, D. (2008). The growing role of local food markets: Discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1310–1311. Zajfen, V. (2008). Fresh food distribution models for the Greater Los Angeles region. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Food & Justice, Occidental College.

DIY FOOD MOVEMENT The do-it-yourself (DIY) food movement, or rather movements, have been separated in time, space, and purpose, and little connects them all, apart from the idea that food should be made in the home from scratch, ideally using whole, unprocessed, and locally sourced ingredients. The concept itself only exists insofar as individuals

374

DIY Food Movement

react against food made on an industrial scale and perceive that corporate food is unhealthy, provides poor wages and working conditions, exploits animals or natural resources in ways that are unsustainable or unethical, and is destructive of the social and communal bonds forged in the act of food preparation and preservation. Thus, the attitude of DIY is fundamentally radical, often involving a conscious return to older food preparation methods and does not truly exist in places where food traditions survive unbroken, as in many parts of the world. These radical DIY movements have surfaced many times historically, or rather the urge is perennially bubbling under the surface at all times among certain people but becomes prominent in particular periods often characterized by economic instability and social protest or in the wake of general food fears and distrust of massproduced food. The counterculture or “natural” food movement of the late 1960s and 1970s was by and large a DIY movement, and similarly there was the early-19th-century self-sufficiency movement, along with comparable movements in the early 20th century, and today we are witnessing a resurgence. They often go hand in hand with back-to-the-land sentiments, home gardening, and other activities related to food production, such as keeping chickens or bees and home canning. It is difficult to precisely define DIY as a movement, especially because adherents rarely agree on the degree of intensity or exactly how much should be done by oneself, perhaps cooking once in a while, or in the extreme case, providing everything, on an isolated, off-the-grid homestead. It is also a difficult movement to pinpoint politically because a rejection of mainstream food culture may be embraced by both the extreme left and the extreme right, and DIY enthusiasts are often surprised to find their fellows on the opposite pole ideologically. Confusion also stems from the fact that the term DIY has been co-opted by a different gastronomic urge, which is predominantly an upper-middle-class phenomenon in the United States, driven by the media, and largely geared

toward women with expendable time to devote to home improvement projects, gardening, and cooking. Martha Stewart did not single-handedly found this trend, though she was its greatest promoter, and there are still many devotees. Socioeconomically, culturally, and in terms of the recipes created, this kind of DIY has a very different motivation. It may be cooking from scratch, for  the most part, but does not eschew short cuts, prepared and processed ingredients, and, in fact sometimes, will go so far as to merely gussy up store-bought products. Sandra Lee’s Semi-Homemade aesthetic is a perfect example, as are many other cooking shows on television and recipes in cooking magazines. These could be called recreational cooking, marketed to people who would normally purchase prepared meals or eat in restaurants. It is considered DIY because cooking is involved, but it is rarely antiestablishment. In fact, it is more akin to the era of 1950s housewives who embraced cake mixes, fancy jello salads, and other homemade dishes with which they could impress their husbands and dinner guests. They were hardly gritty or grassroots. The radical DIY movement of recent times differs from mainstream cuisine especially because it tackles difficult foods no longer normally made in the home. Some require equipment or tech savviness, most demand a great deal of patience and time, and many involve processes that the preceding generation believed could only be done safely in an industrial setting under strictly controlled conditions. Home beer brewing is probably the best example, but so too are naturally fermenting vegetables, curing meats, making cheese at home, and baking one’s own bread using wild yeast starters. Many of these projects employ bacterial fermentation, wild yeasts, and molds that are not purchased but allowed to spontaneously cultivate. These foods are perceived to be much healthier than foods that have been pasteurized with heat (often called biologically “dead”). Mapping the DNA of the human gut biome—that is, decoding the genetic material of the symbiotic bacteria that live in the human body and constitute the greater proportion of the cells within humans—in tandem

DIY Food Movement

with scientific studies that have shown the benefits of bacteria not only in digestion but also in endocrine and neural function has bolstered this perception that fermented foods are indispensable to health. Some people claim that cooking food itself destroys nutrients and beneficial properties and that all foods, not just unpasteurized milk, should be consumed raw, though they rarely go so far as to consume raw flesh. This, however, does not mean minimal processing, as a battery of juicers, dehydrators, and machines are often employed. In any case, there is a certain kinship among the raw food diet followers, fermentation enthusiasts, and the basic DIY impulse. Green vegetable juice, kombucha (a kind of fermented sour tea culture), and a homebrew share close aesthetic affinities. Advocates of this kind of food do not stop at fermentation though. They may seek out local ingredients because of their freshness, they may butcher animals themselves if possible, and interestingly, they may hunt and forage for wild foods. Again, the motivation is to do anything in order to escape from corporate industrial food, anything that promotes environmental sustainability and animal welfare and supports local community. These values are held by a broad swathe of the population, but what distinguishes the DIY attitude is a fundamental mistrust of anything packaged, purchased, and marketed in the capitalist food system. That is, many products are sold as natural, organic, fair trade, and cruelty free, but as consumers, DIY advocates have ceased to trust labels that may misrepresent contents. From this perspective, hidden additives, preservatives, stabilizers, chemically derived flavors, and fragrances are believed to poison food, and therefore, it is better to make food yourself, even grow it yourself, and rear animals yourself, so you are sure of what your food contains. Critics are either bemused by this counterculture or are actively skeptical of those who mistrust science and progress, labeling them Luddites. Critics insist that the food supply is inherently safe, ingredients are routinely tested, and industrial-scale agriculture is the only way to feed a growing

375

population in the future. Rejecting the modern food system and turning the clock backward is at best quaint, at worst dangerously misguided. They also point out what they perceive to be the health risks of letting vegetables ferment on the countertop or sausages hang in the basement. There are strict protocols for preventing foodborne illnesses when these products are manufactured for sale, but in the home no regulations apply. Critics are generally surprised to discover that most foodborne pathogens, such as botulism, occur in faulty canning procedures, when people try to replicate industrial processing at home. Traditional methods of fermentation and preservation rarely make anyone sick, and because everything is necessarily processed on a small scale, food that is spoiled is easily spotted and discarded. Ironically, many of the values inherent in the DIY movement are often co-opted by the food industry, which has learned to mimic the small-scale artisanal and handmade aesthetic. Thus, one may find fake craft beers, probiotic yogurt, and hipster pickles, which turn out to be made in a factory and are pasteurized. In other words, corporations follow trends closely and can label their products to mislead consumers, evoking a whole range of values. This may reinforce suspicions that food should be made yourself or by those you know personally and bartered or traded rather than purchased. The DIY food movement is also a subset of a larger urge to make things yourself, your own clothes, housing, music, and entertainment. It may be that certain individuals are simply predisposed to making things and prefer items that are handmade and unique. Whatever the stimulus, the DIY impulse remains a recurrent feature of the modern food scene. Ken Albala See also Artisanal Foods; Canning; Home Fermentation; Homesteading; Locavorism

Further Readings Albala, K., & Nafziger, R. (2010). The lost art of real cooking. New York, NY: Penguin/Perigee.

376

Domestic Food Insecurity

Barrington, V. (2010). DIY delicious. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle. Chernila, A. (2012). The homemade pantry. New York, NY: Clarkson Potter. Faber, K. (2014). The DIY pantry. Fort Collins, CO: Adams Media. Katz, S. (2012). The art of fermentation. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Wigginton, E. (Ed.). (1972). The foxfire book. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

DOMESTIC FOOD INSECURITY Household food insecurity is the problem that some families and individuals experience while obtaining enough food to maintain good health. This experience is often described by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as being uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet basic needs for all household members because they had insufficient money and other resources for food. When food insecurity status is measured, an adult in the household is asked about his or her past year’s experiences buying enough nutritionally adequate food to feed the household all the days of the year. The rate of food insecurity (usually from 11% to 15% annually) indicates a sizable minority of American adults who at some point in the prior 12 months struggled to provide for themselves or for their families. Among food-insecure households is a group that is regarded as having “very low food security,” where they experienced significant disruptions in their food intake during the past year. This group is sometimes referred to by antihunger advocates as those experiencing “hunger.” Usually around 4% to 6% of American households fall into this category, with rates varying by a couple percentage points across states and between rural and urban locations. Understanding the struggles of low-income Americans to provide food for themselves is a central concern in food studies. This entry discusses the relationship of household food insecurity to other related concepts, how it is measured, what are some of the

documented patterns, and the programs currently responding to domestic food insecurity.

Alternative Concepts to Household Food Security in the United States While focus in the United States has been on household food security, other related concepts have been explored. For example, global food security discussions, which focus more on nations’ and regions’ ability to provide for their people, address production and supply of food, usually as it relates to global climate change or environmental degradation. Some writers have extended this concern, examining the degree to which resulting food shortages may affect civil unrest and nation-state stability. A growing literature on community food security moves the focus to local food systems that serve the community as a whole. This alternative concept serves as a theoretical bridge between how systems supply food and residents access that food. However, with the development of this community-level concept has come imprecision and confusion when distinctions are not clearly made between community and household food security. The attention to communities permits examination of the characteristics of the food system, the resiliency of that system to large-scale disruptions, and the quality of food the system makes available. For example, concern about food deserts— geographical spaces that make good quality food hard to reach by people with restricted transportation—is a concern to those seeking to understand overall community access to food, typically with a focus on low-income households who often live in food deserts and have fewer resources for escaping them. Similarly, the economic struggles and ongoing demise of rural grocery stores, now considered peripheral to modern food delivery systems, contribute to the struggles of rural communities that want fresh fruits and vegetables and dairy at an affordable price. Official definitions of community food security emphasize the community’s capacity to ensure that all its members have adequate access to healthful and acceptable food. Emphases on community

Domestic Food Insecurity

food security do not primarily seek to populate communities with more grocery stores, but they challenge the industrial food system and promote environmentally friendly and socially desirable production, processing, and distribution systems. Thus, a community suffering from high levels of inequality, perhaps feeding its poor through food pantries, would not be considered a food-secure community, even if all the food-insecure households were adequately fed by the food pantries. Community food security advocates emphasize the importance of including the needs of low-income households, but the linkages about community and household food security remain minimally understood.

Measuring Food Insecurity Household Food Insecurity

The U.S. food insecurity rate is reported each year by the USDA, relying on data gathered in the Food Security Supplement of the December data collection for the Current Population Survey. Respondents are asked up to 18 questions (fewer if they do not have children or depending on their answers early in the questionnaire). These questions ask about respondents’ ability to purchase food and to make it last throughout the past year. They are not asked about feeling “hungry” per se; instead, questions focus on coping behaviors such as cutting meal portions or buying lower quality food. Because the questions ask respondents to recall their past year, it is possible that in the December survey, respondents are currently food secure but are describing events in the previous calendar year. This time lapse is important to remember when assessing statistical reports that include observations of food insecurity among people who are in the middle-income category in December but who may have been food insecure 6 months earlier. It is also important to recognize when program evaluations note that current Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“food stamps”) recipients are food insecure. Their measured food insecurity could be recalling events prior to their receiving federal aid.

377

Responses to these questions are then summed, and respondents with three or more indications of trouble acquiring enough food are regarded as “food insecure.” Those with eight or more indications are also regarded as having “very low food security.” Hence, they are a subset of the “food-insecure” population. The 18-item measure is widely used and validated, but simpler 6-item and 2-item assessments are sometimes used in other surveys. Community Food Security

Because there remains ambiguity about any official definition of community food security, there is no widely accepted singular measure. However, any extant definition of community food security dictates a multiple-indicator approach to assessing a community. The USDA suggests that measures of community food security draw on a wide variety of indicators, including the simplicity of local enrollment in federal food aid programs, the number of community gardens, the local costs of food, the availability of grocery stores, and the presence of locally grown produce. Meanwhile, related to these indicators of community food security, interdisciplinary teams of social scientists have made significant progress at improving measurement of food deserts in urban and rural places.

Impact of Household Food Insecurity A rapidly growing public health literature has emphasized the importance of food insecurity on various health outcomes for children, adults, and elders. Children suffering from food insecurity perform less well in school, and all ages suffer adverse health outcomes when food insecure. The social sciences have rarely addressed the social, political, and economic impacts of food insecurity, other than to quantify the economic costs of health problems associated with childhood food insecurity. Sociologists or political scientists have not focused on social impacts of food insecurity on community stability, social capital, or other community outcomes in the United States. One

378

Domestic Food Insecurity

could reasonably hypothesize that childhood hunger would affect schools in ways not easily captured by economic outputs—such as classroom behavior, impact on other children, or teacher morale—and that adult food insecurity could be associated with crime, community strife, and social class conflict.

Contexts and Correlates of Household Food Insecurity A sizable literature addresses the geographical contexts and group rates of food insecurity. Several have sought to explain state-level differences in food insecurity, noting that some states have repeatedly high levels of food insecurity over time (e.g., Mississippi, New Mexico, and Missouri), and others remain regularly below the national average (e.g., North Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa). There remains a weak positive correlation between state poverty rates and rates of very low food security. Geographical context shapes opportunities for coping with food insecurity as well. For example, families in relatively foodsecure states may cope with their household food insecurity differently than do those in states where the problem is more prevalent. And coping strategies in rural areas are likely to be different from those in urban areas. Many of the individual- and household-level correlates of food insecurity are easily anticipated and annually reported in USDA Food Security reports. Poverty, low income, single parenthood, low education, unemployment, and disability among adults all increase chances of household food insecurity. Single mothers have higher food insecurity rates than single fathers, but single ablebodied women and men, without dependents, have very similar rates of food insecurity. Volatile incomes, usually a sign of seasonal unemployment, increase households’ struggles with acquiring enough food. Housing and heating costs appear to influence food insecurity. For example, renters facing high rent burdens also show higher rates of food insecurity, and those facing higher energy costs are more vulnerable.

Effectiveness of Programs for Reducing Household Food Insecurity Efforts to reduce household food insecurity in the United States can be separated roughly into (a) cash-transfer programs, (b) school feeding programs, and (c) emergency food. The USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as “food stamps”) provides cash for groceries to eligible households. The program grew substantially during the Great Recession in the late 2000s and remains a highly subscribed program assisting, as of 2013, around 45 million Americans. Evaluation of the program demonstrates that it reduces household food insecurity. Similarly, WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) reduces food insecurity in households with children. School feeding programs (breakfasts, lunches, after-school snacks, and summer extensions of these programs) provide targeted nutritional support for children. There is no clear evidence that participation in school feeding programs reduces childhood food insecurity, largely due to data limitations and the fact that household food security is affected by many other economic and social variables independent of supplemental nutrition given to children at school. Instead, most research currently focuses on the quality of meals provided through these programs, the health outcomes (especially obesity) related to them, and efforts to influence children’s food selection at school. Emergency food programs such as food banks, food pantries, and group feeding locations (“soup kitchens”) have grown dramatically in the past two decades. While some celebrate the volunteerism of local citizens, others critique this response as temporary, dehumanizing to recipients, and ultimately ineffective, perhaps even deflecting political attention from the real needs of lowincome residents in the United States. Mark Evan Edwards See also Food Banks; Food Deserts; Food Insecurity

Donut Shops

Further Readings Alaimo, K. (2005). Food insecurity in the United States: An overview. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 20(4), 281–298. Bartfeld, J., & Dunifon, R. (2006). State-level predictors of food insecurity among households with children. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(4), 921–942. doi:10.1002/pam.20214 Bickel, G., Nord, M., Price, C., Hamilton W., & Cook, J. (2000). Guide to measuring household food security, revised 2000. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2012). Household food security in the United States in 2011 (Economic Research Report No. ERR141). Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/ media/884525/err141.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). Food security in the United States: Definitions of food security. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/foodnutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitionsof-food-security.aspx

DONUT SHOPS Donut shops are an intrinsic and iconic part of the American food service landscape. They are a style of quick-serve restaurant serving glazed and decorated yeast-raised and cake donuts, coffee, milk, and juice. Commercial donut shops began in 1920 with the invention of automated donutmaking machines and bagged mixes. With low start-up costs, mechanized production, and franchise support, many shops grew into successful national chains while donuts became a familiar, egalitarian food. Shops decorated with chrome, counters, stools, and neon signs sold a growing variety of donuts and coffee drinks, often 24 hours of day, across the United States as highways and suburbs expanded after World War II. Shops evolved in the 1960s and 1970s, expanding menus, becoming big businesses, or just disappearing. Following a decline in popularity in the 1980s, largely due to nutritional issues, donut shops continued to expand internationally while updating menus

379

domestically with muffins, bagels, breakfast sandwiches, and flavored beverages to compete with other quick-service and fast-casual chains, driving shop sales to more than US$12 billion in 2011. More recent artisan donut shops serve high-quality, uniquely flavored donuts, whereas chains and immigrant-owned shops continue to cater to donut lovers of all kinds. This entry details this evolution of donut shops in the United States.

Donut Shop Mechanized Beginnings While many global cuisines feature sweet and savory fried dough items, donuts are a uniquely American food, arriving with Dutch settlers in precolonial times and evolving into the yeast- or baking soda–risen treat beloved today. Donuts became closely associated with the United States when Salvation Army volunteers fried them in France to comfort American soldiers during World War I. Veterans returned home with an appetite for donuts and opened shops alongside entrepreneurs inspired by America’s turn toward industrial mechanization and mass commercialization. Adolph Levitt, a Russian Jewish immigrant, mechanized donut production in 1920 in New York. He created the Wonderful Almost Human Automatic Doughnut Machine to sanitize and expedite the process, turning out 80 dozen donuts per hour. During the 1920s, he widely sold his patented machine, along with sacks of donut mix, turning donut making into a multimillion-dollar affair. Levitt formed the Doughnut Corporation of America and launched the Mayflower donut shop chain in 1931 on Times Square, placing a machine in the window to attract crowds. James Thurber, writing for The New Yorker in 1931, reported on the glassenclosed machine in which donuts float “dreamily through a grease canal,” helping to change the image of grease-sodden “sinkers” to light, puffy symbols of modernity.

The Birth and Growth of Donut Shop Chains In 1937, Vernon Rudolph arrived in WinstonSalem, North Carolina, with a recipe for “Krispy

380

Donut Shops

Kreme” yeast-raised donuts from a French chef in New Orleans. He opened a wholesale bakery plant making donuts for groceries and eventually cut a hole in the wall to sell donuts to people attracted by the aroma. The chain became a beloved Southern fixture, selling glazed, yeast-raised donuts. During the 1980s, the chain added a neon sign advertising “Hot Krispy Kreme Original Glazed Now” and featured the donut machine in the center of some stores. After expanding in the mid-1990s, Krispy Kreme became wildly successful before hitting a number of business snags and scandals in the 2000s. Sales faltered after the donuts were widely distributed to grocery and convenience stores, yet the company continues to develop new flavors and grow globally. After World War II, donut shops expanded across the United States as highways, suburbs, and commercial shopping strips spread. The brothers Albert and Robert Pelton launched Spudnut Shops in 1940 in Salt Lake City, Utah, using potato flour in the recipe. By 1954, there were more than 300 stores in 38 states. The company supported franchises by supplying equipment, operating manuals, advertising materials, and branded mixes. On the West Coast, Vern Winchell founded his namesake shop in Los Angeles, California, in 1948; by 1982, it counted 870 locations along the West Coast and Southwest. In 1948, William Rosenberg opened a donut shop in Quincy, Massachusetts, that became Dunkin’ Donuts in 1950; franchising began in 1955. Dunkin’ Donuts is credited with broadening the donut menu with new glazes, toppings, and fillings; favorites include the Boston Creme custard-filled donut. During the 1950s and 1960s, chains and franchises grew, developing iconic imagery and design elements that continue to be associated with donuts today. Chrome fixtures, counters and stools, and heavy Buffalo China ceramic plates are all part of donut iconography. Canada also became a home for donut shops. Its most famous chain, Tim Hortons, started in Hamilton, Ontario, founded by a famous hockey player.

The Arrival of Artisan Donut Shops The donut was reborn in the mid-1990s and early 2000s as an artisan product. Mark Isreal began

his popular Manhattan-based Doughnut Plant in 1994 in his apartment and moved to a shop in 1999; he now has locations in Japan. Isreal makes his donuts primarily by hand, using organic flour, natural ingredients, and fresh oil for frying. In 2003, Voodoo Doughnut opened in Portland, Oregon. Its donuts, made from mixes, come topped with breakfast cereal, candy, cookies, and even strips of bacon while its shop manages lines of customers with stanchions and  doubles as a wedding chapel. In Seattle, Washington, in 2002, the brothers Mark and Mike Klebeck opened Top Pot Donuts, bringing in a vintage donut aesthetic of neon signs, heavy china plates, and a refurbished vintage logo to a small chain of shops serving more gourmet donuts made from a custom mix. For a period, they sold several donut varieties to Starbucks. New styles of artisan donut shops continue to open in the 2010s serving handmade donuts that are inspired by both retro, all-American classics and contemporary ingredient pairings such as salted caramel, maple bacon, or hibiscus beet. These shops, such as Dynamo Donut in San Francisco, California, and the Doughnut Vault in Chicago, Illinois, serve locally roasted coffee and attract national attention via social media, adding another level of experience to the evolving donut shop business. Kara S. Nielsen See also Bakeries; Coffeehouses and Coffee Shops; Diners; Fair and Carnival Food

Further Readings Edge, J. T. (2006). Donuts: An American passion. New York, NY: Putnam. Krondl, M. (2013). Donut planet. Saveur, 154, 38–64. Levitt Steinberg, S. (2004). The donut book: The whole story in words, pictures & outrageous tales. North Adams, MA: Storey. Mullins, P. R. (2008). Glazed America: A history of the doughnut. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Rosenberg, W., & Keener, J. B. (2001). Time to make the donuts. New York, NY: Lebhar-Friedman Books.

E E.

pathogenic are a significant threat to public health, especially relating to food safety. The most common and notorious of these pathogenic bacteria are E. coli O157:H7, which are part of a category called enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC). The most deadly members of this category are those that produce shiga toxins, so named because the toxin is related to that produced by the Shigella bacteria, the cause of dysentery. The shiga toxin–producing E. coli is typically referred to as STEC, although VTEC is another acronym used (with VT standing for verotoxin). E. coli O157:H7 is the most commonly identified STEC strain in North America, with all other strains referred to as the non-O157 strains. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that every year at least 93,094 people in the United States are infected with E. coli O157:H7 and made ill, causing more than 2,100 hospitalizations and upward to 60 deaths. In 2010, the CDC (working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service) estimated the annual cost of E.  coli O157:H7 infections to be more than $488 million. This figure includes more than $438 million for premature deaths, $44 million for medical care, and $5.9 million in lost productivity by those who did not die. What is not included among these figures is any quantification of the pain and suffering that such infections cause, both to the victim and to the victim’s family. But given the multimilliondollar settlements reached on behalf of those who

COLI

No organism has been more studied than the Escherichia coli (or E. coli) bacterium. It is also the most prevalent infecting organism known to exist. More than 700 strains of E. coli have been identified since 1885 when the German bacteriologist Theodor Escherich discovered the bacteria in the human colon. (Although initially called Bacterium coli, the name was later changed to Escherichia coli to honor its discoverer.) Escherich went on to prove that certain strains of the E. coli bacteria were responsible for infant diarrhea and other gastrointestinal disorders, revealing the bacteria to be of great importance to public health. This importance has not waned, especially when it comes to protecting the public from food contaminated with disease-causing (pathogenic) strains of the E. coli bacteria, like E. coli O157:H7. Although other bacteria cause a greater number of illnesses overall, pathogenic E. coli bacteria cause more serious illnesses and a greater number of deaths each year. Therefore, a basic understanding of the bacterium—how it causes disease and what diseases it causes—is a crucial food issue.

E. coli O157:H7: A Most Dangerous Bacterium Although most kinds of E. coli bacteria do not   cause disease in humans, those that are 381

382

E. coli

have suffered food-related E. coli O157:H7 infections, it is safe to assume that the costs of pain and suffering are considerably in excess of medical care costs. E. coli O157:H7 was first recognized as a pathogen in 1982 as a result of an investigation into an outbreak of severe gastrointestinal illnesses that were eventually connected to consumption of hamburgers from McDonald’s restaurants in Oregon and Michigan. In the following 10 years, there were approximately 30 more documented outbreaks in the United States. But what really made these bacteria well known was the 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. In this outbreak, there were more than 500 lab-confirmed infections, plus hundreds more suspected infections, and at least 4 deaths, making it the largest E.  coli O157:H7 outbreak in history. It was not long, however, before the record for the biggest such outbreak was surpassed because, in 1996, nearly 10,000 people—most of them school children—were infected in Japan as a result of eating contaminated sprouts. Sadly, the number of outbreaks that occurred in the years that followed showed that this deadly pathogen was a continuing threat to food safety and public health.

Environmental Sources of E. coli E. coli O157:H7 bacteria and other pathogenic E. coli are believed to mostly live in the intestines of cattle while also having been found in the intestines of chickens, deer, sheep, and pigs. A 2003 study on the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in livestock at 29 county and 3 large state agricultural fairs in the United States found that E. coli O157:H7 could be isolated from 13.8% of beef cattle, 5.9% of dairy cattle, 3.6% of pigs, 5.2% of sheep, and 2.8% of goats. STEC does not make the animals that carry it ill; the animals are merely the reservoir for the bacteria. Food and water become contaminated by contact (cross-contamination) with the feces of infected animals. For example, during the slaughtering process in a meat process facility, feces on the hides, or from the intestinal tracts, of the slaughtered animals can contaminate the carcasses, thus

allowing the bacteria to make their way into the meat products sold to the public. Although contaminated meat (especially ground beef) was for long the most common cause of both outbreaks and sporadic cases of E. coli O157:H7 infections, outbreaks have been increasingly linked to a wide variety of food items. For example, fresh produce has been the source of substantial numbers of outbreak-related E. coli O157:H7 infections, including widespread outbreaks linked to bagged lettuce and spinach. Other vehicles for outbreaks have included unpasteurized juices, yogurt, dried salami, mayonnaise, raw milk, game meats, sprouts, and raw cookie dough. There have also been outbreaks linked to orange juice, alfalfa and radish sprouts, strawberries, cantaloupes, and water.

Exposure, Infection, and Illness The illness caused by E. coli O157:H7—often called gastroenteritis or colitis—is characterized by severe abdominal cramps, diarrhea that typically turns bloody within 24 hours, and sometimes fever. The incubation period—that is, the time from exposure to the onset of symptoms—is usually reported as 2 to 4 days but may be as short as 1 day or as long as 10 days. It has been theorized that the length of the incubation period varies as a result of how many bacteria are ingested and the relative health of the person at the time of ingestion. Infection can occur in people of all ages, but it is most common in children, the elderly, and those with suppressed immune systems. The duration of illness can range from 1 to 12 days, with little that can be done medically except to provide supportive care, like intravenous fluids to prevent dehydration. In reported outbreaks, the rate of death is 0% to 2%, with rates running as high as 16% to 35% in outbreaks involving primarily the elderly, like those that have occurred at nursing homes. Two factors in particular make E. coli O157:H7 remarkably dangerous. First, the bacteria have a very low infectious dose—the number of organisms required to cause infection. Unlike Salmonella, for

E. coli

example, which requires consumption of more than 100,000 organisms to be infected, fewer than 10 E. coli O157:H7 bacteria can cause infection. Second, the bacteria are difficult to kill; they survive freezing and thawing and are heat resistant, requiring ground beef to be cooked to an internal temperature of 155 °F. The cooking of frozen ground beef patties to the proper internal temperature has proven to be particularly difficult—and thus dangerous—for consumers. The bacteria are  also easily transmitted by person-to-person contact. Unlike most foodborne illnesses, E. coli O157:H7 infections cause a relatively high rate of hospitalization. The hospitalization rate can be explained by the frequency of bloody diarrhea, severe pain, and dehydration. After ingestion, the bacteria rapidly multiply in the large intestine and then attach to cells in the intestinal lining, making the bacteria unusually invasive. The bacteria then release toxins that are absorbed into capillaries within the intestinal wall. Inflammation caused by the toxins passing through the intestinal wall is believed to be the cause of bloody diarrhea, now a key diagnostic symptom of an E. coli O157:H7 infection. Once circulating in the system, the toxins attach to white blood cells, allowing the toxin to “ride piggyback” to other organs, like the kidneys, where permanent damage can be done.

Diagnosis, Testing, and Epidemiology Infection with E. coli O157:H7 is usually confirmed by the detection of the bacteria in a stool sample. A portion of the stool is placed on a medium designed to make the bacteria grow and then kept under conditions conducive to bacterial growth. If bacteria grow, an examination of growth patterns, along with certain other chemical tests, will show what kind of bacteria were present in the stool culture. The bacteria are then isolated from the culture, thus creating an “isolate.” After first being identified as part of the E. coli family of bacteria, lab technicians then determine if it is the O157:H7 or some other strain.

383

Once the bacterium has been isolated and identified, the next step is to obtain the genetic “fingerprint” by a process called pulse-field gel electrophoresis, or PFGE testing. The PFGE test is used to separate the DNA of the bacterial isolate into its component parts. The test operates by causing alternating electric fields to run the DNA through a flat gel matrix. The pattern of bands of the DNA fragments, or fingerprint, in the gel is unique for each strain of bacteria. By performing the procedure, scientists can precisely identify strains of E. coli O157:H7, thus showing that persons infected with genetically identical strains are highly likely to have a common source of infection. E. coli O157:H7 is now routinely fingerprinted as part of surveillance of foodborne disease. This surveillance was first initiated in response to the 1993 Jack in the Box outbreak. It was this fingerprinting that allowed investigators to determine that the strain of E. coli O157:H7 found in patients had the same genetic pattern as the strain found in contaminated hamburger. The CDC, in collaboration with the Association of Public Health Laboratories, subsequently developed standardized PFGE methods and created an online database, PulseNet, to allow public health laboratories throughout the country to rapidly compare the PFGE patterns of bacteria isolated from ill persons. PulseNet has been instrumental in allowing investigators to more quickly identify the common source of multistate outbreaks.

A Life-Threatening Complication: Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome An E. coli O157:H7 infection can lead to a severe, life-threatening complication called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). HUS accounts for the majority of the acute deaths and chronic injuries caused by the bacteria, primarily in children. Approximately 6% of those infected develop HUS within 2 to 14 days of the onset of diarrhea. HUS (and thus the E. coli infection that caused it) is the most common cause of renal failure in children.

384

Economic Cost of the Western Diet

Approximately half of the children who suffer HUS require dialysis, and at least 5% of those experience long-term renal impairment. The same percentage experiences severe brain damage. While somewhat rare, serious injury to the pancreas, resulting in either death or the development of diabetes, may also occur. There is no cure or effective treatment for HUS. As a result, HUS has a mortality rate of 5% to 10%. Of those who survive HUS, at least 5% develop end-stage renal disease, thus creating a need for dialysis or a kidney transplant. A diagnosis of HUS requires that three symptoms be present (sometimes referred to as the HUS triad): (1) destruction of red blood cells (hemolytic anemia), (2) a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia), and (3) loss of kidney function (renal failure). Although recognized in the medical community since at least the mid-1950s, HUS first captured the public’s widespread attention in 1993 following the Jack in the Box outbreak, the outbreak that also introduced the public to the E. coli O157:H7 bacteria. Denis Stearns See also Cooking Temperatures, U.S. Department of Agriculture Guidelines for; Factory Farming; Food Safety; Food Safety Agencies; Foodborne Illness; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Listeria; Salmonella

Further Readings Benedict, J. (2011). Poisoned: The true story of the deadly E. coli outbreak that changed the way Americans eat. Brooklyn, NY: February Books. Frenzen, P. (2005). Economic cost of illness due to Escherichia coli O157 infections in the United States. Journal of Food Protection, 68, 2623–2630. Rangel, J. (2005). Epidemiology of Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreaks, United States, 1982–2002. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11(4), 603–609.

Website Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E. coli (Escherichia coli): http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/

ECONOMIC COST WESTERN DIET

OF THE

The Western diet emphasizes refined grains, sweetened beverages, desserts, and foods derived from animals, including red meats, eggs, and dairy products. The foods are highly processed and have added salt, fats, and sugars that enhance their palatability and promote their consumption. The Western diet generally is deficient in fresh vegetables and fruits, whole grains, and nonanimal proteins. There are detrimental health effects associated both with the heavy consumption of the foods that are included in the Western diet and with the low consumption of the recommended foods that are less prominent in the diet. The foods constituting the Western diet tend to be more energy dense, meaning that they contain high calories per ounce of food. The high energy density has contributed to significant gains in the body weights of those people who typically eat the diet. Compounding this weight gain is that consuming the energy-dense diet is often accompanied by reduced physical activity. This combination is sometimes referred to as the “Western lifestyle,” and it has yielded an epidemic of obesity. The economic costs that are associated with the Western diet can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. Only some of these costs lend themselves to being estimated in dollar terms; most notably, several efforts have been made to measure various costs that are associated with obesity. This entry addresses the following: the relatively low market cost of the diet for U.S. consumers, the direct medical costs to address diet-related illnesses, who pays the direct medical costs, the indirect costs associated with eating the Western diet, and a variety of miscellaneous expenses faced as human bodies grow larger and heavier. The entry concludes with the spread of the diet, obesity, and diet-related health expenditures to developing nations.

Low Market Cost of the Calorie-Dense Diet In the United States, obesity is more prevalent among people who live in poverty. This is

Economic Cost of the Western Diet

consistent with the fact that many energy-dense foods are more affordable on a per calorie basis, so when a person faces a stringent income constraint, money can be most efficiently spent by purchasing these foods. Reasons that the foods are relatively inexpensive extend from the structure of the U.S. government’s agricultural subsidy program to the manufacture and marketing of various foods. The multibillion-dollar government programs that subsidize agriculture provide relatively little support for the nutritious foods that are underrepresented in the diet, namely, vegetables, fruits, and nuts. Instead, the programs focus on a small number of crops, with large corporate corn and soybean growers being the top beneficiaries. The government payments to these large farms reduce the market prices of these commodities. As a consequence, the sugars and oils derived from corn and soybeans have become cheap and prevalent ingredients for food processors that enhance not only the palatability but also the caloric content of their products. Because the subsidies are financed out of the federal government’s general funds, taxpayers are subsidizing those who produce and consume these calorie-dense products, which prominently include sweetened beverages. Taxpayers are also supporting the production of red meat that is more calorie dense. This occurs because cheap corn and soybeans are a significant feed for cattle, and cows that eat grain instead of grass develop meat that contains more fat and calories. The processing and marketing of energy-dense foods further contribute to their affordability. Added fats and sugars are cheap to process in large part because these ingredients can be reliably and uniformly produced in mass quantities. And as distinct from a fresh strawberry and other fresh foods, preservatives can be added that significantly extend the shelf life of the highly processed foods. This reduced rate of spoilage is also significant to the diet’s affordability. Processed foods are typically packaged, which further help preserve the products and make them cheaper to transport and store. Because they are less perishable, they do not require refrigeration, another significant cost

385

saving to the food producer that contributes to a lower purchase price for consumers.

Medical Costs Eating the calorie-rich and unbalanced Western diet can contribute to a number of chronic diseases directly, and indirectly to obesity, which is itself a significant risk factor for various illnesses. For example, red meat is high in both calories and saturated fat, and eating more than small amounts is associated with increased incidences of heart disease, various cancers, stroke, and diabetes. This unhealthy outcome is compounded because heavy meat consumption contributes to obesity, which also enhances the likelihood of acquiring these diseases. Ferreting out what portion of the incidences of these illnesses can be attributed to the Western diet is further complicated because at the same time this diet has been adopted, people have become more sedentary. Being less active calls into play the same two direct and indirect causal links. A reduced level of physical activity directly contributes to increased incidences of chronic disease; also, to the extent that sedentariness has added to obesity, the morbidities are compounded. The medical costs of eating the Western diet stem from the diagnosis and treatment of the consequent illnesses. These include the costs of health care professionals, hospitalizations, and medications. A number of studies have estimated how much obesity adds to the expense of health care. A group of researchers led by Kenneth Thorpe found that in the United States, obese individuals incur 37% more medical costs than normal weight individuals, and as more individuals became obese, the impact on the nation’s health care budget became more pronounced. In the United States, more than 25% of all health care expenditures are incurred to address obesity-related illnesses, with the annual bill approaching $150 billion. Obesity and some of its related illnesses have become significant among children. Type 2 diabetes was formerly known as adult-onset diabetes, but it is now afflicting an increasing number of children who become more sedentary and gain weight as they eat the Western diet. The annual health care

386

Economic Cost of the Western Diet

expenditure attributable to obesity among children is approaching $15 billion. This development foreshadows a future with higher incidences of poor health and increased medical expenses because individuals who are obese in childhood are at greater risk of obesity and various diseases in their adulthood. These estimates for obesity-related medical costs do not account for all of the medical expenses associated with eating the Western diet because they do not include the increase in illnesses among those individuals who consume this diet but who are not obese. For example, processed meats, like lunch meats, bacon, and sausages, have additives that not only color and preserve the products but also amplify the health risks of meat eating. Trans fat, used in more highly processed foods, is the most dangerous fat to eat, and it contributes to heart disease and type 2 diabetes. At the same time, the dearth of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables in the Western diet reduces the dietary fiber, which offers some protection against high blood pressure. In general, high levels of fruits and vegetables reduce the risk of various cancers, and green leafy vegetables in particular are thought to protect the heart. Whole grains, rather than the processed refined grains common to the Western diet, independently reduce the risks of several of these nutrition-related diseases. So in addition to contributing to obesity, eating the Western diet increases the health care bill by both the foods that it emphasizes and those that it deemphasizes.

Who Pays for the Medical Care? While the physical pain and suffering falls on the individuals who eat the diet and become ill, the medical bill is distributed well beyond the  individuals who actually consume the diet. In the United States, a sizable share of the nation’s health care bill is paid for by the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. Because Medicare is financed mostly out of taxes paid by current employers and workers, companies and their employees pay the medical costs associated with the consumption of the Western diet among senior

citizens. Medicaid, the governmental medical insurance plan for low-income individuals, is financed out of the tax receipts of both the federal and state governments. In this way, the general taxpayer is assuming the cost of diet-related illnesses of citizens with lower incomes. Individuals who are employed and receive medical insurance through their jobs typically face some out-of-pocket medical expenses, with the insurer paying the bulk of the bill. However, because the Western diet is contributing to the increase in the nation’s total health care bill, it is helping to raise the insurance premiums and deductibles employees must pay. In most cases, premiums and deductibles are the same for employees regardless of their diets and their body weights, so in this way, some of the medical bill for eating unhealthily is passed from workers who eat an unhealthy diet to less diseased coworkers who eat a healthy diet. In addition, the expense of medical insurance is subsidized by many firms as part of the employee compensation package. When firms face higher insurance premiums, they may reduce any increase in wages and salaries that workers would have otherwise received. Any such slowed growth in wages is another shift of the medical expenses onto employees who eat a healthy diet. People who do not get health insurance through their employment often purchase insurance on their own. As in the case of employer insurance plans, these private insurance companies typically do not charge different premiums for those who eat a healthy diet and those who eat the Western diet or for individuals who are obese and those who are normal weight. Accordingly, some of the medical costs of eating the Western diet is shifted to individuals who refrain from that diet. Although some particular firms promote and enjoy financial gains from the wide adoption of the Western diet, they are not liable for the associated medical costs. For example, companies that design, produce, and market high-calorie, hyperpalatable foods play a role in the obesity epidemic. This includes makers of various processed snack foods and desserts as well as foods served in many fast food restaurants. More generally, restaurant meals

Economic Cost of the Western Diet

contain more calories and fats, and eating away from home has been implicated in the obesity epidemic. Makers of sweetened beverages likewise play a role. While the high consumption of these foods is encouraged by and financially benefits these firms, the medical expenses associated with that consumption do not fall on these food companies in any particular way. For example, efforts by obese individuals to sue fast food restaurants have been unsuccessful.

Indirect Costs The illnesses that accompany eating the Western diet impose costs beyond the medical expenses. These are collectively known as indirect costs, and they relate to the reduction in the productivity of afflicted workers. These costs can be understood to fall on society as a whole in that there is a reduced level of output, meaning that fewer goods and services are available to the public. But to the extent that employers continue to compensate less productive workers, these costs can also be viewed as falling on the firms in which the workers are employed. And because less productive workers raise the cost of producing the goods, there is pressure on the firms to charge consumers higher prices for their products. Any such price increase allows producers to pass along some of the indirect costs to the shoppers who purchase those products. In these ways, the burden of these indirect costs is spread well beyond those who eat the diet. Most of the research that has attempted to gauge the dollar value of the indirect costs has focused on the reduced productivity of obese workers and have disregarded the diet-related illnesses that are experienced by nonobese workers. However, the costs due to obesity alone are significant. These losses stem principally from absenteeism, presenteeism, disability, and mortality. Workers who are obese are more likely to be absent from work. In addition to the employee not being present to perform work, the worker’s absence may diminish the effort, morale, or effectiveness of coworkers. Absenteeism makes for an annual multibillion-dollar loss to firms.

387

Presenteeism appears to impose an even larger cost on firms. This refers to the diminished work performance by obese workers even when they are on the job. For example, obese individuals are more likely to feel fatigued, lose concentration, and have to repeat a task. Increased incidences of disability and premature death also reduce productive work efforts. Because obese workers are more likely to receive disability income, it appears that they are more likely to permanently leave their jobs due to being impaired while at work. This permanent severance from the workplace reduces the individual’s lifetime productive efforts. Obesity is also related to premature death. When this death occurs during the person’s working years, productive effort is again lost. While this lost productivity is a loss to society as a whole, it is also a loss of potential earnings to the individual who is afflicted.

Other Significant Costs The economic impacts of the obesity that result from eating the Western diet can be felt whenever body size and weight require accommodation. Examples include the extra materials and space to provide cinema, office, and restaurant seating; larger and more substantial household furniture; larger elevators to transport the equivalent number of smaller passengers; additional textile in clothing, and additional water and detergents to clean those extra textiles. Other broad categories of costs are transportation, environmental damages, and the diet industry. As eating the Western diet has increased obesity, the nation’s transportation bill has grown. Heavier bodies reduce the miles per gallon that automobiles can achieve. While the dollar cost varies with the price of gasoline, in the range of recent fuel prices, the increase in the expense of personal transportation is in billions of dollars each year. Additionally, larger and perhaps more cumbersome human bodies encourage a preference for larger vehicles that are easier to get into and out of and that offer more seating room. These larger vehicles are less fuel efficient and further raise the cost of personal transportation. Obesity has also

388

Economic Cost of the Western Diet

increased the fuel bill for airline companies. Here too, the cost varies with the price of fuel, but it runs into hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Burning extra fuels for transportation is one of the ways that the Western diet increases greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to climate change. The diet’s emphasis on meat is another cause for such emissions, as cow flatulence is a significant source of methane, which is a particularly potent greenhouse gas. The modern industrial systems of agriculture and food manufacturing that are the foundations of the Western diet are fossil fuel intensive, with activities ranging from the building and operation of heavy farm equipment, the production of fertilizers, large-scale food processing, and transporting foods long distances. The accompanying greenhouse gas emissions make this Western food system among the most significant contributors to climate change, and ongoing climate change is having a host of environmental impacts. In the United States, higher temperatures, more severe droughts, greater storm intensity, worsened flooding, and more rampant wildfires are among the effects being felt that are consistent with climate change models. All of these impose sizable economic costs that affect current residents and businesses of the afflicted areas, both local and federal taxpayers as they assume some of the costs of disaster relief and invest funds to protect against  future disasters, and future generations of Americans who will suffer diminished opportunities to live, work, and recreate in some of the affected areas. The overweight and obesity that accompany the Western diet is a source of dissatisfaction and unhappiness for many individuals. While it is impossible to satisfactorily put a dollar value on these unpleasant emotions, it is possible to observe the dollars that are directly spent in efforts to lose weight. Goods and services provided by the diet industry include weight loss support programs, replacement meals and snacks, diet pills, and books. The annual sales of these items in the United States are in tens of billions of dollars.

Global Spread of the Western Diet Whereas in the United States people with low incomes are more likely to eat the Western diet, in

developing nations, the emerging middle class is the group that is able to afford the processed foods and increased amounts of meats. And as in the United States, eating the diet tends to be accompanied by a more sedentary lifestyle and higher levels of obesity. Consequently, the economic harm related to the diet is growing along with its consumption. In particular, there has been a spread of the diseases associated with the diet that are sometimes referred to as “Western diseases.” Among the nations with significant increases in obesity are Brazil, China, Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria. While the obesity incidence in these nations is less than that in the United States, the medical spending can be more burdensome because their national incomes are less. For example, relative to China, the United States has a much higher percentage of its population who are obese, but because the U.S. national income is higher than China’s, China devotes a larger portion of its national income to the associated diseases. Many nations are experiencing an increased rate of obesity among their children and forecast that their diet-related medical costs will increase in the years to come. This expectation is raising wide concern. Emily Northrop See also Cancer-Fighting Foods; Climate Change; Diabetes; Fast Food; Junk Food, Impact on Health; Obesity Epidemic; Subsidies

Further Readings Drewnowski, A. (2004). Obesity and the food environment: Dietary energy density and diet costs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 154–162. Hammond, R. A., & Levine, R. (2010). The economic impact of obesity in the United States. Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity, 3, 285–295. doi:10.2147/DMSOTT.S7384 Kessler, D. A. (2009). The end of overeating: Taking control of the insatiable American appetite. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books. Liebman, B. (2013). Six reasons to eat less red meat. Nutrition Action Health Letter, 40(5), 1–7.

Education in Food Service Industries Popkin, B. M., Kim, S. S., Rusev, E. R., Du, S. S., & Zizza, C. C. (2006). Measuring the full economic costs of diet, physical activity and obesity-related chronic diseases. Obesity Reviews, 7(3), 271–293. Thorpe, K. E., Florence, C. S., Howard, D. H., & Joski, P. (2004, October). Trends: The impact of obesity on rising medical spending. Health Affairs, 20, W4-480– W4-486. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w4.480

EDUCATION INDUSTRIES

IN

FOOD SERVICE

The food service industry encompasses businesses and establishments that prepare food for consumption outside of the home. With small profit margins and success far from certain, education and training can provide the competitive advantage that many businesses and individuals seek. Food preparation and service form an integral part of the travel, tourism, and hospitality sectors, as dining out is commonly combined with lodging and entertainment venues. According to the National Restaurant Association (NRA), in the United States, the industry includes almost 1 million restaurant and food service operations with 13.5 million employees, who represent 10% of the nation’s workforce. Educational opportunities to develop these employees include on-the-job training, in-house training programs, professional development, and formal certifications and college degrees. Considering that 8 out of 10 restaurant owners held an entry-level position for their first job in the restaurant industry, many food service employees strive to run their own business one day. As the world gets smaller through transport, trade, and communication, educational needs of restaurant operators grow larger and more complex. Chefs, managers, and owners must continually read, network, learn, and experiment to keep up with ever-evolving ingredients, cooking equipment, and terminology. While many of the basic cooking and service methods remain tried and true, new technologies and changing customer demands require culinary leaders to regularly seek education, training, and certifications as part of

389

their professional growth. This entry discusses the avenues for training within the food service industry, with particular focus on various types of programs and academic settings.

Types of Training Professional training infers special instruction to develop skills needed to improve job performance of personnel; it is usually short term and job specific. Managers and service personnel often seek short-term training in customer service, soft skills, and human resources. Specialized certifications and degrees, too, exist in restaurant management, wine, and hospitality studies, among others. Owners tend to concentrate on financial, marketing, and regulatory training to retain employees, customer loyalty, and fiscal health. Chefs combine hard-earned work experience with on-the-job training, professional development, as well as formal culinary education. Chefs and cooks enjoy the widest options for training as outlined below. On-the-Job Training

According to the NRA, a trade group that represents a half million businesses, more than 70% of eating and drinking establishments in the United States are single-unit operations. The vast majority of all restaurants have fewer than 50 employees. Therefore, training generally occurs in-house conducted by owners or managers with varied results. It is also common for food purveyors, distributors, equipment retailers, and service providers to train staff who use their products or wares. Within a traditional restaurant operation, the staff is typically divided between the “front-of-thehouse” and the “back-of-the-house.” The front handles customer service and relations, while the back focuses on food preparation. For restaurants, on-the-job training comprises the majority of educational activities, generally focusing on equipment, menu, and service associated within a particular operation. Cooks, chefs, and owners also participate in specialized technical and business training outside the restaurant.

390

Education in Food Service Industries

Corporate food service operations or companies with multiple units usually have elaborate guidelines and standards for service and food preparation. Specialized trainers teach standardized procedures according to company culture and requirements. Single-unit and independent restaurants that form the bulk of the industry train their employees using existing staff. Third-party companies also spotlight topics such as food safety training, supervision, customer satisfaction, wine pairing and serving, bar management, menu development, restaurant design, marketing, and communications. This training traditionally has been conducted on site with a certified facilitator, but increasingly, more online models and options that may incorporate mobile devices for a customized approach are available. Cooks and chefs receive on-the-job training specifically for a current menu or as they prepare for a new role or kitchen station. It is often trial by fire, learning on the fly, due to an unexpected absence or departure. Only well-staffed and prepared operations are able to systematically train their staff to move up through the ranks of a traditional kitchen brigade system—moving from prep cook, to various levels of cook, to sous chef  (assistant chef), and finally to head chef. On-the-job training for a cook often covers preparing an individual menu item; perfecting plate presentation; increasing speed, accuracy, or volume; and improving sanitation. Soft skills and management training receive less attention. In an industry defined by work ethic and a rigorous rite of passage, it is not uncommon to fire employees in lieu of adequately training them. Professional Development

Professional development involves the process of building skills and acquiring knowledge. Continuing education serves as among the most common means of acquiring culinary training. Workshops, demonstrations, and lectures are regularly offered by culinary and trade associations, postsecondary schools, trade and food shows, expositions, equipment purveyors, product manufacturers, and the like. Many times, these are

formal affairs, and the subject and duration of the training is documented. Employees use continuing education units to attain or maintain professional certification. Not surprisingly, many associations and schools also offer online coursework for continuing education units. Professional Associations and Certifications

Participation in professional culinary and hospitality associations offers growth to its members on many levels—through networking, community building and outreach, leadership roles, education, a code of ethics, and professional certifications. The NRA is particularly suited to serve the needs of owners, managers, and suppliers of the restaurant industry. The American Culinary Federation (ACF) and other professional hospitality and chef organizations have been particularly influential in promoting the professionalization of the culinary field. The ACF was founded in 1929 in New York City and has become the largest association of chefs and cooks in the United States. The principal goal of the ACF founding chefs remains true today: to promote a professional image of the American chef worldwide through education among culinarians at all levels, from apprentices to the most accomplished Certified Master Chefs of the culinary arts. The ACF therefore encourages academic institutions to adopt more rigorous standards and require additional education. Professional certifications generally attest to an individual’s level of experience and skill, often based on formal education, training, and knowledge. An applicant is judged in a lengthy and verified application process, coupled with written and practical exams. The ACF offers 14 different levels of certification, reflecting the diversity and specialization within the industry. The NRA’s main certifications are Foodservice Management Professional, ServSafe Alcohol, ManageFirst, and the industry-standard ServSafe food safety training program. The International Association of Culinary Professionals offers an overarching Certified Culinary Professional designation for culinarians, educators, and writers. The American

Education in Food Service Industries

Hotel & Lodging Educational Institute claims numerous hospitality certifications for chefs, service personnel, and restaurant and hospitality staff. Networking or community events serve as less formal but sometimes more effective methods for professional growth and development. Top chefs and restaurateurs in a community prepare food side by side in a single venue, trying to outdo each other in taste and presentation. Food festivals and charity events serve as wonderful platforms to bring cooks and chefs outside the four walls of their kitchen to share and learn from one another. Such networking can lead to creating new menu items, adopting new equipment or tableware, and enhancing career opportunities. Food service professionals pay close attention to service, ambiance, food, and menu when visiting other dining establishments or their direct competitors. For chefs, travel can provide inspiration and practical solutions to issues in their own market. Whether discovering new trends in the big city or exploring culinary cultures abroad, culinary travel yields experiences and knowledge for chefs to expand their professional repertoires.

Formal Training Programs Formal food service education occurs in professional cooking schools, traditional colleges, and increasingly rare apprenticeship programs. A professional cooking school refers to a place of learning that transmits the necessary skills, knowledge, and values of the culinary arts. This is contrasted to recreational cooking courses or programs by and large designed for the home cook and enthusiast. Apprenticeships

An apprenticeship system refers to on-the-job training combined with formal instruction in which workers learn the practical and theoretical aspects of a highly skilled occupation. The ACF oversees several paid culinary apprenticeship programs in the United States—a 1,000-hour, a 4,000-hour (2  years), a 6,000-hour (3 years), and a hybrid

391

program. Still common in Europe, culinary apprenticeships are labor-intensive in that they require willing technical experts to share their craft with the next generation. This system requires enormous dedication of resources from the master, and many kitchen operations place the burden of training on the employee instead. Therefore, the U.S. higher education model as expressed by colleges, community colleges, and vocational schools has largely supplanted the apprenticeship process. The apprenticeship system is a remnant of medieval guilds, in which master craftsmen passed trade knowledge to apprentices under contract. Guilds flourished in ancient China, India, Egypt, and Greece. During the Middle Ages in Europe, cooks, butchers, bakers, and brewers were early culinary professionals with guilds and apprenticeship systems, whereby a craftsman progressed from apprentice, to journeyman, to master. Within the premodern commercial realm, an apprenticeship system, particularly in Europe, ensured quality as well as exclusivity in food service since the number of masters permitted to operate within the  guild system was strictly limited. By the 18th century, though, the European apprenticeship and guild system diminished as the primary method for the transmission of professional culinary knowledge, though formal apprenticeships within restaurants operating in the free market still exist.

Programs of Study In keeping with the professionalization of their occupation, chefs began to establish places of training, associations, and codes of behavior, especially in the 20th century. The increased diversification and specialization of programs within culinary education is precipitated by numerous factors. Foremost among them is the professional drive to exclusivity in culinary knowledge and skills. In the United States, the two main technical fields of study within food service are culinary arts and pastry and baking, generally offered as a certificate or as an associate’s (2-year) degree. Bachelor’s degrees in these fields are also available at some institutions, but the emphasis is placed on management. Bachelor’s and master’s

392

Education in Food Service Industries

degrees are available in restaurant and hospitality management, as well as in related fields of public health and nutrition, dietetics, and food science. Advanced degrees in “food studies” are also offered at many universities. Food studies are noncooking, food-focused approaches to theories and concepts from traditional disciplines. The emerging academic field of food studies has made tremendous advances in promoting theory and practice during the past 20 years within the humanities and social sciences. Subjects such as agriculture, nutrition, food trade, hunger, and gastronomy, as they relate to organizational dynamics, stratification, or social construction, have received attention from scholars. Food-specific research and study are also supported in traditional academic fields and departments such as business, education, history, sociology, American Studies, and geography. It is increasingly common to find courses and programs in subfields or emerging areas such as catering, sustainability, farm-to-table, events management, travel and tourism, wine studies, molecular gastronomy, and modernist cuisine.

Training Venues Formal culinary training in the United States within an academic setting is a modern phenomenon. Training kitchens for quantity food production arose in the early 20th century to promote institutional catering in places such as schools, hospitals, prisons, and hotels. Professional cooking schools for executive chefs appeared only after World War II. The first school for professional chefs managed by professional chefs was the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, New York, established in 1946. Now, more than 500 postsecondary career culinary programs operate in the United States, with a majority of the schools appearing since the 1990s. Following a general trend within higher education, culinary specializations and degrees are also migrating to the online environment. High School Programs

Culinary arts are primarily taught within two distinct spheres in high schools—technical programs

and family and consumer sciences. While both fields focus on culinary standards and competencies, the former is designed to prepare students for the restaurant industry. There exists no single training or experiential path for becoming a high school culinary instructor, and programs vary greatly from school to school and state to state. The ACF Education Foundation Accrediting Commission has certified approximately 200 high school programs that have voluntarily applied to mark an assurance of a minimum of standards and competencies set for faculty, curriculum, and student services. The NRA also assists nearly 2,000 high schools with a 2-year ProStart program, which combines an industry-supported curriculum with a focus on practical skills necessary for food service. The Careers Through Culinary Arts Program prepares students for educational and career opportunities. SkillsUSA, an industry-driven initiative to ensure a skilled workforce, also has a culinary arts component. Family and consumer sciences, formerly called home economics, have a long history of teaching cooking, commercial preparation, nutrition, and food preservation to high school and college students. A nationwide student organization—the Family, Career and Community Leaders of America—includes programs on food production and service. Many high school culinary students continue a career in the food service industry and in postsecondary programs. Postsecondary

Education and cooking are two fundamental processes that sustain a society and reflect its values. These two activities predate the written word and contribute appreciably to the development of human civilization. Their formal convergence toward the end of the 20th century created many professional opportunities within the food service industry and within the nascent academic discipline of hospitality education. Formal culinary arts education has changed the paradigm for evaluating the transfer of cooking knowledge, techniques, and values from one generation of cooks to the next. At the postsecondary level, there are numerous categories of institutions that offer certificates,

Education in Food Service Industries

degrees, and further opportunities for study in the culinary arts and related fields. Traditional state or private 4-year colleges mainly offer bachelor’s degrees in lieu of associate’s degree or certificates. Bachelor’s degrees, grounded on a liberal arts foundation, contain core expertise in a field of study built on well-rounded and interdisciplinary curricula with the end learning goals of critical thinking and problem solving. Degrees that involve some elements of cookery are found in the disciplines of hospitality management and culinology at 4-year colleges. Culinology is a field of study that combines culinary arts and science to prepare research chefs. These degrees focus on a broad approach to management, revenue generation, and operations within the hospitality and culinary industries. Independent, not-forprofit, and nonprofit degree-granting colleges such as the Culinary Institute of America and Johnson and Wales offer 4-year degrees with a much higher ratio of hands-on cooking classes than are typically associated with a typical college education. Community colleges and for-profit, proprietary schools provide 2-year associate’s degrees and certificates in hospitality and culinary and pastry arts. Community colleges are publicly supported at the local level and serve multiple roles: college preparatory work, workforce training, and lifelong learning. These programs attract a wide range of students due to their local proximity, lower tuition costs, and vocational emphasis. Their goal is community workforce development, and programs are usually found in locales with regionally viable hospitality industry. Alternatively, proprietary colleges are accredited private institutions, function as businesses, receive no local funding, and pay taxes unlike other educational entities. They offer technical and career-specific training, diplomas, and degrees in culinary and hospitality fields. Culinary training at for-profit institutions provides broader accessibility for nontraditional college students through immediate, specific career training, flexible course schedules for working adults, and lower admissions requirements. Between the community colleges and for-profit institutions, there are specialized cooking schools

393

that teach only diploma and certificate programs in a variety of culinary areas. They may focus on regional cuisines such as Peruvian or Japanese, special diet or nutritional approaches like gluten-free or vegan, or focused techniques such as sausage making, cheese making, and canning. These nondegree offerings are available to professionals and enthusiasts alike. Culinary programs have been charged with producing employees for the food service industry, sometimes at the expense of individual learning, exploration, and growth. Culinary educators and, more important, culinary students would be greatly rewarded with a critical reflection of current practices. Simply stepping back from the habitual and customary kitchen demonstrations and considering new strategies for teaching may have long-lasting and even revolutionary effects on culinary education in particular, and the food service industry in general. A fresh approach to education that combines the best of humanistic and social learning theories with a results-oriented, practical application of training that today’s businesses demand can benefit adults in technical and career training programs. If the hospitality and food service industries judge competency of graduates based solely on employers’ needs, how can schools move beyond the level of on-the-job training? From a purely educational point of view, the student experience, foremost among them being student learning outcomes, should be paramount in cooking schools in contrast to industry needs for trained manpower. Working collectively, the food service community can cultivate talented professionals who will shape this industry for generations to come. Chef instructors teach students not only kitchen skills but also the business side of the industry, sanitation and safety, and respect for the field and its traditions. This means preparing the head, hands, and heart of a student—the necessary skills and character foundation for him or her to be successful at the workplace and in life. Glenn R. Mack See also Deskilling; Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities; Nutrition Education; Restaurant Chefs

394

Elderly Nutrition

Further Readings Baskette, M. (2004). On becoming a professional chef. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chalmers, I. (2008). Food jobs: 150 great jobs for culinary students, career changers and food lovers. New York, NY: Beaufort Books. Dornenburg, A., & Page, K. (2003). Becoming a chef. New York, NY: Wiley. Hamilton, D., Cornelio, L., & Papagni, C. (2009). Love what you do: Building a career in the culinary industry. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. Hegarty, J. A. (2004). Standing the heat. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. National Restaurant Association. (2013). Facts at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.restaurant.org/ News-Research/Research/Facts-at-a-Glance Ruhlman, M. (2009). The making of a chef: Mastering heat at the Culinary Institute of America. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Smilow, R., & McBride, A. (2004). Culinary careers: How to get your dream job in food with advice from top culinary professionals. New York, NY: Clarkson Potter. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Chefs and head cooks. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/foodpreparation-and-serving/chefs-and-head-cooks.htm

ELDERLY NUTRITION As people age and become less active, proper nutrition becomes a critical factor for maintaining good health, preventing disease, and improving overall quality of life. Over the past century, the percentage of Americans 65 years of age or older has more than tripled from 4.1% in 1900 to 12.9% in 2009. This increase has put enormous pressure on the health care system of the United States and on government programs designed to reduce poverty and food insecurity. This entry details the various government programs that have been implemented to address elderly nutrition. Federal Social Security (income support) and Medicare (medical support) are programs instituted to provide a safety net for America’s aged

population. Other government programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program— previously known as Food Stamps—and the Elderly Nutrition Program have become critical for maintaining the health of older people. The 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health called attention to the high level of hunger that existed in the United States. This first and only White House Conference on nutrition stimulated considerable interest in the link between nutrition and disease, especially in the elderly. On March 22, 1972, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 92-258, an amendment to the Older Americans Act (OAA) of 1965, which established a permanent, federally sponsored nutrition program to provide meals to the elderly. The impetus for this program was the 1961 White House Conference on Aging, which received critical attention in Congress due to the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs chaired by Senator George McGovern. In 1968, Congress authorized President Lyndon B. Johnson to fund several demonstration programs under Title IV of the OAA to test several models for delivering meals to the elderly. These demonstrations provided the know-how for the provision of home-delivered meals and meals provided at community facilities (congregate meals) such as in church basements and public function halls. The OAA home-delivered meal program, also called Meals on Wheels, was modeled after the many volunteer Meals on Wheels programs that had their beginnings in 1954. The congregate meals program was modeled on programs operated by Jewish settlement houses located in the lower east side of Manhattan in New York City. Two of the original demonstration programs were operated by the Henry Street Settlement House and the Hudson Guild-Fulton Senior Association. The fundamental reasons for creating homedelivered and congregate meal programs have not changed since 1972. The OAA declares that the purposes of these nutrition intervention programs are the following:

Elderly Nutrition

(1) to reduce hunger and food insecurity; (2) to promote socialization of older individuals; and (3) to promote the health and well-being of older individuals by assisting such individuals to gain access to nutrition and other disease prevention and health promotion services to delay the onset of adverse health conditions resulting from poor nutritional health or sedentary behavior.

For more than 40 years, these nutrition services have helped seniors remain healthy and independent in their communities. The programs also present opportunities for seniors to participate in meaningful volunteer roles, which contribute to their overall health and well-being. Homedelivered nutrition services are often the first in-home service that an older adult receives and serves as a primary access point for other home and community-based services. Home-delivered meals also represent an essential service for many caregivers, helping them maintain their own health and well-being. Funding for congregate and home-delivered nutrition services are allocated by formula to states and territories based on their share of the population age 60 and older. All meals meet the standards set by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines and provide a minimum of one third of the Dietary Reference Intake for key nutrients, as established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. The programs are administered within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by the Administration on Aging. Approximately 2.5 million older adults receive meals that they need to stay healthy and to decrease their risk of disability due to disease. Studies have found that 50% of all persons age 85  and older are in need of assistance with instrumental activities of daily living, including obtaining and preparing food. Nutrition programs help address these needs. Serving Elders at Risk, a national evaluation of Administration on Aging’s nutrition program clients, found that nutrition service recipients are older, are poorer, are more likely to live alone, are more likely to be minorities, are

395

in poorer health, have poorer nutritional status, are more functionally impaired, and are at higher nutritional risk than those in the general population. Nutrition services provide an important opportunity for social interaction that helps improve the general health status of participants, particularly homebound elders. A comparison of the number of social contacts of congregate and home-delivered meal participants showed that nutrition program clients had significantly more social contacts than people who did not participate in the program. In fiscal year 2011, home-delivered meal providers delivered 139.1 million meals to nearly 860,000 individuals, and more than 88.6 million congregate meals were served to more than 1.7 million seniors in a variety of community settings that same year. In recognition of the growing importance of nutrition and aging, Congress passed the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, which instructed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to establish an adult human nutrition research facility. With considerable fanfare and pride the U.S. Department of Agriculture Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging (HNRCA), located on the Health Sciences campus of Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, opened. The goal of the HNRCA is to explore the relationship between nutrition, physical activity, and healthy and active aging. HNRCA provides evidence-based research in support of the nutrition standards used by congregate and home-delivered meals programs. Joseph M. Carlin See also Dietary Guidelines and Graphics; Domestic Food Insecurity; Hunger; Nutrition Education

Further Readings Administration for Community Living. (n.d.). Administration on Aging (AoA) nutrition services. Retrieved from http://www.aoa.acl.gov/AoA_ Programs/HCLTC/Nutrition_Services/index.aspx Ponza, M., Ohls, J. C., Millen, B. E., McCool, A. M., Needels, K. E., Rosenberg, L., . . . Quatromonic, P. A.

396

Employment: U.S. Food Sector

(1996). Serving elders at risk—The Older Americans Act nutrition programs: National evaluation of the Elderly Nutrition Program 1993-1995. Princeton, NJ: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from http:// www.aoa.acl.gov/Program_Results/Nutrition_Report/ eval_report.aspx Rosenberg, I. H. (2009, January). History of the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University. Journal of Nutrition, 139(1), 192–193.

Websites Meals on Wheels Association of America: http://www .mowaa.org National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs: http://www.nanasp.org

EMPLOYMENT: U.S. FOOD SECTOR An estimated 20 million people, or one in five private sector workers and one sixth of the nation’s entire workforce, are employed by the U.S. food system. More than 85% of these 20 million workers are “frontline workers”—workers in physically demanding, nondesk jobs—making less than $20,000 per year. As producers, retailers, and restaurants compete to lower their prices and maximize profit, the burden of these low prices falls on the wages of these low-level workers. Responsible employment policy and its implementation is an essential component of a fair and functioning food chain. Yet the plight of U.S. food workers has been largely ignored, even as consumers become more concerned with food justice issues such as factory farming and local sourcing. This entry begins by describing the various sectors that constitute the food chain. Next, it explores employment regulations before turning to a discussion of labor issues and labor organizing. Last, this entry examines policy goals to ensure fair employment and working conditions going forward. Reports that rely on independent research and worker interviews, like Applied Research Center’s The Color of Food and the Food Chain

Workers Alliance’s The Hands That Feed Us, cited in this entry, are instrumental in improving our understanding of U.S. food system labor.

Food Chain Sectors Food chain employment can be divided into four sectors: (1) production (farmworkers), (2) processing (factory and slaughterhouse workers, animal processors), (3) distribution (warehouse workers and drivers), and (4) retail and service. From farm laborers and factory workers to chefs and grocery store owners, work in the food chain is wideranging and is found in nearly every neighborhood. These industries sell more than $1.8 trillion, or more than 13% of the national gross domestic product, in goods and services each year. Service and retail is the largest of the four sectors, with six of the 25 largest employers in the United States being food service and retailers. These six companies—McDonald’s, Kroger, Albertson’s, Safeway, Aramark, and Yum Brands—together employ more than 1.5 million Americans. This excludes employees of big-box retailers like Walmart and Target, though retail giants like these are beginning to dominate the food retail sector. In 2011, Walmart, which employs 1.4 million Americans, sold approximately $140 million in groceries—more than Kroger, Safeway, and Supervalu combined. Retail accounts for 13% of food chain jobs, while service accounts for 57%, or 11.4 million workers. These jobs are in restaurants, cafeterias, supermarkets, food trucks, and bakeries. These workers are often the only point of contact a consumer has with any part of the food chain. The distribution sector comprises mostly truck drivers and warehouse workers. This stage of the food system generally connects production and processing to retail and food service, so workers are involved in transportation, storage, and logistics. There are nearly 1.7 million workers in distribution, representing approximately 8% of food chain workers in 2010. Because this sector includes drivers, who are heavily unionized by powerful groups like the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters), the distribution

Employment: U.S. Food Sector

sector has the highest union density—29% are unionized. Many warehouse workers, though, are often temporary or part-time. Warehouse Workers for Justice is a labor justice organization focused on warehouse workers in Chicago, Illinois, one of the largest distribution hubs in the world. Warehouse Workers for Justice estimates that 70% of warehouse workers in Chicagoland are temps. The median hourly wage for an entry-level distribution worker is just over $13, but it is under $10 for Chicago warehouse workers. Distribution entrylevel workers are, on average, the highest paid entry-level workers among food system employees. Workers in the processing sector work in factories and plants, including slaughterhouses, turning raw ingredients into all types of finished food products that are then distributed to restaurants and stores. There are approximately 1.3 million processing workers, representing 7% of food chain jobs. The meatpacking industry is dominated by a few giant corporations, for whom most meat processers work. Tyson, Cargill, JBS, Perdue, and Hormel Foods are major processing employers. The food and meat processing sector tends to have greater mobility potential than most other sectors, and 16.7% of processing workers report earning living wages. Entry-level workers make around $13 per hour. However, these workers face high rates of work-related injuries because of the highly repetitive, fast-paced nature of factory work. Workers commonly report repetitive motion injuries, slips and falls, back injuries, and cuts. The rate of illness and injury for slaughterhouse and processing workers was over twice as high as the national average. Proper safety precautions and training and safer assembly line speeds can help reduce workers’ risk of injury on the job. Jobs in the production sector, which account for 15% of food system jobs, range from that of the iconic family farmer in the Midwest to the slaverylike conditions for farmworkers in the South. The Coalition of Imokalee Workers (CIW), a labor rights organization focused on the agricultural sector, has been at the forefront of advocating for these exploited farmworkers, who are often

397

subjected to subpoverty annual earnings and unstable, seasonal employment. The average hourly wage for a farmworker is $7.31. The CIW found that more than half of farmworkers are paid less than the federal minimum wage; in extreme cases, undocumented workers have been found working in conditions that meet the federal definition of slavery. Farmworkers are subject to perhaps the harshest working conditions of any food sector job, exposed to harsh sun and dangerous pesticides, often without water or breaks. The nonprofit WhyHunger reports that child labor is a continuing problem in production, where minors are reported working at almost double the rate of other food work. Despite these gross violations, most of the 2.2 million farms in the United States are small and have only a few employees, if any. Most farmers run small operations and many work other jobs off of the farm. Groups like the CIW have seen success in campaigns to raise the standard of living for exploited farmworkers.

Regulation and Labeling Food chain employers in the United States must comply with federal, state, and local employment regulations. At the federal level, the relevant statutes are the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, all of which are administered by the Department of Labor. The Fair Labor Standards Act sets minimum wage and overtime pay standards and, for agricultural jobs, prohibits the employment of children below 16 years of age in hazardous jobs or during school hours. Labor is also regulated for restaurant workers below 18 years of age. The Occupational Safety and Health Act regulates safety and health conditions in the workplace and is enforced through workplace inspections and investigations. Employers are required to provide proper training, protective gear, rest and meal periods, and a first aid kit. The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act are of particular import to the production sector,

398

Employment: U.S. Food Sector

where nearly six out of every 10 workers is an undocumented immigrant, according to a 2011 report by the Applied Research Center (ARC). Some federal employment laws exclude certain food chain workers from protection, either outright or because the laws are not enforced, such as farmworkers, tipped minimum wage workers, and workers who were formerly incarcerated. Increasingly, the United States has seen a consumer-based movement to define, regulate, and label products made using fair labor practices. Although the movement is divided, it is also prolific, with more than 150 “eco-labels” created in the past decade. Social certification groups and proponents see these labels as a mechanism for strengthening transparency and producer accountability. Nonprofit groups like Fair Trade USA aim to help differentiate fairly produced goods from the rest, so that producers can earn a higher premium and consumers can make informed buying decisions. Critics see the labels as hypocritical, undemocratic, and highly limited in influence. Attempts to develop fair-labor third-party certification standards are complicated by the logistical challenges of integrating these standards throughout supply chains, inconsistent enforcement, and doubt that these certification systems are effective or even worthwhile. Critics worry that labels like these shift responsibility away from government regulation and are subject to appropriation by corporations that create their own social labels that have much more relaxed standards (e.g., Starbucks’ oft-criticized “C.A.F.E. Practices”). In either case, as the effort to label fair-trade products continues, it will be crucial that companies seeking these labels see the values they symbolize, not the labels themselves, as the end goal.

tipped minimum wage has been frozen at $2.13 for 22 years. The ARC found, further, that wage theft is experienced by around one in three workers. Food chain workers experience low rates of upward mobility—75% told the Food Chain Workers Alliance they never had the chance to apply for a better job, and 81% have never been promoted. Workers use public assistance at high rates and often lack access to health care. Farmworkers experience especially high rates of food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition. Regulations to protect workers are often exploited or ignored by employers. Nearly 80% do not have paid sick days or don’t know if they do; 83% do not have health insurance benefits. As a result of a lack of health care, more than half of workers surveyed said that they came into contact with food while sick. Nearly 60% of workers were injured or suffered a health problem on the job. Approximately 300,000 farmworkers suffer from pesticide poisoning annually. Another 30% of food chain workers did not always receive a lunch break; 40% did not always receive a 10-minute break. The regulations being put in place to protect workers are not being effectively or meaningfully enforced. Issues of race and ethnicity inequality are prevalent in the food sector. People of color represent 42.1% of food chain workers, but only 34.6% of the population. They are especially overrepresented in the lowest wage jobs; few hold management positions. For example, the ARC reports that more than 83% of graders and sorters (physical laborers in the production phase) are people of color. Even among low-wage workers, people of color are underpaid. The ARC reported a median annual wage for white workers in the food system between 2006 and 2008 of $25,024 but just $19,523 for black workers and $18,438 for Latino workers.

Labor Issues

Organizing: Unions and Nonprofit Organizations

Labor issues in the food sector abound. Approximately 60% of food chain workers live at or below the federal poverty line. The median wage of a food chain worker was $11.02 per hour between 2006 and 2008, according to the ARC report; the

There are a number of unions and nonprofit organizations working to unite food sector workers and address inequality and danger in the workplace. Nonprofit organizations such as Restaurant

Employment: U.S. Food Sector

Opportunities Centers United, Coalition of Immokalee Workers, Just Harvest USA, Brandworkers International, and Food Chain Workers Alliance have seen success in their fight to improve food workers’ conditions. Key labor unions for the food sector include United Farm Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Service Employees International Union, UNITE HERE, Food and Retail Workers United, and Grocery Workers United. Fast food workers went on strike in 60 cities on August 29, 2013, as part of a campaign led by the Service Employees International Union to demand a living wage for workers. Strikes like these have continued across the country since, as workers demand representation and a living wage—as the Service Employees International Union slogan puts it “$15 and a union.” Sit-ins, walkouts, and picket lines have met with some success in the past few years, as many major U.S. cities have begun to respond to workers’ demands. In 2014, Seattle and Chicago voters passed bills to gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 and $13 per hour, respectively, over the next few years. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Baltimore seem poised to follow suit, and some private companies have led by example in their home states, paying their employees well despite the lack of living wage legislation. Meanwhile, opponents continue to argue that these laws disproportionately hurt small businesses and slow job creation.

Goals for the Future Going forward, advocates and policymakers have plenty of work to do to make the food system more just. More research and data (and funding for these projects) could contribute to a more comprehensive picture of current working environments and opportunities for mobility. Better functioning immigration policies could allow workers to demand humane treatment, organize, and advocate for themselves without fear. Advocates can work with employers to improve career pathways and teach them to create opportunities for employee leadership and self-advocacy. Consumers could benefit from

399

campaigns that emphasize the social impact of their buying choices. Policymakers working to improve working conditions in the food system have a number of goals. Raising the minimum wage, including the minimum tipped wage, is a prevalent goal. Guaranteed access to health care and paid sick days could improve food safety as well as worker well-being. There is potential for various regulatory and licensing processes to serve as fair-labor policy levers, such as procurement regulations, liquor licenses, food safety licenses, and governmental subsidies and loans. These processes could all require stricter labor standards. Exploitative or neglectful employers could be held responsible for wage theft, unsafe working conditions, and overworking employees with increased penalties. Certainly, those dedicated to improving employment policy in the U.S. food sector will find themselves with no shortage of work in the coming years. Grace Curran See also Boycotts; Catering Business, Off-Site; Fair Trade; Industry Labor and Labor Unions; Migrant Labor; Worker Safety

Further Readings Holmes, S. (2013). Fresh fruit, broken bodies: Migrant farmworkers in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jarayaman, S. (2012). The hands that feed us: Challenges and opportunities for workers along the food chain. Food Chain Workers Alliance. Retrieved from http:// foodchainworkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ Hands-That-Feed-Us-Report.pdf Liu, Y. Y., & Apollon, D. (2011, February). The color of food. Applied Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.raceforward.org/research/reports/ food-justice Rothenberg, D. (2000). With these hands: The hidden world of migrant farmworkers today. Berkeley: University of California Press. Thompson, C. D., Jr., & Wiggins, M. F. (2002). The human cost of food: Farmworker’s lives, labor and advocacy. Austin: University of Texas Press.

400

Endangered Species

ENDANGERED SPECIES The connection between endangered species and animals being hunted as food is exceptionally political. The term bushmeat has come to refer to the flesh of wild animals, such as elephants and primates, that are not traditionally understood as game animals (deer, moose, elk, rabbits, turkeys, partridges, etc.) and are also not being hunted for sport but for subsistence. Many animals consumed as bushmeat are classified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species as endangered or critically endangered. However, outside agents pressuring the overhunting of animals include climate change, deforestation due to the lumber industry, and other effects of the commercial exploitation of nature that disproportionally affect groups that have successfully relied on hunting for millennia. Another culprit in the rapid extinction of species, which many consider to be the far greater culprit, is urban development and agricultural activities resulting in the widespread loss of habitat. After briefly discussing the concept of endangered species, this entry turns to the factors that contribute to endangerment, with a focus on culture and conservation; it concludes with an examination of extinction through passive means.

What Is an Endangered Species? The concept of “endangered species” cannot be extracted from the ongoing process of species extinction, the first systematic proofs of which were offered by the 18th- to 19th-century French paleontologist Georges Cuvier (1769–1832). Over the course of 4 billion years of life on Earth, the planet has experienced five major mass extinction events, the most recent of which was the Cretaceous– Paleogene event (66 million years ago), resulting in the extinction of dinosaurs and the current domination of mammal life at the top of the food chain. As data continue to accumulate, biologists and geologists have now reached a majority consensus that the planet is currently experiencing the Sixth Extinction, unique among the five previous extinction

events in that it is caused by human activity. The notion of endangered species is tied to conservation efforts that not only hope to prevent a particular plant, animal, or fungi from going extinct but also attempt to ensure its continued viability in the wild (as opposed to survival via domestication, as a zoo specimen, or as archived seed or DNA sample). Preventive measures start with the collection of data that allow for the identification of a species, an assessment of its population over successive generations, and the identification of the primary factors contributing to its decline. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species identifies seven classifications of threatened species: (1) least concern, (2) near threatened, (3) vulnerable, (4) endangered, (5) critically endangered, (6) extinct in the wild, and (7) extinct. According to the IUCN, species that are classified as endangered or critically endangered must meet certain evaluative standards that place them at high risk of becoming extinct. A species is considered critically endangered if there is an “observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of ≥90% over the last 10 years or three generations” and endangered if the loss stands at ≥80%. Other factors contributing to the determination of its status are geographic range, narrowness of habitat, and number of reproductively viable adults. The IUCN lists are not comprehensive, covering only 5% of estimated marine life, for example. Of species that are named, many are identified as “data deficient.” The estimated number of species on the planet ranges from 10 million to 100 million. Even assuming that the low end is the correct figure, it would be a statistical impossibility to track all of them. Hence, some species that are listed as critically endangered may, in fact, already be extinct, and some species may be disappearing at a rate faster than the allocation of scientific resources committed to studying them. Current estimates of species going extinct annually range from 17,000 to 100,000.

Factors Contributing to the Endangerment of Species In the present (Holocene Era, 10,000 years to present), the three main factors contributing to species

Endangered Species

endangerment are (1) overhunting and overfishing, (2) destabilization of ecosystems, and (3) habitat loss. Of these three factors, the most damaging is the loss of habitat. The impact of this loss resonates through a 2012 IUCN-coordinated assessment authored by Jonathan Baillie and Ellen R. Butcher (both affiliated with the Royal Zoological Society of London) that lists the 100 most globally vulnerable species. A collaborative effort involving 8,000 scientists around the world, the 2012 assessment repeatedly identifies destabilization of ecosystems and habitat loss as forces driving the declining populations of living organisms. For example, hydropower development is the sole agent pushing the demise of white-bellied heron (Ardea insignis), now estimated to be no more than 70 to 400 individuals on the planet, whereas agricultural development is the sole agent resulting in the loss of the great Indian bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps), estimated at no more than 50 to 250 surviving specimens. In neither case is human hunting an agent in their precipitous decline, despite the fact that both herons and the great Indian bustard were historically prized as culinary game birds, the latter being especially desired for its exceptional flavor. However, overhunting and overfishing is a significant factor in the demise of approximately 20% of species now in accelerated decline. These include the Javan rhino (Rhinocerous sondaicus, now down to fewer than 100 specimens, and thus functionally extinct in the wild), which is poached for a horn that is used in traditional medicine; the Red River giant softshell turtle (Rafetus swinhoei, down to four specimens including one in the Suzhou Zoo, China, also functionally extinct), which is hunted as food; and the Okinawa spiny rat (Tokudaia muenninki, current population unknown), which is also hunted as food. However, the hunting is being done by feral cats. When a species is classified as endangered, additional legal protections are typically invoked. Thus, the “hunting” of the Red River giant softshell turtle is more accurately understood as “poaching” when conducted by humans and “predation” when conducted by human surrogates such as domesticated dogs, birds, and cats.

401

These  activities constitute 20% of the problem, but international efforts to curtail the consumption of bushmeat often do so because of the political challenges of confronting the root cause of the problem, which is first world consumption of third world resources. Poaching and predation are easy to cast as ethically moribund practices that commonsense and decency demand to be stopped. In reality, however, the circumstances driving poaching and predation are not so simple, and they have shown themselves to be extremely resistant to change.

Culture Versus Conservation In 2013, the New Zealander economist and businessman Gareth Morgan proposed that his country embark on a program to render itself cat free, as the domesticated pet has contributed to the extinction of at least a half dozen native birds and threatens to wipe out even more. In the absence of native predators, some birds indigenous to New Zealand, most notably the kiwi, evolved to be flightless. Of the five known species of kiwi, all of which are endemic to New Zealand, none are secure: the little spotted kiwi (Apteryx australis) is near threatened, and has gone extinct on the mainland; both the great spotted kiwi (Apteryx haastii) and southern brown kiwi (Apteryx australis) are vulnerable; the North Island brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) is endangered, and another, the Okarito kiwi (Apteryx rowi), is critically endangered. Without intervention, the kiwi’s fate is sure to follow that of the dodo bird (Raphus cucullatus), the emblematic creature signifying extinction through human actions. Long blamed on human hunting for food, the extinction of the flightless dodo is now known to have been the result of the predation by the human entourage: namely, domesticated cats and dogs, rats, and agriculturally invaluable pigs, all of which ate the birds’ eggs and their hatchlings. Neither cats nor dogs are native to New Zealand, and as such, they may be considered invasive species that are permanently altering the ecosystem. New Zealanders, however, rejected the possibility of any reduction in their pet cat population. They also refused to entertain

402

Endangered Species

the idea of restricting them indoors, as these actions would interfere with the human privilege of pet enjoyment.

Saving Animals Versus Conserving Plants The sphere of bourgeois sentiment has a limited range that rarely extends to wild animals and even less frequently to plants. When it does, it typically adopts a token animal that the historian Harriet Ritvo has called the “public pet.” Inside the zoo, the sentimental reflex can be activated by a captive exotic mammal equipped with an emotional narrative (Knut the polar bear) or by displays of comedic sociable behavior that mirror human quirks (monkeys and otters). As far as wild animals are concerned, the cultural apparatus of empathy has been extended to endangered charismatic megafauna such as Indian elephants and pandas from China, as well as to visually striking (and vulnerable) trees such as the California redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). It categorically excludes fungi, flies, rats, and other species that resist anthropomorphic projection as well as incorporation into a culinary equation. Of the critically endangered species identified by the IUCN, the unlamented species include the willow blister fungi (Cryptomyces maximus, current population unknown), Nelson’s small-eared shrew (Cryptosis nelson, population unknown), or a particular earwig that lives in the Seychelles (Antisolabis seychellensis, population unknown). Along with most life on the planet, they live and die in anonymity, succumbing to forces such as invasive species, land clearing for agriculture, logging, urban development, forest clearing, pollution, pesticides, climate change, road construction, water diversions, competition with livestock, mining activities, and the proximity of humans in general.

Extinction Through Passive Means Scientists wishing to collect data on endangered species are largely forced to frame their arguments according to the organisms’ perceived utility inside a commodity matrix, which holds that plants and

animals found in nature have no a priori right to exist unless they serve man, for example, as food, pharmaceutical, or pet. Even as commodity entities, however, endangered wild plants and animals are rarely perceived to be worth saving, as the recuperation of habitats sacrificed to hydropower machines and agricultural activities cannot be justified politically or economically. These human activities perturb mating and nesting patterns in many birds and mammals, not just white-bellied herons and great Indian bustards. These perturbations result in accelerated species decline through passive means, that is, the failure of new generations to be born in the first place, leading to a breeding population reducing itself at exponential rates. The morbid utility of the passive model lies in the fact that nobody is killing the plants and animals. They are merely dying out, as if by natural causes. Paula Lee See also Food Trends Leading to Diminished Species; Hunting; Overfishing and Fisheries Depletion

Further Readings Baillie, J. E. M., & Butcher, E. R. (2012). Priceless or worthless? London, UK: Zoological Society of London. Gannon, M. (2013, January 23). Could a cat ban in New Zealand save birds? Retrieved from http://www .livescience.com/26525-cat-eradication-new-zealandsave-birds.html Leakey, R., & Lewin, R. (1995). The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of life and the future of humankind. New York, NY: Doubleday. Ritvo, H. (1987). The animal estate: The English and other creatures in the Victorian Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Websites International Union for Conservation of Nature: http://iucn.org The Nature Conservancy: http://nature.org World Wildlife Fund: http://worldwildlife.org

Equal Opportunity Employment/Discrimination

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT/ DISCRIMINATION Equal opportunity employment refers to legislative prohibition against discrimination in terms of all aspects of the employment process, which includes the application process, hiring, referrals, and promotions. Furthermore, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed depriving prospects from employment based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or nationality. The establishment of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce federal antidiscrimination laws with respect to employment. The EEOC’s primary challengers were advocates of state’s rights who sought legislative loopholes to undermine by-products of the Civil Rights Act. Another challenge to the EEOC rests in the exemption of small businesses from accountability due to the relatively small number of employees. The EEOC has the responsibility to investigate discrimination allegations, and it attempts to settle the case if discrimination has occurred. This entry focuses on discrimination in the food industry and the EEOC’s attempts to alleviate it.

Exploitation The foundation of the food industry in North America rests on the exploitation of racial and ethnic minorities in various forms of formal and informal internal colonialism. Specifically, large sectors of U.S. food production came from African slaves, European immigrant indentured servants, postbellum sharecroppers, Asian immigrants in western regions of the United States, Mexican braceros, migrant and undocumented farmworkers dispersed throughout the United States, and agricultural squads consisting of prison inmates who are disproportionately racial minorities. In the early 21st century, the Bureau of Labor Statistics cited that the food industry contains five of the eight lowest paid jobs in the United States (see Lo & Jacobson, 2011). Beyond extreme low

403

wages and the idea that many workers lack health coverage as of the first decade of the 21st century, the U.S. Department of Labor has cited that agriculture ranks among the most dangerous occupations due to work-related injuries and illnesses (see Lo & Jacobson, 2011). In the late 19th century, prior to the advent of 20th-century worker safety standards, the meatpacking industry, such as the Chicago stockyards, delegated the most hazardous work to European immigrants and African American migrants from the South in the aftermath of the Great Migration. In 2008 alone, the U.S. Department of Labor reported 100 workrelated fatalities along with 300,000 injuries alone among poultry workers (see Lo & Jacobson, 2011). Furthermore, the food sector historically reflects a racial and ethnic “division of labor” such that whites disproportionately occupy salaried positions with livable to relatively high wages and health benefits; the remaining races tend to be segregated and highly concentrated in low-wage jobs. This racial pattern in the food industry appears in supervisory and management as in the case of processing and production. Furthermore, women workers in the food sector across racial lines collectively earn less than two thirds of their male counterparts. The hospitality industry has historically followed trends similar to the rest of the food industry such that restaurant employees have a greater share of white employees in “front-end” positions such as bartenders, waitstaff, and management. Racial and ethnic minorities and immigrants contain a greater share of “back-end positions” such as kitchen staff. The workforce of the low-wage fast food sector of the food industry, as well as with other low-wage industries, consists disproportionately of ethnic minorities. Some have argued that raising minimum wages will result in a reduction in the number of employees while reducing the incentive for new businesses to emerge; this ideology, however, has counterevidence. According to a 1994 case study in New Jersey and Pennsylvania by David Card and Alan B. Krueger, the effects of raising minimum wage had no impact on the labor market

404

Equal Opportunity Employment/Discrimination

or the business environment. However, consumers willingly paid the difference through increased prices on products and services.

Discrimination Retail, which includes the food industry, has a history of structural gender-based discriminatory practices in terms of the promotion of women to positions of authority such as upper level management or administration. Job vacancy gender-neutral postings that indicate a minimum number of years of experience appear gender neutral, yet such postings reflect subtle forms of patriarchal privilege and hidden racial biases. As a “consequence of childbirth” in conjunction with hegemonic influence on dominant culture, women have a significantly increased likelihood of refraining from employment for bearing children and postnatal caregiving in comparison to their male counterparts. Such common scenarios give men an advantage over women in terms of not having the additional structural barrier that reduces the number of service years. Furthermore, the effects of total discrimination, which prevented women from entering male-dominated positions, or of racial and ethnic minority exclusion until recently were manifest in traditionally underrepresented groups collectively lacking workplace seniority privileges. Discrimination in the food industry may also occur through “white privilege.” This concept has evidence in collective data that suggest that across industry, company size, or occupation, names that are presumed to indicate that the prospect is white receive 50% more callbacks for interviews. According to qualitative research conducted by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan (2004), résumés with names that indicated presumed “blackness” required eight additional years of experience to receive the same rate of callbacks from prospective employers. As a result, African Americans with experience and credentials have an increased likelihood of receiving a callback from a prospective employer but at a significantly lower rate than their white counterparts. White privilege also entails the benefit of not having coworkers suspect

one’s presence in the workplace based on race rather than skills and qualifications. Discrimination in the food industry also occurs in the form of deprivation such as limiting the access of large populations to food retailers. Urban food deserts result from major food retailers abandoning inner cities for the more affluent suburbs. The resulting effect on the socially constructed food deserts lay in the macrolevel nutritional deprivation due to residents having limited access to fruits and vegetables. Furthermore, the suburbanization of food retail parallels the depletion of employment in the vicinity of urban, nongentrified “sub-middle-class” communities.

Affirmative Action The U.S. president John F. Kennedy initiated affirmative action in 1961 as a means to aggressively place pressure on employers who remain reluctant in terms of hiring applicants from underrepresented groups. Such underrepresented groups include racial and ethnic minorities and women. Affirmative action legislation became enacted under the Lyndon B. Johnson administration (1963–1969). Affirmative action furthermore addressed some forms of institutional discrimination such as height and weight requirements for employment. Such requirements place some racial and ethnic groups at a genetically predetermined disadvantage. Affirmative action also examines the role of seniority, which results in practices such as “last hired, first fired” that places previously excluded groups at a disadvantage in the occurrence of downsizing, layoffs, and reduction of staff. Furthermore, affirmative action scrutinizes the practice of nepotism such that nonrelatives of unions or companies become prone to exclusion. Yet affirmative action faces limitations in its ability to examine the practice of informal nepotism such as nonunionized networks in which subtle exclusionary hiring occurs. The practice of tokenism in hiring practices manifests itself when a member of an underrepresented group becomes employed but used for public display to show a minimum level of diversity. Tokenism fails to eradicate discrimination in employment because the presence of the one

Equal Opportunity Employment/Discrimination

minority group member functions as a means to justify not hiring any additional prospects of such minority group member status.

Reverse Discrimination The notion of reverse discrimination became increasingly prominent in reaction to the enactment of affirmative action and other variants of aggressive recruitment efforts favoring members of underrepresented groups. Claims of reverse discrimination occur when such recruitment efforts and hiring practices unfairly exclude qualified white men. In the mid-1980s, the EEOC brought a sex discrimination case against Sears, Roebuck and Company, alleging that Sears failed to hire and promote women into commissioned sales positions. In 1986, the district court ruled in favor of Sears, essentially establishing that underrepresentation does not necessarily imply discrimination—a ruling that had broad industrial consequences. The case contributed to the reduction of the incentive to actively recruit women and minorities as underrepresented groups for employment.

Sexual Harassment The issue of sexual harassment in the workplace emerged in the mid-1970s mainly as an issue of mistreatment of women employees in subordinate positions. For most of history and throughout all sectors, positions of power have belonged disproportionately to men. The meaning of sexual harassment contains problematic elements due to the context of the act and interpretation of all actors involved. Factors that constitute sexual harassment include unwanted sexual attention and the abuse of power. Therefore, determining the occurrence of sexual harassment becomes subject to individual judgments under the guise of objective investigation. Collectively, both public and private sector employers in the United States have increased their efforts at training their workforce on a broad range of activities that could possibly lead to sexual harassment charges. Such actions serve as an effort to prevent the workplace from becoming a hostile environment and to reduce employers’ liability.

405

Conclusion The Civil Rights Act of 1964 legally ended blatant employment discrimination. While progress occurred collectively for women and racial and ethnic minorities, subtle and implicit forms of exclusionary hiring practices have remained persistent. Furthermore, the employment, wage, and income disparities have also remained persistent among the sexes and races. To purge discrimination, counterevidence lies in attributing such disparities to differences in human capital rather than the labor market itself, as noted by William A. Darity Jr. and Patrick L. Mason. Criminal background check forms may serve as means by which employers can evade policies against using race, sex, or age in the decision-making process regarding hiring practices. Without asking for race, sex, or age on an employment application, the prospective employer has the ability to withhold processing an application without a completed background check form, which contains such information. Without actually checking the background, the employer may obtain information such as birthday, sex, and racial classification from the criminal background check form. Currently, the EEOC does not provide sufficient legislative protection against discrimination against former felons who have completed their sentence. In the United States, racial discrimination has existed in the justice system in terms of both victim discounting (i.e., reducing the seriousness of crimes against minorities) and differential justice (i.e.,  treating minorities differently within the system); nevertheless, beyond sentencing, former criminals become subject to legal exclusion and permanent disenfranchisement. When discrimination in employment occurs, the presumed victims face the challenge of proving their case. Attorney fees for such cases can be expensive for individuals with modest levels of affluence. Furthermore, such cases have the potential of becoming prolonged, which further increases the cost but does not guarantee a legal victory. Michael D. Royster

406

Ethnic Foods, Marketing of

See also Employment: U.S. Food Sector; Food Deserts; Migrant Labor

Further Readings Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. Darity, W. A., Jr., & Mason, P. L. (1998). Evidence on discrimination in employment: Codes of color, codes of gender. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 63–90. David, C., & Krueger, A. B. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review, 84(4), 772–793. Dobbin, F., Sutton, J. R., Meyer, J. W., & Scott, R. (1993). Equal opportunity law and the construction of internal labor markets. America Journal of Sociology, 99(2), 396–427. EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F. Supp. 1264 (N.D. Ill. 1986), aff’d, 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988). Lo, J., & Jacobson, A. (2011). Human rights from field to fork: Improving labor conditions for food sector workers by organizing boundaries. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 5(1), 61–82. Mead, M. N. (2008). Urban issues: The sprawl of food deserts. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(8), A335. Milkman, R. (1986). Women’s history and the Sears case. Feminist Studies, 12(2), 375–400. Newman, K. S. (1999). No shame in my game: The working poor in the inner city. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Royster, D. (2003). Race and the invisible hand: How white networks exclude black men from blue collar jobs. Berkeley: University of California Press. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York, NY: Random House.

patterns in the United States as well as attitudes toward national identity, specific groups, and food in general. It also requires a balancing or negotiation of exoticness and familiarity to sell those foods. In doing so, it raises numerous issues concerning the definitions of ethnicity, multiculturalism in a democratic nation, and the implications of commodifying cultural traditions and identity. Authenticity of the foods being marketed and respectful portrayal of ethnic cultures also are issues. To further complicate matters, issues are also shaped by who is doing the marketing and to whom. After discussing these issues, this entry further examines the marketing of ethnic foods using three examples.

What Are Ethnic Foods and What Is Ethnicity? Ethnicity is an identity based on a cultural or national heritage but existing within another culture. This type of identity is both “differential,” in that it is defined in contrast to the other more dominant culture as well as other surrounding cultures, and it is “situational,” in that it is displayed and highlighted differently according to different contexts (situations). Although physical appearances and race are often associated with ethnicity, they do not necessarily correspond because ethnicity is a cultural category referring to worldview, heritage, patterns of behavior, forms of expression, language, and other primarily intangible aspects. Ethnicity is expressed through food and other material forms, but those forms can also be possessed and used by individuals not sharing that identity. Ethnic foods, then, are foods associated with and considered distinctive to a specific ethnic group and that contrast with what is considered the normative mainstream foodways.

Marketing to Whom and by Whom

ETHNIC FOODS, MARKETING

OF

The marketing of ethnic foods historically reflects the history of immigration to and settlement

Marketing strategies differ when selling an ethnic food to members of that ethnic group as opposed to outsiders or mainstream consumers. Ethnic consumers are assumed to be familiar with the food, its uses and meanings, and desiring it out of

Ethnic Foods, Marketing of

nostalgia for homeland or past, a seeking for the familiar in a foreign environment, or other cultural reasons—health, taste, notions of proper food, religious or ethical considerations, and celebration or ritual uses. The emphasis in marketing then is on the familiarity and authenticity of the food and the ways in which it reinforces memories of home and social ties with others in the group. This type of marketing was historically done by word of mouth, at community events, through bulletin boards and other informal spaces, as well as through ethnic-language newspapers and other media circulating within that community. The producers of the marketing were generally members of the ethnic group. Marketing ethnic foods to mainstream consumers has historically required very different strategies, and these reflect the attitudes of the time and place. Overall, such marketing has to first establish the edibility and palatability of that food, emphasizing the ways in which it fits into mainstream food ethos and taste. Its exoticness is then treated as an “add-on” that adds some novelty to a meal or an event. Prior to the 1960s, marketing frequently attempted to dispel notions of ethnic foods as being unsanitary, unhealthy, or too strange and, frequently, presented them as inexpensive and convenient. A number of events in the mid-1900s began opening consumers’ palates to foreign and ethnic foods—World War II and the exposure of U.S. service people to new cultures; new mobility for individuals due to the automobile; the emergence of electronic media, such as the television; and social upheavals in the 1960s that called for recognition of diversity and challenging of the status quo. The late 1900s and early 21st century saw a continued “space–time compression” (globalization) in the world, which has been translated into familiarity with and access to a huge variety of foods from around the world and lifting some of the stigmas from ethnic foods. Also, social movements calling for changes to the food system and to the ways in which we think about food have increased awareness—and positive stereotypes—of ethnic food cultures. Marketing to mainstream consumers then taps into those

407

attitudes, highlighting the ways in which ethnic foods can take us into another culture, can be a form of culinary tourism and adventure, can improve our health and nutrition, can be a strategy for environmental and economic sustainability, and can allow participation in alternative lifestyles and belief systems. Also, although much ethnic food is still produced by small, family-run businesses, large corporations dominate the mainstream distribution and selling of food in general. Some ethnic businesses have joined this corporate system or have been bought out by them, while others are focusing on niche marketing to survive. Advertising, including that of ethnic foods, by large corporations uses a variety of media, including radio, television, Internet, printed flyers, newspapers, and magazines, as well as branding and brand placement (e.g., placing a product in a film).

Examples of Marketing The most widely accepted ethnic foods in the United States are Chinese, Italian, and Mexican. These have been popularized through various marketing strategies, but these also demonstrate the ways in which ethnicity homogenizes that culture (erasing regional, class, religious, and even ethnic traditions within that home culture) and stereotypes it, usually highlighting whatever contrasts with the host culture. They also illustrate the general pattern in the United States of new cuisines being introduced through lower status groups and then gaining widespread acceptance through low-cost and low-price outlets, including fast food industries, before being taken seriously as respected cuisines by mainstream markets. Italian food is a good example of how marketing can help ethnic foods be incorporated into mainstream food culture and lose their ethnic identification. Italian Americans in the mid-1800s were the first large producers and distributors of vegetables traditional to Italy but uncommon in the United States. Italian immigrant farmers in California and the Mid-Atlantic raised these crops, initially selling them through peddlers and familyrun grocers in Italian neighborhoods and then

408

Ethnic Foods, Marketing of

through central markets in urban centers. For mass marketing, though, producers emphasized similarities between Italian and American cultural values and culinary cultures. D’Arrigo Bros., for example, in 1924, marketed broccoli with a picture of the toddler son of one of the brothers. In 1928, the company began advertising on an Italian language radio station in Boston, Massachusetts, that also included nutritionists promoting the benefits of the vegetable. Eventually, broccoli lost its ethnic association, and the brand itself was accepted in mainstream markets, enabling it to then introduce other unfamiliar Italian produce, such as eggplants, bell peppers, zucchini, plum tomatoes, garlic, and herbs (oregano, basil, marjoram, and fennel). The success of mainstream marketing ironically also threatened the survival of these food producers within their ethnic constituents, because the authenticity of the product now came into question. For example, the Progresso label was started by Italian Americans in the early 1900s, selling primarily to small Italian stores. After World War II, it ventured into supermarkets, getting the Winn-Dixie chain to develop an Italian foods section in order to attract new customers but also keep the older, ethnic ones. Such sections not only implied authenticity of the products but also suggested that they would be acceptable to mainstream American tastes and expectations. The company also produced radio and print advertisements that included letters from Italians in Italy endorsing their products, again emphasizing their authenticity. Italian immigrants from the mid-1800s and into the mid-1900s were frequently stereotyped as dirty, lazy, and dishonest. Their food similarly was stereotyped as unwholesome, lacking in nutrition and taste, and produced and consumed in unsanitary conditions. In fighting these negative associations, marketing transformed some Italian foods beyond recognition. Canned spaghetti, for example, was accepted only after it was produced under the Franco-American label, associating it with another, more accepted culinary culture. Pizza, similarly, began as “Italian pie” and was available only in Italian enclaves in the urban East Coast. After

becoming an all-American food after World War II, it is now consumed by individuals of any background and is often marketed according to regional U.S. variations. Although some negative stereotypes of Italian Americans still exist, the ethnicity—and its food— on the whole has become part of generic American culture. Marketing capitalizes on that as well as on the image of Italy as a land of good food and wine as well as romance. Authenticity is a valued quality in this marketing, as seen in the advertising and packaging of wine, olive oil, pasta, and other “Italian” goods. Also, Italy is thought of as part of the “Mediterranean diet,” so that identifying food as Italian suggests that it is healthy, as in Italian salad dressing. Mexican food has similarly been stereotyped as dirty and unwholesome. Because of the historical relationship and geographic proximity of Mexico to the United States, Mexican culture has historically held a low status. Mexican food has been characterized as unfit for civilized humans, consisting of either the same ingredients recycled into different forms or of animal parts not considered edible or palatable by AngloAmericans. Marketing, therefore, has emphasized the strict sanitary conditions in which the food was prepared along with the careful attention to acceptable ingredients. At the same time, Mexican American food tends to be marketed as inexpensive, so producers have to balance the quality of the ingredients with the suspicions of the public. Also, some authentic traditional dishes and ingredients—such as barbacoa (cow cheek), tongue, and menudo (tripe soup)—were simply not marketed to the public. Now that Americans’ tastes are expanding, some companies do offer them as authentic tastes of Mexican food. The heavy use of chili peppers in Mexican American cooking historically contrasted vividly with the milder British- and German-based American culinary culture and raised suspicions about the health impacts as well as the morality of eating such spicy food. Marketing of Mexican food to mainstream Americans thus played down the spiciness and offered a choice in the degree of

Ethnic Foods, Marketing of

spiciness purchased. Salsa is now a staple in American food culture and is produced, marketed, and consumed by non–Mexican Americans. Mexican food was also marketed as a party food and as something easy and different from routine and healthy everyday fare. Playing on Mexico as an inexpensive tourist destination and stereotypes of Latin Americans being “big partiers,” this image has helped turn Mexican dishes, such as salsa, burritos, and tacos, and American spin-offs, such as hard taco shells, tortilla chips, and wraps, into popular, inexpensive, and convenient refreshments for celebrations or just times of relaxation. Although this type of marketing seems to be financially successful, it ignores the richness of Mexican culture and history as well as the complexity of the American colonialization of that culture. The history of Chinese food in the United States illustrates how marketing has continued to balance exoticness with familiarity. Introduced into California in the 1860s, it quickly became established as a quick and inexpensive restaurant and boarding house fare. Chinese entrepreneurs marketed to non-Chinese by offering “dollar meals” of already proven favorites, by adapting to American tastes and food ethos, and even creating new dishes, such as chop suey. The versatility of traditional Chinese cooking styles enabled them to use whatever ingredients were on hand or were acceptable to customers, but the style was also different enough to retain its exoticness. Those differences have continued to be an aspect of marketing of Chinese food, while reassurances of the cleanliness, safety, and edibility of the food also tend to be necessary. Like Mexican food, Chinese food has also been marketed as somewhat marginal, but therefore exciting and appropriate for a break from routine. An ad for La Choy (probably in the 1950s) illustrates the marginal place given to Chinese food as something for a fun, social meal, proclaiming it a “versatile food for maid’s-night-out,” convenient, sold everywhere, and “prepared and packed in spotless surroundings.” Also, like Mexican food, Chinese food was largely commercialized and distributed through non-Chinese entrepreneurs. In the current

409

atmosphere of adventurous eating and using exotic foods as cultural and social capital, marketing frequently features the authenticity of Chinese regional cuisines now available in the United States. Lucy M. Long See also Ethnic Grocery Stores; Ethnic Restaurants; Exotic Food and Strange Food

Further Readings Absolute Michigan. (n.d.). Michigan history: A wok down memory lane with La Choy. Retrieved from http:// absolutemichigan.com/michigan/michigan-history-awok-down-memory-lane-with-la-choy/ Charles, J. (2012). Searching for gold in Guacamole: California growers market the avocado, 1910-1994. In W. J. Belasco & P. Scranton (Eds.), Food nations: Selling taste in consumer societies (pp. 131–154). New York, NY: Routledge. Coe, A. (2009). Chop suey: A cultural history of Chinese food in the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Denker, J. (2007). The world on a plate: A tour through the history of America’s ethnic cuisine. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Diner, H. R. (2001). Hungering for America: Italian, Irish, and Jewish foodways in the age of migration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ferrero, S. (2001). Comida Sin Par: Consumption of Mexican food in Los Angeles: “Foodscapes” in a transnational consumer society. In W. J. Belasco & P. Scranton (Eds.), Food nations: Selling taste in consumer societies (pp. 194–219). New York, NY: Routledge. Gabaccia, D. R. (1998). We are what we eat: Ethnic food and the making of Americans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gabaccia, D. R. (2002). As American as Budweiser and pickles? Nation-building in American food industries. In W. J. Belasco & P. Scranton (Eds.), Food nations: Selling taste in consumer societies (pp. 175–193). New York, NY: Routledge. Ku, R. J.-S., Manalansan, M. F., IV, & Mannur, A. (Eds.). (2013). Eating Asian America: A food studies reader. New York: New York University Press.

410

Ethnic Grocery Stores

Levenstein, H. A. (1993). Paradox of plenty: A social history of eating in modern America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Levenstein, H. A. (2002). The American response of Italian food, 1880–1930. In C. Counihan (Ed.), Food in the USA: A reader (pp. 75–90). New York, NY: Routledge. Pillsbury, R. (1998). No foreign food: The American diet in time and place. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

ETHNIC GROCERY STORES Ethnic grocery stores or markets are shops owned and run by members of a particular ethnic group for members of the same group. They are often owned and staffed by members of the same family, including teenagers and grandparents. Such markets emerge once a critical mass of individuals from a particular region or country settle in a neighborhood or town. They provide foodstuffs generally unavailable at mainstream markets and imported from the home country or made fresh. Such items include a variety of fresh, dried, and canned fruits and vegetables; dry ingredients such as grains, legumes, flours, noodles, and spices; yeast and flat breads; canned items imported from the home country; and fresh, frozen, smoked, pickled, brined, or otherwise preserved and frozen fish, shellfish, and meat. What frequently characterize these groceries are food aromas, which are typically missing from mainstream chain groceries. This entry begins with a discussion of ethnicity and otherness. Next, it presents the history of grocery markets and describes present-day mainstream markets. The entry concludes with an examination of ethnic grocery stores as community centers.

Ethnicity and Otherness Ethnicity is a category that marks otherness. An American market in Holland would be an ethnic grocery, as would an Italian store in Ethiopia. Prior to the 1960s, stores carrying products of relevance to a particular culture group might have

borne the name of the group they originally served or that of the owner (further keying a particular culture group), but they would not have been called “ethnic.” They were just markets in a particular neighborhood with high concentrations of a particular culture group. For example, Philadelphia’s approximately 100-year-old Italian Market refers to a large block in South Philadelphia of open-air shops and family-run businesses selling (mostly) a single type of product (meats, fish, cheeses, pasta, coffee, baked goods, etc.). While multigenerational businesses selling exclusively Italian (or Italian American) products continue, there are now also hundreds of other shops catering to a variety of culture groups, especially new refugees and immigrants, as well as Italian Americans and culinary tourists. Similar markets and neighborhoods exist or have existed in cities and towns throughout the United States—(Jewish) delis in New York’s Lower East Side and in Chicago, Illinois; Chinatowns in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California; Little Italies in San Diego, California, and Baltimore, Maryland; Little Egypt in Astoria-Queens, New York; Bosnian “European” markets in Des Moines, Iowa; or Basque groceries in Boise, Idaho.

History of Groceries Historically, all grocery stores might be considered ethnic or at least regional, for they catered to homogeneous groups of people from a relatively small locale. Throughout much of human history, markets served as temporary meeting places— covered or open-air spaces at natural gathering places. Some were annual or semiannual events near harvest areas such as rivers or coasts, whereas others became monthly or weekly events, which eventually grew into market towns. For instance, in the pre- and postcolonial northwestern part of what is now the United States, indigenous peoples who fished along the Columbia River and its tributaries would net, spear, or hook huge quantities and several varieties of salmon, which they would roast or dry and trade with other tribal groupings from hundreds of miles away. Such regional

Ethnic Grocery Stores

“markets” were dependent on the time of year for salmon and steelhead trout runs. As well, they would serve, as do all markets, as places for individuals and groups to gather together, trade, and socialize. French, Russian, and eventually American trappers and traders subsequently joined in with some of this commerce and developed trading posts, which further served to colonize the West. As with most ethnic markets, even today, different cultural influences affected what people sold and purchased. In areas that practiced agricultural methods of producing food, farmers would bring their produce to villages one or more times a week. This created regular times and spaces for the exchange of goods as well as conversation and news. As towns grew, butchers, bakers, and fish mongers (sellers) in many countries established freestanding shops, patronized by villagers as well as peddlers who brought in dry goods from afar. In many regions, such individual shops continue to exist to serve particular neighborhoods or small towns, though in many cases, they’ve been incorporated into larger covered or brick-and-mortar buildings, as they have in much of the United States and Europe. Regardless of permanence, all such stores tended to cater to relatively homogeneous populations and were thus essentially ethnic stores, even though mainstream Euro-American populations do not tend to consider themselves or their foods as ethnic.

Mainstream Groceries Around the World Markets become marked as ethnic only when they are contrasted with groceries recognized as mainstream. The latter, now usually chain or big-box stores, carry the staples for putting together everyday or holiday meals as well as prepackaged and convenience foodstuffs. In the United States, staples include bread, milk, cheese, butter, fruits, vegetables, dried and canned legumes (beans), meats, fish, flour, cereal, pasta, nut and vegetable oils, condiments, packaged cookies, ice cream, and so on, as well as the most common juices—orange, apple, and grape. Prepackaged and convenience foods include boxed cake mixes,

411

macaroni and cheese kits, frozen foods such as ingredients (fruits and vegetables), main dishes for oven or microwave, side dishes (pasta, vegetables, various casseroles), breads, desserts, and juice concentrates. Fresh fish and meat counters include a variety of raw precut or cut-to-order beef, pork, lamb, and chicken as well as common seafood such as salmon, cod, and shrimp. Regional varieties of crab, lobster, clams, scallops, or oysters plus more locally available fish may also exist in larger or higher end markets; frozen fish—raw and prepared—are somewhat more ubiquitous. Readyto-eat products, as well as those that have been processed but are still in need of cooking, such as breaded fish or chicken, sausage, or fish sticks and cakes, are also available. Mainstream groceries in other countries stock the staple and special foods of relevance to majority populations. Those also tend to be the foods that ethnic markets carry in countries where immigrants settle. In European countries, mainstream markets include much of the above but tend to feature more locally and artisanally produced items such as cheeses, pastries, breads, sausages, pâtés, wines, and vinegars. In much of Asia, rice is a major staple, thus, stores carry a wide variety of aromatic and flavorful rice of different grades, as well as soybean products, fermented fish pastes and sauces, fresh and preserved eggs (not just chicken but duck and quail), dried and fresh fish and fungi, and various aromatic spices. In central Latin America and the American southwest, one would expect to find corn or flour tortillas, masa (corn dough for making tortillas, tortas, and tamales), dried beans, a large variety of fresh fruits, posole, a huge variety of chilies (dried and fresh), and fresh meat and fish—though specific shops carrying baked goods, meats, fish, vegetables, and pastries are more common, as they are throughout the world. Not all Latino markets are the same, however. Peruvian markets carry a large variety of potatoes. Brazilian ones stock a wide variety of coffees, tropical juices (acai, coconut, papaya, cashew, mango, passion fruit, pineapple), and regional specialties such as pão de queijo (cheese

412

Ethnic Grocery Stores

bread), coxinha (chicken-filled breaded and fried dumplings resembling chicken legs), and pastéis (pastries). In Bosnia, and throughout the Slavic countries, kajmac (a salted, cultured, cream cheese–like spread or topping), ajvar (a roasted red pepper and eggplant condiment), Turkish coffee, and a variety of breads and meats are common. Middle Eastern markets sell labneh and yogurt (cultured milk products), as well as legumes, flat breads, and fresh or canned, stuffed, or pickled vegetables. In parts of Africa, especially those in South Sudan or Kenya, corn and teff flours are common and are used for breads, cereals, and pastas; such markets also sell a large variety of teas, preserved fruits, and large, soft, and flat breads made from fermented batters. Asian Indian markets feature varieties of aromatic rice, dried spices and herbs to be ground and mixed, dried legumes, fresh fruits and vegetables, and teas. What distinguishes American mainstream grocery stores from those in other countries are a greater predominance of processed and packaged foods versus fresh foods. Magnitude is also frequently a factor, with big-box stores often the size of city blocks. Regardless of size, most American chain stores do have ethnic food aisles, often labeled as such and containing various sections with either generic, homogenized versions of “foreign” (i.e., those still considered nonwhite) foods; these are most commonly Mexican, Asian, and Jewish, which have acquired more generic appeal over time. But there are also full aisles with shelves stocked with varieties of pasta and sauces. These are not labeled “Italian” because most Americans today do not regard these as foreign foods; commercial brands have ameliorated their “ethnic” identity. The same has occurred with foods such as hummus, pita bread, tortillas, tacos, egg rolls, and even sushi; a similar phenomenon exists for Asian Indian markets, which carry British foods, the legacy of colonialism—just as Vietnamese and Cambodian shops sell French baguettes. In any case, one tends to find a discreet amount of more culturally specific traditional foods in areas with significant new refugee and immigrant populations but usually only when particular markets employ

workers from those groups. Nonetheless, the main purpose of mainstream chain supermarkets is not to serve a minority market segment but to provide enough of an indicator that such shoppers are welcome in a particular store. Given the way those aisles are labeled, however, it is likely that the mainstream stores will end up diversifying offerings for their usual customers rather than expanding their clientele; most newcomers tend to shop in markets and groceries run by those from their own culture.

Ethnic Markets and Community Ethnic markets cater primarily to certain populations, and they particularly counter the food desert problem encountered in both rural and urban areas, providing convenience stores that serve specific cultural needs. The owners tend to be among the early arrivals and/or those who operated food businesses in their home countries. They speak the same language and establish shops where they and their fellow country people live and work. Such stores stock canned, dried, boxed, bottled, or otherwise preserved foods that carry the taste of home for those who now live in a foreign land. Besides particular foodstuffs, ethnic grocery stores carry a variety of utensils for preparing specific dishes or drinks in traditional ways—for example, bamboo steaming baskets in Southeast Asian markets, Turkish coffee pots and serving pieces in Bosnian groceries, or tortilla presses in Mexican markets. As well, such groceries also stock traditional medicinal herbs and teas along with culinary herbs and spices unavailable anywhere else. Ethnic groceries also tend to subsume the range of smaller single-product shops, such as bakeries, meat markets, fish stalls, and the like, much like American mainstream groceries. They sometimes also offer homemade foods for quick or carryout meals or even start small carryout counters that morph into restaurants if they become sufficiently popular. But ethnic groceries are not just about supplying foods. They usually also carry relevant sacred items such as candles, prayer mats, and incense, for they are geared toward supplying the needs for an

Ethnic Restaurants

entire way of life for those deprived of familiar cultural surroundings, for sustenance requires more than just food products. Thus, ethnic markets function as community centers, supplying information about local practices, recorded music and films, phone cards (when cell phones were not quite so ubiquitous), and sites where funds can be transferred to relatives back home. Bulletin boards provide a way to communicate about jobs, services such as car mechanics or home repair, citizenship resources, and (English) language classes. They also become larger networks of commerce for related food businesses such as bakeries, produce and livestock farmers, fishermen, and butchers, all of whom grow or prepare foods in ethnically traditional ways that provide particular tastes, flavors, textures, and aromas. As populations shift, and newcomers move into neighborhoods once inhabited by one group, ethnic groceries shift as well to accommodate new customers. Such stores develop “ethnic aisles” that stock the foods of new minority cultures. For instance, in Sioux City and Storm Lake, Iowa, a Southeast Asian market carries Mexican and Guatemalan foods, and vice versa. One Latino market in Eugene, Oregon, has an aisle with Middle Eastern and Asian Indian packaged, canned, and dried grains and legumes. They also include shelves for “American” foods, which themselves become marked as ethnic in such a context. Most Asian Indian markets carry the aforementioned “British” foods, such as custard powders, chocolate drink mixes, and biscuit packets. More recently, ethnic groceries have moved into virtual establishments, selling their wares to expats across the globe. Type just about any nationality + food into a search engine, and several possibilities pop up. While these are not cheap alternatives to buying foods at local stores, they do clearly serve a niche for displaced peoples. As well, such websites also provide or are linked to instructions and recipes for preparing traditional foods, inviting others, both mainstream and minority, to try out and explore “ethnic” flavors. Rachelle H. Saltzman See also Ethnic Foods, Marketing of

413

Further Readings Airriess, C. A., & Clawson, D. L. (1994). Vietnamese market gardens in New Orleans. Geographical Review, 84(1), 16–31. Brown, L. K., & Mussell, K. (Eds.). (1984). Ethnic and regional foodways in the United States: The performance of group identity. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Johnson, L. (2007). Enemy kitchen: An interview with Michael Rakowitz. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 7(3), 11–18. Myres, J. L. (1953). Ancient groceries. Greece & Rome, 22(64), 1–10. Parkins, W., & Craig, G. (2009). Culture and the politics of alternative food networks. Food, Culture, & Society, 12(1), 77–103. Saltzman, R. (2007). What a difference a day makes: A day trip exploring Des Moines’s ethnic markets. Edible Iowa River Valley, Spring, 7–9. Retrieved from http:// www.ediblecommunities.com/iowarivervalley/pages/ articles/summer07/pdfs/whatADifference.pdf Wehunt, J., & Gottfried, M. (2007). Ethnic grocers. Chicago Mag.com. Retrieved from http://www .chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/July-2007/TheFood-Lovers-Guide-to-Chicago/Ethnic-Grocers/ Wells, B., Gradwell, S., & Yoder, R. (2002). Growing food, growing community: Community supported agriculture in rural Iowa. In C. M. Counihan (Ed.), Food in the USA: A reader (pp. 401–408). New York, NY: Routledge. Zajic, S. (2013). Why you should shop at ethnic grocery stores. The Billfold. Retrieved from http://thebillfold .com/2013/01/expand-your-shopping-horizons/

ETHNIC RESTAURANTS Ethnic restaurants are a commonplace sight in many U.S. cities and a growing presence in many small towns. What makes an ethnic restaurant? What purpose and whom do they serve? What is an authentic ethnic dining experience? These questions have seen much research and debate as dining out has become a significant pastime for many people in the United States and the world. While developed as a way to provide food and meeting places for immigrant groups, ethnic restaurants

414

Ethnic Restaurants

have experienced a growth in acceptance and desire among diners from outside of a culture. These restaurants no longer need to rely on only co-ethnics to support their business but must also tend to diners who seek out new experiences, want to learn about new cultures, and want to reach out to new ethnic communities. New ethnic groups may use restaurants as a way to make inroads into a new community and provide a source of income for both restaurant owners and staff. This entry discusses the creation and evolution of ethnic restaurants as well as who they serve and what that means for the restaurateurs and patrons.

What Are Ethnic Restaurants? Ethnic restaurants are those restaurants that serve food from countries other than the one in which they are located and from ethnicities other than the dominant ethnicity of the country in which they are located. While ethnic lines are not always clear, this discussion focuses on ethnicity as having a shared history, identity, customs, and food practices. Food provides a signifier of shared meaning and group cohesion and also connects the shared identity characteristics, cultural signifiers, and fond memories. Therefore, ethnic restaurants serve food that has some historical connection to a group of people seen as a distinct group. Ethnic restaurants serve food associated with a particular group and largely recognized by immigrants and visitors from that group. Not only is the origin of the food based in another country but the owner and majority of the staff in these restaurants are usually of that ethnicity as well. In a country like the United States, with an expansive immigrant population, there are thousands of ethnic restaurants serving food originating in countries such as Italy, China, Ethiopia, and Spain. Restaurants can connect co-ethnics who have similar background, experience, and taste and also provide a space where people can share news of their shared homeland.

History of Ethnic Eating Restaurants catering to the tastes of ethnic groups can be seen throughout the history of the United

States, beginning with the first groups of immigrants. Swedish, Irish, and Italian restaurants that catered to the tastes of early immigrants were considered ethnic restaurants, even though much of the food they offered is now in the mainstream of today’s society. While the food of earlier immigrant groups has been incorporated into more mainstream restaurants, newer immigrant groups continue to expand the ethnic restaurant market by serving food from their home countries, such as Tibet, Thailand, and Ethiopia. Some of the earliest ethnic restaurants in the United States were developed to provide food for single male workers, such as the Chinese workers who helped build the railroads in the 1800s. Restaurants were created to provide them with food that was similar to what they might find at home. These restaurants also served as a gathering place for people from that country to meet others and exchange shared experiences, participate in familiar customs and rituals, as well as get the flavors from home. While the shared histories of an ethnic group may bring some similarities, immigrants may come from distinctly different locations and have different manners of food preparation and experiences. For  those outside of those ethnicities, ethnic restaurants are often assumed to represent the entirety of an ethnic heritage. But ethnic restaurants may represent only some shared experiences of food within an ethnic group; the differences among members of that group may be hidden in the overarching notion of an ethnic restaurant. Differences among co-ethnics from the same country or region become visible when comparing multiple ethnic restaurants, but they may be obscured when one restaurant “represents” an entire culture. Similarly, ethnic restaurants may not all serve the same foods, even when expected. The food served in an ethnic restaurant may be affected by the regional customs of the owner and cooks, the ingredients available, the tastes of the local population, and the fusion of foods from similar ethnic groups. For example, Thai restaurants in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., may serve the same foods by name but the flavors within the dishes may be different based on how the food has evolved in that region.

Ethnic Restaurants

Just as food within ethnic restaurants evolves, what is considered an ethnic restaurant evolves as well. While Italian restaurants in the United States were once considered “exotic,” many staples of Italian cuisine are now integrated into mainstream restaurants. In the United Kingdom, curry chicken and fries are commonplace foods, whereas curry was once only found in the cuisine of “others.” As ethnic groups assimilate into the mainstream culture, their food is also assimilated. In these situations, the definition of an ethnic restaurant is difficult to ascertain.

Where to Find Ethnic Restaurants? Ethnic restaurants can be—and are—found anywhere, including areas with limited ethnic group representation. However, large urban centers have the preponderance of ethnic restaurants, and the majority of ethnic restaurants are concentrated where immigrant groups live, particularly in ethnic enclaves. Ethnic enclaves are those areas where new immigrants often congregate, such as a Chinatown that can be found in San Francisco, Chicago, and New York, to name a few cities. Within urban centers, enclaves of Vietnamese, Haitian, Senegalese, South Asian, Cape Verdean, or Ethiopian immigrants can be found. Ethnic enclaves provide support for ethnic communities in the form of jobs, connections, and news as well as give people the chance to eat food reminiscent of their homeland. Even smaller ethnic groups, such as the Hmong population in Minnesota, have ethnic enclaves where the food of their culture can be found. But major cities are not the only places to find ethnic restaurants as diverse immigration patterns, as well as changing economic opportunities, have persuaded owners of ethnic restaurants to move throughout the United States. The arrival of Mexican and El Salvadoran immigrants to Iowa, for instance, has led to a growth of ethnic restaurants in small Iowa towns. Immigrant groups have also realized the benefit of expanding into small towns to increase their customer base. Chinese restaurants have been particularly ubiquitous in areas without a large

415

Chinese population. One can find Chinese restaurants spread throughout large cities and in many small towns. Recognizing the benefits of expanding their market, the Thai government developed a plan in the early 2000s to increase the number of Thai restaurants worldwide.

The Ethnic Restaurant Business Ethnic restaurants serve both individuals from within their own ethnic community and those from outside of the ethnic community. As previously noted, ethnic restaurants first developed as places for co-ethnics to gather and to eat food reminiscent of their homeland. Customers from within the ethnic community—or “insiders”—do not need to be given extra information about the food or the culture but instead would just be able to eat the food available or request something they know as a staple. However, when people from outside of the ethnic community—or “outsiders”—come to dine at an ethnic restaurant, they may not have as much knowledge of the food or the culture, so the restaurant owner and staff must provide more guidance to ensure that these diners have a pleasant experience. In addition, ethnic restaurant owners often tailor their menus and the restaurant atmosphere to their outsider customer base to be more successful. Within ethnic enclaves, there are often multiple restaurants that serve similar foods and must compete with each other for the same customers. These customers can be ethnic insiders or ethnic outsiders, and the approach is different for each customer groups. For insiders, the restaurant owner will likely want to create food as close to the food served in the home country as possible along with providing a space for co-ethnics to congregate and share information. This provides the customers from within the ethnic community a sense of safety and comfort that can lead to repeat business. However, a restaurant that has a large outsider customer base may want to provide more information on foods that are new to some diners and also create a restaurant decor that imparts a feeling of comfort yet provides an ethnic “experience.” By making the restaurant an

416

Ethnic Restaurants

experience for people from outside the ethnic culture, a restaurant owner can create a unique environment that can help garner repeat business and create word-of-mouth recommendations to other people who may venture into this unknown place. For owners of ethnic restaurants that are located outside of traditional ethnic enclaves, the ability to earn repeat business may also involve tailoring the taste and flavor of traditional dishes to make them more palatable to a broad audience that may not be as comfortable with the varied flavors. For example, what is experienced as Mexican food in restaurants that are seeking to appeal to a broad base is not the same as the food one would find in a Mexican restaurant that caters toward Mexican immigrants.

Ethnic Restaurants for Insiders One important component of dining practices is that they mark one’s self-identity and group inclusion. Ethnic restaurants that serve primarily members of their ethnicity focus their attention on food that is memorable to co-ethnics, thereby reinforcing group connections. These restaurants do not put their main effort into introducing new ideas to the patrons but in making the experience more like home. They may not have specific menus but rather cook familiar dishes based on what is available that day. If they do have menus, the menus likely will not provide long descriptions of the food or the ingredients under the assumption that the customers know what the meal entails. Additionally, staff members do not need to spend time reassuring patrons that the food will be to their liking. Rather than an emphasis on the uniqueness of the food, the restaurants focus on quality interactions, providing a space to gather and a chance to support one’s own ethnic community in a city where they are not the majority. While restaurants for co-ethnics can provide a gathering place for individuals from a country or ethnic group, the particular food in the restaurant may not be from their specific region as food types differ within countries depending on the availability of ingredients, regional tastes, and cultural or religious guidelines. For example, dishes from the

coastal region of a country may include more fish and seafood than dishes from an area in the center of a country without easy access to seafood. Similarly, religious food restrictions may influence the creation of dishes in areas with a strong religious leaning. So while one may assume that ethnic restaurants with a large number of co-ethnic patrons are indicative of a shared food experience, the restaurant may speak to wider shared cultural experience than the specifics of the food.

Outsiders in Ethnic Restaurants While ethnic restaurants for insiders provide a gathering place and community connections for a group of people with shared histories, people without those experiences often visit ethnic restaurants. These outsiders may have many reasons for visiting an ethnic establishment. They may have traveled or are planning to travel to a country and wish to experience the food as a reminder or in preparation for their trip. They may be curious about the food or believe that they can learn something about a new culture by dining out. It also may be that ethnic restaurants provide a way to “travel” without leaving home. In urban communities, dining at ethnic restaurants can signify one as a “cosmopolitan” individual who has a sense of the global connections among groups. Among outsider diners within ethnic restaurants, there are multiple types of diners: those who view dining out as a social experience, so they go out as a form of entertainment and enjoyment; those who see themselves as part of a larger community, so they seek out ethnic restaurants in their community as part of their community integration; and those who seek out rare and unique dining experiences. These individuals are looking for an experience that can broaden their own experiences by eating food that is unfamiliar or uncommon in their own dining practices. Ethnic restaurant owners can capitalize on this desire for a new and unique experience by providing rich descriptions of the food and its origins. These menus often provide a description of the food’s origins, such as a “Goan delicacy from the coast of India” that was seen on one restaurant menu. They are also likely to

Ethnic Restaurants

provide pictures of food to give the outsider a better idea of what to expect and notations on what is spicy and what is not. The decor of these restaurants also provides insights into what the owner wants the diners to experience. By decorating with specific colors, pictures, tapestries, and ornaments from the region, the owner provides insights into his or her cultural heritage. The staff working at restaurants with larger outsider customer base is also more likely to provide options for tailoring the taste of unfamiliar food. This provides newcomers with at least an idea of the flavors found within an ethnic community.

Are Ethnic Restaurants Staged or Authentic Experiences? The authenticity of ethnic restaurants and the importance of authenticity are under much debate within studies of ethnic dining. The details—decor, music, and even staff attire—that can be found in an ethnic restaurant may come across as more staged and less real to individuals who are looking for the most authentic experience. There is a sense that a truly authentic experience is the most valuable. In this case, an authentic experience is considered one that is closest to the way a member of the particular ethnic group would eat the food at home. An outsider looking for an authentic experience is often inclined to seek out a restaurant where the primary regular customers are co-ethnics, assuming that they would most likely patronize an establishment that serves dishes that closely mirror the food as served at home. Lisa Heldke (2003) has labeled this quest for the most authentic or exotic experiences as “cultural food colonialism.” By seeking out what seems “most rare” to an outsider in an ethnic restaurant that may be mainstream to members of that ethnic group, it deems the ethnic diners as exotic “others” while reinforcing the dominance of the mainstream culture. This emphasis on defining an authentic experience within an ethnic restaurant as one that is not staged for outsiders does not acknowledge the effort of the ethnic restaurant owner to appeal to a wide range of individuals. A restaurant owner seeking to appeal to a wide range of insiders and

417

outsiders in an effort to make the restaurant successful tend to design a restaurant and menu that can appeal to both groups. However, in this appeal, there might be a sense that something is false because the menu and decor are designed to engage people who are not from the culture. Yet this staging may be the authentic attempt by the restaurant owner to create a successful business for a wide array of individuals. Along with the controversial search for an authentic experience, the search for ethnic restaurant experiences by people outside of a culture also carries concerns about who is seen as “ethnic.” Ethnic restaurants are generally assumed to be restaurants run by people of color and that provide cheap dining experiences. Although there are Polish or German ethnic restaurants, the restaurants sought out by food explorers are those seen as “others” and leads to an attempt to distinguish between “us” and “them.” It is also assumed that these ethnic restaurants provide low-priced food, so a high-end French restaurant or Japanese sushi bar do not garner the same attention as low-cost ethnic restaurants. Although ethnic restaurants are often seen as low-end food for immigrants, high-end ethnic restaurant owners also tailor their food, menu, and decor for outsiders.

Future for Ethnic Restaurants As previously noted, ethnic restaurants do not serve the same purpose for all people nor are they static entities. Italian restaurants, while once considered an ethnic dining experience, are now largely seen as mainstream food choices. This transition is happening to other types of ethnic food as well. Mexican staples now find their way onto more mainstream restaurant menus, and Chinese restaurants can be found throughout urban areas and not solely located within ethnic enclaves. Restaurateurs are also adapting their food to the ingredients available and the flavors that appeal to the customer base they seek to expand. As Americans become more comfortable with ethnic food and restaurants, ethnic restaurant owners can begin to introduce some of the regional distinctions to the particular food being offered. It is an

418

Exotic Food and Strange Food

effort to distinguish themselves from the expanding number of restaurants that offer this particular food and to highlight their regional uniqueness to expand their market. Additionally, as new immigrant groups gain a foothold in an area, they are likely to develop ethnic restaurants that provide food to co-ethnics in the area and completely new dining experiences for outsiders. This provides opportunities for food explorers to continue to see the newest and most unique ethnic restaurants and also gives new immigrant groups a way to support themselves. As more unique, narrowly defined ethnic restaurants develop, there also may be a growth of fusion among ethnic restaurants. Restaurateurs realize that to appeal to an outsider community of individuals who are new to a cuisine, it is helpful to connect ethnic dishes to those already known to diners. So South Indian restaurants that serve dosas (crepes filled with spicy potatoes or other Indian foods) have been known to call them “Indian burritos” to connect them back to Mexican food that has more name recognition. Over time, ethnic restaurants will continue to grow and evolve as some foods become standard in mainstream restaurants and others develop new horizons for dining experiences. Kimberly E. Fox See also Culinary Diplomacy; Cultural Identity and Food; Design and Decor of Restaurants; Ethnic Foods, Marketing of; Identity and Food; Restaurant Menu Design

Further Readings Brown, L. K., & Mussell, K. (Eds.). (1985). Ethnic and regional foodways in the United States: The performance of group identity. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Ferrero, S. (2002). Comida Sin Par: Consumption of Mexican food in Los Angeles: “Foodscapes” in a transnational consumer society. In W. Belasco & P. Scranton (Eds.), Food nations: Selling taste in consumer societies (pp. 194–219). London, UK: Routledge. Heldke, L. (2003). Exotic appetites: Ruminations of a food adventurer. New York, NY: Routledge.

Highmore, B. (2009). The Taj Mahal in the high street: The Indian restaurant as diasporic popular culture in Britain. Food, Culture & Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 12, 173–190. Liu, H. (2010). Kung Pao Kosher: Jewish Americans and Chinese restaurants in New York. Journal of Chinese Overseas, 6, 80–101. Long, L. (Ed.). (2004). Culinary tourism. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Lu, S., & Fine, G. (1995). The presentation of ethnic authenticity: Chinese food and social accomplishment. Sociological Quarterly, 36, 535–553. Narayan, U. (1995). Eating cultures: Incorporation, identity and Indian food. Social Identities, 1, 63–89. Thailand’s gastro-diplomacy. (2002, February 21). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist .com/node/999687 Van den Berghe, P. L. (1984). Ethnic cuisine, culture in nature. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 7, 387–397.

EXOTIC FOOD

AND

STRANGE FOOD

Key to any discussion of exotic and strange food is the understanding that what is exotic or strange to one, may be familiar, celebrated, or comforting to another. The ideas of exotic or strange are social constructions that are typically shared by a culture or subculture. For example, casu marzu, often translated as “maggot cheese,” is a Sardinian delicacy, which many others find exotic and strange. Other foods, or edibles, such as human flesh and urine, are more universally taboo. Still other foods seem commonplace and unremarkable but may seem strange when one considers them closely. For example, honey, beloved in nearly every culture, is made through insect regurgitation, a turnoff to some when the process is explained. Manufactured foods, full of preservatives that can maintain quality for months or years, are similarly strange when examined, though many see them as unremarkable. Exotic food and strange food is an important topic to consider in an encyclopedia of food issues because these foods often serve as a shorthand or proxy for larger social issues: group boundaries and inclusion/exclusion invoking issues of race,

Exotic Food and Strange Food

class, gender, religion, and culture; culinary tourism, colonialism, and exoticism; and novelty and status, to name a few. This entry begins by classifying various types of food found to be exotic or strange. It continues with an exploration of the various social functions these foods serve—that is, why these foods are valued and consumed in various cultures.

Types Even accounting for the relative nature of exotic and strange foods, most of them fall into one of a few distinct types. One can imagine a typology of commonly cited weird and exotic foods: animals, offal, fermented foods, manufactured products, slimy foods and creepy/crawly foods, as well as rare foods. While not exhaustive, this categorization suggests common themes. In general, animals are more likely to be considered weird than plant-based foods. Much of this distinction owes to the limited variety of animals used for food in much of the world. Western markets are dominated by beef, pork, lamb, poultry, fish, shellfish, and shrimp, with goat, horse, rabbit, venison, octopus, squid, and a few others available. Compare this with the hundreds of fruits, vegetables, and grains in the marketplace. Many unusual food animals may be so considered by dint of their deviance from the market-dominant few: armadillo, alligator, walrus, camel, guinea pig, and kangaroo are examples. Other animals are common but the form in which they come to the market make them unusual. For example, balut, fertilized duck (and sometimes chicken) egg, is considered an exotic delicacy from the Philippines. Sannakiji is a baby octopus preparation from Korea—the unusual aspect is that it is served live. An additional consideration for exotic and strange animals is their sliminess or creepiness. Many animals considered strange have these characteristics, including squid, eel, snake, snails, insects, grubs, and lizard, to name a few. Related to animals is the category of offal, typically the organs of animals or other variety meats. For example, while only inches apart from one another on the animal, the ham of a boar is

419

commonly available and highly prized in most pork-eating cultures, while the testicles and penis are often considered unusual or even inedible by many. Other foods in this category include the brain, lungs (or lights), kidneys, liver, blood, marrow, eyes, tongue, snout, or stomach lining (tripe) of various creatures. The weirdness cited in these foods is sometimes related to sensory properties like flavor, texture, and aroma and sometimes to the function of these organs, as compared with muscle, in the animal. Another category of foods considered unusual is the fermented. Fermentation is a chemical process whereby bacteria, yeast, or other microorganisms digest sugars in foods, producing alcohol and carbonation, as well as making the product more acidic. Fermentation is at the core of many prized and typical foods: bread, cheese, salami, beer, wine, yogurt and kefir, and pickles of many types, to name a few. Fermentation can also be used to develop strong flavors that may be cherished or off-putting, depending on the taste of the beholder. So-called stinky tofu; strong cheeses like Epoisse, Vieux Boulogne, and Limburger; natto, fermented beans in a sticky matrix from Japan; and kumis, fermented mare’s milk traditionally drunk in Central Asia, are all examples. The sensory strength of many of these foods—earthy, gamy, and strong in aroma—often make them an acquired taste and, as discussed later, key in distinguishing insiders from outsiders in groups. Many manufactured foods are deliberately exotic or strange. These foods may be novelties for marketing purposes such as tequila lollipops containing a worm, canned “unicorn” (which does not actually contain any unicorn whatsoever), or extremely sour candies. Others, like cola containing cannabis, are new inventions combining previously separate products. Still others, like vegemite, a salty pungent spread made from yeast extract popular in Australia, or salmiakki, a Finnish liquorice made with ammonium chloride, are regional foods that are largely unknown to and/or unappreciated by the uninitiated. When asking people about food aversions, many people cite the textural sliminess of food or slithery, creepy, or crawly foods as characteristics that make

420

Exotic Food and Strange Food

them strange. This category includes slimy or slithery animals like eels, lizards, snakes; cephalopods like squid and octopus; and frog. It also includes small crawling animals like insects, caterpillars, grubs, and larvae. In addition to animals, plants with unusual textures such as loofah, durian (enhanced by its strong smell), huitlacoche (corn fungus), and yamaimo (mountain yam) are in this category. A further subset of this category is foods prepared to a state of sliminess or a gelatinous texture. Examples include lutefisk, a Norwegian dish of codfish treated with lye, and hakarl, a fermented shark dish from Iceland. While all senses are invoked in cooking and eating, texture holds a special place in determining what people consider strange or unacceptable. A final category of exotic and strange foods is the rare, exotic, hard to find, or unusual. Examples include kopi luwak, coffee beans that have been swallowed and passed through the digestive track of the civet; bird’s nest, made from the saliva of a swiftlet and dangerously harvested from caves; shark fin; and fugu, poisonous puffer fish that must be expertly cut to avoid harm. These foods are often prized as status symbols as much as for their sensory properties.

Social Functions Strange and exotic foods do not exist as cultural artifacts in and of themselves but rather as culturally constructed totems that can signify any number of meanings. For example, eating a food considered strange or exotic could say, “I am in this group and others are not,” “I am a culinary adventurer who can conquer the world,” “I am elite,” “I am honoring the traditions of my ancestors,” “I would like to experience something meaningful to you,” or “I am doing something very naughty,” to name a few. Social functions of exotic and strange foods include novelty, defining group boundaries, culinary tourism, status, and taboo. Often the function being served depends on the context, and a single food can serve multiple functions, depending on the application. Consuming a food high in status like kopi luwak; one reviled by many, such as human flesh; or one of a kind such as casu marzu may function

to provide a novel experience for the diner. This may be as a function of a tourist having an “authentic” cultural experience with a foreign food (casu marzu), a social deviant eating a taboo food (human flesh), or a foodie or status seeker wanting to experience something new and different (kopi luwak). Strange foods are also important in forming cultural, regional, or other group identities. Eating these foods, especially traditional foods, can reinforce the idea that the consumer is a member of a cultural tradition or other bounded group. A new initiate to that group may express her or his belonging by partaking in that food. And the group members may express their superiority and contempt for other groups by referencing the superiority of the shared preferred food. For example, natto, a fermented Japanese bean preparation with a slimy texture, consumed over rice for breakfast, is an offputting food to the uninitiated. Natto is often used as an example of “Japaneseness.” Non-Japanese who want an overt sign of their acculturation may publically eat natto. Foreigners fluent in Japanese language may be asked whether they eat natto to gauge their enculturation. The adoption of this particular food conveys group membership in a way more salient than words would. Similarly, many of the functions of tourism can be expressed through culinary tourism of exotic and strange foods. For example, eating an authentic dish such as Walkman, grilled pig ear in the Philippines, may be an embodiment of appreciation and experience in another culture. A skewer of botsi— chicken esophagus—from the same stall may give the tourist a sense of conquering a strange and exotic culture. And turning down a skewer of uncleaned intestines may be a way to demarcate, for the tourist, the line between tourist and a local. Elite status has long been demonstrated through the consumption of exotic foods. From unusual animals from the far stretches of empires featured at banquets as early as Ancient Rome and China to a $100 cup of kopi luwak coffee at a present-day Dubai coffeehouse, to a wedding banquet featuring bird’s nest soup for each guest, strange and exotic foods also function as a class marker. Finally, consumption of the truly strange may be a way to experience the thrill of engaging with

Expiration Dates

the taboo, or it may be a depraved act. Consuming endangered species or foods banned for human consumption such as the ortolan, a small songbird consumed whole in France, may be a way to savor the forbidden. Eating human flesh, feces, or urine is nearly universally taboo and disgusting. Human placenta is one notable exception—eaten by some for medical, nutritional, spiritual, religious, or traditional reasons— invoking again the need to remember that when discussing “strange” foods, the term is relative and loaded with meanings. Jonathan Deutsch See also Consistency of Food Products/Ingredients; Consumer Trust; Disgust; Gourmet and Specialty Foods; Identity and Food; Tourism, Food

421

Because of inconsistencies in this labeling due to a lack of regulation, and an absence of consumer education about these labels, many consumers assume that they refer to the food’s safety and therefore throw the food away before it has actually spoiled. In reality, these labels refer to the food’s quality, not the food’s safety, and they exist for two reasons: to alert grocery stores when to rotate products and to inform consumers when the product is at its freshest state. This misinterpretation contributes to 160 billion pounds of food waste in the United States, around 40% of the country’s entire food supply, every year. Such waste not only depletes natural resources but also ignores the needs of food-insecure households in the country. This entry focuses on the history, definitions, and common misinterpretation of expiration dates with its potentially hazardous effects.

Further Readings Deutsch, J. M. (Ed.). (2012). They eat that: A cultural encyclopedia of weird and exotic food from around the world. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Heldke, L. M. (2003). Exotic appetites: Ruminations of a food adventurer. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Hopkins, J. (2004). Extreme cuisine: The weird and wonderful foods that people eat. Berkeley, CA: Periplus. Long, L. (2010). Culinary tourism. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. MacClancy, J. (1992). Consuming culture. London, UK: Chapman. Menzel, P., & D’Alusio, F. (2004). Man eating bugs: The art and science of eating insects. New York, NY: Material World. Schwabe, C. (1979). Unmentionable cuisine. Richmond: University of Virginia Press. Simoons, F. (1994). Eat not this flesh: Food avoidances from prehistory to the present. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

EXPIRATION DATES Many food products sold in the United States have an expiration date printed on their packaging with the words “sell by,” “use by,” or “best before.”

A Chronicle of Expiration Dates As the United States began to urbanize, consumers moved from growing the food they ate to purchasing it from local grocery stores. This left consumers with scarce information on a food’s quality and shelf life, forcing them to rely on manufacturers and/or retailers for this knowledge. Until the 1970s, the food industry used closed dating, a system using symbols or a series of numbers that helped retailers evaluate when to rotate their stock but provided little information to consumers. In the 1970s, the government and the food industry began to explore open dating, whereby a label on foods would list a day, month, and year, clearly visible to the consumer, to indicate when the product was at its peak freshness. Consumer demand for open dating grew throughout the decade. As a result of this demand, supermarkets voluntarily adhered to open dating systems, and some state governments created regulations requiring open dating for certain food products. However, each state and supermarket adopted different open dating laws and labels. There were a few legislative efforts to create a nationwide open dating system, but none succeeded. The National Association of Food Chains maintained that such a system would only impose

422

Expiration Dates

further costs to retailers, who had already spent a great deal of money on their voluntary open dating systems, and might dissuade them from participating in voluntary programs in the future. The only food that did gain specific date labeling requirements from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was infant formula. A series of recalls of infant formula occurred in the 1970s after infants fell sick due to lack of nutrients in the formula. This led Congress to pass the Infant Formula Act of 1980, which focused on the nutritional content of formula. In 1999, another effort to create a nationwide open dating system was put forth by a congressman, but the bill never passed.

Defining Expiration Dates Open dating refers to a calendar date printed on a food product that is intended to assist supermarkets in evaluating when to rotate their stock and to explain to consumers when a product is at its highest quality for consumption. After the date has passed, the quality of the product may have diminished, but if stored properly (40 °F for refrigerated products; room temperature for nonperishable products), it may still be safe to consume. Open dating is found mainly on perishable foods, like meat, poultry, dairy products, and eggs. In the marketplace, such opening dating systems are characterized by a “use by,” “best before,” or “sell by” date printed on the packaging. The “use by” and “best by” dates are intended for consumers and are determined by the product’s manufacturer, based on its determination as to when the product will reach its peak. Such dates are not intended to signify when the product is spoiled or unsafe to consume. “Sell by” dates are intended for manufacturers and retailers but are still visible to consumers. Their purpose is to help retailers with product turnover in an effort to ensure that a long shelf life remains after consumer purchase.

Misinterpretation and Its Cost Since the 1970s, the lack of uniformity in open dating laws has bred confusion among consumers

as to the meaning behind each type of open dating label. One of the main points of confusion concerns food quality versus food safety. Food safety refers to whether the product in question is safe to eat or is capable of causing a foodborne illness. Open dating of a food product is not intended to suggest whether a certain product is safe to consume, but many consumers believe it does. Rather, open dating indicates the quality of the food, that is, the time frame of when it is at its peak freshness. Because manufacturers desire their consumers to have a good experience with their product, hopefully leading to repeat customers, they rely on open dating systems to inform consumers of products’ quality. Studies have shown that 15% of consumers who have had a bad experience with a food product will not try it again for 2 to 3 years. In general, food can be eaten past the expiration date listed. For example, eggs can be eaten 3 to 5 weeks past the date listed on the carton, and canned goods have been known to stay edible years past their date, with only some nutrient loss noted. Occasionally, there may be some changes to the food that affect its quality or flavor, such as a package of cookies going stale or a chocolate bar “blooming” and turning white, but such changes should not compromise a consumer’s health. Another point of confusion regarding what these dates mean is that the factors that determine the date placed on each label differ by manufacturer. The result of this misinterpretation is that more than 90% of consumers throw out food before it has spoiled, which contributes to about 40% of the country’s food supply being wasted every year. This means a family of four could be throwing away between $1,000 and $2,000 worth of food yearly, despite the fact that one in six Americans does not have access to affordable, healthy food. Such waste costs more than $160 billion annually, and researchers have shown that reallocating just 30% of food incorrectly thrown away each year to Americans in need of food would take care of their entire diet. In addition, because consumers rely on  open dating labels to determine if their food is safe to eat, they may ignore other signs of food safety issues in their food products, such as

Exports

cross-contamination. Cross-contamination is the passing of harmful bacteria from raw food to ready-to-eat food through hands, towels, utensils, or anything else that comes in contact with food. They may also believe that food purchased and consumed before the open dating label on the package is completely safe, when in reality, these labels do not include information that could truly determine if the food is safe to eat, like the amount of time the food has spent in the danger zone of 40 to 120 °F, which could lead to the proliferation of bacteria that can cause foodborne illnesses. Leena Trivedi-Grenier See also Consistency of Food Products/Ingredients; Food Waste; Population and Food Supply; Shelf Life

Further Readings Charles, D. (2012, December 26). Don’t fear that expired food [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.npr .org/blogs/thesalt/2012/12/26/167819082/ dont-fear-that-expired-food Natural Resources Defense Council and Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic. (2013). The dating game: How confusing food date labels lead to food waste in America. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/food/ files/dating-game-report.pdf Natural Resources Defense Council and Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic. (2013). The dating game: How confusing food date labels lead to food waste in America issue brief. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc .org/food/files/dating-game-IB.pdf Sifferlin, A. (2013, September 18). Is your food expired? Don’t be so quick to toss it. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/18/ is-your-food-expired-dont-be-so-quick-to-toss-it/ Sifferlin, A. (2013, September 19). What to know before you toss. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http:// healthland.time.com/2013/09/18/foods-you-areprobably-throwing-away-too-early/slide/all/ U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013). Food product dating. Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/ portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/ food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/food-productdating/food-product-dating

423

EXPORTS Exports are goods produced in one country that are sold to other markets—exported—abroad. Exports are an important part of international trade, as international trade occurs through flow of goods and services between countries via the exchange of exports and imports. All manner of goods and services can be exported, such as agricultural products, energy resources, minerals, manufactured goods, financial services, and tourism, to name a few. This entry focuses on food exports and the issues raised in their international exchange. This entry elucidates the systems of relationships and structural factors involved in the export of food. Food exports are complex and entangled in a variety of forces, which includes various actors and agents, institutions, governments, regulations, trade agreements, technologies, and resources. Whether importing, exporting, or both, countries are reliant on international trade. Apart from isolationist states, which have adopted self-sufficient practices, most states and economies are now integrated and interconnected to some degree to the international trade of food. Fluctuations in prices, supply, global climate conditions, and geopolitical situations also affect commodity prices and food exports. The complexity of food exportation speaks to how globalized and how integral food exports are to most modern economies. The issues raised through food exports and the controversies surrounding exports and international trade, agricultural production and structural inequality, the global food chain, and food security are addressed.

Exports and International Trade Exports are part of international trade, which is the exchange of capital, goods, or services across international borders. Economists consider exports to be an important economic indicator, as the volume and monetary value of exports are among the means of measuring the strength of a national economy. In the case of the United States, the

424

Exports

world’s third largest exporter, exports (US$1.575 trillion in 2013) comprise a major part of the gross domestic product and are used by economists to determine economic robustness. Economic theory proposes that countries produce goods and services for which they hold a comparative advantage, where they are able to produce at a lower marginal and opportunity cost. Exports are goods and services that a country is able to produce at a comparative advantage to others. For instance, the United States is a major exporter of soybeans, fruit, and corn, with agricultural products making up 9.2% of overall exports. Because of this advantage, countries export to those countries that are less efficient in the production of these goods and services. These other countries import the said goods and services. Imports are goods and services produced in a foreign country and brought in—imported—by another country. Simultaneously, the United States is also a major importer of agricultural goods, which account for 4.9% of imports. Most imports are nonbasic foods like wine, beef, coffee, bananas, and olive oil. Since the 1960s, American agricultural exports have exceeded its agricultural imports, creating a surplus in American agricultural trade. Exports are encouraged in domestic economic policy, as well as in global development policy, as they are believed to benefit economies and producers. On an international scale, the International Monetary Fund promotes international trade and the World Trade Organization oversees trade rules between nations, with the organizational ethos that liberalization of trade promotes economic growth. Macroeconomic structural adjustments, implemented in the 1990s through the World Trade Organization, lowered the barriers to trade. These included the devaluation of currency, the lifting of trade barriers, reduced public expenditure, and curbs on state control in agricultural markets to ease exports. For many economies, such adjustments meant reduced barriers to exporting items (and lower barriers to import). Supporters of international trade argue that small producers benefit from the liberalization of global trade, as it gives them better access to markets,

more resources, and eventually better economic opportunities and improved livelihoods. However, this assumption has not resulted in benefits for all in actual practice.

Exports, Agricultural Production, and Structural Inequality Agricultural work is important globally, as more than 40% of workers across the globe work in agriculture. Although agricultural work constitutes a relatively small percentage of American labor at around 2%, across the globe, it is the dominant form of livelihood, particularly in the global South. Many of the workers employed in agriculture are poor and participate in subsistence farming rather than in an export-driven model. Although they work intimately in food production, agricultural workers are sometimes the most food insecure because they are vulnerable to climate conditions, market demands, and the inability to produce beyond basic survival. When discussing exports, one must consider the imbalance of structural power between the different exporting countries and their access to global markets. The countries of the global North, found in North America, Western Europe, and East Asia, have greater trading power and access to capital. These countries often have greater access to technology, capital, and inputs and, therefore, are able to grow larger amounts and bring greater amounts of products to market for export. Farmers in countries in the global South, located in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, have far less access to resources and greater barriers to access to market. Many of these farmers in the global South also work on small plots of land, and some are subsistence farmers who work on small family plots. Their ability to produce products for market is restricted by these structural factors. Global investment in agricultural technology and changes in agrarian policy in the mid-20th century resulted in a Green Revolution, which aimed to balance structural inequality in agricultural production and economic development between the global North and the global South.

Exports

Through agrarian change, poorer countries would have higher agricultural yields, become selfsufficient economically, and become potentially exporting nations. However, the Green Revolution did not necessarily lead to higher exports or more self-sufficient economies, because the inputs required, such as high-yield seeds and monoculture cropping, are unaffordable for subsistence farmers in poorer countries. Those who have benefitted most from the technological advances accorded by the Green Revolution are in the global North. Farmers there can afford the synthetic chemical inputs, high-yield seeds, and machinery necessary to produce in this now highly mechanized agricultural system. As a result, farmers in the global North have a competitive advantage to exporting food over those in the global South. Instead of easing economic insecurity and access to global markets through exportation, the Green Revolution has increased economic insecurity among small landowner farmers. Incidentally, the Green Revolution bankrupted many small landowners in poorer nations of the global South and caused further inequality. Many of these farmers have become tenant farmers instead, renting out the land to grow. Thus, when one considers the importance of agricultural production globally, one can see that structural inequality especially hurts farmers in the global South. Furthermore, large-scale industrial food production, the dominant model found in the global North, creates a comparative advantage for export. Small- and medium-scale producers, especially subsistence farmers, are disadvantaged in this export-driven model where the barriers to exportation and bringing goods to market are much higher than for large-scale producers. As a result, farmers from the global South often find difficulties in bringing their products to market. Grain farmers from the global South are unable to secure buyers in the global North. Protectionism in the global North, notably among the European Union, United States, and Japan, has favored domestic farmers and products. For instance, U.S. government subsidies protect American farmers and American-grown products, usually to the

425

disadvantage of farmers in other countries seeking export markets for their products. International trade agreements further support exporters from the global North. To illustrate, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed in 1994, liberalizes trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. This free trade agreement includes lower tariffs and freer movement of goods, which has enabled the United States to more easily export its goods to its most important trading partners, Canada and Mexico. Although this agreement is intended to strengthen trade among all three nations, this system has privileged primarily the United States, the wealthiest and the most economically powerful country in North America. This comes especially as a disadvantage to Mexico. For instance, American corn farmers can export their corn to Mexico with limited tariffs and restrictions. The U.S. government, furthering the comparative advantage held by U.S. farmers, heavily subsidizes this corn. U.S. farmers are also advantaged by their high-yield inputs, such as high-yield seeds and machinery, which their Mexican counterparts do not possess. Mexican subsistence farmers are unable to compete with the lower priced American corn, unable to sell their products at market, and in some cases, they are forced to move off their lands and seek other types of livelihood. Some may even be forced to work as migrant farmworkers in the United States. Despite the structural inequalities resulting from agricultural production for international trade, food exports are important to the global food supply.

Exports and the Global Food Chain Exports are an important part of the global food supply. Exports provide consumers access to locally unavailable foods or food at more cost-effective prices. Yet they are controversial because they add to the length of the food chain. Exports generally travel many food miles to reach their destinations. Growing and producing foods in one area and sending them long distances to their final consumption destination creates a long food chain in

426

Exports

which there are often many degrees of separation between the original point of production and the final destination of consumption. Furthermore, many actors are involved in global food exports, including, but not limited to, peasant smallholders, commercial farmers, transnational companies, policymakers, banks and various agrarian organizations, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. Because of the many actors involved and the number of food miles traversed, often the original producer is highly distanced from the final consumption point; as a result, the origins of exports are often obfuscated. This distance between production and consumption also enables social and political distancing from the origination point of the food export. The final consumer may not be intimately familiar with the production methods. This can pose problems for producers and consumers alike. Producers often receive little of the profits, as the bulk of the profits go to suppliers and middlemen, which include importers and exporters, notably megacorporations. For instance, Nestlé, which is the world’s largest food manufacturer, and Walmart, the largest food retailer in the United States and one of the largest globally, receive a larger portion of the profits. Food producers— especially small producers—may get lost in this system, receiving the smallest portion of profits. This reflects the complexity of the global food chain. Ultimately, the global food chain diminishes the importance of environmental and social costs and focuses instead on profits, which often go to the middlemen and corporations rather than the producers at the start of the food chain. Additionally, there are also ecological and environmental impacts from exporting through the global food chain. For instance, the demand to raise or produce certain products can cause ecological disruption to local environments. Certain practices—such as the use of monocultures and the consolidation of small- and medium-sized farms into megafarms—are encouraged in an export-driven model of global agribusiness. Such practices can obscure the environmental impact of

food production, as well as worker rights and production conditions. A focus on profits, often with limited concern or regulation for worker rights or environmental protections, raises ethical questions about the welfare of the original production of the food item. Consumers also have health and food safety considerations in this long global food chain. The long distance between the place of production and the place of consumption has implications for health and food safety. Because of the increased amount of handling between the place of production and the final consumption point, there is an increased likelihood of food contamination, and foodborne diseases may be harder to trace in a long food supply chain. Threats of disease, illness, and contamination are very real and have heightened as food supplies have become increasingly globalized through exports and food chains continue to expand. As such, diseases like bovine spongiform encephalopathy are no longer contained to one area or locale, or even to a specific nation, but can be spread to other countries through the exportation of food. While not all such illnesses are the result of consuming exported food, greater food exports and longer food chains delocalize health and food safety issues and make them global. Foodborne illnesses also have social costs, placing demands on local medical systems and leading to lost economic productivity from missed work.

Exports and Food Security Additionally, food exports also raise concerns regarding food security. The concept of food security, first conceived at the World Food Conference in 1974, focuses on the stability of food supply and food prices. The Food and Agricultural Organization has advocated for global food security, noting that having sustainable access to food is an essential right of people and of nations. Discussions of food security have primarily emphasized the food security of poorer nations, particularly those of the global South. The global  South has been disadvantaged by poor

Exports

infrastructure, inefficient food distribution systems, fluctuating food prices, underperforming agricultural production, and unfavorable climates and natural disasters that have curtailed food production. Globally, it is estimated that 925 million people experience malnutrition and hunger. Wealthier nations, such as the United States, export food as food aid to alleviate hunger and to stabilize food supplies in food-insecure countries. The United States exports around 45 million tons of food aid per year to feed 63 million people. Wheat, sorghum, corn, pulses, and vegetables are shipped to stabilize food access. Exports of food aid account for less than 0.05% of the national budget. Nevertheless, critics fear that exporting products overseas to alleviate food security issues in other countries comes at a risk to the domestic food supply in the United States. They argue that the United States should not export food to other countries in the form of aid or even participate in international trade to secure the domestic food supply. Other food security concerns stem from fluctuations in market demand for exports and their impact on domestic economies. Cash crops, agricultural products grown for profit, have an especially significant impact on economic stability and food stability. In the global South, cash crops like cacao, coffee, spices, sugar, and tea are often grown for export because they command more monetary value in the global North. While higher incomes may result from cash cropping, this situation may be temporary for cash croppers. Overall, farmers may not be wealthier or may not experience higher levels of welfare or better nutrition. Cash cropping is not limited to poorer nations, as the United States is also a major producer of cash crops like corn, wheat, and soy. However, farmers of the global South are especially vulnerable to volatilities incurred from cash crop production. Cash crops can lead to increased economic instability in a country, as market prices for cash crops fluctuate and producers have limited means to respond to changing market demands. Drought, pests, and disease can also decimate harvests.

427

Cash cropping is especially disruptive in societies with wide gaps in social inequality. Producers in the global South are more likely to suffer from global market volatility and the negative effects of cash cropping. Farmers participate in cash cropping because it is a way to earn money, but often, it can be more a means of survival from moment to moment rather than a long-term trajectory. Furthermore, cash cropping shifts production away from essential commodities like grains and other staple foods, which further destabilizes domestic food supplies and increases food insecurity. Additionally, the growing world population continues to place demands on the global food system. Increased population intensifies the environmental, ecological, and economic pressures to feed the 7 billion people around the planet. The demographic pressures to support 7 billion people have affected the way in which food is grown and also exported throughout the globe. Changing consumption habits, led by recent socioeconomic growth in the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (aka BRIC), have placed further demands on the global food system. For instance, consumers in these emerging economies are hungry for meat, with forecasts suggesting that meat consumption in emerging economies will double in 2020 from what they were in the 1980s. Lower meat production costs and reduced barriers to trade implemented in the 1990s have increased the global export of meat. Producers from the global North export large amounts of meat and profit financially. Other exports—like grains to feed cattle—are also being shipped abroad to BRIC and other developing countries to support their domestic meat production. But the side effects of higher meat production such as pollution, environmental stress, and higher greenhouse emissions challenge the sustainability of food production practices and lead scholars to question whether current export levels can be maintained in the long run. Although food is exported to establish food security in the global South, it can also contribute to global food insecurity.

428

Exports

Conclusion This entry has examined the systems of relationships and structural factors involved in food exports. Food exports are part of complex global interactions involving various actors, agencies, laws, and institutions. The issues raised in this discussion of food exports show that one must consider this topic in relationship to broader understandings of international trade, agricultural production and structural inequality, the global food chain, and food security. Willa Zhen See also Commodity Chains; Domestic Food Insecurity; Food Insecurity; Food Miles; North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Tariffs; World Trade Organization

Further Readings Aksoy, M. A., & Beghin, J. C. (2005). Global agricultural trade and developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. Barndt, D. (1999). Women working the NAFTA food chain: Women, food and globalization. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Second Story Press. Davis, C. L. (2003). Food fights over free trade how international institutions promote agricultural trade liberalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hawkes, C., Blouin, C., Henson, S., Drager, N., & Dubé, L. (2010). Trade, food, diet, and health: Perspectives and policy options. Chichester, UK: Blackwell. Oosterveer, P. (2007). Global governance of food production and consumption: Issues and challenges. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. Pechlaner, G., & Otero, G. (2010). The neoliberal food regime: Neoregulation and the new division of labor in North America. Rural Sociology, 75, 179–208. Pottier, P. (1999). Anthropology of food: The social dynamics of food security. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Raney, T. L. (2005). The state of food and agriculture, 2005: Agricultural trade and poverty: Can trade work for the poor? Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Shiva, V. (2000). Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food supply. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture. (2007). Examining the performance of U.S. trade and food aid programs for the 2007 farm bill: Hearing before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, March 21, 2007. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Wilde, P. (2013). Food policy in the United States: An introduction. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. World Trade Organization. (n.d.). Agriculture: Fairer markets for farmers. Retrieved from http://www.wto .org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm3_e.htm

F media such as the New York Times. Factory farms (including all legally designated CAFOs) are characterized not only by the concentration of animals, usually indoors and often with tens of thousands of animals in one building, but also by structures of corporate ownership that incentivize the externalization of costs and the convergent use of intensive genetic manipulation, feed with pharmaceuticals added to it, and environmental control of temperature, light, air quality, and so on to maximize the profitability of a business model predicated on selling large quantities of inexpensive meat. This entry will proceed with a brief historical overview of factory farming, discuss the main critiques of it, and discuss how the general public became aware of factory farming. As we will see, many of the critiques leveled against factory farming argue that it violates widespread social values, and so the remainder of the essay will deepen our understanding of factory farming by considering two explanations of how a system alleged to be out of sync with many widely held ethical stances nonetheless produces 99% of the meat that most Americans eat every day.

FACTORY FARMING As generally used in public discourse, factory farming and confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are different terms for the same, currently dominant system of animal agriculture in which animals are concentrated in small areas; in addition, CAFO is a legal designation in the United States. The unprecedented pollution created by this historically unusual form of agriculture prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to create the designation “confined animal feeding operation,” or CAFO. All farms legally designated as CAFOs would be considered factory farms, but a modest percentage (less than 10%) of farms typically considered factory farms—and even casually referred to as CAFOs—may instead be legally designated as “animal feeding operations” (or AFOs) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Utilizing U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, we can deduce that approximately 99.9% of chickens raised for meat (also called “broilers”), 96% of laying hens (“layers”), 99% of turkeys, 95% of pigs, and 78% of cattle either live their entire lives (poultry and pigs) or spend the end of their lives (cattle) on industrial farms that are popularly referred to as factory farms. Because more chickens are raised than any other animal, the percentage of animals raised for meat that come from factory farms is at least 99%, a number widely cited in activist literature and utilized in news

Historical Overview Origins in Poultry

Starting in the 1920s and following the trends that had transformed industrial slaughter in the century prior, the poultry industry was the first to 429

430

Factory Farming

utilize a combination of nutritional, pharmaceutical, genetic, and other sciences to reinvent traditional husbandry practices. Animal husbandry refers to millennia-old practices of breeding and raising animals for human benefit and the associated systems of knowledge and ethics. As used in this entry, “animal husbandry” is contrasted with “animal science,” the latter naming the knowledge system that helped supplant the dominance of traditional husbandry to create the factory farm. The most visible change when traditional poultry farms adopted factory farm methods is that birds became raised entirely indoors in large numbers. In what is arguably the most dramatic change, the industry utilized intensified versions of conventional breeding techniques (especially hybrid breeding) to engineer chickens that grow to market weight in one third the time (reducing typical time to market from around 120 days to around 40 days) while simultaneously eating less than half the feed. The poultry industry achieved this in part by isolating and propagating a genetic mutation (the TBC1D1 gene) originally identified as a marker of obesity disease. This mutation is now found in virtually all commercially available chickens, including those labeled as organic and free range. In addition to raising questions for human health only now being interrogated, this rapid growth can lead the birds to incur painful problems with skeletal development, obesity, and heart and lung functions. While crucial to the increases in efficiency that led to massive cost reductions for consumers, indoor confinement and unhealthy growth rates are two examples of how the new ethos of the factory farm systematically transformed traditional poultry husbandry with particularly acute costs to animal well-being. Pigs and Cattle Follow

By the 1960s, the poultry industry was dominated by these factory methods, and the pig and cattle industries had begun to follow suit. By the end of the 1980s, the vast majority of hog farms and about half of dairy operations were utilizing some form of intensive confinement. The beef industry is more complicated; while it introduced factory farm methods at the same time as the pork

industry did, it also preserved aspects of the old husbandry system. As a result, in the beef industry, animals typically begin their lives in systems that are still driven to a considerable extent by the logic of traditional animal husbandry but end their lives on massive feedlots that have the same problems as those associated with factory farming.

Animal Welfare The new configuration of the human–animal relationship that factory farms have created not only defies the core logic of the previously dominant husbandry-based system of animal agriculture but also has been criticized as violating basic social taboos against animal cruelty (in the United States, factory farms are legally exempted from anticruelty laws in many states). On the one hand, husbandrybased animal agriculture worked within a framework that more or less aligned what we call “animal welfare” and profitability (healthier animals grew faster and could be sold for more); on the other hand, ethical regulations proliferated at moments in the system when it was known that this alignment broke down, as it did at the moment of slaughter. Thus, in the United States today, there is no federal legislation limiting animal cruelty on farms, but there is federal regulation that mandates “humane slaughter.” The traditional husbandry system, with its roots in animal domestication itself, blended logics of dominance and care; the factory farm system, with an ethos rooted more in the Industrial Revolution than in animal agriculture, tends to think overwhelmingly in terms of dominance.

Sustainability and Public Health Raising animals in high densities, as is done in factory farming, also has adverse consequences for the natural environment. Animal manure, historically an asset because it can be used for fertilizer, can also pollute water; with the large amounts generated by factory farming, animal manure has now become an ecological liability, and concerns about how the industry manages it is a major point of controversy. Furthermore, the drugs used to keep ill, stressed, and suffering animals profitable

Factory Farming

contribute to public health problems such as antibiotic resistance and the rise of superbugs.

Availability of Information Online Information

Although the methods of factory farming are still largely unknown to the general public, in recent decades, information explaining the practices of factory farming and the various benefits and problems attributed to them has become widely accessible. Online reports from organizations such as the United Nations and the Pew Commission; curated articles and information on factory farming on websites such as the Huffington Post and the New York Times Online; and the websites of several nonprofit advocacy organizations have made industry reports, peer-reviewed articles, undercover investigations, government records, expert opinions, and direct video footage dealing with factory farming available to anyone with an Internet connection. In the United States, many of the advocacy organizations providing content about factory farming are animal protection groups such as the Animal Welfare Institute, Compassion in World Farming, Compassion Over Killing, Farm Forward, Farm Sanctuary, Humane Society of the United States, Mercy for Animals, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but some environmental groups, such as Food and Water Watch and Natural Resources Defense Council, also provide information on factory farms. Role of Video

The Internet distribution of video footage of animals suffering on factory farms has been particularly powerful in changing public attitudes toward factory farming. In response to this emotionally resonant video footage, agribusiness has since 1990 put considerable resources into passing laws (aka ag-gag laws) aimed at making investigative reporting into factory farming—particularly undercover investigations done by activists who get jobs at factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses to gather information—punishable by law. More

431

than half of the seven states (Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, and Utah) that have passed these laws did so after 2011, when agribusiness started a major push to address undercover investigations. Some have questioned the constitutionality of these laws, but, regardless of their ability to withstand scrutiny, the laws have discouraged undercover reporting. Books

In 1964, the U.K. activist Ruth Harrison wrote Animal Machines, generally considered the first popular book critiquing factory farming. At the time of its publication and for decades afterward, Harrison’s book and those that followed were among the only accessible sources of insight into the transformation in animal agriculture from a husbandry-based system to a factory farming system. The philosopher Peter Singer was among those influenced by Harrison, and Singer’s subsequent collaboration with the lawyer Jim Mason in 1980, Animal Factories, played a role in the United States similar to that of Harrison’s book in the United Kingdom and Europe in providing a critical exposé of the factory farm system. Significantly, pre-1960 references to “factory farming” (sometimes hyphenated) are often neutral or positive, but as a result of the critiques published by Harrison, Singer, Mason, and the social movements of animal protection with which they remain associated, “factory farming” has come to name a social problem. Some more recent critiques of the industrial food system, such as Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (2001), have eschewed the term factory farming and offered a different critical vantage on animal agriculture, but books like Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma (2006) and, to a greater extent, Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals (2009) continue the polemical intent of the term factory farming as popularized by Harrison, Singer, and Mason.

Factory Farming as Critique Animal protection advocates (more than any other group), environmentalists, public health advocates,

432

Factory Farming

and defenders of rural life all energetically use the term factory farming to critique animal agriculture but emphasize different concerns. Factory Farming as a Mind-Set

What tends to unite all these critiques, however, is the sentiment that attempting to challenge factory farming requires not only a change in particular technical practices but also a change in mind-set. Critics are primarily attacking the mindset of the industry itself but also the mind-set that enables it, namely, daily financial support of the factory farm through food choices. The political movements combating factory farming tend to focus their financial resources on curbing excesses such as gestation crates that confine pregnant pigs so tightly that they are unable to turn around for most of their life, barren battery cages that allow tens of thousands of birds to be crammed into a single building, lacing animal feed with antibiotics, unregulated environmental discharges into waterways, and so on—but they are grounded in a more fundamental conviction that something went wrong (or got worse) in the development of modern animal agriculture and that we are in need of a systematic reorientation. For critics, factory farming is thus less a name for an activity than it is name-calling, or put another way, factory farming names a critique as much as an activity.

Failure of Social Ethics The philosopher Bernard Rollin is widely considered the founder of veterinary ethics (the development of the field itself is in part a response to factory farming). Rollin has argued that factory farming became so dominant in part because the pioneers of factory farming found themselves in a space where all the accumulated moral restraints that had governed the treatment of animals in traditional husbandry were substantially eroded. In a process that the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman has noted as a general feature of modernity, the institutions of science, in particular, contributed to this moral erosion by demeaning religious mores and the previously entrenched knowledge systems—in

this case, traditional husbandry, which had long been associated with the biblical ideal of the “good shepherd.” Ultimately, departments of “animal husbandry” were renamed departments of “animal science” as the factory farm became the dominant form of animal agriculture. Rollin illustrates the difference between the ethos of traditional husbandry and the new logic of factory farming by telling the story of a young man he knew working in a pig factory farm, where several of the pigs were suffering from a disease. Company policy was to immediately kill such animals since treating them did not prove profitable. The young man, who had a family background in husbandry, came in after hours to treat the animals at his own expense. He was subsequently fired for doing so even though the treatment succeeded. As this story suggests, the takeover of animal agriculture by corporations that lacked the empathetic capacity of human actors further contributed to this ethical erosion. Rollin further argues that while factory farming undoubtedly produces unnecessary animal suffering, many of these new forms of suffering are not well captured in the conventional ethical language of “cruelty.” For example, the intensified modern methods of breeding broiler chickens (birds raised for meat rather than legs) has made them grow so large so fast that their legs simply cannot support them. A farmer who raises modern industrial chickens for meat might genuinely treat the chickens with care and concern; however, because of the genetically induced rapid weight gain, a significant percentage of that farmer’s birds will experience so much pain from walking that they will simply choose to stand most of the time. To call such a farmer “cruel to animals” seems strange because the farmer has not mistreated the animals. The genetically induced suffering of this farmer’s birds is not how we typically think of “cruelty,” yet it is the decision about what animals to breed (traditional heritage breeds or modern fast-growth varieties) more than how the birds are raised after they are born (conventional confinement, free-range, pastured, etc.) that has the major impact on animal suffering in the poultry industry. In sum, Rollin argues that factory farming has created forms of

Factory Farming

suffering that cannot be conceptually encompassed, let alone publically discussed, in terms of a traditional anticruelty ethos—thus the failure of social ethics to prevent these practices. Rollin has also pointed out that a new social ethic regarding animals is quickly asserting itself and that the factory farm industry is reluctantly responding to this reality. However, for decades, the factory farm industry reinvented animal agriculture with little effective resistance from the general public. The result is an animal agriculture system that engages in practices out of sync with commonsense ideas about how animals should be treated (consider the widespread practice of exempting factory farms from anticruelty laws), how environmental pollution should be handled (e.g., hog factory farms routinely spray manure in the air to dispose of it), and what level of risk to public health is acceptable to lower costs (e.g., the standard practice of administering antibiotics to animals so frequently that it diminishes their effectiveness in treating humans). Distancing and Concealment

A contemporary version of Upton Sinclair, the political scientist Timothy Pachirat conducted an ethnography in an industrial slaughterhouse in the Great Plains of the United States by going undercover as an employee for roughly 6 months in 2004. Taking the slaughterhouse as an exemplary instance, Pachirat’s study considers how distance and concealment make it possible to use power in violent, yet socially acceptable, ways, and his analysis of the slaughterhouse is—unsurprisingly given the historical links—equally applicable to the factory farm. Pachirat considers the slaughterhouse as an institution analogous to the prison, the psychiatric ward, the detention center, the interrogation room, and the extermination camp and theorizes it as a “zone of confinement” segregated from general society and by design inaccessible to the public. Following the legacy of Bauman, who theorized the features of modernity that enabled the Holocaust, Pachirat shows how the sophisticated technical and ideational products of modernity work to render the slaughterhouse invisible

433

and thus difficult to critique or even to care about. The same can be said of most factory farms.

The Event of Factory Farming Factory Farming and Modernity

There is an important point of agreement between both critics and advocates of factory farming that animal agriculture has undergone a paradigm shift. Indeed, both critics and admirers repeat the trope that the changes to animal agriculture brought about by the proliferation of factory farming in the past century are as great as the changes that occurred during the previous 10,000 years. In this way of thinking, the paradigm shift represented by factory farming not only is constituted by modern forces, but it is in part constitutive of modernity itself. Our understanding of time itself—our understanding of modernity as a distinct epoch—is bound up with our imagination of industrialization, including the industrialization of agriculture in the factory farm. Following the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, factory farming may not be just one social change among others but what he calls “an event”—a phenomenon that merits our attention as a major historical process of global economic and ideational significance. Animal Factories and Human Subjectivity

Most critics of factory farming, noting that the practices of factory farming contradict widely professed social values, focus on frontal critiques of the factory farm that aim to change public perception of it. In contrast, Derrida suggests that the public is already, at least at one important level, well aware that there is something unprecedented and contrary to professed values in the ongoing “subjection” of animals in factory farms and other institutions of modernity. For Derrida, this subjection is, on the one hand, a subjugation of animals, and, on the other hand, the very process of reproducing dominant understandings of the human subject. If factory farming is tolerated despite its constant violation of basic social values, Derrida and some other critics suggest that this is not

434

Fair and Carnival Food

because of a simple lack of awareness but because, at one level, powerful social groups approve of the kind of relationship of extreme dominance over animals that the factory farm perpetuates and, for this reason, overlook cruelty. Just as the “cost” of animal lives is seen as acceptable because it produces meat for humans to consume, so too the cost of animal suffering on factory farms is, according to this thinking, acceptable if it is necessary to enable all human beings to participate in “dominion” (in this imaginary, dominion is encapsulated and symbolized in the process of eating animals). If we humans imagine ourselves as the subjectivity that subjugates animals—for example, imaginations of the human as “man the hunter” or as being given divine-like dominion to do what he wishes with creation—then the factory farm can be viewed as a kind of apotheosis of that subjection and a daily vehicle for reproducing a certain vision of human superiority. Thus, we have two valuable explanations of how the apparent contradictions between professed values and the factory farm can be explained: On the one hand, following Rollin, we can explain this situation as a temporary eclipse of social values, and as social values adapt, we can expect increasing social sanctions against factory farming. On the other hand, following Derrida, it may be that the factory farm is, consciously for some but unconsciously for others, representative of exactly the kind of totalized, scientifically precise dominance of animals and the natural world about which segments of society have long dreamed. Aaron S. Gross See also Cattle Industry; Dairy Industry; Free-Range Meats and Poultry; Manure Lagoons/Methane; Meat Processing

Derrida, J. (2008). The animal that therefore I am (M.-L. Mallet, Ed. & D. Wills, Trans.). Bronx, NY: Fordham University Press. Foer, J. S. (2009). Eating animals. New York, NY: Little, Brown. The Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). Protect farm animals. Retrieved from http://www.humane society.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farming/ Imhoff, D. (2010). The CAFO reader: The tragedy of industrial animal factories. Healdsburg and Berkeley: Watershed Media with University of California Press. Kirby, D. (2010). Animal factory: The looming threat of industrial pig, dairy, and poultry farms to humans and the environment. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Niman, N. H. (2009). Righteous porkchop: Finding a life and good food beyond factory farms. New York, NY: Collins Living. Pachirat, T. (2011). Every twelve seconds: Industrialized slaughter and the politics of sight (Yale Agrarian Studies Series). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Production. (2008). Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal production in America. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Rollin, B. (2006). An introduction to veterinary medical ethics: Theory and cases (2nd ed.). Ames, IA: Blackwell. Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2006). The way we eat: Why our food choices matter. New York, NY: Rodale. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassender, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

Websites Factory Farm Map: http://www.factoryfarmmap.org Farm Forward: http://www.farmforward.com/farmingforward/factory-farming

Further Readings

FAIR

Animal Welfare Institute. (n.d.). Farm animals. Retrieved from http://www.awionline.org/content/farm-animals Benson, G. J., & Rollin, B. E. (2004). The well-being of farm animals: Challenges and solutions. Ames, IA: Blackwell.

Fair and carnival food is most often characterized by excess—in ingredients, colors, flavors, and quantities, as well as in quality (especially for those foods meant for competition as opposed to

AND

CARNIVAL FOOD

Fair and Carnival Food

consumption). At these “time out of time” (noneveryday, special, and holiday-like) events, people come together to celebrate local foods and cultural offerings, indulge in special activities, take part in competitions (for animals, foods, crafts, and games), and enjoy being with family and friends. Fairs and carnivals reframe work as play, hence the creative ways in which various foods are featured. Fairs celebrate and intensify our relationships with each other and usually some kind of agricultural harvest, sometimes a particular food with iconic meaning to a particular town or place. Fair foods reflect the bounty of local produce, as well as those “forbidden” or otherwise sanctioned foods in which we do not indulge for everyday meals. Moderation is not the point. While “Carnival” technically refers to pre-Lenten festivals of inversion, disorder, and masking that also mark the seasonal transition between winter and spring in the Western world and in the Northern Hemisphere, the term as used for this discussion can be taken as a variant of fair, referring to comparable community celebrations. Fair and carnival food is of three types: foods for competition and display, foods that point to the identity of the group or the town celebrating, and foods for consumption—all of which are discussed in this entry. Fairs and carnivals differentiate their foods from their everyday counterparts, and they are marked by one of more features such as excessive size, rich ingredients, or excellence in taste or appearance. At agricultural fairs—county or state— farmers display the best (in terms of size, color, flavor, appearance, or other criteria) pumpkins, cucumbers, pigs, cows, sheep, horses, and so on, which sport blue ribbons in testament to the importance of excellence—and the explicit relationship of production to consumption, with ice cream stands next to milking demonstrations and lamb burgers for sale outside of lamb and sheep exhibitions. This entry begins with a discussion of fair and carnival foods, their characteristics, and the functions such food serves. Next, it presents information about food competitions and displays and then how food can be an identity marker. The entry concludes with a look at how we consume such foods.

435

Food Competitions and Displays Fairs celebrate the harvest with competitions that allow cooks, bakers, and canners of all types to show off their skills—to each other and to fairgoers. Interested individuals or commercial products (a particular cheese, a state’s egg bureau, a meat association, or a brand of flour) sponsor “food premiums” (prizes) for entrants who incorporate a particular ingredient (i.e., a brand-name tomato sauce) or create a certain variety of cookie, cake, pie, or bread. There are usually criteria having to do with appearance, taste, and texture as well as “best” use of a particular ingredient. Judges, who may be celebrities, those experienced in making the particular food item, home economics teachers, extension agents, chefs, or previous winners, taste samples of all the entries and evaluate them according to published criteria. Judges usually award first-, second-, and thirdplace ribbons (blue, red, and white) and sometimes an honorable mention or a best of show. Fairs often divide entries into age classes so that children or young people do not compete against more experienced cooks. U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations for safe canning and preservation generally dictate many of the criteria for such foods, which judges (versed in U.S. Department of Agriculture requirements) do not taste but adjudicate according to appearance, color, and aesthetic arrangement of items. Shelves and cases of award-winning cakes, pies, cookies, jams, jellies, and more are available for fairgoers to view, admire, and comment on— providing models from which budding cooks can learn. Fairs often compile the results of each year’s prize-winning recipes into cookbooks, which serve as fund-raisers. Such devices serve to extend the spirit of the fair throughout the rest of the year.

Fair and Carnival Foods as Identity Markers Some fairs and carnivals feature a particular food and its many manifestations. Cooking contests involving that item—barbecued meat of some sort, a particular fruit, vegetable, grain, or even legume— may be fêted. Often, the designated food comes to

436

Fair Trade

stand for a particular town or community, achieving symbolic value, which marketing teams may also use to promote the group, town, or food item to insiders and outsiders. Hence, Georgia and Colorado have peach festivals; Cedar Rapids, Iowa, celebrates Houby Days (morel mushrooms); Appalachia has ramp festivals; and Gilroy, California, hosts the Garlic Festival. Oregon’s native peoples have salmon bakes, and New England is known for clambakes. Vendors and food competition contestants alike display the general theme of festival license (freedom from everyday rules or strictures) with the variety of (often unusual) ways the particular ingredient is used as well as the free or large quantities of it available. Thus, Pullman, Washington, even has a Lentil Festival, which, according to folklorist Matthew George, started as an economic development effort and blossomed into a homecoming event complete with a 5-k (5-kilometer) race, king and queen contest, free lentil chili for all, a lentil pancake breakfast, a cooking contest, and a music festival. Such events use food to celebrate community, the successful harvest or creation of that item, and those who have worked to produce it.

Food to Eat What all fairs and carnivals have in common is the large quantities of rich-tasting, fried, fatty, salty, or sweet foods. While carnivals, which seem to relate more to circuses, tend to feature large quantities of dessert or snack foods (cotton candy, popcorn, ice cream), fairs tend to offer foods designed to appeal to all of our senses. We “devour” them with our eyes, and we are overwhelmed by their aromas. Even our ears become complicit as the sizzle of frying fat and the alluring cries of vendors seduce us into tasting and devouring creamy, crispy, toothsome, and fluffy textures. Fairs feature special foods that go beyond street foods (i.e., those easily eaten out of hand), for they are messy, huge, and excessive, albeit often “contained” on sticks—a running joke about fair foods is that as long as it can be served on a stick, someone will buy and eat it. Giant turkey legs, huge clouds of cotton candy,

battered and deep fried butter, large sacks of kettle corn, gigantic funnel cakes, and overflowing ice cream cones—such are the foods we consume during these times of license. Fair and carnival foods, like the events of which they are part, enable communities to gather and celebrate. Foods available at these events are generally not everyday foods, unless they are served or sold in excessively large quantities. These are foods that allow us, even encourage us, to indulge—to viscerally experience nature’s bounty, albeit in unnatural ways. Rachelle H. Saltzman See also Food Fairs and Festivals; Street Food

Further Readings Adema, P. (2009). Garlic capital of the world: Gilroy, garlic, and the making of a festive foodscape. Oxford: University of Mississippi Press. Brown, L. K., & Mussell, K. (Eds.). (1984). Ethnic and regional foodways in the United States: The performance of group identity. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Hickman, M. (1913). 8 carnival foods we dare you to try. Retrieved from http://www.mnn.com/food/healthyeating/photos/8-carnival-foods-we-dare-you-to-try/ battered-fried-and-served-on-a-stick Humphrey, T. C., & Humphrey, L. T. (Eds.). (1988). We gather together: Food and festival in American life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Iowa State Fair. (2013). Iowa state fair food. Retrieved from http://www.iowastatefair.org/fair-attractions/food/ Kirsch, F. (2011). Eat me at the fair: America’s love affair with food installations. Gastronomica, 11(3), 77–83. Neustadt, K. (1992). Clambake: A history of an American tradition. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

FAIR TRADE Fair trade refers to a form of social movement that is organized using a variety of mechanisms and certification regimes. In general, fair-trade initiatives

Fair Trade

aim to improve conditions for producers from developing countries, who traditionally have been marginalized and who grow or make goods for export to the developed world, as well as to promote economic and environmental sustainability in these regions. The main mechanism by which it attempts to produce such improvements is via the payment of higher and therefore “fair” prices for these export goods, as well as by adoption of environmental and social welfare standards on par with those in the developed countries. Organizations committed to promoting fair trade also typically engage in advocacy for changes to regulatory and legal mechanisms associated with trade as well as for improvements in workplace and environmental conditions for smaller producers in the developing world. Although the market for fair-trade products is relatively small in relation to conventional products, it has been growing significantly, and by some accounts by 20% to 30% per year in recent years, with coffee sales growing by nearly 50% per year in some countries. It has generally been documented that many consumers have positive attitudes to products that have been ethically produced, including fair-trade products. However, they are often not willing to pay the price premium associated with such products, particularly because the benefits to the individual consumer may not be apparent to them. Some purchasers appear to be concerned that they are sacrificing other attributes such as flavor or convenience when these products are compared with conventional ones, or about whether they can trust the labels or the certification as well as the implicit promises as to the economic and social benefits associated with fair-trade products. This entry explains the labeling and certification of fair-trade products, describes the development of food products as fair-trade products, and then discusses several criticisms of the fair-trade movement.

Labeling and Certification Although there is no one universally accepted definition of “fair trade,” most organizations

437

that engage in labeling or certification utilize a shared definition developed in 2001 by an informal partnership of a number of fair-trade networks (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International; International Fair Trade Association, now known as the World Fair Trade Organization; Network of European Worldshops; and European Fair Trade Association), known by the acronym FINE. Fair trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency, and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers—especially in the South. Fair trade organizations, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade.

Many of the goods that have been a focus of fair-trade initiatives are food products, notably bananas and other types of fresh and dried fruit, chocolate and cocoa, coffee, fruit juice, herbs and spices, honey, nuts, quinoa, rice, sugar, tea, and wine. Most fair-trade food products originate in Africa or South America, with a recent increase in products originating in some developing countries in Asia. An international certification label was created in the early 2000s by an umbrella organization called the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International as part of an effort to harmonize standards and improve the visibility of the fairtrade brand. This mark and labeling system (known as “Fairtrade”) is now in use in more than 50 countries on a wide range of products, a number of which are food products. Fair-trade branding has begun to be extended beyond conventional commodities to include branding of towns, universities, and other institutions that comply with the goals of fair trade; these brandings, in turn, may affect food consumption patterns, particularly if they influence consumer or tourist behaviors. There are a number of widely recognized fair-trade organizations, including Fairtrade

438

Fair Trade

International, Fair Trade USA, the World Fair Trade Organization, International Maritime Organization, and Eco-Social, as well as a range of religiously affiliated fair-trade organizations, some of which label products and some of which label organizations. Various fair-trade associations market their products in different ways, but many focus on larger scale retailers so as to develop and maintain sufficient volume in order to have impacts for the developing world. A much smaller percentage market and sell their products through specialist shops or other alternative ethical networks, including some that promote direct contact between consumers and producers. One common model involves payment by a cooperative of producers of a fee to a fair-trade organization to use the organization’s branding and logo on their products, with most of the fee going back into marketing the overall brand. The cooperative must be certified fair trade by the organization, which typically involves ensuring that crops are grown and harvested in accordance with the international fair-trade standards, as well as monitoring the supply chain to ensure integrity of the fair-trade-labeled product. Certification also involves ensuring that other workplace standards are fulfilled, such as health and safety, fair wages (and banning of child and slave labor), basic human rights, the right to organize and unionize, and so on. Such initiatives are particularly important for smaller scale farmers, the primary participants in fair-trade arrangements, as they often have limited abilities to grow their income in traditional ways (e.g., increasing the size of their holdings). Other goals of fair-trade initiatives are to build and maintain long-term business relationships between producers, sellers, and retailers and greater transparency throughout the supply chain, as well as positive impacts on the local environment such as reductions in pesticide and herbicide use as well as deforestation and soil erosion. Typically, there is a guaranteed minimum price per kilo for products, which is particularly critical when the world market is oversupplied, as well as surcharges paid to the cooperatives for investment in

community development projects such as education- or health-related initiatives.

Development of Fair-Trade Food Products The formalized fair-trade movement had its historic origins in efforts by religious groups as well as nongovernmental organizations to develop supply chains and commercial markets for goods from the developing world that had been produced under higher working conditions beginning in the 1940s. These earliest fair-trade products were typically handicrafts such as needlework products that were sold typically via churches, with the products being primarily a token provided in exchange for a donation rather than having value in their own right. Contemporary fair-trade initiatives date to the 1960s, a period of political and social upheaval in Europe and the United States, as part of a broader critique of existing models of capitalism and trade. Another part of the movement in this period was to market products from countries that had been blacklisted from conventional trading channels for political reasons such as coffee from Nicaragua. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development adopted the popular slogan “trade not aid” in 1968 in recognition of the growing awareness of the need to scrutinize and improve trade relations between the developing and the developed world. Food products began to grow in the fair-trade sector in the 1980s, and the market for handicrafts reached a plateau. Fair-trade organizations began to be more aware of the impacts on smaller farmers in the developing world of heightened globalization, various structural changes in the agricultural sector, and declines in the prices of various commodities, and hence, they shifted focus onto the agricultural sector. The initial fairtrade food products were tea and coffee followed by a range of other products, and food lines quickly overtook handicrafts in the 1990s in terms of overall fair-trade sales. A large part of the success of these initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s were significant changes in the marketing and retailing models utilized: The

Fair Trade

development of fair-trade certification regimes and standardized labeling allowed fair-trade products to expand beyond dedicated “worldshops” and similar setups to larger retailers where the majority of consumers shop. Instead of having to go to a specialty fair-trade retailer for just a few products such as coffee or chocolate, one can now find many fair-trade-certified products on the shelves of most major supermarkets or other chains in developed countries and have some assurances that these products meet agreed-on standards of fair trade. During this period, many multinational corporations, including retailers, also began to stock fair-trade product lines. Some of these products are simply rebrandings of their traditional products, while other companies have developed new, dedicated fair-trade product lines. Multinational corporations typically claim that these products are part of a broader strategy relating to corporate responsibility, although many fair-trade initiatives in particular appear to have been direct responses to consumer concerns about unethical labor practices or environmental impacts of certain products or companies on the developing world. Although many multinational corporations participate in recognized fair-trade accreditation mechanisms, others have developed their own branding systems, which, in turn, have in some cases undermined consumer trust in the labeling of fair-trade products, contributing to perceptions that fair trade is simply a marketing ploy.

Criticisms Among the criticisms of the fair-trade movement is that it is difficult to measure how much of the higher prices created by certification and labeling actually reaches the primary producers. The costs of certification are sometimes considerable, particularly as there are particular fair-trade standards that need to be met for all products labeled as fair trade. Research is limited on the costs associated with fair-trade certification and compliance and the impacts of fair-trade initiatives. Some data are available to show that the income, education, and

439

health of producers of Latin American fair-trade coffee products were improved when compared with producers of conventional coffee products. However, in many cases, the additional profits went to middlemen such as suppliers and exporters rather than individual producers. There are a limited number of studies that generate estimates on the amount of the extra profits passed onto cooperatives and/or producers, with calculations ranging from less than 1% to 18%, based on a particular set of assumptions. In addition, some research has found that implementation of certain standards associated with fair trade can create greater inequalities, in particular markets where the rules are inappropriate for the specific market in question. In addition, most cooperatives participating in fair-trade initiatives sell only a percentage of their products as fair trade (on average around one third) because of the lack of product demand, with the majority of the product going to the developed world using standard labeling and marketing. Oftentimes, the importing, packing, distributing, and retailing systems for fair-trade and non-fairtrade coffee are identical in the countries that import these products; hence, the products themselves differ little except for the branding and marketing associated with them. Therefore, the benefits for consumers of purchasing these higher priced products are difficult to define or measure: There is no economic advantage and potentially no improvement in quality. Thus, fair-trade products are primarily attractive only to wishing to express their values through their purchases, which may in fact be a relatively small proportion of the market. Other critics note that despite the certification requirement that cooperatives and their members adhere to certain standards, enforcement is minimal and compliance is not policed, resulting in kickbacks and corruption and causing some to evade the standards, while others suffer additional costs in order to comply. Some are particularly suspicious of the involvement of multinational corporations in fair trade, noting that these companies often develop very small product lines

440

Fair Trade

that are fair trade for marketing purposes but do not change their overall business models enough to make real differences to the bulk of their producers and suppliers. Some question whether buying fair trade from large multinational companies actually contributes to the fair-trade movement or is it merely participation in deceptive cause-related marketing that does not have ethical flow-on effects for those in the developing world. Still another concern relates to the economic harms that fair trade may be having for non-fairtrade farmers and producers, particularly in relation to overproduction. If fair-trade producers in fact increase their production, and perhaps make products more efficiently, even a small increase in supply could result in large declines in market price, as the market for many products sold as fair trade is relatively static. Although fair-trade farmers are guaranteed a minimum price, non-fair-trade farmers are adversely affected. A further issue is that cooperatives that are fair trade may more readily attract attention and aid from governmental and nongovernmental donors than those not associated with the fair-trade movement, which both potentially diverts resources away from those most in need and makes it extremely difficult to analyze whether positive (or negative) changes in a particular location are due to involvement with fair trade or other initiatives. Perhaps the strongest criticism comes from those who have concerns about whether the divide between consumers in the developed North and producers in the developing South is further entrenched by the fair-trade system, and particularly whether those in developed locales can actually make a difference to those in developing countries through relatively small-scale purchases. Furthermore, fair-trade products could be seen as perpetuating stereotypes of dependency that reinforce imperialistic and colonial views of those living in the developing world, where the consumers of the developed world hold the balance of power. At the extreme end of the spectrum, it has been argued that the fair-trade movement is premised on an elitist Northern consumerist view of justice and human rights, which is being forced on Southern producers as the one correct “ethical” stance

without consultation or participation of those in the developing South. A middle ground seems to be supported by many: Even if the specific mechanisms currently in place to certify and market fair-trade products may have problems and limitations, the underlying concept of promoting fair trade as part of a broader approach to human rights and sustainable development is to be supported, so long as it is in fact pursued through dialogue, transparency, and respect from those producers and workers disadvantaged by the current structures of governance and trade. Rachel A. Ankeny See also Deforestation for Agriculture; Food Miles; Values-Based Food Supply Chains

Further Readings Arnot, C., Boxall, P., & Cash, S. (2006). Do ethical consumers care about price? A revealed preference analysis of fair trade coffee purchases. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54, 555–565. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00066.x Berlan, A. (2008). Making or marketing a difference? An anthropological examination of the marketing of fair trade cocoa from Ghana. Research in Economic Anthropology, 28, 171–194. Bowes, J. (2010). The fair trade revolution. London, UK: Pluto Press. De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39, 363–385. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00019.x Fridell, G. (2007). Fair trade coffee: The prospects and pitfalls of market-driven social justice. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Fridell, M., Hudson, I., & Hudson, M. (2008). With friends like these: The corporate response to fair trade coffee. Review of Radical Political Economics, 40, 8–34. doi:10.1177/0486613407311082 Griffiths, P. (2011). Ethical objections to fairtrade. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 357–373. doi:10.1007/ s10551-011-0972-0 Jaffee, D. (2007). Brewing justice: Fair trade coffee, sustainability and survival. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Family Farms and Rural Depopulation Lamb, H. (2008). Fighting the banana wars and other fairtrade battles: How we took on the corporate giants to change the world. Chatham, UK: Random House. Macdonald, K. (2007). Globalising justice within coffee supply chains? Fair trade, Starbucks and the transformation of supply chain governance. Third World Quarterly, 28, 793–812. doi:10.1080/01436590701336663 Moseley, W. G. (2008). Fair trade wine: South Africa’s post-apartheid vineyards and the global economy. Globalizations, 5, 291–304. doi:10.1080/14747730802057753 Nicholls, A., & Opal, C. (2004). Fair trade: Marketdriven ethical consumption. London, UK: Sage. Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D. L., & Wilkinson, J. (2007). Fair trade: The challenges of transforming globalization. London, UK: Routledge. Valkila, J. (2009). Fair trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua: Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological Economics, 68, 3018–3025. Verdier-Scott, J. (2009). Labels, lies and the law: Opportunities and challenges in mainstreaming fair trade. Law, Social Justice and Global Development Journal, 1. Retrieved from http://www.go.warwick.ac .uk/elj/lgd/2009_1/verdier-stott Wright, S., & McCrea, D. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of organic and fair trade food marketing. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

FAMILY FARMS DEPOPULATION

AND

RURAL

The family farm, defined as a farm controlled and owned by a group of persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, makes up about 87% of 2.1 million farms in the United States. Gradually, the population of the United States has shifted from a largely rural population dependent on a large number of smaller family farms to a largely urban population dependent on significantly fewer, larger industrial family farms. This demographic population shift from rural to urban spaces and the economic shift from smaller to larger farms have significant economic, social, political, and cultural implications. Technological innovation, industrialization of farming techniques, lack of

441

affordable agricultural land, and economic pressures to consolidate largely account for these transformations. The increasing numbers of immigrants who migrate to the United States work on and, in some cases, own farms in rural areas. They provide a contrast to the overarching trend to rural depopulation. This entry discusses agricultural and population trends and factors that impact family farms.

Face of the Family Farm Although the stereotypical image of the family farm is that of a white heterosexual couple with several kids running around a red barn, the reality is much more diverse. Historically, farm children provided much-needed unpaid farm labor; today’s family farms might contract various farm services, like applying pesticides or harvesting, or directly hire nonfamily labor to perform agricultural work. With various genders, ages, sexualities, and disparate economic, ethnic, national, and social backgrounds, farmers today are more diverse than they were in the past. The U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies farmers into principal, second, and third operators of farms. Of the around 3.1 million farm operators, about 27% or 850,000 identify as female farmers. The average age of American farmers is about 55 years, reflecting an aging farming population due to decreasing numbers of younger Americans choosing farming as a career. Although popular media tends to ignore this diversity, family farms can also include homosexual and other queer-identifying farmers. About 2.1 million farmers are principal farm operators, defined as making most of the day-to-day decisions on the farm. Today, American farmers come from every background in life from extremely poor to extremely wealthy, although more than 75% of principal operators sold less than $50,000 in agricultural products in 2012. Increasingly, immigrant farmers have replaced a rural population that has left the farm for the city, sometimes bringing alternative farming practices. Only about 14% of the principal operators are women, and only about 7% are minority farmers who identify as Hispanic, American Indian, black, and Asian. With the

442

Family Farms and Rural Depopulation

exception of Asian principal operators, minority farmers represent a disproportionately high number of small farmers with annual sales of less than $10,000. A little under half of all farmers actually identify farming as their primary occupation, an indication of the precarious financial situation for farmers across the United States needing additional income. Today, less than 1% of the U.S. population claims farming as an occupation, and about 2% actually live on farms.

Mechanization and Industrialization Although the hope of economic success pulls people to the city, a dramatic decrease in the need for manual labor pushes some potential farmers away from the farm. The increased use of efficient machines or mechanization of farming techniques employed today allow one farmer to plant multiple acres of corn in a few hours compared with previously needing many more people to plant the same amount over numerous days. Pesticides can be easily sprayed over a field, and machines that harvest crops greatly decrease the need for manual labor. The increased mechanization of farming mirrors an industrialization of farmland, which often means farmers plant one crop on the same land year after year to reduce the amount of special machines, pesticides, and fertilizers needed for different crops. The large amount of money needed to pay for all of these materials, sometimes every season, prohibits some farmers’ children from creating their own farms. The increased industrialization also works better on a larger scale, which encourages farmers to either buy up land around them to become a bigger, economically feasible operation or leave the industry altogether.

As more and more Americans move from rural or nonmetropolitan areas into urban spaces, the cities continuously sprawl outward and become suburbs, encroaching on surrounding farmlands and turning them into highly developed residential areas. Developers can pay higher prices for agricultural land, which often inflates the price of agricultural land, making it unaffordable on a farmer’s budget. The increased value of land brings Americans of a higher social class who often have no immediate agricultural ties onto land that had previously been used for farming, leaving farmers with few viable alternatives. About 3,000 acres of productive agricultural land is lost to development every day in the United States. This adds another reason why farmer’s children do not find it viable to continue in the farming industry and other potential farmers are deterred.

Size of Family Farms Every year, the amount of farmland used for smaller farms decreased, while larger farms steadily consolidate and increase in size. The total number of farms is decreasing, reflecting the large number of very small farms declining despite slight increases in farms making above $100,000 per year. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, while the farms that make the least amount per year (between $1,000 and $9,999) make up the majority of all farms, those making the most per year (more than $500,000) use more than 40% of the farmland. Farms that are the largest in size but least in number exert greater economic power over the price of various agricultural goods. This controlled market encourages smaller farmers to increase in size or to leave the agricultural industry, fueling the mechanization and industrialization of agriculture.

Lack of Agricultural Land Farmers who want to buy the land on which they farm (instead of leasing or renting), or who want to buy more land, often cannot afford the high prices of agricultural land. The cost of agricultural land frequently competes with suburban development.

Demographic Trends Historically, young people in rural America have left the farm often in hopes of better economic opportunities in more densely populated metropolitan areas. The 1970s and 1990s stand out as

Family Meals/Commensality

the exception to an otherwise consistent migration trend from rural to urban areas; during these two decades, people actually migrated into rural areas reflected by a 1% population increase in the rural United States. In the 2000s, migration into rural areas decreased again, continuing the overall rural depopulation trend. The diminished rural population was balanced by a natural increase in rural population due to rural women generally having more children than their urban counterparts prior to 1990. However, the cumulative effect of an increasing number of young rural men and women leaving for cities over the years culminated in an aging population with few childbearing-age adults. In addition to these factors, rural women during the 1990s and 2000s have had fewer children than in previous generations, resulting in a similar fertility level in urban and rural populations. An aging rural population that actually experiences an increased number of deaths and fewer births resulted in a natural decrease in population for many counties across the United States after 1990. M. Ruth Dike See also Factory Farming; Farm Bills; Gender and Foodways; Migrant Labor; Subsidies; Urbanization of Agricultural Land; U.S. Department of Agriculture

Further Readings Brown, D. L., & Kandel, W. A. (Eds.). (2006). Population change and rural society. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Falk, W. W., Schulman, M. D., & Tickamyer, A. R. (2003). Communities of work: Rural restructuring in local and global contexts. Athens: University of Ohio Press. Johnson, K. M. (2006). Demographic trends in rural and small town America (The Carsey Institute at the Scholars’ Repository, Paper 5, Vol. 1, No. 1). Retrieved from http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/5

Website U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture: http://agcensus.usda.gov/

443

FAMILY MEALS/COMMENSALITY Commensality is the practice of eating with others, and commensal units are groups that assemble to share meals. The family is the most fundamental unit, but commensality also takes place in cafeterias, dormitories, workplaces, hospitals, nursing homes, barracks, and jails. Commensal circles are relationships that set the boundaries for who is included and excluded from eating arrangements. Most scholarly attention has been paid to household meals, especially to households with children. In the United States, about 80% of parents and teenagers report that family meals are important. Regular participation in family mealtimes appears to have a positive effect on the health and wellbeing of children and on the development of social capital and civil society. On the other hand, commensality may be associated with rigid food rules, unrealistic standards of cooking perfection, intergenerational conflict, social hierarchies, group exclusion, and the stigma of eating alone. This entry outlines family meal and commensality characteristics, patterns, and trends, based on findings from quantitative and qualitative scholarly research.

Anthropological and Historical Studies Anthropologists and historians have emphasized that groups distinguish themselves by food habits, manners, and conceptions of eating. In stratified societies, hunger is more prevalent among people in disadvantaged and devalued social categories, and one’s social standing is marked by the consumption of certain products (e.g., meat and sugar). Commensal food habits define communities, family relations, and interactions between humans and gods and between the living and the dead. These relations are often celebrated in communal feasts with the sharing of symbolic food. The family is typically the basic unit of feeding others—it is where mothers breastfeed children and cook, where bonds of kinship are reinforced, and where problematic feeding that can lead to personality disorders may originate. Commensality

444

Family Meals/Commensality

involves cuisines (food elements and rules for their preparation), manners and food rule (customs that govern what, with whom, when, how, and where one eats), taboos (prohibitions and restrictions on the consumption of certain foods), and symbolism (meaning attributed to foods).

Economic and Sociological Studies Commensality varies by type of economy. Domestic shared mealtime is common in agricultural and rural economies, where food provision and mealtime rules are tied to the seasons of farm life and to the availability of family members to participate in preparing food. In industrial economies, with the female homemaker–male breadwinner division of labor, family dinners took on a new significance as the one time of day for a common meal. In many middle-class families, the family dinner was initially formal and patriarchal. Over time, it became less formal and more child centered, involving children in conversations and facilitating their development. Obstacles to family meals included more parents working nonstandard hours and/or having longer commutes, an increase in children’s extracurricular activities, and more pressures resulting from declining wages for workingclass parents. Increased female employment has not been matched by an equal amount of male participation in preparing family meals. In postindustrial economies, groups affected by the disappearance of long-term male employment have returned to preindustrial flexible patterns of mealtime provisioning. Present domestic relations involve juggling the needs of parents, children, elderly parents, extended kin, siblings, au pairs, and stepchildren in a job market with high unemployment, just-in-time production, flexitime, job sharing, round-the-clock provision of services, and demands for travel and mobility. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, about two thirds of households consist of the following types of families: husband and wife with children (48%), female householder (13%), and male householder (5%). About one third of households are nonfamily, and over a quarter are one-person units. Eight million people

live in group quarters arrangements such as school dormitories, nursing homes, or military barracks.

Frequency of Shared Meals in the United States The frequency of family meals has been investigated by experts in nutrition, psychology, pediatrics, and education. Their studies have certain limitations: Self-reports of daily activities tend to overestimate actual activities, most studies are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, and some surveys contain general questions, whereas others ask for specific numbers of meals. Surveys have different informants: adults with children under 18  years of age, adults with adolescent children, and adolescents. There is no scholarly agreement about how many family meals per week are optimal. Correlations are noted, but without longitudinal and purposive sampling strategies, it is not possible to draw causative conclusions about the frequency of family meals and positive outcomes. One longitudinal study is Project EAT, a large population-based survey of eating and weightrelated issues in adolescents, which has found that adolescents who eat more often with their family have better dietary intake, less use of unhealthy diet control behaviors, and lower substance abuse. Since 1994, national surveys of parents and teens conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University have consistently discovered correlations between frequent family meals and decreased risk of adolescent drug and alcohol use. Other studies have noted that teens who have frequent family meals are less likely to get into fights and to think about suicide, and they also have better language development, academic achievement, family support, and understanding of their cultural traditions. Some national surveys have charted the frequency of family meals over time. The DDB Needham Life Style Survey compared married respondents’ replies in 1975 to 2000 with the statement “Our whole family usually eats dinner together.” Those responding “disagree” increased from 16% to 27%, “definitely agree” decreased

Family Meals/Commensality

from 50% to 34%, and “generally or moderately agree” increased from 35% to 42%. A 2004 Gallup Poll compared 1997 and 2003 responses from adults with children under the age of 18 years to the question, “How many nights a week out of seven does your family eat dinner together at home?” The percentage responding 7 days declined from 37% to 28%, 4 to 6 days was virtually unchanged (46% to 47%), and 0 to 3 days rose from 16% to 24%. A 2005 Gallup Poll comparing the responses of adults with children under the age of 18 years in 1997 and 2005 found that the average response was consistently 5 nights per week over time. Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse found that between 1998 and 2005, there was an increase of 11 percentage points in teens having family dinners at least five times a week (47% to 58%). According to the Child Trends Data Bank comparison of data from 2003 and 2007, the frequency of family dinners declines as children age; children in poorer families, and those whose parents had less education, are more likely to have meals together with their families than are children with wealthier or more educated parents; Hispanic and “other-race” adolescents are more likely than white and black teens to eat family meals; and foreignborn adolescents are more likely than native-born teens to eat family meals together regularly.

Social Interactions During Mealtimes The beneficial effects of family meals depend on the nature of the social interactions during mealtime. Researchers studying these interactions use either a parenting style framework, which emphasizes the importance of parental responsiveness to child overtures, or a family management approach, which posits that positive outcomes are linked to the overall organization of the meal (role assignment, behavior management) and communication during the meal. They report that favorable outcomes are associated with a positive mealtime atmosphere, making mealtimes a priority, structure during meals, direct and clear communication, and responsiveness to children’s questions. Unfavorable

445

outcomes are associated with a lack of genuine concern and disengagement during the meal and overcontrolling and restrictive attitudes and behaviors toward food. Researchers have investigated the effects of watching television during mealtimes. Most families have a television in their eating area. A national survey reported that two thirds of children said that the television was on during family meals, and when adults were asked how they spent their evenings, 81% watched television and 56% talked to family members. Some parents see watching television during mealtimes as an educational opportunity or a way to avoid conflict at the table. Television viewing has been associated with reduced consumption of fruits and vegetables, less attention to satiety cues, and overeating. Every culture has rules about appropriate mealtime behavior. There are rituals of seating, giving thanks, and starting (eat when served or wait until all are served). In some cultures, talking at the dinner table is discouraged; in others, people drink and talk before dinner. Some avoid controversial topics such as religion and politics, whereas others relish an animated exchange of ideas. For some, conversations really take off once dessert and coffee are served. Experts offer advice about how to facilitate the art of conversation at the table: avoid favoritism, whispering, or sharing of private jokes; pay attention to everyone present as equally as possible; open out to other people; do not hold forth for long periods of time; avoid letting family dinners degenerate into interrogation sessions that inevitably elicit sullen, one-word nonanswers; ask children specific questions and solicit their accounts of everyday dilemmas such as schoolyard bullying; encourage constructive differences of opinion; and prohibit endless bickering and name-calling. In some qualitative studies, the family dinner table is described as the location of tension, shouting matches, vindictive and cruel behavior, battles against authoritarianism, and intergenerational conflict. Social scientists who study family meals see them as an opportunity for, not a guarantee of, social cohesion and children’s well-being. Developmental psycholinguists have found that mealtimes

446

Family Meals/Commensality

in many middle-class and low-income families include practices that promote literacy and vocabulary development: explanatory talk (extended dialogues that include parents’ reasoning and conclusions), narratives (stories that include social contexts, hypotheticals, and planning for the future), and the use of rare words that build vocabularies. Psychologists have observed that family members’ expressions of concern about others’ feelings during family meals increase children’s sense of belonging, trust, and emotional resiliency.

U.S. Food Choice at Mealtimes Research has shown that the frequency of family meals is associated with children’s greater intake of fruits, vegetables, and milk and lower intake of fried foods and soft drinks. Food products are marketed to children, who spend on average 5 hours a day in front of some screen and see 40,000 commercials a year. In some households, this has led to separate “kids” and “adults” meals being served at a single gathering. Spending more time eating out has led to family meals being more like restaurant meals with each person preparing different food. Professionals have advised parents not to be overcontrolling about their children’s food, because it increases the likelihood of their overeating and harms their selfevaluation. It is often difficult for families in lowincome neighborhoods to procure fresh fruits and vegetables. Food scarcity and insecurity are associated with poorer health outcomes for children. Time scarcity and scheduling are major problems. The amount of time spent in preparing meals has been reported as declining 38% since 1965. Nutritionists advocate reframing food preparation as a valuable opportunity to spend time with children doing something productive, developing cooking skills, saving money, and creating a delicious meal. They realize that scheduling such activities is hard for families with adolescents. Food prepared away from home may undo the positive health effects of family dinners. The amount spent on such food has increased by about 5% per decade since the 1960s. In 2005, 41% of total food expenditures were on food prepared away from home, which tends to be energy dense.

Researchers investigating food choices in households with newly married couples have found that shared meals are an important part of the courtship process, that they vary across the daily cycle (usually skipped or separate breakfasts, lunch at work, and shared dinners), that there are more shared meals on the weekends than during the week, and that couples combine their former eating networks of kin, friends, coworkers, and neighbors. For some, commensal loneliness is one motivation for getting married. Shared meals are more elaborate and of higher quality than meals eaten alone. Marital partners’ diets converge over time, after resolving tensions between individualism and the collective good of the marriage, clarifying expectations about gender roles, establishing a division of labor, and accommodating the constraints of labor force participation. The noncooking partner often exerts considerable influence on what is eaten. Some studies have found that wives sometimes deny their own food preferences to accommodate those of their husband, and that with cohabitation, women tend to eat and drink less healthy than they had done previously, whereas the opposite is true for men. Studies of commensality and health in older adults have produced mixed results. Most research finds that elderly people who eat alone have unhealthy eating patterns, but other studies find that elderly solo eaters are no different, or are even healthier, than the elderly who eat in groups. A community study of commensal eating patterns found that most respondents ate alone at breakfast, alone or with coworkers at lunch, and with family members at dinner. There was some eating at other family members’ homes, little eating at friends’ homes, and almost no eating at neighbors’ homes. Unmarried individuals more often ate breakfast and dinner alone and more often ate with friends.

Family Meals and Commensality in Advanced Industrial Countries Most studies of family meals have been conducted in advanced industrial countries. A 2004 Gallup poll found that both Canadian (40%) and British

Family Meals/Commensality

(38%) parents were more likely than American (28%) parents to say that their families had dinner at home every night. However, three fourths of American parents said that they had family dinners at least four nights a week, as did 80% of Canadian parents and 69% of British parents. An analysis of time use data between the early 1970s and the end of the 1990s showed considerable variation in patterns of food preparation, eating at home, and eating out in five countries: France, Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In each, there was a notable decline in the amount of time devoted to food preparation and, with the exception of France, in the time spent on eating at home. In the United States, time devoted to domestic food preparation and consumption was minimal. In all countries, women still did most of the cooking, with men’s contribution increasing over time. The presence and ages of children in the household had an effect on the amount of time spent eating at home. Eating out among the highly educated was seen as a marker of cultural capital. One study found that couples in the United States, Australia, and the Netherlands shared 10 to 13 meals each week. Interviews with Norwegian mothers revealed their conceptions of three types of proper meals: (1) the traditional, (2) the trendy, and (3) the therapeutic. Cooking had become fashionable and more time-consuming with greater demands for creativity and complexity. Research in Great Britain has focused on expectations for mothers to produce cooked dinners and proper meals for their families. A study about sharing food at home and at school found that while the family meal was the ideal, it was hard to accomplish because of children’s after-school activities, the late home arrival of the professional parent, and the fact that family members were tired and hungry at different times. One woman with four young children described sitting down to a family dinner consisting of four different meals and trying to promote the types of civilized conversations she saw families having on television. She depicted family meals as a “daily nightmare” and “a real battle.” Her account is typical of that

447

of many women in qualitative studies, although some women report that they see meal preparation as a creative endeavor and a gift to loved ones.

Finding a Voice at the Table Many working women say that they feel that they are being blamed for a decline in family meals and the rise in obesity. Fast food is a tempting solution to the time crunch in their lives, and yet many mothers want their children to have the kinds of healthy foods and dinnertime conversations they remember having had as children. At mealtimes, mothers are battling the screen culture of televisions and cell phones, aware that screen addiction is a growing problem. Table manners and promoting the art of conversation are usually women’s responsibility. Tables need order, and even democratic tables need rules that facilitate the common good of the shared meal. Mealtime conversations are gendered: They are intimate face-to-face encounters, where people have to listen and be open to the possibility of learning something, especially someone else’s story. At the table, children can see models of thoughtfulness and generosity, hear life stories from generations other than their peers, watch how conflict can be managed, appreciate their cultural identity, and learn what is expected of informed citizens. By participating in meal preparation, they can understand that people have a responsibility to take the needs of others into account, without becoming martyrs to the needs of others. By pitching in to feed others, they can appreciate the importance of daily doses of gratitude for healthy social relations, and they can play an active role in creating a greater good. Political scientists maintain that civil society, the foundation of democracy, is strengthened by the trust and social bonds that may accompany shared meals. Janet A. Flammang See also Childhood Obesity; Children’s Foods; Cooking as Leisure Activity; Identity and Food; Nutrition Education

448

Famines

Further Readings Charles, N., & Kerr, M. (1988). Women, food, and families. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. De Vault, M. L. (1991). Feeding the family: The social organization of caring as gendered work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fiese, B., & Schwartz, M. (2008). Reclaiming the family table: Mealtimes and child health and wellbeing. Social Policy Report, 22, 1–19. Flammang, J. A. (2009). The taste for civilization: Food, politics and civil society. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Larson, R. W., Wiley, A. R., & Branscomb, K. R. (2006, Spring). Family mealtime as a context of development and socialization [Special issue]. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111. Morrison, M. (1996). Sharing food at home and school: Perspectives on commensality. Sociological Review, 44, 648–674. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1996.tb00441.x Rockett, H. R. H. (2007). Family dinner: More than just a meal. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107, 1498–1501. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .jada.2007.07.004 Sobal, J., & Nelson, M. K. (2003). Commensal eating patterns: A community study. Appetite, 41, 181–190. doi:10.1016/s0195-6663(03)00078-3 Visser, M. (1991). The rituals of dinner: The origins, evolution, eccentricities, and meaning of table manners. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Warde, A., Cheng, S.-L., Olsen, W., & Southerton, D. (2007). Changes in the practice of eating: Comparative analysis of time-use. Acta Sociologica, 50, 363–385. doi:10.1177/0001699307083978

FAMINES Famines are acute food shortages leading to sudden and severe declines in food consumption, with attendant widespread human displacements and excess mortality. Historically, such food and social crises have been attributed to both natural and human-made factors, and in the 21st century, analysts continue to argue over famine’s predominantly technical or political causes and solutions. With more than enough aggregate food produced in the

world to feed everyone an adequate basic diet, world leaders concur that extreme hunger is unacceptable, and since the 1970s, international institutions have scaled up efforts to prevent famine or, as necessary, mitigate its impacts. But epidemic disease and economic and political violence, especially in countries in protracted conflict and food crisis, contribute to famine’s persistence, despite an international human rights consensus that everyone has the right not to starve. This entry defines and describes famines, examines their causes, and explores efforts to mitigate their impact.

Definitions and Descriptions Geographers, anthropologists, economists, demographers, and political scientists, along with agricultural, nutrition, and health scientists, all contribute to interdisciplinary famine studies. These professionals distinguish three types of hunger or food insecurity: (1) food shortage, or lack of availability, at the aggregate community, national, or regional level; (2) food poverty, or lack of access, at the household level; and (3) food deprivation, or malnutrition, at the individual level. Famines represent situations of sudden, acute, extreme food shortage, and food consumption decline over wide areas. Such extensive and severe food deficits contrast with ordinary crop failures or periodic shortfalls that result in seasonal hunger, household food insecurity due to lack of economic access, and individual food insufficiencies and malnutrition due to debilitating illness, unfair intrahousehold distribution, or some combination of the above causes. These vulnerabilities may be compounded by famine conditions, which lead to the collapse in levels of food consumption for large numbers of households across communities. Not all households or individuals within affected regions, however, go hungry because some find ways to profit from these situations. Profiteers include grain merchants, who hoard food and then sell it at exorbitant prices, and those who buy up the assets of starving people at bargain prices. Soaring food prices relative to the prices of other goods, wages, and services are early local warning

Famines

signs of famine. Sharply increasing basic food prices create deteriorating terms of exchange for market-dependent buyers, who are forced to sell precious productive assets, such as livestock and other valuables, to buy food. As these assets flood regional markets, prices for them plunge—another early warning sign of famine. Visual images characteristically show hoards of starving, skin-and-bones human beings, especially desperately gaunt mothers carrying wasted, doeeyed children, away from their parched, flooded, or plague- or war-devastated territories in search of life-saving food, water, and medical care. Historical and public health demography document enormous mortality, as insufficient food renders those on the move, and those who stay behind, exceptionally vulnerable to malnutrition and infection in deadly synergy. Human biological studies of starvation describe a sequence of muscle wasting, whereby appetite diminishes, growth slows and then stops, followed by weight loss and then emaciation, accompanied by dysfunctional behavioral changes toward sadness, listlessness, apathy, and confusion. Anthropologists describe the systematic ways in which households and societies attempt to prevent or cope with food shortages: by first diversifying sources of income, and then by rationing available food and reducing the numbers of consumers. They stretch food supplies by cutting down the numbers and sizes of meals and resorting to less palatable food preparation, such as more coarsely ground grain, which increases senses of satiety and a full stomach for longer. They augment food supplies by resorting to less palatable or starvation foods, such as starchy root vegetables rather than grains, or wild foods or items not customarily classified as edible, and never eaten in ordinary times because they are unappealing, unpalatable, sickening, or hard to digest. In the throes of multiple years of crop failure or political–economic disruption to food supplies, individuals’ coping mechanisms begin to break down, and in response, households break up. Workers leave, migrating in search of wages or income. Outmigration reduces the numbers of household consumers who must be

449

fed and can supplement household income through remittances. Children may be sent, lent, or sold to others who promise to feed them. Finally, the remaining householders make the decision to move, with or without promise to return. This final breakup of communities and migration in search of sustenance is an act of last resort. Local peoples, in their language, folklore, and community traditions, distinguish between crop failures, which may be frequent, and famines that kill, which occur very infrequently, perhaps once a century. The history of severe crop failures, usually tied to extreme climate events or shifts, is paralleled in the history of civilizations, where empires that were unable to feed their peoples and maintain their sustaining areas periodically experienced regime change, as disgruntled agricultural labor fled or settled civilizations were overrun by hungry or marauding hoards that could not be checked by well-fed standing armies or mercenaries. In addition, the history of famine illustrates the history of the use of food and hunger as political tools and weapons. Significant early historical examples include the diversion and burning of food supplies, blockades, and sieges by warring Greek city-states; biblical accounts of siege and starvation, including the horrific siege of Jerusalem with its descriptions of cannibalism; and the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu’s advisories about burning enemy food supplies and when and where to use siege as the chief tactic. Forced extraction, destruction of food supplies, destruction of land or labor to produce food, and blockade or siege warfare to starve out and thus conquer opponents are common military and political strategies, which have continued to be employed in recent civil wars.

Causes In ancient through early historical times, biblical and Chinese sources not only attributed famine to the will of God or Heaven but also expected human political leaders, and everyone, to take actions to prevent or forestall the dire consequences. These included intentional investments in agriculture,

450

Famines

including irrigation, and management of food markets and trade. Central control over food prices, quantity and quality standards, and food storage were also requirements of leadership. Where these political management mechanisms broke down or severely disadvantaged some groups, social suffering and regime change usually ensued. The abilities to manage food effectively, and also generously, in the Chinese imperial tradition, to “feed the people,” were signs of both superior human leadership capabilities and divine blessings, which together legitimized human leaders in, or removed them from, positions of power. Without entirely abandoning this worldview, modern social, agricultural, and medical scientists added their own rational theories and explanations. The Malthusian or “demographic” hypothesis, named after the late 18th-century British Christian minister and economist Thomas Malthus, asserts that periodic crop failures accompanied by massive human starvation are inevitable because agricultural production increases arithmetically, whereas human population increases exponentially. As a result of this mismatch of agricultural and human population increase, human societies and populations will periodically crash, as a result of insufficient food. Such famine and starvation likely will be accompanied by epidemic disease, warfare, and death. Looking across the sea at Ireland, where the population was growing rapidly, Malthus correctly anticipated a sudden population decline connected to crop failure of horrific proportions. But he and his neo-Malthusian followers, significantly, failed to figure in exacerbating or mitigating social, cultural, economic, and political factors or to appreciate the full human potential to increase the rate of food production. Agricultural scientists and technologists responsible for an exponential increase in levels of food production, so far, have thwarted this doomsday scenario, although neo-Malthusians accept this dismal outlook and continue to predict agricultural crash and decline, accompanied by increasing political conflict, disease, and mortality, particularly in an ever more crowded and warmer Earth. Modern ethical, moral, and legal frameworks are also important. During the 19th century, as

European empires expanded across Africa and Asia, many countries became “lands of famine,” although it was already evident that careful planning and enlightened moral response, including aid, trade, and price controls, could thwart the inevitability of famine, even in situations of severe and widespread crop failure. According to the historian John D. Post, the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world occurred during 1816–1817, a year without a summer growing season or harvest, as a result of the cooling atmospheric effect of the ash from a major Southeast Asian volcanic eruption. Rather than allow food shortages and starvation to take their inevitable toll, however, European leaders mobilized carryover food stocks from the previous harvest season and also imported grain from surplus world regions. These actions mitigated shortfalls and illustrated that, at least in continental Europe, famine had become politically and morally unacceptable, obligating responsible governments to intervene. This thinking spilled over into British colonial policy, where authorities instituted Famine Codes to prevent starvation in India and the Sudan. Although unfavorable physical and biological conditions might produce crop failures, British colonial officers could monitor these situations, declare famine as necessary, and set in motion a series of mitigating mechanisms, including rescinding taxes, repurposing irrigated land from export cash crops to emergency food crops, and establishing various food-for-work public employment schemes and soup kitchens. Countering this enlightened political context, however, the British proved unable to respond appropriately to the Great Hunger that devastated neighboring Ireland in the mid- to late 1840s. This Irish famine was precipitated by a potato blight that destroyed the main food source for millions of Irish workers, and also other Europeans who relied on potatoes but whose governments intervened to prevent large-scale starvation and suffering. Without access to other foods or gainful employment, some 2 million out of 8 million Irish died or migrated. The famine and starvation conditions have been variously blamed on the weather and natural microbial pests that led to the potato crop failure; the Irish workers’ excessive dependence on

Famines

potatoes, a dependence tied also to their social, cultural, and economic marginalization; or to political factors, including multileveled political reluctance to intervene, resulting in flawed policy steps that were insufficient and too late to save lives. Championing British Corn Laws, which protected free market trade in basic grain, British authorities did not allow basic cereal grain relief to flow to the Irish. Irish tax and relief regulations, moreover, made it more economical for Irish landlords to uproot and force their tenants to emigrate, rather than maintain them. The Irish famine, thus, became a leading case for probing intersections of natural and political causation and for attributing famine to political causes, including racism, ethnic and religious discrimination, severe socioeconomic inequalities, and deliberate or incidental policy failures. In the early 20th century, additional politically motivated famines ensued in the course of social and political transformations from authoritarian monarchal to socialist and communist regimes, including massive starvation first in Russia, and later the Ukraine, a breadbasket grain area, which Soviet head of state Josef Stalin forcibly integrated into the command economy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; millions died. Some combination of inclement weather, poor or misguided agricultural technology and food planning and management, plus political corruption or lack of communication and accountability later caused 15 million to 30 million famine deaths in the People’s Republic of China during 1959–1961. This great Chinese hunger period corresponded to state reorganization of agricultural production and distribution during its Great Leap Forward, a political program by Chairman Mao Zedong, which was intended to establish Communist authority, superiority, and solidarity. The confluence of political and natural factors, and misguided or vicious land, worker, and ethnic and political management policies, have been implicated in subsequent famine disasters, including the Sahelian famines in the 1970s and the ruinous famines in the 1980s and 1990s across southern and eastern Africa. These complex disasters dramatized that famines are coterminous with protracted political and food

451

crises, which are strongly connected to civil wars, resulting in vicious cycles with conflict as a source of hunger and hunger as a source of conflict. A leading example is Ethiopia, which experienced devastating famines in the mid-1970s, followed by civil war, and then famines again in the mid-1980s, accompanied by civil wars. Subsequent famines in Ethiopia were avoided only through the concerted human efforts of international humanitarians and robust political commitments of food on the part of Western donors. Some analysts label famines associated with deadly conflict and epidemic disease as “new variant” famines. Returning to multiscale economic explanations, Amartya Sen, in 1981, produced an “entitlement” theory of famine. Attending to political–economic processes of distribution, which affect who controls and has economic access to food after agricultural production that necessarily varies by geographic region and season, he examined what role forcible or market extraction played in famine situations. Using the Great Bengal famine of 1943 as his reference point, he showed that Bengal produced more food in the famine than in previous nonfamine years. People starve in famine situations not because no food is available but because they lack entitlements to food. Entitlements, defined as rights or control over food or resources to access food, encompass (a) resource endowments, including land and factors of production, necessary to produce food or other livelihood; (b) exchange entitlements, which include income, wages, and assets that can be exchanged for food; and (c) social security or gift entitlements, which are nonmarket transfers that allow additional food access. In situations of food scarcity, exacerbated by war, severe social inequality, and political oppression, political–economic conditions conspire to produce high food prices and terms of exchange so unfavorable that people who are unable to provision themselves are no longer able to feed themselves. During the Bengal famine, Indian food producers were unable to maintain control over the food they produced because the British extracted grain to feed their troops and support their World War II efforts. Local marketed food became scarce, food prices soared, and Indians starved.

452

Famines

The only effective protection against starvation and famine, Sen asserts, is political freedom; in a true democracy, people take public action to hold their governments accountable, so there is no famine and no one starves. A free press contributes by calling attention to actual or impending food problems. But governments must be committed to feeding their people, otherwise crop, market, and governance failures will constrain food production and distribution and will leave people vulnerable to violence and conflict that can exacerbate such food system failures.

sustainable food systems; human rights efforts to promote social justice, democracy, good governance, and government accountability; and political priorities to allocate the requisite resources to fund humanitarian and economic development programs. Ellen Messer See also Food Aid; Food Insecurity; Food Riots; Food Sovereignty

Further Readings

Efforts to Limit Famine and Suffering Chinese imperial granaries and food distributions, and biblical stories of food planning and management and famine prevention in ancient Egypt, suggest that resourceful leaders should be able to produce and store surplus food in good years for distribution in bad ones, and manage supplies strategically, so as to maintain power without rebellions of hungry masses. Since the World Food Crisis and World Food Conference of 1974, famine early warning systems, and monitoring and response, are international humanitarian efforts coordinated by divisions of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Program, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Nongovernmental agencies, including Action Aid, Oxfam, Project Concern, CARE, and Save the Children, as well as faith-based organizations, work alongside official agencies, including bilateral donor agencies, to assess hunger vulnerability, to sound alarm, and to facilitate emergency food aid. Media and media stars raise awareness through musical events, whereby groups like Band Aid, Live Aid, and USA for Africa, since the 1970s, have raised millions of dollars, which they channel into food and development aid for needy Third World peoples. These actions show that there is no shortage of concern about famine or of technology to prevent food shortage. Instead, famine prevention has become more a question of aligning cultural values to end hunger with environmental values favoring

Colson, E. (1979). In good years and bad: Food strategies of self-reliant societies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 35, 18–29. De Rose, L. F., Messer, E., & Millman, S. (1998). Who’s hungry? And how do we know? Food shortage, poverty, deprivation. Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University Press. De Waal, A. (1997). Famine crimes: Politics and the disaster relief industry in Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. De Waal, A. (2005). Famine that kills: Darfur, Sudan (Rev. ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1989) Devereux, S. (Ed.). (2007). The new famines: Why famines persist in an era of globalization. London, UK: Routledge. Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (1989). Hunger and public action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2010). The state of food insecurity in the world: Addressing food insecurity in protracted crises. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi2010/en/ Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Global Information and Early Warning System. (2014). Crop prospects and food situations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/giews/english/cpfs/ index.htm Maxwell, D., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2012). The 2011 Somalia famine: Context, causes, and complications. Global Food Security, 1(1), 5–12. doi:10.1016/j.gfs .2012.07.002 Messer, E. (2009). Rising food prices, social mobilizations, and violence: Conceptual issues in understanding and responding to the connections linking hunger and

Farm Bills conflict. NAPA Bulletin, 32(1), 12–22. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4797.2009.01025.x Messer, E., Cohen, M. J., & D’Costa, J. (1998). Food from peace: Breaking the links between conflict and hunger (Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper No. 24). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Newman, L. F., Crossgrove, W., Kates, R. W., Mathews, R., & Millman, S. (Eds.). (1990). Hunger in history: Food shortage, poverty and deprivation. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Ó Gráda, C. (2009). Famine: A short history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Post, J. D. (1977). The last great subsistence crisis in the Western world. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Xun, Z. (Ed.). (2012). The great famine in China, 1958–1962: A documentary history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Websites International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: http://www.ifrc.org Oxfam International: http://www.oxfam.org UNICEF: http://www.unicef.org World Food Programme: http://www.wfp.org

FARM BILLS The farm bill is a piece of legislation passed in the United States every 5 to 7 years, which contains a suite of policies dealing with agriculture and food. Farm bills provide financial support for farmers, nutrition assistance for consumers, conservation programs for environmental protection, and broader provisions ranging from research to trade and more. As a whole, farm bills frame the larger policy context within which food producers and consumers operate in the United States. Debates around their passage are typically characterized both by extraordinary controversy and by high levels of consensus among the many groups that

453

participate in and observe them. This entry discusses farm bill history, stakeholders, major provisions, political context, and common points of debate.

Origins of the Farm Bill The first farm bill was passed in 1933 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. Although farmer groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation had been petitioning the federal government for more than a decade to pass legislation to support farmers, it took a broader economic downturn, in the form of the Great Depression, to spur Congress to action. Overproduction of commodity crops was keeping crop prices low, and farmers were unable to make ends meet. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 developed an acreage reduction program through which farmers took land out of production, plowing over fields and destroying livestock to reduce supply and increase prices. It also contained federal price support loans for storable commodities. Under these loan provisions, when crop prices were high, the loans were to be repaid; when prices were low, grain could be forfeited in lieu of payment and held in a government grain reserve to be released back into the marketplace in times of undersupply. The goal of this program was to keep crop prices level, ensuring financial stability for farmers and consistently affordable food for consumers.

Historical Evolution of the Farm Bill There have been 17 farm bills passed since 1933: Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 Agricultural Act of 1948 Agricultural Act of 1949 Agricultural Act of 1954 Agricultural Act of 1956 Agricultural Act of 1965

454

Farm Bills

Agricultural Act of 1970 Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 Food and Agricultural Act of 1977 Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 Food Security Act of 1985 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Agricultural Act of 2014

With each new farm bill, the scope of policies included in it has expanded. The 1933 bill was a 24-page document; in contrast, the 2014 bill was 357 pages, with provisions ranging from commodity crop subsidies to animal welfare guidelines.

Farm Bill Interest Groups As policy areas included in the farm bill have broadened, so too have the number and variety of interest groups that have a stake in farm policy. As such, farm bill debates, and the controversies embedded within them, have taken on a more public profile, as an increasing number of groups become aware of and involved in them. In the 1930s, farm bill debates took place within a socalled iron triangle, where representatives of farmer groups met with congressional agricultural committees and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to hammer out policy provisions. Over time, new groups entered the arena and lobbied for new policy considerations to be added to the farm bill. Once these new provisions gained enough traction to be incorporated in the bill, their supporters became part of the stakeholder group, weighing in on each subsequent farm bill. For example, the farmer groups participating in the earliest farm bill debates (e.g., the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, and the Grange)

each represented many kinds of farmers. Eventually, as agriculture became more specialized, groups designed to represent the interests of specific commodity growers became more prevalent. These commodity-specific farmer interest groups (e.g., the National Corn Growers Association and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association), whose interests typically overlap with, but do not replicate, general farmer group interests, are key players in farm bill debates as well. In the 1970s, antihunger advocates found that their interests complemented those of commodity groups, and the two worked together to incorporate nutrition programs such as food stamps into the farm bill. Antihunger advocates were looking to funnel surplus commodities into programs to help feed the poor, and commodity groups saw an opportunity for using feeding programs as a market to help mitigate oversupply and keep crop prices high. As the population of the United States became less rural and more urban, urban legislators could be convinced to vote for the farm bill (and thus to provide commodity supports for farmers), because it got them surplus commodities and food stamps for their constituents; rural legislators in turn became willing to vote in support of food stamps for primarily urban constituents because they now went hand in hand with commodity supports for farmers. Since then, antihunger groups have remained key players in farm bill debates. In a third example, a similar alliance was formed between commodity groups and environmental groups in the 1980s, specifically for incorporating the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) into the 1985 farm bill. The CRP pays farmers to take highly erodible land out of production in order to conserve soil, protect wildlife habitat, and provide other environmental benefits, all of interest to environmental groups. Commodity groups supported CRP because in taking marginal lands out of production, crop production was reduced, mitigating oversupply and raising prices. This mutually beneficial alliance marked the entry of environmental groups into farm bill debates. Now, the conservation title is the third largest in terms of

Farm Bills

funding (after nutrition and commodity programs), and environmental groups play important roles in every farm bill debate. As more and more such interest groups entered the farm bill debates in these ways, the broadened scope of the bill was reinforced, and the potential for both consensus and controversy (at different times and over different issues) among groups increased.

Farm Bill Provisions The number of farm bill titles, or policy subsections, and the organization of policies within these titles vary from one iteration of the farm bill to the next. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of consistency in content from one farm bill to another, even as the policy provisions expand over time. The 2014 farm bill contained 12 titles: Title I: Commodities Title II: Conservation Title III: Trade Title IV: Nutrition Title V: Credit Title VI: Rural Development Title VII: Research, Extension, and Related Matters Title VIII: Forestry Title IX: Energy Title X: Horticulture Title XI: Crop Insurance Title XII: Miscellaneous

Following are brief descriptions of each of the titles listed above: Title I (Commodities) provisions are the legacy of the earliest farm bills. These are programs that provide financial support to commodity farmers, with the goals of keeping crop prices steady for farmers and providing affordable food for consumers. The

455

specific policy mechanisms used for achieving this goal have changed over time, but the most recent farm bill has included price loss coverage, agricultural risk coverage, and marketing loans (see further explanation under farm bill debates section). Title II (Conservation) provisions are designed to promote environmental stewardship on agricultural lands. They include land retirement programs such as the CRP, which take land out of production and put it into forest, grassland, or other plant cover. They also include working lands programs, which focus on conservation on active farmlands. For example, the Conservation Stewardship Program pays farmers for stewardship practices that include planting cover crops, establishing no-till cropping systems, enhancing pollinator habitat, rotationally grazing livestock, or installing buffers to protect waterways or other environmentally sensitive resources. Title III (Trade) promotes the export of U.S. products to other countries. It includes the Food for Peace program, designed to deliver surplus commodities to other countries in times of food shortages, as well as programs designed to develop new foreign markets and enhance market access for U.S. products. Title IV (Nutrition) includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, which provides an allowance to lowincome participants to boost their food purchases. Title IV also includes funding for school lunch programs and emergency food distribution. Title V (Credit) provides loans to help farmers purchase land and/or enhance operations on their existing farms. Title VI (Rural Development) includes a suite of programs designed to enhance rural economies: through broadband Internet, rural business grants, energy efficiency incentives, housing assistance, and innovation grants, among others. Title VII (Research, Extension, and Related Matters) establishes competitive grant programs to fund research on agricultural issues of concern, especially

456

Farm Bills

(but not exclusively) at land grant universities and through the states’ cooperative extension services. Title VIII (Forestry) provides frameworks for the conservation and management of forested lands, especially (but not exclusively) for private forest landowners. Title IX (Energy) contains programs designed to enhance farm-based energy production largely (but not exclusively) focused on biofuels. Title X (Horticulture) provides assistance to the fruit and vegetable sectors, also known as specialty crop producers, for product marketing and promotions, pest management, and organic certification. Title XI (Crop Insurance) provides insurance plans to compensate producers in case of crop losses or significant price downturns. Title XIV (Miscellaneous) contains programs to assist socially disadvantaged and limited resource farmers and ranchers, provisions governing livestock operations, and other miscellaneous policies including animal welfare guidelines.

As a piece of legislation that contains a large number of different albeit related policies, the farm bill is also known as an omnibus bill. (Note too that the term farm bill is actually a misnomer. Normally, a “bill” is the name for a proposed law rather than a law that has already been passed; farm bills, in contrast, are colloquially called farm bills both before and after their passage by Congress.)

Farm Bill Politics As farm bills have grown, both in terms of the policies they include and the interest groups that participate in their debates, the politics of passing a farm bill has grown more complex as well. Where once the iron triangle groups could come to a consensus on farm policies fairly quickly, discussion on a new farm bill typically begins at least 1 to 2 years ahead of the passage of a new bill nowadays. Interest groups often produce policy platform documents, where they lay out what they

would like to see in a new farm bill. Congressional agricultural committees hold hearings to gain a sense from the public of what they seek from farm policy. Legislators often introduce marker bills, designed not to pass Congress but rather to sow the seeds on new ideas for upcoming farm policy proposals. Each farm bill is written with an expiration date, and as that date approaches, congressional agricultural committees draft farm bill legislation, which is then subject to debate, amendments, and votes in Congress. If no farm bill is passed by the expiration date of the previous farm bill, a temporary extension is usually passed to avoid farm policy reverting to the last permanent farm bill, which was passed in 1949. During the 2012 farm bill debates, the previous (2008) farm bill was allowed to expire for the first time in history, although an extension was passed soon thereafter so that a new bill would not be required until 2013. After a second extension, a new farm bill was passed in 2014. The short-lived (but noteworthy) expiration of the 2008 farm bill came about because of intense divisions over the future of farm policy, especially in the House of Representatives. As part of the political gridlock prevalent in U.S. politics in the late 2000s and early 2010s, legislators clashed over certain aspects of farm policy—specifically reforms to commodity policies, especially for the dairy sector, and the level of spending to be authorized for nutrition title programs. In part, this was a manifestation of ideological conflicts among Democrats and Republicans, and in part, it may have signaled the wearing thin of the coalition between commodity and nutrition interests described previously in this entry. This gridlock notwithstanding, farm bill debates usually proceed differently than other political debates in the United States, in that the conflicts are more regional than partisan. Especially in the congressional agriculture committees, differences in policy goals are greater between Southern and Northern state legislators than between Democrats and Republicans. This is largely because of the requirements and constraints of the different crops

Farm Bills

grown in these regions, for example, cotton in the South, and corn and wheat in the North.

Farm Bill Debates While farm bill debates differ from one year to another, certain controversies tend to resurface in debates over time. The commodity title has been one of the more controversial, despite (or perhaps because of) its role as the historical base of the farm bill. While early farm bills used commodity policies to manage supply—that is, reduce crop production in order to maintain steady (and higher) prices for farmers—price support instruments eventually turned to focus more on increasing demand for commodities rather than just on controlling supply. Rather than control how much farmers could produce, nutrition and trade title programs served to increase demand for commodity crops by delivering them to the domestic and international poor, again with the goal of keeping prices high. This was gradually complemented by a change in policy instruments for the commodity title—for example, a phaseout of the government grain reserve, elimination of the price floor below which crop prices previously could not fall, and the decoupling of payments from production—all of which ultimately helped encourage farmers to increase production and concentrate agricultural production on larger operations. Commodity policy prior to 2014 included three primary price support mechanisms: (1) direct payments, paid to a farmer based on historical production acreage rather than current planting decisions; (2) countercyclical payments, paid to a farmer to compensate for the difference between the actual market price for a commodity and its target price, set by Congress; and (3) marketing assistance loans, which provided farmers with early-season capital (with the option of receiving a supplemental, or loan deficiency, payment if crop prices at the time of harvest were too low to repay the loan). In the 2014 farm bill, direct and countercyclical payments were replaced by price loss and agricultural risk coverages (farmers choose one form of coverage or the other),

457

suggesting a shift to a more insurance-like system of commodity supports. While, at the time of this writing, details of these new commodity support mechanisms are yet to be finalized, what has been consistent over time have been debates both over the mix of commodity policy instruments used and the larger role of commodity policy in contributing to an agricultural sector marked by larger farms and more integrated supply chains. The nutrition title has also been a subject of controversy, as it is the largest title in the farm bill in terms of budget and is essentially a poverty reduction program embedded in policies originally targeted to farmers, for historical reasons described previously in this entry. As such, larger political issues over the role of government in providing a safety net for low-income residents influence the trajectory of debates over the nutrition title. Several proposed versions of the 2014 farm bill included significant cuts to the nutrition title, and the final bill incorporated more moderate cuts. The discussions and debates over these cuts were reflective of the larger controversies over the size and scope of government prevalent in the late 2000s and early 2010s and brought into question the long-term sustainability of the commodity/ nutrition logroll that had helped farm bills to pass Congress since the 1970s. Conservation has at times also been a subject of debate, as legislators question the balance of production incentives versus conservation incentives embedded in the farm bill. For example, in times of high crop prices, many interest groups lobby to release Conservation Reserve Program lands back into production to bring crop prices down, while conservation groups argue for keeping lands set aside for environmental reasons. Similarly, many groups differ in their support for organic and sustainable agriculture provisions— some argue that farm bill funds should be directed primarily toward the larger scale mainstream agricultural producers who produce the majority of food and feed in the country, while others feel that they should be geared toward alternative agricultural systems that more explicitly prioritize

458

Farmers’ Markets

environmental and social well-being (for workers, consumers, the broader ecosystem, etc.) alongside food production. Finally, trade controversies have tended to surface in farm bill debates. While early commodity policies were designed to protect U.S. farmers by raising prices, thus making U.S. products more expensive on the international market and decreasing exports, current commodity policies tend to make U.S. products cheaper, resulting in charges of dumping, or flooding international markets with low-cost food, making it hard for local producers to compete. World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions have indicated that such trade-distorting policies, as they are known, are not to be accepted in the international arena, and as such, legislators and farm bill interest groups often differ on whether or not to prioritize WTO guidelines for minimizing subsidies and tariffs or to prioritize domestic goals for agriculture, sometimes at the expense of WTO compliance.

Farm Policy Into the Future After multiple failed attempts at completing a 2012 and then a 2013 farm bill, in which debates were characterized by many of the controversies described above, a new farm bill was passed in January 2014. While the implications and impacts of the Agricultural Act of 2014 will only become clear once it has been fully implemented, the debates around its passage were, as mentioned, notably contentious. What this means about the future of farm policy and the nature of the debates going forward is still unclear. However, understanding historical farm bill debates and their major goals and sticking points can help observers understand the issues involved as the future of farm policy continues to evolve. Nadine Lehrer See also Crop Insurance; Food Lobbying; Food Stamps and WIC; Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified; Organic Agricultural Products, Policies on; Subsidies; Tariffs; U.S. Department of Agriculture; World Trade Organization

Further Readings Bonnen, J. T., Browne, W. P., & Schweikhardt, D. B. (1996). Further observations on the changing nature of national agricultural policy decision processes, 1946–1995. Agricultural History, 70(2), 130–152. Congressional Research Service. (n.d.). Farm bill briefs. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/index .html Farmpolicy.com. (n.d.). A summary of farm policy news. Retrieved from http://www.farmpolicy.com Imhoff, D., Kirschenmann, F., & Pollan, M. (2012). Food fight: The citizen’s guide to the next food and farm bill. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media. Lehrer, N. (2010). U.S. farm bills and policy reforms: Ideological conflicts over world trade, renewable energy, and sustainable agriculture. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press. National Agricultural Law Center. (n.d.). United States farm bills. Retrieved from http://www.nationalagla wcenter.org/farmbills/ National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. (n.d.). The farm bill. Retrieved from http://sustainableagriculture. net/our-work/fbcampaign/ Orden, D., Paarlberg, R., & Roe, T. (1999). Policy reform in American agriculture: Analysis and prognosis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Farm bill. Retrieved from http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/ usdahome?navid=FARMBILL2008 Winders, B. (2009). The politics of food supply: U.S. agricultural policy in the world economy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

FARMERS’ MARKETS Recent years have seen a strong trend toward the development of alternative food systems, often drawing heavily on local and “embedded” markets. These systems are often defined in contrast to “conventional systems” that traditionally rely on intensive inputs of labor, chemicals, and long-distance distribution networks to produce standardized commodities. Alternative food systems have emerged as a response to the

Farmers’ Markets

dissipating connection between food systems and ecological systems brought about by the globalization trend. Community supported agriculture programs, food cooperatives, and farmers’ markets are increasingly common marketing choices used by producers and consumers to create a match between consumption ideals and local products. A farmers’ market, at its root, is a temporary venue for the exchange of goods, generally farm goods, from the producer directly to the consumer without the assistance of intermediaries. Farmers’ markets are a key component in the development and support for such alternative production and consumption relationships. They may have a unique advantage over other forms of direct farm marketing such as farm stands and u-pick operations because they are readily movable and flexible, many of them situated in densely populated consumer locations. The successes of farmers’ markets are aided by a number of factors including a focus on face-toface interactions and personal relationships that assist alternative food systems. They also place emphasis on the development and strengthening of social networks rather than on traditional market relations. The “socially charged relations of food” exhibited by a number of alternative food system models are particularly relevant to a study of farmers’ markets because in addition to providing significant economic and community benefits to the people involved and places where they operate, these markets are important sites for communal interactions and social exchanges. Furthermore, the “public” aspect of farmers’ markets is a key pillar in strengthening community food systems at a general level, given their important roles in fostering the public and participatory work needed to create and support a growing local food economy. This entry offers an analysis of some of the similarities and differences within the definition of farmers’ markets, and it continues on to examine the role of farmers’ markets within the context of food consumption patterns, patterns aimed at furthering the development of local food systems.

459

Defining Farmers’ Markets The Farmers Market Coalition, based in the United States, on its website defines a farmers’ market in the following way: A farmers market operates multiple times per year and is organized for the purpose of facilitating personal connections that create mutual benefits for local farmers, shoppers and communities. To fulfill that objective farmers markets define the term local, regularly communicate that definition to the public, and implement rules/ guidelines of operation that ensure that the farmers market consists principally of farms selling directly to the public products that the farms have produced.

In British Columbia, a farmers’ market is defined as “a market comprised exclusively (100%) of vendors who make, bake, grow or raise the products they sell, of which a majority of vendors are selling farm products of British Columbia origin,” as indicated on the BC Association of Farmers’ Markets website. In the United Kingdom, according to FARMA, the National Farmers’ Retail & Markets Association, a farmers’ market is a market in which farmers, growers or producers from a defined local are present in person to sell their own produce, direct to the public. All products sold should have been grown, reared, caught, brewed, pickled, smoked or processed by the stallholder.

A variety of different forms of food retail outlets currently exist in a given locale: public markets, wholesale markets, so called greengrocers, farmers’ markets and producer-only farmers’ markets. However, it is not “defining” the market that is at issue per se as it is about applying the definition; how markets understand the definition and bring it to reality through their on-the-ground application of their daily operations, regulatory structure, and ongoing communications is the foundational part of any farmers’ market.

460

Farmers’ Markets

One of the three key elements that informs definitions in Canada and farther afield is the integral role of “direct sales” from the producer to the consumer. The importance placed on the “producer as seller” and the assurance that it gives consumers is at the root of the definition and understanding of a farmers’ market. In addition, there is a shared theme about the recurring nature of the event. Although some definitions specify weekly or biweekly meetings, it is understood that almost all farmers’ markets are a recurring event, without having to offer strict days of operation or length of season. This separates farmers’ markets from a random 1-day, informal sale of produce in a city park and captures the important ritual inherent in the repetitive production of market days for both a group of shoppers and producers. Finally, the fresh or “local” character of the products is commonly emphasized. Although beyond the scope of this entry to discuss the myriad ways in which definitions of local vary and can be conceptualized, suffice to note that in the case of many North American and European farmers’ markets, local is often understood and applied in policy and practice with regional boundaries in mind. Regardless of the specific distance that demarcates a local product, farmers’ markets attempt to preserve integrity and authenticity by offering products grown and/or produced within a local region. As such, it is in some ways the “parochial” nature of protecting and promoting a region’s agricultural products (i.e., local products) and producers (farmers directly, not resellers) that separates farmers’ markets from other forms of food retailing.

Farmers’ Markets: History, Development, and Distribution It is generally accepted that farmers’ markets are the oldest form of food retailing, based on their roots in the form of traditional, town markets the world over where direct sales were the norm. Despite the fact that few markets survived the supermarket explosion of the 1970s and 1980s,

today, farmers’ markets in North America are wellknown, well supported, and flourishing. A set of interests emphasizing healthfulness and freshness, resulting from the changing social climate and interests of the past three decades, has “rebirthed” and reenergized the farmers’ market movement and its adherents. While an accurate count of the number of farmers’ markets in the United States is difficult to obtain because wholesale markets and farmers’ markets are often grouped together in counts without distinction, the U.S. Department of Agriculture website for agricultural marketing puts the number of farmers’ markets in the United States at 4,685 as of August 2008. This directory notes exponential growth in farmers’ markets in the past 14 years. Canada has seen significant growth as well, with 425 markets double that of 1980. And in the years since 2008, the numbers have undoubtedly increased in both Canada and the United States. The growth in popularity and use of the farmers’ market model has shifted alongside changing consumer interests and the changing economics of agriculture. Historical Development

The tradition and practice of public markets was brought to North America from Europe and spread across the continent with European settlement and migration. The first documented farmers’ market in America occurred in the 17th century. In the early years, the town market provided the only opportunity for sales, in essence making this market structure a necessity rather than an alternative food-trading model. In the case of fruits and vegetables, there were virtually no intermediately manufacturing or processing stages for the middlemen to operate; cleaning, grading, and packing were rudimentary until the very end of the 19th century and usually done by the grower and his family. Distribution created challenges for producers and began to give the competitive advantage to middlemen in the emerging wholesale sector. Historical studies suggest that early fruit and vegetable vendors faced many of the same challenges that small producers face today:

Farmers’ Markets

those of seasonality or the perishable nature of fresh produce and issues with regard to the cost of bringing small lots to the market and sitting with it all day versus selling to a wholesaler for a slightly lower price but reducing time spent in sales. While many in England were moving to retail stalls at the beginning of the 20th century, in North America by 1918, it was reported that 128 markets were successfully operating in 237 cities with populations more than 30,000. Farmers’ Markets: A North American Phenomenon?

While it appears to some that farmers’ markets are strictly a North American phenomenon, some U.K. researchers suggest that although the name “farmers’ market” originated in the United States, the concept is little different from that of the 6,000 or so weekly markets in France, markets that have been operating for centuries. In effect, farmers’ markets represent the reestablishment of an old tradition that almost died out in post–World War II Britain. As of 2002, there were a reported 450 farmers’ markets in the United Kingdom, doubling in the past 2 years. There is also evidence of farmers’ markets operating in Asia, and India specifically, with state-initiated farmers’ markets in three Indian states providing farmers an alternative marketing opportunity. As a study of Indian markets points out, the influence on production practices as a result of participation in the market can be attributed to the emphasis placed on markets as sites of cultural and knowledge exchange where the ongoing communication strengthens relationships and assists with access to financial networks. Latin America also has a strong tradition of open-air markets, which share many of the characteristics of the new-generation, North American farmers’ markets. However, evidence suggests that supermarkets and hypermarkets, together with large-scale food manufacturers, have significantly changed agrifood markets in the region. Latin American responses to concentration and consolidation and a lack of available marketing options emphasize the fact that worldwide,

461

farmers’ markets begin as, or still are, “reactionary spaces” with their root inspiration stemming from the numerous challenges facing small- to medium-sized producers. While they take on different names and have different manifestations throughout the course of history, farmers’ markets can offer producers an alternative space where certain aspects are emphasized through policy and practice (e.g., direct sales, different grades of product, an appropriate marketing channel for small producers) and used as a marketing and branding advantage, rather than seeing these aspects as the means for exclusion from traditional agricultural value chains.

Key Themes Emerging From Literature and Practice Farmers’ market literature abounds with key themes about the role that farmers’ markets play in shaping the business practices and enterprise development of vendors and providing insight into the integral role that farmers’ market play in social learning, innovation, and product testing. Farmers’ markets are good venues to encourage these things mostly because farmers’ markets “produce” constant interaction with, and inspiration from, other vendors and customers. Other themes include the “uses of the market,” either from a functional or marginal perspective. These explorations have been spurred on by a number of concerns in the literature, mostly having to do with the “marginal” status of farmers’ markets or the consumption of the market experience, rather than the products alone, being a driving force behind consumers’ choices to engage through the farmers’ market setting. This recurring sentiment implies that concerns surrounding not only why consumers attend farmers’ markets but also what they hope to consume is a key question. This question is intricately related to how farmers’ markets can move from a position of marginality, often touted as a “weekend novelty,” to a more dominant and routine venue for the direct purchase of local products. The role that farmers’ markets play in making local food more visible is at the root of

462

Farmers’ Markets

reestablishing local food systems and is another topic of key importance being examined in the literature. Farmers’ markets are public spectacles in a very open and accessible way, which connects their operations to larger values about engagement in civil society and active participation within the public sphere. Many authors argue that this key feature makes farmers’ markets both material spaces and symbolic spaces. The economic and social benefits to producers involved in farmers’ markets often overlap and, as such, influence and inform one another. A range of literature over the past 10 years has examined these intertwined benefits; commonly identified benefits include higher economic returns, cashbased sales, greater control over a farm business, product testing and innovation, the educational value available through the direct marketing model, and the social and community values fostered through weekly social interactions. These and other benefits continue to attract producers to the farm direct marketing industry and to farmers’ markets as key sites of this industry in particular. However, the farmers’ market is more than a physical exchange location for farm goods, operating as what John Smithers, Jeremy Lamarche, and Alun Joseph (2008) refer to as a venue for negotiated meaning in the local food landscape. . . . It also becomes a convenient laboratory in which it is possible to examine how certain contested and contingent notions of local, quality, authenticity and legitimacy find expression in the communications and transactions around food. Since a purchase at the farmers markets is layered with different meanings concerning trust quality and morality, tied into the notion of localness. (p. 338)

This insight suggests that the market can be seen as both an alternative space and as a reactionary space, which is part of its modus operandi and its crucial advantage. Whether the market works to offer “alternatives” through its representation of tradition and history or functions as a reactionary space, where notions such as “authentic” and “traditional” not only become qualities of the food

itself but also become connected with farm life, farmers’ markets play a crucial role in layering food exchanges with deeper meaning. Finally, and perhaps the most important of the current literature issues, it deals with ideas of governance, regulation, policy, and the contested understandings of authenticity in the context of the marketplace. To a certain extent, the produceronly designation (read “authentic”) is what keeps farmers’ markets alternative and unique within the context of food marketing. Producer-only markets, although not without their challenges, tend to carry the social relations that customers have come to enjoy as well as contextualize the produce by adding the missing dimension: that of the conditions of the food being sold.

The Shifting Landscape of Farmers’ Markets: Authenticity and Regulation In many farmers’ markets worldwide, a primary criterion for membership has been the designation of “producer only.” As a general rule, achieving producer-only status means that a market’s vendors must make, bake, or grow the products that they sell at the market. The producer-only rule has functioned primarily as an assurance of authenticity for market shoppers who expect local farmers to be at the market stalls selling directly the products of their farm. Seeking authenticity through market purchases and developing social relations of trust through consumption practices, the promise and assurance that vendors at the farmers’ market have made, baked, or grown what they are selling is, in some ways, the answer to this search. However, due to the growing popularity of farmers’ markets coupled with a greater demand for fresh produce, some markets are venturing outside of this regulatory framework, thus questioning the validity of the policy and potentially eroding the experience of shopping at a farmers’ market. As the numbers of markets worldwide continue to grow and the size of some markets continues to increase, the application and enforcement of “authenticity” and integrity in the marketplace are a concern. Thus, market managers, board

Farmers’ Markets

members, and individual vendors must maintain a dialogue among themselves about how to promote and enforce policy ideals and infractions at a local or regional level. The main concerns that have led directly to identifying authenticity as a key feature in need of regulation are “reselling” nonlocal products (a practice wherein a vendor buys bulk goods from a distributor and then resells them for an inflated price at the market) as well as new farmers’ market models involving “producer cooperatives” or “pocket market” structures (multiple vendors working together to market their collective goods or a group who buys directly from farmers and then sets up and operates a smaller market, representing local products, but in a unique location of their choosing). Additional concerns revolve around the use of the term farmers’ market by a range of conventional and specialty retail establishments that seek to benefit financially from the shared norms and ideals that the farmers’ market represents. Overall, with new farmers’ market models built around collaborative efforts and in markets trying to provide a greater selection of offerings or push the limits of seasonality, how to define, practice, and enforce a dynamic concept like authenticity requires an ongoing dialogue. Because many farmers’ markets have limited resources to enforce or regulate policy, some suggest that authenticity needs to be promoted and upheld through shared notions of transparency rather than through the direct enforcement of regulations. Market associations, individual markets, vendors, and shoppers are responsible for creating a culture of transparency and, thus, consider together the impacts of new farmers’ market models. The creation of a shared dialogue, norms of trust, and reciprocity will likely ease the burden of having to dole out already stretched regulatory resources. Given the farmers’ markets position as a direct link for exchanging both goods and knowledge and the shifting landscape of farmers’ markets in both policy and practice, the idea of creating shared understandings and practices to represent and ensure transparency and authenticity is both possible and necessary.

463

Conclusion Farmers’ markets are dynamic institutions that make a direct contribution to growing support and awareness for the importance of local food production and consumption patterns. Farmers’ markets the world over have become key sites for both the actual exchange of local products and the visible representation of alternative food systems, drawing heavily on socially constructed understandings of localness, quality, authenticity, and relationships to create a unique space within larger food production and marketing systems. This entry has examined shared definitions of farmers’ markets, explored the global distribution of markets, noted key themes that dominate the literature, and examined the shifting landscape of farmers’ markets in light of new models and challenges to authenticity and regulation. Chris Hergesheimer See also Agritourism; Artisanal Foods; Farmers’ Markets, Cooking With Seasonal Produce; Farmers’ Markets, Farmers’ Perspective; Food Justice; Locavorism; Tourism, Food

Further Readings Connell, D. J., & Hergesheimer, C. (2013). The core business of farmers markets: A resource for strategic planning. Prince George, British Columbia, Canada: University of Northern British Columbia. Connell, D. J., Smithers, J., & Joseph, A. (2008). Farmers’ markets and the “good food” value chain: A preliminary study. Local Environment, 13(3), 169–185. doi:10.1080/13549830701669096 Feagan, R., Morris, D., & Krug, K. (2004). Niagara region farmers’ markets: Local food systems and sustainability considerations. Local Environment, 9(3), 235–254. doi:10.1080/1354983042000219351 Hinrichs, C. C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 295–303. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00063-7 Holloway, L., & Kneafsey, M. (2000). Reading the space of the farmers’ market: A case study from the United Kingdom. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(3), 285–299. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00149

464

Farmers’ Markets, Cooking With Seasonal Produce

Smithers, J., & Joseph, A. E. (2010). The trouble with authenticity: Separating ideology from practice at the farmers’ market. Agriculture and Human Values, 27, 239–247. doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9250-5 Smithers, J., Lamarche, J., & Joseph, A. E. (2008). Unpacking the terms of engagement with local food at the Farmers’ Market: Insights from Ontario. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 337–350. Wittman, H., Beckie, M., & Hergesheimer, C. (2012). Linking local food systems and the social economy? Future roles for farmers’ markets in Alberta and British Columbia. Rural Sociology, 77(1), 36–61. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2011.00068.x

Websites BC Association of Farmers’ Markets: http://www.bc farmersmarket.org FARMA: http://www.farma.org.uk Farmers Market Coalition: http://farmersmarketcoalition .org/

FARMERS’ MARKETS, COOKING WITH SEASONAL PRODUCE Over the past decade, consumers across the United States have turned increasingly to local food sourcing, primarily from farmers’ markets, to make more informed choices about healthier eating and to address concerns about food quality, fuel and soil resource depletion, genetically modified crops, and obesity and obesity-related disease. Local food sourcing and cooking present both benefits and challenges to home cooks. Benefits include access to fresher, more flavorful ingredients; ease of meal preparation; a more varied diet; the opportunity to “know before you buy”; direct connection with food producers; a sense of community; supporting local economies; and preserving agricultural land for a diverse ecosystem. Challenges include changing shopping and cooking habits; learning to use seasonal, new, or unfamiliar ingredients; and concerns about cost, time, availability, food safety, and regulation, as well as consumer protection. This entry provides a brief summary of farmers’ markets, the most popular

form of direct marketing, and explores how this selling model affects shopping and cooking for the home cook.

An Overview of Farmers’ Markets and the Meaning of Local Farmers’ markets are an ancient method of food selling that has gone in and out of popularity over the centuries. Most recently, it has come back into popularity in the United States in the last quarter of the 20th century, growing rapidly in the past decade. The September 2012 U.S. Department of Agriculture national directory lists more than 7,800 farmers’ markets; in 2008, there were 4,685 markets; and in 2002, there were 3,137 markets. Approximately 2% of the U.S. population currently uses farmer-direct channels. Farmers’ markets provide the opportunity for growers to sell directly to consumers. There are many definitions among direct marketing operators (municipal governments, market cooperatives, etc.) as to what constitutes local. The term can mean anything from a few-mile radius to being within the same state, region, or day’s drive, but all share one common trait that affects the cook: The local growing season determines what the buyer will find at the market. Direct marketing channels (including community supported agriculture and farm stands) are most often used by small family farms that range in size from a small backyard to 100 acres. Instead of growing entire fields of one commodity crop for industrial use, these smaller farms typically grow an assortment of crops and a row or two of several varieties of each. The result is that customers often find a greater array of seasonal ingredients at farmers’ markets. In summer, for instance, instead of one kind of red tomato, shoppers will find numerous types and colors, each with slightly different flavor and texture.

Benefits for the Home Cook Empirical data show that foods taste best grown in their true season and region. Although modern farming and shipping methods allow seasonal and

Farmers’ Markets, Cooking With Seasonal Produce

geographical boundaries to be manipulated for marketing purposes, pushing seasons too far can result in less flavorful foods, often at a higher price and lower quality. Eating in season not only ensures best flavor but can also create excitement and anticipation and prevent boredom for the home cook. Local farmers who sell directly are able to harvest most crops the day before selling, giving shoppers access to fresher produce that lasts longer after purchase. This is a cost-effective and timesaving system for the busy home cook. This food distribution model differs significantly from the one used by supermarket chains, where produce is distributed from a centralized source. Even when supermarket chains source regionally, the gathering and redistribution can take up to a week, shortening shelf life after purchase and necessitating earlier harvesting before flavors have had a chance to fully develop. Because crops do not need to be stored for a long time or shipped great distances before reaching market, most direct marketing programs exempt participating farmers from certain packing standards designed to ensure quality in the traditional model. Therefore, farmers can and do plant varieties bred foremost for flavor rather than for their storage or shipping capabilities, and foods for direct sale can be harvested fully ripe. These markers for product quality are indicators to the consumer that sustainable growing practices have been used. Increased quality and flavor translates to ease of meal preparation and prevents food waste. Raw ingredients that have complex natural flavors need little adornment or effort to become satisfying dishes. A few simple techniques and basic pantry items—olive oil, salt, and perhaps pepper—are enough to create healthful, delicious dishes and meals. For example, the basic technique of roasting vegetables that have been tossed in a small amount of olive oil and salt yields an endless array of tastes, colors, and textures, depending on the seasonal ingredients used. Flavorful whole foods need less sugar, fat, or packaged flavorings, making it easier for people with dietary restrictions to cook healthful meals. Because ingredients last longer, are

465

easier to use, and taste better, home cooks are more likely to use them before they spoil. Some small producers also sustainably raise meats, poultry, eggs, and dairy products, and many farmers’ markets now carry the full spectrum of foods, allowing consumers to do much of their “grocery” shopping directly from the producer in one stop. Farmers’ markets are forums for the exchange of ideas for both the grower and the consumer and thus can build a sense of community. Shopping locally for food supports local economies. Helping small family farms survive preserves local agricultural land and greenbelts within communities to create a more healthful ecosystem. Ultimately, the task of food shopping and cooking can be a pleasurable and multifaceted experience for the home cook.

The Challenges and How to Meet Them The three most common concerns about shopping and cooking in season are (1) accessing the market (availability and adaptability), (2) cost (time and money), and (3) trust (in the product, farmer, and market). Education is key to breaking through these challenges, both real and perceived. Some consumers worry that ascribing to “local” means having to use only what grows in one’s region and so dismiss the concept as too restrictive. While some do choose this literal path, for many, a more moderate approach works better: using primarily ingredients that grow locally and supplementing with those that do not. For instance, people in the Midwest or eastern United States would source citrus and avocados through supermarkets. Shoppers may worry about not knowing what is in season. Fortunately, if it is available from local growers at farmers’ markets, it is by definition in season. Shopping in season involves being open to chance encounters with unfamiliar or unexpected foods. Rather than fitting the shopping to a preconceived list for possibly out-of-season recipes, the seasonal cook comes with general knowledge of what to expect and tweaks the menu plan based on that day’s availability. Making that shift is a

466

Farmers’ Markets, Cooking With Seasonal Produce

gradual process; impatience with the learning curve is a significant barrier for some. Cooking in season evolves naturally from the shopping experience (e.g., using zucchini in summer and asparagus in spring) and making seasonal substitutions as appropriate (e.g., using citrus instead of tomatoes in winter salads). Similarly, cooking locally means substituting regional foods when possible—using almonds in California and hazelnuts in Oregon. In this way, home cooks begin with the most flavorful and freshest ingredients. The seasonal cook often uses the same key techniques and simple recipes repeatedly but varies them by seasonal ingredient. Some new to seasonal cooking have a hard time making the transition to this degree of simplicity. One of the greatest barriers to sourcing locally is the idea that it is too costly. This may be true in some instances and for some people. However, prices drop naturally when farmers need to move an abundant harvest. Buying at the peak of the season, when the food is most plentiful and tastiest, makes value-for-dollar sense. The actual cost may be as low as $1 per pound, but the value is far greater. The best way to break through the price barrier is to do a different sort of cost analysis, one that compares quality, effort required to produce a tasty meal, and healthfulness of the food. It is also helpful to change the basis for comparison to further appreciate value. For example, a free-range chicken egg from a small ranch is more costly than an industrially raised egg. However, the flavorful premium egg served with a piece of toast is several times less expensive and much lower in sodium, fat, and additives than a fast food egg breakfast (and is arguably faster to prepare than driving and waiting in line). Not all communities have access to the quality foods described in this entry. In some areas, it has less to do with whether an area is urban or rural and more to do with the ability of farmers to earn enough money to make selling there worthwhile. Also, it takes time and effort to build awareness and understanding of the benefits of local food distribution and then build a robust market and clientele. In well-established selling communities, the clientele comprises all socioeconomic levels

(some supported by government aid). The determining factor of who shops locally has more to do with understanding the benefits of farmers’ markets than with a shopper’s income. Finally, consumers unfamiliar with local food distribution systems are often concerned about food safety, regulation, and trustworthiness of the sellers and of the market itself. There are indeed many consumer protection and health regulations to which farmers and markets must adhere. Confusion stems from a lack of communication by market operators about how their markets are regulated. Also, as this artisanal aspect of the food industry undergoes rapid expansion, market operators themselves may be unclear as to the purpose of a farmers’ market: Does it adhere to all the tenets expressed in this entry? Is it first and foremost about local growers selling their crops directly to the consumer? The challenge for home cooks is to become more aware about the purpose of direct marketing and then observe their own markets and ask questions of both growers and management. In this way, home cooks can improve their local markets and take advantage of what they offer with greater confidence. Amelia Saltsman See also Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective; Farmers’ Markets; Farmers’ Markets, Farmers’ Perspective; Locavorism; Sustainable Agrifood Systems; Terroir

Further Readings Albert, A. (2011, Summer). Market intelligence: How to score the best produce at your farmers’ market [Special issue]. Vegetarian Times: Farmers’ Market Cookbook, 8–15. Retrieved from http://www .vegetariantimes.com/article/market-intelligence/ Blalock, P., & National Association of Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs. (2012). Cultivating opportunities for consumers to buy fresh produce from local growers (Statement presented to U.S. House Committee on Agriculture). Retrieved from https:// agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture .house.gov/files/pdf/hearings/Blalock120508.pdf

Farmers’ Markets, Farmers’ Perspective California Department of Food and Agriculture. (2012). Improving food access in California: Report to the California legislature. Retrieved from www.cdfa.ca .gov/exec/.../ImprovingFoodAccessInCalifornia.pdf Madison, D. (2002). Local flavors: Cooking and eating from America’s farmers’ markets. New York, NY: Broadway Books. Saltsman, A. (2007). The Santa Monica farmers’ market cookbook: Seasonal foods, simple recipes, and stories from the market and farm. Santa Monica, CA: Blenheim Press. Tropp, D. (2008, August). Emerging opportunities for local food in U.S. consumer markets. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.

FARMERS’ MARKETS, FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVE A physical meeting place for farmers and consumers, the farmers’ market is a retail site where a collection of farmers come together to sell food products to the public. At farmers’ markets, each farmer operates his or her own market stand, booth, or table, and the market consumer has the opportunity to compare the prices and products of the individual farms while shopping. Goods for sale at farmers’ markets differ, but the most common items offered are produce, meat, poultry, dairy, preserves, and baked goods. Farmers’ markets are particularly important sources of income for small- to mid-sized farms because they create the opportunity for independent farmers to sell directly to their customers. Today, farmers’ markets are increasingly popular due to public interest in buying and eating locally, seasonally, and sustainably. Farmers have benefitted greatly from the resurgence of interest in independent agriculture. This entry looks at farmers’ markets from the perspective of the farmers who choose to sell their products at markets across North America.

Cost-Effectiveness and Quality Assurance For small- to mid-sized farms, farmers’ markets are the most cost-effective way to sell food to the

467

public. Farmers’ markets constitute a space for farmers to sell their products directly to consumers, allowing farmers to avoid the overhead costs associated with selling wholesale to corporate supermarkets and food processors. While some farmers’ markets require a small fee for farmers to own and operate a market stand, the price is insignificant when one considers the increased profits associated with selling food items directly to the public. Farmers who choose to operate a market stand also bypass the costs of storage, refrigeration, handling, and transportation commonly associated with selling stock to corporate businesses. Food products and items sold at farmers’ markets are most often available in small quantities, therefore ensuring that the amount of storage space needed for any particular farmer is minimal. Furthermore, many items and products sold at farmers’ markets are incredibly fresh (often, the produce is picked and harvested on the morning of market day) and require little if any refrigeration. While farmers may employ a handful of individuals to help deliver stock to the market, handling of the product is also minimal and is usually done by farm laborers who have cultivated the product and therefore take care to ensure that it arrives at the market safely and in good condition. Last, farmers usually choose to sell their products at local markets situated in close proximity to their farms and therefore avoid having to pay for long-distance transportation. While some farmers do travel significant distances from rural locales to urban markets, the amount of product in transport is minimal on any given day compared with the surplus of product delivered to corporate supermarkets and processing plants situated across North America. Farmers’ markets empower farmers to be in control of the sale of product. When a farmer operates a market stand or booth, he or she is able to oversee how food items are displayed and determine the price at which they are sold. There is a significant degree of improvisation associated with operating a market stand. A farmer can spontaneously decide to make deals with certain patrons or reduce the prices of certain items so as to encourage sales. Furthermore, at a market, the farmer is

468

Farmers’ Markets, Farmers’ Perspective

able to control and guarantee the quality and freshness of product sold. If the farmer realizes that a certain item is perishing more quickly than expected, he or she is able to remove the item from the sale table immediately. When product is sold wholesale to external businesses, the product exists out of the realm of the farmer’s control and often perishes slightly before reaching the consumer.

Historical Background The tradition of public food markets in North America originates with the arrival of European immigrants. Many immigrants began their new lives in a new world by buying land and starting farms. As these farmers needed a place to sell their products to the public, the European convention of market gatherings was quickly integrated into North American life. Similar to today, farmers traveled to urban centers where they supplied the urban public with fresh produce from rural farms. The first farmers’ markets in North America helped mitigate the significant gap between urban and rural locales. Due to a lack of modern refrigeration, food freshness was a serious issue at the time, and food markets allowed the public to buy food directly from the source. For farmers, public food markets held in urban centers provided access to a large population of potential customers. Small farms could not survive alone on the profits from local, rural areas due to a miniscule number of inhabitants spread over a vast area of land. With the invention of modern refrigeration, the popularity and prevalence of farmers’ markets declined. Refrigerators both in supermarkets and individual residential homes diminished the desire and need for fresh-from-the-farm foods in North America. Accordingly, independent farmers suffered. It was not until the 1970s that interest in farmers’ markets resurged. In reaction to widespread corporate farming and the popularity of frozen, convenience foods, many North Americans began to once again crave fresh, natural food products. Farmers’ markets sprang up in various towns and cities across the continent, and small- to mid-sized farmers were given another chance in the face of corporate agriculture.

Since the 1970s, the number of farmers’ markets in North America has continued to increase. The renewed popularity of the farmers’ market is largely due to the growing public desire to know where food comes from and how it is being produced. While corporate agriculture and big business farms deny the public access to the reality of these issues, farmers’ markets promote intimate consumer engagement with both food and farmers.

The Creation of a Retail Market for Independent Farmers The widespread popularity of the farmers’ market in the 21st century is largely responsible for the survival of independent farmers in North America. While large-scale farms continue to dominate across the continent, the development of the farmers’ market niche culture has created opportunity for small- to mid-sized farms to continue operations. For many farmers, this means being able to continue a way of life that has existed for multiple generations. With thanks to farmers’ markets, family farms that were started long before the introduction of corporate agriculture are given the chance to keep the family farming tradition alive. Similarly, individuals who have always dreamt of owning a farm (many of them urban dwellers seeking solace in rural life) have the opportunity to start fresh and build a business from the ground up. Farmers’ markets have created a retail market for local, seasonal products cultivated by independent farmers. Food Movements

The cultural significance of farmers’ markets is always changing. Markets have had different meanings for different communities and individuals since the introduction of markets to North American life. In the 21st century, farmers’ markets are considered to play a serious and vital role in various food and environmental movements. The involvement of the farmers’ market in social issues has been incredibly beneficial for owners of smallto mid-sized farms who operate market stands.

Farmers’ Markets, Farmers’ Perspective

The growing popularity of locavorism, seasonalism, and sustainable agriculture is deeply connected to the public patronage of farmers’ markets. As more and more consumers choose to buy and eat local, in-season food, the demand for products from small- to mid-sized farms increases and independent farmers see a boost in sales. The farmers’ market exists at the center of this phenomenon: As a symbol of locavorism, seasonalism, and sustainable agriculture, the farmers’ market constitutes a space for farmers and engaged consumers to come together in mutual interest. Importantly, the rise of farmers’ markets in North America and the widespread interest in local, seasonal, and sustainable food represents a symbiotic relationship: While some market consumers are established supporters of these movements, others are taught to eat and live by local, seasonal, and sustainable principles due to their patronage of farmers’ markets. These social movements claim the support of local farmers and producers as a fundamental ideological principle, and farmers continue to benefit from their popularity. Locavorism, seasonalism, and sustainable agriculture are branches of the larger tree of environmentalism. The choice to buy and eat locally is in many ways a choice to support and sustain the local environment and reduce environmental damage to the global world. When one buys food from a farmers’ market, one chooses to purchase food that has, most likely, been transported 100 or fewer miles. Conversely, the food sold and bought at large supermarkets has often been transported thousands of miles by trucks or planes that pollute the environment. The decision to purchase food from a local farmers’ market is therefore often environmentally motivated and involves consideration of how food production has affected the surrounding environment. The 100-mile diet—the decision to only consume food produced within 100 miles of one’s home—is a by-product of this form of environmentalism and has been advantageous to market sales and small- to mid-sized farms. Although not all farmers who sell their products at markets are certified organic, farmers’ markets are also often associated with organic agriculture.

469

Chemical pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides), food additives, and food growth regulators used in nonorganic agriculture are increasingly being deemed harmful to the natural environment. Because farmers’ markets are considered symbols of healthy, natural eating and environmentally friendly farming practices, many assume that the food products sold at markets are organic. In reality, while not all farmers at any particular market are certified organic, many employ agricultural practices that are considered more natural than the practices of big business and factory farms. Food and Farmer Tourism

Food tourists seeking out delicious locales no longer base their destinations of choice on restaurant scenes alone. Rather, such tourists may travel across the continent in search of the best farmers’ markets. So-called foodie towns and cities are often deemed as such due to thriving farmers’ markets and agricultural producers. How does a farmers’ market develop a positive reputation? Food media such as blogs, magazines, and television shows all highlight the farmers’ market as a site of important food culture. Food writers even publish market reviews alongside restaurant reviews. Independent farmers have reaped the benefits of this brand of tourism: consumers of small- to mid-sized farm products are no longer only local patrons but also international visitors to markets across North America.

In Various Forms and Sizes The location, shape, and size of farmers’ markets vary greatly as every market is made up of a unique collection of farmers. Farmers’ markets can be held in assorted locations in both rural and urban settings. Community and convention centers as well as large outdoor spaces open to the public are particularly common sites for markets. Farmers’ markets vary in size. While some markets are expansive and consist of hundreds of farm and merchant stands, others are small meeting places for a few select farmers. The number of farmers’

470

Farmers’ Markets, Farmers’ Perspective

markets in a given community differs: While smaller rural locales usually host only one market, large cities often host multiple markets to meet the demands of urban populations. Increasingly, farmers are opening their own onsite farm markets where the food products of an individual farmer are sold to the public from his or her farm. On-site farm markets act as tourist destinations for visitors. These markets create the opportunity for the public to visit a particular farm, see the farmer at work in his or her own agricultural environment, and encourage the sale of product. More and more farmers are promoting their farms as visitor destinations so as to foster meaningful and lasting connections with consumers. The process of farmer selection for farmers’ markets varies. Usually due to a lack of space, some smaller markets have strict policies about who can sell what products. In these cases, farmers can apply for a spot at a market, and market administration is then forced to evaluate whether or not the applicant’s product will enhance the collection of products already on offer. Smaller markets often have to reject farmers if their product is too similar to the product on sale at an alreadyestablished stand. If a farmer is accepted by market administration, he or she will typically have to pay a fee for his or her market space. At some markets, select farmers are granted permanent membership to the market collective. Permanent members are guaranteed the same market spot during hours of operation. Others are temporary members who are included on a waiting list and are only able to sell their products when a permanent member is unable to attend a particular market day. The temporary member is then able to use the market space and, perhaps, the booth of the absent permanent member. Temporary members tend to be new owners of small farms who are testing the market with their product. The selection of products sold at any given market depends on the collection of farmers who make up the market. Some farmers’ markets are produce-only sites, while others also offer dairy, meat, poultry, fish, baked goods, preserves, and specialty products. The range of products offered usually

depends on the season. Many farmers sell only produce that is growing and fresh at the time. In this way, farmers’ markets are symbols of local, seasonal eating in that they encourage consumers to buy and eat food that is in season in a particular location. Today, many farmers choose to produce and sell specialty food items and artisanal food products so as to differentiate themselves from other farms and farmers. For example, a poultry farmer may choose to raise particular heritage breeds of turkey, or a dairy farmer may produce only organic milk. Specialty farmers are often found at farmers’ markets where they sell their wares and establish their farms as forerunners in less conventional avenues of agriculture.

Food Engagement For both the farmer and the consumer, the benefit of shopping at a farmers’ market is that the consumer can discuss the food products on offer with the farmer. For example, some farms may not be certified organic, but the farmer may still practice natural and environmental agriculture. The farmers’ market creates an opportunity for conversation beyond government-certified labels. The consumer is able to learn more about the food he or she buys and eats (how it is grown and handled), and the farmer learns what his or her consumer wants in terms of food production and processing. Many farmers adopt new agricultural practices to meet the demands of the public. Beyond the details of food production, engagement between the farmer and the consumer at farmers’ markets often consists of discussions about particular food items and food preparation. If a consumer is unfamiliar with an ingredient, the consumer is able to ask the farmer what it is and how it is best prepared. In cases like this, the farmer is the best person to ask: He or she has researched the item and carefully grown, bred, or cultivated the item. Many farmers are even willing to share recipes with patrons. Conversely, many patrons are eager to tell farmers their favorite ways to cook particular ingredients. Farmers’ markets, therefore, encourage experimentation and

Farmworkers

knowledge sharing in relation to food. Markets position food as an important and worthy topic of conversation and as a way to connect with other individuals in a community.

Community Focus on the Farmer While markets vary in form and size, the social atmosphere of many markets is similar. On Saturday mornings in markets across North America, families and individuals come together to engage in ritualized practice; bags and baskets in hand, they buy food and support their respective community farmers. Often, markets contain public seating where patrons can sit, eat, and chat among themselves. Here, individuals are given the opportunity to better get to know their neighbors. Regular customers become familiar faces and sometimes even friends. Markets bring together members of a community or neighborhood and stimulate a sense of social connection; significantly, this ritual of community fellowship occurs in the farmer’s domain. The farmer becomes the reason why people are brought together, and local agriculture is consequently celebrated and honored by the community. Many farmers’ markets even host public talks and lectures about local food and agriculture in which farmers are asked to speak about their work. The way in which farmers’ markets encourage the population of a particular community to engage with both the farmer and the agriculture of that community helps cultivate individual engagement with place. In an increasingly technological world, many people spend their days online, plugged in, and out of touch with the local environment. Farmers’ markets, by promoting local products, showcasing local culture, and fostering connections between neighbors, work to reintroduce individuals to the places they inhabit. In this way, farmers act as ambassadors of local place. As the individuals who work with and on the local land, farmers bring and offer the land to the community in the form of food products sold at farmers markets. Deborah Hemming

471

See also Family Farms and Rural Depopulation; Farmers’ Markets; Farmers’ Markets, Cooking With Seasonal Produce; Locavorism; Organic/Biodynamic Farming; Roadside Stands; Sustainable Agrifood Systems

Further Readings Brett, B. (2009). Trauma farm: A rebel history of rural life. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Greystone Books. Gurin, D., & Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation. (2007). Farmers’ markets: Opportunities for preserving greenbelt agriculture. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation. Hinrichs, C. C., & Lyson, T. A. (2007). Remaking the North American food system: Strategies for sustainability. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Mather, R. (2011). The feast nearby. New York, NY: Ten Speed Press. Norberg-Hodge, H., Merrifield, T., & Gorelick, S. (2002). Bringing the food economy home: Local alternatives to global agribusiness. London, UK: Zed Books. Pritchard, F. (2013). Gaining ground: A story of farmers’ markets, local food, and saving the family farm. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press. Salatin, J. (2012). Folks, this ain’t normal: A farmer’s advice for happier hens, healthier people and a better world. New York, NY: Center Street. Stephenson, G. O. (2008). Farmers’ markets: Success, failure, and management ecology. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.

FARMWORKERS As food production in the United States has grown increasingly industrialized, the consolidation of small family farms into larger, and often vertically integrated, farming operations has become more commonplace. Since the end of World War II, these consolidation and industrialization processes have been spurred by a growing presence of large-scale agricultural corporations that now dominate the majority of food production in the United States and abroad. Alongside this consolidation, hiring laborers from off the farm has become the primary strategy of meeting

472

Farmworkers

the production needs of farming operations where labor needs exceed labor availability. Farmworkers labor in nearly all sectors and scales of the food system, from the smallest family farms to the largest corporate food operations, from diversified farms to enormous dairy operations. In a nation where the food industry accounts for 13% of the total gross domestic product, the contribution of farmworkers is clearly significant to the nation’s overall economic well-being (Food Chain Workers Alliance, 2012). This entry offers a brief history and context of farmworkers in the United States, outlining both the central challenges that these workers face and the efforts to organize and stand in solidarity with farmworkers. Given the present demographic constitution of farmworkers in the United States, this entry focuses specifically on farmworkers from Latin America and their unique struggles. However, many of these same conditions and experiences apply to all immigrant farmworkers regardless of their nation of origin.

Historical Background and Current Context While workers from Mexico have worked on U.S. farms since the drawing of the U.S.–Mexico border in 1848, the reliance of hiring farmworkers outside of the United States intensified much later with the institution of the bracero program in 1942. This program, officially named the Mexican Farm Labor Program, was the earliest attempt on the part of the United States to institute a guest worker program. Largely in response to labor shortages brought about by U.S. involvement in wars overseas, the bracero program brought an estimated 4 million hired laborers from Mexico into the fields and farms north of the border. At its peak in 1959, more than 440,000 bracero workers were laboring in the United States, a number that gradually declined until the program’s end. While the program was designed to sponsor Mexican workers for a defined period of time, many workers brought as braceros eventually ended up permanently settling in the United States, with or without permanent residency status.

In response to concerns over labor abuses associated with the program, an increased presence of undocumented labor, and the growing significance of labor organizing by the National Farm Laborers Union and the National Workers Organizing Committee, who highlighted the ways in which the program stagnated worker’s wages, the program was officially ended in 1964. Since the end of the bracero program, the United States has sought to manage the needs for guest workers in the agricultural sector through the H2A Temporary Guest Worker visa program, although this too has been an inadequate and unsustainable solution to labor needs. The H2A visa program is operated by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Division. Through this program, agricultural employers can hire temporary workers born outside of the United States for up to 1 year, with a possible extension for 3 years. Employers who apply for H2A workers must prove that they do not have access to an adequate number of local workers and that bringing in workers through this program would not negatively affect the working conditions or wages of U.S. workers in similar sectors. There is no cap on the number of H2A visas that may be issued, and in 2011, roughly 55,000 visas were made available. According to a 2011 report by Bon Appétit Management Company and United Farm Workers (UFW), approximately 94% of all H2A workers come from Mexico, and the vast majority of them are young men. This same report outlines the vulnerabilities that many of these workers face, highlighting cases of forced labor on the part of unscrupulous farmers, threats of physical violence, and unsafe working and living conditions. These matters are addressed in more detail in a later section of this entry that discusses the broader contexts of worker struggles. The growing reliance on nonfamily farm labor since the end of World War II has been significant, with the ratio of hired farmworkers to total farmworkers growing from one in four in 1950 to one in three in 2006, according to William Kandel. Drawing on the 2007 Agricultural Census and the

Farmworkers

National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) data, the Bon Appétit Management Company and UFW report noted that the most reliable estimate for the total number of farmworkers employed in the United States is 1.4 million. The majority of these workers are male, but most estimates agree that roughly 20% to 23% of all hired farmworkers are female. While many representations of farmworkers often characterize their lives as revolving around seasonal migrations in response to harvest cycles, Kandel notes that in reality, only about 12% of farmworkers work in this fashion. In general, the geographic distribution of farmworkers has not changed significantly in recent decades, and more than half of all farmworkers labor in just six states— California, Florida, Texas, Washington, Oregon, and North Carolina—according to Kandel. Of these states, California employs the greatest number of farmworkers.

Estimates of the Number of Farmworkers in the United States Given the high mobility and unauthorized status of many of these workers, it is not surprising that estimates of the number of foreign-born farmworkers are not consistent across sources. While the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) estimates that roughly 62% of farmworkers in the United States are undocumented immigrants, NAWS data estimate that roughly half of all hired crop farmworkers lack official authorization to work in the United States. However, as noted earlier, for workers entering the United States through the H2A visa program, numbers are more precise. According to the SPLC, the top four sending nations of undocumented farmworkers are Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Many of these farmworkers are pushed from their home countries by poverty, food insecurity, and a lack of viable employment. Given the cultural diversity of farmworkers from Latin America, it is difficult to generalize about demographic factors and premigration experiences, but farmworkers tend to be less likely to speak English than other migrant laborers, and according to the National

473

Center for Farmworker Health, the average level of completed education among farmworkers is the eighth grade.

Economic Inequalities Confronting Farmworkers Despite the significance of farmworkers for the well-being of the agricultural economy, the economic conditions of farmworkers remain substandard. Cases of wage theft and violations of minimum wage regulations run rampant throughout agricultural sectors, and migrant farmworkers and women are often even more disadvantaged in the labor market than those farmworkers who remain settled (Kandel, 2008; SPLC, 2010). In some cases, these wage inequalities are caused by workers being paid through piecework arrangements, where they are paid by the bin, bushel, or pound rather than by the hour. According to 2007– 2009 NAWS data, as reported by the National Center for Farmworker Health, 83% of farmworkers said that they were paid by the hour, 11% were paid by the piece, and  6% were salaried or had other payment methods. In a 2012 report by the Food Chain Workers Alliance, only 13.5% of workers earn a livable wage across food sectors from production through retail, while for agriculture and nursery workers surveyed, this rate was 0%. The poverty rate among farmworkers is more than double the rate for all salary and wage workers, and according to 2007–2009 NAWS data, 23% of farmworkers’ families fall below national poverty guidelines. According to this same survey, the median household income for farmworkers was between $17,500 and $19,999 compared with $52,000 for all U.S. households. Based on a 2012 survey conducted by the Food Chain Workers Alliance, 92.9% of all workers experiencing wage theft were Latino workers in farm and agriculture. Latino farmworkers are also disproportionately affected by irregular and inconsistent work, experiencing unemployment rates that are double those of all wage and salary workers, with crop workers facing twice the rate of unemployment of livestock workers, according to Kandel. On the flip side, farmworkers are also more likely to have schedules

474

Farmworkers

that exceed 50 hours per week, especially during peak agricultural seasons. As noted by the SPLC, undocumented workers are unable to access federal programs for the poor, including SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits, housing assistance, disability and unemployment, Medicaid, or SSI (Supplemental Security Income), despite paying billions to federal programs annually. However, Kandel reports that for those who are authorized to work in the United States, hired farmworkers use these programs at higher rates than employees in other sectors because of poverty-level wages. Despite these inconsistencies and economic realities, farmworkers do not typically have access to unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, or disability benefits. This lack of protection is significant, given the hazardous working conditions that many farmworkers experience.

Working Conditions and Labor Abuses With the high number of undocumented workers on U.S. farms comes a preponderance of unsafe working conditions and labor abuses. Women farmworkers encounter these struggles in addition to even greater wage inequalities and, in many cases, sexual harassment and abuse. According to the SPLC—a recent study—as many as 80% of female farmworkers experience sexual violence, and these women often fear reporting these crimes because of a generalized fear of police. This is one illustration of how farmworkers often work in a “shadow economy” where they are subject to the whims of unscrupulous employers, unable to assert their rights, and, for all practical purposes, beyond the protection of labor laws that protect the rest of us from abuse, discrimination, and wage cheating in the workplace. Agricultural work is widely considered to be one of the most hazardous sectors of the economy, and safety and health concerns in the workplace are often exacerbated by unsafe and unhealthy living conditions. The housing conditions of farmworkers have long been plagued by overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, proximity to fields with

heavy pesticide application, and substandard inspection and enforcement. Housing conditions are even more precarious for migratory workers who follow crop harvests. Not only are farmworkers disparately exposed to pesticides, high risk of heat exhaustion and heat stroke, greater incidence of food insecurity, and a general lack of sanitary facilities on the job, but they are also less likely to have health insurance and paid sick days. It is also crucial to acknowledge how these working conditions affect children, given that children and youth receive fewer legal protections in agricultural work than in other sectors. For example, while workers in nonagricultural sectors must be 18 years of age to perform hazardous tasks in the workplace, the minimum age for workers in the agricultural sector is 16 years. As outlined in a 2011 report by Bon Appétit Management Company and UFW, A 16-year-old farmworker may legally be employed in such hazardous activities as: operating heavy farm equipment (e.g., tractors, harvesters, combines, and forklifts), pruning or picking fruit at a height of 20 feet, applying toxic agricultural chemicals (including anhydrous ammonia), and working inside “a fruit, forage, or grain storage designed to retain an oxygen-deficient or toxic atmosphere. (p. 16)

The lack of adequate sanitation facilities, coupled with heavy pesticide exposure, is a pressing and often deadly challenge confronting farmworkers. The SPLC reports that a 2003 study based in California found that the most common illnesses among farmworkers were linked to the use of organophosphates, a group of insecticides used for their neurotoxic characteristics. The SPLC also reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are 10,000 to 20,000 cases of diagnosed pesticide poisonings among farmworkers. However, these are the diagnosed cases, and given the barriers that farmworkers face in seeking health care, the number is likely much higher. For instance, both the SPLC and Kandel note that only one tenth of farmworkers

Farmworkers

are estimated to have health insurance. Prolonged pesticide exposure has been linked to a wide range of illnesses and health conditions, including infertility and reproductive health problems, cancer, birth defects, skin problems, Parkinson’s disease, and neurological damage. For children living and sometimes working on or near farms, these health conditions can become even more pronounced given their developmental needs. While farm owners must follow the procedures and standards outlined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not inspect farms with fewer than 11 employees unless there are different rules at the state level. This, according to the 2011 Bon Appétit Management Company and UFW report, results in approximately 88% of all farms that have hired laborers not being inspected. This lack of inspections creates a situation where the levels of pesticide exposure remains largely misunderstood and underreported, and where states must take it on themselves to create and carry out more stringent regulations. The legal loopholes and the lack of regulations for safety and health concerns are especially problematic given that most farmworkers are not covered by their employer’s workers compensation insurance. The occupational fatality rate for farmworkers was five times higher than the rate of any other worker in 2009. However, this too is likely to be an underestimate, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps certain fatality information confidential, and because the eventual cause of death is not always linked back to pesticide exposure. Environmental exposure is also a leading cause of farmworker illness and disease, and recently, the UFW has worked particularly hard to draw attention to the deaths caused by extreme heat in California and the lack of farmer protections, including access to shade, regular breaks, and a source of potable water. Between 2003 and 2008, there were 38 reported deaths caused by heat exposure, with the greatest number of these occurring in California, Florida, and North Carolina. Even when it does not lead to death, heat stress is a significant cause of workplace injury

475

and illness, and it often goes undiagnosed and unreported. Forced labor is also a persistent and troubling problem within the agricultural sector, and farmworkers are often vulnerable to physical and verbal abuse and threats of deportation if they do not follow strict orders from their employers. Since the late 1990s, cases of forced, indentured, and enslaved agricultural workers have made national headlines. The most public of these cases includes seven cases of slavery prosecutions in Florida and the labor coercion of 400 Thai farmers who were brought into the United States by Global Horizons Manpower, Inc., through the H2A program to work in orchards and farms in Washington state and Hawaii. Through the ongoing Anti-Slavery Campaign led by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW; described in more detail in a later section on solidarity), the enslavement and abuse of more than 1,000 workers in Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas have been investigated and prosecuted since 1997.

Legal Protections and Regulations While there are state regulations designed to protect farmworkers, nearly all major federal labor laws that were passed during the New Deal under the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933– 1945) specifically exclude farmworkers. Those laws that would be particularly helpful to farmworkers, including workers compensation, mandatory breaks, and overtime pay regulations, do not apply to workers in this sector of the economy. Moreover, “under federal law, a farmworker may be fired for joining a labor union, and farm labor unions have no legal recourse to compel a company or agricultural employer to negotiate employment terms” (Bon Appétit, 2011, p. iv). Although agricultural employers and farm labor contractors must abide by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, this act does not cover some of the most pressing challenges that have been discussed here. It does, however, state that workers must be paid what and when they are due and that the terms and conditions of

476

Farmworkers

the employment must be disclosed. For undocumented workers, however, there is little recourse to ensure that these standards are met. Finally, as previously noted, there are particular and persistent ways by which children are not protected within the agricultural sector, and children as young as 14 years of age may work on farms legally. Children as young as 12 years of age may work with their parents’ permission on the same farm where their parents are employed outside of school hours. Little is known about employer compliance with these laws, and enforcement seems to be lacking.

Solidarity and Organizing Efforts The obstacles and challenges of farmworkers have long inspired organizing and solidarity efforts through various unions, coalitions, and other civil society–based groups. The UFW, organized in the early 1960s, has become the most recognizable group organizing for and by farmworkers. Founded by César Chavez and led by individuals like Dolores Huerta, the UFW has been successful in improving the lives of farmworkers through staging boycotts, strikes, and campaigns across the United States. The union was founded through a merging of Chavez’s organization, the National Farm Workers Association, and the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, led by the Filipino organizer Larry Itliong. The Delano grape strike, targeting growers in California, is perhaps the UFW’s most pronounced effort, and through these efforts, the UFW gained national visibility about the inequalities and horrific conditions that farmworkers often encountered. This strike, lasting from 1965 to the early 1970s, resulted in the first ever labor contract with growers. Founded nearly 30 years later, the CIW is a nonprofit organization that has worked since 1993 to protect the rights of immigrant workers in the agricultural sector. Focusing primarily on workers in the tomato industry, the CIW’s Campaign for Fair Food has worked to pressure 10 large food corporations, including fast food giants like McDonald’s and Taco Bell, food retailers like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, and food service

companies like Sodexo and Bon Appétit, to sign on to Fair Food Agreements. These agreements stipulate that these buyers enact a zero-tolerance policy for forced labor and that they pay a premium price of one more penny per pound, and that this money directly benefits farmworkers. Additionally, through supporting ongoing prosecutions of coerced labor through the Anti-Slavery Campaign, the CIW has raised awareness about the ongoing problem of enslaved labor in the agricultural sector. Other key organizations include the Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United), the Agricultural Justice Project, El Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas (the Farmworkers Support Committee), and the Farmworker Justice Fund, though there are hundreds more solidarity organizations working for farmworker justice. Teresa Mares See also Employment: U.S. Food Sector; Food Justice; Migrant Labor; Pesticides; Worker Safety

Further Readings Bon Appétit Management Company, & United Farm Workers. (2011). Inventory of farmworker issues and protections in the United States. Palo Alto, CA: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.ufw.org/pdf/ farmworkerinventory_0401_2011.pdf Farmworker Justice, & Oxfam America. (2010). Weeding out abuses: Recommendations for a law-abiding farm labor system. Washington, DC: Authors. Food Chain Workers Alliance. (2012). The hands that feed us: Challenges and opportunities for workers along the food chain. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Kandel, W. (2008). Profile of hired farmworkers: A 2008 update (Economic Research Report No. ERR-60). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Center for Farmworker Health. (2012). Farmworker health factsheet. Retrieved from http:// www.ncfh.org/docs/fs-Facts%20about%20 Farmworkers.pdf Southern Poverty Law Center. (2010). Injustice on our plates: Immigrant women in the U.S. food industry. Montgomery, AL: Author.

The SAGE Encyclopedia of

Food Issues

The SAGE Encyclopedia of

Food Issues Editor

Ken Albala University of the Pacific

2

Fast Food

FAST FOOD Fast food is a phenomenon originating in the United States in the early to mid-20th century, with close ties to the development of suburbanization, car culture, and the glorification of speed and efficiency. Its popularity has spread globally, and it takes on many forms, often catering to local food preferences and dietary restrictions, despite the impression that it is homogenized, entirely mass produced, and of consistently low quality. In many places around the globe, fast food is considered “American” food and carries some prestige. Nonetheless, in the past 20 years, it has garnered considerable criticism due to the general proliferation of fast food establishments at the cost of smaller local mom-and-pop restaurants; its perceived negative effects on health, in particular as it concerns children; as well as the way in which it transforms the nature of basic food work, requiring little or no skills and therefore making labor largely expendable. After describing the development of the fast food business model, this entry presents the bases for both the popularity and the criticisms of fast food.

Business Model Many of the earliest fast food establishments were drive-throughs. Customers were served right in their cars, or they offered sit-down patrons a limited menu and quick service and dispensed with cutlery and plates that had to be washed, thus eliminating much of the restaurant staff. Customers were served at the counter and bused their own tables. Food served quickly was not new, but what made these establishments unique was the franchising, the uniformity of the buildings and interior decor, and the simplified preset menu made with ingredients that were preprepared off-site on an industrial scale. French fries were precut and frozen, hamburger patties were preformed— everything could be put together by someone with minimal skills beyond pressing a few buttons or flipping a burger. The employees were therefore

477

generally unskilled, part-time—often teenagers— and easily replaced. Machines, which required little or no training to operate, produced a uniform and predictable product, which was largely seen as a positive attribute for the first few decades when fast food restaurants proliferated. Mechanization and cleanliness were seen as improvements to the small quirky hamburger joint whose product might have been irregular and countertops less than gleaming. The earliest fast food chains go back to the early 1920s. Although what exactly qualifies as modern fast food is a matter of debate, A&W Root Beer, which started in Lodi, California, in 1919 by Roy Allen, later partnering with Frank Wright, had most of the hallmarks of the modern fast food restaurant. It franchised store after store, and by the mid-1930s, there were more than 200 A&W stands, and by 1960, there were more than 2,000 stores. The company made money by selling the root beer concentrate and charging a licensing fee to use the A&W name. A&Ws were missing one essential factor, though: assembly line production. Credit for that goes to McDonald’s. Richard and Maurice (Mac) McDonald opened their first restaurant in Pasadena, California, in 1937, and a few years later, they moved to San Bernardino, California. Their idea was to serve food quickly, have a large turnover, and keep the price as low as possible. The principles of the assembly line production were applied to food preparation. The key to the business was eliminating waiters or carhops as used in drive-ins. They also did away with busboys and dishwashers. Everything was self-service. With a dramatically reduced menu and with no substitutions allowed, McDonald’s churned out food industrially. The working space behind the counter and in the kitchen was also streamlined for efficiency and automated as much as possible. In the early 1950s, the McDonald brothers started franchising the business. They sold the brand name for a fee, built the restaurants and provided the equipment, and handed over operations to a private investor who thereafter was required to buy the ingredients from the mother

478

Fast Food

company. In 1954, they hired Ray Kroc to handle the franchising, and he built the business into an empire. He eventually bought the entire company himself. The combination of assembly line procedures, scientific management, franchising, and brilliant advertising ensured continual expansion and growth. Millions of hamburgers were indeed sold. Assembly line production and franchising rapidly spread to other establishments. In the 1950s and 1960s, many of the still well-recognized fast food restaurants sprung up. Harland Sanders opened his first Kentucky Fried Chicken in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1952 and promoted it himself dressed as a Kentucky colonel. Keith Kramer began Burger King in 1953, Glen W. Bell started Taco Bell in 1962, Dave Thomas started Wendy’s Old Fashioned Burgers in 1969, and Thomas S. Monaghan started Domino’s Pizza in 1960. There were many failures as well, but the success of the model is self-evident.

Popularity The popularity of fast food had a lot to do with the perception of speed and convenience, especially as more women entered the workforce and more people living alone became disinclined to cook. Greater disposable income also played a role as more people could afford to eat out more often. The baby boom generation in general was thrilled and charmed by fast food, if not outright addicted to it. Some claim that there is a kind of chemical addiction to the fat, salt, and artificially enhanced flavors, but fast food has immense psychological appeal as well. Behavioral scientists try to understand why people crave salty, fried, and crunchy foods. Some behavioral scientists have identified displaced libidinal aggression as a contributing factor: The sensation of biting down and hearing food crunch replaces the instinctual urge to bite on flesh and bones. Fast food is also engineered for maximum resonance in the skull cavity. Hamburgers served at fast food restaurants are typically too big to fit in the mouth. Diners have to grasp a burger carefully, opening their mouths wide,

baring their teeth, and then cram the burger in, much as our ancestral forebears might have chomped on an antelope’s leg—and in place of blood dripping down your cheek, you now have ketchup. Farfetched as this sounds, some have noted that there may be transgressive pleasure in dispensing with cutlery and being able to eat with your hands, anywhere you like. The interior decor of fast food establishments is also usually bright and cheery, often in yellow and red. At some level, the atmosphere is carnivalesque; that is, it provides a ritual subversion of the normal rules, when the world is briefly turned upside down. Fast food establishments not only provide children an opportunity to order whatever they like in meals that cater specifically to them, but they also provide one of the few situations when children can eat with their hands. Giving children exactly what they want during an outing may also make parents feel good, as some fast food advertising implies that parents deserve a break or can earn their children’s love by taking them out for fast food.

Consequences Apart from the aesthetics of fast food and the appeal it holds for many people, critics point out many negative side effects. An unforeseen by-product of the fast food industry is the waste generated by replacing dishes and silverware with disposable packaging. Although environmental concerns have prompted a move away from Styrofoam toward biodegradable paper, enormous waste and pollution are still involved. Another consequence is the effect on the environment caused indirectly by manufacturers from whom fast food establishments purchase ingredients. Many companies claim that they no longer buy beef from countries that clear-cut rainforests for cattle ranching, but critics claim otherwise. Critiquing large corporations publically can come at great cost, as was learned when McDonald’s sued two individuals for libel in Britain in 1997. Dave Morris and Helen Steele published a pamphlet claiming that McDonald’s supported the

Fast Food

destruction of the rain forest, that they feed people food that directly causes heart disease, that the food is poisonous, and that the company is abusive toward its workers. In what became known as the McLibel case, and at the time was the longest running case in English legal history, the court sided with McDonald’s and required the defendants to pay thousands of pounds in damages. The court ruled that much of what Morris and Steele claimed (the health claims and poor labor standards) was true and therefore not libel but the other claims could not be verified, so a hefty fine remained. McDonald’s spent the equivalent of US$16 million in legal costs and suffered considerably from bad publicity. However, fast food companies like McDonald’s can in an instant change entire industries for the better because of their enormous buying power. Perhaps bowing to public pressure, the company decided to demand that their suppliers of chicken abandon battery-raised farming in which chickens are essentially stacked in cages one on top of the other. Such buying power can also force farmers into potentially negative situations. For example, the russet potato is the most widely grown spud in the United States largely because it fits into French fry cutting machines. Such demand results in farmers growing more russet potatoes, which, in turn, reduces the genetic diversity of the potato crop, making it potentially vulnerable to pests and disease. Another consequence has to do with the way fast food companies market specifically to children— often with an explicit connection to the movie industry. Meals marketed specifically for children contain scaled-down portions of food and an inexpensive toy. Many of these toys are figurines based on a soon-to-be or recently released movie, and often, the toys are part of a series so that children can return to the establishment to collect them all. Thus, such marketing is a way for the movie industry to advertise as well as a way for the fast food chains to attract children with a popular new toy that cannot be bought in stores. The irony is that the movies—good or bad—have become less a way to entertain than a way to market promotional

479

products. Even if a movie flops, it can make a fortune through such cross-promotionalism. In fact, using toys as promotions has become illegal in many places. Fast food companies have also been criticized for advertising aggressively not only on television but also inside public schools and on school buses. At a time when their budgets were stretched thin, some school districts signed contracts with fast food companies to bring in additional revenue. In addition, some public schools allowed fast food franchises to take over the food service. Fast food and soft drink companies rely on such marketing toward young children in an attempt to form longlasting brand loyalty. Fast food companies are also finding new locales for pitching their products: stadiums, airports, big-box stores, zoos, airplanes, gas stations, and even hospitals. It has been asserted that in the foreseeable future, no one will have to travel more than 5 minutes from any place in the country to find a fast food outlet. By one estimate, every day the equivalent of one fourth of the adult population of the United States visits a fast food restaurant. Another issue is the globalization of fast food outlets such as McDonald’s—which some call cultural imperialism. It is virtually impossible to keep track of the vast number of McDonald’s restaurants that open every year worldwide, with the vast majority of them having opened since 1990. For a while, the busiest McDonald’s in the world was on Pushkin Square in Moscow, which set opening day records with customers waiting several hours in mile-long lines to be served. To meet the demand for fast food, the Russians devised their own local versions of fast food. The Japanese are also avid consumers of fast food; in Japan, there are several thousand McDonald’s and other franchises. Often, these stores will cater explicitly to local preferences and aversions. Although the use of beef fat for making French fries in Hindu India was embarrassing for McDonald’s, vegetable oil provided an easy substitute, and is standard now almost everywhere. McDonald’s in Turkey offers a Kofte burger of lamb with a yogurt sauce,

480

Fast Food

and in Sweden, there is a McSki ski-through window so customers can have a hamburger and never have to take off their skis. In Greece, there is a McSaracosti program in which seafood is served during Lent, and in India, there is a mutton burger called a Maharaja Mac and a vegetarian McAloo Tikki Burger™ for observant Brahmins. In Israel, there are kosher McDonald’s. Nonetheless, many people around the world fear that children who grow up eating fast food will no longer want to eat according to their own traditions. Despite the fact that such restaurants cater explicitly to local tastes, the best example being how in China McDonald’s became a popular venue for birthday parties where people lingered, doting on their single child, the overall trend is still the proliferation of a homogeneous mass-produced burger, fries, and soda. This is, after all, exactly what consumers want. Despite the fact that activists sometimes lash out against fast food, it remains popular. The entire Slow Food movement was established in reaction to the building of a McDonald’s at the foot of the Spanish Steps in Rome, which is ironically patronized by Italians. The most celebrated attack on McDonald’s was in 1999, when the French activist José Bové “deconstructed” a site nail by nail without destroying a single thing, but the French are the number two consumers of fast food on Earth. The negative nutritional profile of most fast food cannot be denied though, especially when eaten on a regular basis, as is often the case where few other options are available (e.g., in so-called food deserts). The tendency to “supersize” offerings has exacerbated the high fat, sugar, and overall caloric intake of the average fast food meal. For example, Burger King’s Whopper contains 640 calories and 39 grams of fat and the Double Whopper and Cheese contains 960 calories and 63 grams of fat. Combine that with 370 calories for fries (with 20 grams of fat) and a cola with 280 calories—or better yet, a chocolate shake with 440 calories—this meal comes to a “whopping” 1,770 calories, nearly the entire caloric intake recommended by the U.S. government in a single day. The 90 grams of fat exceed the 65 grams recommended for a 2,000-calorie

diet. Some also point to the excessive salt and sugar in fast food offerings. Whether an individual might make a legal claim that this food causes health-related problems such as obesity and thus can receive damages was tested in a New York district court in 2002, and the court dismissed the case in its entirety. Critics also point to the enormous sums of money spent on fast food, the number of jobs controlled by the fast food industry, and the speed with which franchises proliferate in the United States and around the world. Some critics claim that fast food restaurants are among the largest owners of retail space in the world, that they distribute more toys than any other company, and that symbols such as McDonald’s Golden Arches are more recognized around the world than the Christian cross. In fact, one survey of American school children showed that 96% were familiar with Ronald McDonald, the mascot of McDonald’s. In 1975, in a book called Eat Your Heart Out, the farm activist Jim Hightower called the tendency for giant corporations to control the food supply at the cost of independent business the “McDonaldization of America.” He feared that it would completely wipe out regional preferences, locally grown varieties of foods, and independent businesses. This business model has spread to the retail sector as well. One can go now to any mall across the country and find the exact same stores. The result is the almost complete homogenization of foods and services throughout the country. Apart from homogenization, there is also the issue of how the food is prepared for mass consumption—the artificial flavors that are added as well as the heavy mechanical processing that means everything is frozen, dehydrated, or preformed. Even the ingredients and flavorings that are legally described as “natural” are typically extracted from foods with chemical solvents. For example, the food industry does not differentiate between amyl acetate extracted from bananas and amyl acetate created artificially by mixing amyl alcohol, vinegar, and sulfuric acid, though one is legally natural and the other artificial. Food producers may also add synthetic colors and

Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease

various flavors and fragrances to food products; these additives are created to provide brief episodic bursts of flavor that lead consumers to crave more, and perhaps overeat. The ultimate question of whether fast food tastes good must be answered with a resounding yes, as it is engineered to be so. There are cultural and social reasons why people look down on it, and of course, for some, there is no comparison with a homemade burger. But consumers are not willfully duped, and extensive market research provides consumers with exactly the flavors, portions, and varieties of food at the price point they are willing to pay. For the avid consumers of fast food, taste and convenience appear to trump all other considerations. Ken Albala See also Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children; Employment: U.S. Food Sector; Food Deserts

Further Readings Critser, G. (2004). Fat land: How Americans became the fattest people on Earth. Boston, MA: Mariner Books. Kroc, R. (1992). Grinding it out: The making of McDonald’s. London, UK: St. Martin’s Press. Love, J. F. (1995). McDonald’s behind the arches. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Schlosser, E. (2012). Fast food nation: The dark side of the American Meal (Reprint). Boston, MA: Mariner Books. Spurlock, M. (Director). (2004). Super size me [Motion picture]. United States: Studio On Hudson.

FATS, ROLE DISEASE

IN

CARDIOVASCULAR

Cardiovascular diseases, especially coronary heart disease (CHD), have been a central public health problem in the West since the end of World War II in 1945. In the late 1940s, animal fats were suggested as a risk factor for CHD and validated in numerous research projects in the following decades. After years of research and often fierce

481

political discussions, nutritional recommendations setting target values for fats were established in many Western countries in the 1980s. In recent years, the obesity epidemic has reopened the discussion on nutritional fats and shifted it toward the relative importance of fats and carbohydrates in chronic disease, with implications for the understanding of CHD. This entry describes how the knowledge concerning the role of dietary fats in cardiovascular problems and the measures based on this knowledge have developed, taking as examples the United States and Finland.

Coronary Heart Disease In the large group of cardiovascular diseases, dietary fats play a role not only in CHD but also in stroke and peripheral arterial disease. In current understanding, CHD refers to the ensemble comprising atherosclerosis, angina pectoris, and infarction. In atherosclerosis, deposits called plaques develop on the inner walls of the arteries. The plaques may restrict blood flow to the heart muscle by clogging the artery. Without sufficient blood supply, the heart becomes starved of oxygen, causing chest pain called angina pectoris. When inflamed, these plaques can rupture, which can lead to blood clot formation and blockage of the bloodstream in the artery. This results in an infarction, which permanently injures the heart muscle. Research has implicated dietary fat in atherosclerosis. The issue is complex, because there are various types of fats involved, and the process is mediated through cholesterol, which is also classified into different types depending on the lipoproteins carrying it in the bloodstream. Cholesterol is vital to the body, contributing to the formation of cells and steroid hormones, bile acid production, and fat digestion and transport. The body aims at cholesterol balance, withdrawing and producing cholesterol when necessary. Only some of it enters the body with the diet. Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (and its “preform,” very-lowdensity lipoprotein [VLDL] cholesterol) is labeled “bad,” because it has the potential to become attached to the interior wall of the arteries, where

482

Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease

plaques are formed. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol is “good,” because it carries cholesterol molecules away from the arterial walls and bloodstream. Key to coronary health is a good LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio. The intake of fats, more than the intake of cholesterol, influences cholesterol levels. Saturated fats and trans fats have a negative effect on this ratio, whereas with monoand polyunsaturated fats, the effect is beneficial. Most foods contain different fat types in various proportions. However, unsaturated fats are predominantly found in foods from plants, such as vegetable oils, nuts, and seeds, whereas saturated fats have mostly an animal origin. For the important polyunsaturated omega-3 fat, the major source is fish. Trans fats are from animal sources or develop when vegetable oils are hydrogenated for industrial purposes. Unsaturated fats are liquid at room temperature and saturated fats are hard at room temperature; hence, the common though somewhat crude differentiation between good, soft, vegetable fats and bad, hard, animal fats. CHD has been in constant decline in affluent Western countries in the past decades, but it is still the major cause of death. In addition, the socioeconomic differences in CHD in these countries are increasing, and developing countries are now witnessing a CHD epidemic. New CHD risk factors have emerged recently, but the established ones—smoking, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol—have retained their importance.

History The disease entity CHD was established surprisingly late. Clinical observations of the chest pain syndrome angina pectoris, results from research into pathologies of the blood circulation like atherosclerosis and thrombosis, and observations concerning heart damages from infarction and other illnesses came together in the 1920s and 1930s, resulting in a distinct pathophysiological entity grounded in anatomic changes and with corresponding clinical symptoms. This forming of CHD coincided with the rise of cardiology as a medical specialty and the introduction of novel

technical equipment such as the electrocardiogram to chart the condition of the heart and blood circulation. Alongside this development was the observation of a dramatic rise in disease incidence. Despite possible confounding factors like changes in nomenclature, death certification and statistical practice, better diagnostics and reach of medical expertise, rise in the average life expectancy, and the transition from infectious to chronic diseases, a consensus was formed by the 1950s throughout the Western world that a worrying new epidemic of CHD existed. Previous medical interest had focused mostly on rheumatic, syphilitic, and congenital heart diseases, while CHD was regarded as a degenerative disease of old age. This gave it an air of inevitability, placing it beyond the powers of medicine. Observations of arterial damage in young people were important to decouple the notions of degeneration and aging: Arteriosclerosis was seen to be conditioned by lifestyle and other factors. Hence, the degenerative process was not preordained, which opened room for attempts at medication and prevention.

Causes and Risk Factors The novel concept of CHD and the perceived epidemic generated new interest in the causes of the disease. This interest was perhaps reinforced by the understanding that enterprising middle-aged men were particularly vulnerable. Various hypotheses were put forward that addressed different causative factors, among them are stress and exhaustion inflicted by modern life, disposition and personality type, and other personal habits, beside fat intake, like smoking. CHD was conceived as a disease of civilization, originating from prosperity and abundance, which led to sedentary life, overeating, and other petty lifestyle vices. Prominent among those who advanced the role of dietary fats in CHD was the American physiologist Ancel Keys (1904–2004). Keys became convinced of the link when visiting the Mediterranean area in the 1940s. CHD was a rare disease among the population, especially the poor, whose diet

Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease

contained little meat and dairy products. Keys substantiated his observations first through statistical comparisons between countries and later with a large comparative research project on dietary patterns and heart disease mortality in different locations across the globe (the Seven Countries Study). Results from older animal-feeding experiments with cholesterol as well as the inherited condition characterized by high serum cholesterol levels and early death from heart disease (familial hypercholesterolemia) were presented as support to the theory. Keys was also a skillful advocate of his theories with influential positions in medical associations and committees focusing on CHD prevention. The key research project in terms of establishing the major risk factors of CHD and implicating serum cholesterol in its etiology was started in the community of Framingham, Massachusetts, in the United States in 1950. The project coincided with increased interest in cardiovascular diseases (CVD). It was funded by the National Heart Institute (NHI; later National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute), which in 1948 had been set up with a substantial budget as the major government instrument for fighting heart disease. Also, the American Heart Association (AHA) had started to lobby for CVD awareness in the late 1940s. After some initial searching, Framingham was set up as a prospective study, where a cohort of people was followed over an extended period of time with regular health examinations and registration of CVD incidents and CVD fatalities. It was expected that a comparison of the entry characteristics of the CHD victims with those of the subjects who stayed healthy would establish a set of predisposing or risk factors for CHD. Framingham was an innovative research project, contributing to the development of modern epidemiologic methods. CVD research together with the studies focusing on the tobacco–lung cancer link helped establish the status of epidemiological evidence in medicine and public health. Its cornerstones are the notions of multifactorial disease and risk factor, which have introduced a probabilistic disease concept into medicine. In CHD and many other chronic diseases, it is difficult to point to a

483

single causative factor behind an individual case of illness. Rather, there are multiple contributing factors, both from the environment and an individual’s genes, which have an additive and systemic effect. Risk factors, though often treated as causes (e.g., both high blood pressure and serum cholesterol are medicated), are in fact markers that help assess the probability of future illness and guide preventive action. These ideas were discussed extensively in the research community, before they were generally accepted in the 1960s. Early explanatory models focused on overall fat intake and total serum cholesterol, without differentiating between types of fat or cholesterol fractions. Ultracentrifuges were introduced in the late 1940s to separate various classes of lipoproteins according to their densities. Lipoproteins with low or very low densities were shown to be better correlated with CHD than total serum cholesterol. Similarly, the differentiation between vegetable and animal fats entered the etiological discussion in the 1950s. It was shown in feeding experiments that a diet high in vegetable fat decreased serum cholesterol levels in human subjects, although this position was not accepted immediately. Subsequent biochemical research has further refined the knowledge on the role of different types of fat and cholesterol carrying lipoproteins in the etiology of CHD.

Prevention Concurrently with the search for the risk factors, there were first attempts to test the effects of lowfat diets and blood cholesterol lowering on CHD health and mortality. The results of early smallscale dietary interventions were mixed. In the late 1950s, several leading CHD authorities approached NHI and suggested a definitive trial. The gold standard of therapeutic research had become doubleblind randomized controlled trials, which were statistically validated. However, the planned dietheart study was never realized, because it was estimated that to reach significant results, it would need to enroll as many as 115,000 subjects from the general population whose eating habits were to be closely monitored over 7 to 10 years. Instead,

484

Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease

NHI opted for a somewhat smaller study with multiple target risk factors, expected to provide more significant outcomes. The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial was finalized in 1980, with disappointing results. The failure of even this costly and lengthy project shifted the focus from evidence production to drug trials. Only clinical trials with cholesterol-lowering pharmaceuticals beginning in the 1980s produced the necessary hard evidence on the benefits of cholesterol reduction for CHD health. Initially, cholesterol-lowering drugs were used as a proxy for diet. Thus, in the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, the substance cholestyramine was not tested as a medicine but presented as an efficient method to lower blood cholesterol levels for research purpose. Despite limited focus (high-risk middle-aged men) and ambiguous results, the trial was interpreted as the conclusive proof for the health benefits of cholesterol lowering for the whole population in the subsequent consensus conference set up by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in 1984. One result of the conference was the National Cholesterol Education Program, a public–private organization to raise cholesterol awareness among medical professionals and the public. The initiative was characterized by close links between representatives from medical administration, research, and pharmaceutical companies. The decisive step in creating a widespread consensus on cholesterol lowering was the introduction in 1987 of a novel type of drug: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, or statins. The numerous clinical trials with them were able to demonstrate the benefits of cholesterol lowering first in high-risk patients with pathologically elevated cholesterol levels, then in patients with a previous CHD event (secondary prevention), and eventually in persons with only elevated or even normal cholesterol levels (primary prevention). In step with these research results, the treatment guidelines for CHD published by the National Cholesterol Education Program successively expanded the population considered treatable. Thus, we have arrived at the contemporary situation with routine prophylactic

medication for individuals with only slightly elevated cholesterol levels. In addition, the results from the drug trials have been extrapolated on diet: Because reduced serum cholesterol levels are beneficial to health, a diet likely to influence cholesterol levels must also be healthy.

Dietary Recommendations The suspected role of dietary fats in CHD led to health policy considerations even before any conclusive research results on excess dietary fat and/or high blood cholesterol as risk factors and the benefits of their lowering for coronary health. In the 1950s, both in the United States and Finland, the most fervent advocates of the theory were already keen to issue dietary recommendations sanctioning the use of different types of fats. However, it took several decades before the medical and health policy establishment followed suit. Expert discussion was conducted amid often intense public interest and industry pressure, both for and against the lipid theory. Developments in the United States were characterized by a tug-of-war between the AHA and other expert bodies on the one hand and public opinion and industry interests on the other. The experts modified their stance in successive steps from an initial skepticism and caution to a wholesale endorsement of low-fat diet. In 1957, the AHA released a statement claiming that there was not enough evidence yet supporting dietary recommendations, a message that was repeated by the Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association Council on Foods and Nutrition, and the Food and Drug Administration. Three years later, the AHA’s line had eased: Dietary measures aimed at lowering blood cholesterol levels were cautiously endorsed in high-risk patients, although the diet– heart link was still considered needing more scientific support. The scope of the dietary recommendations released by the AHA and the American Medical Association were again extended in the mid-1960s, when healthy people without an immediate risk of CHD were included among

Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease

groups who would benefit from a low-fat diet. This line was repeated in subsequent guidelines by various expert bodies. In addition, in 1973, the Food and Drug Administration authorized the labeling of the fat content of food products, which effectively made fat type into an officially sanctioned sales argument. The role of dietary fats in lowering cholesterol and preventing CHD was pushed by the public, which embraced as a novel diet the low-fat message publicized in the media from the 1950s onward. The other influential group was the vegetable oil industry, which started to promote novel products with health claims on the benefits of vegetable oils for heart health in the late 1950s. The expert bodies issuing early recommendations were placed in an awkward situation: either keep the cautious line and draw criticism of inactivity in the face of a mounting epidemic or release recommendations based on insufficient evidence. The diet–heart issue entered the governmental level when in 1977 the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs released the Dietary Goals for the United States. It was the first U.S. government policy document to recommend reductions in saturated fat and cholesterol intake. However, due to a powerful response from the meat, egg, and dairy industries, the recommendations were phrased in such a way that no specific food items were mentioned as risky or needing moderation in consumption. Still, despite industry protests, the 1980s were a turning point in official dietary recommendations. The national guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture were updated in 1980 and adopted a clear low-fat line. Subsequent recommendations have consolidated this line, together with an increasing consensus on the benefits of blood cholesterol reduction and low-fat diet. The strategy of the food industry has changed from wholesale opposition to food restrictions to using the recommendations as a motivation for product development. Today lowfat products are offered alongside conventional food items. This trajectory from caution via qualified recommendations to wholesale endorsement

485

of cholesterol reduction and low-fat diet in the 1980s is familiar to many countries in the industrial West.

Critiques of the Fat Theory The fat or cholesterol theory was contested from the start. As mentioned in previous sections, critiques have been motivated by, for example, economic interests of food producers fearing for their market shares and methodological considerations concerning the status of epidemiological evidence. An important source of critiques is the advocates of low-carbohydrate diets such as the Atkins Diet or the South Beach Diet. These advocates present an alternative view of the role of nutrition and dietary habits in CHD and other chronic diseases typical to modern Western societies. According to low-carb advocates, the real cause of CHD and other chronic diseases is the increasing consumption of sugar and other so-called fast-burning carbohydrates like white bread, white rice, and pasta. Although dating back at least to the heyday of the Atkins Diet in the 1970s, this viewpoint has recently gained new currency due to the rise of obesity as a public health problem of epidemic proportions. Low-carb advocates argue that replacing animal fats with carbohydrates promotes obesity, because overexposure to carbohydrates disrupts the system controlling blood sugar and insulin levels in the body. The result is weight gain and health problems. This outlook is contested, especially because it promotes the use of animal fats. However, there is some evidence that the nutritional establishment in Finland and elsewhere is presently putting more emphasis on the consumption of refined carbohydrates as a health risk for CVD, not in the sense of replacing fats as the prime focus but as another dietary risk factor. Mikko Jauho See also Cardiac Disease and Diet; Cholesterol, LDL and HDL; Dairy Industry; Dietary Guidelines and Graphics; Fats, Role in Diet; Low-Carbohydrate Diets; Low-Fat Foods; Vegetable Oils

486

Fats, Role in Diet

Further Readings Aronowitz, R. A. (1998). Making sense of illness: Science, society, and disease. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Garrety, K. (1997). Social worlds, actor-networks and controversy: The case of cholesterol, dietary fat and heart disease. Social Studies of Science, 27(5), 727–773. Greene, J. A. (2007). Prescribing by numbers. Drugs and the definition of disease. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. La Berge, A. F. (1998). How the ideology of low fat conquered America. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 63(2), 139–177. doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrn001 Marks, H. M. (1997). “You gotta have heart.” In The progress of experiment. Science and therapeutic reform in the United States, 1900–1990 (pp. 164–196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marmot, M., & Elliott, P. (Eds.). (2005). Coronary heart disease epidemiology: From aetiology to public health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Oppenheimer, G. M. (2006). Profiling risk: The emergence of coronary heart disease epidemiology in the United States (1947–70). International Journal of Epidemiology, 35, 720–730. doi:10.1093/ije/dy1014 Rothstein, W. G. (2003). Public health and the risk factor. A history of an uneven medical revolution. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Taubes, G. (2008). Good calories, bad calories: Fats, carbs, and the controversial science of diet and health. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

FATS, ROLE

IN

DIET

Americans are becoming obese at an increasing rate, primarily because they have failed to regulate body fat by controlling food intake and exercising more. The Harvard School of Public Health reports that 50 years ago, when 13% of American adults were obese and less than 1% had type 2 diabetes, they were consuming 45% of their calories from fats. Today, Americans consume 33% of their calories from fat, but obesity has climbed to 34% and type 2 diabetes has increased to 11%.

Increases in chronic diseases have been attributed not to the amount of fat consumed but rather to the types of fats consumed. Thus, the role of fats in the American diet, and in health in general, is now considered a public health issue. After describing changing attitudes toward fats, this entry discusses several types of dietary fats and presents government guidelines for proper nutrition and fat intake.

Changing Attitudes Toward Fats Before the “low-fat” diet craze in the late 20th century, fats from animals and plants were an important part of the American diet. Today, dietary fat, particularly saturated fat and trans fat, is considered to contribute to poor health. Many health professionals encourage the public to trim fat from meat; to substitute vegetable oils, particularly olive and canola oil, for animal fats, such as butter and lard; and to buy low-fat or fat-free products—all in an effort to promote healthy, active, and diseasefree lives. This attitude toward fat may seem reasonable now, but it likely would have sounded strange, perhaps even downright foolish, to our 18th- or 19th-century ancestors. Before the machine age, fat was a major source of dietary calories for people who expended a tremendous amount of energy, such as farmers, dairymen, builders, stevedores, fishermen, and haulers of goods. Besides, fat makes food taste good. Ann Warder, an English Quaker living in Philadelphia, wrote in her 1786 diary: “We had an English dinner, fish, roast beef, plum pudding and pies, all very good.” The roast beef was probably larded with strips of bacon fat and slowly cooked before the fire, a dripping pan underneath. The drippings would have been used to baste the beef, fry the fish, and make gravy. Fat in the form of suet (the hard white fat next to the animal’s kidney) would have been used in plum pudding and drippings from a previous meal used to make piecrusts. Because fat was a valuable commodity, it was not squandered. In prosperous homes, the cook or the housekeeper was allowed to sell excess fat to supplement income. In poorer homes, fat was used

Fats, Role in Diet

as a preservative, for making candles and soap. In the sick room, it was made into mustard plasters, salves, cold creams, and lotions. Some was mixed with bee’s wax to make shoe polish. What could not be used for the above purposes greased wagon wheels. The use of animal fats decreased after the Industrial Revolution, with the development of the petroleum industry. Advances in the science of nutrition during the past 100 years made animal fat a nutritional anathema. Today, Americans receive the majority of their fat intake from vegetable oils and from animals raised on animal feed made in part from animal fats. Over the past 25 years, food manufacturers, in response to the “low-fat” diet craze, reengineered many common grocery staples by replacing fat with sugar, refined grains, salt, natural and artificial flavors, and gums to make up for the loss of flavor and texture once contributed by fat. Today, many in the scientific and medical communities have concluded that the “low fat” message was wrong. The new message for consumers is to not worry so much about total fats in the diet but to concentrate on avoiding saturated fat and trans fat, the so-called bad fats.

Dietary Fat Fats, carbohydrates, and protein are the principle sources of calories (dietary energy) in the contemporary American diet. Dietary fats are particularly important for the proper growth in children and as precursors in the production of prostaglandins, which are hormone-like substances that control many body functions. Fats provide the structural components for cell membranes and aid the body in the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins such as A, D, E, and K and carotenoids such as lycopene and the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene. However, fat contains more than twice the calories of an equal amount of carbohydrate or protein. Every gram of fat provides about 9 calories, whereas carbohydrates and protein contribute 4 calories. Alcohol, which contains 7 calories per gram, can also add fat (adipose tissue) to the body.

487

More than 95% of dietary fats exist as triacylglycerol, a complex chemical compound composed of three fatty acids attached to a glycerol molecule. Fatty acids exist in chemical chains comprising various lengths of carbon atoms with two hydrogen atoms attached to each carbon with a methyl (CH3-) and a carboxyl (-COOH) at the end. Over the past few decades, researchers have learned a lot about fats in the human diet. Now, some dietary fats are identified as “good” fats, whereas others like fatty acids are identified as “bad” fats. Fatty acids are classified as saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and trans-fatty acids. Dietary fat can come from both plant products (corn oil, olive oil, safflower oil, nuts, etc.) and animal sources (tallow from beef, lard from pigs and chicken fat, egg yolks, and butter). All of these fats can be found in processed food products such as baked goods, snack foods, canned soups, dairy products, and lunch meats. As a general rule, animal fats are solid at room temperature because saturated fatty acids have a high melting point. Plant fats generally have a lower melting point and are liquid at room temperature, which is why plant fats are often called oils. But there are exceptions. Cottonseed and coconut oils are high in saturated fats and are solid at room temperature. Because of their molecular structure, trans fats tend to resemble saturated fats and are solid at room temperature. Saturated Fatty Acids

The majority of saturated fat in the American diet comes from animal products, especially whole milk, cream, butter, cheese, and fatty cuts of meats. Smaller amounts come from plant sources, particularly coconut, palm, and palm kernel oil. Most dietary saturated fat come from fatty acids with a chemical chain length of 8 (caprylic acid) to 18 (stearic acid) carbon atoms. Saturated fats are not considered essential because they can be synthesized by the human body from other fuel sources and because their consumption has not been linked to disease prevention. In fact, numerous studies have demonstrated that high levels of

488

Fats, Role in Diet

saturated fat intake results in higher serum levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, or “bad” cholesterol. Epidemiological studies have repeatedly found a positive relationship between saturated fats and the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality, although not all saturated fatty acids have a negative effect on LDL concentration. For example, stearic acid (18 carbons) has been shown to have a neutral effect on total and LDL cholesterol concentrations, whereas lauric acid (12 carbons), myristic acid (14 carbons), and palmitic acid (16 carbons) have the largest cholesterolraising effect and a favorable effect on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. Saturated fatty acids contribute to the texture and taste of foods such as barbecued pork, juicy hamburgers, and Buffalo wings. Monounsaturated Fatty Acids

Monounsaturated fatty acids, generally found in plants, have a chemical bond consisting of one double bond. Canola, olive, peanut, safflower, and sunflower oils are examples. They are all liquid at room temperature. About 92% of dietary monounsaturated fat is oleic acid, which has a chemical chain of 18 carbon atoms with a double bond at the n-9 location, counting in from the methyl end. Unsaturated fats differ from saturated ones because they have one or more double bonds. Every carbon on the saturated fatty acid chain has two hydrogen atoms. When two hydrogen atoms are removed from adjacent carbons a double bond (–C–C=C–C) is created, giving the molecule a new geometric shape and chemical properties. Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids

Polyunsaturated fatty acids contain more than one double bond. Two polyunsaturated fatty acids are critical for health: (1) linoleic acid with a double bond at the n-6 location (n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid) and (2) α-linolenic acid with a double bond at the n-3 location (n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid). These polyunsaturated fatty acids are not synthesized by humans, so they must be consumed in the diet. Sometimes the term omega-3 or omega-6

is used to describe polyunsaturated fatty acids where the position of the double bond counting in from the methyl end is at 3 and 6, respectively. Eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid are examples of omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids are found in oily cold water marine fish such as salmon, mackerel, tuna, and trout. These fatty acids are critical for cell signaling pathways, epithelial cell function, and fatty acid synthesis. Consumption of these essential fatty acids has been linked with preventing heart disease. Foods rich in n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids include soybean, safflower and corn oils, nuts, and seeds. Vegetable oils and fish are the principal sources for n-3 fatty acids. Polyunsaturated deficiency is sometimes encountered in patients with fat malabsorption issues or those receiving parenteral nutrition (intravenous feeding). Signs of essential fatty acid deficiency include rough and scaly skin. Trans-Fatty Acids

Trans-fatty acids are monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fats with at least one trans double bond instead of the cis double bond that commonly occurs in animal fats or plant oils. Small amounts of naturally occurring trans fats, called ruminant trans fats, are found in meat and dairy products and contribute about 0.5% of energy intake. Most trans-fatty acids in the American diet, however, result from the production of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hydrogenation is the process of adding hydrogen atoms, in the presence of a catalyst, to polyunsaturated fats. This process converts liquid vegetable oil into solid or semisolid fats with a high level of transfatty acids, which food manufacturers use to extend the shelf life of foods. Processed foods with the highest levels of trans-fatty acids include fried foods, pastries, donuts, and French fries made from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. During the 20th century, as consumers turned to the convenience of using processed packaged food, substituted margarine for butter, and consumed more snack foods, the use of trans-fatty acids increased dramatically.

Fats, Role in Diet

When scientists turned their attention to study trans-fatty acids, evidence started to mount that trans-fatty acids were having a harmful effect on cardiovascular health. In recent years, trans-fatty acids have been linked to an increase in LDL cholesterol while lowering HDL, the “good” cholesterol. HDL transports cholesterol to the liver, and LDL transports cholesterol into artery walls. As a result of these findings, coupled with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruling that trans-fatty acids have to be listed on food labels effective January 1, 2006, food manufacturers, oil processors, and seed developers began to collaborate on ways to replace partially hydrogenated vegetable oils with alternative oils low in trans-fatty acids. To date, food manufacturers have made significant progress in reformulating their products to reduce trans-fatty acids. Progress has  been made in reducing trans-fatty acids to 0.5 gram per serving in French fries, ice cream, and donuts. But the industry continues to struggle to reduce trans-fatty acids to less than 1.5 grams per serving in popcorn, pie, margarine, and bread categories. Because of the detrimental effects of transfatty acids on cardiovascular disease, some health advocates have recommended that the FDA declare partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, the primary source of trans-fatty acids, as no longer “Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS).” Under FDA regulations, a food additive can be used if there is general recognition through experience and common use that the additive is safe under the conditions of its intended use. Small amounts of trans-fatty acids are present in the diet of all Americans. While there is no known nutritional benefit, they can serve as a source of fuel energy when present.

Guidelines The cornerstone of the U.S. government’s nutrition policy and education activities is The Dietary Guidelines for Americans. These guidelines are the result of the collaboration between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They are designed to give guidance on nutrition to the

489

public about the relationship among diet, health, and disease. First published in 1980, the guidelines are updated every 5 years. The 1980 guidelines drew a direct connection between dietary fat and body fat with the observation that a pound of body fat contained approximately 3,500 calories. The two government agencies admitted that there was considerable controversy about what recommendations were appropriate for the U.S. population as a whole. To avoid making recommendations on fat that could be interpreted as a ban on eating any specific food, the guidelines suggested avoiding too much fat, particularly saturated fat. However, the guidelines did not define “too much” or “saturated fat,” leaving the details to consumers. Many consumers interpreted eating less fat as choosing lean meat, trimming excess fat off meats, broiling rather than frying, and limiting the intake of butter, cream, and hydrogenated margarines and foods made from such products. By 1985, the advice on fat in the guidelines was about the same, with the addition of a cautionary note that individuals with cardiovascular risk factors, smokers, and those with high blood pressure or diabetes should reduce their consumption of fats. The 1990 guidelines added obesity and certain types of cancer as health issues that could be made worse by a diet high in fat. The 1990 guidelines recommended that Americans reduce their intake of fat to 30% or less of total daily calorie intake and saturated fat to 10% or less of daily calories. The 2010 guidelines added the recommendation that monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids replace saturated fats. People also need to be aware that when alcohol is metabolized, it can be synthesized into fatty acids and stored as fat. For this reason, current guidelines call for moderation in alcoholic consumption— up to one drink per day for women and two drinks for men. Joseph M. Carlin See also Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease; Low-Fat Foods; Trans Fat and Hydrogenation

490

Federal Trade Commission

Further Readings Cadbury, S. (1893). Extracts from the Diary of Ann Warder. Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 17, 444–461. (Cited in Dillon, 1999) Dillon, C. F. (1999). So serve it up: Eighteenth-century English foodways in Eastern Pennsylvania. Haverford, PA: BookMasters. Harvard School of Public Health. (n.d.). Fats and cholesterol: The bottom line. Retrieved from www .hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html National Research Council. (2005). Dietary fats: Total fat and fatty acids. In Dietary reference intakes: For energy, carbohydrates, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids (Macronutrients) (pp. 422–541). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. U.S. Department of Agriculture, & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Guidelines for Americans 2010 (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Websites U.S. Department of Agriculture: http://www.usda.gov U.S. Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION The food and agriculture industry is strongly influenced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) through the oversight of company mergers, food and drug product labeling, and product advertising. The FTC is mandated to ensure that businesses do not use deceptive or anti-competitive behavior in markets of all economic sectors. The FTC also aims to raise the public’s awareness toward recognition of fraud and other unfair behaviors in the market. Activities of the FTC include research, advocacy, and public policy development. The FTC analyzes the structure of many food and agriculture markets to understand what impacts certain industry moves may generate. This entry discusses the history and structure of the FTC and provides examples of how the FTC functions in the food and agriculture industry.

History The regulatory structure to fight market consolidation was initiated in the late 1800s and early 1900s in a response to the market power of Standard Oil in the refining industry and the growing number of anti-competitive trusts. The trusts allowed companies to organize by industry in order to set quantities of goods and services supplied to the market and to set prices, as well as keep competitors out of the market. Anticompetitive behavior led to a decreased supply of goods and services provided to consumers at higher prices. As an example, the Sugar Trust controlled 98% of sugar production in 1907. Chicago, Illinois, and St. Louis, Missouri, meatpackers organized into a powerful trust to set prices and drive competitors out of the market. Trusts also engaged in risky speculative activities, which threatened the stability of the supply of products and services that consumers relied on. The first primary federal antitrust law was the Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, which prohibited anti-competitive activities and mandated the government to investigate and stop those companies, trusts, and other organizations keeping markets from maintaining competitiveness. It was not until the early 1900s that the Sherman Antitrust Act saw real enforcement. The delay was partly due to the time it took to establish that the act included the prevention of price-fixing cartels and the regulation of mergers. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt worked with Congress to establish the Department of Commerce and Labor in order to give the federal government more oversight over labor issues and interstate trade. Within the new department was the Bureau of Corporations, which began investigating anticompetition practices of firms. The Federal Trade Commission Act was passed in 1914, transforming the Bureau of Corporations into the FTC and expanding its powers to include enforcement of anti-competition rules. The Clayton Antitrust Act was also passed in 1914, further defining what was considered damaging anti-competition behavior. The Wheeler-Lea Act in 1938 gave the FTC the authority to address food and drug advertising in

Federal Trade Commission

order to ensure that consumers were not being deceived. The act also allowed truth in advertising without having to show that harm actually occurred, which had previously been required. Listening to and viewing advertisements by a monitoring unit at the FTC began in 1957. The FTC powers were broadened further in 1973 to allow the FTC to seek injunctions against firms participating in activities going against FTC regulations. This allowed the FTC to collect large financial penalties from companies in violation of FTC policies.

Goals and Organization The FTC is led by five commissioners nominated by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In an attempt to keep the FTC bipartisan, no more than three of the commissioners can be from the same political party. The commissioners serve 7-year terms. The Bureaus of Consumer Protection, Competition, and Economics carry out the primary activities of the FTC in seven different geographic regions. Bureau of Competition

The Bureau of Competition is responsible for researching anti-competition issues and enforcing regulations aimed to minimize anti-competitive business practices. Mergers and acquisitions are reviewed, with challenges made when there is concern that a merger will result in higher prices, fewer choices for consumers, and less innovation from research and development. The FTC searches for and challenges monopolizing behavior by firms and enforces laws restricting collusion, or coordination, among competitors. The FTC actively seeks to promote competition in industries where the impact on consumer spending is high, including food, health care, real estate, oil and gas, technology, and other consumer goods. The bureau also seeks to educate consumers, businesses, and policymakers on competition-related issues through conferences and workshops.

491

Bureau of Consumer Protection

The Bureau of Consumer Protection enforces U.S. laws that protect consumers but also provides consumers with information to help them recognize and avoid fraud and deception. It also gives consumers the opportunity to file complaints when they recognize something as fraudulent, including identity theft. The bureau is organized into seven divisions. The Division of Advertising Practices enforces U.S. laws related to truth in advertising. This division particularly focuses on claims that businesses make about food, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, and alcohol. The Division of Consumer & Business Education develops national campaigns in English and Spanish to assist consumers in understanding their rights while also explaining to companies how to be in compliance with FTC regulations. The Division of Enforcement litigates civil cases against companies to enforce injunctions and other orders that relate to consumer protection. The Enforcement division has a Criminal Liaison Unit to coordinate with criminal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. The Division of Financial Practices protects consumers from deceptive financial services, including mortgages, payday loans, and other financial transactions. The Division of Marketing Practices handles fraud related to the Internet, direct mailings, spam, and investment schemes as well as enforces other telemarketing rules. The Division of Planning & Information analyzes complaints about consumer fraud and identity theft, with results available to use in support of investigations and litigations. The Division of Privacy and Identity Protection aims to prevent identity theft and assists consumers recovering from identity theft. The Privacy and Identity Protection division also regulates the credit-reporting industry. Bureau of Economics

The Bureau of Economics provides research analysis and support to anti-competition and other

492

Federal Trade Commission

consumer protection investigations and cases. Expert analysis may be provided during a court case or in giving insight on the economic situation for various antitrust actions. The bureau also carries out economic impact analyses of government regulation and provides competition and consumer protection policy recommendations to government officials, other agencies, and the general public. The bureau works closely with the Bureau of Competition to provide research and help develop appropriate penalties aimed to deter harmful activities. Industry-specific research analyses related to regulation and competition are provided in published reports. Conferences, symposiums, and other gatherings that promote economic research of the FTC and professionals in relevant fields are offered. The bureau contains Antitrust and Consumer Protection divisions. Office of Policy Planning

The Office of Policy Planning organizes the primary research and development and policy advocacy activities of the FTC. This office organizes public hearings to more closely examine issues relevant to the economy and the promotion of competition. The FTC also has the authority to collect information and data needed in order to conduct studies of specific competitive conditions. Along with input provided from each of the three bureaus and scholarly literature, reports are compiled. Lawmakers and other agencies use these reports, and other comments or testimony, to assist in advancing legislation and creating rules. The reports are also useful as part of the FTC’s enforcement of anticompetition and consumer protection activities.

FTC analyzed the trends in marketing of key nutritional elements toward children, including sugar, sodium, and fats. The FTC has issued a recommendation that limits marketing of unhealthy foods toward children to be put in place as a method for controlling obesity. In 1978, the FTC recommended that businesses clearly indicate how much sugar was in products advertised toward children, in an effort to control tooth decay. Policymakers largely rebuffed those efforts. The current position on obesity and its advertising is considered more important than the tooth decay campaign, as obesity is a further reaching problem. Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats

The organic natural grocer Whole Foods Market, Inc., acquired the smaller rival Wild Oats in 2007 for $565 million. The FTC challenged the acquisition, expressing concern that 29 markets would see a loss in competition following the merger. The FTC said that these were considered the two largest premium, natural, and organic grocery stores and worried that the markets would have too few suppliers to be competitive. The FTC sought a temporary injunction prior to the merger, which was denied in the district court. The court ruled that Whole Foods competes with all grocery stores, not just Wild Oats. In 2008, after the merger was completed, an appellate court ruled that the merger did violate anticompetition rules. In 2009, the FTC settled with Whole Foods. In the settlement, Whole Foods was required to sell the rights to the Wild Oats brand, as well as 12 operating Wild Oats stores and 1 Whole Foods Store. They also had to sell 19 Wild Oats stores, none of which was operating at the time of the settlement.

Examples Food and Beverage Marketing Toward Children

Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper Snapple

An example of research carried out primarily by the Bureau of Consumer Protection is a comprehensive study of the trends in marketing of food and beverages toward youth and adolescents by food companies, which was reported by the FTC to be $1.79 billion in 2009. Among other topics, the

Between 1999 and 2013, there were 15 anticompetition enforcement decisions by the FTC toward firms in the food-manufacturing sector. One example was regarding a $12.3 billion merger by Coca-Cola in which it acquired a separate company, Coca-Cola Enterprises, which bottled

Fiber, Role in Diet

Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper Snapple products. The FTC was concerned that Coca-Cola would have access to market information and market plans of Dr. Pepper Snapple, a competitor of Coca-Cola. Knowledge of competing market data would be deemed hurtful to consumers. In a settlement, Coca-Cola was required to set up safeguards to ensure that their employees would not have access to damaging information.

Monsanto Hormone-Free Milk

Occasionally, the FTC will be asked to investigate trade issues. A preliminary investigation will give the FTC the information it needs to determine if a formal investigation is necessary. An example was a request by the chemical company Monsanto, which asked the FTC to intervene regarding the advertising of milk as being hormone free. Monsanto produces recombinant bovine somatotropin, a hormone that increases the production of cow milk. While the hormone was approved as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, there existed some consumer concern that drinking milk produced with hormones could have health impacts. Monsanto argued that companies advertising hormone-free milk were misleading consumers and creating an artificial demand for the hormone-free product and, at the same time, communicating to consumers that milk produced using hormones was unsafe and of lower quality. The FTC reviewed the marketing materials and consulted with the Food and Drug Administration, which had previously said that it allowed labeling of milk as hormone free, as long as that was a truthful statement and no marketing was made that the milk was of higher quality. The FTC contacted several small companies, which agreed to change the wording in the marketing that indicated that hormone-free milk was of higher quality. The FTC determined that this was all that was needed to ensure that the market remained competitive with hormone-free milk still being allowed to be labeled as hormone free; no formal investigation was carried out. The FTC also provides guidance for companies labeling

493

products as environmentally friendly to ensure that consumers are not misled. Steven J. Archambault See also Antitrust Laws; Monopolies

Further Readings Federal Trade Commission. (2011). In the matter of the Coca-Cola company, a corporation (FTC File No. 101-0107). Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/ enforcement/cases-proceedings/101-0107/ coca-cola-company-matter Federal Trade Commission. (2011). In the matter of Whole Foods Market, Inc., and Wild Oats Markets, Inc. (FTC File No. 0710114). Retrieved from http:// www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/0710114/ whole-foods-market-inc-wild-oats-markets-inc-matter Federal Trade Commission. (2012). Review of food marketing to children and adolescents: A follow-up report. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/os/2012/12/ 121221foodmarketingreport.pdf Krugman, P., & Wells, R. (2009). Microeconomics. New York, NY: Worth.

Website Federal Trade Commission: http://www.ftc.gov

FIBER, ROLE

IN

DIET

Fiber is a constituent of food that benefits human health but has little or no caloric value. The many health implications of fiber make it the target of government policy and food technologies by industry. Dietary fiber is found naturally in whole foods such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds. Industrially derived additive and functional fiber is also found in processed foods. Fiber-rich diets are associated with lower risk for food-related chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes mellitus (DM), and cancer. Controversies regarding fiber include industry use in health and nutrient claims, globalization and decreasing fiber in the food supply,

494

Fiber, Role in Diet

and calculating calories in fiber. This entry addresses fiber in food, the role of fiber in diet and health, government policy, and current controversies surrounding fiber.

Fiber in Food There is historical disagreement in defining fiber. Most sources describe dietary fiber as compounds from plants that are resistant to human digestion in the small intestine. The international Codex Alimentarius Commission defines fiber more diversely as compounds not easily digested by humans. The majority of naturally occurring dietary fibers come from plants, and the most common are hemicellulose and cellulose (in all plant cell walls) and pectin (in fruits and berries). Other forms of plant fiber include inulin and oligosaccharides (in onions and garlic), gums (in seeds), mucilage (in psyllium seeds and seaweed), resistant starches (sequestered in plant cell walls and found in foods like bananas and legumes), and lignin (not a carbohydrate, found in cell walls of seeds and stringy plants like broccoli). In plants, these varying fibers serve the purpose of plant structure, water retention, and intercellular cement. While in general there is no fiber in animal-based foods, chitin is an extracted functional fiber found in crustaceans that is resistant to human digestion. Fiber is categorized by whether or not it dissolves in water, forms a gel (viscosity), or is fermented by microbes in the large intestine. Soluble fiber such as pectin and some hemicelluloses found in barley, legumes, fruits, and vegetables dissolve in water, form gels, and are fermented. Insoluble fibers include cellulose, some hemicellulose, and lignin and do not dissolve in water, do not form gels, and are not fermented by gut microbes. Insoluble fiber is found in the bran of whole grain, hull of seeds, and the stringy part of vegetables such as broccoli and celery. In cooking, soluble fibers like pectin absorb water, and some insoluble fibers soften. Whole foods contain a mix of soluble and insoluble fibers. Different organs of a plant (e.g., leaves vs. roots) have different types and content of fiber. One half cup of cooked beet greens has 2.1 grams of fiber, whereas half a cup of

cooked beet root has 1.8 grams of fiber. One half cup of cooked spinach has about 0.5 grams of soluble fiber and 1.1 grams of insoluble fiber compared with 1.1 grams of soluble fiber and 0.9 grams of insoluble fiber in half a cup of cooked carrots. Newer classification defines fiber as dietary or functional fiber. Dietary fibers are intrinsic and naturally occurring in plants and in the plantbased food products in which they are consumed. As functional fibers, additive fibers are industrially isolated from foods or synthesized and added to processed foods to change qualities like texture and stability. The Institute of Medicine distinguishes functional from dietary fiber as extracted or synthesized carbohydrates that are not digestible but have physical health benefits for humans. Additionally, there are fiber supplements for health applications such as bowel regulation and modifying blood sugars for type 2 diabetes and blood cholesterol in CVD. These include Metamucil® from psyllium fiber and Benefiber® from wheat dextrins. Fiber in prepared and processed food affects texture, taste, yield, and shelf life. In prepared wheat breads, fiber interferes with the development of the structural protein gluten. Fiber-rich, wholegrain flour produces bread that is crumbly, dense, dry, and lower in volume than refined, gluten-rich flours. In processed food, industrially isolated fibers are extracted or synthesized and added to improve functional and physical qualities. Patented fiber products such as SunOpta® pea fiber, EZ-FRESH™, and Fibersol® extend shelf life by controlling moisture, improving texture, and increasing yield in processed foods. Carrageenan and agar are fibers extracted from seaweed used for stabilizing products. Xanthan gum is industrially produced microbial fiber used for texture that can originate from genetically modified organisms.

Fiber in Health and Policy Humans do not digest most fiber due to lack of an enzyme that breaks chemical bonds in fiber. Most fiber in the diet consists of linked molecules of sugar called polysaccharides and is classified as a

Fiber, Role in Diet

carbohydrate. Digestible carbohydrates contain α-glycosidic linkages between sugar molecules, whereas indigestible fiber has β-glycosidic linkages. Microbes in the large intestine break down some fiber, though it is a limited source of energy for humans. Fiber does affect health however. Known as roughage or bulk, fiber was a focus for theories of U.S. population health since the early1900s. Current science demonstrates the role of fiber in health directly through digestion and metabolism and indirectly through microbial fermentation. Increased fiber intake helps regulate bowel function and control both constipation and diarrhea. Soluble fiber slows digestive processes in the stomach, increasing satiation and fullness. It delays movement through the small intestine where most nutrients are absorbed and slows the release of glucose into the bloodstream. Soluble fiber content in food influences the glycemic index, a measure of food impact on blood glucose. Insoluble fiber increases bulk of intestinal contents and hastens transit time through the large intestine, decreasing exposure time to toxins in food. Both forms of fiber also bind other constituents of food like cholesterol. Prebiotics fibers like inulin and oligofructose stimulate growth of beneficial microbes (probiotics) in the lower gastrointestinal system, providing health benefits. Gut microbes in the colon feed on fiber, produce short chain fatty acids, and reduce risk for colorectal cancer. Other prebiotic fibers aid in mineral absorption, strengthen the immune system, and play a role in metabolism. Any increase or therapeutic use of fiber requires a simultaneous increase in water intake because soluble fiber absorbs water. Fiber-rich diets function in reducing risk for chronic food-related diseases such as CVD, DM, and cancer. Fiber lowers risk for CVD such as coronary heart disease (CHD) through lowering serum cholesterol and triglycerides (via controlled blood sugars) and lowering high blood pressure and the risk for heart attack and stroke. Although not conclusive, fiber-rich diets are associated with decreased risk for some cancers such as colon and breast cancer. Fiber-rich diets also offer protection against gastrointestinal diseases and conditions

495

such as diverticular disease and help relieve symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine forms recommendations on healthful fiber intake. From those recommendations the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, published in 2010, provide an adequate intake for fiber of 14 grams per 1,000 calories translating to about 25 grams per day for most women and 38 grams per day for most men. The guidelines encourage increased intake of fiberrich whole foods because most people consume only about half the recommended amount. Food labels require listing fiber content in grams and percentage of Daily Values. Under the Nutrition and Labeling Education Act of 1990 and defined in the Code of Federal Regulations in Title 21, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates nutrition labels. Nutrition Facts labels require listing dietary fiber under total carbohydrates, and manufacturers may voluntarily list soluble and insoluble fiber separately. Labels may have nutrient and health claims for fiber defined by the FDA code. Nutrient claims for foods are typically categorized by whether the food is a rich source of some nutrients or has relatively more nutrients than other similar products and involves detailed and specific definitions. Fiber nutrient claims are a special case: Foods relatively rich in fiber but high in fat must disclose both facts in the nutrient claim. Health claims accepted by the FDA regarding grain, fruit, and vegetable products with fiber involve cancer and CHD and are also very specific. Products for both health claims must contain fruit, vegetable, or grain products. Food labels may have health claims for cancer if the food is both low in fat and a “good source” of fiber, both defined by the FDA. Health claims must also clearly state that diets rich in fiber may or might lower risk for disease. Health claims for CHD must meet FDA nutrient requirements for low-fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol and must contain a minimum content of soluble fiber. Additionally, there is a separate health claim for soluble fiber and reduced risk for CHD. The FDA provides examples and specific parameters for health claims involving fiber but leaves some flexibility for how food manufacturers design their health claim.

496

Fiber, Role in Diet

Fiber Controversies Functional Fiber and Fiber on Labels

Isolated functional foods appeared in the 1990s and quickly became a billion-dollar industry. Industry values functional fibers as patented ingredients yielding marketable nutrient and health claims that sell processed food products. For instance, isolated functional fiber from tropical fruits and patented Fibersol® by adult-onset DM are promoted to boost dietary fiber intake when added to processed foods like cereal bars, dairy desserts, and confectionery products. Critics say that processed foods containing functional fiber (also called stealth fiber) can be rich in refined sugars, fat, and calories, low in other healthful compounds, and lack the potential synergistic impact of whole foods. Research also points to whole foods and diets rich in nutrients like fiber as decreasing risk for disease rather than single, isolated food constituents. Broader definitions of fiber allow industry to market functional fibers through health and nutrient claims. Some argue functional fibers added to processed foods could meet the need to increase population intake of fiber, but others say it discourages consumption of more whole, fiber-rich foods while enriching industry. Globalization and Decreasing Fiber in the Food Supply

Critics of globalization point out that the modern nutrition transition to Western diets rich in refined food has decreased availability of fiber-rich foods globally. Decreasing fiber in modern diets dates back to refining flour and removing bran through milling in the late 1800s. Currently, the U.S. government subsidies for commodity crops that feed livestock indirectly made meat cheaper and fresh produce relatively expensive. Markets of value-added, calorie-dense foods made from subsidized commodity crops also expanded. Profitable to food industries, these products are more visible in food landscapes, and billions are spent marketing them. Studies by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture assessed the cost of standard portions of fresh produce as

inexpensive but found processed foods still cheaper per calorie. Critics question the ubiquity of lowcost, refined foods in the current food system. Many argue that shifts in availability of nutrients like fiber through industrial processing contribute to global patterns of food-related chronic diseases, now being called industrial diseases. Fiber and Calories

Current evidence of caloric contribution from soluble fiber via fermentation calls into question the traditional Atwater system of calorie calculations. Soluble fibers digested in the large intestine by microbes provide a range of 1.5 to 2.5 kilocalories per gram for human energy. In the United States, manufacturers are allowed to exclude dietary fiber in calorie calculations on food labels. Critics say this underestimate might contribute to overweight and obesity. Kimberly E. Johnson See also Cancer-Fighting Foods; Functional Foods; Labeling, Nutrition; Subsidies

Further Readings Moodie, R., Stuckler, D., Monteiro, C., Sheron, N., Neal, B., Thamarangsi, T., . . . Casswell, S. (2013). Profits and pandemics: Prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet, 381, 670–679. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 (12)62089-3 Nestle, M. (2006). What to eat. New York, NY: North Point Press. Popkin, B. (2006). Technology, transport, globalization and the nutrition transition food policy. Food Policy, 31, 554–569. Smolin, L., & Grosvenor, M. (2013). Nutrition: Science and applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Websites IOM: http://www.iom.edu U.S. Department of Agriculture: http://www.usda.gov/ wps/portal/usda/usdahome U.S. Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov/ default.htm

Fine Dining

FINE DINING Fine dining is generally characterized by exceptional foodstuffs and ingredients meticulously prepared in a restaurant, usually under the supervision of a trained, highly regarded chef; formal service performed at a high level by a well-trained, well-dressed staff; and an aesthetically appointed dining room and table. Prices for fine dining reflect this high degree of complexity and excellence, ranging from moderately expensive to exorbitant. Although accounts of lavish dining date to ancient Greek and Roman banquets and beyond, the term fine dining came into fashion in the 1970s; the practice as we know it today is often traced to the “invention” of the restaurant in late-18th-century France, when dining moved into the public sphere. Long defined by its attention to spectacle and its utility as a marker of class and social distinction, this form of dining has developed into an essential part of popular culture, a form of not only “restoration” (which gives us the word restaurant) and nourishment but also entertainment in its own right. Although often described chronologically, fine dining should not be seen as a linear progression where food preparation styles gradually move from elementary to increasingly complex or where the presentation of meals moves from plain to elaborate. Instead, like fashion or music, fine cuisine shifts priorities, changes direction, reinvents, innovates, rejects, and generally moves in accordance with cultural or societal trends—either with or against them. For that reason, scholars in many disciplines, from anthropology to sociology to geography to cultural studies to literature to psychology and more, believe that the trends and practices associated with fine dining offer important insights into the social, political, economic, and cultural aspects that shape a place and its people. This entry traces the history of fine dining from its origins in antiquity to present day.

Origins The origins of fine dining extend into antiquity. In fact, many terms associated with gastronomy,

497

such as epicurean and lucullan, come to us from the classical world. Written documents—such as Archestratus’s gastronomic poem The Life of Luxury or Apicius, a book of elaborate (and costly) recipes that is often regarded as the oldest surviving cookbook—demonstrate the degree to which thinking and theorizing about the preparation of food for guests had already entered the highest realms of society. Lavish banquets were a part of Babylonian life at least as far back as the 2nd millennium BCE. The practice continued in Ancient Greece, where banquets were, among other things, a mechanism to preserve class distinctions by a show of wealth, using (and sometimes abusing) slaves as serving staff. The invited guests at these events were exclusively male. The Romans inherited the Greeks’ culinary extravagances. Multicourse feasts, involving elegance of dress, the ritual and elaborate presentation of courses of food (often heavily sauced, sometimes exotic), and theatrical entertainment such as song and dance, were integral to high Roman culture. Diners ate their meals while reclining on couches after their hands and feet had been washed by slaves. The Romans also established a practice of holding regular public feasts (convivia publica) throughout the year, allowing the public to see, if not always participate in, the spectacle of luxury dining. Viewed by the wealthy as a means of placating the disenfranchised masses, the staging of the feast in the public eye was also a harbinger for later fine dining traditions, which finally allowed anyone with means to enjoy the ritual. Comparatively little is known about dining (or indeed culinary) practices from the fall of the Roman Empire until the 13th century, although accounts from monks of the Middle Ages make it clear that some form of fine dining was practiced in abbeys. Meals in the monastery included formal, precise rituals and sequences; ingredients were carefully chosen and limited (e.g., quadrupeds were proscribed); and a hierarchical dining process privileged the abbot. As in Rome, monastic dining practices reinforced power dynamics and took care over ingredients. Evidence suggests, however, that in China, unlike in Europe,

498

Fine Dining

lavish restaurant-style establishments had already taken hold as early as the 13th century. Indeed, according to Marco Polo’s travel accounts, China, particularly southeastern China, was far more advanced, both economically and culturally, than Europe. Luxurious eating establishments celebrated and reinforced a region’s excellence by making the best of that region’s cuisine (e.g., the Sichuan cuisine found in Chengdu or the Zhejiang cuisine found in Hangzhou) commercially available to the public, a culinary practice that did not take hold in Europe for several more centuries.

Fine Dining in the Courts of Europe Fine dining and banquets flourished in the homes and courts of the European aristocracy during the Renaissance. In the 16th and early 17th centuries, with the variety of luxury items still somewhat limited, an elaborate banquet that showcased both the quantity and diversity of foodstuffs was the best way to display wealth and privilege. Despite the enormous variety of offerings available at such dinners, certain foods, preparation styles, and dining practices began to garner associations with specific nations, demonstrating that distinct national identities were forming within Europe and suggesting taxonomies that would define national culinary identities as well. The development of Spanish, French, Italian, and English cuisines was evident throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, but eventually, it was France that emerged as the leader and arbiter for all matters of taste and style, including the culinary arts. Service à la française came to dominate cuisine all over Europe, introducing not only the practice but also the language of French cuisine to a vast and receptive audience. The court of Louis XIV actively pursued this opportunity to disseminate its culinary arts. At the same time, although France came late to the writing of cookbooks, there was a sudden abundance of them in France in the 17th century and beyond (e.g., La Varenne’s Le Cuisinier François, Nicholas de Bonnefons’s Les Delices de la campagne and Le Jardinier français, and François Massialot’s Le Cuisinier roïal et

bourgeois), which led to the formalization and resultant supremacy of French cooking practices.

Restaurants and the Development of Haute Cuisine Although historians agree that the first restaurantstyle establishment in Paris opened decades before the French Revolution, it is more difficult to assess the importance of the Revolution in the development or “invention” of the restaurant. It is commonly pointed out, for example, that when the French nobility fled the country, they left behind a sudden surplus of unemployed culinary professionals and that it was these erstwhile chefs of princes and dukes who opened restaurants and established the practice of dining out in and around Paris. Culinary historians, however, have argued that this causal link is vastly exaggerated and that, in fact, many of the restaurants that endured or became famous were run by tradesmen with no aristocratic ties. After the Revolution, restaurants thrived as public places offering literal “restorative” qualities—where one went, for example, to drink a salutary broth. Rather quickly, restaurants expanded their reach and became places not only of health but also of elegance and refinement. Regardless of the reality of a restaurant’s ties to nobility, restaurants and menus made the most of the aristocratic origins of fine dining, featuring dishes such as Veal Prince Orloff, Rougets à la Colbert, or Potage Maintenon. The cultural change brought about was vast: Privileges that were once available only to the highest echelons of society could now be experienced by a growing middle class, giving rise to the notion that the restaurant had democratized fine dining in France. Restaurants institutionalized fine dining as a public spectacle; they offered customers a choice of food, rather than simply a set menu; and they detached lavish dining from consciously sociopolitical functions such as honoring esteemed guests (as in ancient and medieval times) or celebrating important events. In the 19th century came the ascension of Chef Antonin Carême, whose enormously influential innovations in French cuisine, dining practices,

Fine Dining

and aesthetics were another key to broadcasting what were essentially traditional styles to the nouveaux riches. Carême was a dominant force in making France the standard bearer in food and dining, affecting everything from sauce making to the laying of the table. His elaborate presentations at private parties, public galas, or state dinners nearly always featured his famous pièces montées— intricate and architectural centerpieces crafted from sugar, pastry, and other edible substances. Such creations dazzled diners, but his contribution to classic haute cuisine extends well beyond these ephemeral spectacles. His five-volume work L’Art de la cuisine Française began the monumental work of codifying French haute cuisine not only through ingredients, recipes, and menus but also through an exploration of the taste and refinement that surrounded fine dining. Indeed it was Carême’s work that became the model for what would become the culinary bible for generations of chefs and restaurateurs around the world: Le Guide culinaire by Auguste Escoffier. Escoffier simplified and modernized the large and unwieldy domain that had become haute cuisine. He organized, for example, the seemingly infinite number of sauces into a structure with five sauces mères or “mother sauces” at the base from which all other sauces could be built, categorized, and understood. Escoffier was as much a businessman as a chef. His military-style organization of kitchen stations and staff (complete with vocabulary like brigades) dramatically enhanced efficiency, productivity, and order in kitchens that were usually small, unsanitary, and chaotic spaces—a must for the increasingly popular hotel dining rooms serving extensive menu items to a very high volume of diners. By the end of the 19th century, with faster and more prevalent modes of transportation, hotels and even cruise ships became showcases for the French haute cuisine, which had itself become synonymous with fine dining and luxury. Escoffier personally exported French fine dining to London, taking over the kitchen in hotels such as the Savoy and, later, the Carlton. In the United States, as the fine dining tradition began to grow after the end of the Civil War in 1865, it was modeled strictly on that of France, with restaurant terms coopted

499

directly from the French, without translation, where they remain in use to this day. Examples include sommelier, garde-manger, chef de cuisine, and so on. Patronizing fine dining restaurants became a pastime in and of itself, similar to going to the theater or the ballet, and incorporated luxury travel into its enjoyment. In the early 20th century, the Michelin Guide, originally intended as a promotional tool for a tire manufacturer, grew into an esteemed, full-blown restaurant rating service, now considered the ultimate authority; its awarding (and removal) of “stars” can hugely alter restaurants’ fortunes. Around the same time came the rise of the chef as celebrity—not only Escoffier but also Fernand Point and his culinary progeny, which included chefs such as Paul Bocuse and the Troisgros brothers. Once little better than tradesmen slaving away in hot, ill-ventilated kitchens in hotels or inns, the best known chefs began to attract their own attention, as artisans if not artists, and to command respect in the culture writ large. It was not until well after World War II that fine dining really began to expand beyond the limits of classic French cuisine. Individual national culinary movements arose in Europe and in the United States, but the greatest challenge to the traditions of classic French cuisine may have come from France itself. In the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, France underwent a national culinary upheaval with what was dubbed the Nouvelle Cuisine revolution. The chefs of Nouvelle Cuisine called for fresher ingredients cooked in lighter, simpler presentations. It did away with the notion that all fine dining menus must offer the same exhaustive selections, encouraging chefs instead to create menus according to their own creativity and to the availability of fresh or new ingredients. The effects of this liberation changed fine dining radically. Along with culinary rules, the customs of dining and service were also relaxed or even overturned. The increased availability of “exotic” ingredients, largely due to improvements in global transportation and refrigeration, expanded fine dining’s reach greatly, as well. More than merely contributing previously exotic or

500

Fine Dining

scarce ingredients, farther-flung culinary traditions entered fully into what had been an almost exclusively Western one. Air travel and rapid 20thcentury globalization brought about an interest in fine dining practices in countries like China and Japan; the culinary fine dining traditions of the latter country especially made worldwide inroads, with restaurants such as New York’s Nobu emblematic of the embrace of the Japanese cuisine by the fine dining world.

Fine Dining Today While fine dining has broadened its reach over time, many of the essentials of the fine dining experience are much the same now as they have been for a century or much more. In nearly all fine dining restaurants, advance reservations are recommended if not required. Guests are generally expected to dress finely (some restaurants have explicit dress codes, such as a jacket and tie for men and evening dress for women). The restaurateur’s attention is given in the dining room to ambient effects such as lighting, decor, and music. Napery and dinnerware are generally of high quality. Guests normally order multiple courses from a menu (although many fine dining establishments offer a tasting menu of the chef’s choice): usually an appetizer, a main course, and a dessert. The most common accompaniment is wine, and fine dining restaurants will usually present guests with a wine list from which to select glasses or bottles. Service is generally formal and ritualized. Guests are normally greeted at the door by a maître d’hôtel, host or hostess (who may also be the restaurant’s manager), who leads the guests to a table, which has been reserved for them at a specific time. Guests can expect to be offered a cocktail or other drink to start. Each table is served by a waiter (modern terminology sometimes prefers the term server), nearly always assisted by additional staff, known in America as backwaiters, who see to the serving of bread and water, the clearing of plates, and resetting of silverware. Some fine dining restaurants will employ a sommelier to advise

guests on wine selection. Orders are taken, and food is served in sequenced courses. The pace of the fine dining experience is generally leisurely; two hours at the table is normal. Following (or along with) the dessert course, guests may partake of coffee or after-dinner drinks. The fine dining kitchen will usually comprise a head (or executive) chef, who creates the menu but is not necessarily in the kitchen during evening service; a chef de cuisine or sous chef, who runs the kitchen during service; an expediter (sometimes actually the chef de cuisine or sous chef), who organizes and oversees “rounds” of cooking, somewhat like a conductor, gathers plates of food as they are completed, and sends them out to the appropriate tables; line cooks, each of whom is responsible for a certain number of dishes from his or her “station” (grill, fryer, roaster, etc.) on the line of hot cooking surfaces; the garde-manger, who assembles cold dishes such as salads; and a pastry chef, who makes desserts. Some restaurants employ additional kitchen staff such as sauciers. Other support staff, such as dishwashers, are also employed. Interestingly, the fine dining kitchen has remained a stubbornly male domain, with only a small percentage of successful women chefs standing out as exceptions. Early explanations for this disparity sought to emphasize how physically taxing kitchen work was. However, more recent feminist theory notes that women are no strangers to the kitchen and that it is the professionalization of cooking that creates the exclusion of women from the highest echelons of fine dining. With the heterogeneity of food increasing, the creativity of the chef (not just his or her ability to show mastery of French culinary tradition) has come to the fore of fine dining. This has given rise to the “celebrity” chef. By the latter part of the 20th century, star chefs such as Alain Ducasse, Wolfgang Puck, Jean-Georges Vongerichten, and Joël Robuchon were well known; and along with these European eminences came American stars like Mario Batali, Emeril Lagasse, Alice Waters (whose Chez Panisse radicalized American fine dining in the 1970s), and the English enfant terrible Gordon Ramsay. Much of this celebrity-chef

Fine Dining

trend was enabled and solidified by the advent and popularity of food television, which encouraged anyone with a TV to “consume,” virtually, a great chef’s creations without ever having to dine in his or her restaurant. More recently, the effects of molecular gastronomy are seen in fine dining, a turn that perhaps underlines a cultural preoccupation with science and technology. Popularized by Ferran Adrià at his restaurant El Bulli, north of Barcelona, Spain, and inspiring chefs like Grant Achatz (of Alinea, in Chicago, Illinois) and Heston Blumenthal (of the Fat Duck, in the United Kingdom), molecular gastronomy—which traffics in foams, gels, and other elaborate chemical processes—may appear to pull fine dining even farther away from its classical French roots, as the notion of the restaurant becomes associated more with that of the laboratory or workshop. But although the epicenter of this culinary trend may have shifted momentarily from France to Spain, much of what first characterized fine dining remains. Molecular gastronomy reintroduced the notion of spectacle to fine dining, dazzling diners with theatrical and surprising concoctions, and the alchemical “magic” of unusual dishes prepared at the table with test tubes, nitrogen, and other props—not unlike how Carême’s architectural concoctions captivated diners and even recalling the extravagant displays of dining in the classical world, like birds flying out of whole roasted quadrupeds. In recent years, there have been faster and faster oscillations between lavish ostentation and simplified minimalism, between public spectacle and the sort of private indulgence that, ironically, characterized the banquets of ancient Greece. One new trend is the pop-up restaurant, which began as a cheap, temporary, often playful dining experience, in many cases, open for just a single night, as a near experiment. The pop-up trend has since grown into a phenomenon of dining exclusivity, with pop-up restaurateurs finding a clientele base willing to pay large sums for the cachet of dining in a never-to-be-repeated, peerlessly minimalist (mobile, impermanent) environment. Another relatively new phenomenon is the supper club, a

501

hybrid that marries the long-entrenched tradition of the centuries-old home dinner party to the more formal notion of fine dining. The supper club, in some ways, repeats some of the hallmarks of the banquets of antiquity: It is by invitation only, generally preserves a class distinction, and is conducted in private. Heather Mallory See also Celebrity Chefs; Cultural Identity and Food; Design and Decor of Restaurants; Heritage Breeds; Locavorism; Molecular Gastronomy; Open Kitchens; Portion Sizes; Restaurant Chefs; Restaurant Cooking Technologies; Restaurant Management; Restaurant Menu Design; Restaurant Reviews; Restaurant Waitstaff; Supper Clubs and Clandestine Dining; Terroir; Tourism, Food

Further Readings Albala, K. (2007). The banquet: Dining in the great courts of Late Renaissance Europe. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Andrews, C. (2010). Ferran: The inside story of El Bulli and the man who reinvented food. New York, NY: Gotham Books. Archestratus. (2011). The life of luxury (J. Wilkins & S. Hill, Trans.). London, UK: Prospect Books. Finkelstein, J. (1989). Dining out: A sociology of modern manners. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Gillespie, C. (2001). European gastronomy into the twenty-first century. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Mennell, S. (1985). All manners of food: Eating and taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the present. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Parkhurst Ferguson, P. (2004). Accounting for taste: The triumph of French cuisine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Spang, R. (2000). The invention of the restaurant: Paris and modern gastronomic culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Strong, R. (2002). Feast: A history of grand eating. London, UK: Jonathan Cape. Trubek, A. B. (2000). Haute cuisine: How the French invented the culinary profession. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

502

Fish Contaminants

FISH CONTAMINANTS Fish contaminants refer to a broad range of chemical and biological agents that may be present in some freshwater and marine fish and shellfish and can be potentially harmful to humans when consumed. These contaminants can be naturally occurring in the aquatic environment as a result of geological and biological processes or may have been introduced into the environment through a variety of anthropogenic sources, such as industrial activity, waste disposal and incineration, agriculture, and aquaculture. Contaminant concentrations in the ocean are typically low and even undetectable, but contaminants may enter the food chain and become highly concentrated in fish and shellfish that people eat. Contaminants can also enter the food chain postharvest, during the processing, distribution, storage, and preparation of seafood. The global nature of the seafood trade combined with the challenges of conducting longterm research in aquatic environments have made the creation and enforcement of an effective seafood contaminants policy an elusive goal. Seafood contaminants have important implications for both human health and development and overall ecosystem functioning. This entry outlines the issue of seafood contaminants as well as recommendations for safe fish and shellfish consumption.

History and Scope of Seafood Contaminants Humans have utilized the high natural productivity of coastlines and estuaries for millennia. Today, a diversity of edible fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and algae constitute what is known as seafood. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that about 520 million people worldwide (or ~8% of the world population) depend on seafood as a staple source of protein, monetary income, and/or family stability. As an excellent source of lean protein, micronutrients, and omega-3 fatty acids, regular consumption of seafood is also linked to health benefits like reduced rates of cardiac disease. Despite these positive aspects of seafood consumption, fish and shellfish carry some risk of contamination. Like many foods,

seafood contaminants are closely linked to the environment in which they live, and the risk is highly dependent on the geographic origin, species, age, and postharvest handling of fish and shellfish. A unique aspect of seafood contaminants is their tendency to bioaccumulate, a process that allows persistent chemicals and toxins to become many times more concentrated at each trophic level, increasing drastically in organisms that are higher in the food chain. Contaminants enter the food chain through direct contact and absorption by microorganisms, which form the basis for the food chain. In a greatly simplified example, these microorganisms are then consumed by zooplankton, which is eaten by anchovies, which eventually become food for tuna. Depending on the bioavailability and persistence of contaminants, they may become concentrated in top-level predators like large fish, birds, marine mammals, and humans. In the case of aquaculture, contaminants may be introduced through formulated feed, treatment with antibiotics and/or hormones, or water sources. Some chemicals used as preservatives in fresh and frozen seafood postharvest may present contamination risks; there are also physical contaminants like bits of glass, metal, wood, or bone. The earliest systematic investigations of seafood contaminants were in the 1920s, prompted by the discovery of arsenic in marine samples. Public interest in environmental contaminants grew in the 1950s as Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring called attention to the dangerous longterm effects of the synthetic pesticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). Several episodes of large-scale toxic exposure through contaminated seafood further raised public awareness in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly with regard to the contaminant methylmercury. While such massive contamination events are now rare, the continued release of chemicals (and persistence of chemicals released in the past) still poses a risk to aquatic organisms and those who consume them.

Seafood Safety Policies and Consumer Recommendations Current research and public policy focus on mitigating the immediate and long-term effects of seafood contaminants on human health and development

Fish Contaminants

and ecosystem functioning. Government organizations like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate the use and disposal of hazardous materials and set limits for industrial pollution. In addition to collecting data on contaminants in the environments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses biomonitoring, which analyzes samples of blood, urine, and tissues to measure the body’s burden of toxic chemical compounds, elements, and metabolites stored in aquatic organisms and humans. Combining these data with research on the health impacts of seafood contaminants, health and government organizations determine advice for frequency of seafood consumption using terms like acceptable daily intake and reference dose. Seafood consumption advice varies greatly depending on the age and sex of particular populations. The most notable risks associated with seafood contamination are those relating to human reproduction and development, and seafood intake recommendations focus accordingly on limiting contaminant exposure in women who are pregnant, who may become pregnant, or who are breastfeeding, as well as children and adolescents. Immunocompromised individuals and the elderly are also at increased risk from seafood contaminants, particularly for seafoodborne illnesses. Taking into account the positive health benefits of eating fish and shellfish, intake recommendations generally use a risk–benefit formula to determine optimal seafood intake for specific populations.

Strategies for Reducing Seafood Contaminant Intake The positive health benefits of a diet that includes some seafood generally outweigh the risks of seafood contamination. Recommendations emphasize choosing the right fish rather than eating no fish at all. The tendency for contaminants to bioaccumulate as they move up the food chain is the most basic mechanism shaping safe seafood choices. Therefore, most guidelines focus on limiting intake of large, long-lived predatory fishes like sharks, swordfish, king mackerel, tilefish, and certain tunas. Actual contaminant load is highly variable based on a fish’s age, size, feeding behavior, and

503

geographic location. For example, tilefish from the Mid-Atlantic is considered safe, while tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico may contain high levels of mercury. Recommendations instead encourage consumers to eat species lower on the aquatic food chain, particularly those species that are vegetarian (e.g., anchovies, herring). Some low-risk options include salmon (wild and farmed), tilapia (farmed), catfish (farmed), pollock, Atlantic mackerel, anchovies, sardines, herring, smelts, shrimp (wild and farmed), scallops, crab, lobster, squid, oysters, mussels, and clams. Storage, handling, and preparation of seafood also have an appreciable impact on the risk of contamination. Fresh fish and shellfish should be kept cold (∼34 °F) during transport and storage and should be prepared and consumed as soon as possible after purchase. While cooking will not remove most persistent chemicals and toxins that may be present in seafood, certain methods may reduce the overall contaminant load in a fish. It is often recommended that the skin, bloodline, belly, and back fat be removed before cooking because these fatty tissues tend to have the highest concentration of contaminants. When it comes to cooking, techniques like broiling, baking, and grilling are preferable to frying, because they allow excess fats to drip away from the fish, potentially carrying away any contaminants. Thorough cooking to an internal temperature of ∼145 °F reduces the risk of illness from certain bacterial, viral, and parasitic agents. When eating seafood raw, it is recommended that the fish be previously frozen to reduce the risk of ingesting parasites, although many species of fresh fish and shellfish can safely be eaten raw.

Forms of Contamination in Seafood Seafood contaminants can be differentiated into three major groups: (1) inorganic chemicals, (2) organic compounds, and (3) biological agents. Inorganic Chemical Contaminants

Inorganic chemical contaminants are non–carbon-based chemicals, the most common of which are the so-called heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium, copper, iron,

504

Fish Contaminants

silver, nickel, and zinc. Many inorganic chemicals are naturally present throughout the environment in low concentrations and, like copper, selenium, zinc, and iron, are essential micronutrients for the life functions of fish and shellfish. Other elements, such as mercury, cadmium, and lead, have no essential life function and are toxic even at very low concentrations. Inorganic chemicals enter the environment through the geological processes of weathering, erosion, volcanic events, and geothermic activity, but unnatural concentrations of toxic metals in aquatic ecosystems are generally attributed to human activity like fossil fuel combustion (particularly coal), mining and petroleum extraction, intensive metallurgy, waste disposal, and industrial pollution. The rate and successfulness of absorption by organisms is directly related to the bioavailability of the contaminant, and to a lesser extent the salinity and temperature of the aquatic environment. Inorganic mercury, for example, can become combined with a methyl group (CH3−) through the action of anaerobic bacteria, creating methylmercury, a far more dangerous and bioavailable compound. The carbon-based methyl group gives methylmercury a high affinity for certain amino acids and proteins, forming a strong bond with them and allowing it to be transported throughout the body, including across the blood– brain barrier and across the placenta. Aquatic organisms that take up these toxic metals tend to store them and/or use them metabolically, but they may also excrete them (through feces, eggs, molting, etc.) or detoxify them by binding with specific proteins. Inorganic chemicals are often difficult to eliminate because they are water insoluble. Instead, they most often accumulate in adipose tissues and internal organs such as the liver. Once incorporated by an organism, high concentrations of heavy metals may affect physiological processes and cause tissue damage, inhibition of growth and regeneration, changes in reproduction and development, and damage to genetic material such as DNA. In humans, the effects of moderate heavymetal exposure are not necessarily observable on the individual adult level, but studies have linked moderate methylmercury contamination to subtle developmental deficits in children exposed in

utero, including in memory function, in language skills, lower IQ (intelligence quotient) points, and attention deficit. The vast majority of inorganic contaminant exposure is mild, and concern is centered on limiting exposure over an entire lifetime. Organic Compound Contaminants

Unlike inorganic contaminants, this class of environmental contaminants is almost entirely anthropogenic in origin and is introduced into the environment primarily through human activity. By definition, organic compounds contain carbon atoms, giving them a high degree of stability and biological availability. Organic contaminants (OCs) form a large and diverse group of chemicals that are produced either specifically for industrial and agricultural uses or as a by-product of industrial processes. The most well-known synthetic OCs are polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT, and the many other organochlorine and organophosphate insecticides. OCs enter the aquatic environment through direct discharge of land-based municipal and industrial wastes, through river runoff, by atmospheric deposition through precipitation, and from ships. Most of these compounds are water insoluble, resistant to oxidation and reduction, and very difficult to eliminate, making synthetic OCs highly persistent in organisms and the environment. Despite the banning of DDT and polychlorinated biphenyl usage in the 1970s, both compounds continue to persist decades later. The family of OCs also includes a variety of by-products of fossil fuels combustion like petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also found in some cooked foods, especially grilled meat, smoked fish, and used frying oil. Dioxins are another group of OCs that are formed as a by-product of combustion and incineration, as well as in the process of chlorine bleaching in pulp and paper mills. Other OCs like antibiotics, hormones, and malachite green (a dye and a fungicide) may be residual in some aquaculture products. Like inorganic contaminants, OCs are readily absorbed by microorganisms and accumulate to dangerous concentrations in apex predators like large fish, birds of prey, and humans.

Fish Contaminants

In high concentrations, OCs may cause any number of harmful effects in organisms, including disruption of endocrine systems like hormone receptors, reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the liver, and death. Many OCs are also known mutagens, causing changes to the genetic materials in organisms, like errors in DNA replication. In humans, OCs are of great concern because of their potentially carcinogenic properties. Additionally, exposure to OCs increases the risk of reproductive and developmental problems in humans. Exposure to OCs in vitro is associated with low birth weight, motor control issues, decreased short-term memory, and developmental issues. Biological Contaminants

Biological contaminants include a wide range of agents from natural toxins to bacteria and viruses. Natural toxins present in freshwater, brackish, and marine environments are usually caused by extreme proliferation of macroalgae or microalgal cells to high densities. Such harmful algal blooms (HABs) cause damage to the aquatic ecosystems, alter aquatic food webs, and threaten the health of humans and aquatic organisms. These toxins can accumulate in filter feeding fish and shellfish and also bioaccumulate in predatory fish. HABs occur naturally but have occurred with increased frequency in recent decades, leading scientists to link the phenomenon with several anthropogenic activities including cultural eutrophication (nutrient enrichment due to agricultural runoff), global climate change, and inadvertent transport of harmful algae in the ballasts of freight-carrying ships. Toxins caused by HABs are generally odorless and tasteless, and heat and acid stable, making detection and prevention through safe cooking practices difficult. Intoxication by seafood contaminated by HABs can cause symptoms in humans that range from nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in mild cases to severe neurological effects such as numbness, tingling, dizziness, vertigo, memory loss, motor weakness, temperature sensation reversal, paralysis, coma, and possibly death in extreme cases. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the most common diseases caused by

505

marine toxins in the United States are ciguatera poisoning, paralytic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic shellfish poisoning, and amnesic shellfish poisoning, followed by azaspiracid shellfish poisoning and diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. Other biological contaminants include naturally occurring bacteria and viruses that may become pathogenic to humans and are foodborne mainly through contaminated shellfish. The most common of these biological contaminants are members of the Vibrio spp., Escherichia coli, noroviruses, hepatitus A virus, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Infection by Vibrio vulnificus is much less common but causes high rates of mortality (∼50%), making it the leading cause of seafood-associated death in the United States. Other biological contaminants may be introduced into seafood during postharvest processing, transportation, and preparation. These include botulism in certain fermented, cured, or marinated seafood products; salmonella; listeria; and scombrotoxic fish poisoning, which is caused by a specific type of bacterial spoilage in certain finfish like tuna, mackerel, and bonito. A variety of parasites may also be present in seafood, but this is highly dependent on species, origin, and preparation method.

Contributing Factors to Seafood Contamination Mitigating risk in seafood consumption can be a complex calculation, in part because of the vastness of freshwater and marine environments and the fact that seafood is still largely a wild-food resource. One of the main factors contributing to seafood safety is the porous, multifaceted, and global nature of the seafood trade. The array of species, value-added products, and production processes in the seafood market vastly exceeds that of other protein classes. Critical information about the geographic origin, various species, and different production methods of seafood is often lacking. False information is also disseminated. Such seafood fraud has been shown to be common in both restaurants and retail seafood sources. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, almost 200 countries and territories are involved in the global seafood trade, with

506

Fish Contaminants

nearly half the volume of seafood being exported by developing countries and two thirds being imported by developed nations. In 2004, the United States alone imported nearly 80% of its seafood to meet consumer demand. Additionally, aquaculture has come to play a significant role in supplying seafood to the world’s consumers and today accounts for almost half of all seafood traded internationally. The majority of this growth in aquaculture has been in Asia and Latin America, where strong environmental, labor, and public safety policies may be either absent or not enforced. These changes in the global seafood trade have occurred rapidly within the past few decades, resulting in an overall lack of regulatory oversight and traceability, and a poor understanding of the linkages between environmental conditions and seafood product safety. Much of the current seafood inspection and regulation focus on postharvest production processes and not on the health and condition of freshwater and marine environments around the world, where seafood is harvested and produced. Development of accurate data-gathering and -sharing techniques, standardized chain-of-custody models, and implementation of hazard analysis and critical control point plans are some of the strategies currently used to improve seafood traceability and safety, and consumer confidence. Another important factor affecting individual exposure to seafood contaminants is the popularity of eating self-captured seafood, as opposed to store-bought sources. Fishing for sport and personal sustenance is common practice in the United States and globally and accounts for a significant proportion of seafood consumed. As with conventionally available seafood, the safety of self-captured fish and shellfish is highly dependent on its specific geographic origin. Effective educational programs, outreach, and enforcement of restrictions are critical to limiting recreational fishers’ exposure to seafood contaminants. Finally, studies have shown that the effects of global climate change on water temperature, weather patterns, and ocean currents and salinity may in some way interact with the availability, movement, and feeding behavior of seafood species, as well as the occurrence of natural biological contaminants and the deposition,

persistence, and absorption of chemical contaminants in the food chain. While the connection between global climate change and seafood safety requires additional research, there is a degree of certainty that these interactions will play a part in the risk profile of seafood in the future. Noel A. Bielaczyc See also Aquaculture/Fish Farming; Breastfeeding; Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet; Codex Alimentarius; Fishing for Sport; Fishing Industry; Food Safety; Pesticides

Further Readings Akçakaya, H., Stark, D., & Bridges T. (2008). Demographic toxicity: Methods in ecological risk assessment. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Belkin, S., & Colwell, R. (Eds.). (2005). Oceans and health: Pathogens in the marine environment. New York, NY: Springer. The Editors of Seafood Business. (2010). Seafood handbook: The comprehensive guide to sourcing, buying, and preparation (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Principals and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Masson-Matthee, M. (2007). The Codex Alimentarius Commission and its standards. Hague, Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press. Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). Should I eat the fish I catch? A guide to healthy eating of the fish you catch (EPA 823-B-97-009). Retrieved from http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/fishadvisories/ upload/1999_01_26_fish_fisheng.pdf Rees, G. (2010). Safe management of shellfish and harvest waters. New York, NY: IWA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. What you need to know about mercury in fish and shellfish. Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/ fishshellfish/outreach/advice_index.cfm U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mercury levels in commercial fish and shellfish (1990-2010). Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllness Contaminants/Metals/ucm115644.htm

Fisheries Certification Programs Ward, D., & Cameron, R. (Eds.). (1991). Microbiology of marine food products. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

FISHERIES CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS Fisheries certification programs play an increasingly important role in the marketing and consumption of seafood. Fisheries certification programs are designed to address concerns about the quality, safety, and environmental sustainability of fisheries products and the processes through which they are produced. These programs serve as mechanisms through which stakeholders can access information about the quality and characteristics of fisheries or fisheries products that would otherwise be quite costly to obtain, thereby seeking to solve information asymmetries between fisheries producers and other actors in a supply chain. Fisheries that have been certified within a particular program are usually identified through labels, such as ecolabels attached to products sold in a supermarket. By understanding the particular standards, assessment tools, and procedures that are associated with a given certification program, consumers, retailers, and other stakeholders may be able to make better-informed decisions about which seafood products to buy, sell, or consume. Fisheries certification programs differ with respect to their purpose and the scope of their standards and governance structure. While many certification programs have been successful in providing consumers with information and in improving fisheries, the efficacy and legitimacy of some programs have been criticized. Balancing the distribution of the costs and benefits of certification programs is also a continuing challenge, especially in the context of small-scale fisheries and fisheries from less developed countries.

Purpose and Scope of Certification Programs Standards The sets of standards used by fisheries certification programs may emphasize single issues or a

507

combination of concerns. Standards frequently, but not always, address food safety and quality. Some of the standards developed by the certification program Naturland, for example, require that certified products have not been contaminated with environmental pollutants, do not employ genetically modified organisms or their derivatives, and do not come into contact with harmful contaminants during storage. Many certification programs design standards that are used to evaluate fisheries’ effects on the environment or environmental sustainability. Friend of the Sea (FOS) and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) are certification programs that focus exclusively on environmental concerns. MSC derives its environmental standards from three primary principles related to (1) the sustainability of the fishery, (2) the effects of the fishery on the surrounding habitat and ecosystem, and (3) the appropriateness and efficacy of the fisheries management system. FOS bases its certification on the standards laid out by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization’s Guidelines for the Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products From Marine Capture Fisheries, which addresses similar issues related to levels of fish stock exploitation, management measures, and effects on the habitat and ecosystem. Although not as common, some certification programs take into consideration social and ethical issues related to fisheries production. Naturland’s social responsibility standards, for example, address issues of basic human rights and freedoms, discrimination, child labor, workers’ rights to form and access trade associations and unions, and employee health and safety. Fisheries certification programs can also be differentiated by the scope of their standards. Programs may operate within single countries or regions, or they may be global in scope. As the contributions of aquaculture to global seafood production increase, certification programs increasingly include standards that apply to aquaculture as well as to wild-caught fisheries. Many certification programs have standards that are applicable to any species or type of fishery, while others, particularly those specializing in aquaculture certification, focus on particular species or groups of species.

508

Fisheries Certification Programs

Governance of Fisheries Certification Programs While the rigor of fisheries certification programs is determined in part by the particular standards employed, the governance structures affect how stakeholders perceive issues such as transparency, credibility, and legitimacy of fisheries certification programs. First-, Second-, and Third-Party Certification Programs

Fisheries certification programs rely on either first-, second-, or third-party certification. In firstparty certification, fisheries producers or retailers evaluate their own compliance or the compliance of their products with standards. Certification standards are often designed and determined internally by the certified entities themselves. Second-party certification involves evaluation of the certified product or process by an organization, firm, or consultant that is independent from the certified entity. Certification standards may be set by this independent entity. Third-party certification requires that the processes of standard setting and certification are each conducted by different actors that are independent from the certified entity. The credibility and legitimacy of a fisheries certification program may be affected by the choice of first-, second-, or third-party certification. First-party certification often raises concerns that the program may be less stringent because the same organization or firm that stands to incur benefits from claiming a product or process is certified is also responsible for designing and implementing certification standards. Third-party certification attempts to solve this potential conflict of interest by separating the incentives for certification from the processes of certification and standard setting. Perceptions of legitimacy may be influenced by the types of actors that have access to participation in setting certification standards. For example, standards set autonomously by a retailer of fisheries products may be lax or may address only a narrow set of concerns, while standards

set collaboratively by a range of participants, such as producers, retailers, and civil society, may incorporate a wider range of issues. The MSC, for example, aims to maintain legitimacy by incorporating multiple stakeholders in standard setting and improvement and by responding to public commentary during the certification of fisheries in its program. Public Versus Private Certification Programs

Certification programs may be initiated by public or private entities. Publicly initiated certification programs, such as government certification, tend to focus on health and food safety or compliance with domestic or international fisheries regulations. These programs are often mandatory. Private certification programs may be initiated by any number of actors including private firms and civil society organizations such as fair trade or environmental nongovernmental organizations. Private certification programs are voluntary. Such programs are often intended to provide access to premium prices or niche markets. Public and Private Sector Interactions

The proliferation of private, nonstate certification schemes has been driven in part by concerns that public regulations and governments are insufficient to guarantee an acceptable level of food safety, social standards, or environmental sustainability. With the increasing prevalence of private certification programs, there is a growing potential for interactions between these certification schemes and existing governmental fisheries management institutions. Fishing industry actors may lobby governments to alter existing regulations in order to comply with the standards of a certification program. Additionally, there is a growing perception that certification programs may eventually represent a new form of trade barrier if remaining uncertified prevents access to important markets. Finally, some governments may require certain fisheries to obtain certification through private fisheries certification programs.

Fisheries Certification Programs

Challenges and Concerns Related to Fisheries Certification Programs Costs and Benefits of Certification

The operations of certification programs are costly. Costs may be related to or include the work required to set standards, costs of evaluating fisheries, costs of continued surveillance and auditing activities, and costs involved in compliance with certification standards. Fisheries certification programs vary with respect to who pays the costs of certification, although for most private and voluntary certification programs, the client pays the costs. Clients are defined on a case-by-case basis and are typically fishing industry actors such as production firms or fishing cooperatives, although environmental nongovernmental organizations have also participated as coclients in some instances. While the costs of certification are often quite significant, clients are not guaranteed to obtain market benefits from selling certified fisheries products. There are many factors that may interfere with the market mechanism on which private certification programs are based, which affect whether producers and retailers are able to realize economic gains as a result of certification. Demand for certified products depends on consumers’ preferences for certified fisheries products, their willingness to pay a premium price for those products, and their perceptions of the reliability, transparency, and efficacy of the certification programs themselves. As a result, the potential for economic gain from certification is in part related to the social and cultural norms that characterize the countries or regions in which consumer markets for a given product are located. Demand for sustainable certified seafood, for example, tends to be concentrated in developed countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and member countries of the European Union. The proliferation of fisheries certification programs, public and private, each with distinct sets of standards, may inhibit consumers’ willingness to pay for certified seafood by creating confusion regarding the signals that certification programs, brands, and labels are meant to convey.

509

Harmonization of certification standards has been proposed as a possible solution to the potentially confusing diversity of standards, although an accompanying concern is that harmonization may lead to the weakening, or watering down, of certification standards. Similarly, the mainstreaming or popularization of fisheries certification programs may lead to the development of less stringent standards as greater numbers of retailers seek to include certified products in their stores. Indeed, fisheries certification programs face constant pressure from consumers, scientists, and environmental organizations and activists to maintain the stringency of their standards, especially in the case of environmental standards. MSC and FOS, for example, have both been criticized for certifying fisheries that may in fact be overfished or without sufficient information to know whether or not the fishery is sustainable. In addition, mislabeling is a major concern in the seafood industry in general, although DNA testing can help verify the veracity of products labeled as certified. Some certification programs require that each component of the supply chain through which a product travels—from producers, processors, wholesalers, and intermediaries to retailers—also be certified. For producers, seeking market benefits from certification is an active process, which itself entails costs of searching for new markets, marketing certified products, and complying with supply chain certification when applicable. In addition to market benefits, fisheries may also gain nonmarket benefits such as increased political power or improved governance measures as a result of joining a certification program. Participation of Small-Scale and Less Developed Country Fisheries

Balancing and distributing the costs and benefits of entering and remaining in fisheries certification programs can be particularly challenging for small-scale fisheries and fisheries from developing countries. A number of factors work against the potential for these fisheries to enter into certification programs and obtain market benefits. This is

510

Fishing for Sport

an important challenge not only for small-scale and less developed country producers but also for certification programs themselves. Consumers and other stakeholders, while they demand that standards be as stringent and transparent as possible, also often place value on the inclusiveness and equity of fisheries certification programs. These two exigencies come into conflict when small-scale and less developed country fisheries are less likely to be able to meet certification standards. These fisheries are disproportionately underrepresented in fisheries certification programs despite their significant contribution to global fisheries production and to job security in many countries. Multiple factors may contribute to the inability of some small-scale and less developed country fisheries to meet certification standards. First, scientific information necessary for assessing these fisheries, such as studies about the status and dynamics of fish stocks or current fishing efforts, may be piecemeal or absent. Second, existing governmental regulations may be insufficient or ineffective. This is especially problematic in the case of some fisheries certification schemes that evaluate fisheries’ sustainability in part by incorporating standards and criteria related to fisheries management and governance. Third, these fisheries may be unable to afford the costs of certification. Smallscale fisheries that are able to obtain certification may still have trouble realizing market premiums. Demand for certified products is increasingly driven by large retailers, which prefer to purchase seafood in quantities greater than small-scale fisheries are able to provide. Some fisheries certification programs have implemented special programs and initiatives to increase the representation of small-scale, less developed country fisheries and data-deficient fisheries in their programs. For example, MSC, among other measures, has developed a modified assessment procedure for fisheries that lack sufficient scientific information to assess the risk of overfishing, and FOS offers reduced pricing for certain fisheries.

and Genetically Modified; Overfishing and Fisheries Depletion; Values-Based Food Supply Chains

Further Readings Bush, S. R., Toonen, H., Oosterveer, P., & Mol, A. P. (2013). The “devils triangle”of MSC certification: Balancing credibility, accessibility and continuous improvement. Marine Policy, 37, 288–293. doi:10 .1016/j.marpol.2012.05.011 Eden, S., Bear, C., & Walker, G. (2008). Mucky carrots and other proxies: Problematising the knowledge-fix for sustainable and ethical consumption. Geoforum, 39(2), 1044–1057. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007 .11.001 Jaffry, S., Pickering, H., Ghulam, Y., Whitmarsh, D., & Wattage, P. (2004). Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK. Food Policy, 29(3), 215–228. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol .2004.04.001 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). Fisheries and Aquaculture Certification. Paris, France: Author. Pérez-Ramírez, M., Phillips, B., Lluch-Belda, D., & Lluch-Cota, S. (2012). Perspectives for implementing fisheries certification in developing countries. Marine Policy, 36(1), 297–302. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.06.013 Ponte, S. (2008). Greener than thou: The political economy of fish ecolabeling and its local manifestations in South Africa. World Development, 36, 159–175. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.014 Washington, S., & Ababouch, L. (2011). Private standards and certification in fisheries and aquaculture: Current practice and emerging issues (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 553). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Wessells, C. R. (2001). Product certification and ecolabelling for fisheries sustainability (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 422). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FISHING

FOR

SPORT

Abigail Bennett See also Commodity Chains; Fish Contaminants; Fishing Industry; Fishing Policies; Labeling: Organic, Local,

Recreational fishing or sport fishing is a leisure activity that involves the pursuit of fish for personal pleasure or competition. Sport fishing is

Fishing for Sport

most commonly practiced using angling techniques (i.e., rod, reel, line, and hook) but may utilize a range of other technologies and methods to fish in a variety of freshwater and marine environments. This type of fishing differs from commercial fishing and sustenance fishing in its primary goal, which is often less focused on providing food. Even so, many sport fishers justify the sport by eating self-caught fish. Recreational fishing is a highly regulated, multibillion-dollar industry in the United States and includes a number of large, politically active organizations that represent sport fishers and their interests in fisheries management, land use, water rights, and conservation. This entry explores the practices and policies of sport fishing, with particular focus on commodification, ethics, and conservation.

The Goals of Sport Fishing Fishing is a necessary subsistence activity and way of life for many people and provides valuable proteins and economic income. In situations where fishing is no longer necessary to maintain one’s livelihood, the activity may be continued for the sake of sport, sometimes at great expense of time and financial resources. Which fish is targeted depends on various considerations: whether the fish grow to large sizes, whether they exhibit distinct or predictable behaviors toward bait or lures, whether they fight exceptionally hard when hooked, whether they are rare and exotic species, or whether they are particularly desirable food fish. The notion of fair play in sport is an artifact of the activity’s transition from subsistence to leisure activity, and it may vary widely depending on the situation or species involved. Some fishers may seek to catch their legal limit of any species by utilizing the most efficient methods and equipment, whereas others may choose to catch a specific fish in precise conditions using specialized equipment and techniques. These specialized fishers seek the challenge of pursuing the most difficult fish, favoring craftsmanship over technology and placing emphasis on individual achievement and quality of the catch. These fishers elect to use light tackle, increasing the risk of break-offs and putting more

511

emphasis on the art of fishing. Other similar measures include preferential use of artificial lures instead of more effective live baits, removing the barbs from hooks to allow fish to escape more easily, and even supporting regulations to effectively limit access to and public use of fishing locations. The concept of catch-and-release, allowing fish to be returned alive to their environment, has gained traction among this segment of specialist sport fishers. In contrast, a generalist sport fisher may place more emphasis on the size and quantity of the catch, favoring heavier tackle to minimize break-offs, barbed hooks with multiple points, live natural baits and highly effective lures, and other technological supports such as depth finders, sonar units, and GPS (global positioning systems). This approach to sport fishing is more commonly associated with competitive settings like fishing tournaments and is more invested in public achievement, mass appeal, and the promotion of fishing technology. These two sport fishing typologies are often characterized as elitist/exclusive versus democratic/ inclusive, respectively, and are representative of the diversity within the sport fishing community.

History and Tackle The term tackle generally refers to the collective equipment used in fishing. Tackle may include items such as rods, reels, lines, hooks, sinkers, floats, baits, lures, nets, gaffs, waders, and tackle boxes. The evolution of modern fishing tackle and technique is somewhat debatable. The spear and net appear to be the earliest forms of fishing, with the hook, line, rod, and reel emerging much later. It is believed that the first hooks may have been modified spear tips called gorges, which were made from shell, bone, wood, lithic material, and eventually bronze. Similarly, it is theorized that the rod is an adaptation of the spear shaft, the length and flexibility of which greatly increased the fisher’s reach and ability to successfully land fish. The earliest lines were likely made of animal sinew, vegetable fibers, or even filamentous algae, the length and durability of which was limited. The exact origin of sport fishing is somewhat vague, but evidence shows that ancient Chinese and

512

Fishing for Sport

Egyptian royalty fished for sport and pleasure with rod, line, and hook some 3,000 years ago. There is also mention of fishing with spear, net, hand-line, and rod throughout ancient Greek and Roman writing and art. While sustenance fishing continued with more indiscriminant means of catching like nets, traps, and hand-lines, the refinement of angling methods and technology is closely associated with the growth of fishing for recreation among the leisure classes. It is thought that sport fishing had spread throughout Europe by 1000 CE, but it wasn’t until 500 years later that the first essay in English on recreational fishing was published. By the time Izaak Walton’s The Compleat Angler or, the Contemplative Man’s Recreation was published in 1653, sport fishing had arrived as a legitimate form of recreation, although it was still an activity largely reserved for landowners and the nobility. The vastness of the United States’ natural landscapes and the eventual development of public land and park systems made sport fishing a more accessible pastime for even those who lived in cities and had little disposable income. By that time, the reel had come into widespread use, allowing fishers to cast their baits and lures, increasing their range and providing greater control. The basic angling tackle has remained remarkably similar since the 1800s, with the most appreciable changes coming in the form of improved materials. Bamboo rods were replaced with metal, and then later with graphite and fiberglass, improving their sensitivity and strength. Monofilament lines made from synthetic nylon were cheaper, more durable, stronger, and less visible than those made of braided natural material. Finally, superior alloys and tempering processes made hooks stronger and sharper, increasing the likelihood of hooking and holding a fish until it is landed.

(∼90%) of U.S. recreational fishers are men. The most popular type of fishing is done in freshwater lakes, reservoirs, ponds, rivers, and streams. Tackle and methods range from simple cane poles, to bait casting reels (revolving spool) and spinning reels (fixed spool). Another popular form of freshwater fishing is ice fishing, which is done in winter in the northern regions. Other forms of freshwater fishing include hand fishing or “noodling” and bow fishing, in which a modified bow or crossbow is used to shoot and retrieve fish. The most sought after species in U.S. freshwaters are bass, walleye, salmon/trout, panfish (bluegill, perch, etc.), pike/ muskellunge, catfish, and carp. Saltwater fishing is less popular but utilizes a range of marine habitats including estuaries, bays, reefs, the continental shelf, and the open ocean. Common forms of saltwater sport fishing include shore fishing from piers, jetties, and beaches (surf casting), and jigging (bottom fishing) and trolling (slowly pulling lures or bait) from boats. Spearfishing is primarily done in saltwater environments and involves pursuing game fish with snorkel or scuba gear and a spear gun or sling. Popular saltwater species include tuna, sailfish, tarpon, sharks, sea bass, mackerel, flounder/halibut, bluefish, sea trout, and salmon. Fly fishing is a common method of angling in both freshwater and saltwater environments and involves using a specialized tackle and technique to cast lightweight artificial flies. In addition to the cost of equipment and typical trip-related expenditures, a large tourist industry provides guide and charter services to fishers, leading them on fishing outings in pursuit of game fish. The practice of stocking game fish in private ponds or lakes for the purpose of a paid fishing experience is another widespread form of commodified sport fishing.

Ethics of Sport Fishing Contemporary Sport Fishing and Commodification In 2011, 33.1 million Americans over the age of 16 years engaged in sport fishing, spending more than US$ 41.8 billion on equipment, transportation, food, lodging, memberships, subscriptions, merchandise, licenses, and permits. The vast majority

A central issue surrounding the ethics of sport fishing involves the question of whether fish experience pain and suffering in the process of being caught. On opposing sides of this argument are sports fishers and animal rights activists, some of whom favor restrictions on types of fishing in an effort to limit abuse and suffering. Evidence suggests that, indeed,

Fishing for Sport

fish do experience pain and some degree of stress while being caught, but fishes’ perception and cognition of pain is unclear. Arguments have been made that the entire purpose of sport fishing is cruel and unethical and cannot be justified by any means besides subsistence. Others point out that many anglers are keenly aware of the harm they may cause fish and make conscious efforts to limit injury through their choice of tackle and fishing method.

Regulation and Conservation of Sport Fishing Sport fishing in the United States is a highly regulated activity that involves state and federal oversight and natural resource management. The preparation and consumption of self-caught fish and shellfish involve a risk of contamination and foodborne illness, requiring participants to be aware of environmental conditions; local, state, and federal regulations; and consumption advisories. To maintain populations, states establish the open season, and the minimum size (and occasionally maximum size) and quantity of each fish species that may be legally taken by sport fishers. Anglers are required to purchase fishing licenses, permits, and stamps, depending on the target species and season, from the state in whose waters they plan to fish. License fees as well as regular taxes and surcharges on equipment and fuel are allocated toward federal, state, and local conservation and fisheries management programs, and the enforcement of rules and regulations. Conservation and management programs include habitat restoration, public access maintenance, waterquality testing and improvement projects, population control, game fish food enhancement, stocking efforts through fish hatcheries, and educational programs. In addition to supporting fish and wildlife management programs financially, sport fishers influence policy through their membership in angling organizations and through direct lobbying of politicians. Anglers exert considerable political clout by virtue of their large numbers and economic power, and they contribute to the development of standards, guidelines, and mitigation

513

measures that affect commercial fishing, and industrial and agricultural activities that affect sport fisheries. Indeed, conservation is frequently cited as a justification for sport fishing, and anglers actively participate in field projects and data gathering by reporting catch logs, taking part in creel surveys, tagging fish, and performing volunteer and paid conservation work. In spite of the strong connection between recreational anglers and conservation, there are questions about the effectiveness of such programs and the overall impact of sport fishing on aquatic ecosystem health and the population of fish and wildlife. While blame for the dwindling fish stocks is generally placed on commercial fisheries, recent studies suggest that sport fisheries could be playing a more significant role in depleting some at-risk species of fish despite traditional fishing restrictions. Questions have also been raised about the benefits of sport fishery management programs like fish stocking, food enhancement, and population control. Stocking may have negative long-term effects on the genetic pools of wild fish by introducing hybrid species from a hatchery brood source. Food enhancement programs are responsible for the introduction of many exotic and nonnative species, which may have profound implications for the food webs in certain ecosystems. Finally, population control programs target mammals, birds, and other fish deemed threatening to game species, a process that may upset the natural ecosystem balance and have long-term implications for nongame species. Finding a balance between policies and practices that represent the interests of sport fishers and those who favor the interests of overall ecosystem health is a major challenge for conservation and management efforts. Noel A. Bielaczyc See also Animal Rights; Fish Contaminants; Foraging; Hunting; Overfishing and Fisheries Depletion

Further Readings Hummel, R. (1994). Hunting and fishing for sport. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.

514

Fishing Industry

Radcliffe, W. (1921). Fishing from the earliest times. Chicago, IL: Ares. Walton, I. (1928). The compleat angler, or The contemplative man’s recreation: Being a discourse of fish and fishing, not unworthy the perusal of most anglers. London, UK: A & C Black. (Original work published 1653)

Websites American Sportfishing Association: http://www.asa fishing.org National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, & WildlifeAssociated Recreation (FHWAR): http://www.census .gov/prod/www/fishing.html NOAA’s State of the Coast: http://stateofthecoast.noaa .gov/rec_fishing

FISHING INDUSTRY The fishing industry includes the commercial, recreational, or subsistence harvesting, processing, transporting, and marketing of aquatic organisms from inland waterways, coastal areas, and oceans. The industry includes both wild and farm-raised fish and other aquatic creatures. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 4.5 million vessels are currently engaged in the fishing industry. Most are small boats operating not far from shore, but 37,000 are large ocean-going vessels involved in industrial fishing. More than 500 million people worldwide work directly or indirectly in the fishing industry. The entry begins by tracing the history of the fishing industry, including the processing, transporting, and marketing of catches. Next, it describes several problems faced by the industry and their solutions. Last, this entry discusses contemporary aquaculture and the state of the fishing industry today.

Background Aquatic foods have been harvested from rivers, lakes, and oceans for at least 40,000 years. Most of this time—and for many people today—this was a small, local subsistence or artisan activity. Using

their hands, nets, traps, spears, and other simple equipment, fishers took only as much fish and seafood as could be eaten immediately, because these creatures die and spoil rapidly once removed from the water. Over time, indigenous peoples developed ways of preserving these foods for future use. In the Caribbean, for instance, fish were dried on a wooden lattice over a fire. Elsewhere, salting and smoking were used to preserve fish. Once preserved, these valuable foods could be stored and traded; small businesses that preserved and sold aquatic foods emerged along the banks of rivers and the shorelines of lakes and oceans. Large commercial fishing ventures developed in the Mediterranean in ancient times. They employed the most efficient methods of the time to maximize their catch and sold as much as possible while it was fresh; what was not sold immediately was salted for future use. Parts of fish that were not consumed directly, such as the fins, heads, and entrails, were salted and left in the sun to ferment. The end product was garum or liquamen, pungent sauces that became the principle condiments of ancient Greece and Rome. Similar fishing operations were established in Asia. Richly flavorful fish sauces such as the Vietnamese nuoc mam and Thai nam pla are still important condiments in their respective countries. As sailing vessels and navigation techniques improved during the Late Middle Ages, fishing fleets traveled farther from shore and returned with larger cargoes. Herring became an important food fish in northern Europe. By the 1500s, Basque, French, Irish, and British fishermen traveled as far as North America’s Grand Banks—submerged plateaus off the coast of Newfoundland—to catch finfish, especially cod, which was salted and brought back to Europe. It was later shipped to Africa and the Caribbean. Marine mammals, such as seals and whales, were important components of the fishing industry. Seals have been hunted for their meat, blubber, and fur for thousands of years; whales were hunted for their meat and oil for hundreds of years. Traditionally, ships that captured whales brought the blubber into port, where it was processed into an oil widely used as lamp fuel.

Fishing Industry

Technological advances in the 17th century permitted ships to process whales on board. Eventually, overfished whale populations in the Arctic and elsewhere disappeared, so whalers had to travel farther to find new fishing grounds. Beginning in the mid-19th century, commercial fishing became more efficient as steam power enabled boats and ships to travel farther and faster. The steam-powered winch made it possible to harvest and process more fish more quickly. Trawlers were launched that could fish in deep oceans, and bottom trawling brought in larger harvests. Improved navigation and understanding of the migratory patterns of fish also increased catches. Coinciding with these changes were improvements in the processing, transporting, and marketing of aquatic foods.

Processing, Transporting, and Marketing Until 200 years ago, most fishers used small boats to catch fish in nearby coastal areas and brought their catch into port for processing daily. Larger boats with improved capabilities were able to travel farther from port, and raw fish were partly processed on board. Today, large industrial fishing vessels process, freeze, and store their catch in holds. When the vessels return to port, their catch may be processed further, such as by canning. About 30% of all seafood is processed into oil and fishmeal used for feeding pets and livestock (particularly pigs and poultry). Historically, aquatic foods were sold at retail by fishmongers in markets and by street vendors in villages and cities. Commercial canning of fish and other aquatic organisms began in the 1820s, enabling fish and seafood to be part of the yearround diet throughout North America and Europe. Canning made it possible to market seafood through grocery stores and, later, supermarkets. To distinguish their products and attract wider audiences, companies developed trademarked designs for their can labels; in the United States, canners also published cookbooklets to teach consumers how to use their products. Clarence Birdseye pioneered methods of freezing fish during the 1920s, and the industrial application of his process rapidly

515

expanded after World War II, as freezers became common in both grocery stores and homes. In the 1950s, frozen fish products, such as fish sticks and fish burgers, were marketed, and the demand for fish increased. Since the late 19th century, improved transportation systems have given people in inland areas access to both fresh and preserved seafood. Fresh oysters harvested in New York’s Chesapeake Bay, for instance, were being shipped hundreds of miles by train to the Midwest by the 1870s. Later, the application of refrigeration technology to ships and railroads enabled fish companies to ship their products thousands of miles. Beginning in the 1960s, the refrigerated shipping container, relayed within a transportation system of trucks, railroads, ships, and airplanes, lowered the cost of transporting fresh fish and seafood. The 20th century saw large-scale improvements in commercial fishing methods. The use of purse seines (nets that close like a purse around a school of fish) increased catches of fish such as anchovies, mackerel, and yellowfin tuna. The 20th century also saw the introduction of mother ships, large vessels that served as seagoing processing plants for fish provided by smaller fishing boats. Improvements in boat design and diesel fuel made it possible (and profitable) for fishing vessels, such as tuna clippers and large trawlers, to travel thousands of miles over a period of months before returning to the home port with their catch.

Fishing Industry Problems and Some Solutions During the 19th century, freshwater streams and lakes were overharvested, to the detriment of fish populations and commercial catches. Government agencies established laws governing commercial and recreational fishing, restricting how, when, where, and how many of certain fish could be caught; the new regulations also required that fishers be licensed. The license fees were used to support enforcement of the regulations and, later, to maintain hatcheries for restocking streams and lakes. Government agencies placed restrictions in coastal areas as well. For instance, abalone, a

516

Fishing Industry

mollusk commonly found along the West Coast of the United States, began to disappear in the late 19th century due to massive harvesting, largely by immigrant Chinese and Japanese skin divers, who dried the meat and shipped it to Asia. In the early 20th century, the California state legislature passed laws limiting abalone harvesting. But when scuba gear enabled divers to go into deeper waters, abalone were taken in record numbers; by 1997, they were near extinction, and the California State Department of Fish and Game halted commercial and private gathering of abalone along the California coast below the San Francisco Bay. Abalone farming began in the 1980s, and commercial coastal farms today produce most of the abalone on the U.S. market. The few abalone hunters who acquire licenses to harvest the shellfish in the wild are heavily restricted as to when and how they can take abalone in the coastal waters. During the 40 years after World War II, seafood harvests quadrupled, due in part to the use of sonar and other fish-finding equipment and techniques. Rot-resistant nylon and other new synthetic fibers were woven into nets large enough to capture whole schools of fish; powerful hydraulic blocks lifted the catch on board. Large drift nets became common, as did miles-long fishing lines, which could hold as many as 2,000 baited hooks. Depending on the desired catch, some long lines sink to the bottom, whereas others are buoyed up with drums to stay near the surface. In addition to marketable fish, drift nets and longlines also catch turtles, sharks, marlins, and other noncommercial sea life. Today, varying estimates suggest that from 25% to 44% of all catches are unsaleable and are tossed overboard. Today, the fishing industry still faces serious problems with overharvesting. Estimates vary, but most scientists believe that production of major commercial fisheries is now at or beyond sustainable limits.

Aquaculture Aquaculture is the cultivation, under controlled conditions, of aquatic organisms, including fish

(most notably salmon, tuna, carp, tilapia, catfish, cod, bream, and trout), crustaceans (particularly shrimp), mollusks (mainly oysters, clams, cockles, scallops, and mussels), and plants (mainly the types of seaweed used for human food, but also algae). These aquatic organisms are farmed in natural or artificial bodies of water: oceans, bays, estuaries, lakes, man-made ponds, rivers, inland saltwater wells, and concrete, steel, or fiberglass tanks. Saltwater aquaculture is also called mariculture. The Chinese were pioneers in aquaculture, and they have farmed fish, notably carp, for thousands of years. Elsewhere in the world, fish farming played a minor role until the 20th century; in the 1970s, when the dangers of overfishing became apparent, aquaculture increased dramatically. In some areas, and for particular species (e.g., trout, carp, salmon, tilapia, catfish, cod, and tuna) as well as crustaceans, mollusks, frogs, and other aquatic animals (sea cucumbers, sea urchins and jellyfish, etc.), aquaculture has proved an effective and profitable way to bring palatable protein to the market at reasonable prices. Even aquatic plants, such as seaweed, algae, and plankton, are now grown under controlled conditions. Salmon is the biggest success story in the farming of finfish; global consumption of farmed salmon totals 12% of the total value of all fishery products. In the United States, salmon purchases have increased 400% over the past 30 years; the United States is now the third largest per capita consumer of salmon, after the European Union and Japan. Although the United States is the world’s largest producer of wild salmon, the salmon market is increasingly controlled by farmraised salmon imported from Canada, Chile, and elsewhere. Today, much of the world’s farmed salmon is processed where it is raised; most of the salmon sent to the United States is in the form of boneless fillets. The Japanese have experimented with tuna farms since the 1970s, and by the 1980s they had discovered how to get bluefin tuna to spawn in captivity. Japanese bluefin farms produced their first commercial fish in 2004. Since then, some 400,000 bluefin have been raised this way, mainly

Fishing Industry

in Japan. The fish are marketed as “farm raised” and priced at about 30% less than wild bluefin tuna. Today, there are many tuna “farms” being operated in tanks about 100 feet in diameter. The farmed fish are now served in a few American restaurants. There is also a system called “capture-based” tuna, in which young fish are caught at sea and then raised on fish farms. This method is currently used in Malta, Spain, Greece, Croatia, Australia, and Mexico. Some of the operations are run jointly with American companies. On one Baja California fish farm, juvenile bluefin captured off the coast of Ensenada are fattened in pens for 3 to 4 months. They are fed mainly sardines caught in the area. When fresh sardines are not available, the tuna are sometimes fed frozen sardines shipped from Los Angeles, California. Most of the bluefin raised in Baja California is sent to Japan; small amounts are sent to Mexico and the Los Angeles area. Other capture-based operations are under way around the Pacific Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. In 2009, a company called Hawaii Oceanic Technology gained approval from Hawaii regulators to create an “environmentally friendly open-ocean farm” off the coast of Hawaii; the farm will artificially hatch bigeye tuna and raise the fish until they are about 100 pounds. The new endeavor is expected to generate about 6,000 tons of bigeye tuna per year. Other fish and seafood species, including striped bass, haddock, hake, halibut, cod, arctic char, clams, and scallops, are increasingly being farmed. Advocates of aquaculture see this as the best way of meeting the world’s increasing demand for seafood and believe that the industry’s growth is sustainable. The aquaculture boom of the past 40 years has been tagged the “blue revolution,” and it may eventually be as successful as the “Green Revolution” has been for farmers in the developing world. The explosive growth of the aquaculture industry has generated mounting criticism of its social, economic, environmental, and other consequences. Critics have many concerns. One is about escapees from fish farms. For instance, some Atlantic salmon

517

farmed in British Columbia or Chile have been released inadvertently into the Pacific Ocean. Although Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon cannot crossbreed, environmentalists fear that cultured salmon can contribute to the loss or depletion of wild salmon through competition for food and the spread of parasites and diseases. Yet another concern is that farm-raised seafood lacks the flavor and texture of seafood harvested from the wild, as some claim. But there are those who warn of potential environmental problems, such as habitat interactions and pollution. Intensive aquaculture increases the risk of infections by parasites, bacteria, and protozoa. Salmon farming uses open-net cages, which keeps costs down but presents a risk to local fish populations: The confined fish generate high levels of disease and sea lice, which can spread to the wild salmon in the area. Those opposed to aquaculture also cite human health risks, such as the effects of fungicides and parasiticides that are used in developing countries even though they are banned in the United States. These can persist in the flesh of farmed fish, with possible adverse effects on the people who eat it. Proponents of aquaculture point out that many wild fish and shellfish species have been severely overfished and that farming reduces pressure on wild stocks, allowing ecosystems to replenish them eventually. Another argument is that fish require much less feed—some of which can come from the ocean—than do cattle, swine, or poultry and that aquaculture thus helps preserve other food supplies. Fish “ranching” is the latest arrival in the fishery industry. In one method, schools of small juvenile fish, such as yellowfin tuna, are surrounded and brought into a controlled area, where they are fed until they reach a saleable size. Another type of ranching involves anadromous fish, such as salmon, which are kept in captivity for the first few years of their lives and then released into rivers that lead to the ocean. The salmon are harvested as adults when they swim up the rivers to spawn. Yet another type of ranching, still being perfected, permits fish such as cod to roam freely once they have

518

Fishing Industry

been trained to return to a particular spot for feeding and eventual harvesting. Aquaculture is the world’s fastest growing animal food–producing sector, having grown at an annual rate of 8.3% for the past 40 years. Today, it accounts for 45.7% of all aquatic foods consumed in the world.

The Fishing Industry Today Until the Great Depression, which began in 1929, thousands of companies throughout the world caught, processed, farmed, and transported aquatic foods. During the Depression, many fishing companies failed, while others combined to form larger corporations. Worldwide centralization of the fishing industry continued after World War II, and a few countries have come to dominate the fish and seafood market. China, for instance, has increased from an estimated 7% of the world’s total production to 35%. Today, it is the world’s largest producer of fishery products, mainly because of the explosive growth of its aquaculture. China produces an estimated 70% of all farmed seafood in the world and almost 10 times as much as the second largest producer, India. Other countries specialize in particular products. Almost 90% of the world’s shrimp production originates in aquaculture, mainly in developing countries, particularly Thailand. The fishing industry remains an extremely important commercial activity that affects the livelihoods of millions of people the world over. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization, the fishing industry generated an estimated $218 billion in 2010. It supplied 128 million tons of fish and fishery products for human consumption in 2011. About 90 million tons of products such as salmon, herring, halibut, sole, cod, mackerel, perch, hake, haddock, whiting, pollock, tuna, oysters, mussels, clams, scallops, lobsters, crabs, crayfish, shrimp, and prawns came from the capture fishing industry; an additional 48 million tons were produced by aquaculture. During the past decade, the amount of capture fish has remained relatively constant, while the amount of farmed fish and fishery products has

increased rapidly since 1961. The total global production of fish and other aquatic food from inland waters has increased since 2000: An estimated 11 million tons were produced in 2010, up 30% from 2004. This increase has been largely due to aquaculture. Worldwide per capita consumption of fish and fishery products has doubled since the 1960s, and they now provide an estimated 15% to 20% of the animal protein consumed by humans. Andrew F. Smith See also Aquaculture/Fish Farming; Fisheries Certification Programs; Fishing Policies; Overfishing and Fisheries Depletion

Further Readings Arthur, R., & Nierentz, J. (2007). Global Trade Conference on Aquaculture: 29–31 May 2007, Qingdao, China (FAO Fisheries and Proceedings No. 9). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Bailey, K. M. (2013). Billion-dollar fish: The untold story of Alaska pollock. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bjørndal, T., & Munro, G. R. (2012). The economics and management of world fisheries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Engle, C. R. (2010). Aquaculture economics and financing: Management and analysis. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2013). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture—2012. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from www.fao.org/docrep/016/ i2727e/i2727e.pdf Jacques, P. J. (2003). Ocean politics and policy: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Kelly, A. M., & Jeffrey, S. (Eds.). (2005). Aquaculture in the 21st century. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Lichatowich, J. (1999). Salmon without rivers: A history of the Pacific salmon crisis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Lovatelli, A., & Holthus, P. F. (Eds.). (2008). Capturebased aquaculture: Global overview (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 508). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Fishing Policies Montgomery, D. R. (2003). King of fish: The thousandyear run of salmon. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Nash, C. E. (2011). The history of aquaculture. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell. Pitre, G. (1993). The crawfish book: The story of man and mudbugs. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. Smith, A. F. (2012). American tuna: The rise and fall of an improbable food. Berkeley: University of California Press.

FISHING POLICIES Fishing policies are laws, regulations, or agreements established by regional, national, and international governmental bodies that specify what, where, when, and how aquatic organisms may be harvested from freshwater bodies, coastal areas, and oceans. These include national trade policies such as subsidies for fishers and tariffs, duties, or restrictions on the importation of fish and seafood. During the 19th century, commercial harvesting methods became more efficient, and freshwater harvests declined as more fish and shellfish were removed than were replaced naturally. Local and national governments started to establish laws that restricted commercial activities, regulating when, what quantities of, and by what methods certain fish and other aquatic organisms could be caught and requiring sport and commercial fishermen to be licensed. The license fees were often employed to enforce the regulations and, later, to fund restocking of streams and lakes. This entry discusses various policies that have been implemented primarily for managing commercial harvesting throughout the world and their impact on the populations of aquatic animals.

Coastal Fishing Policies Regional and national governments began to regulate and limit fishing and harvesting in coastal areas in the late 19th century. The coastal areas of North America, for instance, were home to some of the world’s largest seafood populations, including shad, herring, sturgeon, bass, salmon, trout,

519

mackerel, tuna, halibut, sheepshead, carp, snook, pike, flounder, eel, and lamprey, as well as turtles, seals, and whales. Also plentiful were aquatic invertebrates, such as crustaceans (shrimp, prawns), cephalopods (squid, octopus), and mollusks (clams, mussels, oysters). The Hudson estuary and Chesapeake Bay had among the largest oyster populations in the world. Overharvesting greatly reduced these populations. Oysters were harvested with dredges, which quickly exhausted the beds in many areas. In New York Bay, production rapidly declined beginning in the 1840s. The oyster beds in the Harlem River were closed in the 1870s due to pollution. Industrial pollutants, untreated human waste, and runoff from farms and city streets drained into the bay. When a typhus outbreak in the 1890s was attributed to oysters, more beds were closed by health officials. By 1916, most of the oyster beds in New York Bay were closed for health reasons and due to overharvesting. Although new beds have since been planted to help remove pollutants from the waters, the oysters are not safe to eat, and the beds remain closed to commercial exploitation. In the Chesapeake Bay, the littoral states (Virginia and Maryland) passed laws in the mid-19th century to regulate fishing resources, particularly oysters, and sanctuaries for oyster beds were established, but the regulations were not strictly enforced. Oyster production dropped beginning in the 1890s. During the 1950s, oyster diseases struck the bay’s oysters, and harvests plummeted. Today, Chesapeake Bay continues to produce oysters, although most of them come from aquaculture operations. Abalone, a common shellfish along the West Coast of the United States, began to disappear in the late 19th century. The California state legislature passed laws restricting the number of abalone that could be gathered. When scuba gear made it possible to harvest abalone in deeper water, they were taken in record numbers; by 1997, abalone was near extinction, and the California State Department of Fish and Game halted both commercial and private gathering of abalone along the California coast below the mouth of San Francisco Bay. Since the 1980s, abalone is being raised by mariculture on farms, which today produce most of the abalone consumed in the United States.

520

Fishing Policies

Tragic events that occurred in the early 1950s around Minamata Bay in Japan gave rise to a new set of restrictions in the fishing industry. In 1953, people living near the bay began showing signs of a grave and mysterious illness that eventually killed at least 2,265 of them. It took years to determine that the cause was mercury in the waste discharged from industrial plants sited near the bay; people who ate fish from the local waters were poisoned by it. Following this disaster, methylmercury poisonings have been uncovered in diverse locations such as the Faroe Islands in the North Sea, the Amazon River basin, and Sweden. In the 1960s, Canadian researchers began evaluating mercury contamination in freshwater bodies and rivers where industries had discharged waste. They found extremely high levels of mercury in fish in Lake St. Clair, Cedar Lake, the Saskatchewan River, the Red River, and, subsequently, many other rivers and lakes. Scientists found similar problems in other countries. When bodies of water were discovered to be polluted, fishing there was outlawed or restricted.

Transboundary Fishing Policies Special policies relate to rivers and lakes that are shared between two or more countries. Russia and Persia (after 1953, known in the West as Iran), for instance, signed multiple treaties beginning in 1813, giving Russia control of the Caspian Sea and permitting Russian fishing vessels to fish throughout the sea. The Soviet Union and Persia signed additional treaties beginning in 1921. A 1953 agreement set up a joint Soviet–Iranian company to fish in the southern part of the Caspian Sea. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1992, the five littoral nations that surround that sea have yet to establish an agreement, although some have engaged in bilateral treaties. In 1996, Russia and Iran signed an agreement creating a joint RussianIranian Fisheries Commission. The United States and Canada have signed treaties regulating fishing on the Great Lakes, which are shared by the two countries. The most recent agreement, the Convention on Great Lakes

Fisheries, was ratified in 1955. It created a commission to coordinate research, control invasive fishing, and promote fishery management.

Creation of Economic Exclusion Zones Until the second half of the 20th century, national governments recognized a 3-mile limit to their territory in coastal waters, and national or local government policies were developed with regard to fishing or gathering seafood within that zone. Beyond the 3-mile limit was the open ocean, where fishing, whaling, and other harvesting activities were unregulated by any country or organization. This was based on the concept of “freedom of the seas,” which has dominated fishing policy in the world’s oceans. It was popularized by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch jurist, who concluded in his book Mare Liberum (1609) that the high seas were not owned by any individual or nation and were therefore available for all to navigate and exploit as they wished. This concept was amended in the 18th century, when several nations created “territorial seas” that extended national sovereignty about 3 nautical miles beyond their shores. No nation could transit or exploit the waters in these territorial seas without the permission of the owner country. Problems with this concept began to emerge in the late 19th century, when the United States bought Alaska from Russia. The purchase included the Pribiloff Islands, which had a large seal population, estimated at 4.7 million in 1874. British ships hunted seals outside the 3-mile limit, and when the seals began to disappear, the United States seized the British ships. The British protested. The result was the Treaty of Washington (1892), which limited seal hunting off the coast of the Pribiloff Islands. The treaty, however, did not solve the problem: Japanese and Russian vessels began to capture seals outside the 3-mile limit. By 1907, the seal population on the islands had dropped to an estimated 130,000. In 1911, the four nations signed the North Pacific Sealing Convention, which regulated seal hunting outside the 3-mile limit. Seal hunting declined as the

Fishing Policies

century progressed. Because seals are killed in a particularly brutal fashion, some nations and the European Union have restricted seal hunting and the trading and promoting of seal products, such as meat and fur. Another problem emerged with the Pacific halibut. In 1923, the United States and Canada created the International Halibut Commission, which set dates limiting the halibut fishing season. The commission’s management of halibut stocks was successful until more ships began to fish for them. By the 1980s, 4,000 ships were fishing for halibut, and they were using longlines—miles long in some cases. Halibut stocks rapidly declined. The commission responded in the 1990s by reducing the halibut fishing period from several months to, in some places, a single day. A similar problem emerged related to the Alaskan salmon, a migratory anadromous fish. Salmon typically spawn in rivers and streams, migrate to saltwater, and finally return to spawn in freshwater rivers. They are particularly vulnerable to capture when they come up from the continental shelf and head into rivers to spawn. During the 1920s, the Japanese began experimenting with the combination of fishing trawlers, which towed large nets for fishing in deep water, and large mother ships, on which vast quantities of fish caught by the trawlers could be processed and frozen. Japanese fishing trawlers began to catch salmon beyond the 3-mile territorial limit off the coast in Bristol Bay, Alaska. When salmon runs dropped during the 1930s, American fishers blamed the Japanese for the depletion of these stocks. American salmon fishers pressured the U.S. government to declare sovereignty over the ocean out to the continental shelf, which would place most of the valuable Alaskan salmon areas under American control. Bills were introduced in Congress to accomplish this, but none were passed. As World War II was ending, in September 1945, U.S. president Harry Truman issued the Fisheries Proclamation (Proclamation 2668), which established “conservation zones in those areas of the high seas contiguous to the coasts of the United States wherein fishing activities have

521

been or in the future may be developed and maintained on a substantial scale.” This proclamation noted that the “legitimate” fishing rights of other nations would be regulated by mutual agreement. Mexican leaders liked the concept, and on October 29, 1945, the president of Mexico signed a single proclamation claiming jurisdiction over Mexico’s continental shelf and the fisheries therein. The United States gave a qualified acceptance of Mexico’s action, provided Mexico gave “adequate recognition” to American “fishing interests in the area affected by the establishment of such zones” (Selak, 1950, pp. 674–675). Argentina then followed suit with its own declaration of coastal sovereignty. The Chilean government saw this as a way to solve the problem of Russian whalers fishing and whaling just beyond Chile’s 3-mile limit. Issuing a proclamation to cover just the continental shelf, however, would not solve their problem, because the continental shelf on the western coast of South America is very narrow—in some places only a few miles wide. In June 1947, Chile simply declared its control of resources out to 200 nautical miles, “placing within the control of the government especially all fisheries and whaling activities with the object of preventing . . . exploitation . . . to the detriment of the inhabitants of Chile” (Loring, 1971, pp. 399–400). Other nations followed Chile’s lead. The United States and other countries formally protested these declarations of 200-mile maritime zones in July 1948, claiming that these decisions “differ in large measure from those of the United States Proclamations and appear to be at variance with the generally accepted principles of international law” (Selak, 1950, p. 674). The United States and several Latin American countries engaged in conflict related to American tuna boats fishing within these 200-mile zones. Four different fishing wars have erupted between the United Kingdom and Iceland over cod fishing. Beginning in the 1950s, Iceland declared control of fishing within 4 miles of its coast, and it then successively expanded control to 12 miles, 50 miles, and finally 200 miles. British fishing boats, which

522

Fishing Policies

had plied those areas for hundreds of years, requested help from the British navy, and shots were fired between British and Icelandic ships. The issue was finally resolved in 1976 with a victory for Iceland that effectively spelled the end of British deep-sea fishing. By the early 1970s, the 200-mile limit was accepted by many nations around the world. The United States finally accepted the limit in 1976, when Congress passed the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, which created a 197-mile zone surrounding the United States beyond the existing 3-mile international boundary. Only U.S. or U.S.-authorized vessels could fish within this zone. Control within this area extended only to sedentary fish; the act specifically excluded highly migratory fish, which U.S. authorities believed should be managed internationally. Other nations maintained control of all migratory aquatic animals within 200 miles of their coast. In 1982, the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Seas established economic exclusion zones that gave nations exclusive rights to the fish and seafood within the 200 miles of their coast.

Regional Fisheries Management Organizations In 1974, the United Nations Environmental Programme created a Regional Seas Programme that divided the world’s oceans into sectors, each with an organization responsible for managing its fish stocks. (Not all areas of the oceans are currently covered by these organizations.) These include the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, the South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, the Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, and the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea. In 1982, the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Seas also acknowledged the existence of species-specific organizations, such as the International Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, and the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme. Region-specific and species-specific organizations are collectively called Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). They operate independently and make their own rules, sometimes creating difficulties for ships that operate in more than one region. RFMO decision makers include members from fishing industries as well as governmental authorities and fishery experts. In most RFMOs, members must reach a unanimous agreement when setting fishery targets and limitations. Critics have claimed that this gives too much power to the fishing industries, which can block tight restrictions and quota limits. RFMOs have no enforcement capabilities, however, and member nations are responsible for implementation of agreements. Considerable illegal, unreported, and undocumented (IUU) fishing and harvesting continues. By one estimate, more southern bluefin are sold annually in Japanese wholesale fish markets than the total fish reported as caught by all vessels providing fish for those markets. The reasons for IUU fishing are many: lax enforcement of regulations, boats from countries that are not RFMO members fishing within those regions, owners who register their ships in countries with lax regulations (called “flags of convenience”), and wholesale markets that do not ask where the fish came from or how it was caught. The high prices paid for seafood make IUU fishing extremely lucrative. As a result, many commonly marketed aquatic species are currently stressed or overfished. As fish and shellfish populations have dwindled worldwide, nations established specific conservation zones and marine-protected areas, such as parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Similar conservation areas were established around the spawning areas for particular species, such as the bluefin tuna spawning areas in the western Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. Today, there are 6,800 internationally recognized marine protected areas around the world, and they encompass more than 1% of the world’s oceans. In addition,

Fishing Policies

nations have established conservation zones with limits on fishing and harvesting.

Policies Affecting Cod, Alaska Pollock, and Whales Canada established a 200-mile exclusive economic zone in 1977, giving that country control of the Grand Banks, which are submerged shallow plateaus off the coast of Newfoundland. For more than 500 years, the fish resources—particularly cod—of the Grand Banks have been exploited by many nations, including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, and Spain. Beginning in the 1950s, much larger ships and new fishing technologies—such as sonar to locate schools of fish, larger and stronger nets, dredges, and hydraulic-powered winches to pull the nets on board—allowed the capture of much greater quantities of cod. In 1968, the cod catch was 810,000 tons, but then it began to decrease, eventually dropping to 1% of its previous size by the 1990s. Canada closed the Grand Banks to cod fishing in 1992, resulting in the loss of an estimated 35,000 jobs in Newfoundland alone. Despite a continuing moratorium, the cod population around the Grand Banks has not recovered. As cod catches declined, Alaska pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) in the North Pacific emerged as the fish of choice. Its eggs were sold in Asia, and its white flesh was used for fillets and for making fish products. The catches of pollock in one region in international waters, called the Donut Hole, peaked in 1987 at 340,000 tons, and then the fishery collapsed; by 1992, catches had dropped to 241 tons. Nations that fished in the area signed the Convention on the Conservation and Management of the Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea in 1994, which ended all fishing in the area. Whales have been hunted for their meat and oil for thousands of years. Traditionally, ships captured whales and brought the blubber to port, where it was processed into oil. Technological shifts in the 17th century permitted European ships to capture and process whales on board, and traditional stocks of whales, such as those in the

523

Arctic, disappeared, forcing fishers to travel farther in their pursuit. New technologies in the 19th century further increased the catch, and as a result, whale stocks declined throughout the world. After World War II, whaling nations established the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to set total catch limits for whales as well as rules regarding particular species that were the most stressed. Despite reductions in the allowable catch, whale populations continued to decline as those limits were violated. One clear offender was the Soviet Union, as documents proved after the collapse of the Soviet Union. For decades, Soviet vessels flouted quotas and caught the species of whales that were the most threatened. The continued steep decline of the whale population led the IWC in 1985 to place a moratorium on the capture of all whales for commercial purposes, but it did leave loopholes for scientific research and for indigenous peoples to catch whales. Whalers from several nations, including Japan, Norway, and Iceland, have caught whales for supposedly scientific purposes. However, few scientific studies have emanated from these efforts, while considerable whale meat was placed on the market.

Other Policies Yet other types of fishing policies set by national governments relate to subsidies given to fishers, loans for fishers to purchase boats, and research into fisheries for fishers to improve their catch. To protect local commercial activities and to generate funds, national governments have also restricted the type and amount of fish and seafood imported from other countries, often setting tariffs on imports as well. For instance, during the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the U.S. Congress enacted tariffs on imported tuna from Japan to protect American fishers. When World War II ended in 1945, many economists and world leaders believed that national protection of industries, including fishing, would in the long run be inefficient and harmful to the economies of all nations. International trade, they

524

Fishing Policies

felt, should be based on comparative advantage, permitting each nation to do what it did best. They also believed in the postwar period that the best way to revive the world’s economy was to increase international trade, and that cutting tariffs would help achieve this. These views led to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was formed in 1947 to lower tariffs and increase international trade. As a result, world trade increased dramatically, boosting the economies of many nations, including the United States. As a result, the United States gave concessions to Japan and other nations that exported tuna to the United States. Fourteen years before the IWC set its moratorium on whaling, the U.S. Congress passed the Marine Mammals Protection Act, which restricted American vessels from capturing any whale species, including dolphins and other related sea mammals. The reason for including dolphins related to yellowfin tuna. Since the 1930s, fishers in the eastern tropical Pacific had captured large numbers of dolphins, which for unknown reasons congregated with yellowfin tuna. The air-breathing dolphins were caught in the nets, and as the fishers hauled in the nets, the dolphins drowned. As there was no market for dolphins, their bodies were discarded overboard. By the 1960s, some dolphin species became highly stressed due to fishing for yellowfin tuna. The passage of the Marine Mammals Protection Act was strongly supported by environmental groups in the United States, which continued to advocate against the needless slaughter of dolphins. As the American tuna fleet declined, the environmentalists encouraged the U.S. government to prevent the importation of yellowfin tuna from other countries if it involved dolphins dying in the process. In 1990, the United States embargoed tuna imported from Mexico on the grounds that Mexican tuna boats refused to follow dolphin-safe techniques. Mexican government leaders believed that this was an attempt by the United States to protect its tuna industry at the expense of Mexican tuna fishing. They tried to end the boycott quietly behind the scenes, but when the United States refused to budge, Mexico challenged the ban as a

violation of the free trade provisions, and the GATT resolution of the dispute ruled against the United States. Before the ruling took effect, the United States agreed to end the boycott provided that no more than 5,000 dolphins were killed annually, but it would not permit the “dolphinsafe” label to be used on cans of yellowfin tuna that had been caught at the expense of dolphins. In 1993, GATT members established the World Trade Organization (WTO), a multinational organization, in a binding permanent agreement between the signatories. Unlike GATT, which dealt with trade disputes through mediation, the WTO had a mechanism to resolve disputes. In 1994, Mexico filed a complaint with the WTO, alleging in part that American consumers were misled by the dolphin-safe labels. After an extensive review, the WTO found that the U.S. dolphin-safe labeling violated trade rules and discriminated unfairly against Mexican tuna products. The United States appealed the decision, and in 2012 the WTO Appellate Body ruled against the United States. In 2013, the United States appealed that decision. Forty years after the tuna–dolphin controversy first erupted, the issues have not yet been resolved. Although shifts since the early 1990s in the methods used by purse seiners in the eastern tropical Pacific to catch yellowfin tuna have greatly reduced dolphin mortality, the spotted dolphin population has not recovered, and other dolphin populations remain stressed.

European Union The European Economic Community (EEC), today the European Union, began to establish fishing policies in 1970. It created free trade in fish and fish products with common rules among EEC members. The EEC extended its fishing limits from 12 miles to 200 nautical miles in 1976, which required more complex policies. In 1983, a Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was formulated to govern fishing within the EEC; the CFP granted fishers access to all waters (with some exceptions) of all member nations. The CFP, however, did not help prevent conflict among EEC members. In 1995, for

Food Additives

example, the United Kingdom took Canada’s side in the “Greenland halibut war” with Spain, which began when a Canadian coast guard cutter fired a shot across the bow of a Spanish trawler fishing illegally in Canadian waters. Canadians then boarded the trawler and arrested its captain. Spain retaliated by sending naval ships to the area, as did Canada. The dispute was eventually settled peacefully through negotiations. New European Union regulations addressing the continued decline in fishery stocks are currently under discussion. Andrew F. Smith

525

Nash, C. E. (2011). The history of aquaculture. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell. Selak, C. B., Jr. (1945). Recent developments in high seas fisheries jurisdiction under the Presidential Proclamation of 1945. American Journal of International Law, 44, 670–681. Smith, A. F. (2012). American tuna: The rise and fall of an improbable food. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stoett, P. J. (1997). The international politics of whaling. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: UBC Press. Young, M. A. (2011). Trading fish, saving fish: The interaction between regimes in international law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

See also Aquaculture/Fish Farming; Fishing for Sport; Fishing Industry

FOOD ADDITIVES Further Readings Barkin, J. S., & DeSombre, E. R. (2013). Saving global fisheries: Reducing fishing capacity to promote sustainability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bjørndal, T., & Munro, G. R. (2012). The economics and management of world fisheries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bogue, M. B. (2000). Fishing the Great Lakes: An environmental history, 1783–1933. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Clover, C. (2006). The end of the line: How overfishing is changing the world and what we eat. New York, NY: New Press. Hilborn, R., & Ulrike, H. (2012). Overfishing: What everyone needs to know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kelly, A. M., & Jeffrey, S. (Eds.). (2005). Aquaculture in the 21st century. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Lequesne, C. (2004). The politics of fisheries in the European Union. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Longhurst, A. R. (2010). Mismanagement of marine fisheries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Loring, D. C. (1971).The United States–Peruvian “fisheries” dispute. Stanford Law Review, 23, 391–453. Montgomery, D. R. (2003). King of fish: The thousandyear run of salmon. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

While the legal definition and regulation of food additives are different among countries and trading blocs, in its broadest sense, food additives are any substance, natural or artificial, added to food to achieve a particular technical effect. The use of food additives is not a modern practice. Since ancient times, people have used salt to preserve food, spices to enhance flavor, and various other additives to change the appearance of foods, such as saffron to lend a golden hue. Due to the ubiquity of processed foods, the worldwide food additives consumption dramatically increased throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. As the use of food additives became prevalent and the global food market expanded, national and international governmental bodies have developed food additives regulations. This entry explains the commercial use, regulation, and economic significance of food additives as they relate to the global food industry today.

The Function of Food Additives There are six general categories of food additives: (1) preservatives, (2) coloring agents, (3) flavoring agents, (4) texturizing agents, (5) processing agents, and (6) nutritional additives. Many additives have one or more functions.

526

Food Additives

Food preservatives extend the shelf life of products and slow product spoilage caused by mold, air, bacteria, fungi, or yeast. Preservatives are classified into two main groups: antioxidants and antimicrobials. Antioxidants are compounds that delay or prevent the deterioration of foods. They prevent fats from becoming rancid in foods and fresh-cut fruits from turning brown when exposed to air. Antimicrobial agents, often used in snack and convenience foods, inhibit the growth of foodborne pathogens and food spoilage organisms. Coloring agents restore the original color of food after processing and enhance the visual appeal. Natural colorants are derived from plant, animal, and mineral sources, while synthetic colorants are petroleum-based chemicals. Compared with synthetic colors, natural colors are unstable on exposure to light and heat, less consistent in color intensities, and sometimes accompanied by flavors and odors. Many natural colorants are insoluble in water and must be added with an emulsifier to evenly distribute the substances in the food. Synthetic colorants became widely available as substitutes for natural pigments in the late 19th century. Over the past several years, however, manufacturers are shifting from synthetic to natural colorants due to consumers’ concerns about artificial substances. Flavoring agents are the largest group of food additives: More than 1,700 flavoring substances are commercially available. There are three major types of flavoring additives: (1) natural and synthetic flavors, (2) flavor enhancers, and (3) sweeteners. Natural and artificial flavorings impart odor and taste to foods. For instance, cinnamic aldehyde gives a cinnamon flavor and isoamyl acetate a banana flavor. Flavoring enhancers, such as glutamic acid, do not have any flavor or taste of their own and are used to magnify or improve the flavor of foods. Among sweeteners, nutritional sweeteners, such as sucrose, glucose, and fructose, are usually considered as ingredients rather than additives because they are consumed as foods, as well as added to other products. Artificial sweeteners, including aspartame and sucralose, offer few calories and are called nonnutritive sweeteners. Since

the late 20th century, the commercial use of artificial sweeteners has surged due to consumer demand for low-calorie foods and beverages. While flavoring additives constitute the greatest number of additives, the food industry uses texturizing agents in the greatest total quantity. Texturizing additives, including emulsifiers, thickeners, and stabilizers, add, modify, and stabilize the texture of foods. Emulsifiers, for example, encourage the mixing of normally incompatible ingredients, such as oil and water in salad dressings and mayonnaise, preventing the separation of ingredients. A number of agents are used to aid in processing to add or maintain desired qualities. For instance, anticaking agents, including sodium alumino silicate, prevent the formation of lumps and keep ingredients flowing freely in the mixture of ingredients. Leavening agents, such as sodium bicarbonate and baking powder, help foods rise during baking. Other additives, including fumaric acid and lactic acid, are used to alter the acidity or alkalinity of foods for better flavor and color. Manufacturers utilize nutritional additives, including vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids, to improve nutritional value or make up for those lost in processing. Vitamin C is added to dairy products, breakfast cereals, fruit beverages, and confections. The fortification and enrichment of foods have increased in recent years because consumers have become more concerned about nutritional values of food. Nutrient additives are used not only for providing nutrients but also for other technical purposes. Vitamins C and E, for instance, can be used as antioxidants.

Safety and Regulation Beginning in the late 19th century, there have been increasing concerns about potential risks of consuming food additives. Toxicological studies have shown that some artificial additives are linked to cancer, digestive problems, neurological conditions, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, heart disease, or obesity. To protect public health and regulate food business practices, national and municipal governments have developed food safety

Food Additives

standards and regulations. In 1860, the United Kingdom enacted the first national law against food adulteration, the Adulteration of Food and Drink Act, and a revised Adulteration of Food Act in 1872. In the United States, Congress enacted the Pure Food and Drugs Act in 1906, the first federal regulation that outlawed the sale of adulterated food and drugs in interstate commerce. Today, at the international level, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), established in 1956, conducts the evaluation of the safety of food additives and determines the acceptable daily intake values for food additives. The acceptable daily intake is the amount of a substance that people can consume on a daily basis during a lifetime without any adverse risk to health. To harmonize food additives standards in various countries, JECFA provides the FAO, the WHO, and their member countries with recommendations on the use of food additives based on current scientific data. Likewise, JECFA offers scientific advice for the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), an FAO/WHO subsidiary body established in 1963 to protect consumer health, to ensure fair-trade practices in food trade, and to promote coordination of food standards in various countries. The CAC develops a collection of food standards and guidelines, called the Codex Alimentarius, including the use of food additives. Although the CAC recommends member countries to adopt national food standards in accordance with the Codex Alimentarius, definitions and regulations of food additives vary from country to country due to different legislation systems, food cultures, and economic and social conditions. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the primary legal responsibility for determining the safe use of food and color additives. Congress enacted the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act in 1938 as an amendment to the 1906 act. In 1958, Congress specifically addressed food additives for the first time in federal regulation with the Food Additive Amendments to the 1938 FD&C Act and then in 1960 with the Color Additive Amendments.

527

Beginning in 1958, a manufacturer that wants to market a new food additive must prove the substance to be safe and petition the FDA for its approval prior to its commercial use. The FD&C Act (section 201 (s)) defines food additives as any substance the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food. Based on their technical effect, Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations recognizes 32 categories of additives. Among them are anticaking agents, antioxidants, emulsifiers, enzymes, and texturizers. Pesticide chemicals and color additives are not considered as food additives as they fall under separate regulations. U.S. food additives regulation covers not only so-called direct additives, substances intentionally added to food, but also indirect additives that become part of the food in packaging, storage, or other handling. Food packaging manufacturers must prove to the FDA that all materials coming in contact with foods are safe before their commercial use. There are two categories of food additives that are exempted from the regulation in the 1958 Amendment: (1) prior sanctioned items and (2) generally recognized as safe (GRAS) items. The former category is substances that the FDA or U.S. Department of Agriculture had determined as safe for use in specific foods prior to 1958, such as sodium nitrite and potassium nitrite used to preserve luncheon meats. GRAS substances, including sucrose (sugar), spices, and vitamins, are distinguished from food additives on the basis of the common knowledge about the safety of the substance. It is the use of a substance, rather than the substance itself, that is eligible for the GRAS exemption. The scientific data and information about the use of a substance must be widely known. For instance, information about its safety and effects can be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Moreover, there must be a consensus among qualified experts about the data. In 1997, the FDA introduced a GRAS notification program, replacing the existing affirmation process. Manufacturers voluntarily notify the FDA of

528

Food Additives

ingredients they consider safe by submitting published research and expert opinion instead of petitioning the agency for approval. The FDA regulates color additives separately, because they are used not only in foods but also in drugs and cosmetics. The FD&C Act (section 201 (t)) defines color additives as any dye, pigment, or substance that imparts color when added to a product. There is no GRAS exemption to the definition of color additives. Colors permitted for use in foods are classified as certified or exempt from certification. Certified colors are synthetic substances, tested by the manufacturer and the FDA on their safety. Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations identifies nine certified colors approved for use in foods in the United States (as of July 2013). The FDA assigns FD&C numbers for colorants approved for use in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. For instance, “FD&C Red No. 3” stands for erythrosine and “FD&C Yellow No. 5” for tartrazine. These numbers are listed on a product label along with other ingredients and food additives. Pigments derived from natural sources, such as vegetables, minerals, or animals, are colors exempt from certification as they are commonly known to be safe for consumption. In Europe, many countries use a standardized numbering system that provides a simple designation of substances added to food. They use the E number to name substances that may otherwise be lengthy names. The European Food Safety Authority assigns all permitted food additives a unique number, three or four digits with a prefix E, such as E200 for sorbic acid and E621 for monosodium glutamate. The numbering scheme follows the International Numbering System, a Europe-based numbering system for food additives, defined by the CAC. The E system is also used outside Europe, including Israel, Australia, and New Zealand (Australia and New Zealand use the numbering system without the prefix). The European Union (EU) carries out four major regulations concerning food additives and related substances. The EU regulation does not consider food enzymes or flavorings as food additives and regulates them under separate statutes: Regulation 1332/2008, 1333/2008, and 1334/2008

for enzymes, food additives, and flavorings, respectively. Although the specifics of their regulations are different, the three groups of substances are recognized as food improving agents and apply to a common authorization procedure, stated in Regulation 1331/2008. Regulation 1333/2008 defines food additives as any substance not normally consumed as a food in itself and not normally used as a characteristic ingredient of food whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packaging, transport, or storage of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result, in it or its by-products becoming directly or indirectly a component of such foods. The regulation recognizes 26 functional categories of food additives, including sweeteners, preservatives, and antioxidants. Unlike the United States, the EU regulation regards colorants as food additives. The definition does not include substances that have no technical effect in the final product and present in insignificant amounts, such as processing aids. For instance, antifoaming agents are used to prevent the formation of foam during liquid production but do not affect taste, appearance, or nutritional values of the finished product. Additionally, neither agricultural chemicals nor substances added as nutrients are considered as food additives. Regulation 1332/2008 covers only food enzymes added to food for a technological purpose and excludes those intended for human consumption, such as for nutritional or digestive purposes. Enzymes are proteins that act as catalysts and are used as processing aids: They break down tissue in meat or cell walls in fruit, causing meat to tenderize and fruit to ripen. Two specific enzymes, lysozyme and invertase, that have technical roles in the final product, are regulated as food additives in Regulation 1333/2008. Lysozyme functions as a preservative, and invertase is used to produce sugar from sucrose. Food enzymes used in the production of food additives are also covered by Regulation 1333/2008. Regulation 1334/2008 lays out a regulation about the use of flavorings but not flavor enhancers that are regulated as food

Food Additives

additives in Regulation 1333/2008. Most flavorings are used as mixtures of various substances. Due to the complexity of flavorings used in foods, they do not have E numbers, and food labels indicate simply “flavorings.” Australia and New Zealand have adopted a regulation similar in principle to the EU. The binational government agency Food Standards Australia New Zealand carries out safety assessments of food additives prior to their commercial use in the two countries. Like the EU, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Standard 1.3.1) excludes processing agents and substances added for nutritional purposes from the definition of food additives. While many countries do not specifically regulate food-processing agents, the code (Standard 1.3.3) prohibits their commercial use unless they are given a specific provision for their use. In the regulation of flavoring agents, Food Standards Australia New Zealand incorporates the GRAS list used in the United States and the list of flavoring substances authorized for use in foods established by the Council of Europe. In Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare administers the Food Sanitation Law to regulate the commercial use of food additives. The definition of food additives includes both substances remaining in the finished food products, such as food colors and preservatives, and substances that do not remain in the finished products, including infiltration-supporting agents. While many countries have only one list of permitted additives, Japan has two lists: (1) designated additives and (2) existing food additives. Designated additives are substances whose safety is approved by the Ministry of Health. Existing food additives are natural substances that have a long history of safe usage as food additives. Japanese jurisdiction uniquely classifies postharvest fungicides as food additives. These chemicals are sprayed onto imported agricultural products after harvesting to delay spoilage, while they are rarely used for domestic products in Japan. Exporters must identify on the label the usage of postharvest fungicides. Differences in food additives regulation among countries can be a source of nontariff

529

trade barriers. Food additives are traded not only domestically but also internationally, and food trade may not be allowed if they contain unapproved additives in other nations. In February 2013, Russia decided to ban meat imports from the United States after Russian officials discovered that they contained ractopamine, a chemical that boosts protein synthesis used to make meat leaner. While 24 countries, including the United States and Canada, allow the use of ractopamine, 160 ban it due to health concerns.

Global Food Additives Market The harmonization of food additives regulations is a political and economic agenda for many countries because the worldwide consumption of food additives continues to grow and many food companies benefit from the use of food additives. The global food additives market revenue was US$28.2 billion in 2011 and is expected to reach US$36.1 billion in 2018. Major food additives manufacturers include Givaudan, ADM, BASF, and Danisco. The beverage industry uses the greatest amount of food additives, representing a market exceeding US$1.4 billion annually. Fast foods, packaged foods, and baked goods industries also contribute to the expansion of food additives consumption. The increasing demand is derived primarily from consumers’ interest in low-calorie and low-fat foods, the emergence of value-added products, and the need for convenience. Because of public concerns about food safety and artificial additives, the food industry has increasingly shifted from artificial to natural substances. The global sales of natural colors, for instance, grew nearly 30% between 2007 and 2011. Regionally, Europe is the largest food additives market, accounting for more than 32% of global consumption in 2011. The Asia-Pacific region is expected to be the fastest growing market for food additives in the next several years due to increasing demand from India, China, and South Korea. Ai Hisano See also Artificial Sweeteners; Codex Alimentarius Commission; Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Monosodium Glutamate (MSG); Natural and

530

Food Advertisements in School Hallways and Cafeterias

Artificial Flavors and Fragrances; Packaged Food and Preservatives

Further Readings Boutrif, E. (2003). The new role of Codex Alimentarius in the context of WTO/SPS agreement. Food Control, 14(2), 81–88. doi:10.1016/S0956-7135(02)00113-5 Branen, A. L., Davidson, P. M., Salminen, P., & Thorngate, J. H., III (Eds.). (2002). Food additives. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. De la Peña, C. (2011). Empty pleasures: The story of artificial sweeteners from saccharin to splenda. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Ettlinger, S. (2007). Twinkie, deconstructed: My journey to discover how the ingredients found in processed foods are grown, mined (yes, mined), and manipulated into what America eats. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Hathaway, S. C. (1993). Risk assessment procedures used by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its subsidiary and advisory bodies. Food Control, 4(4), 189–201. doi:10.1016/0956-7135(93)90249-N Hutt, P. B., Merrill, R. A., & Grossman, L. A. (2007). Food and drug law: Cases and materials. New York, NY: Foundation Press. Rulis, A. M., & Levitt J. A. (2008). FDA’s food ingredient approval process: Safety assurance based on scientific assessment. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 53(1), 20–31. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.10.003 Saltmarsh, M. (Ed.). (2013). Essential guide to food additives. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry. Smith, J., & Hong-Shum, L. (Eds.). (2011). Food additives data book. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell.

FOOD ADVERTISEMENTS IN SCHOOL HALLWAYS AND CAFETERIAS The food industry has identified children and adolescents as a major market force, and one of the primary ways in which they have sought to reach them has been through advertising in schools. Particularly since the 1990s, school hallways and cafeterias have become increasingly appealing sites for food marketers because they allow companies to reach a captive audience and build

brand loyalty among young consumers. At the same time, funding shortages and financial vulnerability on the part of schools make marketing agreements attractive for the source of revenue they provide. As childhood obesity and dietrelated diseases in youth have been on the rise, so too have concerns about the relationship between schools and food advertisers. The primary concerns about food advertisements in schools are that they prioritize corporate profit over the health of young people, they offer lower financial returns to schools than are typically assumed, and they generally promote foods that are high in sugar, fat, and sodium. Food advertisements appear in three primary forms within schools: product sales and direct and indirect advertising. This entry outlines these major forms of advertising in school hallways and cafeterias, and it concludes with a discussion of proposed guidelines to limit commercialism in schools.

Product Sales One of the most profitable ways food companies advertise in schools is by selling their products directly to students. Product sales are facilitated in a number of ways, including exclusive contracts that return a share of the profits back to the school, food vendor contracts that allow companies to sell their products directly within the school, short-term school fund-raisers, and programs that award prizes for collecting receipts or proofs of purchase from a specific company. Exclusive contracts have been particularly controversial in the beverage industry, where what are referred to as “pouring rights” are awarded to soft drink companies, usually for an initial lump sum of money that is followed by additional payments over 5 to 10 years. These contracts give companies the right to sell their product exclusively in vending machines and at school events, and they can generate more than $1 million per year for a company in a single school district. The contracts also often give companies the right to display their logos throughout the school, on sportswear, school promotional materials, and buildings. Although the beverage industry began implementing a voluntary

Food Advertisements in School Hallways and Cafeterias

ban on soda sales in schools in 2006, these pouring rights still pertain to sports drinks, juice, diet sodas, bottled water, and other beverages still allowed under the voluntary ban. The greatest concerns with these contracts, which exist in approximately 80% of schools, are that they promote unhealthy soft drink consumption among youth, they do not generate as much profit as is often assumed, and they compromise the integrity and educational mission of schools. Pouring rights contracts often incentivize soft drink sales within schools by offering greater returns to schools if sales exceed target amounts. In these cases, administrators have found themselves in the controversial position of promoting soft drinks to faculty, staff, and students to raise more revenue for their schools. Furthermore, students who attend schools with pouring rights contracts have been found to consume more sugary beverages, in part because the contracts increase the number of vending machines in schools. Finally, although pouring rights contracts have become increasingly attractive to financially struggling schools, they have been found to be less profitable than other forms of fund-raising for schools, as two thirds of the profits go to beverage companies and the profits that do reach schools typically amount to less than a quarter of 1% of a school district’s budget. The second form of product sales within schools, food vendor contracts, allow fast food companies to operate in school cafeterias, school stores, and other locations on school grounds just as they would anywhere else outside of school. About 20% of U.S. high schools sell brand-name fast foods, and as with pouring rights secured by beverage companies, these arrangements also often give the vendor exclusive rights to advertise on campus. A third form of direct sales relies on student time and labor to sell a company’s goods and promote their brands. School fund-raisers (through short-term sales or through rebate programs) promote a company by increasing student exposure to its name and products. While these fund-raisers can be effective for generating the revenue necessary to take school trips, pay for equipment, or

531

cover other necessary expenditures, they typically promote unhealthy foods such as chocolate and candy. Finally, a number of companies offer incentive programs that award prizes or cash awards to students or schools that collect proofs of purchase of their products. For example, one major soup brand has a redemption program that offers equipment ranging from colored pencils to digital camcorders in exchange for food labels. However, the amount of money that would have to be spent on the product to accumulate the necessary number of labels is extremely high: $33,000 for a camcorder and $26 for a single colored pencil. Furthermore, a national study of these programs found that 80% of products promoted through these incentive programs are unhealthy.

Direct Advertising Print and multimedia food advertising also takes place within schools when company names and logos appear in places such as billboards, sports facilities, electronic equipment, buses, school equipment, hall posters, textbook covers, bookmarks, school calendars, newspapers, sports programs, and yearbooks. The most prevalent direct advertisements in schools tend to be for soft drinks, with company names and logos often displayed on scoreboards. One of the most controversial cases of direct advertising involved a food company that paid 10 elementary school teachers in a school district to drive cars to school that advertised a sweetened breakfast cereal. The campaign was supposed to last 2 months, but it ended after 3 weeks due to protest. Television advertisements also appear in classrooms, with programs such as Channel One News, which broadcasts 10 minutes of news programming geared toward youth and 2 minutes of commercials every day. By the end of the school year, the total time spent on Channel One news programming in a single school amounts to 1 week of instruction time, while the time spent on advertisements equals 1 full day of class. Many of the most frequently advertised products in the commercials are for fast food companies or for foods of minimal

532

Food Advertisements in School Hallways and Cafeterias

nutritional value, such as candy, gum, and potato chips. In return for airing Channel One in classrooms, schools receive free video equipment and satellite connections to each classroom. Channel One reaches approximately one quarter of the U.S. teen population through its programming in thousands of schools every day. Research about the effects its advertising has on students indicates that students who watch Channel One do not report more frequent purchases of advertised foods, though they do have more positive attitudes about the products and are more likely to report an intention to buy the products than students who do not have Channel One in their schools. Furthermore, because children do not easily distinguish between Channel One programming and its commercials, they tend to believe that advertisers have a genuine interest in their personal well-being rather than a purely commercial one.

Indirect Advertising In addition to direct advertising, food companies also reach students indirectly by sponsoring teaching materials and special events or competitions within schools. For example, some food companies have provided nutritional education kits that teach students about a healthy diet by promoting their products or brand. Trade associations also produce nutritional curricula that incorporate the products they promote, such as dairy, meat, eggs, and sugar. Other food brands have developed math curricula that, for example, teach students how to perform mathematical functions by counting, adding, and subtracting products they sell. Studies of corporate-sponsored teaching indicate that these tend to prominently display the sponsor’s products and that most of the materials are incomplete, oversimplified, biased, and more commercial than educational. Other forms of indirect advertising include sponsored events and competitions that award gift certificates to students for winning reading competitions, receiving good grades, having perfect attendance, or behaving well in school. Concerns about this form of advertising center on the kinds of food

promoted by sponsors, who are typically fast food companies or companies that manufacture foods high in fat, sodium, and sugar.

Proposed Guidelines for Food Advertisements in Schools Food advertising is unrestricted in schools, a freedom that is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. This right has been challenged by consumer groups, nutritionists, and other health advocates on the grounds that all food advertising to minors is inherently misleading because the targeted consumer group does not have the cognitive capacity to evaluate ad content. In response to the opposition, the food industry formed the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, which is a self-regulatory program composed of 16 companies that have pledged to adopt nutrition standards for foods advertised to children. However, companies set their own nutritional guidelines and criteria, which have been shown to undermine the initiative’s effectiveness. In response to concerns about the effectiveness of voluntary compliance with industry-set guidelines, a number of government agencies and public interest groups have developed their own guidelines and standards for food advertisements in schools. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has developed a set of standards for food in schools, which state that foods and beverages should not be used as rewards or discipline for academic performance or behavior and that marketing of competitive food should be minimized by locating their points of sale in low-traffic areas. In addition, the IOM guidelines state that the exteriors of vending machines should not display commercial products or logos, and they should not imply that the items being sold offer health or social benefits. Although not required, the IOM guidelines serve as the gold standard for wellness policies in schools and are federally mandated for all schools participating in the National School Lunch Program. The Interagency Working Group, which is composed of the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of

Food Aid

Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has also developed a set of guidelines that call for any advertisements to children to meet two basic requirements (whether or not the advertisements are located in schools). First, the recommendations state that the foods being advertised should include certain healthful ingredients, such as whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, or low-fat milk. Second, the foods should not contain unhealthful amounts of sugar, saturated or trans fats, or salt. Conformity to these guidelines is voluntary, and opposition from food advertisers has so far appeared to reduce their effectiveness in both school and nonschool settings. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has also developed guidelines for marketing food to youth, which include additional guidance for schools. These guidelines state that companies should support healthy eating in schools and not market or sell low-nutrition foods or brands anywhere on school campuses. In particular, they recommend that companies should discontinue using logos and spokes-characters in school advertisements, sponsoring curricula and educational materials, displaying their names and logos on school property, offering free samples or coupons, giving away food or coupons as a reward, providing schools with money or supplies when families buy a company’s product, or advertising on in-school television programming, such as Channel One. Andrea R. Woodward See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Advertising and Marketing of Food to Children; Childhood Obesity; Multinational Conglomerates; School Food; School Lunches; School Wellness Programs

Further Readings Center for Science in the Public Interest. (2007). Sweet deals: School fundraising can be healthy and profitable. Retrieved from http://www.cspinet.org/ schoolfundraising.pdf Nestle, M. (2003). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press.

533

Story, M., & French, S. (2004). Food advertising and marketing directed at children and adolescents in the US. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416565/

Websites Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood: http://www .commercialfreechildhood.org Center for Science in the Public Interest: http://www.cspi .net Commercialism in Education Research Unit: http://nepc .colorado.edu/ceru-home

FOOD AID Food aid is a form of support or relief in cash or kind for food-deprived communities ravaged by or recovering from human-induced or natural/ environmental disasters to alleviate hunger and to achieve food security and development of such communities. Food aid is often rendered in chronically foodinsecure situations—including starvation, hunger, and inadequate nutrition—arising from unforeseen and unpredictable complex emergencies. Food aid is sometimes monetized by selling food commodities in recipient countries and using the proceeds to finance development budgets, programs, and projects. Food aid is internationally sourced and driven; in the short term, it is tied to food provision to minimize hunger and starvation in emergency circumstances, and in the long term, it is tied to development and capacity building. Food aid is governed by activities of international institutions and agencies, bilateral and multilateral institutions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). At the international level, food aid is governed by several multilateral organizations, one of the most important being the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). WFP was created in 1961 with the main principle of development through food and evolved into an international food aid agency. Other international food agencies include

534

Food Aid

the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Food Aid Convention, and the World Trade Organization. All these organizations have different mandates and are concerned with different aspects of the provision of food aid, and donors increasingly tie resources to specific relief operations. Professor of environmental science Keith Smith asserts that food aid began as a means of offloading surplus agricultural production in North America and Europe, and overgenerous donations of food aid can lower market prices and disrupt local economy in some least developed countries. The United States is the world’s largest donor of food aid, followed by the European Union, while the WFP is the main international channel for food aid. At the domestic level, food aid responsibilities lie with the recipient country’s government, sometimes through NGOs or relevant ministries. This entry examines food aid in relation to the human right to adequate food, describes the various types of aid, and discusses the future of such aid.

Commitment and Right to Adequate Food The FAO affirms that food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. The right to food is well documented in many international instruments, including, among others, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Rome Declaration on World Food Security; the World Food Summit Plan of Action; and the UN Millennium Development Goals. In November 1996, 180 nations attended the World Food Summit at the FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy. The resulting document, the Rome Declaration on World Food Security, reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. The declaration recognized that poverty is a major cause of food insecurity; conflict, terrorism, and environmental degradation

also contribute to food insecurity. The summit pledged political will and commitment to achieving food security for all. The summit also compiled a World Food Summit Plan of Action identifying seven interconnected commitments, including enabling environment, access to food, sustainable agriculture and rural development, trade and food security, emergency prevention and preparedness, promoting investment, and implementation and monitoring. For example, Commitment Five reiterates efforts to “prevent and be prepared for natural disasters and man-made emergencies and to meet transitory and emergency food requirements in ways that encourage recovery, rehabilitation, and development and a capacity to satisfy future needs.” UN Millennium Development Goal One aims to halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger by 2015. Paradoxically, though the world has enough food for every person, there are still about 870 million hungry, chronically undernourished, and food-insecure people globally, with the vast majority in developing countries (Table 1). The Table 1 Number of Undernourished by Region in Millions Region Developed Regions

1990–1992

2010–2012

20

16

Southern Asia

327

304

Sub-Saharan Africa

170

234

Eastern Asia

261

167

South-Eastern Asia

134

65

Latin America and the Caribbean

65

49

Western Asia and North Africa

13

25

Caucasus and Central Asia

9

6

Oceania

1

1

1,000

868

Total in million

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations World Food Programme, and International Fund for Agricultural Development (2012, p. 14).

Food Aid

prevalence of food insecurity and chronic undernourishment is seemingly underscored by the global financial recession, terrorism, wars and conflicts, and increasing intensity of natural disasters; these circumstances inevitably make food aid and assistance relevant in the impoverished communities. Frank Riely and colleagues present food aid as an important development resource that supports programs with a wide range of development objectives. These include soil investments and water conservation efforts supported by food-for-work programs, which have the potential for long-term implications for increased agricultural productivity and crop income, and school feeding programs, which are typically intended to improve student attendance and performance. Food aid, as D. John Shaw observes, is vital in the affairs of all nations, particularly in poor, food-deficient countries with inadequate food production or insufficient foreign exchange to import the food they need. For poor, food-insecure people in those countries, the quest for food pervades their daily lives. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that feeding the hungry is almost universally regarded as a compelling moral obligation. However, the character of food aid has changed over time; it continues to be shaped by the intensity, duration, and types of human-made and natural disasters, many as a result of global warming and climate change. For example, the tsunami that devastated the coasts of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and other countries in Southeast Asia in 2004; the earthquake in Haiti in 2010; the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear plant disaster in Japan in 2011; and Hurricane Sandy in the United States in 2012 all prompted different forms of food aid in cash or kind. Short-term alleviation of hunger and food deprivation and long-term development prospects are contingent on the following: • Legal and administrative restrictions in various donor and recipient countries • Geophysical and economic access to recipient country • Donor country’s priority • Enabling environment in the recipient country

535

The volatility of food aid flows and its procyclical nature when international food prices are high also make food aid controversial. However, food aid has been effective in facilitating local economic development, livelihood sustainability, and a food safety net, especially in critical periods of emergency and recovery.

Types of Food Aid The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has categorized food aid into three types: (1) program food aid, (2) project food aid, and (3) relief or emergency food aid. Program Food Aid

Program food aid involves balance of payments or budgetary support, which in turn contributes to food security. Balance of payments support is given by replacing commercial imports (where these are inhibited by foreign exchange) with commodities provided directly to the recipient government, or its agent, for sale in local markets. Budgetary support results from the proceeds of commodity sales. Program food aid sometimes provides an outlet for the disposal of surplus food by donor countries. Project Food Aid

Project food aid is provided to support specific poverty alleviation and disaster prevention activities, targeted to specific beneficiary groups or areas. The commodities are provided on a grant basis and are usually channeled through a multilateral agency such as the WFP, or international NGOs. Project food aid provides economic or spatial development or agricultural and nutritional support for recipient countries. There are two forms of project food aid: 1. Projects that provide food for direct distribution to beneficiary groups, such as through mother and child health programs, school feeding programs, and food-for-work programs.

536

Food Aid

2. Commodities that are supplied for sale and the monies generated are used to promote a wide range of poverty reduction and food security within an agreed budgetary framework.

Relief or Emergency Food Aid

Relief or emergency food aid is freely distributed aid for victims of natural or human-made disasters. Relief aid is generally seen as primarily immediate, lifesaving humanitarian assistance. However, where disasters threaten longer term livelihoods of affected groups and the wider developmental process, relief aid has commonly been supplied within a broader framework. Relief food aid may be combined with program food aid or other forms of import support for the affected economy. As indicated by Oxfam, a global organization that works to end poverty, during short-term crises or emergencies, food aid is provided to meet the needs of hungry people who are unable to feed themselves and their families. However, food aid may also be provided in nonemergency situations, in connection with a variety of development challenges such as development projects, education programs, and other longer term programmatic activities in developing countries. The United States has enacted legislation to fund food assistance and international development. The Food for Peace Act has three titles: Title I is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Titles II and III are administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Each title has a specific objective and provides assistance to countries at a particular level of economic development. Title I refers to trade and development assistance and provides for government-to-government sales of U.S. agricultural commodities to developing countries on credit or grant terms. Title II refers to emergency and private assistance and provides for the donation of U.S. agricultural commodities to meet emergency and nonemergency food needs in other countries, including support for food security goals. Specific Title II food aid programs and intervention types

are shown in Table 2. Title III refers to food for development and provides for government-togovernment grants to support long-term growth in the least developed countries. In food emergency situations, the assets of the communities may be threatened; in extreme situations, social, financial, physical, natural, and even human capital may be lost. The recipients of international food aid can be categorized as fragile, soon to be poor, or potentially poor households with very low or no resiliency and, thus, are food insecure. Such low resiliency makes them susceptible to precarious food sources and/or dependent on food aid. As WFP country director, Afghanistan, Susana Rico notes, food aid interventions are targeted, based on needs in the area in which food is delivered, and a move toward a more development-type intervention is encouraged. For example, food-forwork aims at building assets for a community. On preventing recipients’ dependency on food aid, Rico suggests connecting the interventions with asset creation, for instance food-for-training programs. This promotes skills development and provides a safety net and opportunities for employment. In the cases of Ethiopia, Tajikistan, and Zambia, food aid went beyond food to community development and ultimately created assets and long-term sustainability in the communities. Food-for-work programs created infrastructures such as roads and tracks into remote mountain regions of Ethiopia, whereas food-for-work programs in Tajikistan were designed according to local needs for bridge and road repairs, land reclamation, reforestation, horticulture, small animal husbandry, craft enterprise, rehabilitation of drinking water facilities, and waste water management. Free maize was distributed in Zambia for those who did not have cash or food (food-for-work program). Examples of dependency include Sudan and Central America, where food aid supplies led to higher wheat consumption and allowed the governments to neglect issues associated with small farmers producing traditional staple crops such as maize. When food aid includes development initiatives, it can empower, create assets, and build capital for the recipient communities (Figure 1).

Food Aid

537

Table 2 Food for Peace Act Title II Food Aid Program Types Program

Intervention Types

Humanitarian feeding

Food or cash is distributed directly to disadvantaged groups or those severely affected by emergency conditions.

Food for Work

Use food aid as payment for labourers in public works programs designed to build and maintain local infrastructure. Cash from monetized proceeds may also be used to purchase inputs or as cash wages in cash-for-work programs.

Maternal and Child Health

Food aid provides supplementary rations in programs seeking to improve the health and nutritional status of pregnant and lactating mothers and children under the age of 5. This may be combined with nutrition and health education, growth monitoring and counseling, and immunization.

Child survival

Food aid is used for supplementary rations, including child immunizations, control of diarrheal diseases and acute respiratory infections, and the promotion of breastfeeding.

School feeding

This provides students with snacks, lunches, and/or breakfast at schools as incentives to increase enrolment, maintain attendance, and improve the performance of students.

Other child feeding

Provides meals to particularly vulnerable groups of children outside the school setting.

Monetization

Sale of food aid through monetization program provides financial resources for use in a variety of activities, including education and training, health and nutrition, agriculture, rural credit, microenterprise, cash for work, and other development programs.

Source: Adapted from Riely, Mock, Cogill, Bailey, and Kenefick (1999, p. 7).

aid that does not encourage dependency but is sustainable and development oriented can help create the following:

Personal capital

Natural capital

Physical capital

Figure 1

Social capital

Food aid, development, and asset building

Financial capital

Food Aid and Asset Building

Future of Food Aid Food aid—whether developmental, financial, or immediate relief—can save lives, improve nutrition, develop the skills of individuals and communities, and improve agricultural production. Food

• Policy spaces where interest groups (e.g., religious organizations, associational life societies, familial groups, farmers, market women), stakeholders, civil society, and policymakers can engage in authentic dialogue and collaboration to facilitate and participate in projects and programs relating to food aid and development. • An enabling environment fundamental to the sustainability of food aid in chronically foodinsecure communities. The World Food Summit Plan of Action commitments of creating an enabling environment; pursuing participation, access to food, sustainable agriculture and rural development, trade and food security, emergency

538

Food Allergies

prevention and preparedness; promoting investment and implementation; and monitoring are all interconnected when it comes to the issue of food aid and sustainable livelihoods. • An assets-building environment to sustain livelihoods of food aid recipient communities. Assets can be created through sustainable community development programs that would provide earning potentials for the people.

Adopting an integrated, holistic approach that looks beyond immediate food relief and includes social, economic, political, and cultural components of the communities, as well as the cooperation and collaboration of relevant actors and stakeholders from local communities, government authorities, bilateral and multilateral agencies, and NGOs, is fundamental to the relevance and effectiveness of future food aid.

Oxfam. (2005). Food aid or hidden dumping? Separating wheat from chaff). Oxford, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/ food-aid-or-hidden-dumping Riely, F., Mock, N., Cogill, B., Bailey, L., & Kenefick, E. (1999, January). Food security indicators and the framework for use in the monitoring and evaluation of food aid programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development. Retrieved from http:// www.fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/fsindctr.pdf Shaw, D. J. (2001). The United Nation World Food Program and the development of food aid. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Smith, K. (2013). Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster (6th ed., pp. 113). London, UK: Routledge. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. (2009). Fact sheet: Food assistance. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://fas .usda.gov/info/factsheets/Food%20Aid.pdf

Olusola A. Olufemi See also Charitable Organizations; Food Justice; Human Right to Adequate Food; Hunger

Further Readings Elliesen, T. (2004). We try to work ourselves out of the job (Interview with Susana Rico, World Food Program Country Director Afghanistan). Development and Cooperation, 31(6), 242–245. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1996, November 13). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the World Food Summit Plan of Action 1996. Rome, Italy: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/dpcrep/003/W3613e/ W3613e00.htm Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations World Food Programme, & International Fund for Agricultural Development. (2012). The state of food insecurity in the world 2012: Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e.pdf Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). The development effectiveness of food aid: Does tying matter? Paris, France: Author.

FOOD ALLERGIES Food allergies occur when the body’s immune system mistakenly categorizes an ingested article of food as a threat and launches an immune defense against it. While many food allergies cause only mild symptoms, severe food allergies can result in fatal anaphylactic reactions. Recognized by clinicians since antiquity, rates of food allergy have been increasing in the past decades, and scientists have struggled to explain why. Food allergies are also controversial, with much conflicting opinion about what constitutes a food allergy, how people should be protected from accidental exposures, and what has caused increased rates. Adding to the lack of consensus is a lack of research about the incidence, prevalence, and epidemiology of food allergies. Despite this, patient groups have been remarkably successful in raising awareness about food allergies, lobbying the food industry for clearer labels, and even banning particularly allergenic foods, such as peanuts, from public places, such as schools and airplanes. This entry describes food allergies from historical, epidemiological, clinical, and etiological perspectives.

Food Allergies

History Hippocrates (460–370 BCE) described adverse reactions to food and the Roman philosopher Lucretius (99–55 BCE) also discussed how “one man’s food could be another’s poison.” During the 19th century, bizarre reactions to food were called idiosyncrasies and were thought to trigger migraine headaches, asthma, skin problems, and gastrointestinal complaints. Generally speaking, however, such reactions were not a pressing concern for physicians until the 20th century. In 1906, the Austrian pediatrician Clemens von Pirquet (1870–1929) coined the term allergy to describe strange reactions to serum, insect stings, and food. Food allergies soon became a common, but also divisive, clinical phenomenon. Unlike other allergies, it was difficult and often dangerous, because of the possibility of severe reactions, for allergists to diagnose food allergies using skin tests and treat the condition using desensitization therapy. Therefore, elimination diets were used to identify problem foods, and avoidance became the primary form of treatment. Allergists also disagreed about the prevalence of food allergies. Whereas some argued that food allergies were rare, others contended that food allergies caused a wide range of otherwise unexplained symptoms, ranging from eczema and diarrhea to asthma and psychiatric complaints. Adding to the debate was the emergence of psychosomatic and ecological explanations for food allergies during the middle of the 20th century, which further divided opinion. In 1966, researchers identified immunoglobulin E (IgE), an immunological marker for truly allergic reactions. For some, IgE helped distinguish food allergies from food intolerances, reactions to food that did not necessarily constitute an immune reaction, but others downplayed its significance. During the 1970s and 1980s, allergists also disagreed about whether food additives, such as synthetic colors and flavors, could trigger hyperactivity in children. The sudden emergence of peanut allergy during the late 1980s, however, served to unify the field to a degree, as allergy associations and patient groups successfully lobbied restaurants and food manufacturers for better labeling of allergenic foods. Although many aspects of food allergies

539

remain controversial, questions about the rising rates of food allergy remain the most pressing questions for allergists today.

Epidemiology According to the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the United States, approximately 4% of adults and 8% of children have food allergies, although a much higher proportion of Americans believe they have a food allergy. Rates of all food allergies have increased during recent decades, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting an 18% increase between 1997 and 2007. Rates of certain food allergies, especially peanut allergies, have increased at an even higher rate. Not a commonly reported allergen prior to 1990, peanut allergies are now the most prevalent food allergy in children. Between 1997 and 2008, rates of peanut allergy in children tripled in the United States, and unlike some other food allergies, peanut allergies tend to persist into adulthood. Internationally, however, rates of food allergy vary considerably. While peanut allergies are common in many Western countries, for example, they are rare in other countries where consumption of peanuts remains high, such as China. This has led to speculation over whether cooking practices are an etiological factor in peanut allergies. Whereas peanuts tend to be boiled in China, where rates of peanut allergies are low, they are roasted in Western countries, where rates are high. The rapid rise in the number of food allergies has led to questions about the validity of such increases. Those who suspect such figures suggest that food allergies were simply not reported in the past—something not reflected in the historical record—or suggest that media coverage has led many people to claim erroneously that they suffer from food allergies. Complicating matters is confusion about the difference between food allergies and so-called food intolerances, such as lactose intolerance and gluten intolerance, which also appear to be increasing. Also problematic is the fact that most epidemiological research concentrates on the most common food allergens, such

540

Food Allergies

as peanuts, shellfish, and milk, and not the other 170 foods that have been known to cause allergic reactions.

Food Allergens and Labeling Although the list of potentially allergenic foods is long, most attention in the United States is given to the eight foods believed to be responsible for 90% of reactions: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans. These are the foods that, according to the American Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, must be identified in all food packaging. In the European Union, 14 foods must be identified, including food additives, such as lupin and sulfites. While most allergy sufferers appreciate such measures, many argue that more allergens should be listed, and others would like to see clearer guidelines with respect to cross-contamination. The advisory statements that are currently used (e.g., “produced in a facility that also uses peanuts”) are thought to be too vague.

Symptoms Food allergy symptoms can range from minor reactions, such as hives or itching, to anaphylactic shock—characterized by swelling of the face and throat; drop in blood pressure; rapid, irregular pulse; loss of consciousness; and, possibly, death. In the United States, it is estimated that at least 200 people die from food allergies every year. While some symptoms present immediately, others may not become evident for several hours. Although many symptoms, such as eczema or diarrhea, require limited medical intervention, food allergies, especially in children, nevertheless result in thousands of hospital admissions every year. Because food allergies have long been difficult to diagnose, the list of symptoms associated with the condition has been both expansive and controversial. The relationship between food allergies and psychiatric problems, including attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, depression, and psychosis, has been particularly divisive. While recent research appears

to support a link between food additives and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, for example, the topic remains highly controversial. In contrast, because anaphylactic reactions to peanuts and other highly potent allergens occur immediately and pose no diagnostic challenge, patient groups have had great success lobbying for increased public awareness, research, and prophylactic public health measures.

Diagnosis Food allergies have long presented diagnostic challenges. Although potent allergens, such as peanuts, cause immediate, obvious reactions, other foods cause delayed, lingering, and chronic reactions, which are difficult to diagnose. Most allergists believe that patients overestimate the degree to which they are allergic to food, resulting in a demand for more objective clinical testing methods. But these have proven to be elusive. Whereas other allergies, such as reactions to pollen or animal dander, can be diagnosed by using skin prick tests (injecting a tiny amount of the suspected substance into the skin to see if the surrounding tissue reacts) or intradermal tests, these remain unreliable and can even be dangerous in cases of food allergy. Although many allergists agree that the best way to test for food allergies is simply to employ a double-blind, randomly controlled oral food challenge, this is a time-consuming, expensive, and potentially dangerous approach. Laboratory tests to identify immunological markers for allergy, such as IgE, are safer, but are less accurate. Because of these problems, other methods have had to be employed, most notably elimination diets, which rely heavily on patient testimony. During the course of an elimination diet, challenge foods are added to a very basic, hypoallergenic diet, in the hopes of identifying which ones trigger symptoms. Although elimination diets have a long history of use, they remain controversial because their diagnostic power lies in the ability of patients to correctly analyze and record their reactions to certain foods. Due to all of these difficulties, allergists prefer a multifarious approach to diagnosis.

Food Allergies

Prevention and Treatment As with many diseases, prevention is much preferable to treatment in the case of food allergy, meaning that effective diagnosis is crucial. For much of the 20th century, it was up to patients and parents to prevent accidental exposure to food allergens, often without the help of informative labels. But since the 1990s, those with a food allergy have benefited greatly from better labels, greater awareness, and even the prohibition of highly allergenic foods, such as peanuts, from some public spaces. Many schools, airplanes, and even sports facilities, where peanuts were once common, have now become peanut-free zones. Although some measures may be considered draconian (e.g., banning peanuts from sports stadia or using peanut-sniffing dogs at schools), the increased awareness has undoubtedly prevented fatalities. Preventing exposure to less common allergens, however, has been more difficult, leaving many patients to fend for themselves. Although prevention of food allergies remains far preferable to treatment, allergists have also attempted to decrease sensitivity and limit the severity of reactions. As with other allergies, allergists have employed desensitization therapy or immunotherapy to decrease patients’ sensitivity to food allergens, but the efficacy and safety of such procedures remain unclear. Corticosteroids have also been used to reduce the severity of reactions, but there are side effects associated with their use, including increased risk of infection. Due to these difficulties, allergists have emphasized the importance of using adrenaline or epinephrine auto-injectors (e.g., EpiPen), especially in cases of potentially fatal anaphylactic allergies. In some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, Canada, legislation has been passed to ensure that staff at school know how to use such treatments in cases of anaphylactic shock.

Etiology Explanations for increases in food allergies remain highly controversial, partly because of the paucity of scientific evidence and also because many explanations suggest that allergy is a disease of

541

civilization, a pathological by-product of industrial and technological progress. For instance, one of the most common explanations for food allergies is the hygiene hypothesis, which states that homes have become too sterile through the use of cleaning products, preventing children’s immune systems from developing properly. Others suspect that changes in children’s diet are responsible. The rapid rise of peanut allergies has generated a number of separate hypotheses. While some point to the use of peanut oil in vaccines and creams to explain the rise in peanut allergies, others contend that the use of soybeans, a relative of the peanut) in infant formula is responsible. Still others point to the difference in cooking practices (roasting vs. boiling peanuts) to explain epidemiological variance in different countries. Ultimately, it may be that a combination of these factors is responsible, but much more research is required before any definitive answers are possible. Matthew Smith See also Food Additives; Food Allergies: Impact on Life; Labeling, Legislation and Oversight

Further Readings Brostoff, J., & Challacombe, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Food allergy and intolerance (2nd ed.). London, UK: Saunders. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Food allergies in schools. Retrieved from http://www.cdc .gov/healthyyouth/foodallergies/index.htm Cohen, S. G., & Samter, M. (Eds.). (1992). Excerpts from classics in allergy (2nd ed.). Carlsbad, CA: Symposia Foundation. Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network. (n.d.). Food allergy facts and statistics for the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.foodallergy.org/page/facts-and-stats Jackson, M. (2006). Allergy: The history of a modern malady. London, UK: Reaktion. National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases. (2006). Report of the NIH expert panel on food allergy research. Retrieved from http://www.niaid.nih .gov/topics/foodallergy/research/pages/report foodallergy.aspx#overview National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases. (2010). Guidelines for the diagnosis and management

542

Food Allergies: Impact on Life

of food allergy in the United States: Report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 126, S1–S58. doi:10.1016/j.jaci .2010.10.007 Smith, M. (2013). A pre-peanut history of food allergy. Food, Culture, & Society, 6, 125–143.

FOOD ALLERGIES: IMPACT

ON

LIFE

Food allergy is an immunologically mediated adverse reaction to a food protein that affects approximately 2% to 3% of adults and 5% to 10% of children worldwide (including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the Mediterranean, Japan, and China, among others). It is a unique chronic condition as those with food allergies are generally well most of the time, unless they accidentally ingest an allergen, whereupon symptoms can be life threatening. They, therefore, have to maintain strict vigilance to assess the safety of foods before they eat, which can have a negative impact on their quality of life and can lead to increased stress, anxiety, and worry. This entry reviews the current knowledge of the psychological impact food allergy can have on both the individual with the food allergy and his or her immediate family, including the impact on quality of life, stress, anxiety, depression, and worry. It looks at possible interventions that could be used to reduce the impact and improve quality of life.

What Is Food Allergy? There are currently more than 170 foods that have been identified as having the potential to trigger an allergic reaction, although the majority of reactions are from milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, shellfish, fish, wheat, sesame seed, and soy. Immune reactions are most often mediated by the antibody immunoglobulin E (IgE), which causes a rapid onset of symptoms after ingestion of an allergen (an allergen is any substance that induces an immune reaction). When the food is initially ingested, it is erroneously recognized as a harmful foreign substance and IgE antibodies are produced

that are specific to that food and bind to the tissue basophils and mast cells (a process called sensitization). Sensitization can take place in utero, through breastfeeding, or through direct consumption of the food. When the food is eaten on a second occasion, it binds to its specific IgE, releasing histamine, leukotrienes, and prostaglandins, which cause allergic symptoms. Symptoms

The amount of food needed to trigger a reaction can range from an observable amount to minute traces of the allergen, which can come from cross-contamination of food products on a production line or when served in a restaurant or retail outlet. Symptoms are mild itching or a rash; itchy or watery eyes; exacerbation of asthma or eczema; swelling of the mouth, lips, and tongue; and gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting. These can usually be treated successfully with antihistamine. In severe cases, anaphylactic shock—a systemic reaction affecting a number of organs in the body and resulting in swelling of airways, difficulty breathing, a drop in blood pressure, loss of consciousness, and death if not promptly treated with adrenaline—can occur. For patients at risk of an anaphylactic reaction, adrenaline is prescribed in the form of a preloaded adrenaline auto-injector (AAI), which should be carried at all times. When administered, the AAI injects a dose of adrenaline, which blocks histamine release and counters the effects of histamine. Although the exact prevalence of fatal foodallergic reactions is not known, it is thought to be rare. In the United Kingdom, nearly 50 deaths were attributable to food-related anaphylaxis over a 7-year period, with most fatalities occurring in adolescents and young adults. Studies using death certificates in the United States have given estimates of 1 in 12 million inhabitants per year. Diagnosis

Food allergy should be diagnosed by an allergist, who will take a clinical history and then conduct diagnostic tests such as skin prick tests and

Food Allergies: Impact on Life

blood tests to assess serum-specific IgE and may also carry out food challenge tests. Skin prick tests are the most often used in clinics and give immediate answers for suspected food allergy. The skin is pricked with the suspected food, and a wheal will appear if there is a positive reaction. Oral food challenges are used where diagnosis is uncertain based on the results of skin prick or blood tests. Outcomes of tests are always interpreted alongside a clinical history, as IgE antibodies can be present in the absence of any symptoms. Management

There is no cure for food allergies, and the only way to prevent an allergic reaction is strict avoidance of the particular food and emergency treatment of symptoms caused by accidental ingestion. Consultation with a dietician is often required to ensure nutritional adequacy of the diet if major food groups need to be avoided (e.g., wheat or dairy) or foods that appear in the ingredients list of many products (e.g., nuts and peanuts). Some children will grow out of allergies to milk, eggs, soy, and wheat; however, allergies to peanuts, tree nuts, fish, and shellfish are usually lifelong, with only 20% of children outgrowing peanut allergy. Constant vigilance is therefore needed, and dietary restrictions can compromise social activities such as dining out. Measures to avoid an accidental reaction to food include reading food labels before eating any product; if eating out, asking the chef what ingredients are in the food on the menu; and carrying emergency medication such as antihistamines and an AAI at all times. Such measures, however, can have a detrimental effect on quality of life.

Impact of Food Allergy on Quality of Life Quality of life is a subjective multidimensional construct that can be conceptualized as well-being determined by both objective and subjective factors, across a number of domains, including physical, emotional, and social well-being and functional ability. Areas of life that are important in quality of life in adults are emotional and material wellbeing, health, productivity, intimacy, safety, and

543

community. Food allergy can have an impact on each of these areas, both for the patient and for his or her family. Food allergy appears to affect areas of quality of life that are particularly concerned with social interactions and eating rather than more general areas such as physical and environmental quality of life. Parents have reported that food allergy has an impact on the general health of their child and results in limitations on family life and disruption to daily activities and normal family social interactions due to the extreme dietary vigilance that is required. The restrictions on family life can lead to a poorer quality of life for primary caregivers compared with parents with children who do not have a chronic condition. Mothers in particular are often affected more than fathers, due to carrying the burden of responsibility for their child’s allergy, including reading food labels, cooking allergen-free meals, and ensuring that their child always carries medication with him or her. Support in looking after a child with food allergy is extremely important, and a lack of it can lead to tension within the family and a breakdown in relationships. For children themselves, food allergy can result in poor emotional and social quality of life and quality of life in school, due to the difficulties in managing the condition, especially when eating during social occasions. These areas of quality of life are worse than in children with other chronic illnesses such as diabetes and worse than in healthy children. Girls appear to be more affected with food allergy than boys, which may be due to biological vulnerability or could be due to differences in the way in which risk is perceived and managed. There is also a developmental aspect to the impact of food allergy, with younger children feeling that their food allergy has little impact on their lives compared with older children who begin to become more independent from their parents and want to have a greater social life.

Impact of Food Allergy on Anxiety, Depression, and Stress Food allergy is related to high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression in parents caring for a child with food allergy. Mothers of children with

544

Food Allergies: Impact on Life

peanut allergy have significantly higher levels of stress and anxiety than fathers and higher than the norm levels for healthy adults. This might possibly be alleviated by the prescription of an AAI for their child. Some level of anxiety may be beneficial for parents of children with food allergy as it may encourage vigilance and adherence to emergency treatment plans, avoidance of allergens, and carrying of AAIs. However, anxiety might not be related to vigilance, and prescription of an AAI may provide a feeling of security that may actually decrease vigilance, which could increase the chances of accidental adverse reactions. In some cases, levels of anxiety and depression can reach the criteria for clinical diagnosis of anxiety and depression. A lack of information at diagnosis can increase both anxiety and uncertainty in managing the risk of accidental ingestion of the allergen. Parents may see severe reactions in their children as traumatic experiences, which could explain why some parents develop high levels of anxiety that persist long after an incident. Parents also exhibit great anxiety in handing responsibility over to their child (e.g., reading own food labels, doing own cooking) and want to retain the control of the food allergy themselves. Mothers traditionally take on more of the caring role in the family and are responsible for reading food labels to check for allergens, making decisions about what is safe for their child to eat, and cooking the food. This might be a reason why mothers in particular tend to feel a greater burden of care, which might lead to increased stress and anxiety. Anxiety is also caused by the potential fatal consequences of accidental ingestion of an allergen. Parents have high levels of worry about their child having an anaphylactic reaction and uncertainty around what to do if their child does go into anaphylactic shock. Looking after a child with food allergy has an effect on the mental health status of the parent. This can increase children’s own perceptions of risk, increase their distress, and reduce their quality of life. Reducing distress in parents and their children is the next important step.

Interventions to Reduce Psychological Impact of Food Allergy Information about food allergy and advice from health care practitioners at allergy clinics, including the issue of food allergy management plans does not seem to help reduce levels of distress for all parents and children, nor does being a member of a support group for allergy. Group interventions based on educational workshops may be of benefit for some parents and children with food allergy to help increase perceived competence in coping and reduce the burden of coping with the allergy. For others, more targeted therapy such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may be more effective. CBT, an evidence-based talking therapy, has been shown to be extremely effective for reducing levels of anxiety and depression. Also, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommends CBT as a treatment for anxiety and depression. Although to date, CBT has not been used to treat those with food allergy, it has been used to successfully treat other allergy-related disorders, most notably asthma. Those with food allergy have a higher prevalence of experiencing other atopic conditions such as asthma, hay fever, and eczema. Anxiety and panic in those with asthma can lead to complications for asthma management and exacerbation of symptoms, so CBT may be an effective therapy for trial in both children with food allergy and their parents.

Conclusions Food allergy can have a significant impact on the lives of those who have this unique chronic condition and their parents. The areas that are particularly affected include quality of life, anxiety, stress, worry, and depression. The constant vigilance of diet that is required to prevent a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction appears to be one of the main reasons why this condition has such an impact on life. Interventions to improve the ways in which children, adolescents, and parents manage the condition, to reduce the

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

impact on quality of life and psychological distress, are needed. Group or one-to-one sessions using techniques from therapies such as CBT may be useful, and their effectiveness needs to be explored. Rebecca Knibb See also Food Allergies; Gluten-Free Foods

Further Readings Avery, N. J., King, R. M., Knight, S., & Hourihane, J. O. (2003). Assessment of quality of life in children with peanut allergy. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 14, 378–382. Bollinger, M. E., Dahlquist, L. M., Mudd, K., Sonntag, C., Dillinger, L., & McKenna, K. (2006). The impact of food allergy on the daily activities of children and their families. Annals of Allergy and Asthma Immunology, 96, 415–421. doi:10.1016/ S1081-1206(10)60908-8 Cummings, A., Knibb, R. C., King, R., & Lucas, J. (2010). The psychosocial impact of food allergy on children and adolescents: A review. Allergy, 65, 933–945. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010 .02342.x King, R., Knibb, R. C., & Hourihane, J. O. (2009). Impact of peanut allergy on quality of life, stress, and anxiety in the family. Allergy, 64, 461–468. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01843.x Rouf, K., White, L., & Evans, K. (2011). A qualitative investigation into the maternal experience of having a young child with severe food allergy. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 49–64. doi:10.1177/1359104511415636 Roy, K. M., & Roberts, M. C. (2011). Peanut allergy in children: Relationships to health-related quality of life, anxiety, and parental stress. Clinical Pediatrics, 50, 1045–1051. doi:10.1177/ 0009922811412584 Sicherer, S. H. (2011). Epidemiology of food allergy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 127, 594–602. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.11.044 Waserman, S., & Watson, W. (2011). Food allergy. Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology, 7(Suppl. 1), S7. doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-S1-S7.

545

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, commonly known as FAO, is the official body of the United Nations that aims to provide access to and assist in the distribution of high-quality food products in order to ensure healthy nutrition for people all over the world. When looking at food issues, it is essential to look at the importance organizations such as FAO hold within the global setting of food production and consumption. FAO has an enormous impact on the ways food policies are shaped, agricultural production is organized, and multinational rules of food trade are established and followed. Thus, the relationship that exists between food issues in general and FAO is very close and interconnected. This entry presents FAO and its significance in the global food and agriculture systems of production, distribution, and consumption through its historical background, its structure, its organizational importance in a global setting, and its role. Finally, this entry looks closely at some of the most important policies FAO has established and that are closely followed by nations and organizations.

History The start of the 20th century brought great changes in various aspects of everyday life. Movement of food products all around the world had started at the end of the 19th century, but scientific developments, as well as technological advances, together with the Industrial Revolution brought about many changes in the ways food products were produced and distributed around the world. Furthermore, various disasters, such as the two World Wars and the Great Depression, had a negative impact on food access in general. Thus, nations and their leaders realized the need to organize themselves to eliminate social problems, such

546

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

as famine and hunger, that could jeopardize the well-being of the world’s people. International officials believed that through proper organization, assistance, monitoring, and structure, existing agriculture could produce enough food to cover the needs of all people around the world. The first organized effort was in 1905 in Rome, Italy, where the King of Italy established the International Institute of Agriculture based on David Lubin’s idea for the creation of an international agricultural database that would provide statistics, information, and guidance on agricultural products around the world. After World War I (1914–1918), great changes in the ways agriculture, global food distribution, fisheries, and other food-related industries were structured in the global market affected prices and availability. This led to the creation of an organization comprising specialists in the fields of agriculture, nutritional science, and economics, with a general purpose to standardize production practices and control price levels by developing effective policies to secure food availability around the globe. Thus, in 1943, the U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt called a meeting of the League of Nations, composed of 44 countries, in Hot Springs, Virginia, to found a permanent organization that would focus on food and agriculture. In 1945, the first session of the FAO as an official UN body was held in Quebec City, Canada. Today, FAO’s headquarters is in Rome, Italy, after moving from Washington, D.C., in 1951. As of 2014, FAO has 194 member nations, two associate members (Faroe Islands and Tokelau), and one member organization (European Union). The organizational structure of FAO comprises six departments: (1) Agriculture and Consumer Protection; (2) Economic and Social Development; (3) Fisheries and Aquaculture; (4) Forestry; (5) Corporate Services, Human Resources and Finance; and (6) Technical Cooperation.

Role and Function To create foundational grounds for the continuous distribution of food around the planet and assist in

the elimination of famine and hunger, it has established several functional policies, agreements, and organizational plans that are beneficial for its member nations. In addition, FAO often monitors and assists with already existing policies on food productions systems (e.g., agriculture, fisheries) to ensure proper functioning and application of those policies on the countries of interest. There are four general outlines that guide FAO in achieving its goals. First, FAO provides technical advice and assistance, as well as training in developing countries to increase their food product competition in international markets. Second, FAO is responsible for the collection, analysis, and distribution of information in the areas of food, nutrition, agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. Third, FAO provides advice to governments on different policies with regard to food production. Finally, FAO is responsible for providing a safe environment for governments, organizations, and food industry representatives to discuss food-related policies.

Cooperation Strategy Because FAO is a functional body that interacts with, communicates, and shapes international policies with regard to food, it is important that there is a network of cooperatives that simplifies its function and makes sure that there are no problems in the implementation of these policies. Therefore, FAO works together with other bodies or organizations such as trade unions, farmers, fishers, nongovernmental organizations, as well as official governmental bodies, scientists, and field specialists to shape and implement policies. To ensure the levels and extent of cooperation with organizations outside its own structure, the FAO developed in 1999 the Policy and Strategy for Cooperation With Non-Governmental and Civil Society Organizations as a general outline for working with external partners. This document suggests that for FAO to engage in cooperation with external organizations, these organizations must be in accordance with the FAO’s mandate and commit to working with FAO to carry out a more effective work. Both FAO and the external

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

partners must have common interests and objectives so that cooperation can be established on common grounds. In addition, there will not be any hidden agendas. All information will be publicly available and accessible by all those interested. Finally, when entering into cooperation with FAO, external partners must understand clearly their responsibilities and be accountable for carrying them out. The collaborations between FAO and external partners brought out several important policies for the production and circulation of food products around the globe. Some examples of policies and strategies implemented as a result of FAO’s cooperation with the public sector, the private sector, and local authorities are the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (2003); the FAO Decentralized Cooperation Programme, launched in 2002; the FAO Programme on Assistance to School Milk Promotion; and the Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture Initiative.

The Agreement on Agriculture FAO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is one of the most noteworthy policies with regard to the ways agriculture has entered global markets and trade. Additionally, it is one of the most significant examples demonstrating the ways that FAO collaborates with other organizational bodies, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), to achieve its goals and purposes. During the Uruguay Round Meeting of Nations (1986–1994), participating officials agreed to ensure agricultural fair-trade policies in the already existing agricultural production markets, as well as to assist developing countries and their internal structures of agricultural production. The scope of this act was to ensure that developing countries do not stay behind in international agricultural fair trade while at the same time retaining the standards on exporting agricultural products internationally. The AoA has three general axes: (1) improvement of market access, (2) reduction of domestic support, and (3) reduction of export

547

subsidies. The AoA also provides efficient training and educational support, technical assistance, and financial aid to countries with insufficient production of agricultural products or with developing economies. The AoA was created in cooperation with the WTO, which is the official body that monitors issues of global markets and trade. The technical role of FAO in the AoA is twofold. First, FAO is responsible for assessing the market a commodity is about to enter, as well as the issues that might arise when a food product enters that market. Second, FAO evaluates the impacts on trade and local food and agricultural policies that could occur as a result of the application of AoA. To do so, the FAO performs several actions, starting with assessing the effects that implementing the AoA might have on market prices (with special attention to developing countries), assisting in identifying export opportunities, and analyzing alterations in a market’s status that might affect trade (e.g., privatization, political changes). In addition, the FAO identifies any changes needed for an agricultural product to enter a market in accordance with the AoA and trains local authorities and individuals on world trade through educational programs.

Codex Alimentarius Committee Perhaps the most significant and well-known policy FAO has established is the Codex Alimentarius (Book of Food). Established in November 1961 as a collaboration between the FAO and the WHO, the Codex Alimentarius aims to collect and provide a set of international standards, practices, instructions, and suggestions on food-related issues. Its name is derived from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus, which was a collection of food-related descriptions and practices made by the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of the 19th century. Today, the Codex is published in six languages (English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Arabic). The Codex Alimentarius Committee comprises 186 Codex members—185 member countries, 1 member organization (EU), and 224 Codex observers.

548

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The general content of the Codex Alimentarius is relevant to issues of food labeling, food hygiene, food additives and pesticide residues, contaminants, risk assessment based on new biotechnologies, and food hygiene (general hygiene standards, guidelines for the proper application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system). In particular, the Codex Alimentarius Commission is tasked with the following: establish, monitor, and strengthen national and international food safety control systems; train, inform, and increase awareness on issues that relate to food safety; reinforce laboratory analysis and inspections; present research papers, journals, and publications updated with issues of food security; provide sufficient backup to food safety organizations; enhance and reinforce the relationship between governments and national food production organizations for the protection of consumers. The Codex Alimentarius has been recognized by the WTO as the official point of reference to resolve problems and issues that might arise in the global market with regard to food safety and consumer protection.

Final Thoughts FAO is arguably the most important organization immediately related to food production, distribution, and consumption issues on a global level. Its ability to shape policies, its cooperation with large domestic and international companies and organizations, and its immediate relation with governments and government officials sets it as the leading organization on the shaping of foodrelated policies around the world. Through the FAO’s work, balance in world agricultural trade is sought, and rules for the protection of consumers are established. Importantly, though, through the FAO’s continuous efforts, famine and hunger are fought and proper healthy nutrition is made available. Giorgios Maltezakis See also Anti-Globalization Movements/World Trade Organization; Codex Alimentarius Commission;

Education in Food Service Industries; Fair Trade; Fisheries Certification Programs

Further Readings Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1997). FAO technical assistance and the Uruguay Round Agreements. Rome, Italy: Author. Nordquist, M. H., & Moore, J. N. (2000). Current fisheries issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Hague, Netherlands: M. Nijhoff.

Websites Codex Alimentarius: http://www.codexalimentarius.org Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): http://www.fao.org/index_en.htm United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS): http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php ?page=article_s&id_article=826

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for the safety and security of most of our nation’s food supply; it also oversees the safety and efficacy of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and devices that emit radiation. The FDA enforces federal laws regarding food shipped in interstate commerce, and food exported from or imported into the United States, by regulating its production, manufacture, processing, packaging, labeling, and distribution. The exceptions are meat, poultry, and some egg products, which are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). After briefly providing background information on the emergence and development of the FDA, this entry discusses several areas of FDA responsibility

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

with regard to food: food additives, food labeling, bioengineered food, and food safety.

Background Adulteration of food and drugs had been a topic of discussion in the United States since the end of the Civil War in 1865, and a steady, if muffled, drumbeat of concern and alarm had been audible ever since. State legislatures in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and other states passed pure food laws beginning in 1874, but the laws were poorly enforced. Harvey Wiley, the chief chemist in the USDA, conducted studies of food adulteration and contamination. Wiley was also a persuasive writer and speaker, and he believed that part of his responsibility was to educate the American public about his findings. His evangelical zeal led him to speak at many gatherings, both of lay persons and scientists. Wiley was the stalwart, immutable force behind pure food legislation, but despite his support for such legislation every year, beginning in 1882, Congress had passed no new laws—although in 1902, it did approve a $5,000 appropriation to study chemical preservatives and colors and their effects on digestion and health. Wiley’s studies and the pure food movement gathered considerable public support, but it was Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle, published in February 1906, with its shocking descriptions of unsanitary conditions in the Chicago stockyards, that led directly to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Sinclair’s book outraged the public and helped convince President Theodore Roosevelt to intervene in support of the legislation, which was passed in June 1906. The Pure Food and Drug Act prohibited the sale of misbranded and adulterated foods and drugs across state lines. A Bureau of Chemistry was created within the USDA, which became responsible for enforcing the provisions of the new legislation. Wiley was appointed its first chief. Under Wiley’s direction, the real work of cleansing the nation’s food supply of contaminants and impurities began. Under Wiley’s direction, standards for food safety were established. The Bureau of Chemistry had the

549

power to charge violators with criminal penalties and to confiscate food that was adulterated, contaminated, or deceptively labeled. In 1930, the Bureau of Chemistry was renamed the Food and Drug Administration. Ten years later, the FDA was transferred from the USDA to the Federal Security Agency, which in 1953 became the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In 1988, the FDA became an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, headed by a commissioner appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate.

Food Additives As the 20th century progressed, chemicals and other synthetic substances played an ever-increasing role in American life, and the FDA attempted to keep pace with the use of these substances. In 1950, a House committee chaired by James Delaney (D-NY) began to investigate the safety of pesticides and chemical additives in foods and cosmetics. It paved the way for the passage of the Miller Pesticide Amendment in 1954, which set pesticide residue limits on raw agricultural commodities. The FDA also regulates all food additives, which are legally defined as “any substance the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result—directly or indirectly—in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food.” The Food Additives Amendment, passed in 1958, requires food manufacturers to establish the safety of food additives and prohibits the use of any that cause cancer in animals or humans. The FDA divides additives into three major categories: (1) direct food additives, which are added with the specific intention of preserving, blending, texturizing, or flavoring foods; (2) secondary or indirect additives, which end up in food through contact with packaging materials, or during handling or storage; and (3) coloring additives, which improve or maintain the appearance of processed food. They are dyes, pigments, or other substances that when added to a food impart color to it, alone

550

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

or through reactions with other substances. They are used to offset color loss caused by exposure to light, air, temperature extremes, moisture, and storage conditions and to enhance natural colors. The Color Additive Amendment, passed in 1960, requires food manufacturers to declare all artificial colors in their products. Some food colorings have been banned for a variety of reasons. For instance, the FDA released a study connecting Red Dye No. 2 with cancer in lab animals, and the coloring was banned in 1976. In the United States, about 3,000 additives are used in food production. When the FDA was given the power to regulate additives, it accepted certain substances that had been used for many years without any indications that they were unsafe. These substances, classified by the FDA as Generally Recognized as Safe, can be used without further FDA approval. New additives, packing materials, and colorings, however, must be approved by the FDA. All additives are subject to ongoing review as new evidence emerges. Additives have been associated with a number of medical problems, and several additives have been banned by the FDA. The FDA also sets maximum levels of natural or unavoidable defects in food for human use that present no health hazard. Such “defects” include matter (hairs, body parts, feces) from insects, rodents, and birds; decomposed material; and sand, soil, glass, rust, or other foreign substances. The FDA declares it permissible for chocolate to contain up to 60 or more insect fragments or one rat hair per 100 grams; peanut butter may have up to 30 insect fragments and one rat hair per 100 grams; popcorn may contain one rat hair in a specific sample, and fewer than 20 gnawed grains per pound; and potato chips may have an average of 6% or more pieces (by weight) containing rot.

Food Labeling In a high-profile move in 1971, the FDA banned the use of the artificial sweetener saccharin. Six years later, Congress passed the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act, which lifted the FDA ban but

required a label warning that saccharin has been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals. This requirement was eliminated in 1996. In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which requires packaged foods to be labeled with serving size and nutritional content. The act also requires that health claims on food labels—such as “heart healthy,” “low fat,” and “light”—be consistent with terms defined by the secretary of Health and Human Services. In 1994, Congress approved the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which classifies “dietary supplements” and “dietary ingredients” as food. It is one of the few laws to decrease the authority of the FDA by giving manufacturers more latitude in including these dietary supplements and ingredients in food. It permits products labeled as herbal remedies, botanicals, all-natural products, and vitamins to be advertised with health claims such as “pain relieving,” “energizing,” and “results guaranteed,” without proof of their effectiveness or safety. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act gives the FDA increased authority to intervene if safety is questioned. In 2003, the FDA required food labels to include trans fat content, which led many companies to reduce or eliminate trans fats in their products. The FDA also created a working group “to develop an action plan to deal with the nation’s obesity epidemic.” The following year, it released Calories Count: Report of the Obesity Working Group, which identified research needs, outlined the role of education in weight control, and explained how nutrition information—both on package labels and in restaurants—might help reverse the trend toward obesity. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 required that nutrition labels be placed on food products, but it exempted restaurants from including nutrition statements on their menus. In 2004, the FDA’s Obesity Working Group recommended that nutritional information be made available in restaurants, and the FDA funded the Keystone Center in Washington, D.C., a not-forprofit research organization, to review the status

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

of nutritional information in chain restaurants. The Keystone Center later reported that while about half of chain restaurants did provide such information, it was often hard for customers to find and read. Preliminary studies indicated that menu labeling led to small reductions in the number of calories people consumed, especially when the labeling included a statement referring to a recommended intake of 2,000 calories per day. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010, includes a provision creating a uniform national nutrition-disclosure standard for restaurants. It requires chain restaurants, drive-throughs, convenience stores, vending machines, and retail stores with 20 or more locations to post nutrition information in plain sight. Stores must also display “a succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake.” These federal standards replace the differing regulations and laws that a growing number of cities, counties, and states have passed over the past few years.

Bioengineered Food In March 1990, the FDA approved the use of bioengineered recombinant chymosin in cheese making. Chymosin served as a substitute for rennet, an enzyme traditionally made from the lining of calves’ stomachs. Today, about 90% of American hard cheeses contain transgenic chymosin, and little controversy surrounds this application of bioengineering. There was strong opposition to the next decision, in 1993, when the FDA approved the agricultural company Monsanto’s application for recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin, which increases lactation in dairy cows. This transgenic hormone, marketed as Posilac, is used in many dairies. Opponents’ concerns with recombinant bovine growth hormone/recombinant bovine somatotropin include animal welfare, fear that the hormone will contaminate water supplies, and potential harm to the health of people who consume the milk.

551

In 1992, the FDA established guidelines for testing the safety of foods using all methods of plant breeding, including transgenic ones. The FDA concluded that transgenic foods contained no new or special safety risks, and therefore, the FDA guidelines exempted transgenic plants from case-by-case review. This raised concerns among many Americans. In 1992, a coalition of organic farmers and restaurateurs, consumer and environmental groups, and animal welfare organizations formed the Pure Food Campaign to stop transgenic foods. The Pure Food Campaign was led by the San Francisco State University professor Jeremy Rifkin, who strongly opposed bioengineering, which he characterized as “a form of annihilation every bit as deadly as nuclear holocaust and even more profound” (Howard & Rifkin, 1977, pp. 9–10). But Henry I. Miller, head of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993, and Conko stated in The Frankenfood Myth (2004) that although Americans have consumed more than a trillion servings of foods that contain gene-spliced ingredients. . . . There hasn’t been a single untoward event documented, not a single ecosystem disrupted or person made ill from these foods. . . . That is not something that can be said about conventional foods, where imprecise methods of genetic modification actually have caused illnesses and deaths. (Miller & Conko, 2004, as quoted in Brody, 2005)

The FDA created guidelines for the approval of all transgenic foods and later established a consultation process to help producers meet the safety standards set by these guidelines. Since 1994, the FDA has judged many transgenic foods as safe as their conventional counterparts.

Food Safety In 2010, the U.S. Congress, concerned with numerous contaminations in peanuts, eggs, and produce and the foodborne illnesses they caused, passed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. It gives

552

Food Banks

the FDA power to set and enforce safety standards for farmers and food processors and to increase inspections of domestic food production facilities and foreign facilities that export food to the United States. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act also gives the FDA the authority to recall food and requires farms and processors to keep records to help trace recalled foods; it also requires grocery stores to alert consumers about recalls. Andrew F. Smith

era: A prescription for scandal. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Wallace, R. B., & Oria, M. (Eds.). (2010). Enhancing food safety: The role of the Food and Drug Administration (Committee on the Review of Food and Drug Administration’s Role in Ensuring Safe Food, Food and Nutrition Board, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Young, J. H. (1989). Pure food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

See also Food Additives; Food Safety; Food Safety Agencies

Website Further Readings Barton, R. P. (Ed.). (2010). Food safety, fresh produce and FDA oversight. New York, NY: Nova Science. Brody, J. (2005, January 11). Facing biotech foods without the fear factor. New York Times. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9 901E6DB1F39F932A25752C0A9639C8B63&module =Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%221% 22%3A%22RI%3A7%22%7D Goodwin, L. S. (1999). The pure food, drink, and drug crusaders, 1879–1914. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Hawthorne, F. (2005). Inside the FDA: The business and politics behind the drugs we take and the food we eat. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hilts, P. J. (2003). Protecting America’s health: The FDA, business, and one hundred years of regulation. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Howard, T., & Rifkin, J. (1977). Who should play god? The artificial creation of life and what it means for the future of the human race. New York, NY: Delacorte Press. Lefevre, E. C. (Ed.). (2009). Food labelling: The FDA’s role in the selection of healthy foods. New York, NY: Nova Science. Miller, H. I., & Conko, G. (2004). The Frankenfood myth: How protest and politics threaten the biotech revolution. Westport, CT: Praeger. Nestle, M. (2007). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Richert, L. (2014). Conservatism, consumer choice, and the Food and Drug Administration during the Reagan

U.S. Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov/ default.htm

FOOD BANKS Food banks are charitable, nonprofit institutions that gather donated food and food purchased with financial donations for redistribution to people who are hungry. In some countries, including the United States, food banks follow a warehouse model, gathering, sorting and redistributing food to other programs, such as soup kitchens and food pantries, that provide food directly to people who are hungry. In other countries, such as Canada, the term is more generic, covering both warehouse and direct provision functions. Food banks help reconcile the moral outrage of food going to waste when people are hungry and have become an integral component of the social safety net in many high-income countries. Food banks gather food that cannot be sold, but is still safe to eat, from food manufacturers, retailers, and producers. This includes food that is close to its best-used-by date; food products that are mislabeled, not manufactured exactly to specification, or are somehow damaged; and fruit and vegetables that do not meet market specifications because of size, shape, or ripeness. Food banks also collect from community food drives, in which citizens donate food that they have purchased at

Food Banks

grocery stores. Some food banks purchase food, often perishables, such as fruit, vegetables, eggs, and dairy, with financial donations. In the United States, food banks distribute excess commodities from the Emergency Food Assistance Program, a federal government program that supports U.S. farmers. Similarly in Europe, almost half the food distributed by food banks is excess agricultural products released through the European Union’s Food Distribution Programme for the Most Deprived Persons of the Community. According to the Global FoodBanking Network (GFN), food banks are now found on six continents, including in at least 21 countries in Europe, 11 in Central and South America, 4 in sub-Saharan Africa, and 6 in Asia. The GFN actively works to promote the establishment of food banks around the world as an obvious solution to fighting hunger and reducing food waste, while also helping the environment by eliminating some of the greenhouse gas emissions that result when food decomposes in landfill. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, GFN has partnerships with major multinational corporations such as Kellogg Company, Nestlé, Unilever, Cargill, Campbell Soup Company, and Walmart, who donate resources to support GFN’s mission to alleviate global hunger by developing and supporting food banks. This entry details the origins and expansion of food banks and discusses criticisms of these organizations.

Origins The world’s first food bank was founded in 1967 by John van Hengel, in Phoenix, Arizona. Van Hengel founded the St. Mary’s food bank to rescue edible but unsaleable food from the garbage and redistribute it to people who were hungry in his community. That same year, Senator Robert Kennedy’s tour of the Mississippi Delta led to the rediscovery of hunger in the United States, a problem that most Americans thought had disappeared. Civil rights activists rallied around Kennedy’s rediscovery of hunger and framed the problem as government’s failure to fulfill citizens’ basic rights of access to food assistance programs. Throughout

553

the 1970s, the prevailing response to hunger in the United States was not charitable food assistance but a human rights approach that sought to improve access to food assistance programs. However, by 1980, shifting political and economic conditions provided fertile ground for the seeds that van Hengel had sown. Informed by a neoliberal political ideology that advocated lower taxes and the retrenchment of government, the new U.S. president, Ronald Reagan, enacted dramatic cuts to government programs that assisted people living in poverty. The demand for charitable food services doubled in the early 1980s, as program cuts came into effect and an economic downturn forced hundreds of thousands of people out of work. The number of food banks in the United States rose dramatically throughout the 1980s. The increasing number of hungry people seeking food charity was thought of as an “emergency,” reflecting the real personal emergencies that so many faced, as well as the understanding of the problem as a societal emergency that would recede once the economy improved. However, despite several economic cycles over the past three decades, the emergency food services provided by food banks have persisted. Food banks have become a permanent nonmarket tier of last resort in the food system and an integral component of the social safety net. The national network of food banks in the United States, Feeding America, is now the fourth largest nonprofit organization in the country. Feeding America estimates that in 2012, it distributed more than 3 billion pounds of food and grocery products to 202 member agencies, which, in turn, provided 61,000 charitable agencies with food for 37 million people, or almost 12% of the U.S. population.

The Global Expansion of Food Banks Food banks have spread throughout high-income countries, now reaching more than 57 million people, and with the assistance of the GFN, they are setting up operations in middle-income countries, such as Egypt, India, South Africa, and Brazil. This section highlights a few locations to illustrate

554

Food Banks

trends, recent developments, similarities, and differences in how food banks operate. Canada

The first Canadian food bank was founded in Edmonton, Alberta, in 1981 after consultation with a food bank official from Phoenix, Arizona. Within 4 years, there were almost 100 food banks established in cities across the country. As in the United States, many food bank operators expected that once the economy recovered, the emergency would end and food banks could cease operations. But the number of food banks and the people they served continued to grow throughout the 1990s and 2000s. In 2012, the national organization of food banks, Food Banks Canada, reported that more than 1,100 food banks served almost 900,000 Canadians, approximately 2.6% of the population. When they began, Canadian food banks steadfastly refused government funding so that they could be more effective in their advocacy for public policies to reduce poverty, the root cause of hunger. Food banks in many provinces now receive some form of government funding, and by default, food banks have become an integral part of the social safety net, the primary social policy response to hunger. While Food Banks Canada and some of the largest food banks still advocate for social policies that would address poverty, the idea that Canadian food banks might one day close has become practically and literally unthinkable. Europe

The first food bank in Europe was founded in Paris, France, in 1984, after a French nun learned of the idea from the founder of the Edmonton Food Bank. Soon afterward, the first food bank in Belgium opened, and 2 years later, in 1986, the European Federation of Food Banks was launched. It supported the development of food banks in seven other European countries in its first 15 years. Since 2004, 13 more countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, have joined the  European Federation of Food Banks. Almost 19 million people, or 6% of the citizens of

the European Union, receive food from food banks. In 2011, the highest numbers of people using food banks were in France (3.6 million), Italy (3.4 million), and Poland (3.2 million), but the countries with the highest percentage of the population using food banks were Lithuania (14.9%), Slovakia (13.1%), Slovenia (12.5%), Romania (11.1%), and Hungary (10.8%).

The United Kingdom

Virtually unknown before the early 2000s, the number of food banks in the United Kingdom has exploded since 2010. The exponential growth in the number of food banks, and the people using them, has coincided with an economic downturn; rising unemployment and underemployment rates; higher costs for fuel, food, and housing; low wages; and a government austerity program that includes deep cuts to social benefit programs and much tighter regulations for those receiving benefits. U.K. food banks follow the two distinct models identified earlier, exemplified by two major national nonprofit organizations, FareShare and The Trussell Trust (TTT). FareShare, part of GFN, represents the warehouse model. Consistent with the warehouse model, FareShare collects surplus product from the food and drink industry and redistributes it to programs that feed vulnerable groups. In the 12 months prior to March 31, 2013, FareShare redistributed 4,200 tons of food, contributing to 10 million meals and feeding approximately 44,000 people a day. Despite increasing the amount of food it has redistributed since the previous year, FareShare cannot source enough food to meet demand. In its 2011/2012 Annual Report, FareShare notes a central contradiction of this model, that the difficult economy increases demand for its services at the same time that industry decreases surplus product to maintain profitability. FareShare identifies that its partnership with many suppliers has in itself highlighted where surpluses are to be found. TTT represents the direct service food bank model, with a mandate to provide emergency food supplies to clients who are in crisis. The first

Food Banks

Foodbank (the registered name of emergency food programs associated with TTT) started in Salisbury in 2000. A national network formed in 2004 with a vision of establishing a food bank in every town so that no one is hungry. Operating on a social franchise model, TTT has helped church groups start Foodbanks in more than 345 communities in the United Kingdom, most of them since 2010. The number of people using Foodbanks tripled between 2011 and 2012 to more than 350,000. Church groups who wish to start a Foodbank in their community contract with TTT for a variety of supports, including training and access to existing corporate partnerships (e.g., food drives carried out in the Tesco grocery store chain receive a 30% top up on donations). In return, the Foodbank organizers make a donation to TTT, agree to the aims and vision of TTT, and follow prescribed procedures. Foodbanks provide a standardized food parcel, up to three per year, to clients who have referrals from frontline service providers. Food parcels contain a specified list of nonperishable food items designed to last 3 days (10 meals), with varying quantities depending on household size. Community members purchase the food found in the Foodbank parcels and donate it through churches, schools, and special supermarket collections. Unlike food banks in other countries, to date, the TTT has not incorporated the avoidance of food waste into its mandate.

South Africa

In 2009, GFN helped establish the first food banks in South Africa and a national food bank network, FoodBank South Africa (FBSA). As of 2013, there is one food bank in each of four major centers, with specific plans to develop food banks in 15 other communities, and more generic plans to “cover the country” with food banks. The South African government identified food security as a top priority in the early 2000s, and like other aspects of its poverty reduction strategies, it has adopted a neoliberal approach that incorporates public–private partnerships and a focus on improving efficiency. South Africa is an ideal location in

555

Africa to establish food banks because of its wealth, well-developed food industry, infrastructure, political stability, and many civil society organizations that feed people who are hungry. Like other food banks supported by GFN, food banks in South Africa operate on the warehouse model. Working with food industry, food retailers, food producers, government, and others, FBSA procures surplus food, stores it in warehouses, and then redistributes it to community-based nonprofit agencies across the country, including soup kitchens, old age homes, HIV clinics, schools, and various feeding programs. In October 2012, FBSA was providing food to 1,500 community agencies with 305,245 beneficiaries. With food insecurity affecting approximately one in four South Africans (11 million people), the numbers served by FBSA are relatively small. It appears that the early enthusiasm for developing food banks has not yielded the expected results. In 2009, when FBSA was founded, it planned to have established at least 20 food banks by 2012; instead, the FBSA website lists only the original four. Similarly, FoodBank Johannesburg had planned to serve as many as 5,000 agencies and 2 million people within a few years of its founding.

Critiques of Food Banks Food banking seems like a practical and simple solution to two important moral, social, and political problems: hunger and food waste. Food banking gives volunteers and community organizations a sense of purpose, a way to contribute to their communities, and an opportunity to meet religious duties. It helps corporations meet corporate social responsibility targets and can help energize and motivate corporate employees. But beneath the instinctively appealing surface of this apparent resolution to hunger and food waste lurk some significant problems. Janet Poppendieck describes the problems of food banking as the seven deadly “ins”: 1. Insufficiency: The food available at food banks is driven by donations, and there is seldom enough to meet demand. When there is an economic downturn, the demand for food goes up but

556

Food Banks

donations tend to fall off. As a result, food banks carefully ration their food supplies. For example, in 2010, Food Banks Canada reported that 35% of direct provision food banks had to close early because of a lack of food, and 50% had to reduce the amount of food provided. Moreover, research in Canada and the United States shows that the use of food banks and food pantries does not appear to improve household food insecurity, presumably because the amount of food provided is so limited. 2. Inappropriateness: The food that food banks can provide may not meet the preferences, religious restrictions, or health needs of clients. 3. Nutritional inadequacy: While some food banks are able to offer fresh food, most food provided by food banks is nonperishable. Consequently, food offerings are often high in sugar and salt and low in fiber, vitamins, and minerals, failing to meet nutritional recommendations. This is especially troubling given the well-known inverse relationship between income and health, such that, food bank clients, who are people living in poverty and with food insecurity, are more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic diseases requiring dietary management. 4. Instability: The food donations, volunteer labor, and financial donations that food banks rely on are all inherently unpredictable, unreliable, and unstable. 5. Inaccessibility: Food banks are not necessarily located where they are most needed. Other barriers to accessibility include limited opening hours and long lines. 6. Inefficiency: The effort and costs of connecting hungry people with available resources is enormous. Food banks appear to be efficient because so much of the labor and product involved is donated. 7. Indignity: Many people find that receiving charity is demeaning and dehumanizing. The multiple problems with food banks listed above

compound and multiply the sense of indignity that food bank recipients often experience. Food banks are a “last resort” when other options for feeding oneself and one’s family have run out. While many food bank recipients are grateful and appreciative of the support, receiving food from a food bank may provoke feelings of shame and humiliation.

For all these reasons (and perhaps others), research has shown that only between one quarter and one third of food-insecure households in Canada use food banks. Critics note that food banks allow governments to ignore their responsibilities to citizens, legitimizing personal generosity and volunteerism instead of effective social policy that would address poverty, the root cause of hunger. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Oliver de Schutter, has rebuked the Canadian government for failing to ensure social policies that would enable Canadians to meet their basic food needs and expressed concern about the rise of food banks in the United Kingdom. Food banks act as a moral safety valve, alleviating the pressure to find real solutions to poverty. They provide a comforting illusion that those who are hungry in our midst are being looked after and that if only more of us would chip in to donate, we could “end hunger.” Food banks appear to be useful in serving the needs of its corporate donors, helping them avoid disposal costs and landfill tipping fees, while appearing to be good corporate citizens who care about the environment (decreasing the greenhouse gas emissions that are generated when food goes to landfill) and those who are hungry. However, some have argued that their support for a charitable solution to hunger, through food banks, helps prevent the development of political solutions to address poverty that could work against their interests (e.g., tax increases to pay for improved government income supports or more stringent labor laws). Consider the case of Caterpillar Inc., whose donation of US$500,000 to the GFN in 2012, to fight hunger in the United Kingdom and

Food Banks

Mexico, is highlighted on the GFN webpage. In the same year, Caterpillar closed a Canadian manufacturing plant, putting 465 people out of work, after unionized workers refused a pay reduction of 50% and cuts to benefits. Caterpillar announced its decision to move the plant to Indiana, in the United States, shortly after Indiana’s governor signed “right to work” legislation that makes it difficult for unions to organize. Its global profits rose to US$5.68 billion in 2012. While GFN lauded Caterpillar’s donation as generous, critics assert that the amount of the donation pales in comparison to annual profits and that Caterpillar’s actions in Canada speak more clearly than its words about its commitment to ensuring the basic human needs of all. In a global neoliberal era characterized by state retrenchment, the deregulation of the economy, and the privatization of social life and social problems, food banks appear to be an ideal mechanism for governments and the corporate sector to advance their agenda. The evidence suggests that food banks enable some people to be less hungry than they would have been if food banks did not exist. However, the problem of hunger and its root cause, poverty, is too big for community-based donor and volunteer-dependent organizations to solve. Elaine M. Power See also Domestic Food Insecurity; Food Insecurity; Food Stamps and WIC; Food Waste; Hunger

557

for Policy Alternatives & Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from http://www.policyalternatives.ca/ publications/reports/understanding-link-betweenwelfare-policy-and-use-food-banks Lambie-Mumford, H. (2013). “Every town should have one”: Emergency food banking in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 42(1), 73–89. doi:10.1017/ S004727941200075X Loopstra, R., & Tarasuk, V. (2012). The relationship between food banks and household food insecurity among low-income Toronto families. Canadian Public Policy, 38(4), 497–514. doi:10.2307/41756766 Poppendieck, J. (1995). Hunger in America: Typification and responses. In D. Maurer & J. Sobal (Eds.), Eating agendas: Food and nutrition as social problems (pp. 11–34). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Poppendieck, J. (1998). Sweet charity? Emergency food and the end of entitlement. New York, NY: Viking Press. Riches, G. (2011). Thinking and acting outside the charitable food box: Hunger and the right to food in rich societies. Development in Practice, 21(4-5), 768–755. doi:10.1080/09614524.2011.561295 Tarasuk, V., & Eakin, J. (2003). Charitable food assistance as symbolic gesture: An ethnographic study of food banks in Ontario. Social Science & Medicine, 56(7), 1505–1515. Warshawsky, D. N. (2010). New power relations served here: The growth of food banking in Chicago. Geoforum, 41, 763–775. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum .2010.04.008 Warshawsky, D. N. (2011). FoodBank Johannesburg, state, and civil society organisations in post-apartheid Johannesburg. Journal of Southern African Studies, 37(4), 809–829. doi:10.1080/03057070.2011.617947

Further Readings

Websites

Gentilini, U. (2013). Banking on food: The state of food banks in high-income countries. Brighton, UK: Centre for Social Protection & Institute of Development Studies. Gentleman, A. (2012, July 18). Food banks: A life on handouts. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www .guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/18/food-bankson-hand-outs/ Goldberg, M., & Green, D. (2009). Understanding the link between welfare policy and the use of food banks. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Canadian Centre

European Federation of Food Banks: http://www.eurofood bank.eu FareShare: http://www.fareshare.org.uk Feeding America: http://www.feedingamerica.org Food Banks Canada: http://www.foodbankscanada.ca FoodBank South Africa: http://www.foodbank.org.za The Global FoodBanking Network: http://www.food banking.org The Trussell Trust: http://www.trusselltrust.org United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food: http://www.srfood.org

558

Food Carts

FOOD CARTS Food carts are direct descendants of trays suspended by straps from food sellers necks. As old as food selling itself, trays were once common in Europe (e.g., sausages in Germany were sold by urban sellers called Wurstmaxen). In Europe and the Americas, food carts mostly have been replaced by mobile carts or small fixed stands on city streets. In Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa, trays are still very common, perhaps the best known being sellers of round baked breads called simit in Turkish cities. Carts are also quite old food service vehicles perhaps dating to the beginning of civilization in the Old World. In terms of service technology, they are an advance, or a step up from serving trays, though both coexist in many parts of the world (e.g., at sporting events). Carts are usually defined as having two wheels and are either drawn by a draft animal, usually a horse, or pushed by hand. However, in contemporary times, carts can be two or four wheeled and powered by a bicycle or even motorized. In all cases, a food cart is a platform from which food is served by the operator-vendor to the public. Foods can be raw, cooked, or prepared somewhere else and sold from the cart. In modern times, foods can be cooked or heated on the cart itself. Food carts are among the world’s most common forms of vending vehicles. After briefly describing the various types of food carts used throughout the world, this entry discusses the issues of economy and health and safety.

Types of Carts A well-known image of a nonmotorized food cart in Irish, British, and North American popular culture might be the famous 1880s song “Molly Malone.” Dubliner Molly “pushed her wheelbarrow, through streets wide and narrow, singing ‘cockles and mussels, alive, alive, oh!’” Molly’s cart has always been depicted as a flat wooden platform on two wooden or metal wheels pushed by handles attached to one end. Similar carts are used

worldwide and can be made from any wheeled device such as baby carriages. As the song says, a two-wheeled pushcart is mobile and used to service local neighborhoods; however, pushcarts around the world typically appear in open spaces such as wide streets, squares, and marketplaces. New York City’s picturesque pushcart is a good example of this type. Bicycle-driven carts appeared in the late 19th century and are common in countries such as India and China. Perhaps the best known in the Americas are tricycle ice cream carts, which were basically cold boxes set on two front wheels, with the seat just in front of the third rear wheel. Bicycle ice cream carts date to the 1920s and are still in use, especially in countries such as Mexico where they are used to vend paletas (ice pops). These are mobile vending platforms that service areas where there might not be fixed food service locations. Motorized carts come in two basic forms. One is a self-contained three- or four-wheeled vehicle. Three-wheelers are developments of bicycles and often look like enclosed human-driven machines. Four-wheelers are small truck-like mechanisms that can be driven to a spot and then remain there for a whole day or night. Related to these is the second kind of cart, one towed by a car or truck to a site where it can remain for longer periods if permitted. The kind of food-vending vehicles used at fairs is typical of these trailers. Smaller sized trailers can be found on city streets throughout the world, from New York City to Washington, D.C.; London, England; and commonly in Eastern Europe. Motorized “carts” are usually equipped with cooking gear such as stoves and grills and thus are more like restaurants than simple handcarts. Taco stands in the American Southwest, including Sonoran-style hot dog places in Tucson, Arizona, are examples of this type.

Economic Issues From time immemorial, food cart vendors have been at the economic entry level in developed economies. In lesser developed countries, food carts may be the sole or at least an important part

Food Carts

of a family’s income. Because the products sold can be obtained cheaply and are usually precooked and prepackaged, buyers can get food cheaply. For those who have little capital to invest, mobile vending is a way to make a living, no matter how meager. This has often been the case, especially among new immigrant groups. New York City in the 1800s, for example, saw a meteoric rise in numbers of street vendors, many operated by immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. Their customers were mainly poor immigrants themselves knowing little English and therefore confined to their own cultural and linguistic communities. Pushcarts were regular features of such immigrant neighborhoods and often located on certain streets throughout a city. According to Andrew F. Smith, in New York City in the 1920s, 63% of vegetable and fruit sellers were Jews, and almost all the rest were Italians who hailed from the southern part of their native country. In downtown Atlanta, Georgia, many of the hot dog cart owners in the 1910s were Greeks. The same pattern holds today but for different ethnic groups. In  New York today, most vendors are from the Indian subcontinent or the Middle East, while in the American Southwest, they are of Mexican extraction. From early on, municipal authorities have regulated food carts for various reasons. Some regulations have to do with city planning—whereby authorities do not want streets or open spaces cluttered with food carts to affect the aesthetics of the city. Others relate to other businesses or public building. A city might restrict the distance that a vendor has to keep from a school. Other regulations are created at the insistence of fixed-location businesses. Restaurant owners often object to mobile food vendors parking their carts nearby—a major reason why there are no vendors in the downtown area of Chicago, Illinois. Vendors often must obtain written permission from business owners to allow them to locate nearby, as is done in Los Angeles, California. Some cities such as San Jose, California, require vendors to move after certain time intervals, say 15 to 30 minutes. Municipal codes can also stipulate that mobile vendors may

559

not interfere with the normal flow of traffic. These laws may be selectively enforced by local police forces. New York City vendors have been particularly aggrieved by periodic crackdowns by police who ticket them for minor infractions of city codes such as parking too close to a restricted building or not close enough to a curb. Many cities in North America and much of the rest of the world license vendors. Where ordinances are less restrictive, as in Portland, Oregon, food carts numbers have grown. In others, such as New York City, there is a set number of licenses given out (about 3,000), so new vendors must rent carts from license holders or buy them at prohibitively high prices. In key locations, such as Central Park, a license may cost more than $100,000. Although most city annual licenses are inexpensive, typically $50 to $100, restrictions on numbers can be a burden to potential vendors. Of course, in many countries around the world where street food is an important part of a daily diet—West Africa is an example—licensing may be minimal or nonexistent.

Health and Safety Issues Molly Malone sold fresh shellfish from her wheelbarrow. Lacking refrigeration, the food could easily have become contaminated and the cart itself was likely made from wood that was never sanitized by regular cleaning. Many mobile carts in lesser developed nations today are, according to the World Health Organization, vectors of foodborne diseases—much like Molly Malone’s. For instance, a study of microbial counts in freshly squeezed juices of fruits and vegetables, carried out in India, showed that almost all cases were unacceptable for human consumption. The same went for water used in juices and for washing. This study’s results are not unusual, as research around the world shows. Many cities in developed nations require that mobile vendors comply with current health codes. Such laws are intended to protect the public from diseases that might be carried in food. They include hygiene rules such as vendors wearing impermeable gloves, hand washing, and in some Asian countries wearing nose and mouth

560

Food Deserts

masks during influenza seasons. Carts must also be regularly cleaned, in some cases, every night after closing time. Modern food carts are no longer wooden contraptions, like those in “Molly Malone” depictions, but are made of more easily cleaned stainless steel, with food containers that can be made cold or hot for proper storage. Grills, steamers, water boxes (for hot dogs), and small ovens are regulated under modern health code standards. Other regulations concern food preparation. In some municipalities, food must be made in an offsite central commissary—that is, a separate kitchen. Central cooking locations can be more easily inspected for contaminants. In other places such as New York City where cooking can be done on carts—for example, kebabs are commonly prepared in the open—health inspectors check each cart often and issue seals of approval so that the public is aware that the food they purchase is safe. In areas where food is made at home, such inspections are difficult if not impossible. One recent health aspect of mobile vending is a new emphasis on healthy diets. New York City issued 100 new permits for “Green Carts.” These vendors must conform to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines on healthy eating, namely, serving foods that are low in saturated fats, salt, and sugars, while being high in dietary fibers. In Kansas City, Missouri, food sellers who meet such guidelines qualify for lower municipal fees and for preferred spots at vending locations. San Francisco, California, has similar guidelines but has expanded them to include organically raised foods as preferred healthy foods. Some cities, such as Chicago, Illinois, have encouraged vendors of healthy foods to locate in areas where such foods are hard to find. Typically, these are low-income parts of the city, often racially or ethnically separated from other more privileged areas. The term food deserts is often applied, and mobile food vending units is one way that the issue of good nutrition is being addressed. Bruce Kraig See also Food Deserts; Food Trucks; Street Food

Further Readings Bisht, L. R., Kulshrestha, K., & Kushwaha, A. (2009). Microbiological quality of fresh fruit and vegetable juices sold in mobile carts. Pantnagar Journal of Research, 7(1), 101–104. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. (n.d.). Bad bug book: Handbook of foodborne pathogenic microorganisms and natural toxins. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/ UCM297627.pdf Fellows, P., & Hilmi, M. (2011). Selling street foods and snack foods. Rome, Italy: Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Smith, A. F. (2013). New York City: A food biography. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Tester, J. M., Stevens, S. A., Yen, I. H., & Laraia, B. A. (2010, November). Effective use of frameworks and research to advance policy: An analysis of public health policy and legal issues relevant to mobile food vending. American Journal of Public Health, 100(11), 2038–2046. Urban Justice Center. Street vendor project. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://svp.urbanjustice.org World Health Organization, International Food Safety Authorities Network. (2010, June 30). Basic steps to improve safety of street-vended food. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://www.who .int/foodsafety/fs_management/No_03_StreetFood_ Jun10_en.pdf

FOOD DESERTS The term food desert is used to describe an area or region that has poor access to foods that provide adequate nutrition. There are many causes that lead to an area being classified as a food desert. Three of the most relevant concepts related to understanding how food deserts occur are (1) access to food, (2) assets to allow purchase of food, and (c) attitudes or behaviors that influence food choices. The physical and built environment has a strong influence on access to food, often because of barriers that prevent travel to a location

Food Deserts

that has adequate and nutritious food for sale. Economically marginalized communities and populations often have difficulty with securing adequate income to purchase foods that provide the necessary vitamins, minerals, and nutrition required for a healthy and balanced diet. Furthermore, households and communities often have belief systems or cultural norms that perpetuate the regular purchase and consumption of food items and products that are unhealthy and are correlated with increases in several diseases. This entry explores issues related to food deserts, including access, assets, attitudes and behaviors, and food security and then examines local food movements and food justice as a means for addressing these issues.

Access to Healthy and Nutritious Foods The built environment of a location can have a significant impact on the ability of an individual or community to access adequate food to provide a balanced and healthy diet. Food deserts can be viewed as deserted islands within a landscape that might be quite abundant in terms of food choices. This can be of particular concern in urban settings, where the city landscape and environment can cut off or isolate consumers from being able to readily acquire adequate nutrition. Examples include neighborhoods with low car ownership as well as poor public transportations, and urban areas that are bordered by industrial and commercial zones that are difficult to cross (e.g., because of numerous railroad tracks or shipping lanes). Access to nutritious food can also be amplified when grocery stores and food markets choose not to locate in specific neighborhoods. Households in an urban or suburban community that must travel more than a few miles to acquire food that is healthy are typically considered as being located in a food desert. Moreover, local stores located in such communities may stock food items for purchase, but often instead of stocking a selection of healthy and nutritious foods, they stock highly processed foods that lack adequate nutrition.

561

The physical geography of a location can also influence whether a community is located within a food desert. Rural areas throughout the United States are often great distances from grocery stores or outlets that supply fresh fruits and vegetables year-round. Additionally, barriers such as mountain ranges and water features can further isolate communities from accessing adequate nutrition. There are numerous types of examples of locations that are classified as a food desert because of the physical geography of the region. Examples include islands, such as the big island in the State of Hawaii and Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada. Both of these islands have mountain ranges located centrally and require consumers to drive long distances to reach an outlet with food. Remote, rural areas often lack adequate public transportation systems as well, marginalizing those people within a community who do not own vehicles or who are not able to drive, such as those who are elderly or disabled. The built and physical environment can either allow fast and easy access to nutritious and healthy food choices or create barriers, which can be difficult to overcome. Cities often exhibit barriers within the built environment that contribute to food deserts, whereas rural locations are often more influenced by difficult or isolated terrain, making access to food difficult. Intermediate zones, such as suburban communities, often have adequate access to grocery stores and restaurants that provide healthy and nutritious food options. However, recently many suburban areas have suffered economically and have experienced de-investment and, thus, on occasion are also being classified as food deserts.

Economics and Food Deserts The ability to purchase healthy and nutritiously adequate food items is an important contributing factor to the existence of food deserts throughout the United States and elsewhere. While households and communities may not have access to the right kinds of foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, and low-fat dairy, many

562

Food Deserts

individuals and families lack the financial security to be able to purchase these types of foods. Typically, the less processed and more nutritious a food item is, the higher the unit price. Additionally, during the off-season for many items, such as fruits and vegetables, prices may further increase because of the costs of transporting those items to market from distant, geographic locations. Households that have a very tight or minimal food budget are often forced to make choices about food purchasing that maximizes the amount of calories per dollar rather than the nutrients and minerals per dollar. This trend is also prevalent in the food choices that are available in fast food environments, where the low-cost options are typically the least nutritious choices available. The availability of income for food purchases as well as the local community inventory of those goods can also influence how a region can be classified as a food desert. In many communities that have a high proportion of the population on assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the United States, stores may stock food items to correlate with monthly fluxes in income, oftentimes having bare shelves or little to no fresh food available for weeks at a time. Senior citizens and other community members who are on a fixed income may struggle to be able to purchase enough food to provide adequate nutrition over a specified period of time as well. Access to adequate income to purchase the correct types of foods to sustain a healthy lifestyle can have a serious impact on a household or community; however, attitudes and behaviors regarding what is considered a nutritious food choice can also be detrimental.

Attitudes and Behaviors Relating to Food Purchases Food deserts are also a result of the choices that people make about the types of foods they are willing to purchase. Households and communities may have adequate access and assets to be able to purchase and prepare healthy foods; however, their attitudes and behaviors relating to food and

nutrition are an obstacle to making nutritious choices. Oftentimes, in these circumstances, the reliance on fast, cheap, and processed food may be influenced by the availability of household income for food purchasing. Many health problems in the United States and other parts of the world are related to poor nutrition. Oftentimes, people have access to healthy food yet choose to purchase and consume foods that do not support a healthy lifestyle and may even threaten one’s health. These choices can be influenced by lack of information about adequate nutrition as well as lack of knowledge about food preparation. Additionally, cultural norms may influence decisions about food that do not support health and nutrition. Examples of this can be seen in institutional food systems, such as some public schools, where food subsidies and government programs can perpetuate unhealthy behaviors, such as access to sugary, high-calorie, high-fat foods and beverages that lack balanced nutrition.

Food Security When a household or community is considered food insecure, it means that they are not able to meet their nutritional and caloric demands. In the United States, the number of households that are considered as food insecure has increased over the past decade. Many more individuals are dependent on food assistance programs such as free and reduced lunch programs, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and state assistance programs, as well as community food banks. Food security is directly linked to issues of food access and economic assets to purchase food. Communities may become food insecure because of their location or because of a disturbance event, such as a devastating natural disaster or human conflict such as war. More commonly, households are food insecure because they lack the financial stability to be able to make reasonable food purchases to sustain a balanced diet. Regions can quickly become a food desert because of natural and human disturbance events and require assistance to recover. However, in many locations, food insecurity is

Food Deserts

steadily rising over time, as economies become depressed and incomes remain stagnant.

Local Food Movements National, state, and regional programs throughout the United States as well as in other regions of the world have developed programs and policies to confront issues related to food deserts. Nutritional standards are constantly being evaluated and updated and are then encouraged to be adopted by school programs, community meal programs, and other entities that provide food and nutritional outreach to households and communities. Some examples of these types of programs are farmers’ markets, farm-to-school programs, community gardens, and promotion of local institutional purchasing from farmers for food preparing. While these efforts are all centered on increasing the quantity of nutritious foods available to a community, they often face their own obstacles. For instance, in many small-scale agricultural systems, it is not economically viable for farmers to sell their produce to a school for a lunch or meal program or to a prison for institutional purchasing. Additionally, many farmers’ markets allow consumers to use their food assistance funds to purchase local produce from vendors. However, the cost per unit of produce from a farmers’ market stand is substantially higher than it would be from a grocery store, therefore reducing the purchasing potential of those funds. Another example of a program that is focused on providing better food security is the community garden movement. Many neighborhoods encourage the use of green space to cultivate fruits and vegetables for household consumption. These food items are typically higher in nutrition than cheap, processed foods; however, they require substantial investment, time, and knowledge to be successful. These are constraints that many households are not able to overcome. While these programs are geared toward alleviating some of the problems associated with food deserts and food security, there are still many concerns about the ability to adequately address those households and individuals who are the most

563

economically depressed through the promotion of purchasing local, healthy foods.

Food Justice As illustrated previously, there are many conditions that can lead to an area being classified as a food desert. Communities may suffer from one or all of the concepts outlined, such as being both physically isolated and economically marginalized. It is important for communities that are considered at risk or are already classified as a food desert to look at various options to solve issues related to accessibility of nutritionally adequate foods. Communities need to create a food system that allows members to be able to make decisions about food purchasing that are viable and sustainable over time, such as creating incentives to lower the cost of locally produced nutritious foods, creating incentives for farmers to sell to institutions serving those who are economically or socially marginalized, and providing enough security through financial assistance programs so that households are able to make healthy food purchasing decisions. Many communities are beginning to view access to healthy and nutritious foods as a right, not a privilege. There has been a resurgence in outreach programs to reeducate communities on food production, preservation, and preparation to facilitate better decision making regarding household nutrition and food security. Urban and rural communities are adopting local food system approaches and are analyzing food systems from production, distribution, and food security perspectives to address inadequacies in the food system, such as lack of access or financial security. Food deserts pose serious risks to household nutrition, community sustainability, community and economic development, and longterm social health outcomes. To analyze and address food deserts, it is necessary to view them from various perspectives to understand how the physical and built environment, economics, and behaviors impact a community’s ability to acquire and utilize healthy and nutritious foods. Laura R. Lewis

564

Food Fairs and Festivals

See also Community Gardens; Farmers’ Markets; Food Banks; Food Justice; Food Safety

Further Readings Childs, J., & Lewis, L. R. (2012). Food deserts and their presence in a southwest community of Baltimore, Maryland. Food, Culture & Society, 15(3), 395–414. Drewnowski, A., & Darmon, N. (2005). Food choices and diet costs: An economic analysis. Journal of Nutrition, 135(4), 900–904. Hendrickson, D., Smith, C., & Eikenberry, N. (2006). Fruit and vegetable access in four low income food desert communities in Minnesota. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 371–383. doi:10.1007/ s10460-006-9002-8 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (n.d.). Food environment atlas. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foodenvironment-atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx# .UqAWihygMS4 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (n.d.). Report to Congress: Access to affordable and nutritious food: Measuring and understanding food deserts and their consequences. Washington, DC: Government Printing Works.

FOOD FAIRS

AND

FESTIVALS

Social gatherings that center on food have been found in almost all human cultures across time, but food festivals in the United States have become popular and taken on particular characteristics over the past century. These festivals that are devoted to the promotion, celebration, and consumption of food focus on one or more agricultural products and promote them as iconic of local areas. Because foods are often regarded as essential elements of regional culture, food festivals represent the cultural, educational, and leisure resources of an area to benefit the local economy. The festivals are social gatherings that are usually organized by municipalities, regional affiliations, or the state, but specific brands often sponsor the festivals to attract new customers,

gain customer feedback, and build their loyalty. In generating interest and knowledge of food, sponsoring groups hope to increase consumption. This entry explores how food fairs and festivals promote cultural meanings, such as belonging, traditions, and multicultural ideology, and discusses the commercialization of food festivals.

Food Festivals and Belonging Food festivals, in promoting local food products, speak to the cultural meanings of belonging, whether to an immediate locality or a larger region. Food figures largely in symbolic discourses regarding identity, values, and attitudes. Although many festival attendees enjoy the festivals because they offer a fun atmosphere in which to socialize or relax, and possibly increase social status, several studies have found that they are more often motivated to attend because of the festivals’ individual attributes. The ways in which foods are presented indicate narratives of the community and the ways in which they hope to present themselves both to outsiders and to one another. The central aim of most food festivals is to provide an occasion for communities to come together and interact in an atmosphere that promotes community. This then creates a bond between participants. The annual Asparagus Festival in Stockton, California, is one such example. It was invented, in a sense, to bring the community together. This festival, like many similar local celebrations throughout the United States, includes a car show, arts and crafts vendors, live music, and running of a short race for charity. Other festivals across the United States also include parades, beauty pageants, and talent shows. Although these events have nothing to do with the food of honor or with the local community in particular, they are expected markers of “tradition” and advance community ties. The Asparagus Festival, however, does feature other events that specifically focus on asparagus. The gathering is organized around “Asparagus Alley,” where the uses and cooking of asparagus are showcased. Whereas some booths offer conventional dishes, others attempt to compete for the

Food Fairs and Festivals

most bizarre recipes that use asparagus. The best of these recipes are then collected and published in a cookbook, which is sold at the festival and in local bookstores. Similar cooking competitions are an important feature of many food festivals and at times make up the bulk of the celebration, such as the chili, rib, and barbeque cook-offs that are widespread in the southern United States. Yet to say that these events are widespread is not to suggest that they are uniform. Each has local specificity, and to present North Carolina style barbeque at a cook-off in Texas would not be well accepted. In essence, each of these types of food festivals uses their iconic food as a means of creating tradition and building pride in the community to distinguish it from others.

Changing Traditions and Food Festivals Other food festivals represent longer histories of agricultural pride. State fairs in the Midwestern United States have promoted a variety of agricultural products since the mid-1800s. Food promotion at the fairs acted as a way to both increase consumption and display the economic success agricultural industries had experienced. Amateur agriculture contests, cooking demonstrations, and food samples have always been central to the culinary focus of these fairs. In the early 1900s, dairy products were particularly popular and began to be promoted through interesting artistic works— namely, life-sized sculptures of cows made of butter. These sculptures were sponsored by creameries and showcased their economic success. If the creamery could spare 500 pounds of butter for the sculpture, it must be financially productive. But today, the meanings associated with these sculptures have changed. Many organizers and participants note that as agricultural practices have shifted, so has participation in the agricultural areas of Midwest state fairs. As the famous Iowa sculptor Norma Duffy Lyons, or “The Buttercow Lady,” explained, as factory farming and concentrated animal feeding operations dominate the agricultural landscape, it has been harder to find artists who are familiar enough with bovine

565

anatomy to be able to sculpt a cow accurately. In fact, the Dairy Barn manager at the Illinois State Fair quipped in 2003 that in contrast to the sculptures of Lyons, the Illinois Buttercow looked like a “mule with tits.” Agricultural changes have affected the state fair in Minnesota as well, where the sculptor Linda Christianson carves butter likenesses of the 12 dairy princess finalists. The finalists between the ages of 15 and 18 years must either be daughters of dairy farmers or have worked on a dairy farm for more than a year. Organizers point out that it is increasingly hard to find eligible young women because dairy farming has become commercialized and mechanized. Thus, these festivals celebrating dairy increase community pride in the current era through highlighting the strength of tradition and authenticity that are increasingly coming under attack.

Food Festivals and Multicultural Ideology While Buttercow sculpture fans lament the erosion of traditional agricultural methods in the United States, other food fairs actively promote the melding of different cultural traditions. Clearly, in the United States, many “ethnic foods” have slowly become incorporated into culinary repertoires of dominant culture, such as the taco or Chinese take-out food. While some ethnically linked foods may be overlooked to maintain an image of “traditional” American food, at other times, they may be highlighted to create multicultural cohesion within the community. One such example is the Taste of Chicago, the world’s largest food festival. Here, several different types of food that are all available in the same city are showcased. Taste, as it is often called, began in 1980 as a way to showcase area restaurants, at first only including already prominent ones. Taste grew from 250,000 attendees the first year to more than 1 million participants in recent years, and it features a wider variety of food. Although traditional local favorites such as Chicago-style pizza, Chicago hot dogs, Italian beef, and Eli’s Cheesecake are quite popular, the festival also includes foods from the city’s Mexican, Greek, Polish, and South Asian

566

Food Fairs and Festivals

communities. Thus, Taste of Chicago represents one way in which the incorporation of ethnic foods symbolizes the mainstreaming and inclusion of subcultures within the broader community.

Food Festivals as Social Action However, some food festivals are staged to explicitly differentiate a subculture or subgroup from the whole. Stockton residents chose asparagus as their food of honor, or example, in part, because it was not linked to any particular ethnic heritage. But many foods do indeed stand out as markers of different subcultures or ethnic traditions. Given histories of racism, cultural centrism, and antiimmigrant sentiments, so-called ethnic foods are often negatively evaluated by the mainstream culinary culture. When this is the case, their celebration may be used as a form of resistance, and cultural pride takes on increased importance. Although food is a human necessity, it is also symbolic and, thus, a highly complex social phenomenon that at times may either reinforce or challenge relations of domination. In Santa Cruz, California, a wealthy city amid the state’s Central Coast where thousands of migrant workers pick fruit during strawberry season, a nopal (cactus fruit) festival has emerged. The festival began as an effort to help celebrate Mexican food and heritage and to help support the Latino community in Santa Cruz. At the festival, some chefs cook nopales in traditional ways, but others have found new innovative uses for the fruit. This promotion of Mexican immigrant foodways can be considered especially transformative, given the ways Mexican food vending has historically been restricted in the southwest of the United States to promote the ideal of assimilation: The highly visible selling of food on the street by Mexican women had been perceived as a danger that had to be subjugated and was seen as a public health risk by food inspectors. Thus, in Santa Cruz, a foodie mecca of sorts, the promotion of foods associated with Mexican immigrants is significant. Yet even seemingly socially progressive food festivals cannot escape the ways in which food is

easily commercialized. The Nopal Festival, for example, may simply exploit an ethnic food in service of a hegemonic foodie culture. Indeed, ethnic food is often a site of contestation over race, ethnicity, gender, and class, and the tastes and smells associated with certain groups may be just as influential as the way in which people look in the creation and maintenance of racial and ethnic difference. Thus, the acceptance of ethnic foods within festival celebrations may not necessarily indicate an end to racism, but it may indeed illustrate the changing nature of concepts of race. In addition to their use in promoting and celebrating certain subgroups within the larger community, food festivals have also been used to promote counterhegemonic systems of food production. In Harlem, New York, a team of researchers created a food festival called Food for Life or Comida para la Vida to promote diabetes awareness. At the festival, they demonstrated tasty, affordable, healthy ways to cook, while also screening residents for common health indicators, and provided information on health insurance, citizenship, food stamps, and voter registration. The festival also included DJs, dancing, and hula hoop contests. Researchers considered the event a success because some residents commented that they were more open to testing in the festive, relaxed environment than in a clinical setting. Similarly, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, the nonprofit FoodShare incorporates a Field to Table summer festival among its other programming, which includes community gardens, local agricultural food boxes, and a volunteer-run phone line that directs callers to food projects around the city. This project helps local individuals—particularly the working poor—reorient their household economies away from commodification and consumerism and toward a more equitable and sustainable provisioning of human needs. FoodShare has recently placed most emphasis on its festival as a major contribution to its education campaign to build a community sense of food politics in Toronto. Through promotion of healthy, local food and the nonprofit’s other programs at its Field to Table festival, concerns about lifestyle and

Food Fairs and Festivals

bodily health are put at the forefront of discussions about food. While these discussions may be commodified and incorporated into hegemonic processes, they may also work as a process of politicization expanding discussions about the social and ecological costs of industrial food production. While FoodShare’s goal is to make healthy local food accessible to low-income people, it has had to rely on sponsorship from some of Canada’s largest financial institutions. Indeed, FoodShare exists in a cultural space still governed by the norms of consumer sovereignty, and collective empowerment can only go so far. The global commodity chains that allow for cheap, industrial food still hold hegemonic power, which limits the collective power of consumers. As both FoodShare and the Nopal Festival of Santa Cruz demonstrate, the promotion of certain foods can be considered counterhegemonic when it resists mainstream structures that limit certain groups’ participation in the public sphere, yet it may in other ways reinforce dominant food practices and cultural ideologies.

Commercialization of Food Festivals Although many food festivals were created to build cohesion in a community and strengthen local identity, many have been commercialized to such an extent that they are now simply a form of economic promotion. In recent decades, food festivals have become major motivations for travel as well. In fact, festivals and special events are the fastest growing types of tourism attractions and major markets in the world leisure industry. Most food festivals begin with a romantic sense of community in mind, emphasizing the commonalities in foodways that bind a community together. Yet, as festivals increasingly emphasize display for outside audiences, they may be considered more commercialized events. Organizers, chambers of commerce, private promoters, and tourist organizations may discover that a local festival has the potential to attract a much broader audience and, thus, promote it more widely to increase revenue. This economic incentive is sometimes greeted warmly

567

by communities, while others see it as a loss of the original purpose of their group celebration. The Festa Italiana of Hartford, Connecticut, became more controversial as it expanded. It began in 1978, but by 1985, it had become one of the largest ethnic festivals in New England. By this time, control had passed from the local community and was focused more on food vending than regional pride. Eventually, locals decided to discontinue the festival because they disliked the commercialization that had come to pervade its celebration. Yet many festivals exist entirely for the economic benefits to the community. Taste of Chicago certainly thrives on a commercialized model that provides entertainment to more than 1 million people to promote the culinary culture of the city. One more extreme example is the Luckenbach Texas chili cook-off, which takes place near the ghost town made famous in the country song “Luckenbach, Texas (Back to the Basics of Love)” recorded by Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson in 1977. Since there are no residents of Lukenbach, this cook-off is not centered on local identity, but instead, it uses the romanticism of this famed place to attract crowds and ultimately increase profit for corporate organizers.

Conclusion The trends associated with food festivals reflect broader trends that are present in cultures and practices of the United States. Among these trends are the commercialization of culture, tensions between tradition and modernity, and social struggles against hegemonic structures. Through food festivals, local tradition, identity, and the meaning of belonging are constantly reinvented. Like the Stockton Asparagus Festival, most food fairs use local culture and food as an excuse to create or invent a tradition for purposes that are to some extent not only economically important for the community but culturally significant as well. As in each of the festivals described, tradition arises from the conscious construction of models of community. Tradition then, and the authenticity ascribed to it, stand as community creations rather

568

Food in Popular Media

than immutable historical facts. Yet this is not to say that food festival traditions are shallow or interchangeable. These traditions are an important way by which ideas about belonging are incorporated into local life. Furthermore, food festivals provide a venue for the imagining of community in a collective ideal. Whether that idea is traditional, multicultural, health conscious, antihegemonic, or economically prosperous, food festivals allow individuals within a community to envision themselves as part of a collective project. Nell Haynes See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Authenticity of Cuisines; Competitive Eating; Cooking Competitions; Culinary Diplomacy; Cultural Identity and Food; Ethnic Foods, Marketing of; Identity and Food; Tourism, Food

Further Readings Bendix, R. (1989). Tourism and cultural displays: Inventing traditions for whom? Journal of American Folklore, 102, 131–146. Brown, L. K., & Mussell, K. (1984). Ethnic and regional foodways in the United States: The performance of group identity. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425–439. Gabaccia, D. R., & Pilcher, J. M. (2011). “Chili Queens” and checkered tablecloths: Public dining cultures of Italians in New York City and Mexicans in San Antonio, Texas, 1870s–1940s. Radical History Review, 110, 109–126. doi:10.1215/01636545-2010-028 Hall, C. M., & Mitchell, R. (2005). Gastronomic tourism: Comparing food and wine tourism experiences. In M. Novelli (Ed.), Niche tourism: Contemporary issues, trends and cases (pp. 73–88). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Johnston, J. (2007). Counterhegemony or bourgeois piggery? Food politics and the case of FoodShare. In W. Wright & G. Middendorf (Eds.), The fight over food: Producers, consumers, and activists challenge the global food system (pp. 93–120; Rural Studies Series). University Park: Pennsylvania State Press.

Jones, A., & Jenkins, I. (2002). “A taste of Wales—Blas Ar Gymru”: Institutional malaise in promoting Welsh food tourism products. In A. M. Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and gastronomy (pp. 113–115). London, UK: Routledge. Jones, M. O. (2007). Food choice, symbolism, and identity: Bread-and-butter issues for folkloristics and nutrition studies (American Folklore Society Presidential Address, October 2005). Journal of American Folklore, 120, 129–177. doi:10.1353/jaf.2007.0037 Lancaster, K., Walker, W., Vance, T., Jr., Kaskel, P., Arniella, G., & Horowitz, C. (2009). Food for life/ Comida para la Vida: Creating a food festival to raise diabetes awareness (National Institute of Health). Progressive Community Health Partnership, 3(4), 359–363. doi:10.1354/cpr.0.0100 Lewis, G. H. (1997). Celebrating asparagus: Community and the rationally constructed food festival. Journal of American Culture, 20, 73–78. doi:10.1111/j.1542-734X .1997.00073.x Park, K.-S., Reisinger, Y., & Kang, H.-J. (2008). Visitors’ motivation for attending the South Beach Wine and Food Festival, Miami Beach, Florida. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), 161–181. doi:10.1080/ 10548400802402883 Schneider, I., & Backman, S. (1996). Cross-cultural equivalence: Three urban festivals. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 4(3–4), 139–144. Scott, D. (1996). A comparison of visitors’ motivations to attend three urban festivals. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 3(3), 121–128. Smith, R. J. (1975). The art of the festival. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

FOOD

IN

POPULAR MEDIA

The idea of food as the focus of popular media— primarily the modern arenas of film and television but also to a lesser extent music and art—is purely a 20th- and 21st-century concept. Historically, food has appeared in both art and literature as part of or as the focal point of the subject matter. However, it was not until the advent of film, then television, that the possibility of food being its own “character,” or perhaps even a humanistic force, emerged. The importance of food in popular

Food in Popular Media

media evolved in direct correlation to food’s evolution in society—as international cuisines and products became accessible to the masses, cooking became a populist hobby, and restaurant chefs were venerated as superstars. As a consequence of the these cultural shifts, food and drink have assumed a powerful symbolic role through which artists, writers, and directors seek to tell a story, expose cultural norms, or make a political statement. Whether as a source of cultural and familial unity, an expression of gender roles and personal transformation, or a political signifier, food has become a de facto method for symbolic storytelling in mass media. This entry further explores this symbolic role of food, after first examining the connection between food and media; numerous examples of popular media are provided.

The Connection Between Food and Media Food, film, and television have been inherently connected from the outset, all of them being forms of consumption. One goes to the movie theater and consumes snacks like popcorn and soda, while also consuming the film as a product of mass entertainment. Likewise, food and television were symbolically entwined by the early concept (predigital recording devices) of the TV dinner, whereupon one could eat one’s meal without missing the evening’s program. Given the basic, physical importance of food and eating for the human being—one must eat to survive, with most people’s days structured around the given meals—it is not surprising that media has employed the familiar settings of the family dinner table and cooking in the kitchen as scenic backdrops, familiar locations where the drama could play out. In early films and even early television, food lacked the symbolic power it often has in today’s media. Indeed, while the settings themselves—the dining table, the kitchen, or the restaurant—often played roles of a sort, the food itself was rarely seen. The reasons for this are manifold. First, food as a sensual, revelatory experience was not a common occurrence for the masses in the early 20th century. Except for the temples of grand gastronomy, which

569

produced food for a rarified few, most food offered both in restaurants and at home was dull, repetitive, and unimaginative; unlike the global market of today that allows for access to every ingredient imaginable, the early 20th century consumer had far fewer gustatory choices. A number of elements led to food taking on a more important—and more tasty—role in daily life. In the 1950s and 1960s, incomes rose and, consequently, so did mass travel. People began to see the world and be influenced by what they saw—and ate. In 1961, the watershed book Mastering the Art of French Cooking by Julia Child opened the eyes of the American consumer/home cook to the possibilities of cuisine, and toward the end of the 1960s, many European chefs began to emigrate to the United States, exposing the country to then unknown gastronomic perspectives and pleasures. By the 1970s, the development of a stable middle class made mass consumption more consistent, setting the stage for the conspicuous consumption of the 1980s and the eventual fetishizing of food in the 1990s and beyond. One of the first “foodie” films was perhaps Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe? (1978), a movie whose concept likely would not have found purchase in an earlier, uninformed era. Likewise, it is no coincidence that foreign films like Tampopo (1986), about a woman’s search for the perfect Ramen noodle, and Babette’s Feast (1987), about how a Parisian woman’s preparation of a lavish feast emotionally transforms an austere small town, enjoyed great critical and popular success on the art house film circuit. Food was becoming a character unto itself, and writers and directors started to recognize its symbolic possibilities in storytelling.

Food References in Early and Mid-Century Media In the early years of film, television, and popular culture in general, the use of food reflected the society of the time. It was often used humorously or to evoke pathos, as with Charlie Chaplin’s tramp eating his shoelaces in the film The Gold Rush (1925),

570

Food in Popular Media

but also as a microscope on the era, as with many songs sung by African American artists. Films made during the Great Depression deal with the food crisis in matter-of-fact detail, whether chronicling soup kitchens or bread lines. In the somewhat esoteric 1937 film Easy Living, written by Preston Sturges, a scene in an automat—which illustrates one of the familiar food service establishments of the era—culminates with the automatic fooddispensing machines malfunctioning and dispensing tokens, leading one patron to yell out to hungry passersby “Free food!” In another film of the era, They Drive by Night (1940), characters fraternize in a diner, which beckoned travelers to a more civilized—and modern, for the era—setting for meals at any hour of the day. The diner would pop up again and again as a symbol of optimism, in film and television, as with the 1970s series Happy Days, where everyone met at Arnold’s Drive-In to simply hang out. Food’s presence worked its way into numerous television shows of the 1950s, often by simply showing the obedient wife and mother in the kitchen donning an apron and cooking a robust family meal—particularly in series like Father Knows Best, Ozzie and Harriet, or Leave It to Beaver. In other cases, kitchen duties suggested a stratification of the classes and the races, with African American cooks (some imperious and some caricaturish) generally running the kitchens of wealthy homes. Even Walt Disney couldn’t escape the allure both visually and dramatically of food as a subject matter. With his Technicolor animation, Disney capitalized on food’s visual appeal—and used it moralistically—from the gleaming temptation of the poison apple in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) to the gluttony of Pinocchio’s (1940) Pleasure Island and the romantic spaghetti scene in Lady and the Tramp. (Later, Disney’s paean to food would reach an apex with Ratatouille (2007) about a rat who dreams of being a chef.) From the 1930s to the 1940s, music also hosted a series of songs about food, songs performed primarily by African Americans that illustrated both culinary traditions and cultural experience.

In 1933, Bessie Smith demanded “Gimme a Pigfoot,” as well as a bottle of beer and some gin. Fats Waller wrote about “All That Meat and No Potatoes” (1941), a husband’s lament about his wife’s culinary offerings, as sung by Louis Armstrong, while band leader Louis Jordan and the Tympany Five sang about two cornerstones of soul food in “Beans and Cornbread” (1949). In the 1960s, music used vivid food references to mouthwatering effect. The musical film Oliver (1968), which spends much time in a work house where the boys eat only gruel, features the tent pole number “Food, Glorious Food,” where the orphan boys dream of hot sausage and mustard, cold jelly and custard. Even Disney got into the act—King Louie sings of the “Bare Necessities” in The Jungle Book (1967), while consuming all manner of jungle fare, and the titular nanny in Mary Poppins (1964) tells us that “A Spoonful of Sugar” helps the medicine go down. Nor was the legendary rock band the Beatles immune. Cream tangerine, coconut fudge, and a coffee dessert all find expression in their 1968 song “Savoy Truffle,” which George Harrison wrote about fellow musician and friend Eric Clapton’s passion for chocolate, using accurate names from Mackintosh’s Good News chocolates. And quite possibly the most familiar food reference in the 1960s came from the art world in the form of Andy Warhol’s 32-panel Campbell’s Soup Can series (1962), which propelled the pop artist to superstardom. Warhol’s concept was further explored by British artist Damien Hirst in his Last Supper series (1999), which featured common British comfort foods—beans and chips, dumplings, and steak and kidney—re-created as colorful medical pill containers, illustrating the link between pill popping and traditional, popular foods as panaceas of the masses.

Food as a Cultural and Familial Unifier From the earliest days of both mediums, film and television have used the settings in which food is prepared and consumed—kitchens and dining rooms, bars, cafes, diners, and restaurants—as

Food in Popular Media

props for their characters. As a requirement for daily life, food suggests normalcy, stability, and structure, so by utilizing the arenas of food consumption, one imbues one’s stories with these elements. In many cultures, food has an almost mythic significance, and as such, it is over the dining table that families gather, attempt closeness, and often make peace. In the movie Soul Food (1997), the family traditions of an African American family— as symbolized by a weekly Sunday dinner—slowly break down over time. Despite the tribulations, the tradition of the weekly meal remains throughout. In the films Eat Drink Man Woman (1994) and Tortilla Soup (2001), an adaptation of the former, the Taiwanese and Mexican cultures—traditional versus modern—are explored through the concept of the communal table. In both films, the hero is a master chef who uses the weekly family meal with his unmarried daughters in an attempt to connect; food becomes a substitute for personal closeness and, eventually, a mode to unify the disparate factions of the families. The ritual of food and its components plays out against the ritual of family, in this case, both breakdown and resolution. Big Night (1996) is another film that uses the motif of food—here in a restaurant—as a motif for cultural and family unity, here between two Italian immigrant brothers, whose restaurant defines their views of both self and culture. For one, food is his link to the old country and his need to be true to that part of self; for the other, food is a mode for success in the new country, America. While the brothers bicker over what constitutes success—and “good” food—throughout the film, it is the simplicity of food itself (a perfectly cooked omelet) that provides the symbolic unifier in the end of the film. In his review of Big Night, Roger Ebert mentioned that certain films remind us that “food suggests the possibility of an ideal state.” One might take the idea farther and suggest that this ideal state—reached through food and one’s journey through cooking and consuming it—is one where happiness, peace, and joy are attainable, where definitions of self and family are clear, and

571

where harmony, as seen through food and its flavors, is one’s essential human right.

Food and the Feminine: Friendship, Journey and Transformation, and Sexuality Historically, food—and the location of its preparation (i.e., the kitchen)—was a woman’s domain. Cooking was considered female “work”; men did not set foot in the kitchen, except to smell the food or steal a morsel. This was also true in popular media up until the late 20th century, when the domain of the kitchen also acquired a masculine connotation, due to the emergence of the celebrity male chef in the restaurant world and as a dominant character in both fiction and nonfiction material. For men, cooking became an expression of masculinity, while for women it has acquired the role of transformative experience through friendship, personal experience, or sexual fulfillment. In many modern films and in television, food is used as a signifier of female friendship. In HBO’s Sex and the City (1998–2004), the main characters—four female friends—get together over a weekly meal and discuss the week’s trials and tribulations; food is the bonding device to solidify friendship. More to the point, the cocktail known as the Cosmopolitan took on almost mythic status due to its use as the “trademark” drink of the Sex and the City girls, expressing their female freedom and celebrating the feminine in general. In the 2011 movie Bridesmaids, friendship is likewise sealed over food between the heroine and her best friend. Moreover, the heroine, a baker by trade, expresses and reflects on her sense of self as well as her need for emotional healing when baking, such as when she sends a cake as an apology to a male suitor or when she bakes the perfect cupcake and eats it all alone, suggesting her need to focus on her own self-worth. The film Julie and Julia (2009) contrasts the two women in the title as they find fulfillment to different degrees through food. For Chef Julia Child, food is an accessory to an already full life. She devours life in the same manner in which she seeks out fine food. For Julie, the young woman

572

Food in Popular Media

who idolizes Child, food offers her life structure; understanding and mastering recipes are ways to define herself and her success in life. Food is immutable and logical. In several of the films of Nancy Meyers, the inner lives of the heroines— both divorced, middle-aged women—are expressed through their kitchens. In It’s Complicated (2009), the female lead is a pastry chef who equates her desirability with her kitchen prowess; in Something’s Gotta Give (2003), the woman’s kitchen symbolizes her success in a man’s world, rather than just as a great housewife. In both cases, rather than a place of subjugation, the kitchen—the center of food production—symbolizes status and control. Food becomes a sexual substitute in Eat Pray Love (2010), wherein the heroine, unlucky in love, uses food as an act of self-pleasure, thus making the choice to focus on herself, instead of fulfilling the common role of women, who are expected to sacrifice for others. Through food, the heroine solidifies her relationship with herself, no longer needing a man to give her life meaning. Food can also suggest seduction, longing, and the need for connection. In the 1992 movie Like Water for Chocolate, the heroine’s crushed desires seep into her tears, which fall into her cooking pot and transform her food into a literal emotional experience. In the film Mistress of Spices (2005), the heroine uses specific spices to help people satisfy their “needs.” Chocolat (2000) shows a woman who uses ethereal chocolates to “seduce” a village back to emotional life. In all these cases and many more, food becomes an invigorator and unifier.

Food and the Masculine: Violence, Consumption, and Lack of Connectedness Unlike women for whom cooking in popular media seems to express longing, connection, sexuality, or transformation, men who cook—and eat—do so to express their masculinity, their ability to consume, and, often (unbeknownst to them), their lack of connectedness to what is around

them. This is particularly true in horror films, a primarily male-centric genre where the beastly creature—be it vampire, werewolf, zombie, or other ghastly ghoul—almost always needs human sustenance, blood, brains, or otherwise. The conceptual act of cannibalism—man making food of man—takes root in many of the films and television series of the modern and postmodern era, often, but not always, focusing on postapocalyptic futures. In the 1970s and 1980s, Italy spawned an entire cannibalism genre. Likewise, modern zombies, from the brain-eating beasts in George Romero’s Living Dead film series (1968, 1978, 1985, 2005, 2007, 2009) to the creatures in films like I Am Legend (2007), the video game turned movie franchise Resident Evil (2002–2013, film series), and the film 28 Days Later (2002), as well as the TV series Walking Dead (2010 to present), eat human flesh, their hunger symbolic of the decline of civilization at large. Vampires are equally consuming creatures— from Bram Stoker’s Dracula to the vamps in Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie (1992) and TV series (1993–2007) to the characters in the Twilight saga, the beasts all need to drink blood, the life force of human beings, in order to survive. This is taken to another level in the movie The Matrix (1999), where the computers, built by man, have taken over the Earth where they harvest and use human remains as nourishment. Outside of the horror genre, other films have used cannibalism to great effect as in the dramatic horror of The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (1989), where the heroine’s dead lover is cooked and served to her husband, the man who murdered him. Here, food becomes retribution. Likewise, in Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s parody Cannibal: The Musical (1993), the story pokes fun at the horrific absurdity of man eating man. In Silence of the Lambs (1991), Hannibal Lecter needs a nice Chianti to wash down a human liver; in the French art house film Delicatessen (1991), a butcher gleefully feeds chopped up human remains to the hungry denizens of an apartment complex; in the film version of the musical Sweeney Todd (2007), the demon barber of Fleet Street serves up

Food Insecurity

human meat pies accompanied by song. In all these cases, man eating man becomes the ultimate model of consumerism and consumption, taking food to a diabolical level that equates ultimately to survival of the fittest.

Food as a Political Signifier: The Politics of Consumerism, Body Image, and Social Decline In comics and animation, characters are always eating or wanting to eat, often defined by their obsession with food. Garfield the cat gets grouchier when he doesn’t get food, Scooby Doo and Shaggy are always thinking of eating, and Homer Simpson fantasizes about everything from donuts to pizza, leading to a dreamy “Mmmmm, [fill in the name of the food].” In the stop-motion short film Wallace and Grommit: A Close Shave (1995), the hero goes so far as to reject his potential true love because she doesn’t eat cheese, especially his beloved Wensleydale. The obsession with food—and its revelation of character—crops up in numerous feature films, as well. In Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) and the modern remake Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), Augustus Gloop, a portly, selfish boy who eats chocolate day and night, is contrasted with the decent, honest hero Charlie Bucket, a gangly, ever-hungry soul who rations every bite of chocolate he gets. The penultimate expression of grotesque consumption is very likely in The Meaning of Life (1983) with Mr. Creosote, a man who doesn’t stop eating and eventually explodes as a result of his consumption. Many futuristic films have used food as a political symbol. In 1984 (1984) and The Hunger Games (2012), lavish, “real” food is the domain of the privileged classes, while spoiled, ersatz meals are the fate of those less fortunate. Thus, real food equals freedom, while fake or flavorless food equals slavery of a sort. This idea is taken to an extreme in Soylent Green (1973), where the masses are starving, fighting for every morsel of food product they can get. The “food” is known as

573

“Soylent Green,” and as Charlton Heston reveals in the end, it is actually people they are eating. This—like the crux of every zombie odyssey—is perhaps consumerism taken to an extreme where the mere concept of eating shows the decline in society. Lesley Jacobs Solmonson See also Food TV; Food Writing in Books

Further Readings Adema, P. (2000). Vicarious consumption, food television and the ambiguity of modernity. Journal of America & Comparative Culture, 23(3), 113–123. Ebert, R. (1996, September 27). Reviews: Big Night. Retrieved from http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ big-night-1996 Forster, L. (2004). Futuristic foodways. In A. L. Bower (Ed.), Reel food: Essays on food & film (pp. 251–266). New York, NY: Routledge. Parasecoli, F. (2008). Bite me: Food in popular culture. Oxford, UK: Berg. Zimmerman, S. (2009). Food in the movies (2nd ed.). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Website TV Tropes: http://www.tvtropes.org

FOOD INSECURITY Food insecurity is a contentious issue; attempts to define it align with particular approaches to what should be done. Most fundamentally, food insecurity indicates a lack of access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food. The U.S. General Accounting Office indicates that up to 2 billion people worldwide are food insecure. According to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), 75% of the world’s food-insecure people are located in rural areas, predominantly in the global South. In this context, food insecurity is synonymous with hunger.

574

Food Insecurity

Food insecurity also exists in industrialized nations, largely among low-income communities and communities of color. In the United States, approximately 15% of all households, or 45 million Americans, have reported experiencing food insecurity at some point in the preceding year. U.S. responses to food insecurity have traditionally included government programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). Religious and other nonprofit institutions also provide emergency food through food banks, food pantries, and other distribution centers. In the past several decades, activist organizations working to alleviate food insecurity have taken on the moniker of community food security, which they define as access to healthy, affordable, culturally appropriate food through nonemergency means. Their strategies often consist of efforts to increase access to locally grown produce through farmers’ markets and community gardens. Their work has influenced the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which now defines food security in the following way: Access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum: (1) the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and (2) an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing or other coping strategies). (USDA Economic Research Service, 2011)

Despite the USDA’s rhetorical emphasis on nonemergency means, the emergency food system remains an important part of state-led efforts to provide food security in the United States and other industrialized nations. This entry discusses various approaches for addressing food insecurity, including modernizationist, dependency, emergency, and community-based approaches.

The Modernizationist Approach in the Global South One approach to food insecurity, embodied by the USAID and others working with it, is aligned with what those studying development call modernization theory. This approach argues that rural residents of underdeveloped countries need to modernize and participate more fully in the global economy in order to increase their ability to purchase food. USAID, for example, views the key to addressing food insecurity as increasing agricultural productivity. Their plan to increase food security contains six points: 1. Improving policy frameworks to catalyze economic growth 2. Bolstering agricultural science and technology 3. Developing domestic market and international trade opportunities to ensure rural farmers get adequate returns 4. Securing property rights and access to finance 5. Enhancing human capital through education and improved health 6. Protecting the vulnerable through conflict resolution and transparency in public institutions

Taken together, these strategies encourage nation-states to create an economic climate in which rural, food-insecure farmers can sell increased quantities of food, thus raising their incomes and achieving food security. Organizations approaching food insecurity through the lens of the modernization theory argue that rural producers need increased access to foreign and domestic markets. To this end, such organizations work to increase product quality standards, develop infrastructure for transport, and increase access to market information. For example, USAID works with small coffee farmers to increase quality, improve business practices, promote value-added approaches, and encourage producers to enter niche markets such as gourmet fruits and vegetables or environmental services.

Food Insecurity

In doing so, producers can increase their incomes and thus their food security. Modernizationists working to address food insecurity are often strong proponents of increasing access to technology among rural farmers in the global South. They tend to support what is commonly called the Green Revolution, in which agricultural technologies such as pesticides, irrigation projects, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, and improved crop varieties are made available to farmers in the global South. Modernizationists claim that production increases enabled by the Green Revolution have helped India avoid famine. Indeed, the economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and advisor to UN (United Nations) secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, has stated that the lack of chemical fertilizers is one reason for massive rates of hunger in Africa. Sachs and other modernizationists also tend to support the introduction of genetically modified crops. This technology, they argue, can provide food-insecure farmers with improved crop and livestock varieties, increasing agricultural productivity and economic growth.

The Dependency Approach Critics of the modernizationist approach to food security are generally aligned with the dependency (or dependencia) paradigm in development studies. Dependency theorists believe that food insecurity is not the result of lack of food but of unequal relations between the global North and the global South. These theorists believe that the North’s imperialism has destroyed indigenous cultures and economies while exploiting the global South’s natural resources for capital gain. These relations of production have forced nations in the global South to accept a low position in the global division of labor. Imperialism has also created a transnational capital class where elites within the global South have aligned their own interests with those of the global North, thus perpetuating their nations’ dependence. Dependency theorists sometimes refer to the global South not as developing countries, which implies that they are moving

575

toward a modernized state, but as underdeveloped countries. This latter term emphasizes the purposeful creation of dependency. Dependency approaches argue that food security requires not only increased food production but also increased food access. According to Food First, a nonprofit food policy think tank located in Oakland, California, current rates of food production are sufficient to provide each human with more than 3,500 calories, or 4.3 pounds, of food per day. Rather than production, dependency approaches see food insecurity as rooted in poverty. As evidence, they cite the many nations in the global South that are home to millions of foodinsecure people but are net food exporters. Ghana, for example, contains plentiful natural resources and has twice the per capita output of poorer countries in West Africa, but it remains heavily dependent on international financial and technical assistance. Tellingly, its chief exports are nonfood products, such as timber and cocoa, which garner resources that might otherwise be used to advance food security. Even the nations most often hailed as Green Revolution successes, such as India, Mexico, and the Philippines, have seen large increases in food production for export while hunger persists. Often, these agricultural exports feed livestock rather than humans. Recently, investment in food crops for ethanol has been linked to the current food crisis, as highlighted by the dependency theorists focused on food insecurity. Those who view food insecurity through the lens of dependency argue that agricultural participation in the global economy can increase hunger and that increased foreign aid cannot create food security. This stands in stark contrast to modernizationist approaches. USAID, for example, often mandates that receiving nations accept free trade and free market policies, thus undercutting local production. These dictates can be imposed through structural adjustment programs similar to those of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Instead of increased foreign aid, dependency approaches promote eliminating obstacles to local production in order to allow the world’s poor to feed themselves. Thus, their vision is not only food

576

Food Insecurity

security but also food sovereignty, or the right to define one’s own food system. Across the global South, organizations comprising Via Campesina, an international peasants movement working for food sovereignty, and other movements empower food-insecure people to achieve food security through food sovereignty. For example, Food First highlights the Campesino a Campesino (peasant farmer to peasant farmer) project in Mexico and Central America. Through this program, indigenous small farmers teach one another about soil conservation and water retention techniques, including mulching, composting, and terrace planting on hillside slopes. These technologies enable campesinos to farm without dependence on pesticides and other inputs that make them dependent on U.S. agribusiness companies. Moreover, the Campesino a Campesino project emphasizes a culture of simplicity and mutual respect, in contrast with the hierarchies of knowledge often imposed by agricultural extension agents and researchers. Projects such as these encourage food-insecure people to adopt techniques that eliminate their dependency on foreign aid, thus building their capacity to provide their own food security. The dependency approach is most often embodied by grassroots projects in the global South and small development organizations in the industrialized North. However, it has also affected larger development projects. For example, the United Nations’ 1996 Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action recognized poverty, rather than food production, as the leading cause of food insecurity. Conflict, terrorism, corruption, and environmental degradation were also named as contributors. This document not only calls for increased food production but also acknowledges the need for the sustainable management of natural resources as well as the elimination of unsustainable patterns of production and consumption in industrialized countries. While many UN projects remain reliant on the import of both technology and expertise, some also favor using local production to directly address hunger. For example, Njaa Narufuku Kenya (Ban hunger in Kenya) provides community nutrition and school meals, as well as food-for-work

programs during times of low labor demand, and relies on local food purchasing. Thus, it is Kenyan farmers, rather than U.S. commodity producers, who provide for local food needs. This represents an important shift in the approach of one of the largest international organizations working to bring about food security. Civil society continues to apply pressure on international agencies to move in this direction. In their response to the Rome Declaration, the forum of nongovernmental organizations released a statement that paralleled the UN gathering, titled “Profit for Few or Food for All? Food Sovereignty and Security to Eliminate the Globalization of Hunger.” This statement provided a radical critique of the UN’s approach to food insecurity emphasizing economic globalization and the global concentration of wealth and power.

Food Security in the Industrialized World As of 2011, according to survey data collected by the USDA’s Economic Research Service, nearly 15% of American households experienced food insecurity, and nearly 6% experienced very low food security, meaning that the household lacked food resources in a way that reduced the food consumption or disrupted the eating habits of one or more of its members. Those living below 185% of the federal poverty line, especially single-parent households, African Americans, and Latinos, were significantly more likely than the national average to experience very low food security. As in the global South, the primary cause of food insecurity in the United States and other industrialized nations is poverty. The typical food-secure household spent 24% more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition, including benefits acquired through the emergency food system.

The Emergency Food System The USDA administers 15 domestic programs that provide food and nutrition assistance. The three largest and best known of these are SNAP, NSLP, and WIC. Fifty-seven percent of all the

Food Insecurity

food-insecure households participated in one or more of these programs during the month prior to the 2011 survey. SNAP provides monthly benefits to families that qualify based on household income, assets, and basic expenses. These benefits, which average approximately $134 per person per month, can be used to purchase food at authorized locations. According to the USDA, just over 40% of foodinsecure households and nearly 43% of households with very low food security made use of SNAP benefits in 2011. There has been significant controversy in recent years over the extent to which these food choices should be restricted in the interest of health and nutrition, such as attempts to ban the purchase of soda. Community food security advocates, however, in states such as Michigan, have helped establish programs where benefits are doubled for the purchase of fresh produce at farmers’ markets. The NSLP oversees meal provision to children at more than 100,000 public and private schools. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayor’s Hunger and Homelessness Survey, as of 2012, 58% of children qualified for free lunches based on family income, and an additional 8% received reduced prices. Roughly, 32% of food-insecure households and 27% of households with very low food security had children receiving free or reduced-price lunches. Last, the WIC program provides grants to states to distribute food, health care referrals, and nutrition education to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, and for infants and children below 5 years of age in low-income families. Most commonly, women and children are eligible to receive specific foods from authorized distributors. That same survey found that WIC programs were of assistance to just over 11% of food-insecure households and 56% of households with very low food security. Beyond federal nutrition programs, the emergency food system also includes food banks, pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters sponsored by religious and other nonprofit organizations. These organizations collect food donations, largely from for-profit growers, manufacturers, and retailers,

577

and distribute them through a variety of mechanisms. Although soup kitchens have existed since the Great Depression began in 1929, the first food bank, St. Mary’s in Arizona, was not created until 1967 when the soup kitchen volunteer John van Hengel discovered that grocery stores often discarded large amounts of excess food. He began to collect donations in a central location to distribute to various area food providers. U.S. food banks have since experienced two periods of rapid growth, one in the early 1980s when the Reagan administration drastically reduced welfare provisions and another in the mid-1990s when the Clinton administration did the same. In both cases, voluntary and community groups attempted to fill the needs created by a receding state. Demand from food banks has also risen dramatically in response to the 2008 global financial crisis and has remained high ever since. In Europe, the declining provision of welfare in recent years, along with the financial crisis, has led to the creation of a similar network of food banks there as well, though in Europe they tend to provide direct services rather than redistribute food to other service providers as they do in the United States.

Community-Based Approach In the global South, food security stands in stark contrast to hunger. In industrialized nations, however, food security presents a paradox. Those who lack it are often overweight and obese, and suffer from high rates of diet-related illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease. This paradox exists because the food most available to low-income people in industrialized countries, while containing plentiful calories, often lacks basic nutrition. In the United States, a growing number of activists work to increase community food security. By adding the term community, these activists indicate that food security is not merely about an individual’s needs, but a product of the built environment. The Community Food Security Coalition, a network of 300 North American organizations, defines food security as “a condition in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet

578

Food Insecurity

through a sustainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice.” Food insecurity, according to this organization is an interdisciplinary problem, encompassing factors such as income, transportation, food prices, nutritious and culturally acceptable food choices, food safety, environmental hazards, and access to adequate, local, nonemergency food sources. The community food security movement has taken many cues from the dependency approach described earlier. It works to develop a local community’s ability to become self-reliant, often through the implementation of alternative agrifood systems, rather than increasing its abilities to consume industrially produced foods. In this way, the community food security movement strengthens local and regional food systems as well as the abilities of low-income people to participate in them. For example, community food security activists often promote farmers’ markets. However, while farmers’ markets tend to be located in affluent areas, those begun or embraced by the community food security movement can be found in neighborhoods that lack access to fresh, affordable, culturally appropriate produce. Moreover, the community food security movement encourages markets to accept SNAP and WIC, gleaning programs through which farmers donate excess produce to food shelters, and opportunities for consumers and farmers to share ideas concerning market operations. The community food security movement has also embraced community gardens, farm-to-school programs, and economic development initiatives focused on local, sustainable agriculture, and has encouraged these programs to locate in low-income areas and to maintain democratic participation. Additionally, the movement encourages the development of food policy councils that can advocate for favorable food and nutrition policy. Alison Hope Alkon See also Food Banks; Food Sovereignty; Green Revolution, Future Prospects for; Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences; U.S. Department of Agriculture

Further Readings Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2012). Household food security in the United States in 2011 (USDA Economic Research Report No. 141). Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/ media/884525/err141.pdf Community Food Security Coalition. (n.d.). What is community food security? Retrieved from http:// foodsecurity.org/views_cfs_faq.html Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1996, November 13). Rome declaration on world food security. Retrieved from http://www.fao .org/docrep/003/W3613E/W3613E00.HTM Holt-Gimenez, E. (2006). Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America’s farmer to farmer movement for sustainable agriculture. Berkeley, CA: Food First Books. Lappe, F. M., Collins, J., Rosset, P., & Esparza, L. (1998). World hunger: 12 myths. New York, NY: Earthscan. NGO Forum Statement to the World Food Summit. (n.d.). Profit for few or food for all? Food sovereignty and security to eliminate the globalization of hunger. Retrieved from http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/foodsum.htm#ngo Poppendieck, J. (1999). Sweet charity? Emergency food and the end of entitlement. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Sachs, J. D. (2000). Common wealth: Economics for a crowded planet. New York, NY: Penguin Books. U.S. Agency for International Development. (n.d.). Agriculture and food security. Retrieved from http:// www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-andfood-security U.S. Conference of Mayors. (2012). Hunger and homelessness survey: A status report on hunger and homelessness in America’s cities. Retrieved from http:// usmayor.s.org/pressreleases/uploads/2012/1219report-HH.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2011). Food security in the US. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutritionassistance/food-security-in-the-us/measurement.aspx# .VCxK2ildUVg

Food Justice

Websites Growing Food and Justice for All Initiative: https://www .growingfoodandjustice.org Growing Power: http://www.growingpower.org

FOOD JUSTICE Food justice refers to the efforts to understand and combat the intersections between inequalities of race, class, gender, and national status, and the production, distribution, and consumption of food. According to the organization Just Food, food justice is “communities exercising their right to grow, sell, and eat [food that is] fresh, nutritious, affordable, culturally appropriate, and grown locally with care for the well-being of the land, workers, and animals.” Detroit’s D-Town Farmers additionally emphasize that those communities that have been most marginalized by the agribusiness system need to “lead the movement to provide food for the members of their community” (White, 2010, p. 204). This entry provides an overview of both the concept of food justice and the movement to achieve it.

Activist Origins Essential to the food justice movement is an analysis that problematizes the influence of race and class on the production, distribution, and consumption of food. Communities of color and poor communities have time and again been denied access to the means of food production and, due to both price and store location, often cannot access the kinds of foods nutritionists deem most healthy—fresh, local, and even organic produce; lean meats; and whole grains. Through food justice activism, low-income communities and communities of color seek to create local food systems that meet their own food needs. They see doing so as a means not only to feed themselves but also to dismantle racism and create opportunities for sustainable economic development in low-income communities and communities of color.

579

In many ways, the food justice movement grew out of the movement for community food security. According to Anne Bellows and Mike Hamm (2003), “Community food security is a condition in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice” (p. 37). The Community Food Security Coalition was among the first organizations to promote universal access to sustainable, local, and organic food. However, much of the early leadership was white, and participants of color felt that they had minimized discussions of racism and its impact on the food system. In response, prominent members of color founded the Growing Food and Justice for All Initiative (GFJI), which “views dismantling racism as a core principal that brings together social change agents from diverse sectors working to bring about new, healthy, and sustainable food systems and supporting and building multicultural leadership in impoverished communities throughout the world” (GFJI, n.d.). This initiative’s annual conference, listserv, and other activities enable those working for food justice to share strategies integrating antiracism with the creation of sustainable food systems. GFJI is hosted by Growing Power, perhaps the most visible food justice organization in the United States. Growing Power is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and works to transform communities through the establishment of community food systems. It began in 1993 when Will Allen, an African American farmer and former professional basketball player, designed a program that gave local teenagers the opportunity to grow food for their community. Today, Growing Power operates a variety of urban and peri-urban farm sites in Wisconsin and Illinois, offers training in agricultural techniques, establishes youth programs, and works on agricultural policy initiatives. Another visible food justice organization is the People’s Grocery in Oakland, California. People’s Grocery has worked to deliver local chemical-free produce to poor and working-class inner-city residents through their mobile market, community supported agriculture, and other programs.

580

Food Justice

Currently, their work focuses on supporting local food entrepreneurs who are West Oakland residents to develop business plans and other necessities. According to People’s Grocery (n.d.), Food justice asserts that no one should live without enough food because of economic constraints or social inequalities. Food justice reframes the lack of healthy food sources in poor communities as a human rights issue. Food justice also draws off of historical grassroots movements and organizing traditions such as those developed by the civil rights movement and the environmental justice movement. The food justice movement is a different approach to a community’s needs that seeks to truly advance self-reliance and social justice by placing communities in leadership of their own solutions and providing them with the tools to address the disparities within our food systems and within society at large.

This definition illustrates the movement’s emphasis on community self-reliance (particularly for the working class and communities of color), social justice, and fundamental human rights.

Food Justice Scholarship Like many food movements, the food justice movement increasingly garners the attention of scholar–activists. Food Justice, coauthored by Robert Gottlieb and Anupama Joshi (2010), was perhaps the first book-length treatment of the subject. It takes a wide-angled approach, describing injustices and activist responses in projects across the United States. Gottlieb and Joshi argue that a number of injustices plague the industrial food system, including hazardous conditions faced by farmworkers and the absence of healthy food in low-income neighborhoods. They also chronicle a series of community-based responses including community gardens and farmer training, youth empowerment, farm-to-school programs, and the campaign to persuade the Obamas to plant an organic garden at the White House. Gerda R. Wekerle, an urban planner, argues that food justice should be of particular interest to her

field because of its attention to local organizing, community development, and engaging citizens. Following the work of Arjun Appadurai, she claims that food justice, in its simultaneous attention to local place and transnational networks, is best understood as a translocal movement. This translocality not only changes the terrain of relationships between community members, civil society institutions, and the state, but it also creates new opportunities to form alliances and coalitions across geographical boundaries. From her assessment, one can clearly see the potential of food justice as an organizing tool to move beyond the neoliberal strategy of creating alternatives to argue for broader social change. Charles Levkoe (2006) sees similar promise in the food justice movement for its potential to facilitate a shift toward more democratic food systems through transforming “consumers” into “citizens” to model a “healthy democracy” at the grassroots level. He states, “Through food justice movements, a vision of food democracy has been adopted which directly challenges antidemocratic forces of control, exploitation, and oppression” (p. 91). Levkoe believes that the benefits of developing civic virtues and critical perspectives through food justice organizing expand beyond the food system to build an overall stronger community. However, while each of these scholars celebrates the concept of food justice and the work of food justice activists, none of them share the movement’s focus on racial and economic inequalities. One book that takes inequalities as its starting point is Alison Alkon and Julian Agyeman’s Cultivating Food Justice (2011). This book explores the multiple ways in which race and class are enmeshed in the food system and seeks to highlight stories that might challenge or complicate our picture of who is doing the work of creating sustainable food systems. Citing the seminal work of Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994), the editors of the volume argue that contemporary food systems are implicated in racial projects— “political and economic undertakings through which racial hierarchies are established and racialized subjectivities created” (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011, p. 7).

Food Justice

Cultivating Food Justice seeks to go beyond an examination of consumption politics to examine the structural inequalities that underlie contemporary food systems and food movements. Several chapters highlight the processes through which institutionally racist land use and agricultural policies have created widely unrecognized advantages with regard to whites’ abilities to produce food. Kari Marie Norgaard and colleagues, for example, trace how racial projects of outright genocide, a lack of recognition of land occupancy and title, and forced assimilation have resulted in a lack of access among the Karuk indigenous tribe to traditional food sources including salmon. In a parallel example, John J. Green and colleagues argue that limited access to land, and mistreatment on the part of federal institutions like the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have greatly reduced the numbers of African American farmers in the United States. These authors argue that undermining these communities’ land tenure stripped them of a means of sustainable food production, leading to presentday food insecurity. Like Gottlieb and Joshi, the volume also offers an array of responses, though the chapters highlight those from communities of color. For example, Teresa Mares and Devon Peña (2011) provide an ethnographic examination of Latino/a community gardeners in Seattle, Washington, and Los Angeles, California. The authors show how these urban farmers “weave their place-based identities into new landscapes” as they “negotiate their ‘social citizenship’ in a ‘safe’ and ‘self-made’ space that can offer a buffer against elements of a nation that are increasingly hostile or ambivalent about their presence” (p. 205). Similarly, Priscilla McCutcheon offers an analysis of the food politics of two black nationalist religious groups: (1) the Nation of Islam and (2) the Pan African Orthodox Christian Church, examining how both seek to address hunger and build empowerment among blacks by running organic farms in Georgia and South Carolina. These analyses open up an inquiry about the food practices of marginalized communities that operate not in opposition to but autonomously from the mainstream alternative foods movement and

581

demonstrate how issues of social and racial justice can be at the heart of community food work. While the food justice movement has been largely domestic, its emphasis on antiracism and local empowerment is ideologically aligned with the concept of food sovereignty as deployed by international peasant movements demanding the right to define their own food systems. These movements share an analysis highlighting the inequalities and their effects on industrial and sustainable food systems, as well as a determination to build peoples’ capacities to feed themselves. Alison Hope Alkon See also Community Gardens; Food Insecurity; Food Sovereignty; Food Sovereignty, Policy and Regulation

Further Readings Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (2011). Introduction: The food movement as polyculture. In A. H. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability (pp. 1–20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bellows, A. C., & Hamm, M. W. (2003). International effects on and inspiration for community food security policies and practices in the USA. Critical Public Health, 13(2), 107–123. doi:10.1080/ 0958159031000097652 Community Food Security Coalition. (n.d.). What is community food security? Retrieved from http://www .foodsecurity.org/views_cfs_faq.html Gottlieb, R., & Joshi, A. (2010). Food justice. Cambridge: MIT Press. Green, J. J., Green, E. M., & Kleiner, A. M. (2011). From the past to the present: Agricultural development and black farmers in the American south. In A. H. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability (pp. 47–64). Cambridge: MIT Press. Growing Food and Justice Initiative. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www.growingfoodandjustice .org/About_Us.html Hamm, M. W., & Bellows, A. C. (2003). Community food security and nutrition educators. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35(1), 37–43. Just Food. (2010). Food justice. Retrieved from http:// www.justfood.org/food-justice

582

Food Lobbying

Levkoe, C. Z. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 89–98. doi:10.1007/s10460-005-5871-5 Mares, T., & Devon, P. (2011). Environmental and food justice: Toward local, slow, and deep food systems. In A. H. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability (pp. 197–220). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McCutcheon, P. (2011). Community food security for us, by us: The Nation of Islam and the Pan African Orthodox Christian Church. In A. H. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability (pp. 177–198). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Morales, A. (2011). Growing food and justice: Dismantling racism through sustainable food systems. In A. H. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability (pp. 149–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Norgaard, K. M., Reed, R., & Van Horn, C. (2011). A continuing legacy: Institutional racism, hunger and nutritional justice on the klamath. In A. H. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability (pp. 23–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Omi, M., & Howard, W. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. London, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 1986) People’s Grocery. (n.d.). People’s grocery. Retrieved from http://peoplesgrocery.org Wekerle, G. R. (2004). Food justice movements: Policy, planning, and networks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 378–386. doi:10.1177/0739456X04264886 White, M. M. (2010). Shouldering responsibility for the delivery of human rights: A case study of the D-Town farmers of Detroit. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Perspectives, 3(2), 189–211. doi:10.1353/ rac.0.0041

FOOD LOBBYING Broadly speaking, lobbying is any effort—including making campaign contributions, meeting with elected officials, developing policy briefs for elected officials, and other strategies—meant to influence legislation and regulations at all levels of

government. In this entry, the size and scope of food industry lobbying is described, various lobbying strategies are presented, and examples of how food industry lobbying has influenced food policy and food safety are presented.

Size and Scope of Lobbying Lobbying is widespread in U.S. politics, though it is difficult to have a completely accurate understanding of its size and scope because the reporting requirements for lobbying are lenient. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (amended in 2007) specifies that only those lobbyists who spend more than 20% of their time working to influence legislation, or who have set up two or more meetings with legislators, must report their activities. The Lobbying Disclosure Act also does not require reporting on meetings with officials that were set up by a third party. In addition, corporate executives are not required to register their meetings with government officials even though these are typically established to influence policy. The act also does not require corporations to disclose their, often massive, advertising and marketing campaigns that are developed to influence legislation. Finally, no government authority is charged with enforcing the reporting requirements of the Lobbying Disclosures Act, and there are no criminal penalties for violating it. More than 12,000 lobbyists are officially registered through the Lobbying Disclosure Act. But the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying activity, estimates that the total number of people involved in activities that influence federal policy is actually much higher. Some experts even suggest that the figure could be seven times that number—as many as 84,000. Every year, the food sector spends hundreds of millions of dollars for reported lobbying activity and many millions more in informal lobbying for or against policies or regulations to benefit their self-interest. In 2010, the agribusiness industry— including agricultural services and products; food processing and sales; crop production; tobacco and forestry; and dairy, meat, poultry, and egg

Food Lobbying

production—spent $125.4 million in lobbying and employed 1,173 registered lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The largest farm lobby group in the United States is the American Farm Bureau Federation, which was founded in 1919. With an annual budget of nearly $30 million, the Farm Bureau spent $5.6 million in lobbying in 2010, making it the third largest agribusiness lobbyist that year. The largest agribusiness lobbyist in 2010 was the tobacco conglomerate Altria Group, which spent $10.4 million. Monsanto, the biotech seed and pesticide company, was the second largest agribusiness lobbyist in 2010, spending $8 million. In the same year, food and beverage companies and food processors employed 628 lobbyists and spent $69 million, with the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Beverage Association, and individual companies like PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft, and Nestlé spending the most.

Lobbying Strategies Lobbyists in the United States employ four main strategies. First, lobbyists monitor and influence policy making at the federal and state level on behalf of their clients. Every congressional session, the U.S. Congress passes as many as 1,000 new statutes. Lobbyists follow those statutes and influence the congressional committees and subcommittees working on those relevant to their clients. Second, lobbyists track the thousands of new rules, and interpretations of existing rules, made at all levels of government from federal agencies to state governments and even city councils. In tracking these rules, lobbyists seek to influence regulators in the interest of their clients to ensure that any changes made benefit, or at least do not harm, their clients. Third, lobbyists supply members of Congress with information, reports, and analysis on key issues to influence legislation and regulation on behalf of their clients. Because lobbyists often work with the same clients, and on the same issues, year after year, lobbyists and legislators

583

often develop what are known as “lobbying enterprises.” According to R. Kenneth Godwin, Scott Ainsworth, and Erik Godwin, authors of Lobbying and Policymaking, these enterprises are informal networks of lobbyists and legislators who have ongoing interactions on policy issues. These enterprises provide regular access to legislators, who can lobby others on behalf of their groups’ priorities. Finally, because the implementation and enforcement of policy are often as important as the policies themselves, lobbyists also work to establish long-term relationships with those making, interpreting, and enforcing regulations to influence them in the interest of their clients. Another way that lobbyists influence policy is by moving from positions in the private sector into those in government and back again. In 2007, one study found that 188 former members of the House and Senate were among those listed in a directory of Washington, D.C., lobbyists. Another study, by Public Citizen, found that 42% of House members and half of the senators who left Congress between 1998 and 2004 went on to become lobbyists for industry.

Concerns About Food Industry Lobbying Lobbyists’ proponents argue that lobbying provides the information, and analysis regulators and policymakers need to make informed choices. Critics of lobbying, and food industry lobbying in particular, express concern that agribusiness and food company lobbyists work for the narrow interests of their clients and have undue influence on policymakers. Critics point out that companies and trade groups have had the resources to outspend social-benefit organizations, which represent the interests and concerns of ordinary Americans. Critics of food industry lobbying also argue that the undue influence of lobbyists on elected officials subverts the will of the electorate who voted them into office. As a result of lobbyists, critics say, legislation and regulation do not always reflect sound science or serve the public interest. Instead, lobbyists

584

Food Lobbying

influence politicians and regulators to produce outcomes that serve their interests. For example, lobbyists for the pesticide industry have historically sought to influence pesticide regulation by downplaying the risks of classes of chemicals or specific chemicals. While some defend pesticide industry lobbyists as holding the expertise policymakers need, critics argue that industry lobbyists tend to dismiss known chemical risks while inflating potential costs of regulatory action to benefit their corporate clients.

Examples of Food Industry Lobbying Other examples of how food industry lobbyists influence federal policy and direct tax dollars abound. The commodity farm lobby groups have had particularly powerful influence on the legislation known as the Farm Bill, which determines how federal dollars are directed both to the agriculture sector and to nutrition support programs, like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Lobbyists from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, and the American Soybean Association, for example, have lobbied for legislative support of significant subsidies programs, ensuring $10 billion annually in farm commodity subsidies in addition to other price support programs, including a crop insurance program with an estimated cost of nearly $10 billion a year. The sugar industry is another major food industry lobbyist, spending millions of dollars annually on lobbyists and politicians to shield commodity subsidies in the farm bill and maintain tariffs on sugar, guarding producers from foreign competitors in the domestic markets. Food industry lobbyists have also worked at the state and municipal levels to lobby against new measures that would undermine their business interests. An example is a proposed “soda tax,” which has been considered by some cities and state governments as a mechanism to reduce demand for unhealthy beverages and at the same time raise funds for wellness and antiobesity programs. Starting in 2009, food industry groups began putting

more resources into fighting these proposed taxes, spending an estimated $24 million in fighting such soda taxes that year. One investigative report found that 21 trade groups and individual companies had lobbied specifically on sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in 2009, with about $4 million of that money spent on an advertising campaign focused on U.S. lawmakers. In addition, state-level agribusiness lobbyists have a huge impact on how federal policy is enforced and on how state policy is crafted. The Dairy Business Association, the lobbyist for the dairy industry in Wisconsin, for example, succeeded in helping rewrite the legislation about how the Department of Natural Resources approves the permits of large-scale dairy operations. An investigative report by the Wisconsin State Journal found that these changes in the law significantly weakened oversight of the pollution and other impacts from dairy operations. Lobbyists and Trade Groups

Lobbying is not only done by individual companies, but often companies within one industry will pool resources to lobby jointly on policy that affects them all. The chemical industry, for example, including many companies producing agricultural chemicals, spent nearly $60 million lobbying in 2012. The chemical industry pools its resources to lobby through efforts like the Pesticide Policy Coalition, which has fought numerous attempts by public interest groups to regulate pesticides. On behalf of its members, the coalition also has fought to weaken toxicity test regimes for allowing chemicals in the marketplace. In one instance in 2009, for example, the coalition petitioned the rule-making body at the Office of Pesticide Programs in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reject a proposal from the American Bird Conservancy that would have increased the regulation of 13 pesticides used on crops overseas and known to be harmful to wildlife. In 2011, the EPA rejected the conservancy’s proposal by siding with the industry group, the Pesticide Policy Coalition, which had argued that

Food Lobbying

the official EPA standard does not require the agency to take action on the particular chemicals under consideration. Lobbyists and Hidden Influence: Riders

One concern of public health advocates is that lobbying often occurs hidden from the public eye; sometimes even elected officials are unaware of the influence. One of these often stealth lobbying tactics is known informally as a “rider.” Riders are provisions inserted into a bill or amendments to appropriations bills that have little or no connection to the content of the legislation under consideration. Since riders are often attached to appropriations bills or other legislation essential to get passed, legislators often overlook the controversial rider. Lobbyists use riders, then, as a way to pass provisions that would otherwise have limited or no support if presented on their own. Additionally, lobbyists sometimes deploy riders to undermine legislation. Known as “wrecking amendments,” these riders are so controversial that they can prevent a bill from passing. There are no limitations on the use of riders and they have become prevalent in the legislative process. The food industry, specifically, has used riders to achieve significant legislative wins. One example of how a rider has been used to affect food policy is known as the Data Quality Act (DQA), which was included in a 2000 spending bill by James Tozzi, a lobbyist for pesticide, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies. Although the DQA is only a few sentences long, it has had far-reaching consequences, including benefiting many of the companies in whose interest Tozzi lobbies. Tozzi’s rider called for the federal government to ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity” of the information on which it bases regulations and policy making. On the surface, the DQA sounds like, and was presented as, a straightforward measure to improve policy making. But in practice, the DQA has been used to place additional burdens of proof on lawmakers to enact and enforce regulations. As an investigative report in

585

the Washington Monthly put it, through the DQA “industry groups will have a new set of tools to stop regulations before they even get started— often by using questionable scientific critiques paid for by industry to challenge legitimate science sponsored by taxpayers.” Because the DQA guidelines require all government agencies to be in compliance, lobbyists have used it frequently to ensure that research funded by industry usurps research funded by taxpayers. Sugar industry lobbyists used the DQA to challenge the Department of Agriculture’s science-based recommendation to reduce daily sugar intake. The Salt Institute—the lobbying arm of the salt industry— used the DQA to challenge the National Institutes of Health recommendations on limits to salt consumption. A study of the first 20 months after the rider passed found that of the 39 petitions filed under the DQA, 32 of them were filed by companies and trade groups or their lobbyists. Another example of the influence of the DQA is how it was used to challenge the EPA’s position on the regulation of the agricultural chemical atrazine in 2003. Working on behalf of Syngenta, the main manufacturer of the chemical, Tozzi used the DQA to challenge the EPA’s regulation of the widely used herbicide. The EPA had been concerned about the herbicide after reviewing data from laboratory and field studies that showed that the chemical was found in groundwater throughout the U.S. Midwest and disturbed the hormonal systems of frogs, even at low doses. Using the DQA, Tozzi and other industry lobbyists claimed that there was no acceptable test for measuring hormonal disruption, or how the chemical affects the endocrine systems. In light of the DQA, the EPA wrote that hormone disruption cannot be used as a “legitimate regulatory endpoint at this time.” And in October 2003, the EPA approved its ongoing use. That same month, the European Union banned atrazine on farm fields, noting its “ubiquitous and unpreventable water contamination.” Today, the chemical is one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States, even though field studies continue to show its endocrine-disrupting properties and the International Agency for Research on Cancer

586

Food Lobbying

classifies it as a Group 3 human carcinogen, meaning it has not been ruled out as a carcinogen. Lobbyists and Nutrition Advice: The Case of Nutrition Guidelines

In her seminal book Food Politics, the New York University professor Marion Nestle documents how the food industry influences government policy, including nutrition policies. In 1986, Nestle was the lead editor of the Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health. As an editor of the report, Nestle was charged with helping summarize the best research on diet and health. In the process, she witnessed how the food industry influences government recommendations for dietary consumption. Lobbyists from the meat industry, for example, made it clear that the research findings could not recommend “eat less meat” as a way to reduce intake of saturated fat, nor could it suggest restrictions on intake of any other category of food . . . the producers of foods that might be affected by such advice would complain to their beneficiaries in Congress, and the report would never be published. (Nestle, 2013, p. 3)

As Nestle documents, the sugar industry also lobbied forcefully against any government recommendation to limit sugar consumption, despite the resounding scientific consensus that sugar is harmful to human health. Any recommendation to “eat less” sugar would have hurt the $26 billion industry, writes Nestle. The industry’s lobbying efforts succeeded in getting 30 senators—half of whom were from major sugar growing states—to question the basis on which the U.S. Department of Agriculture was proposing to change the sugar guidelines. Thanks to these efforts, the policy’s final wording recommends only to “choose a diet moderate in sugar”—not “eat less.” It was nutrition advice palatable to the sugar industry. Lobbyists and International Nutrition Policy

The food industry also lobbies international decision makers by using its financial contributions

to organizations in order to influence policy and through other strategies. One example is how the food industry has influenced the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations around diet and public policies for reducing diet-related illnesses. While the WHO officially has restrictions on accepting corporate contributions, some of its subsidiaries do not, including the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). In 2012, an investigative report from Reuters found that PAHO had received contributions that year of $50,000 from Coca-Cola, $150,000 from Nestlé, and another $150,000 from Unilever, the global food conglomerate. In addition, Coca-Cola had placed a company executive on the WHO steering committee that helps determine the organization’s approach to fighting obesity in Mexico—where obesity is a mounting public health crisis and its population consumes on an average more Coca-Cola than anywhere else in the world. Meanwhile, 63% of premature deaths worldwide stem from chronic illness, many of them diet related. Critics of this influence on the PAHO note that the organization’s approach to diet-related illnesses is in stark contrast to how the organization fights smoking-related health impacts: The agency would never “partner” with the tobacco industry. But even the head of the WHO understands the trouble with this influence: “Mosquitoes do not have front groups and mosquitoes do not have lobbies,” WHO’s Margaret Chan said to the World Health Assembly in 2013. “But the industries that contribute to the rise of [non-communicable diseases] do.”

Conclusion The practice of corporate lobbying is widespread, from the halls of Congress to the meeting rooms of international multilateral agencies. Critics of corporate lobbying contend that the practice undermines the public interest as wellfunded corporate lobbyists outnumber citizen groups and unfairly influence policies in their self-interest. Food industry lobbying, in particular, has affected many aspects of food safety,

Food Magazines

agriculture and nutrition policy, chemical regulation, and federal nutrition guidelines. Anna B. Lappé See also Front Groups

Further Readings Chan, M. (2013, May 20). WHO director-general addresses the Sixty-Sixth World Health Assembly. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/dg/speeches/2013/ world_health_assembly_20130520/en/ Godwin, K., Ainsworth, S., & Godwin, E. (2012). Lobbying and policymaking: The public pursuit of private interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kaiser, R. (2009). So damn much money: The triumph of lobbying and the corrosion of American government. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Miller, D., & Harkins, C. (2001). Corporate strategy, corporate capture: Food and alcohol industry lobbying and public health. Critical Social Policy, 30(4), 564–589. Mooney, C. (2004). Paralysis by analysis: Jim Tozzi’s regulation to end all regulation. Washington Monthly. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ features/2004/0405.mooney.html. Nestle, M. (2013). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health (Rev. ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Sharma, L., Teret, S., & Brownell, K. (2010). The food industry and self-regulation: Standards to promote success and to avoid public health failures. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 240–246.

FOOD MAGAZINES Food magazines encompass a distinct genre of the magazine medium focused on myriad food-related issues. From the earliest incarnations of the genre, food magazines managed to reflect as well as contribute to the generational understandings of food and food culture in the United States. While early food magazines tended to be associated with domesticity and home cooking, modern food magazines display a wider focus. Common features of contemporary food magazines include

587

culinary travel articles, features on professional chefs and restaurants, food trend spotlights, and recipes. Most large circulation national food magazines are published monthly, while other food magazines are published bimonthly, quarterly, or even annually. Although the magazine industry in general has experienced dwindling sales figures and decreased circulations, food magazines have continued to be one of the few genres to experience annual growth. In addition, the growing popularity of food in U.S. culture, evident in the growth of local and independent restaurants, food blogs, digital restaurant-rating applications, and food television programming, has also spurred the growth of independent regional or local magazines to supplement the popular large circulation magazines published by multinational media corporations. This entry traces the history of food magazines, from traditional print magazines of the 19th and 20th centuries to 21st-century alternative publications and digital magazines, and provides examples of publications that have affected the food media landscape.

Early History of Food Magazines First published in 1896, The Boston CookingSchool Magazine of Culinary Science and Domestic Economics was the first official U.S. food magazine. Launched in part by the Boston Cooking School’s principal Fannie Farmer, the magazine published stories related to motherhood, housekeeping, dishwashing, holiday decorating, and other issues of domestic concern, which were interspersed with practical traditional American recipes and occasional poetry. The magazine, later known as American Cookery, proved an instant success and became America’s most important food magazine. The introduction of Gourmet magazine in 1941, however, altered the food magazine landscape at the time. In contrast to the American Cookery’s small black and white pages, Gourmet featured large, color pages and focused on French cuisine and cosmopolitan cities. American Cookery eventually folded before the conclusion of World War II. While Gourmet too struggled during the

588

Food Magazines

war years, in part due to rationing and travel restrictions that limited what Americans were able to eat, its editor later claimed, however, that the war actually proved beneficial to the magazine’s success. The folding of American Cookery, along with the fact that there were no longer domestic servants in wealthy households, meant that women had to do their own cooking. And for wealthy families interested in fine cuisine, Gourmet proved a valuable asset, aiding in the generation of meal ideas as well as providing recipes and preparation guides for the emergent home cooks.

Food Magazine Mergers and Acquisitions Food & Wine magazine, founded by Michael and Ariane Bratterberry in 1978 with partial start-up capital provided by the Playboy owner Hugh Hefner, aimed to cut into the dominance of the food magazine market enjoyed by Gourmet over the previous three decades. The Batterberrys, serving as the magazine’s editors, sought to establish Food & Wine as a more lively and approachable food magazine in contrast to the upscale and often esoteric nature of Gourmet’s content. Another original aim on the part of Food & Wine’s editors was the concerted attempt to appeal to both men and women readers, whereas previous food magazines mainly targeted female readers. The tactic proved successful and helped bring about lasting alterations to the gendered makeup of food media audiences. In 1980, after only 2 years of publication in which Food & Wine reached a monthly circulation of 250,000, the Batterberrys sold the magazine to American Express Publishing Company. The sale of Food & Wine sparked a series of mergers and acquisitions in the food magazine genre that continued throughout the subsequent two decades. Two years after the successful transfer of ownership of Food & Wine, Condé Nast––the magazine subsidiary of media conglomerate Newhouse (now Advanced Publications)––acquired Gourmet magazine from its founder Earle R. MacAusland’s estate. That same year, The New Yorker purchased a 51% stake in Cook’s magazine. Cook’s would trade ownership two more times before finally

being acquired by Condé Nast in 1990 with the sole intention to close the magazine and transfer its subscriber base to Gourmet. Two years prior to Condé Nast’s decision to purchase and close Cook’s, another large circulation food magazine, Good Food was forced to cease publication following the acquisition of the magazine’s publisher Triangle Publications by Murdoch Magazines in a $3 billion deal. Good Food, which had a circulation of 650,000 at the time, was viewed as a minor part of the overall deal and eventually shut down over concerns regarding its potential for future profitability. The final major acquisition in the food magazine industry during this period occurred in 1993, with Condé Nast’s acquisition of Bon Appétit, the country’s best-selling food magazine at the time.

The Broadening Scope of Food Magazine Content Food magazines were never simply concerned with mere presentations of food and recipes. Yet, during the period of mergers and consolidations, a trend developed within the genre in which, alongside traditional food stories and recipes, food magazines broadened their scope to include feature articles on elite restaurants, lifestyle, and travel. The move by publishers to articulate food and travel to a specific lifestyle was the result of a concerted effort to appeal to upscale advertisers. In 1984, Thomas O. Ryder, then the incoming president of American Express Publishing Company, publicized a plan to work together with Bon Appétit and Gourmet—the leading competitors for his company’s Food & Wine magazine—to increase advertising revenue. The plan involved the creation of a generic advertising campaign aimed at positioning food magazines as ideal venues to market all upscale goods, not just food- and wine-related products. Whether or not the plan came to fruition through a joint repositioning of the leading food magazines as Ryder intended, what is clear is that the magazines did alter their content, which in effect broadened the range of advertisers they were able to attract, making them more valuable entities in the process. This general

Food Magazines

transformation in the content of food magazines no doubt in part explains the rapid consolidation of the major food publications in the years following Ryder’s public proposal.

The Closure of Gourmet Magazine On October 5, 2009, Condé Nast announced that it would cease publication of Gourmet magazine by the end of 2009. News of the magazine’s closure made headlines in newspapers across the country. Many of the magazine’s fans lamented its demise. Press articles framed the business decision as the death of an icon, with one New York Times article even referring to the magazine’s closure as a killing. Ruth Reichl, Gourmet’s editor for the previous decade, held a private wake at her apartment replete with wine and liquor for the magazine’s staff. Condé Nast blamed the magazine’s closure on a significant decline in advertising revenue. Critics of the magazine’s closure offered a number of possible factors that contributed to Condé Nast’s decision. First, the country was in the throes of a severe financial recession, and Gourmet, recognized as the magazine dedicated to elite food media consumers, was considered by some media critics to be out of touch with the circumstances experienced by most Americans. For instance, the October issue of Gourmet, on newsstands when the magazine’s closure was announced, featured a cover story highlighting more than 100 restaurants it claimed were worthy of its readers’ money. While some affordable choices were included in the list, elite restaurants, like the Michelin three-starred restaurant The French Laundry (where an average dinner for one cost well over $200 at the time), made up a large portion of the magazine’s selections in the article. Other critics, however, blamed poor board decisions at Condé Nast for the magazine’s failure. Such critics claimed that Condé Nast lowered the magazine’s standards in a bid to increase readership and, in the process, rendered the magazine indistinguishable from other publications in the food magazine genre. The failure to effectively differentiate Gourmet from its competitors, argued

589

these critics, forced it to compete for readers and advertisers already committed to established mainstream food magazines. Such critics point to the similarities between Gourmet and Condé Nast’s other food magazine Bon Appétit in the period immediately prior to Gourmet’s closure as further evidence of poor managerial decisions. The blurring of once distinct content in Gourmet and Bon Appétit, these critics contend, inevitably led the two magazines into direct competition, creating an unsustainable situation for Condé Nast’s bottom line. In this view, it made absolute economic sense to close one of the magazines, and since Bon Appétit had a greater circulation and superior advertising revenue at the time, closing Gourmet was the logical choice for Condé Nast. Another reason for Gourmet’s closure pointed to by critics was the growing popularity of the Food Network as well as food-themed television shows on other networks. Celebrity chefs, through their popular television shows and cross-media promotion, such critics argued, became ideal vehicles to deliver value for advertising dollars, thus cutting into Gourmet’s subscription base and advertising revenue. For instance, the 2005 launch of Food Network star Rachael Ray’s magazine Every Day With Rachael Ray set numerous sales records. By leveraging the marketing power of Ray’s celebrity status and popularity, the magazine rapidly became one of the top-10 best-selling food magazines. A final factor indentified by critics as possibly contributing to Gourmet’s demise was the rise of freely available online food media content. Not only was the content published by traditional food magazines largely available for free online, but in addition, food blogs and other forms of social media provided a plethora of alternative foodrelated media for consumers hungry for such content but unwilling or unable to afford the purchase of traditional print magazines.

The Resurgence of Food Magazines Following the demise of Gourmet, many questioned the viability of the magazine industry and food magazines in particular. And indeed, the overall

590

Food Magazines

circulation of magazines has declined year after year since 2008. Yet the food magazines represent one of the industry’s fastest growing and most lucrative genres. In 2009, the same year Gourmet ceased publication, Advertising Age named the Food Network Magazine its Magazine A-List Launch of the Year. Contrary to the assertions put forth by critics quick to write off the food magazine genre following Gourmet’s closure, Food Network Magazine used its brand strength and multiple media outlets to ensure success. First, the magazine regularly featured the celebrity chefs its television brand created. Each Food Network Magazine cover features the photos of three easily recognizable Food Network television personalities, promising the reader unique recipes or cooking tips. Besides the power of celebrity chefs, the magazine benefited from its ability to cross-sell advertisements across its multiple platforms. Advertisers affiliated with Food Network Magazine are offered the unique ability to spread their message beyond the print magazine by purchasing advertising packages that include online and television exposure as well. While Food Network Magazine may be a unique case due to its ability to offer crosspromotion over multiple media platforms, other food magazines have also experienced success despite the global recession that threatened print magazines of all genres. The food magazine with the largest monthly circulation, Taste of Home, was one of only five magazines with a circulation base in the top 15 of all magazines to increase rather than decrease its overall circulation in 2012. While nowhere near Taste of Home’s monthly circulation of more than 3 million, food magazines targeted at more upscale consumers have all increased circulation as well. Bon Appétit has a guaranteed monthly circulation of 1.5 million, while Food & Wine reaches 900,000 readers. The most recent food and lifestyle magazine to target a higher end reader, Saveur, has steadily grown its circulation base to more than 300,000 readers since its 1994 launch. Finally, in another positive sign for food magazines, Cook’s Illustrated, an advertisingfree bimonthly magazine surpassed the 1 million

circulation mark in 2007 and continues to increase its circulation base year after year. Launched in 1993 by the Cook’s magazine founder Christopher Kimball as a rebranding of his original magazine in the aftermath of its closure by Condé Nast 3 years earlier, Cook’s Illustrated is now part of a company known as America’s Test Kitchen. The magazine, through its test kitchen, has proven that a market exists for a no-frills, black and white magazine dedicated solely to taste-testing food ingredients and developing practical recipes not unlike the original food magazines that originated over a century before. Moreover, Cook’s Illustrated proved that a food magazine is capable of surviving and thriving without reliance on advertising revenue, which has paved the way for other independent food magazines.

Independent Food Magazines In 2011, a very different type of food magazine was launched to widespread critical and culinary industry acclaim. Labeled as a quarterly journal of food writing, the first issue of Lucky Peach proved a massive success, selling out its first print run of 40,000 copies and a second print run of 12,000 as well. The 174-page magazine, printed on thick matte paper in contrast to the glossy, thin paper associated with traditional food magazines, defied nearly every magazine convention, including the solicitation of advertisements. The one exception to its nonnormative formula was its association with revered culinary icons. The magazine was cofounded by the James Beard award-winning chef David Chang, the food writer Peter Meehan, and Zero Point Zero Productions, the company best known for producing the celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain’s hit food and travel television shows No Reservations, The Layover, and Parts Unknown. While subsequent issues of Lucky Peach have incorporated minimal amounts of advertising, the magazine has thus far continued its alternative presentation of food journalism. The formula has effectively attracted a large and growing fan base, leading the magazine’s editors to increase its quarterly print run to 100,000 copies. To demonstrate

Food Magazines

the magazine’s cult status in the foodie community, the sold-out first issue of Lucky Peach sells for at least 15 times its original $10 cover price in secondary markets online. The success of Lucky Peach has led to the creation of similar alternative food magazines that are gaining popularity in the culinary community. One successful example is the Canadian publication ACQTASTE, which began as the culinary veteran Chuck Ortiz’s blog but now more closely resembles the alternative magazine format introduced by Lucky Peach, while retaining some of the blog’s original aesthetics. FOOL, an English language magazine produced in Sweden by the former art director of the Swedish version of Gourmet, has also garnered critical acclaim and fan support in the culinary industry. These are but three examples of the rapidly expanding food magazine subgenre. Some critics have hailed these independent, alternative food magazines as the future of the genre. The magazines’ unique graphics, quality paper, and experimental qualities (e.g., the recent scratch and sniff photography featured in a recent issue of Lucky Peach) provide readers an experience not available through other forms of print media, including these magazines’ own Internet sites, which serve as more of a publicity outlet for the physical publications than as an alternative content provider. Other critics have dismissed independent, alternative food magazines as an unsustainable fad. These critics cite the recent announcement by the acclaimed food journal Meatpaper that it would cease publication after its 20th issue as evidence of the temporal nature of the alternative food magazine subgenre, or what they deem to be merely a trend in food media production. Many, though not all, of those critical claims that alternative, independent food magazines are the future of the industry still see digital magazines as the eventual future of the medium.

591

for digital devices by the magazine’s publishing corporation. Often referred to as digital replica magazines, these digital magazines are identical to the print version. The magazine industry has championed digital replicas for a number of reasons. First, the magazines are cheaper to produce because they cut down on the expenses associated with the printing and delivery of traditional magazines. Moreover, it is argued that the magazines provide a better experience for the readers due to the faster turnaround time, as well as added features in the digital editions like word searching or bookmarking. In addition, many digital magazines feature interactive elements such as hyperlinks to supplementary information or media, as well as embedded multimedia to make reading more interactive. Proponents also point to the environmental benefits of digital magazines as necessary alternatives to the destruction and pollution caused by the millions of print magazines published each year. Recent studies have indicated that some magazine readers favor digital editions because of the environmental benefits of the technology. One final benefit highlighted by digital magazine proponents is the ability to build a digital archive of personal magazine subscriptions, which allows readers the ability to conveniently access past issues and easily locate information. All of the major food magazines have digital replica editions, but digital subscriptions account for very little of the magazines’ overall circulation counts. For example, of Taste of Home’s overall circulation of more than 3 million, digital replica editions account for only 215,000 subscriptions, or a little less than 7% of the magazine’s total circulation. The digital replica edition of Food Network Magazine only accounts for 6% of the magazine’s overall circulation base. While digital magazine circulation continues to grow, critics claim that the format is unlikely to replace traditional print magazines anytime in the near future. Justin Bergh

Digital Food Magazines Digital magazine editions are delivered online, through e-readers, or through applications designed

See also Celebrity Chefs; Food in Popular Media; Food TV; Restaurant Reviews; Social Media and Food

592

Food Miles

Further Readings Adema, P. (2000). Vicarious consumption: Food, television and the ambiguity of modernity. Journal of American and Comparative Cultures, 23, 113–123. Counihan, C., & Van Esterik, P. (Eds.). (1997). Food and culture: A reader. New York, NY: Routledge. Hansen, S. (2008). Society of the appetite: Celebrity chefs deliver consumers. Food, Culture, & Society, 11, 49–67. doi:10.2752/155280108X276050 Hyman, G. (2008). The taste of fame: Chefs, diners, celebrity, class. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 8, 43–52. Long, L. M. (Ed.). (2004). Culinary tourism. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. Mitchell, C. M. (2010). The rhetoric of celebrity cookbooks. Journal of Popular Culture, 43, 524–539. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2010.00756.x Smith, A. F. (2009). Eating history. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

FOOD MILES Food miles is a term that has emerged in recent years to describe calculations of the distance that food travels in the value chain before reaching the point of consumption. The food miles measure is used to estimate the environmental impacts of food production, purchasing, and consumption choices, particularly with regard to carbon footprint in relation to global warming. Road transport is the major contributor to carbon emissions, followed by air and then rail and water. It has been estimated that in the United States, the average food item travels between 1,500 and 2,500 miles from point of production at the farm or similar origin to the point of consumption, and it travels approximately twice that distance in the United Kingdom. Data suggest that food miles have increased by more than 25% since the early 1980s alone in developed countries such as the United States. The distance travelled to purchase food in the United Kingdom increased by 60% between the mid-1970s and the 1990s. This entry traces the development of the food miles concept, especially with regard to the environmental impact

of food miles. Next, it presents criticisms of the concept and strategies for reducing food miles. Last, the entry discusses the overall impact of the food miles concept.

Background and Development of Food Miles Concept The coining of the formal terminology has been attributed to Tim Lang in his work at the Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment Alliance in the United Kingdom in the 1990s and first appeared in print in a 1994 policy document produced by it titled The Food Miles Report: The Dangers of Long-Distance Food Transport. The main purpose of encouraging attention to this concept according to Lang and others was to highlight some of the key hidden consequences of food production to consumers in a simple and intuitive manner and to give them a straightforward and accessible means of estimating some of the environmental impacts of their food choices. Despite the formalization of the term, and its growing popularity in scholarly and media discourse, how best to measure food miles and their impacts remains hotly debated. It is now generally agreed that the term refers to the travel of foodstuffs from the point of production through various stages of processing and preparation to the point of retail sale and then to the point of consumption (in the home or otherwise). Such calculations are difficult even for fresh, unprocessed products, but they are extremely complicated for processed and packaged foods comprising many different ingredients or for foods prepared outside the home for consumption such as at restaurants, cafes, or other commercial venues. The main principle that underlies the concept of food miles is that it produces a calculation of the amount of carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions created by each stage of food transport, using the documented impacts of each mode of transport multiplied by the distance travelled. Hence, it allows the identification of more energy-intensive food production and provision practices particularly for product-to-product comparisons.

Food Miles

It is undeniable that there has been a historical increase in the distances over which food travels before consumption, and in the range of types of foods that are transported long distances, due to a number of factors. First, the increase in the 20th century in processed and particularly packaged goods due to large-scale industrial, technological, and cultural changes has allowed many food products to travel ever longer distances before consumption. Although in the past, some preserved or dried products were traded internationally, these foodstuffs formed a relatively small part of the overall food chain. In addition, there have been marked changes in the food supply chain, particularly associated with its consolidation into larger distribution facilities more centrally located rather than reliance on local facilities. These sorts of differences in delivery patterns have become commonplace particularly in developed countries such that even those living proximate to the point of production may be consuming food that has been shipped over long distances for packaging or processing before being returned to their local grocery or retail outlet. Although the globalization of trade is far from a new phenomenon, its sheer scale together with increased consumer demand for cheaper, exotic, and nonseason products has contributed to the continued growth in the movement of foodstuffs. Finally, new technologies have given us the ability to store foods and ship them over long distances, which has had some negative impacts on the nutritional value contained in some food products, particularly in some fresh fruit and vegetables where there can be losses in certain nutrients when products travel over long distances even under excellent storage conditions, depending on the preservation and packaging methods utilized.

Criticisms Many big businesses have adopted food miles as a measure for understanding various points of inefficiency in their food supply chains and, in turn, as a means for maximizing profits. In addition, they are then able to promote this strategy as part of their marketing campaigns as simultaneously

593

“green,” environmentally sound, and socially responsible, as well as producing more value for consumers and investors. Skeptics of such initiatives point to the frequency of fallacious or undocumented claims, and to selective calculations of food miles, grouping these marketing campaigns under the banner of greenwashing, a term used to describe making products more attractive by attaching green or environmentally friendly traits to them without robust evidence as to their positive environmental impacts, a phenomenon that it is claimed has grown increasingly common in the retail sector in recent years. Critics of the food miles concept point out that agriculture-related processes (including pesticide and fertilizer manufacture, as well as other sources of energy expenditure related to production, including the fuel required by farm and foodprocessing equipment) are the greatest producers of greenhouse emissions, accounting for well over half, and by some estimates up to 85%, of greenhouse gases emitted within the food chain. One of the more striking examples comes from research that showed that tomatoes grown in Spain and transported to the United Kingdom have a lower carbon footprint (at least in terms of energy efficiency) than tomatoes grown in the United Kingdom in hothouses. Another case study comes from the New Zealand dairy and sheep meat export industries, where it is claimed that lower rates of fertilizer use due to better soil conditions together with good climatic conditions for yearround outdoor grazing (hence, reducing the amount of purchased feed, production of which also contributes to carbon emissions) and use of renewable energy sources make their products more energy efficient (even when environmental impacts of transport are included in the calculation) than those produced in the United Kingdom for local consumption. Many developing countries may in fact produce more energy-efficient food products because they utilize less machinery and fertilizers than do their peers in the developed world and tend to ship by sea rather than by air. Even in the developed world, promoting local production may have negative environmental consequences, depending on local conditions,

594

Food Miles

particularly where water is scarce. Hence, according to some critics, the concept of food miles itself is an ineffective, and even misleading, measure of environment impacts and may have unwarranted negative consequences for food export from some more distant locales. Given that road transport is a major contributor to carbon emissions, some point to other gaps in contemporary living such as the lack of public transport or proximity of retail stores within walking or biking distance in many urban and suburban settings, noting that individual trips to grocery stores using personal cars contribute significantly to carbon emissions (more so, for instance, than does bulk long-distance transport of foodstuffs by air). Advocates of fair trade point out that the focus on food miles overlooks the human and environmental benefits that may be gained by improving livelihoods in developing countries through agricultural development and other measures supported by fair-trade initiatives, such as fair wages and pricing and improved working conditions. Distant export markets are a key source of income for those who produce fair-trade products such as cocoa and coffee, in part because the value of these products is much higher in such markets than it would be locally, yet a focus on food miles alone encourages consumers not to buy these sorts of products and to engage in a form of “green parochialism.” Another criticism of the concept of food miles is that it causes us to overlook other sources of greenhouse gas emissions and negative environmental impacts, not only the effects of intensive farming, such as the clearing of land and cultivation methods, but also the raising of animals for food. Hence, some advocate paying much more attention to shifting dietary practices toward less consumption of dairy and meat, through initiatives such as meatless days every week, which are increasingly popular in many developed countries. Others suggest more active promotion of a vegetable-based diet for environmental reasons, which if adopted on a larger scale would, in turn, reduce carbon emissions significantly. Hence, these critics view the major cause of carbon emissions and negative environmental impacts to be related to

the production of animal-based foodstuffs rather than to their transport and aim to shift consumption patterns to attempt to mitigate these effects.

Strategies for Consumers to Reduce Food Miles Consumers who find the concept of food miles to be a useful one have responded in a variety of ways: Some buy food in certain types of places, avoiding the bigger retailers in favor of local smaller scale retailers, farmers’ markets, or even farm gates (farms that open themselves up to retail purchases). However, some studies have questioned the amount of fuel consumption associated with such practices because the retail occurs on such a limited scale, noting that selling local foods in larger quantities at larger scale retailers may be more efficient and sustainable, as well as more economically viable. Growing one’s own produce is another option, but it is only available for those in certain locations with time and resources available and may, in fact, not be particularly energy efficient depending on the scale of production. Buying local and seasonal goods more generally is a well-recognized strategy for reducing food miles, but the effectiveness of such a strategy depends on availability and also relies on an assumption that such goods have in fact travelled less distance, whereas in some locales, they are transported away from the point of production for packaging, processing, and labeling, only to be returned to the locale where they were produced. Many consumers are increasingly wary about how to recognize what in fact is a “local” foodstuff and how to read labels to ascertain that any particular food choice will fulfill their goal of reducing food miles. Other consumers seek out organics as a way of reducing carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in relation to fuel utilized during agricultural production, including the manufacture of pesticides and herbicide. However, such strategies also require sourcing products that ideally are both local and organic, which is difficult in some places. Although numerous calculators now exist to assist consumers to quantify food miles associated

Food Miles

with particular products, they require detailed and accurate inputs, which are often absent. Many labeling regimes require only country-of-origin or similar declarations and do not capture relevant information relating to the movements of the product or of the components contained in it before it reaches the point of sale. These calculators, hence, generate a rough measure of food miles from the point of production to the point of sale but fail to integrate other important considerations. In addition, it can be difficult to determine which calculators or mechanisms are robust, reliable, and independent of a particular position or brand and which ones are merely disguised marketing.

595

consumers, retailers, and policymakers—thinking beyond the shelf prices of food to the broader impacts of food choices. As one of the main original goals of the food miles concept was to educate and empower consumers, it has been a success at least with regard to raising more awareness of the issues associated with environmental impacts of food production and consumption. Rachel A. Ankeny See also Deforestation for Agriculture; Fair Trade; Locavorism; Values-Based Food Supply Chains; Veganism; Vegetarianism

Further Readings

Impact of the Food Miles Concept So is the concept of food miles worth considering for the average consumer? Even as many advocates of the importance of food miles measurements are aware, metrics that focus solely on transport distance provide only one component of the overall picture relating to the environmental impacts and sustainability of particular food products. More accurate and inclusive measures would need to incorporate consideration of carbon emissions of other food production–related practices as well as of food waste practices relating to packaging, unused food, and landfill created and of the environmental influences of other considerations such as types of energy sources utilized and their renewability, air and water pollution created, and resource depletion resulting from various food production methods. Hence, focus has begun to shift to larger scale “life cycle” assessments of food items and systems, as well as toward the terminology of carbon footprinting. But even full life cycle analysis techniques focus solely on the environmental effects of food production and consumption and many have noted that they still overlook potential social and economic benefits and harms of various food choices particularly in relation to sustainability broadly construed to include human health and well-being. Nevertheless, it is clear that the concept of food miles has resulted in people—including producers,

Blanke, M., & Burdick, B. (2005). Food (miles) for thought: Energy balance for locally-grown versus imported apple fruit. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 12, 125–127. doi:10.1065/espr2005 .05.252 Chi, K. R., MacGregor, J., & King, R. (2009). Fair miles: Recharting the food miles map. London, UK: Environmental Science and Pollution Research/Oxfam. Coley, D., Howard, M., & Winter, M. (2009). Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy, 34, 150–155. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2008 .11.001 Edwards-Jones, G., Milà i Canals, L., Hounsome, N., Truninger, M., Koerber, G., Hounsome, B., . . . Jones, D. L. (2008). Testing the assertion that “local food is best”: The challenges of an evidence-based approach. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, 265–274. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.008 Engelhaupt, E. (2008). Do food miles matter? Environmental Science & Technology, 42, 3482. doi:10.1021/es087190e Gadema, Z., & Oglethorpe, D. (2011). The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: A policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers. Food Policy, 36, 815–822. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2011 .08.001 Garnett, T. (2011). Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy, 36, S23–S32.

596

Food Policy Councils

Heller, M. C., & Keoleian, G. A. (2003). Assessing the sustainability of the US food system: A life cycle perspective. Agricultural Systems, 76, 1007–1041. Iles, A. (2005). Learning in sustainable agriculture: Food miles and missing objects. Environmental Values, 14, 163–183. doi:10.3197/0963271054084894 Kemp, K., Insch, A., Holdsworth, D. K., & Knight, J. G. (2010). Food miles: Do UK consumers actually care? Food Policy, 35, 504–513. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010 .05.011 Kissinger, M. (2012). International trade related food miles: The case of Canada. Food Policy, 37, 171–178. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.01.002 Paxton, A. (1994). The food miles report: The dangers of long-distance food transport. London, UK: SAFE Alliance. Pfeiffer, D. A. (2006). Eating fossil fuels: Oil, food and the coming crisis in agriculture. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society. Pretty, J. N., Ball, A. S., Lang, T., & Morison, J. I. L. (2005). Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy, 30, 1–19. Saunders, C., & Barber, A. (2008). Carbon footprints, life cycle analysis, food miles: Global trade trends and market issues. Political Science, 60, 73–88. doi:10.1177 /003231870806000107 Waye, V. (2008). Carbon footprints, food miles and the Australian wine industry. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 9, 271–300. Weber, C., & Matthews, H. (2008). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 42, 3508–3513. doi:10.1021/es702969f

FOOD POLICY COUNCILS Broadly defined, food policy is a set of collective decisions made by governments at all levels, businesses, and organizations that affect how food gets from the farm to the table. A food policy can be as broad as a federal regulation on food labeling or as local and specific as a zoning law that lets city dwellers raise honeybees. Food policy councils bring together all stakeholders in a community food system to help shape food policy.

More than 30 years ago, some academic experts and food activists began to see that the food system was intersecting with more and more parts of our lives. Environmental issues, public health, issues of social and economic justice, and other concerns were connected with this mammoth system, one with huge economic importance. The production of agricultural goods added $331 billion to the U.S. economy in 2009, and hundreds of billions more came from processing, distributing, and marketing those products. Another economic factor is the cost to treat the health issues that arise when people don’t eat well. In 2012, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that by 2030, obesity rates in the United States are expected to jump to 42% from today’s 34%. With the rise in obesity comes a staggering price to treat obesity-related illnesses: an estimated $550 billion each year. These food experts and activists realized that a vast food system generated many policies, and for the most part, the average citizen did not have much of a role in shaping them. One way to address this lack of participation was to create food policy councils in order to bring together all stakeholders in a community food system and give them a say in constructing a system that reflected their values. After briefly detailing the origins of food policy councils, this entry discusses several related factors: their role in food security, their importance, and their goals. This entry then presents examples of successful projects as well as statistics on the prevalence and growth of food policy councils. The entry ends with a discussion of how food policy councils shape policy and effect change.

The First Food Policy Council It all started with Professor Robert Wilson and a handful of his students at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Planning. In 1977, Wilson and his team studied how well the city of Knoxville provided affordable, nutritious food to all its residents. The answer: not well at all. The city was losing farmland, diet-related disease was on the rise, and hunger was spreading among

Food Policy Councils

lower income residents. City residents working on food insecurity saw the report’s connections to its efforts and convened a team of community leaders to convince the city government to create the Knoxville Food Policy Council in 1982. Although it lacked regulatory power, the council’s work led to achievements such as free or low-cost breakfasts for low-income students and the expansion of public transit to accommodate improved access to grocery stores. Renamed the Knoxville-Knox County Food Policy Council in 2002, to reflect an increased geographic scope, the council is still going strong, stressing the importance of locally grown food for the region’s economy. Today’s food policy councils come in different sizes and sometimes address different issues. But at heart, they reflect the idea of food democracy—a term coined by Tim Lang during the 1990s. Lang describes food democracy as “the long process of striving for improvements in food for all not the few” (Lang, 2007, p. 12). Achieving this goal means bringing the bulk of society to work together to ensure that there is enough affordable, easily accessible, and nutritious food for everyone. This concept is sometimes called food security, and Lang also links it to economic and social justice for the people who raise, process, distribute, and sell our food.

Food Security By embracing the concept of food democracy, food policy councils view food policy in terms of both a particular food system and with the goal of attaining food security for all. Food security, as defined by the World Bank, is “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life.” According to Alethea Harper and colleagues, a food system, no matter its size, encompasses five sectors: (1) how and where food is grown, (2) the processing of food, (3) the distribution of food, (4) food consumption, and (5) what happens to the waste created by the other four processes. Food policy councils, for the most part, are focused on community food systems (town, county, state, region, tribe), with some issues reaching up to the federal level (e.g., expressing local food

597

system concerns to a jurisdiction’s congressional delegation). Although food policy councils may challenge interests that work against an equitable and sustainable food system, they address something very basic to every community: the need for food that nourishes everyone. Councils do not have to take on the most controversial food issues—and probably should not because of the practical difficulties associated with winning on such issues—but they can work on other issues, such as making sure that farmers’ markets thrive or that states address the notion of farmland preservation.

Importance Some individuals come to see the need for a food policy council in their community for a specific, personal reason. Parents may have an interest in teaching their children where food comes from, or they want food to be as fresh and nutritious as possible. Farmers may be wondering if they will make ends meet from season to season. A public health practitioner may want to promote policies and programs that improve access to healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables. Food policy councils reflect the diverse interests and needs of the people who meet under their umbrellas. They also reflect a food system comprising many components. Because of the scope of the system and the variety of stakeholders, food policy councils can sometimes face a daunting task: finding consensus on sticky issues. Working together, council members and the public can pinpoint the most pressing food needs for their community and propose—or take—effective action. By drawing on the knowledge and experience of people from all segments of the local food system, a food policy council becomes a source of information for the policymakers in government. A council can also help government agencies see how their actions affect the food system. For example, people working at a local department of education might not see that the decisions they make about where to buy food for schools is directly related to local land use and farming issues.

598

Food Policy Councils

Although states and cities do not have a “Department of Food,” a food policy council can take on the essence of that role. It can look for those areas among government agencies where food issues intersect. Food policy councils can be a bridge between the public and private sectors on food issues. They can also be a primary source of food education for the citizens at large, addressing topics such as nutrition, food-related health issues, sustainable farming, equitable access to healthy food, and economic development related to food. Food policy councils are also important because they foster communication and civic action at the grassroots. They are a chance for people to shape, from the bottom up, the nature of a system that can seem distant and bewildering, even though it affects many areas of their lives. Achieving food democracy and social justice is a key part of any food policy council’s mission.

Goals In Closing the Food Gap, Mark Winne talks about the three Ps of community food system work. The first is projects: A government agency, commercial entity, or nonprofit organization undertakes a specific project to address a specific need. Starting a farmers’ market is just one example. The second P is partners: Food security rests, in large part, on bringing together people from different organizations and economic sectors to collaborate on food system issues. The final P is policy, which is where food policy councils come in. Their primary goals, according to Winne, include the following: • Connecting economic development, food security efforts, preservation and enhancement of agriculture, and environmental concerns • Supporting the development and expansion of locally produced foods • Reviewing proposed legislations and regulations that affect the food system • Making recommendations to government bodies • Gathering, synthesizing, and sharing information on community food systems

Just as no two community food systems are alike, not all food policy councils define policy the

same way. Some see it as the body of laws, ordinances, regulations, and statements on food that derive from various government agencies. Some see it as what government actually does—or does not do—regarding the food system. Still others see food policy as the broader interaction of many organizations in the community to get food from the farm to the table.

Examples of Food Policy Council Work In 2012, Allyson Scherb and colleagues from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University released the results of a survey on food policy councils across the United States. Here are some examples of the most common forms of policy work the councils do. Access to food: Provide affordable, nutritious food to school children and low-income populations; end food deserts. Agriculture: Promote land preservation and urban farming; discourage use of genetically modified organisms. Procurement: Seek policies that direct local institutions (schools, hospitals, government agencies, etc.) to buy locally grown food.

Food policy councils are also involved in education efforts and the implementation of policies and programs related to the food system, particularly to help achieve food security. These programs can include a one-time activity, such as creating a school breakfast program or, as with the Lane County [Oregon] Food Policy Council, partnering on a multiyear research program that teaches elementary school students about the link between food and nutrition. In some cases, the work of a food policy council can lead to the creation of a new, permanent, stand-alone agency that addresses an ongoing issue. In Connecticut, for example, the state food policy council’s work on farmland preservation led to the creation of the Working Lands Alliance, a nonprofit organization that seeks to prevent development of the state’s dwindling agricultural lands.

Food Policy Councils

With more than three decades of food policy council work across the country, there are several examples that prove just how effective councils can be. The following are just a few: New Mexico Food & Agriculture Policy Council: Expanded farm-to-school funding, expanded funding for New Mexico State University Extension support for tribal nations, stopped the sale of sugary soft drinks in schools and replaced them with fruit juices and water, and expanded procurement of locally grown fruits and vegetables by public schools Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Food Policy Coalition: Secured zoning changes to protect community gardens, urban farms, and the raising of chickens and bees; rewrote its purchasing guidelines to give preference to locally grown food; and invested economic development funds in urban food enterprises Missoula [Montana] Food Policy Council: Worked with county land use board to direct development away from prime farmland and ranchland and mapped prime agricultural soils

599

who commit to sell fresh fruits and vegetables in underserved neighborhoods Muscogee (Creek) Nation Food and Fitness Policy Council: In 2012, began working on new procurement policies that will help tribal groups buy more locally grown fruits and vegetables. Athens [Ohio] Food Policy Council: Helped win passage of an ordinance to allow front-yard food gardening Pima County [Arizona] Food Alliance: Helped overturn county health regulations that made it hard for schools and restaurants to serve food raised on small farms

A Snapshot of Food Policy Councils In 2012, the Community Food Security Coalition released a report called Community Food Projects: Indicators of Success Fiscal Year 2011. The report noted the important role food policy councils can play in the success of those projects. For 2011, the report offered this look at food policy councils:

Boulder County [Colorado] Food and Agriculture Policy Council: Developed sustainable agriculture use plan for 25,000 publicly owned acres of farmland and rejected the proposal to plant genetically engineered sugar beet seeds on public land

Number created (2009–2011)

23

Average number of organizations represented on a council

15

Hartford [Connecticut] Food Policy Commission: Worked with the city’s Women, Infants and Children (WIC) agency to improve service delivery; restored WIC’s caseload to 10,000 after it had precipitously declined to 6,000 persons; and conducted public transportation study that resulted in the establishment of new bus routes that substantially improved access to supermarkets for lower income residents

Average number of citizens affected by these policies

365,476

Average number of volunteers involved with a council

249

Greater Kansas City [Missouri] Food Policy Coalition: Prepared several policy briefs, modernized Kansas City’s agriculture zoning code, cohosted a food summit, and conducted a food issues survey with candidates for local office New Orleans Food Policy Advisory Committee: Helped formulate the Fresh Food Retailer Initiative, which leverages public and private funds to provide low-interest and forgivable loans for food retailers

Average number of policies approved per council

2

Growth in Food Policy Councils In 2010 and then again in 2012, the Community Food Security Coalition conducted censuses of food policy councils in North America. There were 111 food policy councils in 2010 and 193 active food policy councils in 2012 (approximately 15 of these are in Canada; an additional 20 food policy councils were reported as inactive in 2012 though no comparable figure exists for 2010). Of the 193 reported food policy councils, 25 were state, 5 were tribal, and the rest were local (city, county, regional, or some combination of all three).

600

Food Policy Councils

Shaping Policy The people who form a food policy council often come from diverse backgrounds—socioeconomically, ethnically, and geographically. They may have various experiences with or knowledge of the community food system, but they share a commitment to achieving food security and food justice where they live, and they are willing to work hard to reach those goals. Making changes to the food system means focusing on the three Ps of projects, partners, and policies. Although food policy councils sometimes work on projects and must form partnerships, their primary concern is the third part of that troika—shaping the creation of policies at the state and regional levels that promote access to affordable, nutritious food for all. Food policy councils come in many “flavors,” which speaks of the ability of their founders to adapt the model to the needs of their respective communities. But regardless of the particulars, the following are the goals that council members generally work toward: • Cultivating relationships with as many food system stakeholders as possible • Including a diverse range of interests in the work • Building consensus when making decisions • Educating the public and policymakers constantly • Looking for synergy between all levels of government

Across the country, people see a need for systemic change in how food is raised, processed, distributed, and consumed. Pam Roy, a veteran of food system work and a member of the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council, offers a recap of what food policy council members should be doing: I think the most important approach we could share with others is to stick to a set of priorities: Do your homework (research and community input); engage a diverse set of stakeholders; build your alliances even with those who may have

differing interests; engage policymakers at all levels (local, state, executive branch, and federal); and build on one main issue over time. It may take years. Once you have a policy in place the work continues. It is imperative to engage in “administrative advocacy”—following up with the policy and how it is implemented. (P. Roy, personal communication, June 7, 2012)

At times, food policy work can be frustrating: Lawmakers might ignore the recommendations of those who are passionate about the need for food system change, funding may be scarce, and members might have varying levels of commitment to the cause. But seeing a policy put in place that brings fresh fruits and vegetables to school kids or helps farmers save land that their families have worked on for generations may alleviate such frustrations. Food policy council work is a vital part of food system change. Mark Winne See also Domestic Food Insecurity; Food Justice

Further Readings Burgan, M., & Winne, M. (2012). Doing food policy councils right: A guide to development and action. Retrieved from http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centersand-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/ projects/FPN/resource/online/index.html?resource=147 Community Food Security Coalition. (2012). Community food projects: Indicators of success fiscal year 2011. Boulder, CO: National Research Center. Harper, A., Shattuck, A., Holt-Giménez, E., Alkon, A., & Lambrick, F. (2009). Food policy councils: Lessons learned. Oakland, CA: Food First. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for a Livable Future. (n.d.) Food policy networks. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/ johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/projects/FPN/ Lang, T. (2007, December). Food security or food democracy? Pesticide News, 78, 12. Retrieved from http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn78p12-16.pdf Scherb, A., Palmer, A., Frattaroli, S., & Pollack, K. (2012). Exploring food system policy: A survey of food policy

Food Riots councils in the United States. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2, 3–14. doi:10.5304/jafscd.2012.024.007 Winne, M. (2008). Closing the food gap. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. World Bank. (1986). Poverty and hunger: Issues and options for food security in developing countries. Washington, DC: Author.

FOOD PYRAMID See Dietary Guidelines and Graphics

FOOD RIOTS Food riots have been one of the most common forms of popular public protest across the world for centuries. Recorded in the ancient world and documented across most continents since at least the Middle Ages, the specific form of the riot may vary but the root causes tend to be similar. Most commonly, food riots arise due to one or a combination of a number of factors: (a) shortages, particularly of staple foods; (b) a perceived lack of fairness in food supply; (c) poor distribution; (d) widespread poverty; (e) high prices; and (f) a feeling of powerlessness linked to an urgent popular desire for broader political change. The resulting protests may take various forms, ranging from seizure and redistribution of food to attacks on either food stocks or those perceived to be in control of supplies and even destruction of crops. This entry examines the causes and manifestations of food riots in different parts of the world using historical and contemporary examples.

Rioters and Authorities Throughout history, food riots have tended to be viewed as a popular (and frequently spontaneous) form of revolt involving anything from a handful of people to several thousand. They generally target a range of groups in positions of authority—in

601

particular those perceived to have control over food supply. While these include government at a local and national level, they also specifically include others involved in the food supply chain, such as millers, bakers, shopkeepers, traders, and even farmers. Clashes with these groups frequently take place on the site of business: in bakeries, on board food transport vessels, or in markets, mills, or granaries. In cultures or historical periods when workers might spend up to two thirds of their income on food, there is high sensitivity to factors affecting food cost and supply. Today, as the global financial crisis accentuates the gap between the rich and the poor (or the global North and the global South), austerity measures bite, and global warming challenges agricultural models, food riots are beginning to reemerge as a common tool of political protest.

Food Riots and the Moral Economy Food has been cited as the most common cause of rioting in history, being the driving force behind a majority of documented riots, vastly outnumbering riots taking place on other grounds such as religion, land use, and other political matters. It might seem surprising that food riots occupy such a prominent position in the history of public protest, but when we consider that food is a fundamental human need, deemed to be a human right, and at the same time a core economic instrument and component of global commodity markets, it is easy to see how there could be friction when the interests of market economies and the interests of individuals collide. Given its prime position in the hierarchy of human needs, food has been described (particularly by left-leaning historians) as forming a “moral economy.” The moral economy implies—without it necessarily being formalized into a constitution—that those in positions of power have an obligation to ensure that poorer citizens have access to decent food in adequate quantities at a fair and affordable price. When this social contract breaks down, legitimate and usually well-organized and clearly articulated protests ensue.

602

Food Riots

Causes of Food Riots There are many different reasons why food becomes the subject of rioting. These are frequently linked to poverty and hunger and often operate in combination with one another. However, while it is obviously a critical factor, poverty does not necessarily lead to either hunger or rioting if prices are maintained at a fair or affordable level. This is particularly true when applied to staple foods, for which the people at large have a very clear idea of the “right” price. When Cicero (106–43 BCE) reported on being attacked by a hungry mob, their hunger was clearly linked to shortages in grain supply and the resultant high bread prices. This is a common pattern of cause and effect. High Prices

High food prices, especially rapidly increasing prices of staple foods, are a key cause of food riots, with a multitude of examples ranging from mid-16th-century Kent, England, to mid-19thcentury France. Price sensitivity continues to be a factor in the 20th and 21st centuries. In various periods, governments have used price fixing to control the price of staple foods (e.g., the bread assize in Britain that lasted from the 13th to the 19th centuries and the standard fixed bread price of 1791 in France) in an attempt to ward off any possible protest on these grounds, and this is a tool that may still be employed in extremis today. In 1917, women marched on City Hall in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia to protest against the high price of staple foods while grain was being diverted to Europe during the First World War, and there were major demonstrations along similar lines in West Bengal, India, in the mid1960s. During the first decade of the 21st century, rising prices triggered by the global economic crisis and austerity measures sparked numerous public protests. In late 2006, when soaring global demand for ethanol (made from maize) combined with grain shortages to increase the price of corn tortillas by 25% in just a few months, the result was the so-called tortilla riots in Mexico. The pasta

protests in Italy and the rice protests in Haiti in 2007 were also linked to rapid price increases of between 30% and 50%, which were unacceptable to consumers. Similar price increases in Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco, caused by the rising cost of grain imports, led to bread riots in late 2008, cited as one of the root causes of the Arab Spring. Shortages

Food shortages, whether caused by poor harvests or by disruption to supply lines for political reasons such as war, may lead to hoarding by consumers as well as public protests. Riots as a result of shortages were common in England and France in the 17th and 18th centuries and spread across the continent including to Prussia in the 1840s as a result of the Franco-Prussian War and the European revolutions of the period. In 1863, during the American Civil War, housewives in Richmond, Virginia, took to the streets to protest against the price of bread (sometimes called the Southern Bread Riots) and demanded the release of emergency supplies of food. There were riots in Berlin, including the looting of butchers’ and bakers’ shops, in 1919 due to shortages caused by the British naval blockade. After the poor harvests of 2007 and 2008, the authorities in a number of Asian countries took preemptive action when hit by rice shortages: Rice warehouses were protected by armed guards in the Philippines and Thailand, while Indonesia introduced additional border controls to combat smuggling. Misuse of Food Supplies

Twenty-first-century protests about food supply have frequently focused on the wastefulness of global agricultural systems, in particular the use of food crops for purposes other than feeding people. Areas targeted in these campaigns include the excessive growth of grain to feed meat-producing animals and the diversion of grain crops for the production of biofuels, particularly when the growth of such crops is supported by government subsidy. Protesters in France in 2011 targeted these

Food Riots

subsidies in particular, when sheep farmers brought their animals into towns to protest against excessive animal feed costs.

603

particularly common in Paris during and after the French Revolution of 1789. Agrarian Demonstration

Types of Food Riot Just as the causes of food riots may vary, so do the forms such protests take. Again, these may operate singly or in combination. Blockage, or Entrave

Shortages of food are not necessarily linked to agricultural failure. They may be caused by the export of food from the region producing it to be sold at a higher price elsewhere—in other words, the food itself is not in short supply, but the local market is being deprived of it. Rioters in Essex, England, in 1629, protested against exactly this kind of market movement by seizing carts of grain and women and children boarding ships loaded with grain to remove the cargo in their hats and aprons for personal consumption. Market Riot

Direct attacks on suppliers and middlemen were particularly common as the market economy took hold in Britain in the mid-18th century to early 19th century, and in France from the late 17th century into the mid-19th century. Market towns in southern England requested military protection for supply lines, mills, and markets during the extensive food riots that occurred throughout 1766. The South India grain riots and looting of 1918 have been likened to the 18th-century European food riots in as much as they were linked to perceptions of unfair management of food supplies by the colonial authorities.

In the agrarian demonstration, farmers publicly destroy their own produce as a form of protest and public disruption. In 2009, European dairy farmers poured 3 million liters of milk into a field in Belgium in protest at the halving of milk prices to farmers in the previous 2 years. Actions such as that of French sheep, cattle, and pig farmers, who blocked the streets of Paris with thousands of their animals in 2013 in protest at high feed prices, are related. Boycott

Although not as publicly dramatic as some of the other forms of protest, widespread boycotting of specific goods by large numbers of people has been effective. It is often used as an expression of political disapproval, as in the antiapartheid boycott of South African Cape produce in the 1970s and 1980s. Alternatively, it may manifest as a protest against the food itself, such as the widespread European public boycott of genetically modified organism foods, which has negatively influenced the approval process by European governments. Jane Levi See also Domestic Food Insecurity; Food Insecurity; Food Justice; Global Warming and Future Food Supply; Human Right to Adequate Food; Hunger; International Food Security; Population and Food Supply

Further Readings

Price Riot or Popular Taxation

A price riot, or popular taxation (taxation populaire), is one in which protestors seize food from suppliers or processors and either distribute it freely or set their own fair price and sell it at that rate to those who need it. This form of rioting was

Booth, A. (1977). Food riots in the north-west of England 1790–1801. Past & Present, 77, 84–107. Bush, R. (2010). Food riots: Poverty, power and protest. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(1), 119–129. Gailus, M. (1994). Food riots in Germany in the late 1840s. Past & Present, 145, 157–193.

604

Food Safety

Holt-Gimenez, E., & Patel, R. (with Shattuck, A.). (2009). Food rebellions: Crisis and the hunger for justice. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Lagi, M., Bertrand, K. Z., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2011). The food crises and political instability in North Africa and the Middle East. Cambridge, MA: New England Complex Systems Institute. Retrieved from http:// necsi.edu/research/social/foodcrises.html Patel, R., & McMichael, P. (2010). A political economy of the food riot. Review, A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center, 12(1), 9–35. Retrieved from http:// rajpatel.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/patelmcmichael-2010Review321.pdf Thompson, E. P. (1971). The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past & Present, 50, 76–136. Walton, J. K., & Seddon, D. (1994). Free markets and food riots: The politics of global adjustment. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Websites Food First: http://www.foodfirst.org Raj Patel (Website and Blog of writer, activist and academic, Raj Patel): http://rajpatel.org

FOOD SAFETY The earliest regulations of food were designed to protect consumers from adulteration and swindlers. In the 20th century, knowledge of the agents of foodborne illness increased and efforts to prevent exposure to these hazards began in earnest. Foodborne illness is very common, but underreporting makes it difficult to measure the actual impact. There are many agents of foodborne illness, including bacteria, viruses, parasites, and toxins; and some populations are more susceptible to foodborne illness than others. Food safety is regulated at the federal, state, and local levels to differing degrees. Both food safety systems, such as the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point system (HACCP), and safety certifications, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) series of standards for food safety management (ISO 22000), are available. Because the

introduction of bacteria or other pathogens can happen at various stages of the food system, not just during production or manufacturing, it is important that consumers are made aware of athome food safety recommendations. Thus, this entry provides information on food safety systems and recommendations after discussing the occurrence of, agents responsible for, and populations especially susceptible to foodborne illness.

Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Foodborne illness includes both illness caused by infection and illness caused by toxins, both natural and artificial. The World Health Organization states that the global impact of foodborne disease is currently unknown due to the lack of data and underreporting. It is estimated that diarrheal illness contributes to tens of thousands of deaths worldwide each year. In the United States, levels of foodborne illness are principally monitored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to its website, the CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases. Because some of the illnesses that are often foodborne can also come from contaminated water or person-toperson contact, it can be difficult to determine the source of an infection, making foodborne illness difficult to track. The U.S. government has several programs for monitoring foodborne illness, overseen by the CDC. These include FoodNet, which collects data from 10 states to determine trends in foodborne illness. The National Electronic Norovirus Outbreak Network (CaliciNet) collects data from 25 states to identify the source of norovirus outbreaks. The National Surveillance for Enteric Disease collects data from all states on specific reportable bacteria, including Listeria, Salmonella typhii and Salmonella paratyphii, Shigella, Vibrio, Clostridium botulinum, and Escherichia coli. The Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System collects reports of outbreaks due to bacteria, virus, parasites, and chemicals from state, local, and territorial sources. Data on outbreaks collected by the

Food Safety

Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System can be accessed by the public online through the Foodborne Outbreak Online Database. In addition to these monitoring systems, there are others for parasites, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and other environmental health issues that may include food. Under the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2012, surveillance of foodborne illness will become more centralized through a series of regional dedicated laboratories. Although there are at least 250 identified causes of foodborne illness, the CDC has mandatory reporting for only seven bacteria and two parasites: Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Listeria, Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Vibrio vulnificus, and Yersinia enterocolitica. Two of these, Cryptosporidium and Cyclospora, are due to contaminated water and are not described in this entry.

Agents Foodborne illness includes illness caused by infection with a biological agent or a reaction to a toxin. Biological agents include parasites, bacteria, fungi, and viruses. Bacteria and fungi can produce dangerous toxins as well as cause injury by infection. Other agents that can result in illness include incidental and intentional chemical additives, prions, and allergens. Bacteria

Bacteria are the most common cause of foodborne illness. Some bacteria cause infections, while others produce dangerous toxins, or a combination of both. Campylobacter jejuni Campylobacter jejuni is a gram-negative rod that requires low oxygen environments. Symptoms include watery diarrhea, sometimes with fever, headache, and abdominal cramps. The onset of symptoms occurs 2 to 5 days after exposure, and illness often lasts 7 to 10 days. Campylobacter infection is believed to be the most common cause of bacterial diarrhea in the United States. Foods

605

associated with Campylobacter infection include raw chicken and raw milk. Listeria monocytogenes Listeria monocytogenes is a gram-positive rodshaped bacterium that is resistant to freezing and drying. Early symptoms of listeriosis include gastrointestinal symptoms and flulike symptoms, including fever. More serious effects of listeriosis can include septicemia, meningitis, encephalitis, and uterine infections, which can cause miscarriage or stillbirth in pregnant women. Onset and duration are unknown and seem to vary. Associated foods include raw milk, cheese, raw vegetables, raw meat, and smoked fish. Salmonella, Multiple Species, and Serotypes Salmonella is a gram-negative rod-shaped bacillus. There are some 2,000 serotypes that cause illness in humans. Symptoms include fever (sometimes very high), abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and bloody diarrhea. Salmonella typhi causes typhoid fever, which can also cause red spots on the skin, high fever, heart arrhythmia, encephalitis, organ damage, and sepsis. The onset of salmonellosis symptoms usually occurs in 1 to 3 days, and for mild cases, acute symptoms last 1 to 3 days; typhoid fever lasts for approximately 4 weeks. Associated foods include the following: eggs, poultry, raw meat, seafood; vegetables and fruits with exposure to contaminated irrigation water, or fertilized with manure; foods produced by nonsymptomatic carriers with poor hygiene; and manufactured food products (particularly those involving eggs) where part of the production line has become contaminated. Salmonella is present in the digestive tract of most animals, particularly reptiles and amphibians, and is common in the environment. Escherichia coli Most forms of E. coli are not virulent and inhabit the intestines of humans and animals. Some groups are enterovirulent, causing fairly mild illness. E. coli strain O157:H7 is capable of producing verotoxin (aka shiga-like toxin) and can

606

Food Safety

cause very serious illness and death. E. coli is very common in the environment, and it takes a fairly large dose to cause illness, the exception being strain O157:H7, which is rare but requires a very small dose to cause illness. Symptoms usually begin 12 to 72 hours after exposure, and duration varies; O157:H7 duration is approximately 8 days. Enterovirulent E. coli causes watery diarrhea, abdominal cramps, nausea, malaise, and fever. E. coli strain O157:H7 has the same initial symptoms, but the toxins produced by this form of E.  coli cause serious damage to the lining of the intestines, leading to very bloody diarrhea. It can also progress to hemolytic uremic syndrome, causing kidney failure. Associated foods include any food subject to fecal contamination, such as raw meat, unpasteurized milk or juice, and sprouts and leafy greens. E. coli O157:H7 is associated with these same foods, but it is particularly associated with undercooked ground beef hamburger. Shigella, Various Species Shigella is a gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium, carried primarily by humans and primates and shed in feces. Symptoms include abdominal pain, fever, vomiting, and diarrhea (often bloody). Onset occurs 12 hours to 2 days after exposure. Shigella often moves through day care centers and institutions. Foodborne exposure often occurs when leafy produce has been exposed to irrigation water or fertilizer contaminated with human feces, or when there is some food handled by individuals with poor hygiene. It is associated with salads, raw vegetables, milk, and poultry. Clostridium botulinum Clostridium botulinum is not a bacterium that causes infection; this gram-positive rod-shaped bacterium lives in anaerobic conditions and produces a deadly neurotoxin, leading to poisoning known as botulism. Botulism toxin can be neutralized by heating at the appropriate temperature and time. Weakness, double vision, and vertigo occur early in toxicity. Poisoning proceeds with

progressive paralysis and can lead to suffocation. The onset of symptoms can occur anywhere between 12 hours and 8 days. Canned vegetables and meats are associated with Clostridium botulinum, but acidic foods (pH 4.6) are unlikely to develop botulism. Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcal Enterotoxin Type B Staphylococcus aureus are gram-positive spherical bacteria found in the environment and naturally present on the human body. Although these bacteria can cause infections, they more commonly cause foodborne illness as a producer of Staphylococcal enterotoxin type B (SEB toxin). Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, cramping, and headache. Onset occurs in 1 to 6 hours, and is usually over in 2 to 3 days. Associated foods include meat, pastries with cream, creamy salads, and many others. Contamination usually occurs due to handling, and foods that sit out at room temperature or elevated temperatures, or require a lot of handling to produce, are often culprits. Vibrio vulnificus Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative, curved, rod-shaped bacterium. It lives in marine or brackish environments and requires salty water to survive. It is related to the bacteria Vibrio cholera, the cause of cholera. In a healthy individual, infection causes diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pains. It can infect individuals who have consumed it or swimmers with open wounds. Persons with a compromised immune system or liver disease are particularly vulnerable to the more severe form of infection, which causes cellulitis, blistering rashes, and septicemia. Undercooked or raw oysters, clams, and crabs are foods associated with Vibrio vulnificus. Yersinia enterocolitica Yersinia enterocolitica is a gram-negative, with a chain-of-rods shape (coccobacillus), bacterium. Many domestic barnyard animals serve as a reservoir for this bacterium, including rodents, sheep,

Food Safety

cattle, and rabbits. It is most frequently found in pigs; thus, it is associated with raw and undercooked pork products. Symptoms include fever, abdominal pain, and diarrhea (often bloody).

607

lives on moist grain or vegetable matter. Aflatoxin is most often detected in peanut products, or in the meat or milk of animals fed contaminated grain. Parasites: Protozoa and Helminthes

Virus

Norwalk Virus, or Norovirus Norwalk virus, or norovirus, is common in adults, and contamination is through waterborne source or seafood and salads. It develops 24 to 48 hours after exposure and lasts 24 to 60 hours. Symptoms are mild (compared with some other forms of foodborne illness) and include vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Rotavirus Rotavirus is very common in small children, where it can be mild or severe; it also sickens livestock and causes a high mortality rate in baby pigs and cows. It can lead to temporary lactose intolerance. Rotavirus emerges 48 hours after exposure and has a duration of 4 to 8 days. Symptoms include profuse diarrhea, vomiting, and low fever. This virus can be transmitted by food exposed to water with fecal contamination or by handling of food without washing hands after exposure. Hepatitis A Hepatitis A is more common in adults than children and is contracted through contaminated water or contaminated handling of salads, seafood, fresh fruit, and many other uncooked products. Symptoms include fever, malaise, lack of appetite, and jaundice. Onset after exposure can take 1 week to 1 month, and recovery generally occurs in 1 to 2 weeks, but in severe cases, it can take several months. Fungus

Aflatoxin is a liver toxin and carcinogen produced by Aspergillus fungi. A large dose can cause acute liver damage; chronic low-level exposure increases the likelihood of liver cancer. This fungus

Entamoeba histolytica Entamoeba histolytica is a single-celled protozoan that causes amebiasis, resulting in gastrointestinal discomfort and diarrhea (sometimes bloody). Amebiasis is common worldwide, but not in the United States. It can be contracted by eating food contaminated with even the smallest amount of fecal material. Illness begins 1 to 4 weeks after exposure and can last for years. Anisakis and Similar Roundworms Although Anisakis and similar roundworms can cause intestinal disturbances, the most common symptom is coughing or feeling the need to cough, at which point the patient extracts a worm from his or her throat. This kind of infection is not usually dangerous, but it can be disturbing. These roundworms come from consuming raw or undercooked fish and seafood. Ascaris lumbricoides Ascaris lumbricoides are intestinal roundworms with humans as the natural host. Symptoms include intestinal discomfort, dry skin, diarrhea, and weight loss. Fever and complications can occur if juvenile worms wander into other organs. The source of infection is usually raw fruits or vegetables that were fertilized with or exposed to water with untreated sewage or human fecal matter. Taenia spp. Taenia spp. are tapeworms from beef, pork, or other natural reservoirs. Most individuals infected with these tapeworms are asymptomatic. However, Taenia solium tapeworm infections can lead to cysticercosis, which is a disease that can cause seizures because the worm larvae form cysts in muscle and brain tissue. Infection with Taenia

608

Food Safety

species occurs due to consumption of raw or undercooked pork or beef. Prions

Prions are proteinaceous infectious particles, nonfunctionally folded proteins that can cause other proteins to refold after contact. Prions infect the tissue of the central nervous system, resulting in conditions such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease, or its variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Transmission occurs when an individual, human or animal, consumes animal nerve tissues. Accidental contamination of meat with tissue from the central nervous system can occur during butchery, which is how prions were transmitted to humans from beef in England in the 1990s. Symptoms can first present as psychological disturbances, followed by neurological problems such as difficulty in walking and forgetfulness. There have been no cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in humans in the United States. Naturally Occurring Toxins

Ciguatera Poisoning Ciguatera poisoning is caused by a toxin manufactured by dinoflagellate algae in warm ocean water. The toxin can build up through the food chain, so that humans are poisoned by concentrated amounts found in fish. Symptoms include a tingling sensation around the mouth, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, nerve tingling, and muscle weakness. Associated foods include ocean fish such as mackerel, snappers, jacks, and barracudas. Scombroid Poisoning Scombrotoxin contains histadine, which is metabolized to histamine creating a reaction very similar to an allergic reaction, with symptoms such as tingling in the mouth, rash, drop in blood pressure, flushing, headaches, and itchy skin. It can also progress to vomiting and diarrhea. Symptoms occur within 1 hour after consumption and last from 3 to 72 hours. Scombrotoxin is found in fish of the Scombroid family, such as tuna, mahi mahi,

sardines, and mackerel. If the fish is improperly stored, bacteria can break down the histadine to histamine, which increases the likelihood of poisoning.

Contamination and Adulteration Accidental contamination of food with chemicals can occur at many points in the food production cycle. For instance, there is no way to control the exposure of tuna to toxic mercury, because mercury has bioaccumulated in the food the wild tuna eat. In these cases, the only recourse is for organizations such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require testing of the food before sale and to issue consumer safety statements. Adulteration is a long-standing problem worldwide. Most attempts at adulteration are to reduce the cost of food production and to maximize profits. For this reason, most adulterated foods are not dangerous, but fraudulent, such as selling honey that is mixed with cheaper corn syrup. Occasionally, adulterants are selected for their ability to mimic other more expensive ingredients in quality testing and actually turn out to be dangerous. The 2008 Chinese baby formula scandal is an example of this. Melamine was added to baby formula because it is a chemical that can cheaply imitate protein in testing. Unfortunately, it also caused widespread illness and a handful of infant deaths due to kidney damage.

Allergy and Hypersensitivity Food allergies and hypersensitivities are an important emerging issue for food manufacturing. The FDA requires labeling for eight of the most common allergens: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans. These foods were selected because they account for more than 90% of food allergies in the United States.

Vulnerability Certain populations are more susceptible to foodborne illness, largely due to having a compromised or undeveloped immune system. Worldwide,

Food Safety

diarrheal illness due to exposure to contaminated food and water is the number one killer of small children. In the United States, children are still susceptible to food poisoning, but other high-risk populations include the elderly, persons living in high population density institutions (such as prisons), and adults with medical conditions that compromise the immune system.

Vectors and Contributing Agents There are many points in the food system where the source of a foodborne illness can be introduced. The most common points at which contamination can occur are sometimes known as critical control points. There are many critical control points in the production of any food. Before harvest, fish can be exposed to mercury or the algae that carries ciguatera toxins. During the growth of fruits and vegetables, plants can be exposed to fecal material from fertilizer or contaminated irrigation water. Insects, rodents, and other vectors may have access to materials during storage and transportation. The FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture regulate safety in the production, manufacturing, and packaging of food. Once food is in a restaurant or at a home, there are a new set of threats to food safety. Bacterial growth is influenced by the type of food, acidity, the time it is kept at a favorable temperature, oxygen, and moisture. Consumer recommendations are very similar to those given to restaurants: 1. Maintain sanitation: This means maintaining sanitary facilities and food workers washing their hands and following good hygiene. 2. Avoid cross-contamination: Cross-contamination occurs when an object touches a food that carries bacteria (e.g., raw meat) and then touches another food. This occurs when knives or cutting boards are used without being sanitized between foods. 3. Pay attention to cooking temperatures: This is important for killing both pathogenic bacteria and parasites.

609

4. Hold temperatures: Even if food has been thoroughly cooked, there are bacteria in the environment, including the normal microbes present on human skin that can cause illness if food is not held at a high- or low-enough temperature. 5. Store foods properly: Refrigeration is important for short-term storage, but for longer term storage, it is important to reduce oxygen and maintain acidity (as in canning), reduce moisture (as in drying), or freeze food.

Safety Systems and Regulations HACCP is a system intended to prevent or reduce food hazards during production. This is a qualitycontrol method used in industrial settings to identify the points in manufacture when a product is at risk for hazards. The intention is to prevent problems from occurring, rather than having to test products after manufacture. There are seven principles to the HACCP process: 1. Conduct a hazard analysis. 2. Identify critical control points. 3. Establish critical limits for each critical control point. 4. Establish critical control point monitoring requirements. 5. Establish corrective actions. 6. Establish procedures for ensuring the HACCP system is working as intended. 7. Establish record-keeping procedures.

HACCP is used in the manufacturing industry and in direct sales food production (restaurants and cafeterias). The FDA has specific HACCP guidelines for dairy, juice, and seafood production, as well as retail and food service. In addition to the HACCP system, there is also the ISO series of standards for food safety management, the ISO 22000 series. The ISO standards provide a basis for an international standard food safety certification. This standard focuses on food production and large-scale manufacturing.

610

Food Safety Agencies

Federal regulations of food safety vary. At the production level, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is in charge of the safety of meat and dairy products. The FDA regulates the additives allowed in food and the kind of packaging that can be used. The FDA does not directly regulate retail food services, but it does provide a model Food Code for state and local authorities, training, and research in food safety. Restaurants are inspected and awarded permits by state and local authorities, so regulations vary from state to state.

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2011, January 4). Food Safety and Modernization Act (Public Law 111–353). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www .gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ353/pdf/PLAW111publ353.pdf Wilson, B. (2008). Swindled: The dark history of food fraud, from poisoned candy to counterfeit coffee. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Website Foodsafety: http://www.foodsafety.gov

Ellen M. Ireland See also Bioterrorism; Education in Food Service Industries; Food Allergies; Food Safety Agencies; Foodborne Illness; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Mad Cow Disease; Raw Milk and Pasteurization

Further Readings Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Foodborne outbreak online database (FOOD). Retrieved from http://wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborne outbreaks/Default.aspx International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22000: Food safety management. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/managementstandards/iso22000.htm Jay, J. M. (2005). Modern food microbiology (7th ed.). New York, NY: Springer. Langiano, E., Ferrara, M., Lanni, L., Viscardi, V., Abbatecola, A. M., & De Vito, E. (2012). Food safety at home: Knowledge and practices of consumers. Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 47–57. doi:10.1007/ s10389-011-0437-z Mari, N., Saija, K., & Janne, L. (2013). Significance of official food control in food safety: Food business operators’ perceptions. Food Control, 31(1), 59–64. Morgan, M. T. (2003) Environmental health (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Park, S., Szonyi, B., Gautam, R., Nightingale, K., Anciso, J., & Ivanek, R. (2012). Risk factors for microbial contamination in fruits and vegetables at the preharvest level: A systematic review. Journal of Food Protection, 75(11), 2055–2081. doi:10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-160 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Food. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/

FOOD SAFETY AGENCIES The possibility of contamination by pathogens or chemicals exists at every step in a food commodity chain (production, processing, distribution, sale, consumption, and disposal of food). Food companies also actively adulterate foods in their production or processing stages to receive a desired effect (e.g., maintenance of minimum weight for a product but achieved with a cheaper food additive and not the pure product alone). As food commodity chains have become more complex in the past 2  centuries, opportunities for contamination and adulteration have increased. Lawmakers and the general public have seen the need for food safety oversight at various levels of government, as well as food safety research and public awareness. This entry describes the major U.S. federal food safety agencies and some of their relationships with other federal agencies and government at smaller scales.

Brief History of U.S. Food Safety Agencies The Industrial Revolution had significant impacts on the food systems: Food was grown on larger scales and by fewer individual entities and food was shipped longer distances and was processed in new ways. These changes meant that there were more potential pathways for contamination and also entirely new substances being added to food, in addition to the already existing risk of

Food Safety Agencies

contamination due to lack of scientific and public knowledge of pathogens. Indeed, there were several cases of contamination (e.g., harmful chemicals used as additives in candy; American soldiers in the Spanish–American War getting sick from canned meat) in the late 19th century. There had been some degree of federal, state, and local regulation of food safety prior to industrialization, but due to public health issues and campaigns, Congress passed more specific and stringent laws. In 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act were passed by the federal government. The former was intended to protect American consumers from mislabeled and/or adulterated foods and drugs sold across state lines. It was enforced by the Bureau of Chemistry in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which became the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1930. The latter was intended to ensure that animals are slaughtered and their meat processed under sanitary conditions and to prevent adulteration of meat and meat products. It was and is enforced by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA. These pieces of legislation assisted in increasing food safety, but as food systems became increasingly globalized and epidemiological, public health, chemical, and microbial research produced new knowledge about food safety, additional legislation pertaining to food safety was passed throughout the 20th century. For example, the 1938 Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act explicitly gave the FDA authority over food regulation and authorized the FDA to determine standards for food. The 1967 Wholesome Meat Act requires that states have meat inspection programs with equal standards to those of the FSIS. As recently as 2011, Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act, which shifts the federal focus from ceasing the spread of contamination to preventing it and expands the authority of the FDA.

U.S. Food Safety Agencies Today There are currently several agencies of the U.S. government that play a major role in food safety today—the FSIS, the FDA, and the Centers for

611

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—as well as individual state Departments of Health and Agriculture. The FSIS and FDA generally oversee food safety at the production and processing steps in food commodity chains, while state departments and smaller local agencies oversee food safety at the retail step. The CDC is involved with entire food commodity chains. Food safety information is disseminated and available to consumers from all the agencies. Additionally, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food Safety Research Office of the National Agricultural Library, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security play supplemental roles in food safety research, outreach, and management, working with the FSIS, the FDA, and the CDC. The FSIS is an agency within the USDA whose purpose is to ensure that America’s commercial supply of meat and eggs is safe and correctly packaged and labeled. It comprises 11 offices that conduct and analyze public health research; develop and review domestic and international policies regarding animal husbandry and meat and egg handling (e.g., the Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act, Egg Products Inspection Act, portions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, and Humane Slaughter Act); provide information about food safety to consumers; provide technical information about meat and egg handling to employees of food processors; inspect meat and egg processing, packaging, and labeling activities; and enforce policy. It also manages the National Advisory Committees (advisory to the Secretary of Agriculture) for Meat and Poultry Inspection and Microbiological Criteria for Foods. The FDA oversees food safety for all other food products in the country. Through its Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and Center for Regulatory Affairs, it manages recalls, outbreaks, and emergencies; monitors pathogens, toxins, and chemicals; calculates food safety risk assessments; regulates the safety of substances added to food; regulates packaging and labeling of food products; sets scientific standards for food safety assessments; conducts research on potential food hazards, food safety practices, and consumer

612

Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities

access, preparation, and use of food; registers food-processing facilities; assists agencies at smaller scales (state, local, tribal) with retail food safety; and ensures food safety in imported and exported foods. It thus has a significant amount of regulatory power and plays the largest role in food safety of all federal agencies. The CDC tracks cases of and investigates outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, as well as runs contamination prevention programs. Researchers at the CDC work with agencies at multiple scales and in multiple states to prevent contamination of food at every step of the food commodity chain (production, processing, distribution, retail, and consumption) and track contamination in cases of pathogen outbreaks or chemical dispersal. For example, the CDC runs farm quality assurance and safe agricultural practice programs, runs environmental programs to avoid chemical and sewage contamination of farms, provides processing plants with inspection systems and pathogen prevention and eradication techniques, provides buyer specifications for food safety in food purchasing contracts, provides sanitation and food safety training for managers and workers in the food industry, and disseminates educational materials about food safety to consumers. In cases of pathogen outbreaks or chemical dispersal, the CDC works with state and local public health agencies to obtain reports of the locations and pathways of foodborne diseases or ailments and standardizes them in a national database, the Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System. Then, its Outbreak Response and Prevention Branch assists state and local health departments in controlling the outbreak or contamination at the source, preventing its further spread, and collecting field data. State, county, and municipal departments relating to food (e.g., health, agriculture, markets, and restaurants) further enforce the USDA’s and FDA’s regulations, especially at the retail and consumption steps of food commodity chains. Many states also have their own standards for food safety (especially animal slaughter and meat processing and packaging) that farms and processors must meet to sell their products in those states. As aforementioned, these departments also collect and provide food safety for or to the CDC and FDA.

Other federal entities play supplemental roles in the understanding and management of food safety. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Environmental Protection Agency work on issues of contamination in environmental contexts, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Food Safety Research Office of the National Agricultural Library conduct and catalog food safety research, and the Department of Homeland Security involves itself in geopolitical, security, or terrorism issues that overlap with food safety (e.g., bioterrorism). Alexandra J. M. Sullivan See also Bioterrorism; Botulism; Cooking Temperatures, U.S. Department of Agriculture Guidelines for; Food Additives; Food Safety; Foodborne Illness; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Listeria; Pesticides

Further Readings Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Food safety. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/ Hickmann, M. A. (2003). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Parasecoli, F., & Scholliers, P. (Eds.). (2012). Food security, safety and crises: A cultural history of food in the modern age. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Websites U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspective Service: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/ portal/fsis/home U.S. Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov

FOOD SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS/ PROGRAMS IN UNIVERSITIES Food science is an interdisciplinary field that combines chemistry, biology (especially microbiology), and engineering and applies these principles to food, specifically food processing, food preservation, and food product development, among other

Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities

applications. Food scientists tend to work in industry, government, or academe and generally specialize in one or more subspecialties of food science, including packaging, flavors, ingredient functionality, sensory science, food safety, or quality assurance. The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) is the international umbrella professional association for food scientists and food science academic programs, with related associations such as the Society of Flavor Chemists, National Environmental Health Association’s Food Safety Area, Food Service and Packaging Institute, and Research Chefs Association to name a few, as well as interdisciplinary product-specific groups such as the National Confectioners’ Association and the American Meat Science Association for each subcategory or product type. While the IFT is an international organization, there are also national food science associations throughout the world such as Food Scientists and Nutritionists Association India and the European Federation of Food Science and Technology. The International Union of Food Science and Technology (IUFoST), based in Canada, is also a world leader. This entry discusses food science as an academic program, with a focus on critiques, recent developments, and trends.

Food Science as an Academic Program As an academic program, food science programs typically trace their origins to one of two types of programs: Family and Consumer Sciences (formerly Home Economics or sometimes called Human Ecology), which is the precursor of many academic programs like nutrition, food service management, hospitality management, food science and food studies, as well as textile science, fashion design, interior design, tourism, recreation, and leisure studies. The alternative origin for many food science programs is through schools of agriculture, where food science, focusing on food processing and engineering, serves as a postharvest corollary to many of the agricultural science programs, while meat science, plant science, and food safety straddle pre- and postharvest production. Many food science programs in the United States are housed at land grant universities, given the strong agricultural component, and many food

613

science departments work closely with their state agricultural extension office, typically also housed at the university, as well as the state department of agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Abroad, food science programs tend to be housed at polytechnic universities or agricultural universities. At a traditional research university without standalone food science programs, food scientists are typically housed in a department like chemistry, biology, or engineering but focus their research on food. Food science programs are offered from the associate through the doctoral level, with most programs focusing on the graduate level, especially in the United States. Non-U.S. programs tend to have more robust undergraduate programs. Many students with undergraduate schooling in food science abroad come to the United States to complete graduate coursework. Admissions counselors report little awareness of food science as a career or program of academic study among U.S. secondary students, especially when compared with related fields like culinary arts, nutrition, and restaurant management. Food scientists can work in industry regardless of level of education, although some certifying agencies require advanced degrees or give points based on industry experience or education toward professional credentials. While it varies widely, to generalize, doctorallevel food science graduates have job opportunities as government directors, as postdoctoral researchers or professors in higher education, or as managers or specialists in industry; masters-level graduates typically work in industry or government as practitioners, while bachelors-level graduates may work as industry practitioners or go on to a graduate degree in a further specialty of food science like food safety, packaging, or flavor chemistry or a complementary field like business administration or project management. Associate-level food scientists are technician level (e.g., testing samples for quality assurance under a scientist’s supervision), and without further study and credentialing, opportunities tend to be limited.

Leading Programs Most food science programs, and all IFT-accredited food science programs, teach courses across a wide

614

Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities

range of areas. Required for IFT accreditation is coursework in chemistry, biology, physics, math, nutrition, statistics, and communication, with food science coursework in food chemistry and analysis, food safety, food processing and engineering, and applied food science, which may include current issues, sensory analysis, food laws and regulations, fermentation science or other topics of interest to the university, faculty, or students. There is an increasing push to incorporate food studies courses like food politics, food history, and social and cultural aspects of food into these programs. Typically, these special topics courses are influenced by

industries specific to the program or specialization. For example, Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which has chef and food scientists housed within the same department, offers coursework in product development, molecular gastronomy, and other culinary/food science crossovers; Oregon State University features coursework in fermentation science, including beer, wine, and cheese; Michigan State University emphasizes technology to enhance food safety; Texas Tech University has specialization in meat science. Table 1 lists IFT-accredited undergraduate food science programs as well as graduate food science programs.

Table 1 Undergraduate and Graduate Food Science Programsa Undergraduate Food Science Programs Accredited by the Institute of Food Technologists Alabama A&M University

North Dakota State University

University of Delaware

Auburn University

The Ohio State University

University of Florida

Bogor Agricultural University (Indonesia)

Oregon State University

University of Georgia

Pennsylvania State University

University of Guelph (Canada)

Purdue University

University of Idaho/Washington State University

Brigham Young University California Polytechnic State University Clemson University Cornell University Escuela Agricola Panamericana Zamorano (Honduras) Instituto Technologico y de Estudios (Mexico) Iowa State University Jiangnan University (China) Kansas State University Louisiana State University Massey University (New Zealand) McGill University (Canada) Michigan State University North Carolina State University

Rutgers University San Jose State University Texas A&M University Tuskegee University Universidad Argentina de la Empresa (Argentina) Universidad de las Américas Puebla (Mexico) University College Cork (Ireland) University of Alberta University of Arkansas University of Brawijaya (Indonesia) University of British Columbia (Canada) University of California, Davis

University of Kentucky University of Maine University of Manitoba (Canada) University of Maryland University of Massachusetts University of Minnesota University of Tennessee University of Missouri University of Nebraska–Lincoln University of Wisconsin–Madison Utah State University Virginia Tech

Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities

615

Graduate Food Science Programs Alabama A&M University

Rutgers University

University of Kentucky

Auburn University

Technical University of Nova Scotia (Canada)

University of Maine

Brigham Young University Chapman University Cornell University Drexel University Florida State University Illinois Institute of Technology Iowa State University Kansas State University Louisiana State University McGill University Michigan State University Mississippi State University North Carolina State University Oklahoma State University Oregon State University

Texas A&M University Texas State University Texas Tech University The Ohio State University University of Alberta (Canada) University of Arkansas University of British Columbia (Canada) University of California, Davis University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Guelph (Canada)

University of Maryland University of Massachusetts University of Minnesota University of Missouri–Columbia University of Nebraska–Lincoln University of Saskatchewan (Canada) University of Tennessee University of Wisconsin–Madison Utah State University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Wageningen University (the Netherlands) Washington State University

University of Idaho University of Illinois

Wayne State University

Pennsylvania State University Purdue University a

Located in the United States, unless otherwise specified.

Critiques and Recent Developments in Food Science Programs In terms of food issues, there are three critiques of university food science programs to be considered: (1) conflict of interest with the food industry, (2) contributions to noncommunicable diseases in the developed world as well as injurious products in the developing world, and (3) development of products and processes that are unsafe and/or unsustainable. Like many professional programs, food science programs sometimes struggle to maintain an

appropriate and acceptable balance between adequately preparing students with the comprehensive range of skills and knowledge to become successful food science professionals and training students for specific employment at the industry’s behest. For example, most food scientists and food science faculty would agree that teaching students the best application for a category of modified food starches or even a specific brand of starch is acceptable, whereas teaching them how to use one starch to the exclusion of others is unethical. Because the food industry heavily supports food science

616

Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities

programs with donations of food and equipment, scholarship and job opportunities for students, and faculty consulting contracts and applied research grants, questionable conflicts sometimes arise. Food science research can be useful in developing technologies to safely nourish the world. However, the same technologies can also be used to develop products that are marketed to compete with nutritionally superior extant products or to introduce new unhealthy products into the marketplace. In the first scenario, for example, Nestlé infamously marketed infant formula over medically recommended breast milk in the developing world, prompting public outrage and a boycott. In the second scenario, for example, numerous food products of poor nutritional value are introduced to the marketplace each year, including confectionary, snacks, frozen novelties, and bakery items. More egregiously, perhaps, are foods of poor nutritional value manufactured for the food service industry and served in schools and other institutions. These foods, taken together, have been labeled as contributing to a “toxic food environment” among public health scholars. The counterargument to these concerns is that our food has never been cheaper, safer, or more available, due largely to the efforts of food scientists and food technologists. As the food industry consolidates and one manufactured food item can contain ingredients from every continent on Earth, consumers are increasingly concerned about the safety, traceability, and sustainability of their food supply. While the food supply is, on the whole, safer than it has been in previous decades, food safety outbreaks are a top-of-mind concern to consumers, especially when they cause fatal illness or occur through seemingly innocuous products like melons or spinach. The increasing complexity of our food system, in which, for example, multiple animals may be ground together for ground beef, thus a pathogen may be spread among thousands of units of product, raises concerns. Another controversy is the sustainability of the food supply. Profitable food items such as tuna are at risk of being produced to extinction, and other foods such as beef are extremely resource intensive, consuming vast

amounts of water and fossil fuels to produce and contributing to greenhouse gases through their production. Food technologists have been criticized for advocating for scientific faith that a solution will be found for such problems (e.g., genetically modifying white rice to restore nutrients lost in milling rather than advocating for the consumption of brown rice) rather than advocating for a sustainable food system.

Trends Partly in response to the concerns mentioned herein, a number of trends are shaping food science curricula and pedagogical approaches. Many programs are merging the technical study of food science with more holistic courses on the food system and cultural and social aspects of food. For example, Drexel University offers a course in food politics; food science majors at Colorado State University can take coursework in food systems and food security. A related trend is an emphasis on cross-disciplinary work resembling food science industrial work in an academic setting. For example, nutritionists, food scientists, and exercise physiologists from different departments may collaborate to develop a functional food for athletes, food service management/culinary faculty and food scientists may collaborate to develop healthier school lunch alternatives, and so on. Finally, more food science programs are focusing on research that addresses the concerns raised in the previous section. For example, developing a healthy high-protein low-cost snack food for consumers in the developing world, improving produce handling to kill microbes without introducing additional chemical treatments, or developing vegetable-rich entrees that assume some of the positive sensory attributes of meat. Jonathan Deutsch See also Food Safety

Further Readings Campbell-Platt, G. (2009). Food science and technology. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

Food Sovereignty Institute of Food Technologists. (n.d.). About IFTSA. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ift .org/community/students/about-iftsa.aspx Vaclavik, V. A., & Christian, E. W. (1998). Essentials of food science. New York, NY: Springer.

Website Institute of Food Technologists: https://www.ift.org

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY Food sovereignty is defined as the right of communities and nations to control their own food and agricultural systems. This concept was initially developed by an international coalition of peasant, farmer, women’s, indigenous, and fisherfolk social movements called La Vía Campesina, or the Peasant Way. It has since been used as a framework to advocate for more sustainable and socially just food policies in international and local contexts. Food sovereignty is now enshrined as a constitutional right in several countries, including Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nepal, Mali, and Senegal. This entry summarizes the origins and evolution of the food sovereignty framework and describes several of its key pillars. It concludes by discussing the application of food sovereignty principles to several food policy issues, including public food procurement programs, the International Declaration of Peasant Rights, and indigenous food sovereignty.

Origins of the Concept In the early 1990s, as part of an era of increasing neoliberal globalization of the food system, peasant leaders met in Central America to discuss common challenges faced by small-scale farmers and indigenous peoples. These challenges included the consolidation of control over international food markets by multinational corporations. New agricultural trade rules negotiated at the World Trade Organization also negatively affected small-scale and subsistence producers by removing agricultural

617

supports, including training, agricultural extension activities, and investment in agricultural institutions and infrastructure. Continued agricultural subsidies in the global North and developed countries led to the phenomenon of “dumping” of cheap food exports into developing countries, effectively pushing many small-scale and subsistence-oriented producers out of the agricultural system. At the same time, development agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund promoted an export-based agricultural regime for the developing countries. These export-oriented initiatives often involved the installation of large-scale plantations leading to deforestation, loss of biodiversity, water pollution, and environmental degradation, as well as social exclusion as small-scale and subsistence farmers were pushed off the land. The need for a common response to the linked social, economic, and environmental challenges associated with an increasingly globalized food system led to the formation of an international social movement called La Vía Campesina, which today represents more than 200 million rural farm families worldwide. It is a coalition of almost 150 rural, indigenous, women’s, and fisherfolk organizations from 70 countries, which are united in their common defense of the concept of food sovereignty. In 1996, at the World Food Summit in Rome, Italy, La Vía Campesina presented the idea of food sovereignty as an alternative to the more commonly used concept of food security. At the summit, food security was defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in the Plan of Action as existing “when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” This definition, which is widely used in food policy and hunger alleviation programs, does not sufficiently consider the importance of how, by whom, and where food is produced. It also ignores the underlying power relations in a global food economy that has resulted in a food system in which almost half of the global food production is wasted and 1.5 billion people are overweight yet, simultaneously, almost 1 billion people face hunger on a daily basis.

618

Food Sovereignty

The concept of food sovereignty has gained international prominence in both grassroots and policy environments and is now used by a large number of organizations in addition to La Vía Campesina. The International Planning NGO/CSO Committee for Food Sovereignty is a network of more than 800 global organizations addressing issues related to food sovereignty. In 2007, more than 500 representatives from 80 countries attending an international forum on food sovereignty in Nyéléni, Mali, developed a comprehensive definition of food sovereignty:

develop programming on all elements of the preceding definition, nor do they necessarily agree on the best methods for achieving food sovereignty in distinct regional, national, and global contexts. However, the basic principles of sustainable agriculture, social justice, and the democratization of the food system are common elements that underlie many of the policies, programs, and actions pursued by food sovereignty advocates worldwide, several of which are discussed in further detail in the subsequent sections.

The right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It defends the interests and inclusion of the next generation. It offers a strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, and directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems determined by local producers and users. Food sovereignty prioritizes local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just incomes to all peoples as well as the rights of consumers to control their food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and manage lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social and economic classes and generations. (www.nyeleni.org)

Pillars of Food Sovereignty

The Food Sovereignty movement operates under the principle of “unity in diversity.” Not all organizations using the concept actively promote or

Sustainable Small-Scale and Family Farming

Recent estimates suggest that globally, 500 million small-scale farm families produce food for 70% of the global population. These small-scale farms are labor-intensive, depending primarily on household members for subsistence and regional market production. They are also multifunctional, providing a range of social and ecological services, as well as food production oriented primarily toward local and regional consumption. Sustainable food production, based on the principles of agroecology, is one of the pillars of the food sovereignty framework. Agroecological approaches to food production prioritize not just efficiency and crop yield but also traditional and indigenous knowledge, economic viability, environmental sustainability, community well-being, and social justice. Research conducted by the United Nations on agroecology suggests that small-scale farmers can double food production in regions facing critical food shortages by using agroecological methods. These methods include intercropping, reducing the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and preserving regional cultivars and agricultural biodiversity. By harnessing social and ecological diversity in what Ivette Perfecto and John Vandermeer have called the “agricultural matrix,” multifunctional agriculture has also been shown to improve resilience to ecological vulnerability, reduce greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change, and reduce losses to biodiversity through land sharing and wildlifefriendly landscapes.

Food Sovereignty

Biodiversity and Seed Sovereignty

The FAO estimates that during the past century more than 75% of plant genetic diversity has been lost as farmers have shifted to the use of genetically uniform and hybrid varieties. Today, almost three quarters of the global food supply comes from just a dozen plants and five animal species, and just three—rice, maize, and wheat—constitute almost 60% of the plant-based calories and protein consumed by humans. Many of these currently cultivated varieties are threatened by climate change, environmental degradation, and shifting land use patterns. Campaigns to protect indigenous, localized agricultural and ecological knowledge and regional seed varieties form a second pillar of the food sovereignty framework. Stemming from concerns around the consolidation of seed marketing in the hands of just a few global multinational corporations, food sovereignty advocates have been involved in a range of campaigns to ensure the viability of traditional and locally controlled genetic resources. Currently, the top 10 seed companies control more than 70% of a $20 billion global seed market, while 3 companies alone control more than half of commercial seed production and distribution. Food systems researchers express concerns about the consolidation of control over genetic diversity. Regulatory frameworks that support the principles of intellectual property rights for genetically modified seeds require farmers to purchase new seed stock and pay royalties each year, instead of saving, reusing, and distributing their own seed. In response, participatory plant breeding, localized and community-based seed banks and seed networks, and the revitalization of public investment into seed research are strategies that are proposed to ensure the continued ability of small-scale farmers and local communities to access their traditional, but evolving, seed resources.

Agrarian Reform

Much of the most visible social activity around food sovereignty has revolved around the issue of access to land. Access to and control over the

619

productive resources with which to produce food is the third important pillar of the food sovereignty framework. Redistributive land reform— defined as the transfer of landed resources from the land rich to the land poor—is the demand of the Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform, which has grown out of the Food Sovereignty movement. For example, constitutional provisions and agrarian reform laws in Brazil stipulate that unproductive landholdings can be expropriated by the government and distributed to landless people. The Brazilian Landless Workers Movement, one of the founding and largest member movements of La Vía Campesina, has successfully achieved the settlement of almost 400,000 families on redistributed land in Brazil. Land distribution alone, however, does not necessarily guarantee the achievement of secure land tenure as a strategic path to food sovereignty. In cases where distributed land is of poor quality, isolated from communities and markets, and of unclear legal designation, land concentration can reoccur. Struggles around land access have become particularly acute since the global food crisis of 2007– 2008 instigated what has become known as the “global land grab.” The land grab refers to largescale and often foreign acquisitions of land in developing countries for export-oriented agricultural commodity production. This land rush is spurred by price spikes in key commodities such as soybean, maize, and palm oil that are used for biofuels production and to supply growing global demand for feed for livestock. Because the food sovereignty framework depends on community control over resources and food policy decisions, the further large-scale insertion of external actors into regional landscapes has created additional challenges for the movement. Additionally, agrarian reform involves more than just land redistribution; it also involves the provision of agricultural credit, training, and market infrastructure oriented to small-scale and regional food production. These supports have also been subject to austerity measures imposed by neoliberal governments and have limited the ability of agrarian reform to foster regional food systems characterized by the principles of food sovereignty.

620

Food Sovereignty

Women and Food Sovereignty

Rural–Urban Relations

The evolution of the global food system has created social, ecological, and economic vulnerabilities that particularly affect women. More than 60% of the world’s hungry are women and girls, and women constitute more than 40% of the global agricultural workforce. Despite their contributions to global food security, women occupy fewer positions of power in the global agrifood system, have unequal access to land and other productive resources, and experience forms of structural violence that are particularly acute in some male-dominated rural and cultural environments. As men migrate from farm households seeking wage employment elsewhere, women face increasing responsibility for domestic care work and food production. At the same time, women and girls have inequitable and often insecure access to land, fishing, and grazing areas that are essential for their livelihoods. Arguing that the resolution of fundamental contradictions of gender, class, and race inequalities is integral to the achievement of a food sovereignty framework, the Global Campaign to End Violence Against Women was launched in 2008 by La Vía Campesina. This campaign seeks to create awareness about the gendered division of household labor, domestic violence, and the need for greater political voice and legal protection for women in agrarian contexts. Food sovereignty is fundamentally about the “right to decide,” recognizing that globally, women face unequal opportunities to participate in both household and political decisions. In response, policymakers have taken steps to recognize women’s rights as they pertain to land and access to resources. The FAO notes that if women had the same access to productive resources as men, indices of global hunger could be reduced by 12% to 17%. In support of increased gender equity in rural environments, Bolivia and Brazil have enacted gender-based agrarian reform initiatives that prioritize land titling for women. Women’s seed collectives have proliferated, and women have formed strategic alliances both within and beyond the international peasant movement to give greater voice to gender issues related to food sovereignty.

While the Food Sovereignty movement emerged initially from rural social movements, relationships with urban populations and consumers are increasingly part of the agenda. More than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and the food riots associated with recurring food price spikes occur primarily in the world’s largest cities. Creating new links between rural producers and urban consumers is the next pillar of food sovereignty. Urban consumers show a growing preference for locally grown and organic foods, leading to a proliferation of urban farmers’ markets and community supported agriculture arrangements. Municipal food policy councils in North America and Europe bring together producers and consumers to design regional food systems that are socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable. This has led to increased awareness of the effects of urban sprawl on farmland access and changing regulatory environments that enable and even promote urban agriculture initiatives. Food sovereignty language has begun to appear in policies and programs enacted by government health agencies addressing the complications of unhealthy diets for people in urban populations who lack access to safe, affordable, and healthy foods. Trade and Alternatives to Agricultural Market Liberalization

In many ways, trade was the trigger that gave birth to the global Food Sovereignty movement. Global negotiations around the Agreement on Agriculture at the World Trade Organization resulted in the liberalization of trade in food and agricultural products. This resulted in the removal of decision-making power about important agricultural policies, including tariffs and agricultural supports, from national and community level decision-making processes. These processes gave rise to strategic mobilizations and protests at global ministerial meetings that led some to understand that food sovereignty was antitrade and, instead, focused on food self-reliance, at household and national levels. Fair trade is, however, an

Food Sovereignty

integral component of the food sovereignty framework. Proposals to remove agriculture from international trade negotiations are based on the principle of subsidiarity—that decisions and choices that are made about food production and consumption should be made by the people who participate most closely in those activities—that is, growing food and eating it. In that vein, fair trade, rather than no trade, is the final pillar of the Food Sovereignty movement. A food trade program that meets the principles of food sovereignty is exemplified in “farm-to-cafeteria” public procurement programs. Also known as homegrown school feeding, these programs link local producers with public food environments, including universities and schools, hospitals, day care centers, and food banks. Prioritizing local markets for locally produced food fosters a resilient local food system that can withstand international price shocks and also reduces greenhouse gas emissions through food transport. Food that is produced for local consumers may also be more culturally appropriate and less expensive and can foster local economic development through the recirculation of wealth throughout the community.

Peasant Rights and Indigenous Food Sovereignty This entry has focused on the framework of food sovereignty as the “right to have rights.” The Food Sovereignty movement has grown directly from the experience of peasants and indigenous peoples who have historically experienced dispossession from their traditional territories—from fields to forests, to fishing grounds—which had sustained viable regional food systems and trading networks for generations. The increasing institutional recognition of the “right to food” has sparked social welfare and food procurement policies oriented toward food security, much of which continues the more recent dependence on international commodity production and food aid to those regions experiencing famine. The Food Sovereignty movement instead articulates the “right to produce” and to have community control—self-determination—over what is

621

produced, by whom, by what method, and on what ecological territory. The ability of the Food Sovereignty movement to bring this debate to the international stage has resulted in the adoption of food sovereignty provisions in country constitutions, laws, and resolutions from Mali to Maine. At the global level, in 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on the “Promotion of the Human Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas” as a preliminary step toward the adoption of an International Declaration on Peasant Rights that was first proposed by La Vía Campesina. This measure was conceptualized and proposed on the basis of two decades of debate among the world’s most active agrarian and indigenous social movements. It is articulated as the necessary political framework for food sovereignty, to protect the productive capacity of both the lands and farmers that feed the world. Hannah Wittman See also Agrarianism; Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Consumers’ Perspective; Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Farmers’ Perspective; Fair Trade; Sustainable Agrifood Systems

Further Readings Alkon, A. H., & Mares, T. M. (2012). Food sovereignty in US food movements: Radical visions and neoliberal constraints. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(3), 347–359. Claeys, P. (2012). The creation of new rights by the Food Sovereignty movement: The challenge of institutionalizing subversion. Sociology, 46(5), 844–860. Desmarais, A. A. (2007). La vía campesina: Globalization and the power of peasants. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1996, November 13–17). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome, Italy: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm Holt-Giménez, E., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Food crises, food regimes and food movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 109–144.

622

Food Sovereignty, Policy and Regulation

Morrison, D. (2012). Indigenous food sovereignty: A model for social learning. In H. Wittman, A. A. Desmarais, & N. Wiebe (Eds.), Food sovereignty in Canada: Creating just and sustainable food systems (pp. 97–113). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood. Naranjo, S. (2011). Enabling food sovereignty and a prosperous future for peasants by understanding the factors that marginalise peasants and lead to poverty and hunger. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(2), 231–246. Patel, R. (2007). Transgressing rights: La Vía Campesina’s call for food sovereignty. Feminist Economics, 13(1), 87–93. Patel, R. (2012). Food sovereignty: Power, gender, and the right to food. PLoS Medicine, 9(6), e1001223. Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., & Wright, A. (2009). Nature’s matrix: Linking agriculture, conservation and food sovereignty. London, UK: Earthscan. Wittman, H. (2011). Food sovereignty: A new rights framework for food and nature? Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 2(1), 87–105. Wittman, H., Desmarais, A., & Wiebe, N. (2010). Food sovereignty: Reconnecting food, nature and community. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.

Websites Institute for Food and Development Policy: http://www .foodfirst.org International Peasant Movement, La Vía Campesina: http://www.viacampesina.org International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty: http://www.foodsovereignty.org Nyéléni Newsletter: http://www.nyeleni.org

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY, POLICY AND REGULATION Food sovereignty describes the right of communities to control their own food system, including modes and means of production, distribution, and consumption. The concept was originated by members of the international agrarian organization La Vía Campesina during its Second International Conference held in 1996 in Tlaxcala,

Mexico. This new approach, linking farmers’ rights to the rights of consumers, developed in response to changes in international agricultural policy brought about via the inclusion of agriculture in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades and its successor the World Trade Organization (WTO). These policies liberalized trade in agricultural commodities and facilitated the corporate concentration of production, especially for staple crops such as maize, rice, wheat, and soybeans. They also encouraged the practice of “dumping,” whereby highly subsidized commodities are exported (often to the developing world) at below production cost, saturating local markets and driving down prices temporarily. This entry first describes the emergence of food sovereignty as a concept and then discusses policy areas to consider in enacting food sovereignty.

Emergence as a Concept The concept of “food sovereignty” is counter posed to “food security,” defined by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as a population’s access to sufficient quantities of food. Although enough food is produced yearly to feed the planet’s population, nearly 3 billion people experience hunger (intermittent or chronic) because they cannot afford to buy nutritious food. However, governments often pursue food security goals by supporting the expansion of corporate agribusiness and commodity trade, focusing on increasing productivity of high-value exports rather than addressing the lack of local access to nutritious and culturally appropriate food. These policies tend to ignore the environmental impacts of largescale industrial agribusiness, as well as the impacts of industrial farming practices on the health of consumers and producers. In contrast, participants in the Tlaxcala Conference, Mexico, insisted that local consumers would never have adequate access to food until local communities controlled the resources necessary for food production. Their producer critique gained wider support among consumers and policymakers during the 2007–2008 world food crisis, when

Food Sovereignty, Policy and Regulation

prices skyrocketed due to agrofuel and agro-export speculation, reducing access to food in many regions and leading to food riots, public health crises, and political instability. Although the food sovereignty paradigm has achieved important recognition from states, international organizations, and civil society groups, formidable political challenges to its implementation persist in many regions.

Key Policy Areas The vision of food sovereignty laid out by La Vía Campesina and other activist groups entails a fundamental restructuring of the current global food regime from the agro-industrial model of production to a model in which the right to consume and produce culturally appropriate and healthy food using ecologically sound and sustainable methods is honored as a basic human right. Implementation would mean recognizing food as more than just a commodity and rethinking the social and ecological relations it mediates. It would also require legal recognition and regulatory and policy support from governments and international organizations. The key policy areas that would need to be addressed in order to enact food sovereignty include legal recognition of the right to food at international and national levels, land reform and land tenure policy, seed production and intellectual property, agricultural policy, trade policy, environmental policy, and public procurement programs. The United Nations recognized the right to access food as a universal human right in 1974. However, most international instruments related to this right still fail to address the rights of farmers to produce food in a sustainable and dignified way, or the rights of consumers and producers to participate in decision making regarding food policy. The problem of farmers’ rights is especially urgent given that peasants grow most of the world’s food, and more than 30 million peasants have lost access to land since agriculture was integrated into the WTO in 1995. The institutionalization of food sovereignty depends on recognition of peasants’ rights. Over the past 15 years, transnational advocacy networks have worked to embed the struggle for food sovereignty into human rights

623

frameworks and secure their inclusion on the agendas of key international institutions such as the FAO. Since 2000, this work has been coordinated by a network of nongovernmental organizations, agrarian groups, fisherfolk, environmentalists, and indigenous organizations, called the International Nongovernmental Organization/Civil Society Organization Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC). At the 2007 International Forum on Food Sovereignty in Nyéléni, Mali, the IPC convened representatives of nearly 500 different groups from 80 countries to produce a consensus vision and agenda for food sovereignty. The Declaration of Nyéléni articulated the important role of local food and knowledge in preserving cultural diversity, reconnecting production and consumption, promoting rural–urban solidarity, and democratizing the global food system. It also clearly anticipated the challenges of implementing this vision, pointing out that the political sovereignty of local communities is a necessary precondition of their autonomous production, distribution, and consumption of food. In response, the FAO expressed official support for the efforts of the IPC, and Olivier de Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, incorporated many of the principles expressed in the Nyéléni Declaration into his official recommendations for sustainable agricultural development. In 2009, the FAO itself was reformed to permit greater input from agrarian and civil society organizations via regular participation in the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Established in 1974 to implement the decision of the FAO, the CFS had languished for many years, ignored by the governments of UN member states who had effectively ceded governance of global agriculture to the WTO. Since 2009, the CFS has managed to shift policy discussions on global food security and agriculture from an exclusive focus on trade to a new consideration of the right to food as a basis for global agriculture policy. A proposed International Convention on the Rights of Peasants, currently under debate in the UN, would formally establish the right of peasants to the means of agricultural production and reproduction, including land, seeds, capital, knowledge, agrobiodiversity, and justice.

624

Food Sovereignty, Policy and Regulation

However, multilateral organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the WTO remain heavily invested in the market-based corporate agro-industrial model of food security. Despite past failures of these policies, the World Bank and IMF continue to promote privatization of the means of agricultural production (including land, seed, water, and technology), environmental and labor deregulation, and trade liberalization. Structural adjustment policies enacted by these bodies have led to the monopolization of key agricultural sectors by a small number of transnational agribusiness corporations such as Monsanto and Dow, and the widespread conversion of subsistence agriculture to production for export. These dynamics intensified in the wake of the 2007–2008 world food crisis, which inflated prices and prompted massive public and private capital reallocations to export agriculture, including the booming agrofuels sector. WTO policies continue to disproportionately benefit large agribusiness corporations and wealthy nations that heavily subsidize agriculture rather than small farmers in developing regions. The power of the World Bank, IMF, WTO, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to operate independently of elected governments makes them practically impervious to the demands and concerns of consumers and small-scale agricultural producers. A new global policy framework and multilateral regulatory authority are necessary to enable the implementation of food sovereignty. Enactment of food sovereignty also entails concrete changes to the legal frameworks and policies of national governments. The Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Malnutrition and Hunger, adopted at the 1974 World Food Conference, establishes the responsibility of states to implement the right to food. Whereas recognition of the right to food is firmly established in most of the world through the adoption of international treaties or framework laws (except the United States), implementation of food sovereignty remains tentative at the national level. Since 1999, the governments of Brazil, Mali, Venezuela, Ecuador, Senegal, and Nepal have explicitly incorporated food sovereignty principles and provisions into their constitutions

and national laws. Although the range of possible measures for implementing these provisions is wide and varies according to circumstance, most scholars agree that they should include at a minimum land reform and secure land tenure for smallholders, public support for agroecology, seed sovereignty, and changes to public procurement and humanitarian aid policies. The current global agro-exporting model facilitates land enclosure and the dispossession of small farmers by states and large corporations. In fact, privatization of collectively held lands to make way for export production was a key feature of structural adjustment policies enacted beginning in the 1980s. In the 1990s alone, an estimated 20 to 30 million smallholders were displaced through a combination of structural adjustment and trade liberalization. Reversing these policies would improve access and stabilize land tenure for small farmers engaged in the production of food crops for local use. Land redistribution and tighter regulation of offshore investment by financiers in agricultural land markets (“land grabbing”) are key policy directives. The current global model also encourages industrial cultivation of high-value export crops (e.g., agrofuels) without regard to environmental or human health impacts. The global crisis of diminishing soil fertility coupled with lack of access to clean water has not been effectively addressed. Over the past 25 years, public expenditures on agriculture in the global South have fallen by at least half as World Bank structural adjustment policies dismantled public systems of support for farmers, including land reform, credit, insurance, research and development, and extension services. Governments interested in enacting food sovereignty will need to reinvest research, extension services, and support for agroecology practices that conserve and improve soils and water, making agriculture more productive and sustainable over the long term. Farmers’ access to and control over seeds, or seed sovereignty, is an important component of food sovereignty. With the first Green Revolution, seed production was functionally separated from food production, and farmers were encouraged to rely on hybrid seeds supplied by governments and agribusiness rather than

Food Stamps and WIC

saving and exchanging their own seeds. This resulted in a dramatic reduction in agrobiodiversity, rendering farmers more vulnerable to crop failure from pest, disease, and climate disturbances. Indian farmers once cultivated around 30,000 varieties of rice, but now only 30 to 50 varieties are actively cultivated. The macroeconomic policies of multilateral agencies, alongside the growing economic importance of crop genetic resources, have also led to corporate concentration of the global seed industry. Currently, nearly half of global seed production is controlled by only three companies (Monsanto, Dupont, and Syngenta). Corporate monopolization and patenting of seeds forces farmers into a relationship of economic dependency and limits their ability to grow locally adapted and culturally appropriate crops. Correcting this situation would entail developing an international legal and institutional framework to recognize farmers’ rights to save, exchange, improve, and sell seeds, and to prevent the private patenting of crop germplasm. Seed sovereignty activists also advocate for regulatory and enforcement frameworks to prevent the genetic contamination of traditional and hybrid crops by genetically modified organisms. Since such policies are often forged at the intersection of international trade law and biosecurity law, and implemented by national governments within their own territories, changing them requires political action at a number of different scales simultaneously. Finally, shifts in public procurement policies are advocated to strengthen local production chains and distribution infrastructures for local food. This would include humanitarian aid programs, to increase community control over production rather than just distribution to consumers of commodity foods. The United States, the largest global provider of food aid, is currently considering changing its approach from a long-standing focus on in-kind commodity donations to local and regional procurement in crisis zones. Analiese M. Richard See also Family Farms and Rural Depopulation; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Food Insecurity; Food Sovereignty; World Trade Organization

625

Further Readings Desmarais, A. (2007). La Vía Campesina: Globalization and the power of peasants. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Press. La Vía Campesina. (2012). The committee on world food security (CFS): A new space for the food policies of the world, opportunities and limitations. Retrieved from http://viacampesina.org/downloads/pdf/en/reportno.4-EN-2012-comp.pdf McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime analysis of the “world food crisis.” Agriculture and Human Values, 26, 281–295. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library .emory.edu/10.1007/s10460-009-9218-5 Patel, R. (2009). Grassroots voices: Food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 33, 663–706. doi:10.1080/03066150903143079 Rossett, P. (2006). Food is different: Why we must get the WTO out of agriculture. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Press. Schanbacher, W. (2010). The politics of food: The global conflict between food security and food sovereignty. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Wittman, H., Desmarais, A., & Weibe, N. (Eds.). (2010). Food sovereignty: Reconnecting food, nature, and community. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Press.

FOOD STAMPS

AND

WIC

Food stamps and WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children), along with the National School Lunch Program, are the leading federal programs aimed at addressing domestic hunger and nutrition issues in the United States. The Food Stamp Program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), provides government funds to eligible low-income U.S. residents for purchasing food products. WIC provides food funds, education, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and children deemed to be at nutritional risk. Both SNAP and WIC are administered by the Food Nutrition Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), with SNAP alone comprising

626

Food Stamps and WIC

more than two thirds of the USDA’s budget. Studies by the Food Nutrition Service and other nongovernment entities strongly indicate that these programs are successful, cost-effective, and efficient measures of nutrition and hunger intervention. This entry focuses on food assistance eligibility, participation, and impacts on food security and health.

A Brief History of Food Stamps and WIC in the United States The first U.S. Food Stamp Program began in 1939 and allowed participants to purchase coupons at a value higher than their cost, which could then be used to buy regular groceries and foods deemed as surplus by the USDA. After reaching some 20 million people over the course of 4 years, the program was eventually discontinued during World War II, as demand for farm products rapidly increased, unemployment shrunk, and hunger and malnutrition issues continued to proliferate. Eighteen years later, in 1961, under the John F. Kennedy administration, a new pilot Food Stamp Program was established in eight areas of the country. After 3 successful years, the program expanded to 40 counties as well as in the cities of Detroit, Michigan; St. Louis, Missouri; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, reaching approximately 380,000 participants. The Food Stamp Act of 1964 made the pilot program permanent. During this time, events like the Poor People’s March on Washington, D.C., and the CBS documentary Hunger USA were communicating to the nation the dangers posed by hunger and poor nutrition on pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and children. Marian Wright, a civil rights attorney, brought a group of senators to the Mississippi Delta to witness poverty and hunger firsthand. In 1968, a group of physicians met with the USDA and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, confirming the deleterious effects of malnourishment on this population. Four years later, the first pilot WIC program was authorized and, in 1975, became a permanent fixture in the nation’s growing antipoverty and food assistance

programs. This program distributed vouchers to eligible women, which could be exchanged for supplemental food packages. During the first year of WIC’s operation, 88,000 people participated. By 1980, nearly 2 million people received WIC. Likewise, the Food Stamp Program continued to experience high rates of participation and federal attention. In February 1970, the Food Stamp Program had more than 4 million participants. A year later, there were more than 10 million. This unanticipated response led to legislative revisions that established uniform standards of eligibility, such as a 1971 law limiting households’ food stamps purchases to 30% of their income and a 1973 law that expanded the program to include drug addicts and alcoholics currently undergoing treatment and rehabilitation. By 1974, the same year that the Supplemental Security Income was implemented, the program had gone nationwide, reaching 14 million people. Food Stamp Program reforms continued into the late 1970s amid conflicting agendas between Republicans (who wanted to tighten controls and eligibility) and Democrats (who wanted to expand access to needy households and implement a more streamlined process). Out of these debates came the Food Stamp Act of 1977, which, among other changes, eliminated the requirement to purchase stamps, set eligibility at the federal poverty line, and penalized households whose heads voluntarily quit their jobs. As part of the broader retrenchment of U.S. welfare programs during the early 1980s, the program saw cutbacks and stricter eligibility requirements. But as hunger in the United States continued to escalate into the mid-1980s, the program underwent loosened eligibility requirements and increased benefit levels, especially for households with dependents, through legislation such as the 1993 Mickey Leland Childhood Relief Act. This too was short lived, as the Food Stamp Program would again go through major reform and cutbacks due to a largely Republican-fronted backlash against welfare participants. Under the 1996 Farm Bill and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, food

Food Stamps and WIC

stamps were denied to legal immigrants. Work requirements were mandated for eligible adults, so that those without children received only 3 months of food stamps in a 36-month period if they did not work at least 20 hours per week. States were also required to shift from food stamp booklets to EBT (electronic benefits transfer) cards by October 2002. With greater barriers to program access, participation declined during the late 1990s. In the early 2000s, participation was back on the rise as new legislation restored eligibility to immigrants who had been residents for at least 5 years and adjusted deductions according to household size. The 2002 Farm Bill further expanded eligibility and brought forth measures to improve payment accuracy, and by 2008, the program was serving 29 million people each month. In 2008, the new Farm Bill sought to address the stigma attached to food stamps and changed the Food Stamp Program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as SNAP. The Farm Bill also increased the program’s budget by $10 billion over the next 10 years. Under the Obama administration, in response to the economic downturn during 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased monthly SNAP benefits by 13.6% to restimulate the economy and ease struggle for lowincome households. This boost expired, however, in November 2013. In February 2014, after months of intense debate, the new Farm Bill was signed into legislation. While this policy implements some $8.6 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next 10 years, the large majority of recipients will continue to receive public food assistance with minimal reductions.

Recent Programs Food assistance programs have been recently linked to the nation’s growing farmers’ market movement. Beginning in 1992, the Food and Nutrition Service established the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, an initiative that issues checks and coupons to WIC participants, which can be used to buy eligible foods at farmers’

627

markets. Since the introduction of the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program in 2002, participation rates for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program have grown dramatically. In fiscal year 2011, nearly 2 million WIC participants received farmers’ market vouchers and more than 7,000 farmers’ markets and roadside stands were authorized to accept them. As part of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Agricultural Marketing Service branch of the USDA allocated more than 10% of its Farmers’ Market Promotion Program budget to further expand federal nutrition programs into farmers’ markets. In just 4 years, the number of farmers’ markets accepting SNAP increased by nearly 2,500. The 2008 Farm Bill also allocated $20 million for the Healthy Incentives Pilot program, which comprises a set of projects aimed at assessing whether or not subsidizing produce purchases encouraged SNAP recipients to buy more fruits and vegetables. Initial findings suggest that farmers’ markets offering SNAP incentives increase SNAP redemption twofold and have an overall increase in total sales. Finally in 2012, the Food and Nutrition Service issued $4 million to states to facilitate the implementation of wireless EBT terminals at farmers’ markets.

Eligibility and Benefits Every 5 years Congress reauthorizes SNAP as part of the Farm Bill and amends program eligibility, access, benefit levels, and other matters. Congress also reevaluates funding for WIC program operations each year. Eligibility requirements and benefit allotments for both SNAP and WIC are designated by state agencies, which distribute benefits to individual households. Currently, adult participants must be citizens or have lived as permanent residents in the United States for 5 years. This does not apply for children under 18 years of age, disabled people, or refugees, and WIC participation does not require any proof of citizenship or immigration. Able-bodied adults without dependents who work less than 20 hours per week or are not actively participating in job training programs can

628

Food Stamps and WIC

only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during a 3-year period. Undocumented immigrants, lottery winners, and most college students are ineligible for SNAP. For both SNAP and WIC, households automatically qualify on the basis of income if all household members are enrolled in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program or supplemental security income program. SNAP benefit levels are determined based on household income, resources, and size. Households without children must have a gross income at or less than 130% of the federal poverty line, with net income falling at or below 100% of the federal poverty line. Today, more than 90% of benefits go to households with gross income at or below the poverty line. In terms of assets, households cannot have more than $2,250 in cash or convertible wealth. In some states, vehicles are counted as assets, though a household’s primary vehicle is typically exempt. Finally, the maximum SNAP benefit levels for each household size are set each year in relation to the USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan, which the USDA considers to be the minimum cost for a family of four to purchase and prepare a basic nutritious meal at home. SNAP participants receive funds, transferred to EBT cards, at the beginning of each month. The maximum allotment in fiscal year 2014 is $194 a month for an individual and $649 a month for a family of four. In 2013, the average monthly benefit for an individual amounted to $133, while the average household received $275. WIC benefits are made eligible to pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women; infants (up to their first birthday); and children (up to age 5 years). All participants must be deemed at nutritional risk by a licensed health professional. Participants’ income cannot exceed 185% of the U.S. poverty level. Participants generally receive WIC funds as checks, vouchers, or, increasingly, EBT cards. However, some state agencies distribute WIC foods through warehouses or directly to participants’ homes. In addition, local WIC agencies offer four nutrition education sessions per year to participants and also provide health care and social services referrals.

Benefits Restrictions SNAP and WIC benefits each have their own restrictions on the types of foods participants can purchase. SNAP users may purchase edibles such as fruits and vegetables, breads, cereals, meats, fish and poultry, and dairy products. Benefits may also be used to purchase seeds and plants for growing food. WIC benefits are designed to provide specific nutrients to participants and thus can be used to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables, fruit or vegetable juice containing vitamin C, dried and canned beans and peas, canned fish, whole-wheat bread, infant and adult cereals, soy-based beverages, tofu, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, baby foods, and iron-fortified baby formula. Neither SNAP nor WIC benefits may be used to buy hot foods, foods that will be eaten in the store, pet foods, alcoholic products, cigarettes or tobacco, and nonfood items such as soaps, paper products and household supplies, and vitamins and medicines.

Participation Although more than one in seven Americans receive SNAP, the geography of SNAP participation is unevenly distributed across the country, often concentrated in places of rural poverty like Appalachia (in Owsley County, Kentucky, participation is nearly 50%), the Borderland, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of South Dakota, and the South (especially the Delta region). In 27 counties of Missouri at least one in four residents receives benefits, and in 21 counties, child participation rates exceed 50%. Though SNAP recipients are diverse with regards to race/ethnicity—37% white, 23% African American, 10% Hispanic, 3% Native American, 2% Asian, and less than 19% classified as “race unknown”—a disproportionate percentage of recipients are black. In 750 U.S. counties, at least one in three blacks receives SNAP benefits, and in 17 counties, SNAP helps feed more than 90% of blacks. Nearly half of SNAP participating households have children, most of them being single-parent households, and more than three quarters of

Food Stamps and WIC

households have a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. In fact, the SNAP program is so widespread that at some point during their childhood, 49% of all American children will live in a household receiving SNAP. Similarly, more than half of adults will receive SNAP benefits between 18 and 65 years of age. Despite recent efforts to expand SNAP, only about 75% of eligible households actually participate. In particular, only about one third of eligible elderly persons actually participate in the program. Possible factors inhibiting participation among all people might include stigma of participation, lack of awareness of eligibility, lack of access to program offices, and difficulty in navigating the application process. In fiscal year 2013, federal expenditures for SNAP totaled just over $76 billion (up from $28.6 billion in 2005), supplying more than 47 million Americans with public food assistance (up from 26.3 million in 2007). This sharp increase in participation was largely driven by the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 and the spikes in unemployment that followed. During fiscal year 2013, about 8.6 million women, infants, and children received WIC benefits, with three quarters of recipients being children and infants, at a federal cost of nearly $6.5 billion. Arguably, one of the most important federal assistance programs, the WIC program serves over half of all infants born in the United States.

Impacts of SNAP and WIC on Food Security According to the U.S. federal government, “food security” is when all household members have, at all times, access to enough food for an active, healthy life. For many households, programs like SNAP and WIC stabilize food procurement during periods of financial stress or shock. Understanding the effects of food assistance programs on food security, however, can be difficult due to the disparities in food security between participants and nonparticipants, even when they have comparable levels of income. Studies that avoid comparison between the two groups are often the

629

most revealing about the relationship between federal food benefits and food hardship. Although rigorous large-scale analyses are few, recent research indicates that SNAP allows families to purchase more food as well as healthier food than they would be able to without assistance. Put simply, SNAP participation can mean the difference between eating and having to forgo meals. Households also experience food hardship immediately following the loss of benefits. A USDA study on the impacts of the increase in SNAP benefits from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 found that the prevalence of very low food security of households with incomes eligible for SNAP decreased from 2008 to 2009, even as incomes fell and unemployment spiked during the peak of the recession. Similarly, WIC participation has been shown to alleviate food insecurity, particularly for vulnerable groups. Still, for most households, the SNAP benefit does not cover all of a family’s food needs in a given month. Many households use up their benefits before the end of the month and struggle to procure enough food before the next round of funds. Food assistance therefore may provide some relief for participating households, but it cannot completely paper over the income disparities between food-secure and food-insecure households.

Impacts of SNAP and WIC on Health Higher rates of obesity among the populations food assistance programs serve have led to concern that the programs may, ironically, be contributing to the poor health. However, the impacts of food assistance on health are difficult to measure, as participants and nonparticipants exhibit vast disparities in terms of socioeconomic, food security, and health status. SNAP and WIC participants tend to have more financial and nutritional need, making comparisons with nonparticipants challenging, if not inappropriate, as food insecurity has been linked to health issues like obesity and diabetes. Another challenge concerns controlling for inequitable food access. Many participants do not

630

Food Stamps and WIC

live near supermarkets or large grocery stores with affordable, nutritious food and instead must purchase food from corner stores or other food outlets. Furthermore, the dominant food system continues to make foods high in sugar, fat, and preservatives among the cheapest options available. These foods generally provide consumers with much higher calories than other, more nutritious options would, making them appealing for households on a constrained budget. Finally, relationships between program participation and health rarely control for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and participation duration. Still, many studies have sought to work within these limitations to better understand the effects of food assistance on the dietary quality and health of participants. Based on research conducted and synthesized by the Food Research and Action Center, the leading antihunger organization in the United States, there is strong evidence to suggest that participation in programs like SNAP and WIC confer a host of nutritional and health benefits. Among these benefits are lower risk of being overweight for female youths, lower body mass index for adults and the elderly, lower rates of iron deficiency for children, fewer hospitalizations for children, and reduced incidence of metabolic syndrome for longtime participants. Studies concentrating on the impact of SNAP on women’s health are largely conflicting. One found that female SNAP recipients were heavier than nonrecipient women of similar socioeconomic status. Alternatively, a longitudinal, crosssectional study analyzing the relationships between program participation and body weight found that adult women food stamp participants had a body mass index similar to that of income-eligible nonparticipating women and women with moderate incomes and were no more likely to be overweight or obese. These highly varied examples illustrate the difficulty of establishing universal and causal relationships between nutrition assistance program participation and health status. On the other hand, research on the benefits of WIC participation appears to be less conflicted. Studies suggest that prenatal participants have higher birth weight and are less likely to be born

prematurely. Preschool children participants have better dietary intake, especially for iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C. The strongest dietary effects were noted among children who were low-income, black, or in single-parent or large families. Participants also tend to consume significantly less added sugars, possibly due to the substitution of WICsupplied juices and cereals in the place of soft drinks and sugary cereals. Overall, it is important to recognize that food assistance programs give households more purchasing power over commodified food, thereby increasing their food security status, which can decelerate degenerative conditions and reduce susceptibility to disease. Billy Hall See also Farm Bills; Food Insecurity; Hunger; Nutrition Education; Obesity Epidemic

Further Readings Cohen, B., Ohls, J., Andrews, M., Ponza, M., Moreno, L., Zambrowski, A., & Cohen, R. (1999). Food stamp participants’ food security and nutrient availability. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis and Evaluation. Cole, N., & Fox, M. K. (2008). Diet quality of Americans by food stamp participation status: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/diet-qualityamericans-food-stamp-participation-status-datanational-health-and-nutrition Edin, K., Boyd, M., Mabli, J., Ohls, J., Worthington, J., Green, S., . . . Sridharan, S. (2013). SNAP food security in-depth interview study. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/SNAPFoodSec.pdf Hamilton, W. L., & Rossi, P. H. (2002). Effects of food assistance and nutrition programs on nutrition and health: Volume 1, research design (FANRR-19-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://ers .usda.gov/Publications/FANRR19-1

Food Trends Leading to Diminished Species

Nord, M., & Golla, A. M. (2009). Does SNAP decrease food insecurity? Untangling the self-selection effect (Economic Research Report No. 85). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/ media/184824/err85_1_.pdf Oliveira, V., Racine, E., Olmsted, J., & Ghelfi, L. M. (2002). The WIC program: Background, trends, and issues (Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 27). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http:// www.ers.usda.gov/media/327957/fanrr27_1_.pdf Strayer, M., Leftin, J., & Eslami, E. (2012). Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program households: Fiscal year 2011 (Report No. SNAP-12CHAR). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Research and Analysis, Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved from http://www.fns .usda.gov/sites/default/files/2011Characteristics.pdf Ver Ploeg, M., & Ralston, K. (2008). Food stamps and obesity: What do we know? (EIB-34). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda .gov/media/210659/eib34_1_.pdf

Websites Feeding America: http://feedingamerica.org/Home/howwe-fight-hunger/advocacy-public-policy/policy-center/ federal-anti-hunger-programs-and-policies/ supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program.aspx Food Research and Action Center: http://www.frac.org/ federal-foodnutrition-programs/snapfood-stamps/ USDA, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap USDA, WIC: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic

FOOD TRENDS LEADING DIMINISHED SPECIES

TO

A food trend can be described as a prevailing consumption habit or a tendency to consume a particular ingredient, dish, or preparation style. Because it takes a significant amount of resources to feed a population, a popular food trend or a dominant consumption preference can have a profound

631

impact on the species from which it is derived. Often unknown to the consumer, these prevailing consumption patterns or trends can lead directly to a species decline and endangerment. Food trends that take place in the United States are discussed in particular herein, and examples of species that have become or once were part of popular food trends leading to their decline are provided.

Consuming the Food Chain It is clear that for humans to eat, they must seek out their food supply. The food supply can be either cultivated (planted, grown, or harvested) or caught (trapped, hunted, or fished). This ultimately classifies food into being either domesticated or wild, and the majority of our diet consists of food that is domesticated, or grown and harvested on land. With the exception of oysters and a few fish species (e.g., salmon, trout, tilapia, and pangasius), most of the fish species that we eat are wild or uncultivated. Of all the plant and animal species that humans consume, arguably the only type that has seen a significant decrease in numbers is fish. Contrarily, as the popularity of land-based protein (e.g., beef, pork, and poultry) continues to grow, the vivacity of those species remains intact. Although it is difficult to say that the decline of some fish species can be directly attributed to a specific food fad or consumer preference for a particular dish type or preparation (e.g., fish sandwich, blackened filets, fish and chips), it is undeniable that the United States and the rest of the world have an insatiable appetite for seafood. Consumer taste preferences for individualized species are very difficult to measure and quantify over time. Not only do cultural and social factors help frame consumer preference, but other external factors like cost and availability also greatly affect consumer choice. But to examine the correlation between the human consumption of fish and the decline of fish species, one must look no further than at the health of our fisheries. Although poor resource management, lack of regulation, and environmental degradation have undoubtedly affected species health, most if not all fish that are commercially targeted are designated for human consumption.

632

Food Trends Leading to Diminished Species

Fish on the Menu Aided by the advancement in fishing and marine technologies developed over the past 40 years, humans have been able to more accurately seek and capture high-trophic-level fish like tuna, swordfish, salmon, and cod. High-trophic species are those that sit atop the food chain and feed on other, smaller fish species. They are larger in size and protein rich—making them more valuable both economically and culturally. When hightrophic-level fish species started to decline noticeably in the late 1970s and 1980s, commercial fishing operations began to focus on the more abundant lower trophic-level species. In addition to catching more invertebrates and smaller fish species like anchovies and herring, commercial fishermen also targeted smaller ground fish such as rockfish and slimeheads (of which both can sometimes be referred to as redfish, and also includes sea perch and orange roughy). But what was initially an explosion of new fish species to the market, this process known as “fishing down the food web,” ultimately led to stagnating or declining catches. Consequently, as high-trophic, high-valued fish stocks became depleted, their price increased. Fish that was once sold for pennies by the pound now fetched substantially higher prices. But despite rising prices, demand never subsided. Soon, consuming the more expensive, diminished species became a trend among fine dining establishments and social circles as a way of displaying wealth and status. As a result, the increasing price for hightrophic fish, combined with its valuation as a status symbol, facilitated overfishing and fueled the rapid decline of many species.

Sushi

Perhaps the food trend that has had the most significant or detrimental impact on a food species’ numbers and vitality is the obsession with sushi. Originating in Japan hundreds of years ago, sushi is a rice-based dish that highlights the preparation of seafood, usually raw fish. Introduced to the United States in California in the 1980s, sushi quickly became a prolific dining trend—revolutionizing the

way Americans thought about fish. Initially grabbing attention for its novelty, sushi gained widespread appeal for its perception as being a fresh and healthier alternative to predominate and mainstream cuisines of the time (e.g., fast food, pasta and pizza, and steak and potatoes). Once limited to just fine dining or Japanese restaurants exclusively, today sushi can be found almost anywhere in the country—from convenience and grocery stores to airplanes and college campuses. Although sushi utilizes a variety of fish and shellfish species, the bedrock fish for sushi is the bluefin tuna. Inhabiting both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the bluefin tuna is one of nature’s apex predators and can reach upward of 10 feet in length and exceed 1,000 pounds. Revered for its subtly deep taste and red meat–like texture, bluefin tuna (maguro) represents the pinnacle of quality and thus has become an extremely prized fish. At the time of this entry, the most expensive bluefin ever sold was for US$1.8 million at a Tokyo fish auction. Although demand for sushi in the United States is pervasive, nearly 80% of all bluefin tuna caught worldwide is consumed by the Japanese. Although bluefin tuna has been on the endangered species list for several years, its populations continue to dwindle as consumer demand remains wanton. Many scientists believe that the species will never recover to its once prolific numbers and could become extinct in fewer than 25 years. Additional Trends

There are several other species of fish and shellfish that have been affected in one way or another by the American palate. First snacked on by Native Americans, oysters became an epic food trend among European settlers. Once extending from the length of the Atlantic coast into the Gulf of Mexico, native, wild oyster beds flourished in abundance. These native, wild oyster beds are now entirely gone. Much of the decimation of the oyster beds can be attributed to pollution and environmental degradation, but America’s ravenous appetite ultimately helped eliminate the native species. Today, all oysters that are found in restaurants are cultivated.

Food Trucks

Fascination with beluga caviar (for both its taste and as its mark of social status) has led to the near extinction of the sturgeon. Shark fin soup can still be found on menus today, despite the drastic decline in shark populations. And though crab fisheries have become more diligently managed and regulated, consumer demand has not subsided, and buffets featuring all-you-can-eat crab legs are not helping to aid in the recovery of this once heavily overfished species. Daniel Remar See also Aquaculture/Fish Farming; Endangered Species; Fishing Industry; Fishing Policies; Overfishing and Fisheries Depletion; Oyster Bars; Sushi

Further Readings Greenberg, P. (2010). Four fish: The future of the last wild food. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Jones, G. A. (2008). “Quite the choicest protein dish”: The costs of consuming seafood in American restaurants, 1850–2006. In D. J. Starkey, P. Holm, & M. Barnard (Eds.), Oceans past: Management insights from the history of marine animal populations (chap. 4). London, UK: Earthscan. Levin, P. S., & Dufault, A. (2010). Eating up the food web. Fish and Fisheries, 11, 307–312. doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00355.x Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., & Torres, F., Jr. (1998). Fishing down marine food webs. Science, 279(February), 860–863. doi:10.1126/ science.279.5352.860 Van Houtan, K. S., McClenachan, L., & Kittinger, J. N. (2013). Seafood menus reflect long-term ocean changes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(6), 289–290.

FOOD TRUCKS The modern culture of the food truck in the United States is a rich one that focuses on providing specialty food in portable and more affordable locations than the traditional restaurant can offer. This culture is said to have derived from the chuck

633

wagons of the 1860s that fed cowhands moving a herd cross-country and the night lunch wagons of New York City that served food to blue-collar night workers in the 1890s. Both represented the start of movable kitchens that offered affordable meals at a time or place where regular eating establishments were not available. Today, due in part to the recession of 2007–2009, chefs in cities across the country are branching out from restaurants and starting food truck businesses, finding much less overhead cost involved and more creative freedom available (e.g., featuring gourmet food, an ethnic specialty, or locally sourced ingredients). This culture has grown to include food truck festivals (including the San Francisco Bay area’s regularly occurring Off the Grid festivals), Twitter and Facebook pages dedicated to locations of popular food trucks, and even television shows based on the trend. It is important to note that while many books and publications use the terms food truck and food cart interchangeably, the focus of this entry is on food trucks. Food carts tend to be pushed by man power or hitched to a vehicle like a trailer, whereas food trucks are actual vehicles with mobile kitchens attached to them. This entry centers on the history, development, and notable subcultures in the world of food trucks.

The Evolution of the Food Truck Food Trucks of Yesteryear

The first truck that cooked and served food came in 1866 with the invention of chuck wagons in the American West. After the Civil War, there was a large expansion of settlements toward the west in the country, which opened up a large market for beef in the southwest. Crews had to lead herds of cattle to market in the north and east, which meant living in the open for months. Chuck wagons were created as a place to cook and feed the cowhands on the trail, but they also handled medical matters, repairs, and entertainment. They were the life source for the cowhands and considered a symbol of ambitious spirit of the American frontier. Toward the end of the 19th century, the Church Temperance Society opened night lunch wagons

634

Food Trucks

across New York City that became popular among the late-night blue-collar working crowd. From 7:30 p.m. until 4:30 a.m. (restaurants at this time closed at 8:00 p.m.), these wagons would serve coffee, tea, milk, sandwiches, and other quick foods for 5 cents each. In 1917, the U.S. Army started utilizing food trucks called “mobile canteens” to help feed troops. These offered military men and women a food alternative to the base’s mess hall (cafeteria). The 1950s saw the creation of mobile ice cream trucks, which would drive around neighborhoods playing friendly music to entice kids to buy a frozen treat. Ice cream trucks still function across the United States today. In the 1960s, “roach coaches,” another form of mobile food trucks, started appearing on construction sites, offering a cheap, fast meal for workers whose work sites were often not near food options. Roach coaches still exist today, but in much smaller numbers. By the mid-1970s, the highest concentration of Mexican immigrants in the United States existed in East Los Angeles in California. In 1974, Raul Martinez converted an old ice cream truck into a taco truck (aka a lonchera). Martinez parked his mobile taqueria outside of an East Los Angeles bar, and the idea grew from there. Today, there are more than 3,000 taco trucks registered with the Los Angeles County Department of Health and an estimated 4,000 unregistered taco trucks. The term taco truck does not limit food to tacos; these trucks can focus on regional Mexican specialties such as tamales, cemitas, sopes, and huaraches. One defining feature of taco trucks is that they tend to stay parked in the same spot all the time. When the Los Angeles County passed an ordinance in 2008 stating that food trucks could not be parked in one spot for more than 1 hour, the Asociacion de Loncheros sought legal help and created a march to draw attention. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge found the ordinance to be unconstitutional just 1 day before it was to take effect.

First, as a consequence of the economic recession of 2007–2009, many restaurants closed their doors and many chefs were out of jobs. Additionally, the recession caused many construction businesses to close, which led to a surplus of idle food trucks. Chefs started buying these food trucks and opening their own mobile restaurants. The result has been a rise in the popularity of food trucks selling gourmet or fusion cuisine. The low overhead to get started (food trucks typically range from $20,000 to $40,000, but it can be as much as $100,000 in larger cities), combined with the freedom of being their own boss and the ability to go directly to the customers, has enticed many chefs to leave restaurant jobs for the more flexible world of food trucks. A recent trend in the modern food truck culture has been chefs who start out with a food truck and, thanks to their success, are later able to open a brick and mortar restaurant. But even then, the food trucks often stay in operation. An interesting feature that many gourmet and fusion food trucks and some older styles, like loncheras, are adding is utilizing social media to help with advertising, daily locations, and specials. Restaurants also use social media, but the combination of rotating locations and daily specials means food trucks have a lot of new information that they need to get to their customers on a regular basis. Social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and blogs allow them to accomplish that as well as provide a way for customers to get instant feedback from the chef or owner of the food truck. Food trucks’ popularity has grown so much that they are being featured in many other media outlets, such as popular restaurant reviewing guides like Zagat, and in television shows like Food Network’s The Great Food Truck Race and Cooking Channel’s Eat Street. Different cities around the United States have developed a food truck culture unique to that area, often influenced by its history. East Coast

The Modern Resurgence of Food Trucks

There are several factors that have influenced the resurgence of food trucks in the United States.

The cousin of the food truck, the food cart, was popular in New York far before the food truck, and it continues to influence the current food truck

Food Trucks

scene. By the 1860s, in New York, the hot dog cart had become trendy. A 1965 law abolished U.S. immigration quotas, and as immigrants from various parts of the world made their way to New York, so did their traditional foods. Because a food cart was much easier for an immigrant, new to the country and language, to start up than a restaurant, many immigrants began selling the traditional foods of their homeland from food carts. As a result, the current landscape of the New York City food truck scene is a mixture of different cultures providing traditional food for their communities, along with young chefs creating new concepts and using social media to get the word out. Because the city has a cap on food truck permits (2,800 for the city, plus another 50 per borough), food trucks with the permit can sell for as much as $80,000, whereas a food truck without a permit can sell for as low as $30,000. It is not uncommon for families with permitted food carts to pass them down to family members. A popular food truck in New York City that has also expanded to include a stationary shop is the Big Gay Ice Cream Truck. Started by Doug Quint, a bassoonist who was finishing up his doctorate in musical arts, the Big Gay Ice Cream Truck serves up twists on classic American flavors with names that are almost as fun to say as they are to eat. For example, the Bea Arthur is a vanilla ice cream cone drizzled with dulce de leche and crushed Nilla wafers, and the Gobbler is a vanilla ice cream sundae with pumpkin butter, crushed graham crackers, dried cranberries, and whipped cream. With add-ons like saba (thick, concentrated liquid similar to balsamic vinegar) and Sriracha hot sauce, this ice cream truck is unlike the traditional ice cream truck. The food truck scene in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, features food at an affordable price, offering classic Philadelphia foods like scrapple and cheesesteaks and foods from the city’s various ethnic communities, such as Greek, Italian, Chinese, Jamaican, African, Mexican, Indian, Korean, and other Southeast Asian communities. Food trucks are slowly starting to feature younger chefs with new concept trucks, but the city is firmly rooted in affordable cuisine for their food trucks.

635

Washington, D.C., passed the country’s first laws on mobile food vending in 1890, and up until 2005, it was strictly a food cart city. After 2005, no more new food cart permits were allowed. Food truck permits are still available, but they have to follow an old law set for ice cream trucks, which says a truck cannot park unless people are lined up waiting for it. Some newer food trucks actually play with the rule, like Fojol Brothers of Merlindia, who have their customers waiting on street corner stops, spinning around. The first person to spin and be seen gets free food. Vendors are allowed to sell any kind of food, but most sell only chips, hot dogs, and the half-smoke (a chili-topped hot dog similar to a Polish sausage). Midwest Chicago is famous for having some of the strictest regulations for mobile food vending in the country, which has hindered the growth of the food truck community. For years, food trucks have been restricted from cooking on their vehicles, selling at night, and parking within 200 feet of an establishment selling food. This means that vendors are required to make their food in a rented commercial kitchen and keep the food under heat lamps on their vehicles to sell. In July 2012, the city passed an ordinance that allows vendors to sell between midnight and 2:00 a.m., created 20 set locations for food trucks to park for 2-hour increments, and also allowed vendors to cook on their vehicles, but still not within 200 feet of any food-selling establishment, including convenience stores, gas stations, and grocery stores. It also requires each vehicle to have a GPS (Global Positioning System) installed that can be monitored by the police at all times, and established the fine for selling too close to another food establishment at $2,000. Six months after the ordinance was passed, only one vendor had obtained a license to cook onboard. Two vendors, Schnitzel King and Cupcakes for Courage, have together filed a lawsuit against the city, arguing that the new and existing ordinances are unconstitutional because they give brick-and-mortar food businesses an unfair advantage, that the fine for

636

Food Trucks

parking near a restaurant is 10 times higher than the fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant, and the required GPS is akin to a GPS bracelet for a monitored criminal. As of November 2014, the lawsuit was still pending. South In Austin, Texas, the Live Music Capital of the World, with more than 200 live music venues, food trucks are right at home. Many of the foods offered represent cultures that span the world— from Mexican tacos to Vietnamese bahn mi sandwiches to American barbecue. One popular truck is called Gourdough’s, which features specialty donuts made from scratch by the couple Ryan Palmer and Paula Samford. Some of their customer favorites include the Porkey, which has cream cheese, jalapeno jelly, and Canadian bacon, and the Mother Clucker, a play on chicken and waffles, with doughnuts taking the place of waffles and honey butter instead of syrup. New Orleans, Louisiana, turned out to be a perfect spot to set up a food truck business, especially after Hurricane Katrina. That is when Chef Nathaniel Zimet decided to open his own barbecue truck in the city. He ordered a bright purple food truck, rigged a refrigerator into a giant smoker, and started serving his own twist on American barbecue, which he called Que Crawl. One of his more popular dishes is the Que Crawl’s boudin balls, which mixes Cajun dirty rice with smoked pork and duck liver. West Coast and Pacific Los Angeles’s food truck scene is a mix of traditional Mexican taco trucks and gourmet and fusion food trucks such as Kogi BBQ (Korean BBQ tacos), Nom Nom Truck (Vietnamese bahn mi sandwiches), and Cool Haus (ice cream sandwiches). Kogi BBQ was created and is run by chef Roy Choi. Choi was working for a corporation when he was laid off in 2008. He decided to create a food truck that sold a fusion of Korean barbecue and Mexican tacos, becoming most famous for his Korean beef short rib taco and kimchi quesadillas.

As he drove his truck around the city, he enlisted the help of social media like Twitter and Facebook to advertise and get the word out about what he was serving and where the truck would be parked each day. The concept of Korean tacos was successful, and within a year, imitators started popping up in Los Angeles and in other major cities across the nation like New York City, Portland, and San Francisco. In 2009, Newsweek named Kogi BBQ “America’s first viral eatery.” San Francisco’s food truck culture is similar to that of Los Angeles, but it had to deal with more legal issues, as there are two different agencies that issue permits: (1) the police department handles trucks on public property and (2) the Department of Public Health handles trucks selling on private property. This, combined with the San Francisco Bay area’s high concentration of start-up companies, influenced the creation of food truck consulting companies, such as Tabe Trucks, created by Matt Cohen to help food trucks go from an idea to fruition, including help with obtaining the necessary permits. Cohen went on to create the San Francisco Cart Project, a website for the Bay Area’s mobile food vendors, which includes a message board and a place to purchase permit documentation. Oakland’s 2010 Eat Real Festival featured 90 different food trucks and carts and saw almost 100,000 visitors. Oahu, Hawaii’s current food truck scene was inspired by two different kinds of food trucks. The first is known as lunch wagons; these mobile canteens of the early 1900s used to feed the soldiers on the military bases across the island. These trucks typically serve food that is inspired either by Hawaii’s traditional dishes, such as kahlua pork and poi, or by Hawaii’s large Asian population, such as teriyaki beef and Korean-style short ribs. The other type of truck is known as shrimp trucks and were created by shrimp farmers in the North Shore to sell their fresh shrimp to tourists. Many were created out of old hotel shuttle buses with makeshift kitchens. Most shrimp truck menus include a garlic butter shrimp and a spicy shrimp dish. Both lunch wagons and shrimp trucks serve their food the same way: plate lunch style, which is

Food TV

one scoop of white rice and one scoop of macaroni salad topped with meat or shrimp. Pacific Northwest In Portland, Oregon, food carts and trucks tend to be grouped together to encourage foot traffic. The city encourages the use of pods, or privately owned parking lots, where spots are rented out to different food carts and food trucks so that there are 10 to 15 together in one space. Some of these pods include amenities traditionally found in stationary restaurants, like restrooms and tables. Seattle, Washington, used to be known for its many espresso carts, but in the late 1990s, tightened regulations resulted in many shutting down. The food truck scene is small, but it still exists despite the difficult regulations. International Food Trucks Food trucks in Australia often park at night to cater to individuals frequenting the bar and club scenes. A popular dish is a meat pie floater, which features a bowl of split pea soup with a meat pie floating on top, typically finished with some tomato sauce (a sweeter version of the American ketchup). However, larger cities like Sydney feature more eclectic food, such as Asian fusion and vegetarian food trucks. In Belgium, potato chip trucks (French fries) have been running in the countryside for a long time. In the United Kingdom, food trucks are known as “snack vans,” and they can feature any type of food, from donuts and chili to ethnic cuisines. France saw its first American-style food trucks in 2012, and offerings such as tacos and burgers have been extremely popular at food trucks in the country. In late 2012, Singapore launched its first food truck, the Traveling C.O.W. (chef on wheels), which features gourmet bistro fare with Asian influences, like mini crab cakes with wasabi mayo and Thai basil chicken in a bun. Leena Trivedi-Grenier See also Apps for Food; Artisanal Foods; Food Carts; Roadside Stands; Social Media and Food; Street Food

637

Further Readings Cunningham, J. (2013). Eat St.: Recipes from the tastiest, messiest and most irresistible food trucks. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Penguin Books. Edge, J. T. (2012). The truck food cookbook: 150 recipes and ramblings from America’s best restaurants on wheels. New York, NY: Workman. Gold, J. (2012, March). How America became a food truck nation. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/How-AmericaBecame-a-Food-Truck-Nation.html#ixzz2M8pDhdwl Lacob, J. (2011, December 15). Street food guru Roy Choi on sunny spot, food trucks, kogi & more. The Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast .com/articles/2011/12/09/street-food-guru-roy-choi-onsunny-spot-food-trucks-kogi-more.html# Roy Choi: 2010 Best New Chef Award Profile. (2010). Food & Wine magazine. Retrieved from http://www .foodandwine.com/best_new_chefs/roy-choi Schiller, J. K. (2011, February 10). Meals on wheels: Night lunch wagons in NYC. Stockbridge, MA: Rockwell Center for American Visual Studies. Retrieved from http://www.rockwell-center.org/ exploring-illustration/meals-on-wheels%E2%80% 94night-lunch-wagons-in-nyc/ Shouse, H. (2011). Food trucks: Dispatches and recipes from the best kitchens on wheels. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. Thompson, B. (2014). The chuck wagon. Retrieved from http://www.americanchuckwagon.org/chuck-wagonhistory.html Weber, D. (2012). The food truck handbook: Start, grow, and succeed in the mobile food business. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

FOOD TV Food on television can include a host of formats, venues, and functions, even within one medium, associated as it is with entertainment, education, and advertising. Here, it is defined as the genre traditionally referred to as cooking shows, although even that description does not encompass the wide range of program types and content now available. In this entry, discussion covers the genre’s history and

638

Food TV

evolution, culminating in a dedicated cable channel; the effect of food TV on cooking skills; the effectiveness of disseminating health, science, and technology information; salient social messages delivered by food television; and the overall role of the genre in U.S. culture. Food TV, as characterized here, is emblematic of the concept of food issues itself, as it is relevant to consumer culture, economics, media, and health policy.

Cooking Show History Cooking instruction on television in the United States is as old as the medium itself. Beginning in the late 1940s, most urban television markets featured local home economist–hosted programs offering homemaking, cooking, and nutrition advice and instruction. Geared toward housewives, these shows were inexpensive and easy for television stations to produce. They also provided the opportunity for convenient sponsorship by a variety of food product, appliance, and utility companies. The popularity of canned foods and boxed mixes in the 1940s and 1950s made it such that often a “recipe” might involve opening a can of peaches and adorning it with canned whipped topping. In the years after World War II, such programming was part of a cultural focus on the home and family and a return to a seemingly comfortable and stable standard of living. Over the decades, cooking shows evolved, reflecting—and shaping—viewers’ interests and cultural trends. In 1963, the reception of the public television program The French Chef signaled a new widespread attitude toward cooking and cooking programs. The host, Julia Child, succeeded in popularizing and democratizing French cooking, which had previously been perceived as unduly complicated and difficult. Because French culture was at the time notably popular in the United States, viewers began to associate cooking and food choices with lifestyle rather than as a mere domestic chore. Therefore, cooking shows began to serve an aspirational as well as an instructional purpose. In 1969, viewers of commercial television

in the United States saw The Galloping Gourmet hosted by Graham Kerr. Kerr was a professionally trained cook, but his producer insisted that humor be the aim of the show, even if at the expense of teaching. This was perhaps a watershed moment where television producers and audiences understood that this type of programming could exist in the entertainment realm, not just the how-to or women’s service category. Although how-to type programs continued throughout the 1970s and 1980s—commonly on public television—cooking shows increasingly assumed more cultural cachet. Fine restaurants and inventive chefs exposed diners’ palates and minds to a wider array of foods, ethnic as well as American regional. As gourmet cooking worked its way into the mainstream, restaurant chefs as a professional class were developing a more prestigious reputation. At the same time that gourmet food was growing in popularity, health trends were also reflected on food TV. In the 1960s and 1970s, many Americans began to show interest in eating in a way that took into account the health of the environment as well as personal well-being, and a handful of public television cooking programs, with titles such as Cooking Naturally and Natural Foods, offered information and instruction in cooking with whole grains and vegetarian ingredients and making yogurt and baby food. In the 1980s, the aerobics and fat- and, later, carbohydrateavoidant trends gave rise to a number of programs focused on light and “healthy” cooking. Examples include programs like Calorie Commando, Meals Without Meat, and Low Carb and Loving It. Technology trends, such as food processors and microwave ovens, found their place on television food shows too.

Launch of the Food Network Based on industry research exploring consumer interests, the cable channel Food Network was launched in 1993. With an unprecedented number of hours to fill on one subject, food TV quickly expanded to encompass news, travel, and game

Food TV

show elements. Within a few years, it became apparent to Food Network executives that a dynamic host garnered the biggest audience draw; thus, the 1990s ushered in the era of the TV celebrity chef. In an effort to increase its reach beyond food TV’s traditional female demographic, the network included shows with male hosts such as Bobby Flay and Mario Batali and formats that might appeal to men such as competition-style programs. Some shows maintained an instructional focus, for the most part finding their time slot during the daytime hours, harkening back to the days of early network television food programming. This format was often referred to as “in the kitchen” or, sometimes more bluntly, as “dump and stir” programs. The evening hours were dedicated to more entertainment-oriented programs such as Iron Chef America, Food 911, and Ace of Cakes, and a few years later Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives, and The Next Food Network Star. As a commercial enterprise, executives were interested in attracting as many viewers as possible, thereby appeasing their advertisers. One of the biggest Food Network stars satisfied the gender and personality requirements—Emeril Lagasse. As the host of Emeril Live!, he exemplified the enormous popularity and impact of a TV food celebrity.

Impact of Food TV on Cooking Skills In the 21st century, there has been considerable discussion over widespread health issues such as heart disease and obesity, and food TV has become part of the conversation and a matter of debate. Social science research has shown that Americans spend less time preparing food than in previous decades and simultaneously spend more money on purchasing prepared and processed foods. A number of studies have been carried out looking at the relationship between cooking shows and cooking activity and have drawn conclusions that indicate an inverse correlation. Some observers claim that food TV plays an important part in this shift away from cooking and wonder why the televisionwatching populace is spending a great deal of time

639

watching food TV but less time in their kitchens. In addition, critics of today’s panoply of cooking programs are concerned about the lack of both true instruction and emphasis on healthy food choices. The inference—faulty or unscientific though it may be—is that watching television food programs contributes to more detrimental eating habits and poorer health (as other studies have concluded about television watching in general). While cooking shows are ostensibly providing cooking instruction, in reality, their more powerful impact may be related to the elements that viewers find most entertaining such as the aesthetics of both the host and his or her environment and the narratives and interpersonal drama presented on competition and reality formats. By de-emphasizing actual skills, critics contend, the activity of cooking is further relegated to the arena of pure leisure. Commentators like the journalist and food policy activist Michael Pollan argue that Americans are watching instead of cooking and that cooking has become less of a real activity and more one of voyeurism. As television production values have evolved to meet the perceived desires of the viewing audience, these observers contend, programs now pay more attention to lifestyle and aesthetic choices than cooking skills. Therefore, the programs are implicitly educating in these areas while maintaining an outward intended purpose of teaching cooking skills. Viewers may feel more justified in spending time watching a television show where they are potentially learning something as opposed to merely being entertained. It behooves producers and executives, then, to continue at least some purported intent of educating. The concept of “takeaway” is popular among food TV executives, the idea being that even a small idea—a new way to prepare or serve food, trying a new ingredient—makes the experience of watching a show worthwhile. Producers argue that if viewers do not have time (or, it is implied, enough money) to replicate what is seen on a program, the takeaway information is at least feasible. Studies have indeed shown that consumers do absorb some food safety information

640

Food TV

from TV cooking shows—proper cooking, storage and cleaning, for instance—and presumably other potentially helpful messages can be gleaned as well. The takeaway can be delivered via an entertaining format, so viewers—and the shows’ creators—are fully satisfied.

Health Information Health and nutrition are rarely explicit agenda items in modern cooking programs. One reason could be that show creators assume basic health and nutrition knowledge among viewers. In the early days of cooking programs, when such content was direct and explicit, it seemed to serve a need for housewives. Today, content that is too earnest or unambiguously educational no longer seems to mesh with the goals of the genre—to attract and maintain as many viewers as possible. Some programs, such as the 1990s British food program The Two Fat Ladies and a few Food Network shows hosted by the Southern restaurateur Paula Deen from 2002 onward, flagrantly defy the idea of healthy ingredients and instead embrace hearty and caloric foods like butter, meat, and cream in their recipes. The emphasis is on pleasure, taste, and enjoyment. Deen has been criticized publicly for her touting of unhealthy foods, and many felt vindicated when she announced that she was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. However, many food programs are measured by their presentation of a variety of foods, and hosts frequently offer tips on how to alter recipes to reduce calories or eliminate unwanted ingredients. In recent years, as trends have included an increasing interest in the environment and personal health (echoing patterns from the 1960s and 1970s), some hosts also acknowledge or highlight the facts when foods are organic, local, healthy, vegan, or allergen free. One TV chef has made a concerted effort to affect health and social problems on a mass scale. The British restaurateur and TV chef Jamie Oliver, whose popular cooking show The Naked Chef aired on the Food Network in the late 1990s, launched a campaign to improve the school lunches

of British school children. Concerned about the lack of healthy alternatives and nutritional education in schools, he developed Jamie’s School Dinners in the United Kingdom in 2005, which did help to some degree to raise public awareness about the issue. In 2009, he implemented a similar campaign in Huntington, West Virginia, which had been deemed to be one of the unhealthiest cities in the United States based on high obesity rates. His noble intentions with both Jamie’s School Dinners and the U.S. iteration, Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, were met with great interpersonal and logistical resistance along the way, and though they ultimately met with varying measures of success, the experiences highlighted the deep entrenchment of the causes and associated problems with the nations’ food systems. While Food Revolution was not a cooking program in the traditional sense—though Oliver did provide a good deal of nutritional information and demonstrated cooking techniques to the participating families, children, and school lunchroom staff—these types of program are commonly considered under the informal category of food TV. They illustrate the blurred lines between cooking programs and food TV that have resulted over the decades as well as the outgrowth of the genre and the place of food and cooking information in modern society.

Science and Technology Technology has historically been addressed by food TV via hosts who implicitly or explicitly encourage the use of various appliances or prepared food products to aid in the cooking process or to enhance a recipe. Science is occasionally brought to the fore more deliberately in recent years, notably in programs such as the Food Network’s Good Food hosted by Alton Brown and public television’s America’s Test Kitchen hosted by the editors of Cook’s Illustrated magazine. In these programs, hosts directly educate viewers on the mechanical or chemical processes that take place in various food preparation or cooking activities such as the purpose of browning meat

Food TV

and the differences between baking powder and baking soda. Viewers of America’s Test Kitchen benefit from watching the demonstration of recipes that have been tested often, as many as 50 times, to ensure that they work for home cooks. These and other programs’ educational agendas stop short of acknowledging the controversies surrounding science and technology topics such as genetically modified foods and the environmental and health impact of certain industrial and agricultural practices. Such issues are addressed in substantial number by documentary filmmakers, but the economic structure of food TV has not been a welcome venue for such controversy. Food TV executives and advertisers are intent on creating a positive frame of reference and experience for viewers, and food programs have traditionally represented comfort and the “good life.” Any challenges presented on food TV are those that move the “plot” of a program along, such as tackling a cooking conundrum or winning the race in a cooking competition like Iron Chef, Top Chef, or Hell’s Kitchen. It would be problematic for food and cooking programs to present explicit information on the controversial topics mentioned here because the goal of the commercial networks is to attract viewers. Even public television stations, where there are more references to food’s origins and farming practices, rely on viewer contributions and corporate underwriters and are therefore likely to shy away from controversial topics. To provide thorough information about what is commonly referred to as the “industrial food complex,” even for the sake of information and the social good, would be at odds with producers’ and advertisers’ primary messages. TV production values—that is, entertainment values—tend to take precedence.

Underlying Social Messages on Food TV In addition to topics of potential political debate, food TV presents information that can be observed from a social perspective. Although by no means overt, subtle messages are often detectable, wherein the ideal or assumed audience of a program is

641

implicit. As evidenced by their marketing information as well as by the many high-end advertisers and expensively outfitted kitchens on the sets of many of its programs, the Food Network’s target audience is higher income consumers. Without flaunting but also without apology, the programs in total celebrate and promote consumption. The combination of travel with cooking and restaurant dining further cultivate the notions of leisure, pleasure, and spending. Democratic, encouraging, and welcoming messages about the feasibility and fun of cooking are abundant on food TV, but some of the activities or products displayed would be difficult for viewers of lower incomes to replicate. The high-end appliances, ingredients, and cookware used and advertised and the well-appointed kitchens and homes featured on most food TV programs embrace notions of conspicuous consumption and excess, which may not necessarily reflect the reality of many American homes. Related to notions of social class, one British study observed that when respondents were asked to rank their personal sources of cooking instruction, television cooking programs were rated low in comparison with sources such as cookbooks and family members. Cooking programs did, however, have more impact on higher social classes than on lower classes. The researchers conjectured that this group made more use of media, whereas lower social classes relied more on learning from family members. On food TV, cooking is generally presented as a leisure activity or hobby rather than the traditional domestic task that it was in the early days of cooking programs and as it is for many families—especially challenging for working-class families.

The Role of Food TV These issues raise a fundamental question about the role of food TV and whether it is intended to educate or entertain. As we have seen, network executives would likely say that they can do both, though their actions tend to betray their entertainment bias. Because television is a powerful and pervasive medium—most homes have one or

642

Food Waste

more sets—and because the Food Network reaches 100 million U.S. homes, there is a theoretical potential to influence viewer behavior. This power accounts for the great popularity of the genre as well as the challenges faced by both creators and viewers. Some argue that food TV is a potential source for good—to wit, Jamie Oliver’s advocacy. Others would say that it is part of larger social ills—think of the reaction to Paula Deen’s style of cooking and rampant health concerns. Both approaches are admired or criticized for their extremes. Jamie Oliver and his ilk would hope for behavior and policy transformation as a result of programming. The great majority of most food TV, however, simply exists to entertain and ideally impart some useful tidbits along the way. For viewers, the role of food TV is subjective and depends on what each one hopes to achieve— for example, to learn new skills and recipes or to watch an entertaining program. Ratings show that the entertainment approach attracts more “eyeballs,” as the jargon of the TV industry would describe it, and thus the proliferation of shows with this focus. In many cases, the impact of these programs is on changing or expanding tastes if not behaviors. Inevitably, whatever the purpose or perception of food TV, it is evident that the genre has brought a wider swath of the population information of some sort about food and cooking.

Study of Food and Society, 4(1), 27–46. doi:10.2752/ 152897900786690805 Collins, K. (2009). Watching what we eat: The evolution of television cooking shows. New York, NY: Continuum. Lang, T. (1999). The complexities of globalization: The UK as a case study of tensions within the food system and the challenge to food policy. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 169. Lindenfeld, L. (2010). On the ethics of food television: Does Rachael Ray really promote healthy eating? In S. Vandamme, S. van de Vathorst, & I. de Beaufort (Eds.), Whose weight is it anyway? Essays on ethics and eating (pp. 161–173). Leuven, Belgium: Acco. Mathiasen, L. A., Chapman, B. J., Lacroix, B. J., & Powell, D. A. (2004). Spot the mistake: Television cooking shows as a source of food safety information. Food Protection Trends, 24, 328–334. Meister, M. (2001). Cultural feeding, good life science, and the TV food network. Mass Communication & Society, 4(2), 165–182. doi:10.1207/ S15327825MCS0402_03 Pollan, M. (2009, July 29). Out of the kitchen, onto the couch. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/magazine/02cooking-t .html

Website Comcast Spotlight: FOOD Network: http://www .comcastspotlight.com/network/food-network

Kathleen Collins See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Celebrity Chefs; Cooking as Leisure Activity; Nutrition Education; Television Advertising

Further Readings Boulos, R., Vikre, E. K., Oppenheimer, S., Chang, H., & Kanarek, R. B. (2012). ObesiTV: How television is influencing the obesity epidemic. Physiology & Behavior, 107(1), 146–153. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh .2012.05.022 Caraher, M., Lange, T., & Dixon, P. (2000). The influence of TV and celebrity chefs on public attitudes and behavior among the English public. Journal for the

FOOD WASTE Food waste is now recognized as a global problem, with roughly one third of the edible parts of food produced for human consumption lost or destroyed, amounting to approximately $1.3 billion per year. Water and energy, as well as raw materials for future use, are but some of the resources affected by wasting food. Food waste also has serious consequences for the environment and public health. Contrary to the belief that food as organic matter decays or evaporates harmlessly in landfills, the anaerobic decomposition of food

Food Waste

waste (and other biodegradable waste) in landfills produces several greenhouse gases including methane, a greenhouse gas that is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The occurrence of waste along the supply chain in industrialized countries differs from that in less industrialized ones. Most food waste in less industrialized countries occurs during the upstream stages of the supply chain—in the production, harvesting, distribution, and storage of food. This is arguably the result of managerial, financial, and technical challenges experienced during harvesting, together with storage issues. Industrialized countries, however, experience food losses further downstream, predominantly in the retail and consumer categories (in households) as well as in the restaurant and catering industry. More specifically, studies undertaken in the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, and Australia, as well as in other industrialized countries, have found that the majority of food waste occurs downstream in the supply chain, from the consumer and the household. Estimates of food waste by consumers per capita vary remarkably between industrialized and less industrialized countries. In Europe and North America, estimates per capita have been found between 95 and 115 kilograms per year, while in Sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia, estimates vary between 6 and 11 kilograms per year per capita. This entry first discusses various conceptions of food waste and how it has been measured. It then reviews responses to food waste through governmental action, initiatives adopted by the food industry, and the emergence of nonprofit organizations that implement food rescue programs that distribute food to those in need.

What “Counts” as Food Waste? Although food waste is being recognized as a global problem, its definition is not universal either in the academic literature or in everyday use. Food waste, in the broadest sense, refers to food that is intended for human consumption but is not consumed; however, no one definition is universally

643

accepted. In part, this is due to the complexities of assessing and measuring food waste along the supply chain as well as the variations in the conduits of disposal. However, it is mainly due to the different interpretations of what may be considered waste. All definitions refer to food waste as the food intended for human consumption that is lost to the food system, where system refers to the complex assemblage of interdependent and interacting elements of food-related activities—from research and development, to production, through to consumption and disposal. Some studies refer to biowaste—biodegradable kitchen and garden waste—and, in some cases, specify vegetable, fruit, and garden waste. Other studies conceptualize waste into three categories: solid, biodegradable, and organic waste. In some cases, food waste is considered a subset of organic waste with liquid wastes excluded. Liquid waste may be the wastewater associated with the consumption, digestion, and excretion of food, or it may include unused milk or soft drink. The term plate waste has also been used, especially in nutrition studies, to refer to the measure of what one leaves behind on the plate. The term luxus consumption, a term coined by Dorothy Blair and Jeffery Sobal, has even been used to refer to overconsumption as a form of food waste, leading to storage of body fat, health problems, and excess resource utilization. In 1981, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations defined food waste as edible material intended for human consumption that was discarded, lost, degraded, or consumed by pests between harvest and consumption. A study undertaken by Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson, van Otterdijk, and Maeybeck (2011) refined the definition further by differentiating where in the supply chain the waste was occurring. That is, food loss refers to the decrease in edible mass that occurs at production, postharvest, and processing stages in the food supply chain, whereas food waste occurs at the end of the food chain in retail and final consumption. Such a differentiation highlights the complexity of food’s progress along the supply chain.

644

Food Waste

Many studies have measured food waste as those food items that went into a rubbish bin or a bin designated for landfill. However, people use a variety of other conduits of disposal in which food is neither consumed nor “thrown away.” For example, at the consumer level, informal methods of disposal may include providing uneaten food to pets or chickens or putting it into compost; at the production level, such methods of disposal may include using low-grade food items as stock feed or fertilizer. Uneaten food used in these ways is not measured. Researchers and government departments provide objectively collected data in the form of numbers and amounts of waste along the supply chain for food that is thrown away; however, data on such informal use are never collected and are lost. The associated impacts resulting from packaging of food are often not measured when determining levels of food waste. Much of the food offered for sale in the industrialized world is bought in some form of packaging. Less packaging may decrease the shelf life of the product and increase the rate of loss, especially in other parts of the supply chain, such as damage in transit or storage. Conversely, adding more packaging can help reduce food waste, for example, by offering better protection for food as it moves from the farm to the processor, or shelf life may be extended by using technology such as modified atmospheric packaging. Packaging may also increase the convenience of purchase for particular items, making them more appealing. Irrespective of how it is used, packaging becomes another component of food acquisition that must in turn be disposed of. It is not known whether the environmental costs of manufacturing, distributing, and using packaging is greater than the costs associated with food waste. In addition to their being various methods used to measure food waste, its definition depends on who is seeking information and how it will be used. The information needed by policymakers seeking to reduce waste to meet landfill requirement differs from that sought by nutritionists who seek to determine how many calories were

consumed and how many were left on the plate unconsumed and wasted. The complexities associated with defining and measuring food waste make it difficult to compare statistics at an international and local level.

How Do We Conceptualize Waste? While there is an entrenched body of social theory around food consumption, the relevance of that theory to food waste is yet to be thoroughly explored or established. Outside of the social sciences, food waste has received interest simply as a technical issue that can be resolved through management, planning, and engineering interventions. Waste is generated both through consumption of products and through production processes. Classical economics informs us that production processes that provide products and services for consumers use up scarce resources. According to Karl Marx, the costs of wastage are incorporated into the value of the finished food (the price the consumer pays). Research in the social sciences now focuses on the social dimensions of food waste in explaining the unavoidable sociocultural and psychological processes through which objects lose their value and are transformed into “waste.” Many people take waste for granted, overlooking the transformative process in which an object becomes waste—a process thought to be self-evident to many. In fact, the process is self-constructed and complex. The ability to recognize and define objects as “waste” is socially and culturally derived. There are numerous influences on how a consumer views, understands, and constructs waste. The use of the word waste implies that no further use may be derived from the object, that it should be removed to an appropriate space or “thrown away,” and that its value for that person is no more. While food waste is unique in that it decomposes according to biological processes, a human, conceptual process also transforms edible materials from a valued object seen as “food” to  valueless waste. The qualities of objects are

Food Waste

conferred by society, through social processes, and are not just an intrinsic property of things. As Georg Simmel states, value is never an inherent property of objects but is a judgment made about them by subjects. In the case of food waste, the judgment is made about food. Food plays an essential role in our daily lives, but it does more than fulfil a physiological or nutritional need. It is highly symbolic and integral to identity and social relations and may hold deep-rooted connections to culture and communities. Therefore, what is wasted may also be an extension of our identity. How and what we waste may vary depending on how we value the food item in question and how we classify food during and after the transformative process to waste. Through this process of transformation, people use a variety of words, each with a different meaning, to refer to classify food waste, such as refuse, scraps, trash, and even shit, referring to both excrement and a colloquial form of object. Each word has nuanced meanings used in different contexts and for different purposes. However, in most cases, such words imply disgust, horror, or pollution, as the anthropologist Mary Douglas explains, and become taboo topics referring to a threat to the health of both individuals and society in general.

Measurement of Food Waste In numerous studies on quantifying food waste, researchers have identified the complexities associated with measuring waste and highlighted the possibility of inaccurate or underreported amounts of food waste. Methods to quantify food waste have included estimates from statistical data on food supply, as well as estimates on institutional waste from hospitals, schools, and university dining halls. Compositional analysis as well as kitchen diaries, questionnaires, and surveys have also been used to gather information on food waste. The amounts identified, despite their variation, are significant. Except for in-depth ethnographic research on food waste in the United Kingdom and Australia, qualitative research to determine why people waste food has been very limited.

645

Responses to Food Waste There are many stakeholders involved both directly in the food supply chain and indirectly, through the influence of government regulation and policy. Responses to the issue of high levels of food waste are occurring across various levels from governments at both national and local levels, in businesses along the supply chain, and even in nonprofit organizations. Government

The severity of the impact of food waste on the environment is recognized at the highest levels of government in Europe, with the European Directive 2011/2175(INI) of 2011 acknowledging the ethical, economic, social, and nutritional implications as well as the impact on health and the environment. Furthermore, in response to the complexities of measuring food waste identified by various researchers, the Global Food Loss and Waste Measurement Protocol has been established by the World Resources Institute as a multistakeholder effort to develop the global standard for measuring food loss and waste. National organizations such as the Waste Resource Action Program in the United Kingdom established a three-tier classification system of food waste based on avoidability to assist with the interpretations of what is and is not regarded as food waste. Avoidable waste refers to food and drink thrown away because it has passed its use-by date or has perished. In most cases, avoidable wastes include foods that were edible prior to their disposal, but had deteriorated, gone mouldy or had become inedible. Possibly avoidable waste includes food and drink considered edible by some people and not by others (e.g., vegetable peelings) or that can be eaten when prepared (e.g., potato skins). It can also include food that is disposed of because of cosmetic issues such as appearance or specific quality criteria (e.g., irregularly shaped bananas).

646

Food Waste

Unavoidable food waste refers to food and drink that is considered not edible at all, such as banana skins, orange peel, chicken bones, and so on. Supply chain losses in harvesting, storage, transportation, and processing are also classified as unavoidable.

In medium- and high-income countries, responsibility for food waste removal rests largely with local government authorities. In cities, designated sites for refuse (landfill sites or dumps) are used for disposal of most wastes including food waste. In some municipalities, food waste is collected separately from rubbish designated for landfill and is recycled. In these cases, local municipalities may distribute separate waste collection receptacles for food. Irrespective of the method of collection, in cases where food is collected separately, guidelines are provided specifying the type of organic food wastes suitable for such collection, often informed by the work of organizations such as Waste Resource Action Program (a U.K.-based nonprofit organization that seeks to create a sustainable economy through measures such as reduction of food waste) and other food waste researchers. Furthermore, campaigns produced at the national or regional level encourage food waste reduction at the household and individual level. The campaigns of recent times have arisen in recognition of the need to reduce unsustainable food consumption practices, identified through the large amounts of food waste ending up in landfills. Campaigns to reduce food waste are not new. Posters from the United Kingdom in World War II encouraged people to not waste food. Back then, the war effort drove the food waste avoidance campaigns, and the act of saving food was one of national protection. Today’s campaigns encourage less food wasting more as a public good or form of environmental protection at the local and global level. Another driver of waste policy formation stemmed from the enactment of public health legislation that sought to prevent disease and control the spread of communicable diseases. Today, media often report conflicting messages on food waste; for example, campaigns such as “if in doubt, throw it out” work at odds with those advocating the reduction of food waste, such as the “love food, hate waste” campaign.

In an attempt to encourage people to waste less food, campaigns focus on the perceived motivators for food waste and are targeting behaviors. For example, the metropolitan campaign in Helsinki, Finland, from 2005 to 2007, “Less Food Means More Money in Your Wallet,” highlighted the monetary savings that could be realized as a result of wasting less food. The campaign “Food: Too Good to Waste” in the United States and the “Love Food, Hate Waste” initiative in the United Kingdom stress the value of food. These campaigns have identified a range of behaviors contributing to food waste, including impulse and bulk purchases, poor planning, overpreparation, spoilage, confusion over date labels, poor store management, and undervaluing of foods. These campaigns have been recognized as contributing to reduced levels of food waste going to landfill, but they do not capture the generative mechanisms behind food waste behaviors, attitudes, and values, such as why some people throw out a substantial part of an apple by peeling it and discarding the core, while others eat it whole. More work remains to be done in this area in order to provide further guidance to waste reduction programs. The Supply Chain

Due to the discrepancies in waste along various steps of the supply chain in industrialized and less industrialized countries, responses to reducing food waste and loss have been varied. Waste minimization strategies from a production, distribution, storage, and retail perspective may also include efforts to improve energy efficiency, increase processing efficiency, and identify unrealized production capacity, lost revenue, reduced profits, potential liabilities, and ways to reduce the purchase costs of materials. However, under current market conditions, reduction of waste in the use of many staple food items regarded as low-cost commodity items results in little or no financial benefit. Various stakeholders, including consumers, have voiced concerns about supermarkets’ growing dominance of the food system and have demanded that supermarkets address ethical issues

Food Waste

raised by corporate practices. In response, supermarkets have introduced corporate and social responsibility measures into their business operations; for example, they may attempt to source products from ethical suppliers, recycle packaging, or even provide uneaten food to food rescue organizations. However, they often strongly discourage foragers or “dumpster divers” who seek to retrieve food thrown away in bins located at the rear of the stores and, in some cases, seek the enforcement of laws prohibiting such foraging. Not for Profit: Food Rescue

There has been a proliferation of organizations such as food banks and food pantries along with initiatives related to food rescue or salvage practices. A growing number of social movements such as those embodied in Tafel associations in Germany have emerged to distribute food to those in need. Arising more as a response to food insecurity rather than to avoid wasting food, these nonprofit charitable organizations distribute food acquired through traditional channels of purchase and cultivation or through donations. The food distributed through these channels is “excess” food that was not used for its primary intention. In this way, rather than throwing away excess food, food-related businesses, such as distributors, supermarkets, or restaurants, can distribute it to food banks or food pantries, who in turn can give it to charity organizations and people in need. Handing excess food to the needy also provides an acceptable channel for disposal, bringing to the fore the issue of the morality of food waste.

Conclusions Food waste is not a straightforward concept and has multiple meanings. However, its meanings are all based on undesirable ideas of deficit and loss of value and can also allude to profligate tendencies that are not viewed favorably. This is reflected in “disabling” messaging around food waste reduction and prevention. It may be worth considering what may be gained by shifting the fundamentally negative paradigm of “food waste” to a positive

647

paradigm of “food saving” based on ideas of resource gain, value addition, and eudaemonic views of humanity. Such an approach would take full advantage of enabling messaging around food use and food saving. Conceptually, we will never achieve zero food waste, simply because what is food waste varies for so many people. However, with increasing pressure on natural resources and land availability, increasing population numbers, food insecurity, and the globalization of our food supply, solutions to minimizing food waste along all stages of—and among all players in—the food supply chain will become even more urgent. Vicki Mavrakis, Paul Ward, John Coveney, and Kirrilly Thompson See also Cultural Identity and Food; Disgust; Expiration Dates; Food Banks; Food Insecurity; Food Safety; Freegans and Dumpster Diving; Shelf Life

Further Readings Bloom, J. (2011). American wasteland: How America throws away nearly half of its food (and what we can do about it). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Evans, D., Campbell, H., & Murcott, A. (2013). Waste matters: New perspectives on food and society. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., . . . Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327, 812–819. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Maeybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Institute of Mechanical Engineers. (2013). Global food: Waste not, want not. London, UK: Author. Jackson, P. (2013). Food words: Essays in culinary culture. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Quested, T. E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., & Parry, A. D. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 43–51. Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the global food scandal. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

648

Food Writing in Books

Website Australian Research Council Food Waste Project: http:// www.cqu.edu.au/research/research-organisations/ institutes/appleton-institute/research/current-projects/ arc-food-waste-project

FOOD WRITING

IN

BOOKS

The past 20 years has seen a sharp incline in the number of books critiquing the quality of our food supply, focusing in particular on its production, distribution, and consumption as well as on the forces that dictate dietary advice. Since 2000, much of the debate within such food writing has focused on a few key issues—namely, local food versus the multinational food industry, or Big Food; the causes of and solutions to obesity; the safety and environmental impact of genetically modified foods; nutritionism and dietary advice; and how best to achieve food justice. Such contemporary debates about food inevitably reflect the tension between the local and the global, the natural and the technological, as well as the private and the public that atomize culture at large. The spate of writing about the importance of eating seasonal, local, artisanal, natural, and sustainably raised food, for example, reflects tremendous cultural anxiety about globalization. This anxiety manifests itself as a drive to return to a method of food production that predates industrialization. In turn, debates about obesity as well as genetically modified food express keen anxieties about corporate and governmental irresponsibility. In a gesture that implies a promise of self-empowerment and individual control, many contemporary authors urge consumers to bypass the industrial food supply by choosing to eat local and sustainable foods. Inextricable from such narratives are those bent on exposing corporate greed, government complicity and inaction, and the capitalist system itself as responsible for creating a readily available, cheap food supply that proves toxic to its consumers. Consumer anxiety is only further exacerbated by the vast, conflicting literature on nutrition and dietary advice. Recently, a new set of

voices has begun to shift the discussion from local food, corporate greed, and the healthiest way to feed oneself toward the need for food justice and food sovereignty. In particular, contemporary activists have begun to focus on documenting and improving the lives of those most vulnerable to the mainstream food system—namely, agricultural laborers and factory workers, as well as those living in urban food deserts. This entry focuses on such contemporary debates, highlighting recent books on the topics.

The Local Food Movement and Its Critics One of the founding fathers of the contemporary local food movement, Wendell Berry, has inspired thousands of popular and academic writers alike. In particular, his essay on “The Pleasures of Eating” has helped nourish a vast body of literature devoted to what might be termed ethical gastronomy, a philosophy drawn from the belief that how and what we eat has the capacity to reshape our relationship with nature and to nourish a commitment to the well-being of the surrounding community. According to this philosophy, we are ethically bound to the people and places that create the foods we savor. This sort of ethical gastronomy runs throughout the scores of books and magazines published by Slow Food Editore and forms the core of Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, In Defense of Food, and Cooked. It has also spawned a trend in books that document an author’s personal struggle to “eat local.” The first of these to appear in 2001, Gary Paul Nabhan’s Coming Home to Eat, charts 1 year during which the author was determined to eat meals made of ingredients sourced within 220 miles of his home in Arizona. Within 6 years, the local movement had so captured the public imagination that 2007 would see the publication of three best-selling books devoted to the cause: Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy; Barbara Kingsolver’s Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life; and Alisa Dawn Smith and J. B. MacKinnon’s The 100-Mile Diet: A Year of Local Eating. The local food movement has also inspired a body of literature focused on small farms, farmers,

Food Writing in Books

and activists devoted to sustainability, including Wendell Berry’s Bringing It to the Table: On Farming and Food; Temra Costa’s Farmer Jane: Women Changing the Way We Eat; Katherine Leiner’s Growing Roots: The New Generation of Sustainable Farmers, Cooks, and Food Activists; and Forrest Pritchard’s Gaining Ground: A Story of Farmers’ Markets, Local Food, and Saving the Family Farm. Joel Salatin has written how-to manuals on sustainable farming, including You Can Farm: The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Start and Succeed in a Farming Enterprise and Fields of Farmers: Interning, Partnering, Germinating. The determination of city dwellers to eat local has likewise spawned a growing collection of books on urban farming. Katherine Gustafson’s Change Comes to Dinner profiles urban growers as well as grocers devoted to stocking their shelves with locally sourced items, Jennifer CockrallKing’s Food and the City explores successful alternative food networks in cities around the world, Peter Ladner’s Urban Food Revolution narrows the focus to cities throughout the United States, and Novella Carpenter’s Farm City provides a humorous first-person account of her life as an urban farmer. Often charged with a tendency to sentimentalize the agrarian past, locavore authors nonetheless garner tremendous public acclaim, selling millions of books that simultaneously reflect and work to assuage public anxiety about globalization. By providing a blueprint for how the individual can bypass the industrial food supply by “going local,” these books simultaneously celebrate the American ideal of individualism and promise a healthier, more integrated sense of community. Critics of the local food movement focus on the elitism, racism, and classism of alternative food networks, taking to task in particular farmers’ markets, the organic movement, and the Slow Food organization to argue that these networks are built on an ideology of ethical consumerism that correlates status with political eating. Within this ideological framework, shopping, eating, and dining are conceptualized as political acts, a move that rationalizes consuming expensive ingredients and dining at high-end restaurants in such a way

649

that elides the elitism inherent in such consumption. This framework, critics argue, effectively enables privileged foodies not only to indulge in gastronomic pleasures with a clear conscience but also to construe hedonism as an act of political engagement. Yet another critique eddies around what some see as a blanket disparagement of the food industry and food processing. Scholars such as Rachel Laudan in Cuisine and Empire and Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu in The Locavore’s Dilemma provide painstaking research to demonstrate how fortunate we are to live in a time of culinary modernism: We grow taller and live longer, healthier lives than at any other time in history, a fact largely enabled by the variety and bounty of our contemporary food supply—a bounty and variety made possible, in large part, by industrialization. Laudan as well as Desrochers and Shimizu argue that proponents of the local food movement would do well to take a hard look at culinary history. Comparing the safety of today’s food supply as well as the labor that goes into feeding the average family with that of 100 years ago underscores the benefits of industrialization. Taking a long view of culinary history into account would enable locavores to overcome a sentimental notion of the agrarian past, replacing it with a more sophisticated understanding of the mainstream food system—one that not only chronicles its myriad downsides but also acknowledges its many benefits.

Taking on Big Food Underlying the arguments about the biological, social, environmental, political, and economic benefits of locavorism exist an inherent distrust of the food industry as well as the government’s ability (or even willingness) to monitor its behavior. Just a few of the most popular books devoted to the topic include Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, Marion Nestle’s Food Politics, Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, Morgan Spurlock’s Don’t Eat This Book, Michele Simon’s Appetite for Profit, and Joel Salatin’s Folks, This Ain’t Normal. The hazards that have arisen from the industrialization of our food supply, the rapid spread of fast

650

Food Writing in Books

food, and the rise of global food corporations prove a major theme of such critiques. The Meat Industry

Several subgenres have coalesced within the growing body of literature that targets Big Food. Exposés of the meat industry, in particular, have burgeoned of late. Just a few of the books published in the past decade that detail the cruelty, greed, and ecological dangers of a meat industry led by corporations intent on maximizing profit include Gail A. Eisnitz’s Slaughterhouse, David Kirby’s Animal Factory, Erik Marcus’s Meat Market, and Christopher Leonard’s The Meat Racket. Yet another subgenre questions the ethics of eating meat. Recent works following in the tradition of Peter Singer’s 1975 classic Animal Liberation include Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals, Melanie Joy’s Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, Gene Baur’s Farm Sanctuary, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson’s The Face on Your Plate, and Ken Midkiff’s The Meat You Eat. As a genre, these books urge us to think about the ethical, ecological, and physiological consequences of our meatcentric diet and to fully recognize and understand the costs of corporate farming. Maureen Ogle’s In Meat We Trust explores the history of meat in the United States to argue that the industry began to focus on efficient, cheap production, in part, due to the nation’s demand for an inexpensive, plentiful meat supply. In turn, this demand, Ogle argues, cannot be met by small farms alone—a solution proposed by many locavores. The fact that the average American eats 200 pounds of meat per year and that meat consumption is undergoing a sharp rise in many parts of the world only perpetuates the industrial meatpacking facilities and global meat corporations decried by academics, locavores, animal lovers, and everyday meat consumers alike. The Obesity Debate

Yet another subgenre tackles the food industry for its contribution to the rising rates of obesity. According to this literature, the food industry

bears a great deal of responsibility for the “obesity epidemic” because its insatiable hunger for profit drives it to market calorically dense, unhealthy foods filled with saturated fats and sugar. Kelly Brownell and Katherine Battle Horgen’s Food Fight targets the food industry and its powerful hold over government policy as well as its unremitting determination to overfeed the nation. Julie Guthman’s Weighing In expands the argument to bring food insecurity as well as economic and social inequality into focus as a major contributor to obesity. Guthman likewise takes the local food movement to task for its promotion of individual responsibility in terms of eating and health, a viewpoint that codes the obese body as a symptom of American greed and moral lassitude. According to the notion of individual choice and responsibility, the consumer has the inalienable right to choose his or her own diet. Thus, obesity signals a failure of self-control. The solution hence lies with the individual to choose healthy foods and to exercise restraint. Guthman, as do Brownell and Horgen, urges her readers to understand obesity as a social and environmental—as opposed to an individual’s—problem. Mistrust of Big Food has likewise led to exposés on government regulation, contamination of the food supply, and the labor practices that create processed foods. Marion Nestle’s Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety explores the byzantine food safety regulations in the United States as well as the food industry’s enormous influence on government policy. Felicity Lawrence’s Not on the Label examines the British food supply, tracing products back to their country of origin. In so doing, she illuminates the plight of the immigrant laborers working in dangerous and unsanitary conditions and details the ecological, nutritional, and social costs of the global industrial food supply. Tracie McMillan’s The American Way of Eating likewise tackles the plight of food workers, who, like those living in food deserts, are often too poor to eat what nutritionists would consider a healthy diet. Joanna Blythman’s Shopped shifts the focus from food processing to food retailers to examine the complicity of supermarkets in creating a consumer market willing to shell out money

Food Writing in Books

for overpackaged and nutritionally vapid foods. Margaret Gray’s Labor and the Locavore complicates the notion that unfair labor practices are the purview of Big Food. Focusing tightly on the small farms in the Hudson Valley that supply much of New York City’s local food system, Gray’s ethnography details the rampant labor abuses suffered by those immigrants who tend to and gather the produce so highly valued by locavores.

651

risks and unintended consequences of genetically modified foods and urges scientists to make a stronger commitment to testing the safety of genetically modified organisms. Those that cover the main arguments of both sides while largely working to maintain an objective stance include Peter Pringle’s Food, Inc.; Lisa H. Weasel’s Food Fray; Daniel Charles’s Lords of the Harvest; and Bill Lambrecht’s Dinner at the New Gene Café.

Genetically Modified Foods

The growing library of books on genetic modification fall largely into three camps: (1) those that embrace scientific innovation and globalization, (2) those that detail the downsides of what they term Frankenfoods and argue that genetic modification has already begun to wreak havoc on world health, and (3) those that work to educate the general reader about the pros and cons of genetic engineering. Among the former, Nina Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown’s Mendel in the Kitchen and Alan McHughen’s Pandora’s Picnic Basket provide an overview of genetic modification. While citing some of the problems that have arisen from transgenic foods, Mendel in the Kitchen and Pandora’s Picnic Basket ultimately come out in favor of genetic engineering, arguing that it has the power to significantly improve worldwide medical and food supplies, thereby preventing unnecessary disease and death. In Tomorrow’s Table, Pamela C. Ronald, a plant geneticist, and her husband, Raoul W. Adamchack, an organic farmer, argue that a careful blend of organic farming and genetic modification would prove the most beneficial for our agricultural future. On the other end of the spectrum, Claire Hope Cummings’s Uncertain Peril argues that corporate monopoly of seed patents and the rise of agricultural technology in general pose serious threats to the diversity of seeds; Boyens Ingeborg’s Unnatural Harvest provides detailed case studies that demonstrate some of the disturbing ways in which biotechnology is changing our food supply as well as the industry’s ultimate failure to research the effect that these changes might have on the environment; and Denise Caruso’s Intervention explores the

Nutritionism and Dietary Advice Just as books about eating local and about the food industry abound in such numbers that it is virtually impossible to keep track of recent publications, so too do those offering and analyzing diets and dietary advice. These range from books espousing fad diets that grip the popular imagination to the scholarly works that study both the efficacy and the sociological meaning of diets and dietary advice. Among the latter lie Peter Singer and Jim Mason’s The Way We Eat and Marion Nestle’s What to Eat, both published in 2006. While The Way We Eat explores the inhumane farming practices that enable us to eat such vast amounts of cheap meat, What to Eat guides the reader through sections of the typical mainstream grocery store unpacking food labels, offering nutritional advice, discussing food industry gimmicks, and deflating industry health claims. Michael Pollan’s best-selling book In Defense of Food and Food Rules likewise work to provide anxious eaters with precise guidelines to follow in order to avoid the pitfalls of the Western diet. Although diets and dietary advice have long played a role in American life, the popularity of contemporary diet books speaks to a growing anxiety about the industrial food supply, a lack of government regulation, and globalization at large. Examined as a whole, dietary advice has shifted from the “calorie-in, calorie-out” model to one based on “good food, bad food.” These latter diets, epitomized by Robert Atkins’s The Atkins Diet Revolution and Gary Taubes’s Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat, promise that avoiding bad foods can speed up the metabolism, burn

652

Foodborne Illness

fat, and/or alter the production of key hormones such as insulin. As scholars such as Chad Lavin and Gyorgy Scrinis argue, however, the proliferation of “good food, bad food” diets and dietary advice not only speak to our anxiety over what is increasingly perceived as a “toxic” mainstream food supply but also perpetuate and exacerbate this anxiety. In Nutritionism: The Science and Politics of Dietary Advice, Scrinis provides a critical analysis of nutrition science, dietary advice, and food marketing to argue for a more contextualized approach toward food—one that moves beyond the reduction of nutrition into “good” and “bad” nutritional components, a reductive approach that, Scrinis argues, has been co-opted by the food industry to target an increasingly bewildered and frustrated consumer. Reducing food to its nutritional components and redividing these into good and bad categories has resulted in dietary advice and food marketing that urges consumers to ingest more “good” nutrients with little regard for the quality of the food itself.

Food Justice Arguably, the most hopeful food writing to arise in the 21st century deals explicitly with food justice, working to showcase the power of food initiatives to improve the working and living conditions of immigrant laborers and to eradicate food deserts. Robert Gottlieb and Anupama Joshi’s Food Justice explores the growth of activist networks throughout the United States and details their efforts to change the current system. In Closing the Food Gap, Mark Winne, former executive director of the Hartford Food System, provides an insider’s perspective on the difficulties of bringing fresh, sustainably raised food to the nation’s impoverished. So too does Fair Food, written by the Fair Food Network’s founder Oran B. Hesterman. Drawing together the research of six scholars, California Cuisine and Just Food examines the development of alternative food networks in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1960s and 1970s and explores how these networks have nourished

a new generation passionately devoted to food justice for migrant farm laborers as well as those living in food deserts. Alison Hope Alkon and Julian Agyeman’s Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability collects a series of essays that detail the history of food injustice in the United States; critique the largely white, middleclass positionality of the local food movement; and explore the rise of food justice activism. Taking on the global food system, Eric Holt-Giménez’s Food Movements Unite! gathers essays that not only explore the devastating impact of food injustice but also detail successfully proven solutions. Alice L. McLean See also Cattle Industry; Food Justice; Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Locavorism; Obesity Epidemic

Further Readings Gilman, S. (2008). Fat: A cultural history of obesity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Lavin, C. (2013). Eating anxiety: The perils of food politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Schwartz, H. (1986). Never satisfied: A cultural history of diets, fantasies, and fat. New York, NY: Free Press. Scrinis, G. (2013). Nutritionism: The science and politics of dietary advice. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

FOODBORNE ILLNESS Foodborne illness is caused by eating food or drinking beverages contaminated with bacteria, viruses, toxins, or parasites. Foodborne illness is one of the most common causes of sickness in the United States, and harmful bacteria are the most common causes of foodborne illness. One in six Americans will become sick from a foodborne illness this year. Although many cases are mild and short-lived, others can make people very sick with lifelong repercussions and can even cause death. Food contamination often occurs when food

Foodborne Illness

comes into contact with fecal matter from humans and/or animals. This contamination can happen at any point in the food supply chain—from growing vegetables contaminated with cattle manure to a salad prepared by an infected person who has not washed his or her hands properly. This entry focuses on foodborne illness in the United States, including the common sources, outbreaks, and modes of contamination, and concludes with a discussion of food safety.

653

Although the ways in which each contaminant can make a person sick are different, the resulting symptoms of illness are often similar: diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and headache. These similar symptoms often make it challenging to identify the culprit, and in many cases, the symptoms may not be severe enough for a person to seek medical attention. Therefore, the foodborne illness is not reported. Bacteria

Foodborne Illness in the United States Foodborne illness, more commonly referred to as food poisoning, is estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to cause one quarter of Americans to be sick each year. In the United States, 48 million foodborne illness cases occur every year. At least 128,000 Americans are hospitalized, and 3,000 die after eating contaminated food. Many foodborne illness cases go unreported and are therefore of unknown origin, but the CDC estimates that 9.4 million of the illnesses are caused by 31 known food contaminants. Ninety percent of all illnesses are caused by seven known agents: (1) Salmonella, (2) Norovirus, (3) Campylobacter, (4) Toxoplasma, (5) Escherichia coli O157:H7, (6) Listeria, and (7) Clostridium perfringens. In a study conducted by the CDC, it was reported that in 17 food categories, nearly half of all foodborne illness was linked to produce—fruits, nuts, leafy greens, and other vegetables. Within the category of produce, leafy greens caused the greatest number of foodborne illness cases, usually as a result of Norovirus. Dairy was the second most frequent source of infection. Contaminated poultry accounted for the most deaths, with 19% of fatal cases predominately caused by Listeria and Salmonella. Together, meat and poultry caused 22% of illness and 29% of deaths.

Common Sources of Foodborne Illness Bacteria, viruses, toxins, and parasites are the most common contaminants to cause foodborne illness.

One of the most common causes of foodborne illness is bacterial infection. Bacteria can cause a person to become sick in two ways: (1) direct bacterial infection and (2) exotoxins. Direct bacterial infection is when bacteria enter into the digestive tract, multiply, and attack the good bacteria that aid in the body’s functions. This eventually creates an imbalance of the microflora in the digestive track, triggering symptoms of illness. Exotoxins cause illness by creating toxins in the body. Once the toxin builds up in the body, it is like poison and can cause a person to become very ill. Salmonella Salmonella is a large genus of bacteria. There are many different types of Salmonella, the most common of which, Salmonella gastroenteritis, is the cause of what is often termed stomach flu, with symptoms such as diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, fever, and abdominal cramps. Another well-known but far less common species of Salmonella these days is known as Salmonella typhi or typhoid fever. This strain was made famous by Typhoid Mary, who infected as many as 51 people with typhoid fever during her career as cook in the early 20th century. The most dangerous trait of S. typhi is that it can be carried by people who show no sign of illness and who unknowingly spread it to healthy people. Salmonella bacteria have been found to live in the intestinal tract of farm animals, birds, and reptiles without causing the host animal any harm. Our food becomes contaminated with Salmonella (and many other bacteria) when it comes into

654

Foodborne Illness

contact with the feces of these animals through direct contact, through contaminated water, through the slaughtering process of food animals, or from infected humans who handle food. Salmonella can contaminate virtually any type of raw food, including meat products, dairy products, eggs, and fresh fruits and vegetables, but it has been known to also contaminate processed foods such as peanut butter, chocolate, and dry cereals. The strain of Salmonella known as Salmonella enteritidis has been found inside of eggs, having been passed from hen to chick. Because the bacteria are on the inside of the egg, the only effective way to kill them is by cooking at high temperatures, which is why eating raw egg products can be risky. If a person is infected by Salmonella, the symptoms they are likely to experience include nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, fever, and headache. These symptoms can last 4 to 7 days, depending on the health of the person, the strain of Salmonella, and the severity of the infection. Campylobacter jejuni Campylobacter jejuni is estimated to be the third leading bacterial cause of foodborne illness in the United States. It is known to contaminate raw meat, unpasteurized milk, and contaminated water, but poultry is the most likely source of contamination. The symptoms of Campylobacter usually include diarrhea (that may include blood and mucus), fever, nausea, and vomiting. These symptoms are likely to be intense but short, lasting 4 to 7 days. In rare cases, Campylobacter can cause reactive arthritis. It can also lead to Reiter’s syndrome, which is characterized by arthritis, urerthritis, and conjunctivitis combined. It is also one of several infections that can cause Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disease. Clostridium perfringens C. perfringens is estimated to be the second leading bacterial cause of foodborne illness in the United States and one of the most commonly reported. When the bacteria are eaten in contaminated foods, they create a toxin in the intestines.

This toxin causes foodborne illness in two forms: (1) gastroenteritis and (2) enteritis necroticansor or “pig-bel disease.” The latter is rare in the United States but is more severe than the other forms of illness, and often fatal. C. perfringens is carried in the intestines of infected humans and domestic animals. The spores of the bacteria are often found in the environment in soil or sediment that may be contaminated by animal or human waste. This makes it easy for it to contaminate raw foods and the hands of food preparers. Infection is likely to occur when a prepared or cooked food, which is still likely to carry small numbers of the bacteria, is left outside of refrigeration long enough for the bacteria to multiply and produce toxin. Symptoms of Clostridium gastroenteritis include diarrhea, cramps, and sometimes vomiting. These usually last for a 24-hour period and are usually mild. Escherichia coli Escherichia coli is a species of bacteria commonly found in the digestive systems of humans and animals. It is probably the most common bacterium in the world. Many species of E. coli provide benefits to the digestive system. They prevent colonization of the digestive system by harmful pathogens, but other species that are harmful can cause severe diarrheal diseases in humans. The E. coli bacteria that are harmful to humans are the ones that produce a toxin called shiga, which can cause bloody diarrhea, blood-clotting problems, kidney failure, and even death. Not all shigaproducing E. coli cause death, but the subset called E. coli O157: H7 can. It is probably the most wellknown, because it has caused many outbreaks of foodborne illness. The CDC estimates that 20,000 people in the United States are infected with E. coli O157: H7 each year. Many different foods have been linked to E. coli O157: H7 outbreaks, such as ground meats, unpasteurized milk and juices, lettuce, spinach, sprouts, and even cookie dough. Foods at most risk for contamination include ground meats, because they provide ample surface area to be contaminated;

Foodborne Illness

vegetables, which can be contaminated with cattle manure; and drinking water and milk that were contaminated after processing outbreaks. Symptoms of E. coli O157:H7 include diarrhea (sometimes bloody), painful abdominal cramping, sometimes nausea, and vomiting. Symptoms usually present themselves in 3 to 5 days, but can take as long as 5 to 8 days, and can be moderate to severe, lasting 3 to 7 days. Viruses

Viral infections make up one third of cases of food poisoning in developed countries. Viruses cannot grow in food. They require a host (i.e., human, animal, or plant). Food is commonly contaminated with viruses through an infected person preparing the food. Food items and hands can also be contaminated by washing with contaminated water or through cross-contamination. Shellfish and other seafood can harbor viruses in their muscles if they were exposed to water (fresh or sea) contaminated with sewage. Norovirus Norovirus, or Norwalk virus, is the leading cause and most common form of illness from contaminated food or water. It also spreads easily from person to person, especially in groups of people. Foods that have been known to cause infection of Norovirus are fruits, vegetables, meats, and salads prepared or handled by an infected person. Norovirus symptoms include forceful vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps. These symptoms can last from 1 to 3 days and are mild to moderate. Hepatitis A Virus Hepatitis A virus (HAV) is a member of the same group of viruses—the Picornaviridae family— that includes the common cold and polio viruses. People can become infected with HAV by eating or drinking contaminated food or water. Contaminated water, shellfish, and salads are the foods most often found to be contaminated, but other foods have been known to cause outbreaks. A

655

recent rise in the number of outbreaks is largely due to the tendency of people to eat more prepared and raw foods. Because the virus is found in the feces of infected people, food becomes infected when a person with the virus does not properly wash his or her hands after using the bathroom and then handles food. It is often hard to link foodborne illness to HAV due to its long incubation period of about 2 to 4 weeks. HAV causes a liver disease that is usually mild and includes symptoms such as lethargy, fever, nausea, loss of appetite, and, after several days, jaundice. After the onset, symptoms can last 1 to 2 weeks. In severe cases, HAV can cause permanent liver damage. A vaccine is available for HAV, but it must be administered well before any exposure. Toxins

The term toxin can encompass both natural and synthetic toxins, both of which can cause foodborne illness. Several foods naturally contain toxins, which can be poisonous to humans. Natural toxins, which are especially present in plants but can also be found in mushrooms and fish, can cause illness or poisoning in humans. Other toxins, like industrial pollutants and pesticides, can also invariably find their way into our food and make us sick. Ciguatera Ciguatera is a toxin found in fish. The toxin is produced by a certain type of algae, and fish that eat coral reef containing that algae retain the toxin. Thus, this toxin is found in fish that live in warm waters near coral reefs. The only way to avoid exposure to this toxin is to not eat amberjack, barracuda, grouper, mackerel, moray eels, mullet, parrot fish, red snapper, sea bass, and surgeon fish, which are likely to have some level of the toxin. Symptoms emerge as quickly as 15 minutes or as late as 24 hours after eating the toxic fish. Symptoms often start with a numb feeling in the mouth and tongue, followed by nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. These symptoms are accompanied by neurological symptoms, which can range from mild to life threatening and can include painful

656

Foodborne Illness

numbness in the fingers and toes, dental pain, and temperature reversal (hot feels like cold). Headache, general weakness, joint and muscle pain, and inability to coordinate movement, itching, respiratory paralysis, and coma can also occur. There is no definitive test for ciguatera, but because some of the symptoms can be unusual, diagnosis is fairly easy to make. Parasites

Parasites are organisms that derive nourishment and protection from other living organisms or hosts. They have increasingly been found to be a source of illness from food and water. They can be transmitted from animals to humans, humans to humans, or from humans to animals. They live and reproduce within the tissues and organs of infected human and animal hosts and are often excreted in feces. They range in size from single-celled organisms to worms visible to the naked eye. Giardia Giardia are microscopic parasites that live in the intestines of animals and humans. They are found all over the world. Giardia can contaminate food when such food comes into contact with water or any surface that is contaminated with Giardia. Infection can also occur when infected muscle tissue or meat is consumed. Symptoms of Giardia include abdominal cramping, nausea, watery diarrhea, bloating, and gas. These symptoms can take 1 to 2 weeks to manifest. Some infected persons may not show symptoms but may become carriers of the parasite. If illness does occur, it can last from 4 to 6 weeks and is usually mild to moderate in severity.

Outbreaks Outbreaks are defined as occurring when two or more people experience similar symptoms after consuming food from a common source. Outbreaks are hard to estimate because many symptoms of foodborne illness are mild and short-lived; therefore, the ill person may not seek medical attention

and the case is not reported to medical authorities. The majority of foodborne illness cases that are reported are individual or occur sporadically. Outbreaks are also hard to determine because they may be caused by a combination of different factors. For example, people may contract a foodborne illness by eating hamburger that has been contaminated with E. coli and then left to sit at room temperature, allowing the bacteria to multiply rapidly, and then not cooked to the proper temperature, which would have killed the bacteria. This makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly where in the food supply chain the contamination occurred. When two people who know each other become ill at the same time, an outbreak can be more easily identified. However, with an increasingly global food supply, a single contaminated food (e.g., ground beef produced in the same contaminated factory) can be spread around the country and even the world. For this reason, public health authorities are relied on to detect and investigate outbreaks. It has been estimated that only 1% to 2% of outbreaks are detected.

Food Contamination That Causes Foodborne Illness Food contamination that causes foodborne illness can occur at any point in the food supply chain. The main causes for contaminated food are improper handling, preparation, food storage, and hygiene of food handlers. However, contamination can also occur early in the supply chain, such as when produce is irrigated with contaminated water or fertilized with manure that carries a pathogen. It is estimated that 58% of foodborne illness cases originate from commercial food facilities. Foodborne illness is most likely to occur when a contaminated food is handled improperly, allowing the illness-causing pathogen to multiply or spread. Because of busy lifestyles and modern convenience, many Americans eat their meals outside of the home, whether they are packaged foods, fresh prepared foods, or restaurant food—increasing the  likelihood of their coming into contact with improperly handled food.

Foraging

Food Safety Proper washing, preparing, and cooking of food are recommended to ensure that it is safe, regardless of where the contamination occurred. Health officials agree that the most effective way to combat the spread of foodborne illness is by the regular and thorough washing of one’s hands before, during, and after food preparation. Raw meat, poultry, and seafood should be kept away from ready-toeat foods. Food, especially higher risk foods like ground meat and poultry, must be cooked at a high enough temperature to ensure that harmful bacteria are killed. Foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours after cooking to prevent harmful bacteria from growing and multiplying. Food preparation surfaces should be cleaned well before and after use to prevent cross-contamination. The contemporary global food system allows foodborne illness to spread more quickly than ever before. In the past, food poisoning was often caused by spoiled food—for example, a perishable food left unrefrigerated for too long. The effects of this kind of foodborne illness are less severe and more localized than illness caused by contaminated food. Today, bacteria, viruses, toxins, and parasites can find their way into our food at various points of the global supply chain and can travel around the world, resulting in outbreaks that extend beyond the local area around the original source of contamination. Annie Goldberg See also Antibiotics and Superbugs; Cooking Temperatures, U.S. Department of Agriculture Guidelines for; E. coli; Food Safety; Food Safety Agencies; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Listeria; Raw Milk and Pasteurization; Salmonella

Further Readings Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Foodborne illness. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ foodsafety/facts.html Drexler, M. (2002). Emerging epidemics: The menace of new infections H1N1 flu, SARS, anthrax, E. coli. London, UK: Penguin Books.

657

Food Safety Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 11-353, 124 Stat. 3885 (2011). Fox, N. (1997). Spoiled. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Fox, N. (1999). It was probably something you ate. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Nestle, M. (2003). Safe food bacteria, biotechnology, and bioterrorism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sachs, J. S. (2007). Good germs, bad germs health and survival in a bacterial world. New York, NY: Hill & Wang. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Bad bug book: Foodborne pathogenic microorganisms and natural toxins handbook [Online]. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved from http:/www.fda.govdownloads/Food/ FoodborneIllnessContaminants/UCM297627.pdf / U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Foodborne illness: What consumers need to know. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/getanswers/food-safety-fact-sheets/foodborne-illness-anddisease/foodborne-illness-what-consumers-need-toknow/ct_index

FORAGING Foraging involves finding and harvesting wild foods. Historically, this was a normal means of obtaining food, an integral part of “hunting and gathering” cultures. Even after the introduction of agriculture, foraging remained a common way of supplementing food supplies. After the Industrial Revolution, with the introduction of factoryprepared and convenience foods, people became less inclined to harvest and eat wild foods. Foraging came to be seen as an unusual behavior, an odd hobby at best. In recent years, the notion of foraging has again captured people’s attention. Led by some of the world’s most popular restaurants and their celebrity chefs, foraging has even become trendy. However, foraging is not without its controversies. The fear of being poisoned, either from the plants themselves or from human-made herbicides, is ever present. There is also debate about whether foraging should be allowed in public spaces. With

658

Foraging

foraged foods reaching great heights of popularity in restaurants, it is also feared that the demand for wild ingredients will stress plant populations. This entry examines both the benefits and controversies surrounding foraging.

Foraging: From Common Weeds to Prized Mushrooms By broad definition, the act of foraging is collecting wild plants. However, foraging also covers a broad range of activities. Certainly, the word itself calls to mind finding plants in wooded areas or windswept fields. It can be as simple as munching on a dandelion from the backyard or as involved as hunting mushrooms in secluded mountain forests. Foraging is even a viable activity within the confines of a city landscape. Urban areas are home to a variety of wild edibles, and many foragers search them out in parks and vacant lots. From seaside to inland prairie, foragers tend to focus their energies on the plants that grow abundantly in their immediate vicinity. Foraging largely consists of harvesting plants commonly considered to be weeds. One popular way of enjoying wild foods is to eat the plants weeded out of traditional annual vegetable gardens, such as amaranth and purslane. Many consider harvesting unwanted fruit from neighborhood trees to be foraging as well.

Motivation for Foraging People make the decision to forage for a number of reasons. Much of the recent resurgent interest in foraging can be traced to the popularity of the local foods movement. Locavorism started as a push to emphasize foods that are produced close to one’s home, both as a means of supporting local economies and reducing dependence on imported foods. While much of the thrust of the local foods movement is aimed toward shopping at local farms and craft producers, foraging can be seen as a natural extension of the local foods philosophy. Utilizing the wild plants in an area, particularly those that are plentiful or considered pests, is a clever way to reduce the money needed to import food from other areas.

At least part of the recent popularity of foraging has to do with an interest in survival skills. Some groups that learn to forage are interested in primitive skills and in re-creating historically accurate ways of eating. Others secure a knowledge in wild foods out of fear of natural or human-made disasters, which could potentially eliminate modern food conveniences.

Quality Food for Free Many come to foraging based on the appeal of free food. Either out of economic necessity or due to the joy of a good bargain, it is thought to be good common sense to eat the very foods that others might weed out of their yards and throw away. With some studying and experience, one could potentially harvest wild greens, roots, vegetables, flowers, herbs, onions, spices, mushrooms, and fruit and thus stock one’s larder very well. Many foragers are also experienced preservers and are able to dry, can, and freeze their harvest to utilize throughout the year. Unwanted fruit can be particularly abundant, and while it may not make the best table fruit, its life can be extended by being preserved as jams, jellies, chutneys, and pie fillings. Some people find the allure of being able to find and harvest perfectly ripe, nutrient-dense foods to be a motivator for turning to foraging. In an age when the typical grocery store offers but a few varieties of produce that are often picked before their peak, foraging offers a nearly unlimited variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and fungi from which to choose. Additionally, with the popularity of organic produce increasing, foraged foods offer another option to consumers who want produce grown without chemicals.

Reconnecting With the Land and Food It is a common complaint about modern food culture that people are disconnected from the source of their food. In a world where most chicken is sold by parts in plastic-wrapped packages and potatoes show no evidence of having grown in dirt because they have been so well scrubbed, foraging can provide hands-on contact

Foraging

with food at its source. Rather than buying washed apples in plastic sacks, the forager may watch the full fruiting cycle of an apple tree, from flower all the way to ripe fruit. Some feel this increases food appreciation. Many foragers also find that the act of harvesting wild foods provides an important touchstone for reconnecting with the land and nature. Whether it is a trek deep into the woods to find berries or a walk in the park to pick chickweed, the very act of foraging means that people are outside, interacting with plants, gaining a greater appreciation for the ecosystem as a whole in the process.

Risk of Poisoning One of the major clouds surrounding foraging is the danger of misidentification, which can lead a person to unintentionally ingest a poisonous plant and, thus, become ill. To the uninitiated, learning the traits of plants can be quite confusing. Adding to the confusion is the fact that most people learn how to identify plants in their flowering stage, while many wild edible plants are best consumed far before or after when a plant is in bloom. With the vast majority of plants, a misidentification might result in gastric distress. But for a few plants, misidentification can result in more severe trauma, even death. Risk can be minimized with careful study, cross-referencing, and consultation with an expert. Another danger that comes with foraging, particularly in areas populated by people, is the risk that the plants have been sprayed with chemical herbicides or pesticides—although it may be difficult to determine if this is actually the case. Because parks, private property, roadsides, and trailheads are particularly likely to have been sprayed, one solution is to contact the city or the landowner responsible for the property in order to determine whether chemical herbicides have been applied. A good general rule of thumb is to stay clear of areas that look to have been manicured by humans. Mowed grass, clipped weeds, lack of dandelions, and presence of groomed annual gardens are indicators of the possibility that a location has been treated with chemical herbicides or pesticides.

659

Controversy Over Use of Public Land There is also controversy over the use of public land for foraging. Opponents fear that plant populations may be threatened or even stripped. In some countries, every wild space is assured to be safe for harvest, and foraging is not only expected, but encouraged. However, other areas have been less accepting of people harvesting wild foods. This scenario has played out publicly in New York City’s Central Park. The naturalist Steve Brill is known for leading wild edible plant tours in the park. He was once arrested for foraging in Central Park, although he later went on to work as a naturalist for the parks department. The debate over foraging in public spaces centers on the question of whether or not foraging will lead to depletion of plant species. Opponents fear that fragile plant populations may be eradicated and maintain that the practice should be illegal to prevent harm to  the park. Those who actively forage on public land tend to feel that they are good stewards, protecting the plant species they harvest because they wish to continue doing so year after year.

Fears of Overharvesting One of the most common criticisms with regard to foraging is that it could lead to damaging fragile plant populations. Some people who forage wild produce sell the product in farmers’ markets, restaurants, and the open market. It is believed that if one plant becomes particularly popular, demanding high prices, it will drive foragers to strip regions of that particular species. This has been demonstrated in recent years, when wild ramps became a fashionable item in the food scene. In the wake of several incidents of foragers raiding areas of ramps, some places have started enforcing restrictions on ramp harvesting, limiting either how many ramps can be picked or the manner in which they are harvested. Competition for edible mushrooms in the American Pacific Northwest is known to be particularly strong. Stories of areas consisting of nothing but cut mushroom stems are not infrequent, and some report that mushroom spots are being protected by

660

Forestry Management

traps and weapons. Some areas are experimenting with issuing permits for the collection of mushrooms and other wild edibles in an effort to curb or prevent overharvesting, although questions arise as to how these permits will be enforced in remote wilderness.

Controlling Invasive Species “If you can’t beat ’em, eat ’em” is the credo of some foragers. Foraging is seen as a novel way to deal with the threat of invasive or nonnative plant populations. Many invasive plants may be utilized in a variety of recipes, and so these make excellent targets for foragers. Purslane, Japanese knotweed, dandelion, kudzu, and dock are all widely considered to be pests, but they can be enjoyed as food. Some communities have gone so far as to establish food festivals to raise awareness about both the threat and edibility of invasive plants. The Garlic Mustard Festival features garlic mustard harvesting contests and garlic mustard cook-offs. Participants in the festival are also given starts of native wild ginger to plant in place of the garlic mustard that they remove from the understory of the forest.

Passing Food Fad? Wild foods have become a major trend in fine cuisine of late. Restaurants such as Noma and Faviken, which feature menus that rely heavily on seasonally foraged foods, have consistently been ranked among the best in the world. Some chefs are charmed by the hyperlocal nature of using wild produce, while others are inspired by the exciting new flavor possibilities they bring to the kitchen. The use of foraged produce has trickled down from the world’s finest restaurants to small-town kitchens and has even saturated the media. Whereas a few years ago, it was uncommon for people to use wild plants while cooking the family dinner, today, it is a practice in which there is increasing interest. It remains to be seen whether foraging is a fad that will fade with time or whether its appeal will gain a lasting audience. Some credit chefs and the emphasis on wild foods in haute cuisine for the greater acceptance of the practice of eating weeds.

It is believed that while that attention is a doubleedged sword, and may result in plant populations being pillaged, chefs’ attention to foraging also casts a broad spotlight on the need to protect diverse plant species. Wendy Petty See also DIY Food Movement; Exotic Food and Strange Food; Food Trends Leading to Diminished Species; Gourmet and Specialty Foods; Invasive Species; Locavorism; Pesticides

Further Readings Gibbons, E. (1962). Stalking the wild asparagus. New York, NY: D. McKay. Gibbons, E. (1966). Stalking the healthful herbs. New York, NY: D. McKay. Green, C. (2010). The wild table: Seasonal foraged food and recipes. New York, NY: Viking Studio. Thayer, S. (2006). The forager’s harvest: A guide to identifying, harvesting, and preparing wild edible plants. Ogema, WI: Forager’s Harvest. Thayer, S. (2010). Nature’s garden: A guide to identifying, harvesting, and preparing wild edible plants. Ogema, WI: Forager’s Harvest. Thie, K. K. (1999). A plant lover’s guide to wildcrafting: How to protect wild places and harvest medicinal herbs. Washington, DC: Longevity Herb Press.

FORESTRY MANAGEMENT Forests shape and are shaped by food systems. In its broadest sense, forestry management describes the human interventions that affect the physical condition of forests and the timing, type, and allocation of their benefits among people. Management of forests is driven by political, social, economic, and legal factors. Forests are intimately tied to social and policy-related aspects of food production and access in diverse ways as influenced by sociocultural aspects of livelihoods and food sources. This entry describes the links between forestry management and food systems by using an ecosystem services approach to organize relationships in terms of provisioning, regulating,

Forestry Management

cultural, and supporting services. The entry concludes with a description of some of the management challenges associated with trade-offs or conflicts between forests and food systems.

Provisioning Services Provisioning forest services relevant to food systems are those that provide direct products, such as timber, food, fodder, medicinal plants, and materials for building homes and agricultural implements. With some 1.6 billion people around the world depending on forests for some aspect of their livelihoods, these provisioning services are integral to household food security. Forest-related foods include bushmeat; leaves, stems, roots, and fruits; insects; honey; and medicinal plants. In areas of extreme poverty, wild forest foods and cash incomes from forest products provide economic and food safety nets during annual or intermittent periods of hardship. Well over one quarter of the global population suffers from micronutrient deficiencies, many of which can be at least partly ameliorated through consumption of forest foods. Timber, fuelwood, and other nontimber forest products can generate cash that in turn can support direct food purchases or enable households to purchase seeds, fertilizer, and other agricultural inputs to improve agricultural yields. Forest products used for traditional boat and canoe construction enable people to exploit marine and other aquatic foodstuffs. Forests are integral not only to the food systems and food security in the global South. In rural areas of the United States, people who are food insecure often bolster livelihoods through subsistence activities that include hunting deer, elk, boar, and other forest game. Forestry management underpins traditional mixed farming and herding economies such as those found in parts of southwestern Spain and southern Portugal, where acorns from intensely managed oak woodlands are used to fatten hogs. Public forestlands around the world, from the United States to Kenya, help sustain ranching and agropastoral economies by providing seasonal spaces for livestock grazing at low or no cost.

661

While the term pastoral connotes “pasture” or open area, many pastoral people in Africa live seasonally or year-round in arid woodlands, migrating over large distances to sustain camels, goats, and sometimes cattle on tree fodder and other plants. Provisioning services often have a seasonal dimension and are critical in sustaining agricultural systems. For example, in temperate climates, summer grazing in forests allows ranchers to save summer-grown hay for feed during the winter months. In the tropics, forest grazing can coincide with the lean months or “hunger seasons,” when supplies have dwindled but growing crops are not yet ready for harvest. Forests provide wood fuel for cooking, and the proximity of forests to people can affect household labor allocation with implications for other aspects of food systems. For example, in East Africa, where women and girls are often responsible for both collecting wood fuel and maintaining kitchen gardens, time and energy saved on wood fuel collection translates into more time available for food production, preparation, storage, and other activities, in addition to improved long-term health associated with not having to carry heavy loads over long distances. Gender dimensions of agricultural and forest tenure also affect food security. Because women are more likely to use cash incomes to purchase foodstuffs and other household requirements, cash in the hands of women is often more likely to contribute to overall food security. Management actions that can enhance provisioning services include careful regulation of the timing and intensity of grazing to prevent inhibition of natural tree regeneration and to avoid soil compaction and invasive weed introduction. Tenure and forest access are central to people’s ability to avail themselves of the provisioning services that forests provide, and equity and fairness considerations regarding forest access are central to many antipoverty programs. Overharvest of large trees for cash incomes or boat construction can reduce the genetic vigor and reproductive potential of forests through selective removal of mature individuals. Sustained yield and sustainable management approaches can reduce high-grading or other forms of degradation to forest resources.

662

Forestry Management

Regulating Services Regulating forest services relevant to food systems are those that provide benefits through regulation of ecosystem processes, such as climate moderation, soil erosion provision, pest hazard reduction, and pollination. Forests regulate microclimates, reducing temperature extremes, and the cooling effects of forests are associated with increases in average rainfall. Tree roots and windrows stabilize soils and intercept rainfall to reduce the impacts of large rain events. Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change, with broad-ranging effects on agriculture and food systems. Mangroves buffer coastal areas (many of which are food production zones) from storms and serve as breeding grounds for shrimp, crab, and fish such as the Mangrove red snapper (Lutjanus argentimaculatus). Forests also support beneficial agricultural insects and animals, including pollinators such as bees and insectivores such as bats. Management actions that can enhance regulating services include forest conservation and afforestation throughout mixed forest–agricultural landscapes and protection of intact forest systems. There are a number of bilateral and multilateral programs such as Reducing Emissions From Environmental Degradation and Climate Smart Agriculture designed to incentivize forest and agricultural management actions that increase carbon sequestration. Tenure and other rights-based considerations are central to effective implementation.

Cultural Services Forests provide a number of important foodrelated cultural services that enrich the spiritual, cultural, and social aspects of life. Wood fires are often used to cook and preserve foodstuffs and impart esteemed flavors to traditional foods. The Native Americans in Canada and the United States value the aroma and flavor of salmon cooked with cedar and alder wood from Pacific forests. Similarly, many highland Amhara people from Ethiopia prefer the smoky flavor of traditional injera bread cooked over fire to that cooked with electric heat sources.

Many forest-based root crops such as cassava, manioc, and yucca sustain forest dwellers’ migratory traditions, enabling them to return periodically to known locations to harvest largely wild crops on a piecemeal basis. Another root crop, taro (Colocasia esculenta), facilitated settlement and trade throughout the Pacific Islands. High-value nontimber forest products are often at the center of cultural traditions and dynamics. For example, matsutake, a prized forest mushroom, is interwoven into Japanese gift-giving rituals, and white Italian truffles, which can fetch upward of $2,000 per pound, are purportedly controlled largely by mafia culture. Management actions that can promote cultural services associated with foods include the granting of forestlands to indigenous peoples for community management and institution of controlled harvest mechanisms such as permits and collection limitations.

Supporting Services Supporting services provided by forests are those that fortify the production of other services, and include soil enhancement and water cycling. Found throughout sub-Saharan Africa, and at the center of the World Agroforestry Center’s Evergreen Agriculture campaign, nitrogen-fixing trees such as Faidherbia albida enrich nutrient-depleted soils. Intercropping of trees among field crops such as maize or millet leads to increased crop yields, provides high-quality livestock forage, and supplements fuelwood. Trees protect the soil from wind and rain-driven erosion, and over time, senesced leaves increase soil organic matter. Tree roots can extract water from the deeper levels of the soil profile and make it available to other plant roots closer to the surface. Swidden agriculture systems in the tropics are often potassium limited, and the burning of forest fallows can increase the potassium levels in the soil. Forest management that sustains supporting services includes a range of agroforestry approaches such as intercropping and agrosylvopastoral systems, and the protection of upstream forested

Fracking, Impact on Food and Water

watersheds to prevent erosion and maintain water flows. The impact of forests on water flows varies by location, climate, and other factors. Forest or tree removal is sometimes a good management strategy to promote crops or pasture, as exemplified by South Africa’s Working for Water Program, which provides income opportunities to women and marginalized groups by paying them to remove exotic trees and shrubs.

Challenges There is a high degree of overlap among forestlands and lands deemed suitable for farming, making agriculture a major driver of forest conversion in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Forms of shifting agriculture that involve temporary forest clearing have historically existed throughout the world, but they are unsustainable above very low population densities. Pastoralists commonly use fire to remove trees and promote grass and forb regeneration for livestock. With increasing concerns over climate change, air pollution, and forest conservation, fire as a forest clearing mechanism is discouraged. These and other management challenges have important implications for vulnerable groups and, indeed, entire cultures. Fast-growing trees such as eucalyptus are rapidly becoming important cash crops for smallholder farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, though critics argue that the trees’ high water consumption levels and deleterious impacts on soil bring more harm than good. This example underscores the extreme difficulty of weighing the various pros and cons associated with land use decisions in the context of poverty and food insecurity. Forests bring many benefits to agricultural households, though their proximity to farms can increase human–wildlife conflicts such as those that exist between people and elephants in Tanzania and people and Asiatic lions in India. The deleterious effects of animal crop raiding or deadly encounters between people and wildlife can be mitigated through stakeholder-driven problem solving and economic offsets for crop losses. Highvalue forest products such as timber and wild

663

animal parts can also drive sudden influxes of outsiders to remote communities and disrupt traditional cultural systems. While there is considerable variation throughout the world, there are broad differences in tenure associated with agricultural and forest lands. Tenure tends to be clearer and more secure on farmland and more nebulous and difficult to enforce on forestland. The diverse linkages among forests and contemporary and historical food systems, in combination with increasing population pressures, suggest a need for renewed attention to ensuring fair and equitable access to forest resources and the promotion of management practices that balance food production and forestbased ecosystem service provisions. Kathleen Guillozet See also Cultural Identity and Food

Further Readings Food and Agriculture Organization. (2013, May). Proceedings of the Forests for Food Security and Nutrition Conference, Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/forestry/food-security/en/ Pretty, J. (2002). Agri-culture: Reconnecting people, land and nature. London, UK: Earthscan. Sunderland, T., Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., Foli, S., PinedoVasquez, M., Nasi, R., & Padoch, C. (2013). Food security and nutrition: The role of forests (Discussion paper). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.

FRACKING, IMPACT FOOD AND WATER

ON

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a form of unconventional gas drilling. The use of the technique has been expanding in recent years. Considered an “unconventional resource,” and also sometimes called “extreme energy,” shale gas is thought to be abundant in North America, China, Australia, India, the European Union, Algeria, and

664

Fracking, Impact on Food and Water

Indonesia. As of March 2013, North America remained the sole region where large-scale production is under way. Little research has been conducted regarding the safety and long-term effects of fracking, and concerns have been raised over possible contamination of the water and food supply as a result of the shale gas extraction process. Accidents and serious risks to the public, such as earthquakes and water and livestock contamination, have been reported as shale gas production has increased. Proponents argue that the gas released reduces dependence on foreign oil, brings jobs to rural areas, and creates an economic boom. Concerns about the process regard the short- and long-term safety of the process and its environmental effects. These include claims by energy companies that the chemical makeup of the fracking liquid is “proprietary information” and therefore unavailable to the public for research purposes. The effects on the land where fracking is being conducted—frequently agricultural territory—and water and air quality are also issues raised by grassroots and environmental organizations. The large amount of water used in the fracking process (between 2 million and 4 million gallons of freshwater at a time) is also a concern. While conventional drilling seeks existing pockets of gas (essentially after it has been released from the rock) and drills strictly vertically, hydraulic fracturing enters hard-to-reach areas, drilling and then expanding horizontally. During the process, natural gas is released by injecting rocks (approximate distance) below the Earth’s surface with a chemical mixture. This breaks up the rocks, releasing the gas. Although the energy company Halliburton pioneered the technology in 1948, the combination of hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling has allowed the extraction of shale gas to become economically viable. Regulatory measures in the United States, such as the 2005 Energy Act, exempt fracking from the Safe Water Drinking Act (except in cases where diesel fuel is used in the fracking liquid) and regulations regarding the contamination of groundwater. After reviewing the process of fracking, this entry examines impacts on

the water and food supply in North America and discusses international responses to fracking.

The Process Industry proponents often claim that there are no documented cases linking fracking to groundwater contamination. Critics and community groups, however, point out that fracking is often a vernacular term for the entire process of gas extraction from shale rock. This ranges from clearing and building well pads and compressor stations; drilling the well; thousands of trucks bringing in the additives; the pumping down of fluids; and the production of the gas. The term fracking is commonly used to describe any one of these extraction practices, which may affect groundwater. The instance of fracking, however, is very brief: It is when punctures are made between the shale rock and the production casing to allow a mixture of water, chemicals, and sand to be forced into the rock, releasing the trapped gas. This happens thousands of feet below ground level, where it is unlikely, but not impossible, that problems will occur. Greater risks are present on the surface, where known carcinogenic additives are handled. There have been frequent spills, and toxins have been released into the air. During the drilling phase, aquifers can be punctured. This exposes them to drilling mud containing biocides, acids, and anticorrosive agents. The well casing, the point at which the borehole meets the surface, is often responsible for contamination, polluting aquifers. Fractures in the rock can also allow the fluids to migrate. After fracking, 20% to 60% of the more than 20 million liters of freshwater used in the fracking process flows back. This fluid contains the original chemicals as well as elements contained in the shale—arsenic, lead, uranium, radium, and barium. This fluid needs to be stored so as not to contaminate land or groundwater—companies are still experimenting with disposal methods.

Water Quality and Availability Concerns about water quality relate to the sourcing and withdrawal of the high volume of water needed to complete the fracking process, surface

Fracking, Impact on Food and Water

spills of chemicals, incidents during the building of the wells, problems that compromise the seal between the well bore and the groundwater, and management of the wastewater. Many aquifers lie 40 to 300 feet below the surface, while shale gas reserves are as deep as 6,000 to 12,000 feet. This leaves them vulnerable to spills and complications from the handling of toxic waste brought up after the operation. The chemicals used in fracking liquid can contaminate the 2 million to 4 million gallons of freshwater used by each well, making it unusable. Studies of fracked water reveal high amounts of radium. Shale gas itself consists primarily of methane. Flowback water (the water injected into the ground that returns to the surface) contains not only the original chemical cocktail but also methane and concentrated subterranean saltwater. Disposal of the water has become a primary concern, as evidence of fluid migration becomes apparent. Seepage from leaky well casings poses a threat, as does seismic activity resulting from wastewater being shipped to injection well sites. An increase in the frequency of earthquakes has been observed at these injection wells. The immense amount of water necessary for fracking puts a strain on aquifers and threatens the local population’s access to water resources, as well as the availability of freshwater for agriculture. Only 2% of the Earth’s water supply is usable for consumption and agriculture. Pavillion, Wyoming, has been investigated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) due to contamination of groundwater. The initial 2011 report was the first time the EPA publicly linked groundwater contamination and fracking. The state of Wyoming has been providing water cisterns to 20 people in the area of Pavillion. Residents have complained of their water smelling of chemicals since fracking began in the area. An August 2013 report listed 30 counties in Texas as at risk of having their wells go dry by the end of 2013. In light of the irretrievable destruction of billions of gallons of water in the fracking process, environmentalists and grassroots activists question the privatization of water in this manner. As energy companies buy water, local farmers, vintners, and citizens lose access to freshwater— threatening the food supply.

665

In Pennsylvania, where drilling escalated to 6,391 active sites as of September 2013, reports of contaminated rivers, wells, and waterways abound. The Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air cites more than 800 national cases of people harmed by fracking. In California, fracking occurs over the Monterey Shale, 110 miles northwest of Los Angeles. The Monterey Shale comprises two thirds of the country’s shale oil reserves, but it is also located under fertile farmland that provides much of the nation’s produce. Water contamination and scarcity are concerns for local vineyards and farmers. New York State has a 6-year moratorium on fracking. Central and upstate New York have seen growth in the beer, yogurt, and wine industries in recent years, in the same regions of the state where fracking would be the most lucrative. Fracking, and the possibility of water contamination, threaten the viability of these burgeoning food industries.

Agriculture and Livestock Occurrences of fracking-related contamination of meat, dairy, and produce in the marketplace have yet to be thoroughly studied. However, as access to freshwater is restricted or impossible, farmers may have to slay their herds and move off their land. In the Marcellus Shale region, which stretches over Pennsylvania and central New York, organic farming is threatened by the large-scale water supply needed by the fracking process, as well as the risk of contamination. Among publicly reported cases of contamination, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture quarantined cattle that had encountered wastewater that leaked from a fracking well—it reported the presence of chlorine, barium, potassium, and radioactive strontium. After 16 cows in Louisiana drank well fluid, they were reported to have bellowed and foamed at the mouth before dying. Ohio and Colorado have also reported poisoning from arsenic, cobalt, uranium, and radium after livestock drank from fracking runoff and farm wells near fracking sites. A California farmer saw his almond and pistachio trees die after boron from a nearby fracking site leaked into his groundwater.

666

Fracking, Impact on Food and Water

The EPA claims no jurisdiction to investigate issues related to food production, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has recently cut funding to research that tracks the chemical contamination of livestock, creating a regulatory and research vacuum. A 2012 study by Michelle Bamberger and Robert E. Oswald documented 24 incidents of death and deformity in U.S. livestock raised near drilling sites, occurring over six states. Illnesses included reproductive and neurological problems. One case study reported a 50% stillbirth rate in a herd of cattle in Pennsylvania after grazing on grass that contained contaminated wastewater, spilled over from a neighboring well. The authors conclude that the energy companies’ denial of a link between health issues and hydraulic fracturing is akin to the tobacco companies’ denial of the cancer-causing effects of smoking.

Air Quality In 2012, the American Lung Association released a statement stating that natural oil and gas production presents clear risks to human health due to air pollution. The RAND Corporation released a study in February 2013 finding that although total emissions from fracking were less than those of a coal plant, in areas where drilling occurred, emissions were 20 to 40 times higher than permitted by regulations. Researchers are concerned about the amount of methane released into the atmosphere. Some drill sites vent the methane, releasing it into the atmosphere; others flare, or burn it. The release of methane challenges claims that natural gas is a green technology, as methane in the atmosphere is more harmful than carbon dioxide. Burning the methane converts it to carbon dioxide, which is preferable but still a greenhouse gas.

such as Poland, England, South Africa, and Australia, have leased land for exploratory drilling, or begun to address “extreme energy” as part of energy policies. England is considering expanding exploratory drilling in the dairy farming region of Sussex. Plans by the U.K. government to lease land in Wales for fracking were met with intense local opposition. Water UK, an organization representing water suppliers, released a statement in 2013 that published concerns about the fracking process, among them contamination of the water supply, and a strain on water availability due to the immense amount of freshwater required by the fracking process. France and Bulgaria have banned the process. Farmers in Northern Ireland protested in opposition to fracking at the 2013 G8 meeting, noting that their 30 billion euro food and drink industry could be ruined by fracking. The European Union has responded to the industry interest in the region by recognizing the need for a nonconventional gas policy as part of the European Energy Strategy 2020. In April 2011, due to public outcry, the African National Congress–led government declared a moratorium on fracking in South Africa. The moratorium ended on September 7, 2012. The land where most of the natural gas is located is the arid farming region of Karoo, where concerns about the effect of fracking on the local water supply and farming abound. The Treasure Karoo Action Group is a community group working to keep fracking out of the Karoo region, citing South Africa’s lack of expertise in the permitting process and the global concerns regarding the high risks of fracking. Christina M. Ceisel See also Carcinogens and the Relation of Cancer to Diet; Cattle Industry; Climate Change; Global Warming and Future Food Supply; Threats to Clean Drinking Water; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Water Rights

International Efforts As mentioned above, North America is the only site where large-scale hydraulic fracturing is occurring. However, other countries and regions are exploring their options. As energy companies seek global production of shale gas, many countries,

Further Readings Bamberger, M., & Oswald, R. E. (2012). Impacts of gas drilling on human and animal health. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 22(1), 51–77. doi:10.2190/NS.22.1.e

Fraud Ehrenberg, R. (2012). The facts behind the frack: Scientists weigh in on the hydraulic fracturing debate. Science News, 182(5), 20–25. doi:10.1002/scin .5591820519 Estabrook, B. (2013). Fracking with our food: How gas drilling affects farming. Grist. Retrieved from http:// grist.org/natural-gas/2011-05-19-fracking-with-ourfood-how-gas-drilling-affects-farming/ Jackson, R. B., Vengosh, A., Darrah, T. H., Warner, N. R., Down, A., Poreda, R. . . . Karr, J. D. (2013, July 13). Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(28), 11250–11255. doi:10.1073/pnas .1221635110 National Public Radio. (2013). State impact: Issues that matter, close to home (Energy). Retrieved from http:// stateimpact.npr.org/ Rafferty, M. (2013). Is shale gas drilling an energy solution or public health crisis? Public Health Nursing, 30(5), 454–462. doi:10.1111/phn.12036 Reins, L. (2011). The shale gas extraction process and its impact on water resources. Reciel, 20(3), 300–312. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9388.2012.00733.x

FRAUD Food fraud often refers to the intentional act of defrauding consumers of food or its ingredients for financial gain. However, it is sometimes difficult to determine what constitutes fraud in food production. Consider food adulteration, a type of food fraud, as an example: the concept of what should be seen as adulterant changes over time. Salt used to be considered as an adulterant added to disguise the taste in rancid butter. By contrast, many ingredients once seen as harmless, such as saccharine, have come to be considered as adulterants. Although the types of food fraud evolve with time and with scientific and technological advances, “deliberation” and “financial gain” on the part of food providers are two main features in the definitions of food fraud. The term food fraud discussed in this entry mainly concerns economically motivated adulteration, which is defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

667

as “fraudulent, intentional substitution or addition of a substance in a product to increase the apparent value of the product or reduce the cost of its production.” For consumers, however, it is often a matter of understanding and expectations. Once the food does not meet consumers’ expectation, the feeling of being deceived may be inevitable. Using historical and contemporary examples, this entry discusses several aspects of food fraud, including motivations behind, impacts of, testing for, and preventing and regulating such fraud.

Fraud Now and Then In January 2013, investigations led by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland reported that horse DNA was found in beef burgers sold in Irish and British supermarkets. This resulted in a series of investigations into meat adulteration across Europe, which highlighted the concern that the increased complexity of production process can eventually lead to the loss of traceability of food. The horse meat adulteration left many U.K. consumers feeling shocked and betrayed by the retailers and the government. Consequently, enormous pressure was placed on the food industry and the government to respond to this public dissatisfaction. Although this is a contemporary issue, food fraud is an old problem. The practice of food fraud can be traced back to ancient Babylon, where the ruler at the time, King Hammurabi, is often believed to have enacted the first written code of laws in recorded history. Hammurabi’s Code took great care to ensure that sellers give fair measure of beer for grain. In ancient Rome and Athens, laws concerning the adulteration of wines were also reported. Due to the importance of food trade to the Roman Empire, all kinds of commercial fraud or contamination of food was prohibited by Roman civil law. In the 13th century, France and Germany passed food control statutes, and King John in England officially enacted penalties for the adulteration of bread. Henry III later passed a more extensive legislation regarding human food adulteration. In a more recent history in Europe, poisonous food additives were reported in the 18th and early 19th

668

Fraud

centuries. In the United Kingdom, for instance, alum and chalk were added to flour to whiten bread. Calcium sulfate, pipe clay, and sawdust were also used to increase the weight of bread loaves. Furthermore, beer used to be another commodity that contained poisonous substances, such as strychnine, to improve taste and reduce the use of hops. Since then, legislation concerning food fraud has been strengthened and detection technology has advanced. However, these have not been able to completely stop food fraud. Food fraud has been reported in almost every type of food. Some examples are fruit juice, olive oil, spices, vinegar, wine, spirits, maple syrup, seafood and fish, coffee, rice, and vanilla. Modern food supply chains, food-manufacturing infrastructure, and advances in food science and technology have expanded the scale and the potential impacts of food fraud nowadays.

Motivations Behind Food Fraud The motivation behind food fraud is usually financial. In the U.K. horse meat scandal, the global auction price for beef was approximately $5,300 per ton, whereas that for horse meat was only $1,200 per ton. Between 2008 and 2013, the prices of beef and veal rose more than 45% across Europe, but this price increase did not seem to be reflected in the end products. Intense supermarket competition has resulted in consumers’ expecting cheap food regardless of the global increasing price of food ingredients. Hence, food manufacturers and retailers often put much pressure on suppliers to minimize the cost throughout manufacturing. Rising food prices and a long and complicated food supply chain have made food fraud easier and more profitable. The complexity of the food chain also added difficulties in regulating the transparency and traceability of food production. As a result, food fraud has become attractive, and it is a growing problem globally. However, although advancements in science and technology, free trade, and globalization open up more avenues for fraudsters to commit food fraud, they are not the cause of this act but the means. The volume of food fraud probably has not increased since Roman fraudsters

diluted wine with water but the way in which it is done may be more sophisticated.

Impacts of Food Fraud Although the motivation behind food fraud is usually financial, its impacts can be manifold, ranging from losses of revenue for manufacturers and retailers to harming the public health, and from distrust of science to offending people’s beliefs and values. A few examples of food fraud incidents in the following subsections illustrate the breadth of the impacts of food fraud on society. Rice

Basmati rice, a premium long grain rice, is recognized for its unique cooking property and distinctive aroma. It accounts for 37% of the U.K. dry rice market and sells for two to three times the price for other long grain rice. The name “Basmati,” however, is a customary name for certain varieties of rice with the unique cooking properties that are grown in specific areas of the Indo Gangetic Plains, which currently includes the Punjab, Jammu, Haryana, Uttaranchal, and Western Uttar Pradesh in India. Only the varieties of rice that are recognized by the Indian and Pakistani authorities can use the name “Basmati.” Because it is nearly impossible for consumers to tell the authenticity of Basmati rice by just looking at it, it is a common food fraud to mix non-Basmati rice with Basmati rice to reduce the cost of production. Between 2002 and 2003, the U.K. Food Standards Agency carried out a national food survey on different brands of rice that are labeled as “Basmati.” Among the 363 samples examined, non-Basmati rice was detected in 46%. According to one Food Standards Agency official’s calculation, the amount consumers were cheated due to fraud of Basmati rice might be more than £5 million in 1 year alone. Alcohol Substitution

Alcohol, in particular spirits, substitution is the practice of refilling a branded bottle with another, often of an inferior quality. A report from the

Fraud

Institute of Economic Affairs estimates that counterfeit alcohol costs the United Kingdom £1.2 billion a year. Furthermore, counterfeit spirits have been found to contain dangerous levels of methanol, isopropanol, and other chemicals that can cause toxic hepatitis, blindness, and even death. Thus, alcohol substitution has an impact not only on public finance but also on public health and public order. Beef

Before the U.K. horse meat scandal, food fraud involving beef often took the form of gender and origin—beef taken from male animals is of higher commercial value than that from female animals. In terms of origin, the cost of beef from different countries can vary from $6.80 per kilogram (Brazilian beef) to $12.85 per kilogram (British beef). Some food suppliers would sell the beef that is commercially less valuable as the beef that is more valuable. Finding horse DNA in chilled-beef readyto-eat meals, however, revealed a different type of fraud in beef. Many argue that horse meat is safe to eat and therefore does not have an impact on the public health. In line with this argument, the U.K. government, after the horse meat scandal was exposed by the press, suggested that the public should carry on their food shopping habits until advised otherwise. Although horse meat is widely consumed in mainland Europe, it has not entered the culinary tradition in the United Kingdom for cultural reasons; horses are considered as intelligent companions rather than food. The impact of this food fraud on U.K. consumers was of a social and a cultural nature rather than a food safety one. It also highlighted the fact that consumers cannot be sure what they are eating. Seafood

An investigation conducted by Oceana, the largest international organization focused on ocean conservation, found that between 2010 and 2012, 33% of the seafood analyzed were mislabeled in the United States. Among them, snapper (87%) and tuna (59%) had the highest mislabeling

669

rate. Furthermore, it was also reported that 44% of the retail outlets visited sold mislabeled fish. The report concludes that seafood fraud affects not only the consumers but also the vendors along the supply chain. The impact of this fraud is not only financial, but it can also pose serious concerns for public health and the already vulnerable fish populations. These examples of food fraud provide only a glimpse of some of the food fraud that takes place in people’s everyday life. Along with the implications of food fraud already discussed, other implications include the potential to offend religious codes where some religions might see consuming certain foods as unacceptable. In addition, undeclared ingredients can also have ramifications on people who are on a special diet, such as vegetarians, pregnant women, and people who have a food allergy. Because food fraud is a covert activity, it is often difficult to estimate its scale and breadth. The U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention published the Food Fraud Database in 2012, covering both “scholarly” and “media” records between 1980 and 2010. This database was later updated in 2013, adding information published in 2011 and 2012. The 2013 U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention database highlights some continuing and emerging food fraud such as diluting milk powder with fillers such as maltodextrin in South America and recycling so-called gutter oil (waste oil being recycled as cooking oil) in China. Among all the food fraud, the addition of “clouding agents” such as the plasticizer Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and other phthalates as substitutes for the more expensive palm oil in juices, jam, and other products is one of the most worrying kind of food fraud because it is associated with cancer and reproductive concerns and therefore pose serious public health risks. Due to the wide scope of food fraud, detection has been challenging. In addition, technology advancement used by fraudsters can make detection work even more difficult. The nature of food fraud has moved from a simple process such as replacing expensive ingredients to a more sophisticated process that is good at masking the deception such as adding Sudan Red dyes to enhance the

670

Fraud

color of poor-quality paprika. Therefore, detection technology is an essential element in preventing and regulating food fraud.

Testing for Food Fraud Frederick Carl Accum was believed to be one of the first to expose food adulteration. Accum established himself as a chemical analyst, consultant, and teacher of chemistry. In his best known book, Treatise on Adulterations of Food and Culinary Poisons, published in 1822, he expressed his belief that those who are convicted of food adulteration should be exposed to the public. Accum’s book enabled people to see that what they were eating might end up killing them. Following Accum, a few people also devoted themselves to uncover food fraud using “scientific approaches.” For example, the London-based physician Arthur Hill Hassall, the chief analyst of the Analytical Sanitary Commission between 1851 and 1854, analyzed 2,500 samples of food and drink, the results of which were reported in the Lancet weekly, including the names of the fraudsters as a warning to both the public and food suppliers. Hassall’s work resulted in the passage of the Food Adulteration Act in 1860 and subsequent legislation against food adulteration in the United Kingdom. As the technology used to commit food fraud continues to advance, the analytical methods used to detect the deception can be inadequate. Detection techniques fall into two main categories: (1) those that measure a (or lack of a) specific component or characteristics of an ingredient in the authentic food through techniques such as chromatography or DNA analysis and (2) those that use “fingerprinting technology,” or food forensic technology. This technique can pinpoint the source of food by seeking trace elements that might be linked to a geological environment. However, for these technologies to work effectively, a large database of reference is required for statistical comparisons, which makes it a slow and an ongoing process. Furthermore, some of the existing techniques need to be further developed to be more robust for everyday testing.

Regulating Food Fraud and Labeling There are several international organizations that address the issue of food fraud, including Codex Alimentarius, Food Chemicals Codex, and the European Union Directives. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) also has a technical committee on Fraud Countermeasures and Controls that includes food. In the United States, existing food regulations are based on the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. This act was enacted after the Massengill Incident, where 105 people were poisoned by medicine manufactured by the S. E. Massengill Company that contained diethylene glycol, a sweet-tasting but lethal chemical. Consequently, the FDA was given the main responsibility to protect the public from being subjected to food fraud, but many threats also fall within the remit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The laws and regulations regarding food fraud can be complex and diverse as they are often developed specifically to the known fraud. When fraud falls into the remit of different agencies, it inevitably creates gaps and overlaps in the regulatory system and law enforcement. Although much effort has been devoted to addressing food fraud, the existing system remains fragmented, and the legal and regulatory requirements are often inconsistent. The FDA has been criticized for not doing enough to protect consumers because of limited resources. For example, the North American Olive Oil Association petitioned the FDA in 1990 for a detailed standard of identity for olive oil to address the problem of adulterated products. It was not until 2008 that a detailed standard was adopted in Connecticut, followed by California, New York, and Oregon. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture also updated its voluntary standard for olive oil; however, the North American Olive Oil Association believes that a national mandated level would provide a better route for enforcement. Food labeling was proposed initially as a solution to problems in the food supply chain; that is, as a means to prevent food fraud and to promote food safety and public health. Food labels are intended to provide essential information to protect

Freegans and Dumpster Diving

consumers from being misled by food suppliers, who are required to label their food products according to government regulations. Food labeling gives authorities the means to punish manufacturers if they fail to follow enacted regulations. Nevertheless, food labeling can also aid food manufacturers in misleading consumers. For instance, manufacturers of regular olive oil have been known to label their product as a higher priced extra virgin olive oil. Thus, the battle against food fraud extends into addressing inaccurate food labeling. Although the FDA has taken several actions against food fraud, with the hope that such actions may serve as a deterrent, creating and enforcing effective regulations remain challenges due to the complex nature of food fraud.

The Complexity of Food Fraud Food is essential for human survival, but the types of food and food preparation methods vary across the world in different countries and cultures. Thus, the scope and the breadth of food fraud are almost infinite. Although the motivation behind food fraud is often financial gains, it has implications for issues such as public health, food science and technology, retailing, international trade, marketing, public trust, religious beliefs, ethics, and many more. It is, therefore, important to understand the scope and the nature of the risks involved in food fraud in order to take the first step to address the problem. Yin-Ling Lin See also Codex Alimentarius; Consistency of Food Products/Ingredients; Consumer Trust; Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Labeling, Legislation and Oversight

Further Readings Armstrong, D. J. (2009). Food chemistry and U.S. Food Regulations. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 57(18), 8180–8186. Atkinson, P. J. (2011). The material histories of food quality and composition. Endeavour, 35, 74–79.

671

Atkinson, P. J. (2013). Social history of the science of food analysis and the control of adulteration. In A. Murcott, W. Belasco, & P. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of food research (pp. 97–108). London, UK: Bloomsbury. Food Standards Agency. (n.d.). Food fraud. Retrieved from http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/ enforcework/foodfraud/ Lutter, R. (2009, May). Addressing challenges of economically-motivated adulteration (In Public Meeting on Economically Motivated Adulteration). Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Shears, P. (2010). Food fraud: A current issue but an old problem. British Food Journal, 112, 198–213. Spink, J., & Moyer, D. C. (2011). Defining the public health threat of food fraud. Journal of Food Science, 76(9), 157–163. Sumar, S., & Ismail, H. (1995). Adulteration of foods: Past and present. Nutrition & Food Science, 4, 11–15. Wilson, B. (2008). Swindled: From poison sweets to counterfeit coffee—the dark history of the food cheats. London, UK: John Murray.

Website U.S. Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov

FREEGANS

AND

DUMPSTER DIVING

Freegans (a reference that combines being free of monetary cost and the vegan movement) are people who attempt to live without paying for material goods such as food, clothing, household items, and rent. The Freegan Movement seeks to provide an alternative model to capitalism, overconsumption, and consumerism. Instead, freegans offer a model based on anarchy, sharing, and community. One of the main strategies of freegans is dumpster diving. Dumpster diving refers to the act of obtaining useful resources such as food, clothing, or furniture that have been discarded by others. It is also referred to as urban scavenging, waste picking, waste reclamation, recycling, rag picking, salvaging, binning, reclaiming, informal resource recovery, and poaching. Dumpster diving crosses material, legal, and cultural boundaries. Oftentimes one must

672

Freegans and Dumpster Diving

trespass to get to the dumpster, climb over fences, and break locks to enter. In addition, social standards of what is considered property, waste, trash, clean, and dirty are also questioned and challenged. This entry focuses on the motivations for dumpster diving, describes what is in a dumpster, identifies who dumpster dives, and summarizes tips and etiquette for dumpster diving.

capitalism. By obtaining food and other necessary resources through dumpster diving and other free activities, freegans believe that they can avoid participation in capitalism. As their goal is political, members of these groups do not try to hide their diving, but, instead, seek to make it a visible statement about the nexus of capitalism, materialism, consumerism, and waste.

Why Dumpster Dive

What Is in a Dumpster?

Motivations for dumpster diving vary, but it can be conceptualized along a spectrum of personal and political goals.

Everything. The point of many who document their dumpster diving activities and freegans is to point out that one can recover anything from a dumpster: food, shoes, old clothes, new clothes with tags still on them, furniture, appliances, jewelry, watches, sporting equipment, prescription drugs, alcohol, and the occasional cash. The most prevalent food-related items are produce because of their limited shelf life. Common produce rescued from dumpsters include apples, bananas, oranges, and bags of salad. After produce, bread, dairy, meat, and eggs are common. In addition to being able to find anything and everything in a dumpster, also well documented is the sheer volume of dumpster, and eventually landfill, contents. Many of those who dive, such as participants in the Freegan Movement, do so to make a political statement about the amount of waste produced by individuals and corporations. According to Jonathan Bloom, author of American Wasteland: How America Throws Away Nearly Half of Its Food (and What We Can Do About It), the 35,000 grocery stores in the United States throw away 30 million pounds of food every day. This figure does not include the food waste that is generated by big-box chains such as Walmart or that produced by the 13,000 small grocery stores in the United States. Bloom argues that expiration dates and the consumer’s desire for more prepared, convenience foods, well-stocked stores, and beautiful produce are explanations for the large quantity of food waste.

Personal Goals

Those diving for personal reasons may be experiencing homelessness and food insecurity as a result of earning low wages. Dumpster diving for food becomes a strategy for feeding oneself and one’s family who might otherwise go hungry. Persons in this category may feel shame about their economic situation and embarrassment about the need to dumpster dive as a means of survival. Thus, this population may try to hide their behavior out of a fear of getting caught and the possible legal consequences (although these are usually minor) and the social disapproval of being perceived as eating trash. Many who dive for personal reasons are doing so to satisfy needs other than hunger. These motivations include cutting down on household costs, participation in the Do It Themselves Movement, adventure, experimentation, and the excitement that comes from participating in an activity that is illegal, subversive, and covert. Members of this category are typically diving because they want to, not because they have to. Political Goals

On the other end of the spectrum are those who dive for political reasons. Groups such as Freegans and Food Not Bombs (FNB) fall under this category. These groups hope to enact social change and social justice by exposing the high levels of waste that is a direct result of overconsumption and

Who Dumpster Dives? Just as there are various terms for the act of dumpster diving, myriad terms also refer to the participants. The choice of one term over another has to

Freegans and Dumpster Diving

do with an individual’s motivation for diving and personal preference. In addition to dumpster divers, those who dive may be referred to as freegans, scavengers, divers, reclaimers, binners, trashers, and gleaners. All of these terms carry particular connotations. Some people, for example, do not wish to be called scavengers because of the connotation with nonhuman animals. Others, such as Lars Eighner, prefer the term scavenger because of its frankness. Motivation matters, and those who dive as participants of the Freegan Movement, would likely use the term freegan. (However, not all people who live a freegan lifestyle identify as part of the Freegan Movement.) The Freegan Movement

Freegans, or members of the Freegan Movement, are engaged in a boycott of the entire capitalist system and, thus, purchase as little as possible. As described on its website, freegans believe that values of competition, greed, and conformity characterize capitalism. Instead, they embrace values of community, cooperation, generosity, social concern, freedom, and sharing. With the overarching motivation of nonparticipation in the capitalist system, freegans are often unemployed in a traditional sense. Instead of trading labor for currency to purchase food, freegans would prefer, for example, to spend time growing their food. To support this lifestyle, freegans engage in a variety of activities, including participation in free markets, urban foraging, gardening, community meals, and the use of Internet sites such as Freecycle, Meetup, and the free section on Craigslist. With the belief that housing is a right and not a privilege, freegans will also squat in abandoned buildings. Having small chapters globally, the largest and most well organized freegan group is in New York City. In addition to dumpster diving at grocery stores, freegans have many strategies for obtaining free food. To make use of the food waste produced by restaurants, freegans may often engage in plate scraping or table diving—eating the abandoned food off a previous diner’s plate. In some cases, freegans may have an arrangement with the wait staff at a restaurant to save the uneaten food for them. In other cases, a person will simply go into a

673

restaurant and grab the uneaten food off the plates and run. Rummaging through dumpsters for unserved or rejected meals behind restaurants is another strategy. To avoid paying for beer or wine, freegans advocate brewing one’s own. This is also cited as a rejection of the sexism associated with many beer and alcohol ads. Although their name is a play on veganism (the absence of animal products from one’s diet and lifestyle), freegans are not necessarily vegetarians or vegans. Seeing waste and overconsumption as the ultimate problem, meat-eating freegans, or meagans, will reclaim discarded meat from dumpsters or road kill to feed themselves or their companion animals. The Freegan Movement is not without its critiques, the majority of which center on privilege and ineffectiveness. As many freegans are opting out of the economic system because they want to not because they have to, they may be criticized for being able to do so because of class and white racial privilege. A different line of criticism centers on the viability of the movement: that freegans are not effective in bringing about social change and do not build solidarity or alliances with those they say they are trying to help (the poor and the homeless). Freegans may also be characterized as hypocritical because they claim that they are against capitalism and overproduction, yet they rely on that very overproduction for survival. Food Not Bombs

Although they claim that they do not obtain food from dumpsters, participants in the group FNB may also be a part of the Freegan Movement. FNB was founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1980 by antinuclear activists. According to its website, the mission is “to prevent war, poverty, and the destruction of the environment.” Operating with the belief that food is a right, not a privilege, FNBers recover food that would go unused and then cook vegetarian or vegan meals and serve them for free in open, public spaces. In times of natural disasters such as the Asian Tsunami in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, FNB activists organized and distributed food to the affected areas. They were also one of the first groups to provide

674

Freegans and Dumpster Diving

meals to the first responders of the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. The group is volunteer driven, organized in a nonhierarchical structure, and operates through collective decision making. They have local chapters in 1,000 cities worldwide. Demographic Portrait

Increasing in popularity in recent years, 2% of the population (64 million people) in developing countries earns a living through reclaiming materials otherwise known as trash. The increase in dumpster diving has been attributed to economic necessities resulting from the 2007 recession, and others say it is a recent fad, particularly trendy among college students. Illustrating its increased popularity, it was the subject of Jeremy Seifert’s documentary film, Dive! Although not exclusively, diving is more prevalent in urban centers because of the nexus of space, people, consumption, and waste in these areas. Urban areas are also more likely to use dumpsters as part of their waste management system. In their study of dumpster divers and FNBers in Australia, Ferne Edwards and David Mercer found that most participants were male, in their midtwenties, middle class, and well educated. Joan Gross’s research into noncapitalist foodways in rural Oregon also found freegan participants to be in their twenties, white, and middle to upper class. Because of the illegal and, thus, covert nature of diving, many participants diving out of economic need are reluctant to disclose their diving activities, and as a result, there is limited data on this portion of the diving population.

How to Dumpster Dive In The Art and Science of Dumpster Diving, John Hoffman theorizes that the term dumpster diving originated from the most effective posture of a person trying to pull stuff out of a dumpster: leaning into the dumpster with one’s legs sticking out. Although the name suggests a literal dive into the dumpster, most participants do not actually dive. To do so requires a great deal of physical strength and ability and is dangerous because the diver does

not know into what he or she is diving. Instead of diving, participants tend to climb into the dumpster or stand outside of it and use a long pole to explore and extract its contents. Other strategies for a successful dive include going at night so as to minimize risks of getting caught, using a car to transport the items recovered from the dumpster, leaving the site and not creating a scene if asked, and bringing along the proper tools and wearing appropriate clothing (e.g., gloves, long pants, long sleeve shirts, and boots). The value of community is reflected in the rules and etiquette of dumpster divers. In Dive! Jeremy Seifert talks about the importance of not spoiling a site for others by following three rules: (1) “Never take more than you need, unless you find it a good home”; (2) “The first one to the dumpster has first dibs, but you always gotta share”; and (3) “Leave it cleaner than you found it.” Laura K. Hahn See also DIY Food Movement; Food Insecurity; Food Justice; Food Waste; Foraging; Veganism

Further Readings Bloom, J. (2010). American wasteland: How America throws away nearly half of its food (and what we can do about it). Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. Edwards, F., & Mercer, D. (2007). Gleaning from gluttony: An Australian youth subculture confronts the ethics of waste. Australian Geographer, 3, 279–296. doi:10.1080/00049180701639174 Eighner, L. (1991). On dumpster diving. Threepenny Review, 47, 6–8. Gross, J. (2009). Capitalism and its discontents: Back-tothe-lander and freegan foodways in rural Oregon. Food and Foodways, 17(2), 57–79. Hoffman, J. (1993). The art and science of dumpster diving. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press. Seifert, J. (Producer & Director). (2010). Dive! [Documentary film]. United States of America: First Run Features

Websites Food Not Bombs: http://www.foodnotbombs.net Freegan Movement: http://www.freegan.info

Free-Range Meats and Poultry

FREE-RANGE MEATS

AND

POULTRY

With industrialization comes a shift in the manner farm animals are raised. In most developing countries, farm animals, especially grazing animals, like goats, sheep, and cattle, are fed primarily on what they forage for themselves. However, the more industrialized a nation becomes, the more its animals are housed in buildings, where feeds are provided to them, and the less time the animals spend grazing and foraging. In industrialized countries, foods from animals raised outdoors on grass, often called “free range,” usually cost more and become something of an alternative, specialty, or niche product. This is the situation in the United States today. This entry compares raising animals in total confinement and raising animals outdoors and discusses the implications of each.

Animals Moved to Total Confinement The raising of animals in total confinement on a mass scale can be connected to the invention of various technologies. One of the first emerged around 1880, when incubators began to be widely used for hatching chicken eggs, especially in Petaluma, California. One history of poultry farming notes (approvingly) that this set poultry farming “on an unerring industrial course” (Sawyer, 1971, p. 27). It separated the hen from her eggs, and her chicks, usurping the hens’ brooding and mothering role and reducing her to an egg producer. By 1930, chicken raising had become quite industrialized: Breeds had been specialized into egg laying and meat types (so-called broilers), and a single incubating machine could hatch 52,000 chicks at one time; flocks for broilers were kept indoors and had swelled into the tens of thousands. In 1938, the DeWitt brothers in Zeeland, Michigan, invented automated feeders for poultry, which substantially reduced the human care needed for raising poultry. In the 1940s, within 2 years of the United States entering World War II, the government set an annual production goal for chicken meat of 4 billion

675

pounds, an 18% increase over the previous year. Farmers were encouraged to contribute to the war effort by raising “defense chicks,” as food to be shipped to American soldiers and allies abroad. Over these years, the value of chickens raised in the United States went from $268 million (in 1940) to more than $1 billion (in 1945), nearly a fourfold expansion in just 5 years. Novel feed additives soon further entrenched the trend toward total animal confinement. Because such animals were deprived of sunlight, laboratory-manufactured vitamin D was added to their feeds. In the early 1950s, for the first time, antibiotics were also added to the daily feed of poultry. Initially, this was done to stave off diseases, as morbidity and mortality had risen sharply with the advent of large, totally confined flocks. When poultry farmers first started raising sizable flocks in confinement, typical rates of death loss quadrupled, jumping from 5% to 20%. “With commercialization and greater intensification have come [new] disease problems. . . . The chances of disease spread are materially enhanced,” wrote two professors of poultry husbandry in the 1930s (Charles & Stuart, 1936, p. v). By adding antibiotics to daily feed and water, rates of death and illness were reduced. The daily dose of drugs was soon discovered to have the added bonus of dramatically increasing the chickens’ growth rate. Around this time, pigs and dairy cows were also beginning to be kept in large, total confinement herds. Antibiotics thus cheapened production and became the enablers of crowded total confinement production, making it feasible to raise animals in otherwise unlivable conditions. In the decades that followed, it became standard practice to add antibiotics (along with other drugs) to the daily feed of pigs and cattle, as well as poultry. For example, an estimated 97% of hog finishing operations continually feed the pigs antibiotics. However, the meat industry’s heavy reliance on these pharmaceuticals comes with a high cost to public health. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration reported that more than 80% of antibiotics used in the United States are going to farm animals, and more than 90% of what’s being used

676

Free-Range Meats and Poultry

in animal agriculture is being added to the daily feed or water of animals living in confinement operations. The problem is that such use of antibiotics can lead to the rise of pathogens that are resistant to the drugs. Farmers and farmworkers are at greatest risk, but anyone can come in contact with antibiotic-resistant pathogens through the soil, air, or water coming off farming operations, as well as in the meat and eggs produced from operations using the drugs. Research by Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health and others has connected the livestock’s and poultry industry’s use of such antibiotics with the rise of antibiotic-resistant diseases, which the Infectious Disease Society of  America estimates are killing some 63,000 people annually. A few decades ago, staph infections were readily curable with antibiotics, but no longer. In 2005, one such infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), alone resulted in 18,000 deaths in the United States, which is more than those killed that year by HIV/AIDS. A study by the University of Iowa demonstrated that 49% of pigs and 45% of farmers at confinement operations in Illinois and Iowa tested positive for MRSA. Despite such study results, over the past decade, the livestock and poultry industry has strenuously resisted Congress’s repeated efforts to reign in the use of antibiotics in farm animals. The meat industry itself now declares that these drugs are essential for preventing illness and death for animals living in intensive confinement. On top of the antibiotic-resistant infections, other dangers for workers and animals permeate confinement operations. Particularly hazardous is the air. Canadian research in 2004 showed that airborne pathogens in confinement buildings can be 1,000 times more numerous than in outdoor air, and research by the University of Iowa’s Dr. Kelly Donham shows that some 30% of confinement animal industry workers have chronic respiratory problems. And antibiotic-resistant diseases are just one of the many types of dangerous infections arising from confinement operations. Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, professor at Johns

Hopkins School of Public Health, says of industrial animal operations, “For many years, there’s been a great deal of concern about their potential contribution to the evolution and spread of newly emerging diseases” (Niman & Hahn Niman, 2010). Keeping animals continually confined also dramatically alters the principal element of their diets. Where livestock have no access to foraging and grazing, all feed must be planted, watered (in some cases), harvested, and transported to them. Because this process is expensive and labor intensive, there is a strong incentive to feed concentrated feeds (mostly grains and soy). Indeed, this is how animals in confinement operations are typically fed. Thus, an animal in such an operation loses not only the benefits of sunshine and exercise, but it is also deprived of a diet comparable with that for which its body type evolved. In the United States, the feeding of concentrates was made especially advantageous after World War II by a sizable federal grain subsidy, which was put in place partly to help feed the masses of hungry Europeans. Previously, when pigs and poultry had been kept in small flocks and herds, those omnivorous animals had been fed from a combination of foraging, excess crops and scrap foods, and farm by-products, supplemented with some grain. Thus, they were largely recyclers that assisted farms and households in optimally using resources. However, as those animals began to be kept in large flocks and herds, it became necessary to raise crops dedicated to feeding them. Dairy cows were grazing less and fed more concentrates, and beef cattle, too, were increasingly being kept in feedlots for several months before slaughter, where they were “finished” on grains and soy. In the United States today, about 55% of grain produced is fed to livestock and poultry. (This is lower than the average for industrialized countries, which is around 70%). Omnivorous animals— pigs and poultry—are nearly all confined and fed a diet of grains and soy. An estimated 99% of turkeys and chickens (of both the egg-laying and meat type), and 95% of pigs, live in metal buildings with 24-hour ventilation systems for the

Free-Range Meats and Poultry

fumes, mechanized feeding and watering, and elaborate waste handling systems for the feces and urine.

Grazing Animals For grazing animals, the picture is quite different. Only about 3% of beef produced in the United States is from totally grass-fed cattle, and just 10% to 15% of dairy cows are raised mostly on grass. Yet nearly all breeding beef cattle (mother cows and bulls), along with their calves, as well as most dairy replacement heifers, live on grass. The vast majority of sheep and goats live entirely on grass. The reasons for these differences are economic. Keeping grazing animals grazing is still the most cost-effective option much of the time. They can either be kept entirely on nontillable rangelands (e.g., most mother beef cows) or they can be integrated into diversified farms as part of a multicrop rotation. Either way, animals are fed at minimal cost and the grazing makes use of land and vegetation that would otherwise be unavailable to the human food system. Almost half of the world’s land area is grassland, including a very large portion of the American West. In prehistoric times, the globe’s grasslands were grazed by huge herds of megafauna, and, in recent millennia, by domesticated herds. Grazing makes excellent use of these lands first because grassland ecosystems actually need animal impacts, like those with which they evolved, to properly function. Moreover, due to rainfall, temperatures, wind, and rough terrain, rangelands are mostly unsuitable for crop cultivation. Rangelands can be an excellent habitat for grazing animals and, where land is available, provide feed at a much lower cost than growing, harvesting, and transporting crops. For farm animals that are raised free range, the scientific evidence confirms what common sense already tells us: Animals are happier and healthier when raised with sunshine, fresh air, and grass, and given the opportunity to exercise. Not surprisingly, animals raised on pasture also produce healthier, safer, and (many people agree) tastier food.

677

Compare a cow’s situation in confinement with free range. Given the opportunity, bovines spend most of their waking hours in an ambulant state of grazing, walking an average of 2.5 miles a day, all the while taking 50 to 80 bites of forage per minute. But life in confinement allows virtually no exercise and zero grazing. Standing on cement for hours every day “is murder on cows’ legs,” says the animal welfare expert Marlene Halverson (Hahn Niman, 2010, p. 192). For every 100 U.S. dairy cows, for instance, there are 35 to 56 cases of lameness. Conversely, welfare and health markedly improve when cows exercise outdoors. A 2007 study in the Journal of Dairy Science found that pasture cured cow lameness, and a 2006 study in Preventative Veterinary Medicine found it curative of joint swelling and open sores. Similarly, pigs in nature are curious and active, typically ranging several miles per day and rooting and grazing for most of their waking hours, but according to the nonprofit organization Compassion in World Farming, “the shift away from traditional pig farming to large-scale intensive methods has resulted in significant concerns for the welfare of millions of pigs throughout the world” (Niman & Hahn Niman, 2010). In confinement settings, their movement is restricted to a few feet or, for breeding sows, no movement at all because they are caged in narrow metal crates. This is not only a difference in animal welfare; it also affects public health and food safety. The University of Iowa MRSA study mentioned previously that found 49% of pigs and 45% of farmers at confinement operations to be MRSA-infected was also noteworthy for its test results of pigs and farmers at pasture-based pig farms. At the freerange pig farms, the researchers found no MRSA. Chickens, too, fare better in both welfare and health when they have access to pasture. Caged hens have extremely weak and brittle bones due to their physical inactivity, leading to frequent bone fractures, according to a 2004 paper in the Poultry Science Symposium Series. To minimize the risk of bone fractures, the European Union Animal Health and Welfare Panel has recommended that “all systems for housing hens . . . provide sufficient space

678

Free-Range Meats and Poultry

for walking, wing flapping, and other activities,” which is provided at free-range farms (Niman & Hahn Niman, 2010). The animal welfare expert Dr. Sara Shields coauthored a report for the Humane Society of the United States, which concluded that the free range had multiple benefits in food safety as well as in animal welfare. It states that disease risks are minimized by factors associated with the outdoor, free-range environment. “Natural sunlight kills many pathogens and virus particles, and the lower stocking densities and access to fresh air typical of free-range flocks lower infection and transmission rates” (Niman & Hahn Niman, 2010). A recent paper to which the Humane Society of the United States contributed describes a 2007 European Food Safety Authority report: An EU-wide Salmonella survey was launched in which more than 30,000 samples were taken from more than 5,000 operations across two dozen countries. This represents the best available data set comparing Salmonella infection risk between different laying hen housing systems. Without exception, for every Salmonella serotype grouping reported and for every type of production system examined, there was significantly higher Salmonella risk in operations confining hens in cages. (Niman & Hahn Niman, 2010)

The paper goes on to explain that compared with battery cage egg production, the risk of Salmonella enteritidis contamination was 98% lower in free-range systems, for Salmonella typhimurium—the most common U.S. source of Salmonella poisoning—the risk was 93% lower in organic and free-range systems, and for the other Salmonella serotypes found, the risk was 99% lower in free-range birds. Not surprisingly, the European Food Safety Authority report concluded, “Cage flock holdings are more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella” (Niman & Hahn Niman, 2010). Finally, various studies have documented higher levels of nutrition in food from free-range animals. Research, summarized in the Union of Concerned Scientists’s 2006 report “Greener Pastures,” has shown that food from pasture-raised animals is

more nutritious. It reported higher levels of vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids in grass-fed beef, and that grazing dairies produce food higher in both the beneficial fatty acids α-linolenic acid and conjugated linoleic acid, an effect that was particularly pronounced in cheese from pasture-raised animals. Likewise, research done by Clemson University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has found that grass-fed meats have more calcium, magnesium, potassium, thiamin, and riboflavin. A 2003 Penn State study found a dramatic difference in the nutritional qualities of eggs from pastureraised hens: “On average, we saw about twice as much vitamin E and 40% more vitamin A in the yolks of pasture-fed birds than in the caged birds,” the lead researcher reported. “The longer the animals were on pasture, the more vitamins they produced” (Niman & Hahn Niman, 2010). The consensus from various sources—scientific research, practical farming experience, and common sense—tell us that farm animals are healthiest when provided the opportunity to thrive in environments where they can breathe fresh air, graze, exercise, and soak up the sun. Many parents tell their children to “go outside and run around a while” because they know that activity and fresh air supports good health. And so it is with animals raised for food. Nicolette Hahn Niman See also Animal Rights; Antibiotics and Superbugs; Cattle Industry; Factory Farming; Grass-Fed Beef; Manure Lagoons/Methane; Poultry Industry

Further Readings Berry, W. (1977). The unsettling of America: Culture & agriculture. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Cerulli, T. (2012). The mindful carnivore: A vegetarian’s hunt for sustenance. Berkeley, CA: Pegasus. Charles, T. B., & Stuart, H. O. (1936). Commercial poultry farming. Danville, IL: Interstate. Kingsolver, B. (2007). Animal, vegetable, miracle: A year of food life. New York, NY: HarperPerennial. Niman, N. H. (2010). Righteous porkchop: Finding a life and good food beyond factory farms. New York, NY: William Morrow.

French Paradox Niman, B., & Hahn Niman, N. (2010, May 19). For animals, grass each day keeps doctors away. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/ health/archive/2010/05/for-animals-grass-each-daykeeps-doctors-away/56915/ Pollan, M. (2007). The omnivore’s dilemma. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Sawyer, G. (1971). The agribusiness poultry industry: A history of its development. Jericho, NY: Exposition Press. Smith, P., & Daniel. C. (2000). The chicken book. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

FRENCH PARADOX Medical research in cardiovascular health and nutrition has long shown that diets low in saturated fat result in lower rates of cardiovascular disease. In France, however, where the diet is high in saturated fats like butter, cheese, and other animal fats, there is a disproportionately low incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD). This incongruity has come to be known as the French Paradox. The idea garnered international attention in 1991 after a French researcher appeared on 60 Minutes to discuss his theory that the low rates of heart disease in France could be explained by the regular consumption of red wine. In the month following the program, supermarket sales of red wine were up 44% over the same period a year earlier. Studies such as the Copenhagen City Heart Study appeared to confirm that wine had beneficial effects not seen in liquor or beer in the protection against heart disease. Over time, however, many studies have been less conclusive or marred by controversy. Nonetheless, the French Paradox remains an active and popular topic of research for scientists around the world. It has also become a powerful marketing tool, spawning not only a niche cookbook and diet industry but also a legion of beauty and antiaging products that claim to contain the chemical components of red wine that make it beneficial, from red wine polyphenol facial masks to resveratrol dietary supplements. This entry examines the various

679

investigations into and theories regarding the French Paradox and concludes with a brief look at the state of health in France today.

The French Paradox in Mainstream Media The pivotal moment for what has come to be called the French Paradox occurred on November 17, 1991. On that evening, Morley Safer interviewed Serge Renaud (1927–2012), a French physician and researcher, on the American television news program 60 Minutes. In a segment titled “The French Paradox,” Renaud discussed two possible explanations for the disparity between the French diet and French coronary health. First, he argued that cheese (of which the French ate 40 pounds per capita, according to 60 Minutes) was not harmful, as milk was, because of a fermentation process that allowed the dairy calcium to bind with fat and “flush” the fat out of the body rather than allow the body to absorb it. His second argument, however, was the one that seemed to really take hold in the mind of the American public. He suggested that alcohol, particularly red wine, helped prevent platelets from clogging arterial walls, thus lowering the incidence of CHD. Renaud, often called the “father of the French Paradox,” was not the first to suggest a link between heart health and wine, nor even the first to perform extensive research on the question. The salubrious effects of wine were well-known to Hippocrates more than 2,000 years ago. The 12thcentury mystic and healer Hildegard von Bingen prescribed a parsley wine, made by boiling parsley in wine with vinegar and honey, to treat heart and spleen ailments. Research on the clinical use of wine abounds in the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1919, for example, a study posited that wine was an especially effective cardiac restorative and healing agent because it was high in sodium and low in potassium and, thus, useful in treating hypertension. By the time the 60 Minutes segment on the French Paradox aired, substantial research linking wine to cardiac health had already been carried out in the United States, Italy, France, Scotland, and other countries. The 60 Minutes report may not have introduced brand new research, but it

680

French Paradox

gave the research a memorable, marketable label and introduced it to a new, broader, general audience filled with consumers.

CHD and Alcohol Any type of alcohol taken in moderate quantities (two or three drinks per day) has been shown to promote the body’s concentration of HDL cholesterol (“good cholesterol”), which has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anticlotting properties. Through the years, some experts have maintained that red wine performs no better than any other alcoholic beverage when it comes to protecting heart health. The latest research, however, seems to confirm earlier studies that gave a slight edge to the effectiveness of red wine over beer, spirits, or white wine. Possible chemical explanations for red wine’s positive effect on health include a polyphenol called procyanidin (found in grape seeds) and a phenol known as resveratrol (found in the grape skin). Initial studies homed in on resveratrol as the primary antioxidant responsible for the cardioprotective effects of red wine, while also linking it to longevity, cancer prevention, caloric restriction, and reduced incidence of diabetes in mice and rats. Exactly how resveratrol works is still the subject of much debate and considerable controversy. Some studies argue that it works by inhibiting enzymes responsible for cell degeneration. Others argue that it works by activating proteins (sirtuins) that can improve mitochondrial function (the major energy source for the cell). Notwithstanding the complex and multiple theories that have been argued, debunked, and reworked, resveratrol’s reputation has also been colored by public controversies regarding flawed studies as well as charges of financially motivated scientific bias. The Harvard researcher David Sinclair, one of the scientists credited with “discovering” resveratrol’s beneficial effects, came under attack because the results of his research could affect the profits of Sirtris, a pharmaceutical company that is exploring resveratrolmimicking drugs and that Sinclair himself helped found. Despite its tremendous antioxidant and antiaging potential, the most basic and seemingly

irrefutable objection to resveratrol as the key to the French Paradox is simply that the concentration of resveratrol in red wine is not high enough, even when consumed regularly, to produce a noticeable effect on health. As one researcher put it, a human would have to drink more than 1,000 liters of red wine a day to achieve the resveratrol levels necessary to affect heart health. Researchers who promote procyanidins as the key to the French Paradox point out that unlike resveratrol, procyanidins can account for up to 50% of the wine’s bioactive compounds. They estimate that procyanidins are available at 100 to 1,000 times the level of resveratrol. The highest concentration is found in red wines in certain regions of France, particularly in those made from the Tannat grape (prominent in the wines of the Madiran appellation). Testing has indicated that procyanidins lower blood pressure and may also reduce the body’s absorption of malondialdehyde, a compound that may contribute to arteriosclerosis, cancer, and diabetes, among other diseases. Two glasses of Madiran wine may provide as much as 200 to 300 milligrams of procyanidins, sufficient to produce a notable effect. A Red Delicious apple contains approximately the same amount of procyanidins.

Food, Food Practices, and the French Paradox The question of how food interacts with French health can be broken down into two parts: What is in the French diet and what is not. Scientists have researched whether there are healthful biochemicals in the fatty foods that are prevalent in the French diet. One explanation involves vitamin K2, also known as menaquinone, which is found in high levels in foods like goose liver. Vitamin K2 may help protect against calcification of arterial plaque. As recently as 2012, another study, taken after the 60 Minutes report, speculates that cheese— particularly molded cheeses—may help the body manage its lipid processing and inhibit cholesterol biosynthesis and bacterial growth. The French also eat, along with high–saturated fat foods, a large quantity of fresh fruits and vegetables, which are

French Paradox

implied in lowering cancer risk and heart disease vulnerability and in providing essential nutrients not found elsewhere. Absences from the French diet may play a part in the French Paradox, as well. The French eat a good deal of natural saturated fats, and while these do carry risk, they are relatively easy for the body to metabolize. The French have not, however, traditionally embraced foods high in hydrogenated fats, which include trans fats—both enemies of cardiovascular health. In other countries, especially the United States, hydrogenated and trans fats are consumed in much higher quantities, especially via processed foods. Other absences may contribute to the French Paradox. Portion size in French food tends to be smaller than it is in the United States and other affluent countries. French eating habits rely less on snacking between meals, as well, reducing overall caloric intake, especially of the “empty calories,” trans fats, and refined sugar that tend to be associated with snacking. Attention has been paid not only to what the French do and do not eat but also to how they eat. It is not only that the French have not generally been a snacking culture but also that they have long tended to regard the consumption of food as a central and important part of the day, a communal ritual of sorts that revolves primarily around pleasure, and moreover pleasure savored in moderation, all of which may lead to decreased levels of stress. Americans, on the other hand, are likelier to regard food as a source mainly of nutrient intake, which helps explain the volatility and excesses of the American diet (more subject to nutritional fads and hurried, solitary eating, which may owe as well to Americans’ longer workdays), while the French diet has (until recently) remained generally stable. Psychosocial factors and food practices, then, independent of the diet itself, may play an important role in the French Paradox.

The French Paradox Does Not Exist For many, the question is not what causes the French Paradox but what causes the illusion of a French Paradox. One challenge to the notion of a

681

French Paradox relates to the way the French report disease and causes of death. In 2003, data from the World Health Organization MONICA project (The World’s Largest Study of Heart Disease, Stroke, Risk Factors and Population Trends 1979–2002) indicated that the official mortality statistics in France underreport deaths from cardiovascular disease (all diseases of the heart, including CHD and stroke) compared with other countries included in the MONICA project. The report submits that data from the French populations included in the project (Lille, Toulouse, and Strasbourg) showed an underestimate of deaths from CHD by more than 75%. It is posited that French medical professionals are much more likely to report deaths from “other causes” than are doctors from other countries. Another objection to the data used to substantiate the French Paradox is the failure to differentiate between southern and northern France. In southern France, the diet much more closely resembles the Mediterranean diet, with a preference for olive oil over butter and fish over other meats, thus its population’s heart-healthy alimentary habits would support rather than oppose low rates of CHD.

The French Paradox 20 Years Later Over time, the notion of the French Paradox in popular culture has become more fluid, able to refer not only to the disproportionately low rates of heart disease but also to encompass the disproportionately low rates (or perceived low rates) of stress, diabetes, and obesity in France as well. Such elision is especially common in America, where issues of diet, weight, and mental angst are prominent in the national culture. Many books about the incongruity of the French diet have been published in the United States, including New York Times best seller French Women Don’t Get Fat (2005) by the former Veuve Clicquot executive Mireille Guiliano. Another notable author on the subject, William Clower, has published multiple books, including The Fat Fallacy: Applying the French Diet to the American Lifestyle (2001). A recent, self-published entry in the French Paradox genre

682

Fresh Food

demonstrates the paradox’s continued ability to expand from the heart to the body and, now, the mind: The Skinny, Sexy Mind: The Ultimate French Secret (2012). Despite a market in the United States that remains faithful to the books, beauty products, nutritional supplements, and life philosophies that claim to hold the secret to the French Paradox, the landscape in France itself is changing. Obesity in France is on the rise. From 1980 to 1990, obesity rates remained fairly stable, but it nearly doubled between 1992 and 2003. Although they are still much lower than those in the United States, Great Britain, or most of Europe, changing dietary and lifestyle habits in France have researchers waiting to see how long it will take the data to catch up with the behavior. The French are eating more processed food than ever before, and McDonald’s is more profitable in France than in any other European country. Heather Mallory See also Antioxidants; Cardiac Disease and Diet; Fats, Role in Cardiovascular Disease; Wine

Further Readings Biello, D. (2006). Forget resveratrol, tannins key to heart health from wine. Scientific American [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/ article.cfm?id=forget-resveratrol-tannin Blackwell, T. (2012). The skinny, sexy mind: The ultimate French secret. Denver, CO: Outskirts Press. CBS News. (2009, January 25). The French paradox, 60 minutes. New York, NY: Retrieved from http://www. cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4750380n Clower, W. (2003). The fat fallacy: Applying the French diet to the American lifestyle. Pittsburgh, PA: Perusal Press. Guiliano, M. (2005). French women don’t get fat: The secret of eating for pleasure. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Paul, H. W. (2001). Bacchic medicine: Wine and alcohol therapies from Napoleon to the French paradox. New York, NY: Editions Rodopi. Renaud, S., & de Lorgeril, M. (1992). Wine, alcohol, platelets, and the French paradox for coronary heart

disease. Lancet, 339, 1523–1526. doi:10.1016/ 0140-6736(92)91277-F Yuan, H., & Marmorstein, R. (2013). Red wine, toast of the town (again). Science, 339, 1156–1157. doi:10 .1126/science.1236463

Websites The Renaud Society: http://www.renaudsociety.org The WHO MONICA Project: http://www.thl.fi/monica

FRESH FOOD Fresh food includes, first and foremost, any type of food that is not preserved by any chemical food-processing method. However, some processed foods also fall under this category. The Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom has published several criteria that explain this well. It suggests using the term fresh in food labeling not only to differentiate processed foods from nonprocessed foods but also to differentiate produce that is sold in a short time after harvesting or production from foods that have a longer shelf life. Consumed fresh or processed, fresh foods will always be the basis of a human diet. The food industry will continue its search for optimal ways to preserve and transport fresh foods. Counter movements and other local projects will also persist in their focus on ways to produce fresh foods for small-scale consumption. For social scientists, controversial issues related to the food industry, food security, consumerism, and many other interdisciplinary fields will remain to be studied. This entry starts with a brief introduction about the different types of fresh food, followed by a discussion of cooling and molecular biology techniques to increase the shelf life of fresh foods. Next, the health and societal risks of consuming fresh food are listed. This entry ends with the benefits of fresh food for health and community. Some examples of projects that can be relevant for sociologists, behavioral scientists, and other disciplines in the social sciences are given further on.

Fresh Food

Raw Food and Processed Fresh Foods In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration advises not to use the term fresh for any foods that have been subjected to any form of heat or chemical processing. Fresh food refers to basic, unprocessed foods: raw food products. The Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom, on the contrary, suggests that fresh can also be used for certain types of processed foods, such as fresh bread, fresh pasta, and fresh fruit juices. These foods must meet two criteria, however: First, they must be exclusively made from basic raw materials. Second, these processed “fresh” foods must be characterized by a limited shelf life. For instance, soups and sauces not exclusively made from basic raw ingredients should not be labeled “fresh,” even though they might have a limited shelf life. An average human diet barely consists of raw, unprocessed, food. Throughout most of our evolutionary history, humans have used various techniques to turn basic raw foods into processed foods. The preservation of food was a key aspect in any human society and a driving force to invent techniques to create secondary products from basic ingredients. Moreover, processed food increases the amount of energy our bodies can obtain from food. In cost–benefit terms, they are more effective compared with raw foods that deliver less energy, and they take longer to chew and digest. Building on the works of the cultural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, Richard Wrangham claims that cooking made us human. Cooking marks the transition from nature to culture and is a key feature in defining humanity. Fresh foods are the basic units of this process and, in some cases, are also the result.

Fresh and Frozen Fresh Cooling and freezing techniques allow for the preservation of foods without the transformation of natural characteristics. In the 19th century, refrigeration was already being used in the industrialization of fresh, or raw, meat. However, although other processing techniques that turn basic, raw foods into “fresh” processed foods are

683

acknowledged, at least by some, freezing food comes at a cost of losing the “fresh” label. In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for example, prohibits the use of the term fresh on the labeling of raw poultry and cuts of poultry whose internal temperature has ever been below 26 °F. In the United Kingdom, the Food Standards Agency guidelines state that any foods that have been deep frozen cannot be called “fresh.” In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration does allow use of the labels “frozen fresh” or “fresh frozen” for foods that were quickly frozen while still fresh. Bringing “fresh” or “frozen fresh” food into the market, the frozen food industry took off in the 20th century. Using new techniques for cold chain packaging and very low shipping temperatures, it became safe to transport fresh foods to foreign countries at the other side of the globe. At the same time, domestic refrigerators also started to enter the household. Before refrigerators for home and domestic use were available, people had to rely on icehouses: storage spaces packed with ice or near a cold spring. Domestic refrigeration and freezing made the storage of fresh foods more convenient. This all blended well into the societal changes that opened up the market for convenient consumption. Supermarkets emerged, the service industry started to blossom, and customers wanted to minimize the required efforts for food planning and food preparation. Moreover, increased leisure time and traveling opened up the food market for international foods. Fresh exotic fruits, foreign meat, and freshly produced foreign foods became popular, and the global cold chain market offered a good solution for this demand.

Fragile Fresh Produce and Genetically Modified Fresh Food The production of fresh produce comes with many risks, including environmental risks. Poor weather conditions, diseases, or insect plagues can ruin crops and endanger cattle. In past decades, molecular biology techniques have offered solutions to these problems: for example, genetically modified (GM)

684

Fresh Food

foods that are resistant to several environmental threats. Despite the positive outlook for food producers, there is a global customer aversion to GM foods. People like fresh food, yet humans should not tamper with Mother Nature. Along with this concern, critics also fear human health risks. The Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization have established an international food code—the Codex Alimentarius—to assist national governments in regulating GM foods. Last, criticism against GM foods also revolves around economic power struggles. Large international companies producing GM foods are seen as a threat to local markets.

The Risks of Consuming Fresh Food The consumption of fresh food involves various levels of risks. First of all, the consumption of fresh food may result in several types of gastroenteritis if bacteria, yeasts, molds, or pathogens are present in the consumed foods. Especially the consumption of raw fruits and vegetables is often identified as hazardous and may come with a warning (e.g., for pregnant women). Because of these risks, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point programs are being developed to monitor food safety from raw material production to consumption. In a globalized fresh food market, the potential hazards associated with the consumption of fresh foods have augmented. Different sanitary regulations apply in countries producing fresh food for the global market. It is a hidden cost paid for the increased role of low-income countries in the production of fresh foods for a world market. Other risks related to the industrialization of fresh foods revolve around the socioeconomic and ecological consequences. As Susanne Freidberg brings up in the book Fresh, the globalization of the fresh food market has been disastrous for several local, small producers of fresh foods who are being overthrown by powerful industry actors. Multinationals focus on efficiency and bring “fresh” foods on the market for “democratic” prices. The production of fresh foods is often seen as an important opportunity for less developed

countries, because the income elasticity of fresh foods is high. Yet it can be asked whether people pay any hidden costs for these cheaper foods—as we may forget about the costs and risks of hidden labor. Not only in developing countries but also in wealthier countries immigrant laborers are at risk of being exploited in a system of producing globalized fresh foods. Also, in terms of ecological consequences, the globalized fresh food market might come at a yet unforeseen price.

Health and Community Benefits of Fresh Foods Fresh foods contain high doses of vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and fiber. The more fresh the produce is at the time of market receiving and the lower the amount of time between buying and eating, the greater the health effects. Fresh foods directly benefit our physical well-being, as the consumption of fresh food appears to protect against, for example, some cancers and cardiovascular disease. Among all kinds of fresh foods, raw foods have an extra health benefit: They take more time to chew and digest, so consumers are less likely to overeat on raw foods compared with processed foods. Fitting into the World Health Organization’s prime challenge to tackle obesity in the 21st century, school programs increasingly focus on fresh foods. Schools that engage in these projects and offer healthy eating programs have fewer students with weight problems. Some schools even take it one step further and not only offer fresh foods but also reeducate their children about the unknown basic, fresh ingredients of well-known processed foods. In many societies, children have become estranged from fresh foods and basic ingredients. While a carrot might be easily recognized by many, a swede (rutabaga) seems less obvious to identify for children. Public figures like the British chef Jamie Oliver and the U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama have openly tackled the challenge of reeducating children who have become estranged from the production of fresh foods—Oliver with his Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution and First Lady Obama with her Let’s Move! campaign. First Lady

Fresh Food

Obama even planted an organic garden on the White House lawn. Their campaigns seem to have succeeded, as “Farm to School” programs, barely heard of a decade ago, have become a social movement across the United States and in many other countries. Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Department of Food and Nutrition Service supports these programs whose aim is to connect schools and local farms to offer healthy meals in school cafeterias and to educate the younger generations about fresh produce. In this context, there is a challenge not only for food producers and nutritionists but also, for example, for designers and architects, who might need to rethink the design of a school food environment, incorporating healthy design principles, such as a visible kitchen and a garden next to the traditional cafeteria. Health benefits may also stem from indirect processes related to the production and consumption of fresh foods. If individuals produce their own foods, or help out harvesting in cooperative food projects, the outside activities can also contribute to the health effect. Fresh foods are also being sold via alternative food circuits: small shops, farmers’ markets, and food cooperatives, for example. People are likely to strike a conversation at these local shops and markets. They might even develop an interpersonal relationship with the seller. The social contact that results from these small-scale trading processes can also benefit our psychological and consequently our physical wellbeing. And, at the same time, these small-scale production schemes might offer an answer to the societal and ecological risks and costs related to multinational corporations dominating part of the fresh food markets. After several decades and even centuries of industrialization and globalization, a counter trend toward local small-scale produce can be observed in many Western countries. Farmers’ markets and community gardens have become increasingly popular. Their aims and goals are often not driven by economic reasons, but by community-based aspirations. Strengthening the community and bringing people together are high on their agenda. As a side effect, these civic

685

agriculture programs create new jobs, often for people who live at the margins of society. Yet even in these cases, a primary aim may be to integrate them into society rather than solely to provide financial support. Food bonds, via the production and consumption of food connections relations, become interpersonal—perhaps because in our evolutionary history, food has always been embedded in a social context. Humans have always cooperated to get access to food, and our ancestors shared festive meals to celebrate these successful actions. Therefore, civic agriculture, as it is growing today, is not new, yet it may form a fresh start, reconnecting fresh, basic foods and communities. Charlotte, J.S. De Backer See also Community Gardens; Convenience Foods; Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables; Migrant Labor; Packaging; School Food; Shelf Life

Further Readings Food Standards Agency. (2008). Criteria for the use of the terms fresh, pure, natural etc. in food labeling. Retrieved from http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/ pdfs/markcritguidance.pdf Freidberg, S. (2009). Fresh: A perishable history. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Goodman, D., Sorj, B., & Wilkinson, J. (1987). From farming to biotechnology: A theory of agro-industrial development. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1983). The raw and the cooked: Vol. 1. Mythologiques. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lyson, T. A. (2004). Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, and community. Lebanon, NH: Tufts University Press. Tressler, D. K., van Arsdel, W. B., & Copley, M. J. (1968). The freezing preservation of foods (Vol. 3). Westport, CT: Avi. Unnevehr, L. J. (2000). Food safety issues and fresh food product exports from LDCs. Agricultural Economics, 23(3), 231–240. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2000 .tb00275.x

686

Front Groups

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP). Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ HACCP/ U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Inspections, compliance, enforcement, and criminal investigations. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidance Manual/ucm074581.htm Veugelers, P. J., & Fitzgerald, A. L. (2005). Effectiveness of school programs in preventing childhood obesity: A multilevel comparison. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3), 432–435. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004 .045898 Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching fire: How cooking made us human. London, UK: Profile Books.

Website National Farm to School Network: http://www.farmto school.org

FRONT GROUPS A front group, also known as the third-party technique, is an entity established to work for the interests of a company or trade association, while appearing to represent the public’s welfare. While front groups often profess to work for the common good or diverse stakeholders, these organizations avoid mentioning or selectively disclose their main sources of funding and real agenda. In this way, front groups deceptively sway public opinion by running media campaigns, positioning spokespeople in the media, producing reports and analysis, and more. In the past 20 years, public relations professionals for the food industry have established dozens of front groups. This entry discusses the history of front groups and how these organizations are used to influence policy making about food and agriculture and to shift public perceptions about food systems.

The History of Front Groups Front groups were first used by communications professionals in the early 20th century. Their first use is often credited to the “father of public relations” Austrian American Edward Bernays, who allegedly created the first front group in 1913 as a 23-year-old magazine editor. This first front group used a slate of esteemed doctors to promote an otherwise controversial theatrical play. Bernays would go on to use this communications technique throughout his long career. In the late 1920s, Bernays hired prominent doctors to promote the health benefits of bacon for breakfast, without clearly disclosing that the doctors were engaged by the pork industry. In another example, a few decades later, Bernays created the “Celiac Project,” which celebrated the medicinal benefits of banana consumption without disclosing that it was funded by the United Fruit Company, the country’s largest banana producer and importer.

Characteristics of Front Groups Today, there are hundreds of food industry front groups operating in the United States. Some are stand-alone 501(c)(3), tax-exempt organizations; others are embedded within larger organizations. There are several different front group position strategies. Consumer-Based Front Groups

These front groups position themselves as representing the interests of the general public. While some do have consumer “members,” the campaigns are driven by corporate donors, and the actual public membership is usually quite small. In 2012, the California chapter of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, which is funded by big business, launched a campaign against the state’s genetically modified food labeling ballot initiative. While Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse maintained that it was working on behalf of concerned California citizens, the group was funded in part by Monsanto, the country’s largest producer of genetically modified seeds, among other companies.

Front Groups

Coalitional Front Groups

Other front groups frame their constituents as a broad coalition, positioning their corporate supporters as just one group within a diverse base of stakeholders. But despite saying they represent a variety of perspectives, many of these coalitionbased front groups speak on behalf of narrow corporate interests. For example, the Alliance to Feed the Future, which was founded in 2011, claims to be composed of professional groups and societies (e.g., health professionals and academics), universities, government agencies, communications, and advocacy groups. But many of its members are in fact limited to food industry trade groups and the makers of agricultural chemicals and food additives, such as the Calorie Control Council (which represents fat substitute and artificial sugar manufacturers), the National Frozen Pizza Institute, and the Association of Dressings and Sauces.

687

formed in 2007, for example, the American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology claimed that it was an organization launched by dairy farmers to promote the benefits of the artificial growth hormone, Posilac. Although its membership does include dairy farmers, a communications firm working for Monsanto, the maker of the artificial growth hormone, played a key role in organizing it—a fact not made obvious to visitors of its website or readers of press about the group. Monsanto also sponsors the “America’s Farmers” campaign, which claims to be an advocacy program celebrating all U.S. farmers, but nearly all of the farm families who Monsanto profiles on the website are growing genetically engineered corn and/or soybeans among other products.

Examples of Front Groups Working on Food Issues Front Groups and Animal Welfare

Another front group strategy is to promote its staff to the media as unbiased experts on policy issues, while not divulging the corporate backers of their initiatives. The so-called experts at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), for example, are quoted in the media advocating for coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power and lobbying against renewable energy policy and climate change science. In fact, AEI staff even offered a $10,000 cash prize in 2007 to any scientist worldwide who would publicly take a global warming denial position against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While AEI’s major funders include some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, its staff is regularly quoted about energy policy, without divulging this conflict of interest.

When “Keep Food Affordable” was launched in 2011, it was presented as a broad-based public interest effort to promote affordable food. The organization’s website claimed that it was a coalition of consumers, farmers, and food security organizations brought together to keep food safe, affordable, and available for all Americans. Its website and Facebook page included pictures of a smiling young girl in a supermarket and tips on how to save food and save money. What was not obvious to visitors of its social media platforms was that it was started by the National Pork Producers Council and other animal agriculture trade groups. The Council launched it to push back against the Humane Society of the United States’ efforts to improve conditions for livestock in industrial operations, which the pork industry worried would increase costs of animal production.

Special-Interest Front Group

Front Groups and Agriculture Policy

Other front groups position themselves as working on behalf of one special-interest group, like farmers, while, in fact, they are extensions of corporate public relations campaigns. When it was

In 2010, food industry executives formed the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), a communications platform with an estimated $30 million annual budget, which claims to speak for

Expert-Based Front Groups

688

Front Groups

“all aspects of agriculture.” But in fact, its affiliates are limited to agribusinesses, chemical producers, and agricultural biotech companies; there are no family farming organizations, certified-organic farmers, or sustainable agriculture trade groups among its ranks. The founding members include the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Board, and corporate partners, including Monsanto, John Deere, Archer Daniels Midland Company, and Dow AgroSciences. According to trade reports at the time, the two agribusiness executives, Rick Tolman, from the National Corn Growers Association, and John Becherer, from the United Soybean Board, founded the USFRA to respond to public support for sustainable agriculture and organic farming, including ballot initiatives to address animal welfare concerns and new Environmental Protection Agency measures to strengthen regulations on pesticides. Among its programs, the USFRA hosts “Food Dialogues” on key issues, like antibiotic use in livestock production or the use of genetically modified seeds. Critics of the USFRA claim that these socalled dialogues are in effect orchestrated public relations efforts to push industry-friendly agendas. One “Food Dialogue” panel on antibiotics in 2012, for instance, included only one scientist who raised concerns about widespread antibiotic abuse on factory farms leading to dangerous antibioticresistance bacteria. Despite widespread evidence that this is, indeed, a growing public health crisis in the United States, every other panelist dismissed the scientist’s perspective. Viewers of the program would have no idea that there is scientific consensus nationally about antibiotic use on factory farms and mounting public pressure to discontinue the dangerous practice. Front Groups and Public Health

Founded in 1995 by the public relations executive Rick Berman, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) purports to be “devoted to promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices.” While its mission and name imply that it works on behalf of consumers, it is funded by some of the biggest corporations in the restaurant,

alcohol, tobacco, and food industries. The board members include executives with ties to major restaurant chains and big-box stores such as P.F. Chang’s, TGI Fridays, and Walmart. With its $2.4 million annual budget, the CCF runs media campaigns that fight against organizations, policymakers, and individuals working for public health and animal welfare. CCF campaigns have included fighting regulations on restaurant chains and the beverage industry, such as mandatory calorie menu labeling or nutrition improvements to meals advertised to children. When the New York City Department of Public Health proposed banning the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in 2012, the CCF launched one of the most aggressive counterresponses, including taking out a full-page ad in The New York Times attacking the ban. On behalf of its corporate supporters, the CCF also attacks nonprofit organizations working on food issues, like the Humane Society of the United States. In 2010, for example, the Center spent $982,285 to create Humane Watch and a new website www.HumaneWatch.org, a “watchdog effort to educate the public about the Humane Society,” according to CCF’s Internal Revenue Service Form 990. The Humane Society, on the other hand, claims that CCF’s website and its public attacks against the organization reflect the interest of its animal agriculture industry funders concerned about the Humane Society’s advocacy to improve farm animal conditions. Other Examples of Food Industry Front Groups

Alliance for Better Foods Funded by the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and the biotech industry, among others, the Alliance for Better Foods works to promote consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods and oppose genetically modified organism labeling. Alliance to Feed the Future Founded in 2011 and funded by the processed foods industry, Alliance to Feed the Future was

Frozen Food

created to lead communications efforts to fight back against those promoting whole foods, sustainably grown food. Alliance for Food and Farming Founded in 1989 to promote chemical use in agriculture, Alliance for Food and Farming is mainly funded by the conventional fruit and vegetable industry in California. American Council on Science and Health Founded in 1978, the American Council on Science and Health is funded by food, drug, and chemical companies, including Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association. Its campaigns include downplaying risks from the toxic chemical DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and from dioxin, asbestos, and a host of other polluting chemicals used in food production and processing and used as food additives. Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse Founded in 1991, the Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse gives the appearance of public support to reform the legal system to make it harder to bring lawsuits for injuries and illnesses caused by hazardous products while being funded by tobacco giant Philip Morris and many other corporations.

689

groups are registered as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, critics are also concerned that corporations can make tax-deductible donations to these groups achieving a tax write-off for promoting their own interests. To protect public health, secure a safe food supply, and develop food and farming policy and regulations that are in the public interest, it is important that front groups clearly disclose funders, that deceptive marketing campaigns are better regulated, and that policymakers base decisions on sound science and public opinion, not on industryfunded front groups. Anna B. Lappé See also Charitable Organizations; Food Lobbying

Further Readings Simon, M. (2013). Best public relations money can buy: A guide to food industry front groups. Washington, DC: Center for Food Safety. Stauber, J., & Rampton, S. (1995). Toxic sludge is good for you: Lies, damn lies and the public relations industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Stauber, J., & Rampton, S. (2001). Trust us, we’re experts: How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future. New York, NY: Tarcher. Tye, L. (2002). The father of spin: Edward L. Bernays and the birth of public relations. New York, NY: Picador.

Keep America Beautiful Founded in 1953 with funding from Coca-Cola, among others, Keep America Beautiful has lobbied against environmental legislation to reduce packaging, improve recycling regulations, and more.

Conclusion Since the turn of the past century, public relations firms have used front groups as a strategy to influence public opinion and shape policy making on behalf of their corporate clients. The lack of disclosure about the funders of these organizations and the hidden nature of their true goals concern many public advocates. Because many of these front

FROZEN FOOD Frozen foods are frozen using a variety of mechanical, chemical, and electrical methods to preserve food for future use and consumption. Freezing food has been used as a method of food preservation for centuries, but it was not until the 20th century, with the development of refrigeration units and freezers, that freezing food for commercial and domestic use was possible. This entry focuses on the origins of frozen food as a means of preserving food for future consumption and its effects on the way in which people consume food worldwide.

690

Frozen Food

Early Methods of Freezing Food Prior to the development of the modern freezer, food was frozen for preservation using a variety of different methods: Underground ice pits and aboveground ice houses were constructed to conserve snow and ice for the purposes of freezing food. These precursors to the electric freezer were dry, cool, and typically reserved for use by the wealthier members of society. It was not until the 20th century that electric refrigeration and freezing were made affordable and hence accessible to substantial numbers of individuals with the development of both commercial and household refrigerators and freezers. Freezing foods for distribution on a commercial scale was pioneered through the developments of the American inventor Clarence Birdseye. In 1930, Birdseye patented his method of “flash freezing,” which involved placing food in a waxed cardboard container between two refrigerated surfaces and freezing them rapidly. This method retained the taste and texture of fresh food more effectively than standard, slower freezing processes.

Modern Freezing Developments Numerous factors increased the popularity of frozen food throughout the 20th century. In the United States, as a result of both increasing household incomes and greater female labor market participation following the Second World War, many families found themselves able to purchase domestic refrigerators and freezers and increasingly became dependent on them. Widespread adoption soon followed as increasing purchases of freezing units fueled demand for a greater variety of frozen food products, which further increased the attractiveness of the freezing units themselves. Many types of food are frozen for preservation and future consumption. Some frozen foods include meat, poultry, fish, and other seafood products. In North America and the European Union, frozen vegetables typically sold at supermarkets include peas, carrots, corn, broccoli, and green beans; frozen fruit includes a variety of berries, bananas, rhubarbs, and peaches. While there are many types

of frozen fruits and vegetables that are effectively preserved for future consumption, fruits and vegetables with high moisture content including citrus fruits, cucumber, various types of lettuce, and celery are not typically frozen for commercial distribution as the quality of these foods is more likely to be compromised. Frozen fruits and vegetables are sometimes peeled, sliced, diced, de-seeded, de-stalked, and decored prior to freezing for adequate preservation. This is done in an effort to minimize compromises to the quality of the food. Prior to freezing, many manufacturers wash, soak, boil, or steam fruits and vegetables to maintain and ensure the quality of the food. These processes can effectively rid fruits and vegetables of pesticides and microorganisms that could potentially damage the food and damage the nutrient level of food during preservation. Dehydration processes may also be applied to fruits and vegetables prior to freezing to prevent color loss in the products when freezing and thawing.

Freezing Meat, Poultry, and Fish There are few differences between fresh and frozen meat and poultry in terms of taste and overall quality. Different types of meat require various pretreatments prior to freezing; similarly, different types of fish have varying rates of spoilage (bigger fish spoil at slower rates than smaller fish), so the timing of prefreezing differs depending on what type of fish is being frozen. Careful handling of fish ensures that the taste, texture, and overall quality of fish are not compromised during freezing. Rapid chilling is ideal for preserving coldwater fish, but this method varies depending on the type of fish and its relative sea temperature.

The Evolution of Frozen Meals The first frozen meals were composed according to a standard meat and two-vegetable model, which continues to be sold today. Other popular dinners comprise a carbohydrate that is typically a type of rice, pasta, or potato with a mixture of protein and assorted vegetables in a sauce. These sauces vary

Frozen Food

depending on the type of cuisine of the frozen dinner. Sauces are an important part of frozen dinners as they help marinade meats to prevent dryness; moreover, they also help maintain the color of the dish as food may alter during distribution, storage, and cooking. Because ready meals are often made up of two or more components, each element must be pretreated and, at times, precooked to various extents so that when the entrée is prepared, each component is adequately cooked and fit for consumption. In 1953, Swanson’s TV dinners were first introduced in the United States: This dinner—comprising turkey, mashed potatoes, and peas—was to be cooked in an oven. These TV dinners were popular and spawned an entire frozen meal industry. Over time, the frozen food industry expanded and products were adapted to suit evolving consumer tastes. The invention of the microwave in 1947 and its increasing affordability in the 1980s also transformed the way in which many Americans consumed frozen meals. By the 1990s, microwaves were found in most American households and coincided with an ever-increasing market for frozen entrées. Frozen breakfast items including waffles and pastries are found in many supermarkets worldwide, while frozen pizza, burgers, French fries, battered fish, pie crusts, partially baked bread, a wide range of “ethnic”-inspired entrées, and frozen desserts, such as ice cream, frozen yogurt, and cakes, have become ubiquitous in the frozen food aisles of supermarkets. The variety of frozen foods is everincreasing with products catering to all tastes, dietary requirements, and occasions. Increasingly, product lines are being diversified to include upmarket items as well.

Frozen Food Packaging Frozen food packaging protects food from oxygen, moisture, and potential microorganisms that could contaminate the food and spoil the process of food preservation. Depending on the type of food, whether the product consists of one type of food or is a frozen entrée consisting of various components, the packaging varies. Frozen food can be

691

found in pouches, cartons, or trays. Some forms of packaging are stackable, resealable, vacuum sealed, or microwavable. Microwavable packaging enables consumers to cook, reheat, and steam their food in a variety of ways. Some frozen foods may be steamed while in their packaging for extra convenience; boil-in-a-bag frozen food options are vacuum sealed and may be cooked by immersion in boiling water or in a microwave oven. Effective packaging of frozen food products helps ensure food safety when the items are distributed or stored. In many cases, frozen food packaging consists of interior and exterior forms of packaging. The interior packaging can comprise material that can sustain both freezing storage temperatures and heating temperatures of a microwave or an oven. Interior packaging is often made of various plastics or aluminum. The food product, placed in the interior packaging, is often enclosed in additional exterior packaging. Exterior packaging of frozen food products often provides a picture of the food product, which is designed to appeal to consumers. This packaging also provides product information regarding the overall amount of the product, as well as ingredient and nutritional information. Nutritional information typically includes the average serving amount of the product and its daily value in percentage (%) of calories, fat, carbohydrates, sodium, proteins, and vitamins. External packaging is typically made of cardboard, plastics, or materials in which pictures and product information can be adequately displayed.

Frozen Foods Worldwide In the United Kingdom, the frozen food industry developed at a slightly slower pace than, yet in a similar manner to, the United States. Although commercial frozen food was introduced in the United Kingdom shortly after the Second World War, it was not until the 1960s and 1970s that it became popular. The ubiquity of the microwave in British households in the 1980s also promoted an increase in frozen food sales. In Europe, the countries with the highest annual sales of frozen food products are Germany and the

692

Frozen Food

United Kingdom. By comparison, frozen products remain less popular in France, Spain, Italy, and other parts of the European Union; however, the frozen food markets in these countries are increasing steadily. While frozen entrées are the most popular frozen food choices of Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, frozen vegetables are the frozen food product of choice in Italy. The majority of frozen foods in the European Union are distributed through supermarkets and hypermarkets. Some of the highest grossing frozen food manufacturers in Europe include the United Kingdom’s Findus Group Limited, Germany’s Dr. August Oetker KG, and Canada’s McCain Inc. Due to a combination of rising incomes, increasingly sedentary lifestyles, and sectorial shifts from blue-collar to white-collar professions, demand for quick, simple, and practical meals, often in the form of frozen foods, has risen in many parts of Asia. While regional frozen food product sales are largest in Japan, which comprises approximately 61% of total sales in Asia, the frozen food market is steadily increasing in other parts of Asia as well. In Taiwan, frozen foods have become an increasingly popular alternative for busy workers. In Hong Kong, frozen meat is the primary form of meat purchased at supermarkets. The frozen food industry in China continues to grow at an increasing rate. The rise of average household incomes has sparked an increase in purchases of domestic refrigerators and freezers in not only urban but also rural homes: This has resulted in the development of a rapidly growing and evolving frozen food industry. When frozen foods were first marketed in China, they proved unpopular as the quality of such food was deemed poor. However, as an increasing number of competing frozen food brands vie for market dominance, quality is increasing. Many improved lines of frozen foods are now popular across China, with frozen meals outselling other types of frozen foods.

Health and Dietary Effects of Frozen Foods Frozen foods are often promoted as an optimum form of food preservation, as there is less nutrient loss than in canned foods. By the 1990s, an

increase in both health consciousness among consumers and demand for healthier food options led frozen food manufacturers to develop frozen food products with reduced caloric content and, in some cases, reduced portion sizes. Prior to the 1960s, there was very little in the way of food labeling on frozen food products. It was not until the increased popularity of processed and frozen foods that customers demanded product, ingredient, and nutritional information. In 1969, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States developed a system of ingredient and nutritional information to be placed on food products that continues to inform consumers today.

Environmental Impact of Frozen Foods While frozen food packaging is typically composed of plastics, cardboard, and metals designed to protect food products from physical and chemical damage, the sheer volume of packaging produced by the frozen food industry worldwide has a significant environmental impact. As recycling methods advance, many frozen food manufacturers are taking into account the environmental effects of product packaging. Most frozen food manufacturers in North America and the European Union have gradually implemented sustainable changes and increased efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and general waste. Many frozen food products are now packaged with postconsumer recycled materials that are both biodegradable and recyclable. Jennifer Trieu See also Canned Goods; Convenience Foods; Functional Foods; Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables; Packaged Food and Preservatives

Further Readings Evans, J. A. (Ed.). (2008). Frozen food science and technology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Mallett, C. P. (Ed.). (1993). Frozen food technology. Glasgow, UK: Blackie Academic & Professional. Murrell, K. D., Hui, Y. H., Nip, W. K., Lim, M. H., Legaretta, I. G., & Cornillon, P. (Eds.). (2004).

Fruitarianism Handbook of frozen foods. New York, NY: CRC Press. Sun, D. W. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of frozen food processing and packaging (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Williams, E. W. (1963). Frozen food: Biography of an industry. Boston, MA: Cahners.

Website American Frozen Food Institute: http://www.affi.org

FRUITARIANISM Fruitarianism describes a particular type of vegetarian diet comprising mostly fresh fruits often, though not always, eaten raw. This entry describes contemporary fruitarian diets and practices, briefly reviews historical perspectives on fruitbased diets, discusses motivations for adopting the diet, and outlines the nutritional challenges.

Fruitarian Diets and Practices Fruitarianism is not a unitary practice; there are variations in what is considered to be acceptable, though the central premise is that only living foods should be consumed. It rejects eating any food that involves taking a life or harming a plant, including vegetables that are pulled from the Earth or cut from the plant. Fruit is viewed as being a food that is freely offered by nature and whose use does not require causing harm or death to any living thing. Botanical fruits include several culinary vegetables such as tomatoes, sweet and chili peppers, cucumbers, squash, pumpkin, and eggplant, as well as nuts, grains, and beans. While strict fruitarians may use only fruit that has naturally fallen from the plant, others will extend their diet to include nuts and small amounts of grains such as wheat, beans such as soy, chick peas, and lentils, and green leafy vegetables. In most fruitarian regimes, fruit forms at least 70% to 80% of the diet, mostly eaten raw. Although it may seem that such a diet must be

693

monotonous, there is a large variety of fruits that may be eaten fresh or dried or in prepared dishes. This includes citrus fruits such as oranges, grapefruits, lemons, and limes; pomes such as apples and  pears; stone fruits such as cherries, peaches, plums, and apricots; berries such as grapes, strawberries, and raspberries; tropical fruits such as banana, mango, pineapple, and papaya, and many more. Olives are a source of cooking oil, and avocadoes and nuts can be used as the basis for spreads. Adding different nuts and seeds such as sunflower, sesame, and pumpkin extends the recipe repertoire, adding nutritional value and variety. Some fruitarian advocates recommend that only a single kind of fruit should be consumed at a meal and there should be a 45-minute gap before another type of fruit is eaten. Usually, they allow fruits to be eaten in any quantity, relying on diminishing appetite to naturally self-limit consumption.

Historical Examples From a religious perspective, Jains, adherents of one of the oldest of living world religions, are strict vegetarians who try to uphold the principle of ahimsa, or nonviolence, by avoiding injury to all life including plants. They do not eat root vegetables, including onions and garlic, as pulling up the root kills the plant and may also harm the creatures that live there—the reason also why mushrooms are not eaten. Green leafy vegetables and dairy foods, though permitted, may also be avoided so that strict orthodox Jains may pursue an essentially fruitarian diet. Some Christians view the biblical Garden of Eden as the original fruitarian paradise, claiming that Jesus was a vegetarian or even a fruitarian. According to the Old Testament Book of Genesis (1:29): “God also said, ‘I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on Earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours for food.’” While fruit was a valued dietary component amongst the ancient Israelites, there is substantial evidence that a wide range of other foods were eaten, including meat and fish. In another religious tradition, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, grandson of the founder of the Baha’i Faith, in his writing in the early 20th century, declared that fruit and grains

694

Fruitarianism

were the natural diet of mankind and that there would come a time when meat would not be eaten and all ills would be cured by such a diet. He thought that people would gradually develop to the condition of taking only this natural food as they recognized its value. Contemporary with ‘Abdu’lBahá, the English psychic investigator and health writer Hereward Carrington declared that fruits and nuts alone could meet the body’s needs and maintain the highest standard of health and energy. Small amounts of honey, olive oil, and whole-wheat bread were admissible in the diet, but unnecessary. He describes the individual virtues of different fruits, suggesting that it is almost possible to live on apples alone, and referring to the popularity and efficacy of grape diets in curing pulmonary tuberculosis and other wasting diseases. Carrington articulates a long list of benefits of a fruitarian diet that result in superior physical, mental, and moral health, including better nutrition, improved temper, money and time saving, prevention of crime, debauchery, and drunkenness, and social, ethical, and agricultural reform. The father of Indian independence, Mahatma Gandhi, experimented with many dietary regimes throughout his lifetime. His writings make many references to a fruit-based diet, and for 6 years, he lived on a diet of groundnuts, lemons, dates, and olive oil. He felt that this diet, of foods affordable to the poorest people, was most compatible with his search for simplicity and a control of the senses. On medical advice, he did eventually agree to drink goat’s milk, and later admitted that he had nearly ruined his constitution. The American Natural Hygiene Society, founded in 1948, was based on principles advanced by 19thcentury dietary reformers such as Sylvester Graham, who claimed the superiority of plant-based diets. The Natural Hygiene diet is essentially a fruitarian regime, but it recommends that most foods be eaten raw. Adherents of raw foodism maintain that food should not be heated above 118 °F, as this destroys the “live” enzymes in food that are needed for proper digestion and that help cleanse the body of toxins. In fact, enzymes are destroyed when they come into contact with the acidic environment of the stomach. In 1982, T. C. Fry led a revival of the natural hygiene movement,

founding the American College of Life Sciences to promote his lifestyle ideas. One of the “graduates” of this college, Harvey Diamond, later cowrote a popular book Fit for Life, which calls for consuming only fruit and fruit juice in the morning and mostly vegetables during the rest of the day.

Fruitarian Motivations Fruitarians point to scientific evidence from paleoarcheological studies to support their contention that fruit is the natural food for humans or that fruit diets were designed for mankind. Despite a common claim that human teeth are not suited for tearing meat but are similar to those of other fruiteating animals such as chimpanzees, the evidence is far from conclusive. Scientists studying Australopithecus anamensis, a hominid that lived in Africa 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago, deduced that the diet consisted largely of root vegetables and nuts, as well as insects and some meat. Knowledge of what was eaten by human ancestors involves careful interpretation of evidence from fossil bones and teeth, tools, cooking utensils, and residues in archaeological excavations. While the relative importance of meat in the diet of early humans continues to be debated, modern humans are definitively omnivores who are able to exploit a wide variety of food sources and follow diverse dietary patterns compatible with health. The decision to go fruitarian reflects a philosophical outlook that embraces harmony with nature and respect for life. Moreover, the relationship is seen to be symbiotic, as humans provide benefits to the plants by spreading their seeds. Fruitarians may share ethical and environmental concerns common amongst vegetarians over intensive industrial farming practices and beliefs that animal-based diets contribute to nutritional inequalities and world hunger. To avoid potentially harmful pesticides and herbicides, organic produce is preferred; some fruitarian authors warn that hybridized fruit is biologically weak and fruit without seeds should be avoided if possible. Fruitarians do believe that there are multiple and holistic health benefits to be reaped as diet affects physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. A long list of potential

Fruitarianism

boons appear in fruitarian literature, including preventing or curing headaches, insomnia, and constipation; helping to control body weight and fight addictions; improving the immune system and muscle tone; and helping with wound healing. While there are plenty of scientific studies on vegetarianism, the fruitarian variant has not received close attention. Thus, health claims are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and personal stories.

Nutritional Issues Fruit consumption is promoted by modern dietary authorities as part of a balanced healthy diet and has been associated with reduced levels of some chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease and some types of cancer. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association) states that vegetarian diets, including veganism, when appropriately planned, are nutritionally adequate for all ages and fully compatible with human health and may indeed have health benefits due to lower saturated fat and cholesterol levels and higher amounts of fiber and phytochemicals. However, it cautions that the safety of extremely restrictive diets such as fruitarian and raw foods diets has not been studied in children. In 2001, a couple living in England pleaded guilty to a charge of child cruelty in a case of infant death ascribed to a fruitarian diet. Fruitarianism has not received as much attention as other forms of vegetarianism, and while it has been successfully adopted long term by some, it can also pose challenges to maintaining nutritional health. Fruits are generally good sources of vitamins A and C and of dietary fiber. Except for nuts, they are not generally a good source of B vitamins, so fruitarian diets may be low in B vitamins. Nutritional yeast is commonly used as a source of the essential vitamin B12, but because it comes from microorganisms, it may be rejected by purist fruitarians. Most fruits are low in protein, which instead can be obtained from nuts such as peanuts, almonds, Brazil nuts, and walnuts. Because the biological quality of plant-based protein is lower than that of animal protein, and it is less well digested, it is required in higher quantities to be compatible

695

with human health. The same is true for plant sources of iron. Zinc, calcium, and vitamin E may also be low in fruitarian diets. Olives and olive oil are a good source of unsaturated fatty acids, along with nuts and fleshy fruits such as avocadoes. Fruits contain nonnutritive phytochemicals, such as flavonoids, that help keep cells healthy and may protect against some types of cancer. Because of high fruit sugar levels, fruitarian diets may be unsuitable for people with diabetes. Tooth decay may also be a problem, as diets based on fruit have high levels of sugar and many fruits are also acidic, leading to erosion of tooth enamel.

The Fruitarian Movement There are no reliable statistics on the number of fruitarian practitioners or their demographic characteristics. In a 2012 U.S. Gallup poll, 2% of respondents identified themselves as vegan; it is likely that fruitarians represent only a small fraction of these. Fruitarianism is widely discussed and promoted on Internet websites and social media sites, hosted by groups and organizations, as well as individual practitioners. The sites offer a mix of inspirational and practical guidance on why and how to become a fruitarian. Would-be followers are commonly advised to reflect on why they eat what they eat and why they want to change, and to make gradual dietary adjustments over time until a full fruitarian diet is achieved. Personal stories and interviews with fruitarians sit side by side with nutritional information, recipes and menus, and links to books and magazines. One site even offers a fruitarian version of the U.S. government food pyramid that until recently provided dietary guidance to Americans. Paul Fieldhouse See also Paleo Diet; Raw Diets; Veganism; Vegetarianism; Vegetarianism and Veganism, Health Implications

Further Readings American Dietetic Association. (2009). Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109, 1266–1282.

696

Functional Foods

Carrington, H. (2010). The fruitarian diet. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. (Original work published 1912) Durette, R. (2004). Fruit: The ultimate diet. Black Canyon City, AZ: Fruitarian Vibes. Dwyer, J. (1999). Convergence of plant-rich and plantonly diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70(Suppl.), 620S–622S. Gandhi, M. K. (1993). An autobiography: The story of my experiments with truth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. New Earth. (1996). How to become a fruitarian: The original fruitarian guidebook. Retrieved from http:// www.thenewearth.org/fruitext.html Ungar, P. S., & Teaford, M. F. (Eds.). (2002). Human diet: Its origin and evolution. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Websites The Fruitarian Foundation: http://dhost.info/frutopia/ar/ AboutFruitarianFoundation.htm Fruitarian Worldwide Network: http://www.fruitnet.org/

FUNCTIONAL FOODS Functional foods are food products that have been specifically modified to incorporate a beneficial health effect beyond their immediate nutritional value. However, they are difficult to define as a category and are continually evolving as a novel type of food. They emerged in the market in the late 1980s as a result of product development and marketing efforts targeting what was conceived as increasingly health-conscious consumers. The definition of functional foods varies between countries and contexts, and their regulation is often organized through a focus on the health claims the products carry. For their promoters, the benefits of functional foods lie in their economic potential and effects on public health. Critics point out that there are other more traditional and less expensive ways to eat healthy. The consumer reactions are mixed: In opinion polls, consumers criticize the artificial and high-tech nature of functional foods, but many products have become established on the market. This entry focuses on the definition,

regulation, spread, and consumer acceptance of functional foods in the United States and the European Union.

Definitions There is no well-established and agreed-on definition of functional foods. However, the many definitions pick up common themes: Functional foods have a demonstrated beneficial health effect beyond their normal nutritional impacts, by either improving well-being or reducing the risk of disease. They can be natural foods but are most often modified by technological means, either by adding to or removing from a natural food or product some substance, or by modifying (the bioavailability of) a previously existing substance. Unlike pills or capsules, functional foods must be consumed like ordinary foods as part of the regular diet. Hence, typically, the term functional food refers to foods that are industrially produced, draw from recent findings in nutritional and biomedical research, and are purposefully designed to enhance health. However, it is difficult to establish clearly what should be considered an outcome beyond “normal nutritional effects” or what counts as an “improved well-being” or “reduced risk,” or when a beneficial health effect is adequately demonstrated. These definitional ambiguities are reflected in the variety of foods promoted as functional. Some products have a clearly defined target effect (e.g., cholesterol-lowering spreads). Others promise more diffuse outcomes such as improved well-being or better resistance to illness (e.g., bioactive bacteria in milk products). Many conventional foods—for example, berries, soya, tea, and mushrooms—are also suggested to contain health-promoting properties. As a consequence, the exact definitions of functional foods vary across countries. In Europe, functional foods are typically foods with healthpromoting ingredients created by means of product development. In the United States, functional foods are defined in broader terms, often denoting supplements, nutraceuticals, or even foods that are naturally health promoting.

Functional Foods

Expectations and Fears Functional foods have been introduced with great expectations but also critical voices. The food industry has been hoping for increased growth, larger profits, and competitive edge. Some food and nutrition scientists and public health advocates have talked about positive public health effects and reduced health care costs. They have seen the new products as tools for better nutrition education and improving consumers’ chances to make health-conscious choices. Critical nutritionists and social scientists have raised several issues. Functional foods have been connected to the general tendencies of biomedicalization and individualization, now spreading to food and eating. They claim that the novel products introduce a reductionist approach to eating and health and place the responsibility concerning health and well-being increasingly on the individual. It has been argued that the “scientific eating” represented by functional foods may distort people’s understanding of what a healthy and balanced diet consists of and change their food consumption patterns, with negative effects on public health and individual well-being. Concerns have also been raised about functional foods contributing to deepening the social inequalities in healthy eating, because only the well-off and well-informed are able to buy them. Like in other contested technological fields (e.g., genetically modified foods), advocates and critics estimate differently to what degree the novelties continue or break with established practices. For the promoters, functional foods fit into current practices of healthy eating: Because all foods affect health, the novel products only enhance consumer control in seeking health effects from foods. The critics tend to see a departure from established concepts of health and food, with potential negative effects on consumer ideas of healthy eating and trust in food producers.

Regulation The regulation of functional and/or health claims in food products varies in different parts of the

697

world. In Japan, there has been legislation on specific FOSHU (foods for specified health uses) products since 1991, and the regulatory system has been renewed several times since. Due to space constraints, the overview on regulation here is limited to some key features of the EU and the U.S. systems. In the European Union, the food labeling regulation established in the late 1970s prohibited claiming a food prevents, treats, or cures a human disease. However, when functional foods first entered the European market in the 1990s, the national food authorities within the European Union interpreted this principle differently. As a response, in 2007, the Union introduced a harmonized regulation, which tackled the definitional difficulties relating to functional foods by regulating health claims instead of the category of functional foods per se. The regulation divides claims into two types: Nutrition claims suggest that a food has beneficial nutritional properties, whereas health claims suggest that there is a relationship between a food or its constituents and health. Health claims are further divided into two subgroups, those known as (general) function claims, which refer to the role of a substance in the functions of the body, and those referring to reduction of disease risk or to children’s development and health. Reduction-of-disease-risk claims suggest that a food or its constituent significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a disease. After the legislation came into force, the thousands of health claims supplied by food manufacturers were assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The purpose was to ensure that marketing claims relating to nutrition and health are meaningful and nondeceptive, and to help consumers in making healthy diet choices. When assessing the claims, EFSA paid particular attention to the characterization of the food/constituent, its physiological effect, and the quality of scientific research substantiating the claim. Based on this, EFSA evaluated whether there is a plausible causeand-effect relationship between the use of the food and the claimed effect. From 2012 onward, only officially registered health claims can be used in the marketing of foods in the European Union. By

698

Functional Foods

February 2013, the European Commission had accepted 243 health claims, only 12% of all evaluated health claims. The large majority of the accepted claims were general function claims, but also included some reduction-of-disease-risk claims, such as beta-glucan or plant sterols in reducing blood cholesterol. Similar to the European Union, the regulation in the United States is based on separating foods from drugs and on regulating health claims rather than functional foods as a category. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) divides claims into three categories: (1) nutrient content claims, (2) structure/function claims, and (3) health claims. The first one refers to a level of a nutrient in a food (e.g., “low-fat”), the second one describes the effect that a substance has on the structure or a function of the body (e.g., “calcium builds strong bones”), and the third one characterizes the relationship between a substance and a disease or a healthrelated condition. Health claims may refer to the reduction of a risk of disease, but not to the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or treatment of a disease. Nutrient content and structure/function claims can be used without preapproval, but health claims require an evaluation by the FDA. The FDA holds a list of approved health claims for which there is “significant scientific agreement.” This list includes claims concerning, for example, the relationship between calcium and osteoporosis, dietary fat and cancer, sodium and hypertension, and fruit and vegetables and cancer. In addition, since 2003, the FDA has maintained a list of “qualified health claims” for which there is some scientific evidence but not (yet) significant scientific agreement. The purpose of the qualified health claims is to provide consumers more information about the relationship between food and health while ensuring that they are not misled by it. A qualified health claim contains a qualification as to the scientific evidence supporting the claim, for example, Supportive but not conclusive research shows that eating 1.5 ounces of walnuts per day, as part of a low saturated fat and low cholesterol diet and not resulting in increased caloric intake, may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.

Hence, the regulation in the European Union and the United States is based on similar principles of separating foods from medicines and of providing consumers science-based and nonmisleading information of the health effects of foods. However, there is considerable difference as to what kind of information is considered useful for consumers. In the European Union, authorization is limited to claims for which there is strong scientific evidence on the cause-and-effect relationship between the use of the food and the claimed health effect, whereas in the United States, weaker evidence can be presented.

Markets Due to the varying definitions of functional foods, their markets are difficult to gauge. Some estimates utilize a strict definition, counting only products with specific health claims on the package. Others include all products with specific health effects, such as nutraceuticals, which may be foods or dietary supplements. The latter market is substantially larger. In addition, most recent market data is generally not public, because it is a marketable commodity. Estimates of the global market value of functional foods varied between US$33 billion and US$48 billion at the turn of the millennium. In 2007, the global sales were US$75 billion and were projected to grow to US$109 billion by 2010. The U.S. market is regarded as the largest, followed by Japan and Europe (particularly Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands). The U.S. market was estimated to be US$17 billion in 2000 and US$38 billion in 2010. In Japan, the number was US$5.7 billion in 2006, with more than 500 products labeled as FOSHU. The European market was estimated to be around US$15 billion by year 2006. The largest product groups vary by country, but they include products particularly for gut and heart health, such as probiotic and cholesterol-lowering foods, and also for cancer and bone health. Although the share of functional foods in the market value of all food and beverage products continues to be small, the growth rates are impressive: Estimates of annual

Functional Foods

global growth vary between 7% and 14%, which far exceeds that of conventional foods. Even with tightening regulations, the market of functional foods is increasing, particularly in those areas where functional foods have entered later (i.e., outside North America, Europe, and Japan). Manufacturers have an interest in functional products, because they promise better profit margins in a very competitive branch of industry. However, there are certain risks involved from manufacturers’ point of view: Functional products require large research and development input, which makes them a costly investment and puts their development outside the reach of smaller producers. Like in food and beverages generally, a large number of products are launched yearly, but only relatively few become established on the market. In Europe, the situation has been exacerbated by the lengthy evaluation process of health claims and the subsequent strict interpretation of legislation, which resulted in a decline of new product launches and will probably continue to affect producers’ strategies in the future.

Consumer Acceptance Developments both on the market and in the regulation of functional foods have been based on the idea of a sovereign, information-seeking consumer who makes buying decisions to promote his or her health. Consumers are seen as the prime actors who make or break functional foods. This has generated much research interest in consumer attitudes toward functional foods, willingness to buy foods with health-enhancing properties, and perceptions of health claims. In the early years, when functional foods were entering the market, consumer studies focusing on the general acceptance of products indicated that people were, on the one hand, eager to promote their health by eating healthy foods, but, on the other hand, they were doubtful about the naturalness and safety of new “techno foods” and questioned their necessity. Later, with establishing markets and consumers becoming more familiar with functional foods, research increasingly focused on the willingness to use or pay for functional foods, attitudes

699

toward particular product concepts, as well as understandings and credibility of health claims. The results of consumer studies vary between different cultural contexts and heavily depend on the research setting. However, some general conclusions can be made. First, due to cultural differences and the variety of functional foods on the market, there seems to exist no generalizable sociodemographic profile of their users. Consumers with various health conditions or risk factors seek different kinds of functional products. On the one hand, many studies have found that consumers most interested in functional foods are those who are also interested in healthy eating (e.g., women, the educated, and the elderly). On the other hand, studies have also shown that the role of sociodemographic factors in functional food acceptance is product specific. For instance, men and women and the young and the old may be interested in different kinds of health effects and products. In addition, knowledge of nutrition, trust in information provided by the food manufacturers, general food choice motives (e.g., importance of naturalness, price, healthiness, taste, and safety), the characteristics of the base product or the “carrier” (e.g., a yogurt), and the familiarity of the functional ingredient all have an effect on how willing people are to use functional foods or how positively or negatively they respond to novel functional food concepts. Studies show that people are generally not ready to compromise on taste, but there are differences as to how much importance people place on, for example, the price and the naturalness (i.e., low level of technological modification, little or no additives, etc.) of functional foods. High-income consumers are in most cases more willing than others to pay for health-enhancing foods, and some studies suggest that the focus on naturalness increases with age. As a result of the variety of factors affecting acceptance, functional foods are increasingly designed and marketed for specific consumer groups instead of the whole population. Second, consumer research has shown that, on the one hand, people do not always differentiate functional foods from other or “normal” foods.

700

Functional Foods

From an everyday perspective, many consumers think that in principle “all foods are functional” because the food eaten influences health one way or another. It is also evident that the message of nutritional education (supported by the food industry) purporting that “there are no good or bad foods, only good or bad diets” is echoed in consumers’ notions that in terms of health, the diet as a whole is more important than the use of functional foods. On the other hand, consumers do see a need for functional foods in specific circumstances, such as lowering a raised cholesterol level or eating probiotic foods to maintain gut balance. Third, the increasing body of research on consumer understanding and acceptance of health claims suggests that their credibility depends on a variety of factors. Consumers expect health claims to be on the healthy foods: A food with an unhealthy image is not well received even if added with health-enhancing ingredients. Consumers tend to favor health claims in foods in which they are used to seeing added health benefits, such as milk products. It is also evident that cultural contexts and the special characteristics of the food market influence the ways in which people think of health claims. There are significant country differences in consumers’ understandings of claims, their perceived credibility and health impacts of the products, as well as the attractiveness of functional food concepts. In some countries, people prefer lengthy and detailed claims; in others, they favor shorter and less detailed ones. From the legislative perspective, it is thus challenging to regulate health claims in a way that takes into account both the scientific legitimacy and accuracy of the claims and the culturally differing consumer understandings of the claims. Mari Niva and Mikko Jauho See also Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities; Nutraceuticals; Nutritionism

Further Readings Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods. (2007, January 18). Official Journal of the European Union, L 12, 3–18. Retrieved from http:// www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/Cor_Reg1924_2006%281 %29.pdf European Commission. (n.d.). EU Register of nutrition and health claims. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ nuhclaims/ Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Food labeling guide: Appendix D. Qualified health claims. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fda .gov/downloads/food/guidanceregulation/ucm265446.pdf Grunert, K. (2010). European consumers’ acceptance of functional foods. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1190, 166–173. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632 .2009.05260.x Jauho, M., & Niva, M. (2013). Lay understandings of functional foods as hybrids of food and medicine. Food, Culture & Society, 16, 43–63. Kotilainen, L., Rajalahti, R., Ragasa, C., & Pehu, E. (2006). Health enhancing foods: Opportunities for strengthening the sector in developing countries (Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 30). Washington, DC: World Bank, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Lupton, J. R. (2009). Scientific substantiation of claims in the USA: Focus on functional foods. European Journal of Nutrition, 48(Suppl. 1), S27–S31. doi:10.1007/ s00394-009-0073-3 Niva, M. (2008). Consumers and the conceptual and practical appropriation of functional foods. Helsinki, Finland: National Consumer Research Centre. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-698-174-4 Ozen, A. E., Pons, A., & Tur, J. A. (2012). Worldwide consumption of functional foods: A systematic review. Nutrition Reviews, 70, 472–481. doi:10.1111/ j.1753-4887.2012.00492.x Pothoulaki, M., & Chryssochoidis, G. (2009). Health claims: Consumers’ matters. Journal of Functional Foods, 1, 222–228.

G with dark wood paneling and large wooden common tables and booths, in addition to a prominent bar. In the United Kingdom, the term gastropub has become so widely applied to more chain-type establishments and even a line of grocery-prepared meals that a well-esteemed restaurant guide dropped the term in 2011. This entry traces the development of gastropubs, from birth to today’s popularity, including expansion within the United Kingdom and to the United States.

GASTROPUBS Gastropubs are a style of restaurants that combine good-quality, yet casual and affordable, culinary fare with a range of beers and spirits in a relaxed convivial atmosphere. The term comes from gastro, Latin for stomach, and pub, the shortened name for public house, or drinking establishment. Gastropubs became popular in the United Kingdom in the 1990s after the success of The Eagle, which opened in London, in 1991; gastropubs then spread to the United States in the mid-2000s, where they have proliferated around the country creating a new style of postrecession dining that highlights local beer and spirits and homemade artisan food. The Spotted Pig is considered the first U.S. gastropub, which opened in Manhattan, New York, in 2004. Gastropubs can now be found in most urban centers in the United States, serving a menu focused around savory bar snacks, homemade cured meats, seafood, local artisan cheeses, hearty sandwiches, and comfort food. Meat entrées, often porkcentric, typically feature affordable cuts of meat prepared as braises or stews. Beverages include American and European bottled and draft beers, cocktails, microdistilled spirits, and wine. Even in the United States, menus often feature classic English dishes such as bangers and mash, fish and chips, and sticky toffee pudding. Décor in gastropubs often imitates the classic British pub

The Birth of Gastropubs In the 1980s and 1990s, London’s culinary reputation began improving with new fine dining restaurants opened by French, Italian, and Japanese chefs, offering gourmet meals to a country with a reputation for plain food. At the same time, a recession in 1980s England led a number of struggling breweries to relinquish their leases on company pubs, loosening up ownership. One of these, The Eagle on Farringdon Road in London’s Clerkenwell district, became the first gastropub. The owners David Eyre and Mike Belben came from a restaurant background and wanted to serve good food that was affordable and accessible yet more gastronomic than was usually found in pubs. They prepared Mediterranean-inspired dishes in a small kitchen to pair with the pub’s traditional ales and beers. The London Evening Standard critic Charles 701

702

Gastropubs

Campion dubbed the Eagle “a gastropub,” pointing out how the food was distinct from that in other pubs, which was often just packaged snacks or fish and chips. This new generation of pub exhibited an expanded menu made from fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gastropubs placed an emphasis on being a community center for socializing, like all pubs, but with a wider selection of quality beer and ale, spirits, and wine.

The Growth of a Movement The success of The Eagle kicked off the gastropub trend as more pubs updated their formats, and the former Eagle employees opened their own establishments. These new public houses revitalized a lagging pub tradition and brought new life to English cuisine. Soon, upscale chefs became interested in this style of restaurant with the relaxed atmosphere but creative, higher brow fare, several eventually earning Michelin stars, the first by The Stagg Inn in 2001. Eventually, the United Kingdom’s National Restaurant Awards added a gastropub category, and the style became common around England, Scotland, and Ireland. Large breweries opened their own chains of pseudogastropubs to join in the trend, watering it down in the process. By 2011, the term had become so widely used that The Good Food Guide, a 60-year-old food guide in the United Kingdom, dropped the gastropub label. Part of the impetus was the 2004 line of “gastropub”-prepared meals by the grocer Marks & Spencer as well as celebrity chef–owned pubs.

Expansion to the United States While gastropubs expanded in the United Kingdom, it took until 2004 for a proper one to open in the United States. Ken Friedman, a former rock band manager who discovered the concept while working in London, opened The Spotted Pig in the West Village of Manhattan with the American chef Mario Batali as investor and the British chef April Bloomfield as chef. Bloomfield served a mix of English and Italian food in a crowded space that was a big hit with New Yorkers; he was awarded

a Michelin Star in 2006. Favoring the smoked, cured, and salty flavors that pair well with drink, Bloomfield’s menu encouraged grazing and sharing with a variety of snacks such as roasted almonds, marinated olives, and duck eggs; larger dishes featured homey items such as chicken liver on toast, bacon-wrapped prunes and a blue-cheese garnished burger as well as more refined Italian pastas and roasted quail. After several years, this style of restaurant spread to other cities, often opened by established chefs looking for a more relaxed outlet for beerand spirit-friendly food. This coincided with the growth of the craft beer and microdistilled spirits movements. These brews, ales, stouts, ryes, and whiskies are often featured ingredients in dishes such as beer–cheese dips for pretzels, cheddar–ale soup, stout ice cream floats, or whiskey cake. In Chicago, the chef Paul Kahan of Blackbird opened what became a prototype for future gastropubs, The Publican, in 2008, with a big emphasis on raw seafood, homemade pickles, charcuterie platters, and cheese plates. Long wooden communal tables fill the large hall in a former meatpacking district. By 2009, the concept was decidedly catching on, partially due to the economic downturn that led to greater appreciation for simpler, less expensive restaurant dining. That year, New York saw the arrival of a number of gastropubs including The Houndstooth Pub and the Irish-themed Wilfie & Nell. Freidman and Bloomfield opened a second British-themed concept in 2010, The Breslin Bar & Dining Room, followed some months afterward by The John Dory Oyster Bar, both in the Ace Hotel in Manhattan. By this time, gastropubs became a familiar topic of food industry press as more opened across the country, including in Washington, D.C.; Indianapolis; Philadelphia; and Denver.

Gastropubs Today These restaurants continue to thrive in the United States, some experiencing the same dissolution of concept as those in the United Kingdom, with more commercial restaurants taking the name to mostly indicate a plentiful beer and spirits menu paired with upscale rustic fare at reasonable prices.

Gender and Foodways

Many now include the word gastropub in the actual restaurant title and feature popular American food that has no real connection to pubs or the earlier versions of gastropubs and is most likely made with purchased ingredients instead of being made in-house. Accordingly, some of the country’s first gastropubs have already closed; however, the stalwarts, like The Spotted Pig and The Publican, continue to attract crowds of drink-loving diners who often enjoy beer flights, beer- or wine-pairing dinners, and hearty, casual cuisine. Kara S. Nielsen See also Artisanal Foods; Artisanal Spirits; Bar Food

Further Readings American tavern: Top 10 trends. (2010). Flavor & the Menu, 60–71. Bruni, F. (2006, January 25). Stuffed pork. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/01/25/dining/reviews/25rest.html?page wanted=all&_r=0 Farley, D. (2009, May 24). In N.Y., an appetite for gastropubs. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ story/2009/05/22/ST2009052201877.html? sid=ST2009052201877 Lynes, A. (2012, October). The publicans’ gastro wing. Food Arts, pp. 51–60. Retrieved from http://www .foodarts.com/news/features/23553/the-publicansgastro-wing Stevenson, C. (2011, September 4). Time called on gastropubs. The Independent. Retrieved from http:// www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/ news/time-called-on-gastropubs-2349033.html

GENDER

AND

FOODWAYS

Food practices, though often constant, mundane, and individual activities, represent a vibrant site to explore gender relationships that transcend functionality. Food studies have gleaned insights from the past and present about the gendered structuring of society and belief systems that

703

prevail as revealed in the activities of daily life. Conceptually, foodways are a network of activities and systems that include physical, social, communicative, cultural, as well as economic, spiritual, and aesthetic values and, thus, deeply inform ideas of personhood and nationhood. Early scholarship on food and gender emerged primarily out of anthropology that examined exotic far-off cultures and the ways that food was symbolically used and functioned to reinforce certain relations. However, a plethora of scholarly activity has emerged crossing diverse disciplines such as philosophy, political science, sociology, history, women’s studies, and cultural studies to add to anthropology’s penchant. Gender relations are constituted through and by food preparation, distribution, and consumption. Food represents a prism into the intersections of tradition, sexuality, ethnic identity, and generational and class production and reflects gender constructions at both the macro- and microlevels. Notions of difference and individual as well as collective struggles for political, economic, and cultural spaces can all be understood through studies attending to gendered food relations. Categories that centralize a gendered analysis of food are varied. Not all studies fit neatly into the categories listed, for they are not definitive, nor do they serve as an analytic framework. Some of the areas of research discussed in this section overlap; thus, the categories are used to simply discuss the developments in the field of gender and food studies in general and feminist food studies in particular. Some of these categories include the following: sociocultural/symbolic representations, history and culture, food production, creative expression and identity construction, spirituality, distribution, colonialism and globalization, consumption, and pathologies such as eating problems.

Gender and Food Studies Structural Relations

Gender affects the degree of access to this basic resource, and thus, power is allocated via food and

704

Gender and Foodways

partially determines men’s and women’s social position within a society. The relations that men and women have with food preparation, distribution, and production can be complementary and balanced or hierarchically organized, valuing some activities more than others. In gender-stratified societies, men exert control over women by passing judgment on meals prepared, on how much is eaten by whom and when, and on who makes provisioning decisions. Even when women make decisions regarding feeding, it does not necessarily translate into actual power. Cross-culturally, women may yield control over planning and cooking food; however, it is often restricted by men’s purchasing power. The practice of feeding and meal planning transcends nutritional concerns. Through feeding, women are involved in the construction and maintenance of the family. The decisions that go into planning meals both reflect and are constrained by considerations regarding economics, culture, race, gender, region, urbanization, and sexuality, among others. Food Production

A true measure of power is the ability to control the provision, production, and consumption of food. Such power, as it is affected by race, class, region, family structure, and national economic structuring, can exacerbate and reaffirm already existing hierarchies. In other words, such hierarchies are reinforced and reproduced through troubled control over access to food. Hunger is thus one indicator of powerlessness as it is an inability to fulfill a basic human need. Men and women, poor communities, communities of color, and communities of the global South suffer differently from development, hunger, and famine. Research examining gender and poverty, specifically attending to international developmental practices, focuses on patriarchy and the political implications of international policies. Specifically, this work attends to the effects of development directly associated with agricultural work by examining how gender affects productive work. For instance, in less densely populated regions,

women conduct the majority of agricultural work, whereas in more densely populated regions, men are responsible for more of the agricultural work, and both share equally in labor where intensive irrigation is relied on. Thus, certain policies affect men and women differently given their varied relations to production. For example, as a consequence of the Green Revolution, which shifted agriculture practices reliant on renewable organic inputs to nonrenewable chemical-based inputs, cattle and women’s work with cattle became expendable in the new food grain production systems of India. Understanding hunger and famine using a gendered analysis demonstrates that women often suffer more harshly in varying ways from development, hunger, and famine than men do, given women’s often lower socioeconomic status and political subordination in many nations. Symbolic Representations

Food can serve as expressions of self in terms of agency and gender expectations. Food is a medium for distinction, connection, and exchange between men and women because of its pervasive cultural power. Similarities and differences between men and women are illustrated in the way food is differentiated using notions of masculinity and femininity while simultaneously defining the value a society places on being male or female within a given context. By identifying with the roles, cultivation, and attributes of certain foods, men and women express and determine notions of masculinity and femininity. For example, certain foods are understood as distinctly male or female in specific cultural contexts. In North America, beginning in the World War II era (1939–1945), sugary desserts symbolically communicated femininity, while steak was considered masculine. The production of certain foods also represents both symbolically and nutritionally gendered notions. Raising cattle is a masculine endeavor in  North America, whereas a vegetable garden located within the private sphere is sometimes thought of as a feminine space. Kitchen duties throughout U.S. history are depicted as natural

Gender and Foodways

and emotionally rewarding for women. The Western kitchen, thus, is a site where gender hierarchies are maintained. Gendered identities are established, along with social and economic status, through production, consumption, and distribution of food. Spirituality

Food is an essential medium in many cultures for establishing solid connections with deities. In gender-equitable societies, women play a central role in overseeing food practices key to rituals that appeal to certain deities. In unequal societies, men retain power with regard to the supernatural. For instance, in Catholic rituals, male priests retain the right to perform rituals involving the transformation of wine and bread to the blood and flesh of Christ. In contrast, priestesses of woman-centered cultures gather and test herbs, which is a central activity in building relations between humans and female deities. Spirituality is also exercised through the withholding of food to reach virtuous ends. Giving food and withholding food are instruments in an exercise of power. Monks often go on hunger fasts to attain spiritual perfection. For some women, particularly during medieval times, fasting was used to contest patriarchal familial and religious authority. Today, female anorexics’ refusal of food is understood as a way to achieve physical and spiritual perfection in a world that limits women’s access to control.

Feminist Food Studies Beginning in the 1990s, a growth in feminist research examining the connection between women and food occurred. Initially, the focus was almost exclusively on problems women faced with food, including anorexia, bulimia, obesity, and narrow definitions of beauty. A new arena, feminist food studies, has since emerged, which centralizes the connection between women and food in ways that challenge the essentialized one-dimensional notions of womanhood. It is an interdisciplinary field considering social and philosophical dimensions of food

705

preparation, preservation, practice, and cultivation, highlighting the ways in which female subjectivity and acts of agency occur in everyday life. Basic feminist commitments are applied to the study of food in relation to women’s lives including “the personal is political” and challenges to Western structures of knowledge production. Women’s long association with food represents untold stories of women’s history and the history of food. Women reproduce, creatively express, resist, and rebel against socially constructed notions of individuality and collectivity as they are played out in everyday locations such as kitchen spaces. Ordinary reality is full of knowledge, history, culture, and emotions; thus, women, poor women, women of color, and women of the global South embody culinary philosophies that move beyond textual, non-Western, and nonacademic knowledge to the knowledge of the senses including touch, taste, and smell. Third-Space Epistemology

Third-space epistemology considers ordinary mundane activities revolving around food as anything but ordinary and inconsequential. Women’s domestic work is socially, culturally, and economically significant. Across cultures, food practices are understood as ways to express self, strengthen family bonds, share meaning with other women, and contribute to the sustenance of family and community. Knowledge and agency exist in domestic space and work; the kitchen, for instance, is not only a place that can imprison women but also a space of power and creative agency. Food sensibility is an important site where knowledge is created and expressed through concrete ordinary and ever-changing practices of cooking, preserving, sharing, and cultivating food with other women. Women create knowledge through the senses that go beyond just learning how to cook; it involves the interconnection of all senses—“a sensory logic” that is subjective and intimately connected to the body. For instance, women maintain a sophisticated awareness of food chemistry that is not always based in science but originates from sensory logic learned through years

706

Gender and Foodways

of experimenting. Examples include the use of wooden utensils versus metal in understanding the impact on flavor due to certain chemical reactions; or the smell of a given spice as it is heated to gauge the flavor necessary for a quality dish. Third-space epistemology offers the opportunity to hear stories of affirmation and struggle and, thus, recognize that women are not simply passive agents of societal expectations. Rather, they are active in change, creation, and forging of new pathways. Some women choose, if possible, not to  cook all together as a form of resistance to domesticity, while other women use cookbooks to critique colonization. A spectrum of food activities, not necessarily mutually exclusive, affirms, contests, and reflects patriarchal hegemony. Women find empowerment in constructing new meaning for private space. Women have used their homes, for instance, to conduct informal economic activities by preparing and selling food when faced with the realities of single-headed families. Often, such events serve as sites to further reflect on notions of self, community, and national identity. Food as Language/Philosophy

Everyday cooking is understood as a potent mode of communication, a language in its own. A culinary discourse is one where women, through food activities, express their creative talents and self and narrate their own life stories. Such memoirs may include moments of self-empowerment simply by expressing one’s story or representing aspects of certain belief systems. Food in this way is a system of communication that is not restricted by written word. Food practices serve as testimonials, activities that confirm a history of lived experiences in their entirety of pain, suffering, and joy. A basic biological need becomes artistic through how we eat, with whom, where, and when. Kitchen Space

Kitchens operate both as place and space. Feminist food scholars embrace complex understandings of the kitchen, moving beyond seeing them as not just oppressive places but also places

where relationships that celebrate women’s connectedness to food are located. As a place of patriarchal ideology, kitchens can be understood as a woman’s domain that encloses and entraps all the social demands that limit spacial mobility and economic efficacy. As a place, kitchens are static with physically stable boundaries restricting women’s capabilities and thus are oppressive places. For instance, Indian bride burnings occur when dowry brides are murdered within kitchens, and any evidence of such is erased in a kerosene-ignited kitchen fire. Simultaneously and/or separately, kitchens as a space reflect overlapping arenas of women’s individual needs, creativity, resistance, independence, and reflections where mundane daily activities take place. The kitchen can be a place of nourishment and nurturing, a safe haven where female support and inspiration are found. These relationships, however, are affected by hierarchies of gender, race, sexuality, region, and religion. The fluid notion of space regards meaning and experience, with all their contradictions, as both a liberating and obligatory site, an ever-changing site with degrees of freedom and self-awareness. Thus, kitchen as understood as place and space captures the otherwise silenced stories of women who express complicated notions of kitchen by focusing on their varied experiences. Food and the Feminization of Labor

The feminization of the workforce refers to a process that under the current global capitalist system has resulted in a gendered segmentation of  skill categories, a lowering of real wages, a nonunion orientation, a decrease in the proportion of skilled permanent, usually male, workers and increased proportion of deskilled part-time temporary, usually female, workers. Essential to the capitalist enterprise is the gendered separation of public space as determined by men’s wage labor activities and private space determined as feminine domestic and social reproduction activities. Behind the scenes, care and nurturing, often conducted by women, subsidize men’s time in

Gender and Foodways

unpaid fashion and are coupled with women’s physical wage labor, which stand as a key requirement of capitalism. However, women have not remained passive victims of systemic arrangements; rather, the segregation and value assignment globally and temporally to women’s work have been contested, especially as essentialist arguments continually link womanhood to activities such as food practices. The sociopolitical arrangements during shifting times affect gender relations at both the individual and societal levels. Factory-made food emerging from the industrialization of the late 19th and 20th centuries was often billed as a way to liberate women from the time and effort involved in home cooking. For instance, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, industrialization in Mexico changed tortilla making and was argued to free indigenous women from the metate (a hand grinding stone used for grain and maize). But instead of liberating women, it reproduced race, class, and gender divisions in various ways. A traditionally sanctioned activity of women, tortilla making, shifted to the control of businessmen where women neither owned the mills nor the tortillerias. Wage labor distribution was markedly unequal as women transitioned into the capitalist society as a reserve for cheap labor. Furthermore, the forced separation of public and private translates into the double shift where women actively participate in both locations. Women enter wage labor and continue with domestic unpaid labor including child care and food preparation. Women, however, often create alternative spaces: a public setting within the private space of home. For instance, women conduct restaurant businesses unofficially within the home. Women’s worth under the capitalist system is determined as the benefit they provide within the home while simultaneously devaluing domestic work for its failure to produce capital. This contradiction serves as an ideological function for capitalism as such devaluation justifies the unpaid labor that women do by taking it out of the economic sphere. Women’s domestic labor in precapitalist systems, once recognized as productive,

707

included selling food, clothing, baskets, and medicinal remedies, but under capitalism, it became invisible as part of the “informal sector.” The informal sector is work often done by women from within domestic spheres that operate on the margins of the economy and is thus not officially considered as part of the capitalist functioning system. Moreover, much of the production within the domestic sphere was removed from women’s hands and placed in factories and manufacturing sites with the consolidation of capitalism as the dominant economic system. Cookbooks and Recipes

Cookbooks, considered by feminist food scholars as literature, go far beyond being instructional containers on how to prepare certain foods. Some function to construct a sense of community, as in the example of community cookbooks, whereas others operate as storytelling devices through recipes, a form of culinary memoir. Cookbooks may be autobiographical or auto-ethnographic in that they represent a group in context of its own history and culture. Often, historical conditions of the time, like slavery, are discussed in cookbooks. They may also represent ways to reclaim ethnic and/or gender identities, serve as political commentary, or operate as resistance to the specific currents such as cultural commodification and appropriation, white supremacy, or intense individualism and hyperconsumption. Recipes are records of women’s exchange and sharing that involve establishing a community through engagement. Written within recipes are shared concerns, advice, and symbolic meaning. For example, insistence on fresh ingredients may reflect a concern about industrialized, processed foods and their degree of nutritional value. They may also mark nostalgia for the aesthetics of home cooking or a concern for resources used in the transportation of foods from abroad rather than reliance on local foods. Individual recipes and cookbooks are exchanges that capture history, folklore, religion, ethnic and cultural heritage, as well as group tensions. Erika Derkas

708

Generic Brands

See also Breastfeeding; Cooking Competitions; Food Justice; Weight Loss Diets

Further Readings Abarca, M. E. (2006). Voices in the kitchen: Views of food and the world from working-class Mexican and Mexican American women. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Avakian, A. V., & Haber, B. (2005). From Betty Crocker to feminist food studies: Critical perspectives on women and food. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Counihan, C. (2009). A tortilla is like life: Food and culture in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. Austin: University of Texas Press. Inness, S. A. (2001). Kitchen culture in America: Popular representations of food, gender, and race. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

GENERIC BRANDS A generic brand refers to a type of consumer good, most commonly food or drug, which is sold outside the jurisdiction of a national brand or corporation. These “no-name” products have traditionally functioned as economical alternatives to the higher priced “brand-name” products available in grocery stores and supermarkets. Known also as private labels, or store brands, these products are often tied to the supply chains and identities of the markets themselves. Rooted in a history of economic necessity, these storeassociated goods have evolved in a separate, but parallel, manner to national brands. Today, generic brands function under many of the same market principles as nationally branded and advertised goods. As individual retailers have become increasingly attune to the value of creating and refining their own retail brands in a saturated marketplace, more vigilant efforts have been taken to refine and promote their respective private label brands. This entry provides an overview of the place and perception of the generic brand in the modern market.

Consumer Perception and Preference The generic brand is often equated with the opposite of a national brand, or lack thereof. Food manufacturers and corporations invest heavily in marketing and advertising campaigns to generate an image for their brand, which serves to further a customer’s perception of the brand’s personality, experience, and reliability. The visual and rhetorical message of a brand serves to convince the consumer of the product’s intangible value, often at a subconscious level. In contrast to national brands, generic brands are assumed to be divorced from the expensive marketing, advertising, and labeling efforts of branding, as well as from the national brand tax. Generic food products are typically distinguished by a shared set of characteristics. Despite the fact that many are manufactured in the same production facilities and factories as their brand-name alternatives, these products are sold without a brand name, with austere packaging, and at a sale price below the level of national brands. A customer’s preference for established brands is typically based on a confidence in quality, whereas a customer’s preference for generic brands is typically based on a preference for value. This preference for brands versus generics can be thought of as a three-way split. Those with strong brand allegiance will purchase only the brandname products that guarantee a consistently higher quality and whose value message suits their lifestyle. Another group of customers will adhere strictly to generic products as a matter of economic principle; whereas some may concede to the quality benefits of some brand-name products, the difference is simply not enough to justify the higher cost. A third, in-between group of price-comparing customers will consciously evaluate for which products this difference is worth the extra cost and for which it is not.

Marketing Orders for Generic Advertising In the case of produce and other farm commodities, the use of generic branding and advertising is more complex. The value of advertising, marketing,

Generic Brands

or branding is greatly reduced when the supply is unreliable, and the product is difficult to differentiate. Thus, investing in marketing is often overlooked or undervalued by highly variable agricultural sectors. The history of the farming industry is marked by continuous efforts to counterbalance the instability of an industry of stable demand but variable (and often unpredictable) supply, often relying on governmental interventions to do so. The 1937 Agricultural Marketing and Agreement Act, requiring every producer in a specific industry to support a marketing program for their produce or commodity, emerged during a time of economic and agricultural instability as a viable solution to the farm crisis of the 1930s. This act, and the subsequent 1954 Advertising Amendment to the act, set a precedent of federal mandates for agricultural marketing to stimulate the industry and stabilize the market. It was hoped that increased generic advertising would increase sales of agricultural commodities, relieving the government from having to purchase the excess crop. For these orders to be effective however, these advertising campaigns must be truly generic, not distinguishing between crops or promoting any other value or political belief. Over time, the policies set by this act have been contested in both state and federal courts, but the economic rationale behind these acts remains intact. There is little incentive for any one farmer to engage in marketing or advertising in order to support their product in a homogeneous market.

Market Presence The first processed and packaged generic products were introduced to supermarkets in the 1970s. These store brand goods were plainly packed and labeled in plain black type, a simple indication of the product’s contents. Over time, these generic options have taken on a “me-too” marketing strategy, positioning themselves as a comparable alternative to their brand-name equivalents. It has been common practice for private manufactures to style the packaging of their products in a manner

709

similar to the national brand, often borrowing the color schemes, language, and symbols of other brands to capitalize on the existing consumer recognition. Today, some would argue that the term private brand is misleading. Generic brands have evolved such that they often function in the modern market in a similar manner as the national brands. Creating a distinct identity for the individual retailer has become imperative to attract new customers and build customer loyalty in an oversaturated marketplace. As such, vendors are spending more to promote their own form of retail branding and have been managing their private labels with increased focus on the wants and demands of the consumer base. The way in which generic brands have developed depends primarily on their place of distribution. The generic offerings of supermarket chains, wholesale merchandisers, or specialty stores vary qualitatively based on the identity and market for the place of retail. Supermarket Chains

The evolution of supermarket generic branding is characterized by the divergence of generic branding into two separate value categories. In an attempt to promote their own image of quality and reliability, most supermarket chains now offer two distinct generic brands: “Premium” and “Value.” While the Value line falls in line with the previous notions of generic branding, the “Premium” brands carry with them the same offerings of a brand’s consistency, quality, and experience as their national equivalents. However, these Premium products differ in that they derive their credibility from the localized identity of the retailer rather than the assurance of a national corporation. Wholesale Merchandisers

Wholesale merchandisers such as Costco or Aldi capitalize on the consumer preference for  economic value. These membership-only establishments offer bulk offerings of private label and generic goods that can be purchased at

710

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

wholesale prices. In these cases, the generic brands adhere to the assurance of a standardized no-name product that is affordable and available in large quantities. Specialty Chains

Specialty chains, such as Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods have emerged to offer quality store brand products under a private label, similar to the Premium brands at supermarkets. These chains cater to the idea of a holistic shopping experience, where the store brand products are often more common and popular than outside brands. Trader Joe’s, for example, advertises the high-quality sourcing solicited for its brand-name products. Its website firmly states, “We do not allow GMO [genetically modified organisms] ingredients in our private label products.” The additional use of a distinctly constructed neighborhood market vibe, quirky labeling, and special featured products serve to appeal to a wider array of values and incentives, beyond cost alone.

Genericization Brand names can, over time, become generic reference terms when used more frequently as a substitute for all available products of its category, regardless of the producer or the vendor. This process, whereby a product category is nominally replaced by a company name can be referred to as genericization. Band-Aid, Sharpie, and SPAM are common examples. Despite the fact that these names are still legally protected by trademarks and corporate ownership, these brand names are popularly recognized as synonymous with the product itself.

Future Prospects The sale of store and generic brands has seen tremendous growth in recent years. In 2012, the annual revenue of store brands surpassed $100 billion. The increase in generic and store brand sales has been attributed in part to the economic recession of the early 2000s, but there are

additional factors involved. Retailers are increasingly investing in the quality of their merchandise and storefront to improve the customer experience. As more consumers are opting for the store brand, and are finding themselves satisfied with the product, the incentive to turn back to a nationally branded one is greatly reduced. Customers are beginning to form loyalty to retail establishments and their respective store brands for reasons besides price alone, which will serve to support the continued growth of the generic brand industry in the upcoming years. Teagan Lehrmann See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Grocery Stores and Supermarkets

Further Readings Crepsi, J. (2001, September). Promotion checkoffs: Why so controversial? The evolution of generic advertising battles. National Institute for Commodity Promotion Research & Evaluation (NICPRE Research Bulletin 2001-04). Retrieved from http://commodity.aem .cornell.edu/nicpre/bulletins/rb0104.pdf Hawes, J. M. (1982). Retailing strategies for generic brand grocery products. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press. Mullick-Kanwar, M. (2001). The evolution of private label branding. Retrieved from http://www .brandchannel.com/papers_review.asp?sp_id=360

Websites Food Marketing Institute: http://www.fmi.org Private Label: http://plma.com

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOS) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are produced by introducing new genetic sequences into the nuclear DNA of animals or into the nuclear or chloroplast DNA of plants, using one of several

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

biotechnology processes. The aim of genetic modification is to induce the expression of new traits in the target organism. Unlike selective breeding, genetic modification enables the transfer of traits between sexually incompatible species. The first GMOs were produced in laboratories in 1972, and the first GMO food designed for human consumption, the Flavr Savr tomato, was licensed for sale in the United States in 1994. By 2009, 134 million hectares were planted with genetically modified crops worldwide, mostly in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina. The rapid rise of GMOs has taken place in the context of a global push to address the growing food insecurity through intensive use of agrobiotechnology. However, GMOs have generated significant controversy concerning the ethics of the technology itself as well as the long-term implications for planetary ecology, the nature of food, the structure of agricultural systems, and global patterns of social and economic relations. This entry begins by describing the development and promotion of genetic modification. Next, it discusses the application of genetic engineering to modify food crops. Last, this entry examines the controversies surrounding the expansion of the use of GMOs in food production.

Development and Promotion The promotion of genetic engineering and its later application to food production in the early 1990s were enabled by the conjunction of two earlier historical developments, the Green Revolution and the advent of molecular biology. Led by the American agronomist Norman Bourlag and backed by the U.S. government, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the World Bank, the Green Revolution comprised a series of international initiatives aimed at increasing global agricultural production through the industrialization of farming. It entailed the introduction of hybrid seed, heavy machinery, irrigation, and the intensive use of chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers to impoverished regions of the world. These programs were taken up by national governments

711

in Latin America and Asia as a means of combating chronic hunger and reducing dependency on imported food and often became part of broader state-led national industrialization schemes. A key component of these initiatives from the 1940s onward was the production and dissemination of high-yielding varieties of staple crops like maize, wheat, and rice. The international promotion of hybrid seed entailed the functional separation of seed production from crop production within agricultural systems and the subsequent commercialization of seed production. Hybrid seeds did not “breed true” in successive generations, so farmers could no longer carry on traditional seed saving and seed exchange practices. Hybrid seed had to be purchased anew every season, alongside a “technological package” including fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, and access to irrigation. This was a fundamental shift not only in the structure of agricultural systems but also in the role of farmers as plant breeders and environmental managers. The separation of seed production from crop production and the establishment of international crop research centers to facilitate collection of crop germplasm and its use in the creation of national breeding programs set the stage for later developments in genetic engineering by establishing institutions, practices, and scientific networks, as well as a market for seeds and genetic information. While this international effort initially promised to provide a technological fix to Malthusian problems, the dramatic pace of improvements in productivity could not be maintained for long, and an overwhelming focus on optimizing productivity reduced breeding performance in other areas, including disease resistance, taste, and nutrition. The technological package deployed to compensate for these problems created new ones, including soil and water contamination, erosion, and salinity. Together, these dynamics posed new challenges and opportunities for crop scientists and agroindustries. The 1960s also saw rapid advances in the field of molecular genetics, which would soon enable new forms of plant biotechnology to become

712

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

incorporated into established crop improvement projects. Beginning in the 1930s, scientific understanding of the laws of inheritance was greatly improved by a series of discoveries including the function of chromosomes and the chemical composition and structure of DNA. This led to a new understanding of how traits are encoded, inherited, and expressed in the cell as well as in the organism as a whole. As a result of our shared evolutionary history, all living organisms use DNA to encode and transfer the information that guides both development and function. The genetic differences between species stem from differences in the arrangement of the DNA sequences and the way they are packaged by the cell into chromosomes. This new understanding led to more precise breeding techniques for traditional crops. It also held out the possibility of artificially transferring genes—segments of DNA—between species that were not closely related enough to be sexually compatible. Manipulation of DNA outside the living cell was made possible by the development of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s. This new technique enabled the identification, isolation, and cloning (copying) of specific DNA segments, which could then be recombined with DNA from other sources to produce novel DNA sequences and, hence, new combinations of traits. The first laboratory experiments with GMOs involved the transfer of genes between bacteria, but by 1983, scientists at Washington University and Monsanto Corporation used the same technique to insert bacterial genes into plants. DNA segments were isolated and spliced into bacterial plasmids via the use of bacterial restriction enzymes, which form part of the bacteria’s defense system against invading viruses. Plasmids are circular DNA molecules, which replicate independently of the chromosomal DNA and can naturally transfer from one bacterial cell to another. The modified plasmid was then inserted into a living bacterium. Because bacteria multiply rapidly, the desired DNA segments could then be copied millions of times. Once the gene of interest is copied, it must be  incorporated into the genome of the target

organism. This can be accomplished with two methods, Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer or the use of a “gene gun.” The first method manipulates a natural DNA transfer mechanism whereby a pathogenic soil bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, infects a healthy plant causing a tumor to grow. In the lab, a target sequence of DNA can be spliced into an Agrobacterium plasmid. A single bacterium is then transplanted into a cell from the target plant, where it becomes incorporated into a chromosome of its host. The plant cell is cultured in a special medium until a new plant regenerates from the single transformed cell, with the new gene now incorporated into all of the cells of the plant. One limit to Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer is that it is not currently possible to control exactly where in the host chromosome the new  DNA is incorporated. Another is that Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer is more effective in dicots than in monocots, so alternative methods must be used to transfer foreign genes into monocot crops such as rice, sugarcane, maize, and wheat. The most common of these is the biolistic technique or gene gun, where microparticles of gold or tungsten are coated with DNA and “shot” into plant cells directly with a particle accelerator. Both methods must then be followed by several years of selective breeding to ensure that the new plant variety expresses the desired traits. Because genes function differently depending on their position in the genome, it is not always easy to predict if and how the target traits will be expressed in the host organism or whether these traits will function in the same way in later generations. When such crops are grown commercially in open fields, they may hybridize with conventional crops in nearby fields or even with the wild relatives of domesticated plants, producing unexpected and irreversible effects. Indeed, Monsanto Corporation has famously sued farmers in several countries whose conventional crops suffered ingression of patented transgenes due to wind-borne pollination by neighboring crops, asserting that the contaminated crops constituted theft of  Monsanto’s intellectual property. Since 1997,  Monsanto has brought lawsuits against

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

144 farmers in the United States alone and has prevailed in nearly all of these cases. Scientists and farmers have raised concerns about the effects that GMO crops (especially Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt varieties) have on the health of soil microbes and pollinator communities, both vital to the longterm viability of agriculture. Cultivation of GMO crops has also given way to the appearance of “superbugs” and “superweeds,” as pest species develop resistance over time to the foreign proteins excreted by GMO plants. Finally, because agronomic conditions such as soil composition, climate, moisture, sunlight, pests, and farming practices vary from one location to the next, crops grown from the same GMO seed strains may produce different results in practice. These dynamics therefore pose risks to traditional farming systems, and their advertised benefits (increased productivity and reduced use of chemical pesticides and herbicides) may not be realized.

The Early Growth of GMO Food Crops China pioneered the first commercial genetically modified crop, a disease-resistant tobacco variety released in 1988. The first GMO food crop approved for commercial sale in the United States was Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato, engineered to resist rot and remain shelf stable over long periods. Although the Flavr Savr, approved in 1994, did not become a commercial success, Calgene was acquired by Monsanto, which soon launched an entire line of crops genetically engineered to emit their own pesticides (via the incorporation of genes from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt) or to survive heavy applications of proprietary herbicides such as glyphosphate (RoundUp) and bromoxynil. Early food crops targeted for genetic engineering tended to be profitable, highly subsidized commodities grown in large-scale industrial monocultures. The most widespread varieties today are maize, soybeans, and canola, engineered with a combination of herbicide tolerance and insect resistance traits (a practice known as “gene stacking”). In the 1990s, the new science of genomics helped bring about a rapid expansion in the

713

genetic engineering of food crops. Enabled by technological advances in DNA sequencing and supercomputing, genomics is concerned with decoding the entire nucleotide sequence of an organism’s genome to understand the function and expression patterns of all genes. Using these techniques, scientists are able to understand the effects of random mutations in specific genes, as well as to detect pathways of gene expression and the effects of environmental disturbances on expression. This has led to important innovations, including the ability to subtly manipulate existing genes and their regulatory pathways in order to induce expression of desired characteristics (rather than by introducing completely new genes). The growth of genomics has also catalyzed a race to sequence and study the genomes of food crops and animals, with biotechnology companies building up large proprietary databases. The enormous commercial value of this genetic information is directly related to recent developments in international law governing the disposition of intellectual property. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty (447 U.S. 303) established the patentability of living organisms. The organisms in question were microbes that had been genetically engineered by A. M. Chakrabarty, a research scientist at General Electric, to rapidly break down petroleum from oil spills. The novel technical processes involved in genetically engineering life forms were easily compatible with existing U.S. patent law; hence, what was really at stake in the case was the question of whether a GMO itself could be said to have a single “inventor” and hence be treated as private property. The landmark case was decided by a vote of 5 to 4, in which the majority found that the GMOs in question were novel products of human ingenuity rather than products of nature and hence subject to patent. The minority opinion, however, insisted that the novel nature of both the technology and the products themselves was a matter of public concern and should be more properly addressed via congressional study and subsequent legislation. In the end, while the Supreme Court decision pertained to a narrowly

714

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

defined range of “lower” forms of life, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office interpreted the precedent more broadly and rapidly began issuing patents for plant, animal, and microbial GMOs, including the first genetically modified cereal crop (1986) and the first genetically modified mammal, Harvard’s OncoMouse (1988). These U.S. legal precedents influenced the legal frameworks of the World Trade Organization, facilitating the global commercialization of genes and GMOs. The 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a new chapter of the UN Convention on Biodiversity, entailed a broad international push to “harmonize” regulatory frameworks in order to manage large-scale biosafety risks and regulate intellectual property rights. Although the protocol established the precautionary principle as the basis for international biosafety regimes governing the importation and cultivation of GMOs, in practice, governments in the Americas and Asia have been slow to implement it and, in many cases, have failed to develop robust regulatory capacity.

Resistance to the Expansion of GMO Crops Throughout the 1990s, the global spread of GMO crops generated resistance—to the technology itself, its possible health repercussions, and the restrictive intellectual property regimes on which its profitability rested. Proteins produced by some GMO crops (e.g., Starlink maize) were shown to cause allergic reactions in lab animals, livestock, and humans. GMO foods were roundly rejected as “Frankenfoods” in lucrative markets like Europe, and consumer movements in North America sought to create labeling requirements for GMO ingredients. Currently, 64 countries require GMO foods to be labeled or ban them outright. In the United States, Maine and Connecticut have passed GMO labeling laws, and efforts are under way to require labeling of GMOs in California, Washington, and Oregon as well. In India, a wave of farmer suicides linked to debts incurred through agrobiotechnology transfer schemes prompted public backlash against GMOs. Elsewhere in Asia, both Japan and South Korea sought to prevent the importation of

GMO grain. China has had limited GMO labeling laws since 2001 and recently expanded them to cover all GMO foods. Farmers and consumers in Mexico lobbied the government to impose a moratorium on the importation and cultivation of GMO maize. Through a class action lawsuit brought by a coalition of consumers, farmers, and scientists, an injunction has been placed on government approvals of GMO maize cultivation, and several Mexican state governments have successfully sued to halt approvals of GMO soy cultivation. In 1999, public outcry forced Monsanto to abandon plans to commercialize GMO“terminator” technology, in which crops were engineered to render the seeds sterile, thereby preventing farmers from saving seeds year over year. Apart from threatening farmers’ rights to follow traditional agricultural practices, the commercialization of the technology posed major threats to conventional crops and wild plants, because cross-pollination is impossible to prevent in open fields. In recent years, the agrobiotechnology industry has shifted focus to new areas of research and commercialization, including industrial materials (enhanced livestock feed, biofuels, and pharmaceuticals) and others that promised quick technological fixes to global problems of entrenched social inequality (provitamin A “golden rice”) or systematic ecological degradation (“climate-ready” crops, patented primarily by DuPont, BASF, and Monsanto). The production of genetically engineered animals for human consumption is also in the offing. While genetically modified fish have been used in scientific research since 1984, several agrobiotechnology corporations have plans to introduce transgenic species for use in aquaculture operations. The corporation AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., has recently applied for U.S. regulatory permission to market its AquAdvantage Salmon, which has been genetically modified to mature in half the time and at twice the size of wild salmon. More than half of the corn and a significant percentage of the soy grown in the United States each year go to feed livestock. Ruminants, however, tend to suffer from amino acid deficiencies, stomach

Ghostwriters for Celebrity Chefs

acidification, and immune deficiencies when intensively fed a diet high in corn and soy. More than 70% of the antibiotics consumed in the United States annually are fed to livestock. Genetic modification of feed crops is currently being pursued to permit more efficient use by ruminant animals in feedlots as well as to produce meat, dairy, and eggs with more desirable nutritional qualities. Alongside the traditional aims of selective breeding to enhance resistance to stress, increase yield, and improve quality, genetic engineering has now enabled the creation of entirely new crops and the transformation of existing ones into industrial chemical or pharmaceutical factories. “Biopharming” has emerged as a new branch of the biotechnology industry, genetically engineering plant crops and livestock to produce pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic proteins such as antibodies, hormones, enzymes, and vaccines. In recent years, GMO crops have also been marketed as solutions to global poverty and climate change. Drought-tolerant GMO varieties of maize, for example, have been developed for use in subSaharan Africa through public–private partnerships involving governments, corporations, and aid organizations. In fact, the development of “climateready” GMO crops has been a cornerstone of the influential Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa funded by the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto, and Cargill. Analiese M. Richard See also Green Revolution, Future Prospects for; Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences; World Trade Organization

Further Readings Aoki, K. (2008). Seed wars: Controversies and cases on plant genetic resources and intellectual property. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Bezner Kerr, R. (2010). Unearthing the cultural and material struggles over seed in Malawi. In H. Wittman, A. Desmarais, & N. Weibe (Eds.), Food sovereignty: Reconnecting food, nature, and community. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Press.

715

Fitting, E. (2011). The struggle for maize: Campesinos, workers, and transgenic corn in the Mexican countryside. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kloppenberg, J. (2004). First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Martineau, B. (2001). First fruit: The creation of the Flavr Savr tomato and the birth of biotech foods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Otero, G. (Ed.). (2008). Food for the few: Neoliberal globalism and biotechnology in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press. Quist, D., & Chapela, I. (2001). Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature, 414, 541–543. doi:10 .1038/35107068 Rajan, K. S. (Ed.). (2012). Lively capital: Biotechnologies, ethics, and governance in global markets. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Shiva, V. (2000). Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food supply. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Stone, G. D. (2010). The anthropology of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 381–400. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105058

GHOSTWRITERS FOR CELEBRITY CHEFS Ghostwriters are professional writers who are hired to anonymously produce written material for both celebrities and noncelebrities. For the famous cooking personalities known as celebrity chefs, ghostwriters may be hired to write or edit recipes and food-related commercial text such as cookbooks, magazine articles, personal blogs, or press releases that appear in media. The term celebrity chef refers to people in the food industry (including professional chefs and home cooks) who have gained a high degree of public recognition, have a significant mass media presence (e.g., television shows, best-selling cookbooks), and are able to market themselves as a brand. Cookbooks are an integral part of celebrity chefs’ public personas. Cookbooks not only help celebrity chefs gain legitimacy as experts in their field but also

716

Ghostwriters for Celebrity Chefs

provide exposure that supports a chef’s personal brand and can generate significant revenue. There is a high public demand for celebrity chefs’ thoughts and ideas (including recipes but also general food philosophies and lifestyle types), and celebrity chef cookbooks are one of the best-selling genres in overall cookbook sales. Given this consumer demand, and the need to keep promoting the celebrity chef’s brand in a fast-paced, social media–driven environment, celebrity chefs are pressured to keep providing textual content for a hungry public. However, celebrity chefs do not necessarily have any writing experience, let alone culinary education, chef credentials, or experience cooking in a restaurant (e.g., Rachael Ray). This is  where ghostwriters are helpful. They offer behind-the-scenes assistance to the celebrity chef who may be unable to write his or her own recipe books. In the truest sense of the term ghostwriter, the writing produced by a ghostwriter would be credited to the celebrity chef as opposed to appearing as coauthor. No celebrity chefs have publicly admitted to hiring ghostwriters, but it is assumed that they (like many celebrities, politicians, and business leaders) use ghostwriters to help them produce professional-quality written material, which they otherwise would be unable to create on their own. Celebrity chefs may not be able to perform their own writing work for a variety of reasons, including the following: a lack of writing skill or experience, time limitations, or the inability to accurately convey a writing tone or voice that is congruent with the public persona that they have created. In terms of time limitations, while many celebrity chefs have created a market demand for their cookbooks and recipes, they may not have enough time in their schedule to sit down and write because they are busy overseeing restaurants and food businesses, making public appearances, and hosting television shows. Ghostwriters’ involvement with writing can take various forms: researching on behalf of a chef, developing recipes, writing an entire piece of work based on a basic outline, collaborating frequently with a celebrity chef, or merely editing rough

drafts. Collaboration between celebrity chef and ghostwriter can take place face-to-face, or ghostwriters may be outsourced from locations around the world, communicating with chefs only via electronic forms of communication. Ghostwriters are represented by agents, and it is possible for them to be paid in a variety of ways including a fee per word, per page, or per book, or they may even receive a percentage of a book’s advance and its royalties based on sales. Ghostwriters do not receive authorship credit, in contrast to professional writers who assist with celebrity chefs’ cookbooks and are named as coauthors (i.e., second authors). Iron Chefs Cat Cora and Michael Symon are examples of chefs who have coauthored books with professional cookbook and food television writers and given them authorship credit for their cookbooks (Cora with Anne Krueger Spivack and Symon with Michael Ruhlman). Celebrity chefs’ use of ghostwriters to write their cookbooks and other written material was brought to the public spotlight in a 2012 article titled “I Was a Cookbook Ghostwriter,” written for the New York Times by self-proclaimed ghostwriter Julia Moskin. In the article, Moskin provided the names of chefs she had cowritten with during her writing career (e.g., Bobby Flay) as well as details of her largely negative experience as a ghostwriter for nine cookbooks. While ghostwriters may be treated respectfully in some cases, and the experience can lead to getting credited work as an author, they are more likely to be poorly paid and faced with broken promises of book deals with celebrity chefs or coauthorship credits. According to Moskin’s account, ghostwriting is a thankless job; chefs are difficult to deal with and have fragile egos as well as staff and spouses who are suspicious of ghostwriters’ intentions. Because they are translating chefs’ ideas into books for the home-cooking market, ghostwriters must have patience and the ability to write in the “voice” of a celebrity chef, as well as a working knowledge of food and cooking. And yet ghostwriters are often treated with disregard and faced with difficult working conditions such as taking notes in hot, cramped kitchens where they are not wanted.

Global Food Security Act of 2009

Moskin also insinuated that several prominent celebrities named in the article (e.g., Mario Batali and Gwyneth Paltrow) had worked with ghostwriters who helped them produce recipes and cookbooks. Rachael Ray, for example, is noted for being listed as the sole author of her dozens of cookbooks while admittedly having recipe developers who create content for those books (one of whom was interviewed by Moskin for the article). Moskin’s article led both Ray and Paltrow to issue official statements that they do not use ghostwriters. Ultimately, while many chefs are known to have writers on their teams who assist with such writing as recipe development, these writers are usually not given credit other than being mentioned in the “acknowledgments” section of a book. Alexandra Rodney and Josée Johnston See also Celebrity Chefs; Cookbooks and the Publishing Industry; Food Magazines; Food TV; Restaurant Chefs

Further Readings Hewer, P., & Brownlie, D. (2009). “Nigella,” an iconic brand in the baking: Culinary culture, gastrobrands and identity myths. In A. L. McGill & S. Savitt (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 36, pp. 482–487). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research. Jacob, D. (2005). Will write for food: The complete guide to writing cookbooks, blogs, reviews, memoir and more. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. Moskin, J. (2012, March 31). I was a cookbook ghostwriter. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/dining/i-was-acookbook-ghostwriter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Rousseau, S. (2012). Food media: Celebrity chefs and the politics of everyday interference. New York, NY: Berg.

GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 2009 The Global Food Security Act of 2009 (GFSA) is a bill that was authored by Senator Richard Luger (R-IN) and Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA) and

717

supported by a number of other senators. The bill was introduced on February 5, 2009, and is also known as the Luger-Casey Food Security Act or S.384. It was approved through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March 2009, but it did not become law. The purpose of the bill was to provide funds during 2010 to 2014 to developing nations to ensure or enhance food security, to alleviate food shortages or crises, and to provide economic development in rural areas. The bill would also have enhanced agricultural and institutional capacity in developing nations. Furthermore, the law would have amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide in part for the investment in and development of scientifically enhanced crops for use in the other activities of the act. This provision of the law was considered to be a promotion of genetically modified (GM) plants and seeds, which made the bill controversial to those who oppose GM seeds and plants. Scientists and food consumer advocates from around the world petitioned the Senate to reject this component of the proposed law despite the fact that they otherwise supported the spirit of the bill. There was heavy lobbying in support of the bill by Monsanto and other corporations who were considered to be in the best position to benefit from the enhanced crop provisions. The international group of scientists and aid organizations who protested urged the Senate to make the law technology neutral because of a belief that GM seeds would negatively affect the neediest nations and would not end hunger. Many aid organizations in Africa in particular were concerned about the negative economic impact of introducing GM technology into the agricultural systems, specifically citing the possible destruction of local markets. There were additional concerns about the potential decrease in biodiversity and the impact on local ecologies. In addition, critics argued that when fighting hunger, poverty is the main issue to be addressed, not the promotion of a technology that benefits only a few corporations. In general, critics were concerned that subsistence and small farms, which may want assistance in embracing sustainable practices and

718

Global Food Security Act of 2009

local food security sovereignty, should be supported instead of ignored in favor of corporate benefit. These critics claimed that GM seeds detract from the application of sustainable practices. A few international aid organizations endorsed the bill as one that would help alleviate hunger in the world. The bill attempted to approach food aid in a more expansive manner than through the traditional purchase and distribution of food only in places where there is a food crisis. The bill would have provided for at least some purchase of local food to stimulate local economies, it contained provisions that would have expanded the roles of aid agencies and nongovernmental organizations, and it required that reports be made to Congress. The bill also appointed the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as the lead agency to carry out the multifaceted approach to alleviating hunger, coordinating the changing roles of aid agencies and nongovernmental organizations, and engaging local involvement in improved agricultural capacity. Although agricultural assistance has traditionally represented a small portion of the overall aid budget of the United States, the GFSA would have begun the major expansion of agricultural assistance and research as a proportion of the aid budget. The GFSA would also have expanded the introduction of biotechnical advances into nations of extreme poverty and need, with the goal of assisting those nations in fighting hunger, giving those nations more power and resources to feed themselves, and expanding the reach of U.S. technology. The bill would also fund more research through the Collaborative Research Support Program as well as the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research. In addition to the research discussed herein, the bill would also have provided for university-based agricultural research in other countries through a new program called the Higher Education Collaboration for Technology, Agriculture, Research, and Extension (HECTARE). To participate, the government of an eligible country and the USAID would negotiate a Center of Excellence for agricultural sciences at a university or institution

in the participating country. This institution would then become the lead recipient of the funding. To receive such funding, the bill requires a plan of assistance that is in line with national development goals and methodologies. Practical dissemination of information developed through the HECTARE institution is a key component. The bill also would have established a fund, the Emergency Rapid Response Food Crises Fund (ERRFCF), to deal with international food crises. This fund would be administered by the USAID. The ERRFCF is protected by the bill and is independent from other crisis funds. It is designed to be an emergency first response to a food crisis. The GFSA authorized up to $500 million, which can be accessed by either the president of the United States or the USAID. Rather than the final solution, the purpose of the ERRFCF is that it be used in conjunction with other resources. The ERRFCF represents an initial response to stabilize the emergency while the authorities assemble other resources to establish a permanent solution to the problem. As noted earlier, the GFSA did not become law. Because many nations are enacting laws that prohibit the use of GM foods and the importation of GM seeds, the conditions for its passage without change deteriorated. Many critics of the bill consider the problems that contribute to hunger and poverty to be complex and multilayered, and  they consider using GM seeds to solve the problem of hunger and poverty a simplistic and one-dimensional solution, which is also not likely to be of benefit to those who need the assistance. In September 2014, Senator Casey introduced a similar bill, the Global Security Act of 2014. Elizabeth Williams See also Food Insecurity; Food Justice; Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO); Hunger; International Food Security

Further Readings Open Congress. (n.d.). S.384—Global Food Security Act of 2009. Retrieved from http://www.opencongress.org/ bill/s384-111/show

Global Warming and Future Food Supply Schanbacker, W. D. (2010). The politics of food: The global conflict between food security and food sovereignty. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Whitman, H. K., Desmarais, A. A., & Weibe, N. (Eds.). (2010). Food sovereignty: reconnecting food, nature and community. Oakland, CA: Food First Books.

Website Food First: http://foodfirst.org/publication/why-the-lugarcasey-global-food-security-act-will-fail-to-curb-hunger/

GLOBAL WARMING FOOD SUPPLY

AND

FUTURE

Global warming refers to the gradual increase of the average temperature of the Earth’s climate. Average global temperatures, for example, have risen by approximately 0.13 °C per decade since 1950, and scientists predict they will rise at nearly twice that rate over the next few decades. The effect of such temperature increases on the global production of some basic crops is already beginning to be noticed by researchers. Production of maize and wheat, for example, has declined by 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively, between 1980 and 2008, relative to the yields that would have been expected in the absence of global warming. These percentage declines are equivalent to losing the whole of the annual production of maize in Mexico and wheat in France. Global warming, and the predicted consequential changes in global weather patterns, can affect all aspects of food supply. It is not just a matter of food production, where temperature changes can affect the length of a growing season, and changes in rainfall patterns can affect yields. Climate change can also affect other aspects of food availability, such as distribution and exchange. It can affect access to food (affordability, allocation, and preference) and the utilization of food (nutritional and societal values and food safety). Sophisticated computer modeling has shown that the negative effects of these changes will affect

719

most strongly those who are least able to cope— the countries of the third world, especially those of Southern Africa and Southeast Asia. The poverty and lack of infrastructure in these countries means that they have limited capacity to cope with the short-term shocks of drought or flooding, or to adapt their agricultural and farming methods to the weather changes and other long-term stresses associated with climate change. Affluent Western countries will be relatively unaffected, at least over the next few decades. These predictions raise serious social and moral issues in themselves, but there are yet more questions. Changes in the food supply can be a critical driver for social change, from the peaceful reorganization of an agricultural system to outright revolution and war. There is clear evidence of a link between climate change and conflict, and conflict at a local or national level can have a disastrous effect on food supplies. Although the eventual answers will depend primarily on the political arena, to be effective, they must also address key practical issues. Many groups of scientists throughout the world are now using computer modeling to help predict scenarios and to identify the issues that need to be addressed if the worst scenarios are to be avoided. This is not to say that the predictions are flawless. It is always possible to criticize computer modeling of complex scenarios on the basis that (a) models are essentially incomplete and may not take account of some important factors that only come to light later; (b) modelers may have to make informed, or even uninformed, guesses about the values of key variables, and these values may be wildly out; (c) many of the variables interact in such a way that the changes feed back on each other, so that tiny changes in one variable can have dramatic effects on others (this is also true in real-life complex systems); and (d) different models, using slightly different assumptions, can produce very different predictions, and we have no way of knowing which one to trust. All of these criticisms contain a measure of truth, and so it might seem that computer modeling of future scenarios is futile, or an academic exercise at best. But computer modeling is the major tool

720

Global Warming and Future Food Supply

that we have, and scientists use a number of different models, based on different initial assumptions, to identify the set of key issues (which may not always be those that might be expected from intuition). This process of intelligently combining the predictions of different models is known as ensemble forecasting. It is already being used with great success to predict the path of hurricanes across the southeastern United States. Instead of choosing between the models developed by different groups of scientists, and selecting the one model that has had the most previous success, forecasters take a set of the “best” models and average their predictions. Mathematical reasoning seems to support that the resultant forecast will be more accurate than that of each individual model. Predicting the effects of climate change on future food supplies is a vastly more complex problem than predicting the path of a hurricane, and true ensemble forecasting is some way off, but it is still possible to compare and combine the predictions of different models to obtain a “best” prediction for different scenarios. This approach may allow for the identification of crucial issues in time to take effective action—in particular, to plan ahead and adapt to the new conditions that are likely to be created by climate change. This entry outlines the ways in which modeling has allowed scientists to forecast the effects of climate change on future food scenarios and briefly discusses how this information might be used to help develop practical policies.

Major Influences of Climate Change on Food Supply and Food Security Carbon Dioxide

The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has risen from 313 parts per million (ppm) in 1960 to 400 ppm in 2013. Major anthropogenic sources include the burning of fossil fuels, cement production, and tropical deforestation. Although the contribution of these sources to the total is still disputed by some (but not by most serious scientists), they have rapidly increased—a trend that seems set to continue.

Because plants use atmospheric CO2 as a primary food source, it might appear that any increase in CO2 concentration should increase yields. Laboratory experiments have indeed shown that an increase from 367 to 583 ppm CO2 in a closed environment can raise yields of crops that use a C3 photosynthetic cycle (e.g., wheat, rice, soybean, barley, and oats) by 14%. This suggests that the 87 ppm increase between 1960 and 2013 would have boosted yields by roughly 3% for these crops, though not for maize, which uses a C4 cycle that is insensitive to CO2 concentration. If CO2 concentration were the only factor to be taken into account, its increasing presence in the atmosphere might thus be welcomed, by farmers at least. But its role as a nutrient is negated by its effect on the global climate—in particular, its role in global warming. Global Warming

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ongoing increase in global temperatures can largely be attributed to the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. This is because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which basically traps long-wavelength thermal energy radiated from the Earth’s surface and reradiates some of it back to the surface. As discussed earlier, the increase in global temperatures is correlated with a decrease in the yields of maize and wheat crops compared with that which might have been expected without the temperature increase. The news is not all bad, however. The production of rice and soybeans (which, together with maize and wheat, provide 75% of the calories that humans consume directly or indirectly) has been relatively unaffected so far, although this situation is likely to change as global temperatures continue to increase. This is because of the expected impact of global warming on global weather patterns. Changes in Global Weather Patterns

One of the most serious implications of global warming for future food supplies lies in its potential

Global Warming and Future Food Supply

impact on global weather patterns. The consensus among modelers is that • for most places on Earth, there will be an increased frequency of extreme events, such as storms, floods, and droughts; • longer, more intense heat waves will become more common; • there will be more hot days and fewer cool days; and • hurricanes and tornadoes may become more intense as sea temperatures rise.

The direct consequences of these changes on food supplies are predicted to be severe. Higher temperatures will extend the growing season for many crops (in the past 60 years, the growing season for crops in the Northern Hemisphere has already become 2 weeks longer). Longer growing seasons will mean that plants will need more water to prevent them from drying out, with the risks of crop failure and fire damage increasing substantially when water is not available. In semiarid regions (particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Southeast Asia), droughts could dramatically reduce crop yields and livestock numbers. The indirect consequences of global weather changes are likely to be also severe. Milder winters may fail to kill dormant insects, so infestations in the following growing seasons will be larger and more damaging. Shifts in seasons (spring is already coming earlier in both hemispheres) will affect the life cycles of plants and their pollinators differently so that their life cycles will diverge and pollination will become less efficient. Migrating animals will have to seek food sources earlier. As tropical temperature zones expand, the range of infectious diseases like malaria is also predicted to expand. This could lead to a vicious cycle where infectious disease reduces the number and efficiency of people available to till crops and look after animals, with the resulting lack of food exacerbating malnutrition and making the population more susceptible to disease. Changes in rainfall will likely affect the harvesting, storage, and transport of food, as well as the amount that can be grown. Such changes are also

721

likely to affect the infrastructure of the supply chain, especially in areas where roads and other transport links are already in poor condition, with consequential changes in markets and food prices. Food safety will also likely be compromised, especially in extreme wet conditions, which will increase the chances of fungal contamination in crops, such as the aflatoxin-producing Aspergillus in peanuts. When these and other factors are taken into account, the prospects for future food supplies look grim indeed for communities situated in subtropical regions, though not so grim (at least over a scale of a few decades) for those living at higher latitudes.

The Effects of Climate Change on Crops Available Land

Several models have shown that the total land and total prime land available for agriculture throughout the world is likely to remain virtually unchanged at 2,600 million and 2,000 million hectares, respectively. There will, however, be pronounced regional shifts. Thus, there is a predicted increase in the availability of suitable cropland at higher latitudes (i.e., in developed countries) of 160 million hectares as warming makes the farming of previously unviable land viable. There will, however, be a corresponding decline at lower latitudes (mostly occupied by developing countries) of 110 million hectares. There is also a predicted massive decline of around 135 million hectares in prime agricultural land in developing countries, offset by an increase of around 25 million hectares in the availability of marginal agricultural land (a consequence of deforestation). This quality shift is predicted to reduce the amount of land suitable for double- or triplecropping (by between 10 million and 20 million hectares in sub-Saharan Africa alone). The resultant decrease in agricultural gross domestic product, compared with a scenario with no climate change, will range from 3% to 9%, according to one model, and from 7% to 9% for a second model; that is, the predictions overlap, with a most likely decrease of 6% to 7%.

722

Global Warming and Future Food Supply

Water

One signature for the effect of global warming on precipitation is that rainfall is likely to increase in high latitudes and the tropics and to decrease in the already dry subtropical regions. In practical terms, this means that water will be available in most developed countries to support the longer growing seasons that we are already seeing but that longer growing seasons will result in considerable crop loss in the dryer third world countries.

The Effects of Climate Change on Fisheries Some 80 megatons of marine fish are caught each year either to be consumed directly or to be used to produce fishmeal and fish oils. Small changes in temperature can have large effects on the catch. Already, over the past three decades, the pattern of fish distribution in the northeast Atlantic Ocean has changed as those waters have warmed faster than the global average. With further global warming, and further changes in ocean temperatures, larger scale changes are expected, primarily as a result of the distribution and availability of phytoplankton and other primary food sources. Two quite different types of models—one predicated on the interactions and dynamics of different species and the other based on analysis of whole food webs—have come to very similar conclusions with regard to future fish stocks. The former predicts a 30% to 70% increase in potential fish production at high latitudes but up to a 40% decrease in the tropics. The latter predicts corresponding figures of 30% to 90% and 30% to 60%, respectively, with the decrease being most prominent in the Eastern Indo-Pacific, the northern Humboldt, and the Northern Canary current, all of which affect the poorer areas of the world. These patterns mirror those that have been predicted for changes in agriculture.

The Effects of Climate Change on Meat Production There have been many studies of the contribution of livestock to anthropogenic greenhouse gas

emissions via the production of methane and nitrous oxide, which constitute around 9% of the  total greenhouse gas emissions. There have been few studies, though, of the effects of climate change on livestock production. Probably the best that can be said is that the trend is very likely to mirror that found with crops and fisheries.

Future Policies to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change on Food Supplies Many studies have shown that the largely negative effects of climate change on food supplies will be borne by those who are least fitted to cope—that is, the people and communities of the underdeveloped third world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. These are the communities whose circumstances render them least able to handle the increasingly frequent short-term shocks and the longer term changes in regional weather patterns that climate change will bring. To manage such impacts requires two quite different types of resilience. To cope with shortterm shocks such as violent weather, floods, or drought, a community needs to be able to “bounce back”—that is, to recover from the shock and return to a state somewhere near that which existed before the shock. This is the sort of resilience that the World Economic Forum referred to in 2013, when it addressed the resilience of economies. Because economic circumstances and the availability and usability of food supplies are inextricably intertwined, one cannot have a food supply policy without an economic policy to go with it. Specifically, measures that have been proposed to counter the effects of increasingly rapid and extreme weather fluctuations include improvements in irrigation, storage facilities, transport, and communication. All of these require substantial investment, which many poorer countries simply cannot afford. Thus, the future food supplies in such countries will depend very much on the extent to which other, richer countries are prepared to help. Typically, such countries are

Gluten-Free Foods

likely to help if they can see some immediate or future benefit to themselves. This is where the second type of resilience comes in—that of permanently changing and adapting to new circumstances (in this case, new weather patterns). Countries that have been able to make such changes will be able to contribute more substantially to the growing global demand for food—a demand that Western countries will generally be able to meet for themselves in the immediate future but will require global cooperation in the longer term. Western countries could make long-term investments in the facilities that will be needed. Already there has been discussion about how high-tech seed banks may be used to help develop appropriate crops for the expected future circumstances. On a larger scale, new methods, new machinery, and even the movement of whole communities may be needed. In the medium term, it has been suggested that higher food imports and freer trade may help countries adapt as well as provide the basis for a future global food market that is both more flexible and fairer. These are political decisions, but such political decisions can be informed by science. Building such an effective partnership may help ensure the safety and security of future food supplies in the face of global warming. Len Fisher See also Climate Change; Fishing Industry; Food Riots; Hunger

Further Readings Blanchard, J. L., Jennings, S., Holmes, R., Harle, J., Merino, G., Allen, J. I., . . . Barange, M. (2012). Potential consequences of climate change for primary production and fish production in large marine ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 2979–2989. doi:10.1098/rstb .2012.0231 Lobell, D. B., Burke, M. B., Tebaldi, C., Mastrandrea, M. D., Falcon, W. P., & Naylor, R. L. (2008). Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food

723

security in 2030. Science, 319, 607–610. doi:10.1126/ science.1152339 Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W., & Costa-Roberts, J. (2011). Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science, 333, 616–620. doi:10.1126/science .1204531 NASA Earth Observatory. (n.d.). Global warming. Retrieved from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Features/GlobalWarming/ Schmidhuber, S., & Tubiello, F. N. (2007). Global food security under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A., 104, 19703–19708.

GLUTEN-FREE FOODS Gluten-free foods are food products that lack gluten proteins and are thus appropriate for people with celiac disease (also spelled coeliac disease in British English) and non-celiac gluten intolerance. Celiac disease is also known as celiac sprue, nontropical sprue, and gluten-sensitive enteropathy. Gluten-free products are often also appropriate for people with wheat allergies. However, gluten-free wheat products are available but are not appropriate for people with wheat allergies. Gluten proteins are found in the grains and other plant parts of wheat, spelt, barley, rye, and other species of wheat such as teff and kamut. Although avenin (the gluten found in oats) is safe for most people with celiac disease (at least 95%), other gluten proteins may contaminate oats or products that are processed on the same equipment as, or grown in adjacent fields to, gluten-containing grains. Because oats were often processed with the same equipment as wheat and thus became contaminated, they were long thought to contain gluten. It is now recognized that oats are usually suitable for a glutenfree diet, and there are many brands of oats worldwide in which the oats are specifically tested for gluten to ensure that there is no contamination. This entry begins by describing various types of gluten-free food products. It then discusses issues

724

Gluten-Free Foods

involved in maintaining a gluten-free diet and in labeling. Last, this entry presents information regarding celiac disease.

Gluten-Free Food Products Many foods are naturally gluten free, because they do not contain gluten-containing grains. Examples include dairy products, rice, vegetables, meat, fish, eggs, millet, quinoa, beans, lentils, and corn (maize). Gluten-free flours, such as millet, quinoa, gram (chick pea), amaranth, rice, tapioca, nuts, oat, soy, and corn (maize), are often used in place of gluten-containing flours to create products such as pasta, bread, cookies, and cakes. Because gluten-free flours behave differently than gluten-containing flours and even differently than one another, blends of gluten-free flours are used to create the desired textures. Most gluten-free recipes require additional water, because gluten-free flours tend to absorb more moisture than the usual wheat flour. Traditionally, extra oil was added to enhance moisture, but as knowledge of different flours and ingredients has increased, this practice has decreased. Natural gelling agents or stabilizers such as xanthan gum are often used in gluten-free baking to approximate the binding effects of gluten and allow for air bubbles to be maintained in the dough or batter, creating a fluffier texture. Gelling agents and stabilizers also enhance the moist texture of baked goods, but in excess, these create a perpetually mushy product. Extra eggs or baking powder can also enhance the fluffiness of glutenfree baked goods, whereas nut flours are used to increase the moisture of gluten-free recipes due to their natural oil content. Insoluble fiber such as oat germ or rice bran might be added to breads to increase their fiber content and create a multigrain appearance. Although foods such as yogurt and cheese are normally gluten free, many common starchy foods are inherently gluten free as well, because they are made by default without glutencontaining grains. For example, traditional corn tortillas (made from 100% corn), steamed rice,

polenta, quinoa, popadoms, sushi, risotto, tortilla chips, potato chips, baked potatoes, sweet potatoes, and millet are not normally made with added gluten-containing grains. However, processed foods are sometimes made with added wheat flour; for example, some packaged corn tortillas contain a blend of wheat and corn. Gluten itself may also be added to products for texture. The possibility of added gluten or gluten-containing grains means that consumers on a gluten-free diet must check that processed foods do not contain added gluten or glutencontaining grains.

Gluten-Free Diet Despite the growing availability of gluten-free processed foods, many people who require a gluten-free diet find it difficult to stick to eating only gluten-free foods. Reasons may include preference for gluten-containing versions, the added cost of gluten-free versions of products such as bread or pastry, or difficulty in locating gluten-free foods. Some gluten-containing foods are difficult to approximate in gluten-free recipes, such as croissants, which rely on the interaction between gluten and fat to create their thin layers. Gluten-free versions of gluten-containing foods may be much more expensive than their glutencontaining counterparts, especially for specialty items such as croissants, crumpets, and cinnamon buns. Some people find it difficult to locate glutenfree food. However, in many countries around the world, it is becoming easier to identify gluten-free foods, and supermarkets often stock gluten-free products.

Labeling Looking for gluten-free product labeling and cooking foods from scratch can help people to select appropriate foods. Gluten-free product labeling was originally done only through independent agencies or was completely unregulated. However, some governments now have specific policies for what can be labeled as gluten free.

Gluten-Free Foods

These standards may vary dramatically. For example, in the United States, products that are gluten free without any special preparation (e.g., yogurt and milk) can be labeled gluten free. In the European Union, however, only products that ordinarily contain gluten (e.g., bread, pasta, crackers) and that have specifically been formulated not to contain gluten can be labeled as gluten free. This serves to prevent retailers and manufacturers using “gluten free” as a marketing tactic and to ensure that specially produced gluten-free items are easy to identify. In some countries, specially formulated gluten-free products are only available at pharmacies to ensure quality control. Products labeled as gluten free often must also be tested for gluten content to ensure no contamination. The international standard is published in the Codex Alimentarius and differs according to whether a product is intended to be  gluten free or is processed to have reduced gluten. Gluten-free products may have up to 20 milligrams of gluten per kilogram of the product, whereas products that have a reduced gluten content can have between 20 and 100 milligrams of gluten per kilogram of the product. According to the Codex standard, gluten content should be tested using the enzyme-linked immunoassay (or  ELISA) R5 Méndez Method. This is a highly sensitive test that uses antibodies that react to certain gluten proteins to assess the concentration of gluten in a sample.

Celiac Disease For people with celiac disease, consuming gluten causes the mucosa of the intestines to become irritated and damaged. This damage changes the shape of the villi (“fingers” that absorb nutrients into the body) and negatively affects the intestines’ ability to absorb nutrients. With untreated celiac disease, stools may be oily and loose, indicating that nutrients have not been absorbed by the intestines. Malabsorption causes a range of nutrient deficiencies and, in children, failure to thrive. Although once considered a severe disease

725

of childhood, recent years have seen greater recognition of milder forms diagnosed in adulthood. Systemic symptoms such as fatigue are very common. Celiac disease is associated with changes in the gut microbes and impaired immune function. Abdominal pain and changes in stool (especially chronic diarrhea) are also common, and the constant or recurring damage to the mucosa from consuming gluten is associated with intestinal lymphoma, a type of cancer. A characteristic skin rash, dermatitis herpetiformis, may also be seen in people with uncontrolled celiac disease. This rash usually appears on the elbows, buttocks, and knees and can be severely itchy and blistered. Although many people who present with dermatitis herpetiformis do not have gastrointestinal symptoms, they tend to have the classical intestinal damage. Following a gluten-free diet allows the intestines to heal, thereby reducing celiac disease symptoms and health risks, restoring gut flora, and improving immune function. Osteoporosis and intestinal lymphoma risks remain high, if celiac disease is diagnosed late in life, however. Although the gold standard for diagnosing celiac is an intestinal biopsy, this is not always the approach taken. Diagnosis of celiac disease can involve blood tests, biopsy of the duodenum (the  first part of the small intestine), and having made clinical improvements following a gluten-free diet. Some clinical improvements are usually seen within 2 weeks of beginning a strictly gluten-free diet, but severe damage can take years to fully heal. Dermatitis herpetiformis can also be diagnosed by biopsy of the lesions, and this is considered equal to intestinal biopsy by several guidelines. Following an initial diagnosis of celiac disease, the World Gastroenterology Organization recommends that patients be prescribed a gluten-free diet that also avoids processed foods (e.g., glutenfree breads and cakes) and increasing iron- and folate-rich foods, referred to a dietician and/or support group, screened for iron deficiency, screened for folate deficiency, advised to have bone-density tests (in  some cases), advised about vitamin D and calcium if at risk for

726

Gluten-Free Foods

osteoporosis, and advised about screening of first- and second-degree relatives. People with diabetes, autoimmune diseases, Down syndrome, and other diseases affecting digestion and the immune system, are at higher risk of also having celiac disease. Although many people with celiac disease are completely asymptomatic or only have nongastrointestinal symptoms, first- and second-degree relatives have an increased risk (10% and 2.6%, respectively) of having celiac disease and should be screened if possible. There is a strong genetic link in celiac disease, with 70% concordance in identical twins. Celiac disease is also associated with certain type II human leukocyte antigens (HLA): HLA-DQ2 is present in around 95% of people with celiac disease, and most of the remaining 5% have HLA-DQ8. Expression of these genes is necessary, but not sufficient, for the development of celiac disease. The distribution of celiac disease– related HLA also varies by region, with parts of the Americas reporting more HLA-DQ7, for example. The prevalence of celiac disease ranges from approximately 1 in 300 (0.33%) to 1 in 100 (1%), depending on the part of the world studied. It is found in all ethnicities (despite a common misconception that it is only found in Caucasians), and it is diagnosed in women twice as often as in men. Some countries may have more undiagnosed and asymptomatic cases of celiac disease due to having a predominately rice- or corn-based diet, whereas others that have a heavily wheat-based diet may have more diagnosed cases. People with symptomatic celiac disease (and not on a gluten-free diet) have an increased risk of death compared with the general population. Unfortunately, in adults, celiac disease is often diagnosed more than 10 years after the onset of symptoms. However, the risk of death returns to normal after following a gluten-free diet for 3 to 5 years; a gluten-free diet must also be followed for the rest of the person’s life. People with non-celiac gluten intolerance do not have an increased risk of other disease or mortality but may adhere to a gluten-free diet to avoid digestive symptoms. A gluten-free diet is currently the

only way to prevent damage to the mucosa of the intestines in people with celiac disease. Israel Berger See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Bread Processing; Food Allergies; Labeling, Legislation and Oversight

Further Readings Bai, J., Zeballos, E., Fried, M., Corazza, G. R., Schuppan, D., Farthing, M. J. G., . . . Krabshuis, J. H. (2007). World Gastroenterology Organization practice guidelines: Celiac disease. Milwaukee, IL: World Gastroenterology Organization. Retrieved from http:// www.worldgastroenterology.org/assets/downloads/en/ pdf/guidelines/04_celiac_disease.pdf De Palma, G., Nadal, I., Collado, M. C., & Sanz, Y. (2009). Effects of a gluten-free diet on gut microbiota and immune function in healthy adult human subjects. British Journal of Nutrition, 102(8), 1154–1160. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2008). Draft revised Codex standard for foods for special dietary use for persons intolerant to gluten. Available from www.codexalimentarius.net/ download/report/687/al08_26e.pdf Méndez, E., Vela, C., Immer, U., & Janssen, F. W. (2005). Report of a collaborative trial to investigate the performance of the R5 enzyme linked immunoassay to determine gliadin in gluten-free food. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 17(10), 1053–1063. Rubio-Tapia, A., Rahim, M. W., See, J. A., Lahr, B. D., Wu, T.-T., & Murray, J. A. (2010). Mucosal recovery and mortality in adults with celiac disease after treatment with a gluten-free diet. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 105(6), 1412–1420. Valdés, I., García, E., Llorente, M., & Méndez, E. (2003). Innovative approach to low-level gluten determination in foods using a novel sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay protocol. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 15(5), 465–747. Verrill, L., Zhang, Y., & Kane, R. (2013). Food label usage and reported difficulty with following a glutenfree diet among individuals in the USA with coeliac

Gourmet and Specialty Foods disease and those with noncoeliac gluten sensitivity. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 26(5), 479–487. doi:10.1111/jhn.12032

GOURMET

AND

SPECIALTY FOODS

This discussion of gourmet and specialty foods describes how these products are defined by their wider social and economic contexts, how these definitions have changed, and how they function within the cultural landscape of the U.S. food industry. Given the importance and size of this segment of the food retail market—representing nearly 14% of all retail food sales in 2011, and accounting for $75.14 billion in sales during the same year—understanding how the gourmet and specialty foods segment of the food market distinguishes itself from and operates within the larger food retail market can be helpful to researchers and consumers alike. This entry describes what gourmet and specialty mean with regard to food, along with their history and their presence within today’s food marketplace.

Defining Gourmet The word gourmet may describe a variety of things, including a type of eater; a class of restaurant, cuisine, or meal; and an ingredient of high quality, special presentation, or high sophistication. In other words, this word has been applied to the people who eat food, to the places that serve food, to a type of food, and to the ingredients of specific kinds of meals. It refers not just to any food, though, but to “good” or “fancy” food, or high-status foods or eating practices. People who consume gourmet foods are generally assumed (by others or by themselves) to be discerning; such assumptions importantly rely on cultural notions about what counts as “good” or “fancy.” Gourmet is also an industry classification for high-quality, premium foods in the United States. It is this classification that we will turn to first. The

727

high-end segment of the food market—the place where gourmet foods and gourmet shoppers are likely to be—is known as the specialty food industry. Among consumers and retailers, sometimes the words gourmet and specialty are synonymous and used interchangeably. For the purposes of this discussion, though, the word gourmet describes types of foods and restaurants and consumers, and the word specialty describes that segment of the wider food industry.

Specialty Foods: A Short History In its infancy, specialty food was generally understood to include exotic food, ethnic food, novelties, and a handful of regional American foods. With the return of U.S. soldiers from Europe after World War II ended in 1945, U.S. consumers began to be increasingly interested in the foods that the soldiers had been exposed to in France, Italy, Germany, and Austria. Given this interest, alongside the prosperity of the U.S. economy at the time, expensive European imported foods began to be increasingly available in U.S. grocery stores. These foods came to represent specialty food, which still occupy a very small corner of the overall food industry. In 1953, a young trade show organizer named Charles Snitow organized the first trade show of the specialty food industry. Held in New York City, this “Fancy Food Show” signaled the emergence of a unified, professional specialty food industry. By the second half of the 20th century, U.S. consumers were beginning to be interested in specialty foods, and such trade shows and professional organizations were eager for them to have access to it. The question was “Where could U.S. consumers buy these food items?” Most food historians and analysts ascribe the specialty food market’s origins to specific retailers. Glenn Rosengarten, whose family owned a supermarket chain, was fascinated by the Italian greengrocers and Jewish deli men in New York City who sold specific kinds of imported or ethnic foods. In 1980, he opened a grocery store to fill the niche between budget grocery chains and these small greengrocers

728

Gourmet and Specialty Foods

and delis. Eli Zabar, whose family owned New York City’s premier Jewish food market, opened his own specialty market in 1973, selling handmade breads and fresh produce to consumers willing to pay top dollar for high-quality foods. And Giorgio DeLuca, whose father imported Italian foods, himself opened first a cheese store and then, with some friends in 1977, Dean & DeLuca. All three of these projects, undertaken by the sons of food men, created a different kind of food market. This new type of specialty store innovated in another way as well—by producing and selling prepared foods. By the 1970s, it had become socially acceptable in the United States for young urban professionals and busy suburban parents to take home freshly prepared entrées and side dishes, as an alternative to cooking at home or going out to a restaurant. With more people interested in the idea of gourmet eating, prepared foods began to sell well at specialty stores like Dean & DeLuca. The emergence of the specialty food industry was also influenced by other cultural and historical factors, such as the return of soldiers to the United States following the end of World War II. Following World War II, in addition, dramatic advances in food technology made it possible for grocery markets to store and sell new shelf-stable food items, while improvements to food distribution and transportation systems made it possible for foods to travel larger distances to reach grocery store shelves. At the same time, the increasingly widespread use of chemical fertilizers and genetic plant engineering allowed fruits and vegetables to travel further and to be more widely and consistently available. In addition, the increasing prevalence of fast food restaurants and family cars worked together to dramatically change what U.S. consumers were eating. Over the course of the 20th century, grocery stores were changing, too. Corner groceries were replaced by small supermarkets that could stock their shelves with a wider variety of food items. (Smaller corner groceries often lacked the storage space to carry such selection.) These supermarkets would only get larger and larger. Such changes in the ways in which food was grown, packaged, and

sold may have resulted in the food available in U.S. markets becoming more homogeneous, more industrial, or both. It is very possible that together, these changes—larger distribution networks, food technologies, fast food, and impersonal large markets—also created in U.S. consumers a divergent, contrasting interest in foods that were different from or more personal than what had been the norm. Another cultural shift also importantly affected the growth of the specialty food industry in the second half of the 20th century: increasing numbers of women entering the paid labor market. One of the most striking labor market developments of the post–World War II period was the dramatic rise in the participation rate of women. Indeed, during the second half of the 20th century, much of the increase in women’s labor force participation can be attributed to the rising participation rates of women (both married and unmarried) with children. It is certainly possible, if not likely, that these women—employed and wage earning, with children to feed in the evening—were a driving force behind the emergence of the specialty food market, and especially of highquality prepared foods.

Specialty Foods Today Today, the specialty food market is a still-growing segment of the overall food retail industry. According to a national survey of specialty markets in 2012, specialty food retailers come in all shapes and sizes. The square footage of U.S. stores varies, with an average square footage of 8,163 square feet. The stores with the biggest footprints also have the biggest sales. Forty-seven percent of specialty food stores surveyed describe their locations as “downtown,” with 33% identifying as “suburban,” 21% as “neighborhood,” and the remaining as “other.” Only 15% of the retailers surveyed own their storefronts, and stores that are leasing retail space are paying more for rent than they were 2 years ago. Brick-andmortar sales are the focus for the majority of the food retailers surveyed in 2012; 61.4% don’t have

Gourmet and Specialty Foods

online retail websites. But online sales are contributing more to the bottom line than they were 2 years ago: Among the retailers that are selling specialty foods online, online sales account for 19.7% of total sales versus the 11.1% reported in a 2010 survey. The online retailing of competitors is the biggest threat to their business, according to 41.5% of all respondents, followed by Whole Foods (25.5%), chain supermarkets (23.3%), organic/ natural food stores (20.2%), and independent supermarkets (18.2%). Overall, respondents are currently not too worried about the nation’s largest retailer, Walmart, which ranked seventh at 17.2%. Reports from the Specialty Food Association— the industry’s trade association—reinforces these findings: At the 2011 Fancy Food Show, the Specialty Food Association used its own data to report that the average transaction size for specialty food stores was $41.49 in 2011, up 11.4% over 2010. In 2012, according to the Specialty Food Association’s published data, specialty food sales topped $85.87 billion. In addition, the average annual sales for specialty food manufacturers in 2012 totaled $1.71 million, and 95% of specialty food manufacturers recorded sales increases in 2012. Clearly, specialty foods are a growing and increasingly powerful segment of the larger food industry, affected both by consumer interests and larger social trends. The Specialty Food Association acknowledges that, as a category, specialty food eludes easy definition and may best be defined by the “experience” of something special. In other words, the industry’s own trade association both recognizes and celebrates that specialty foods are not a static entity. In an attempt to define specialty foods at this moment in their history, however, the Specialty Food Association suggests that they be defined as foods and beverages that exemplify quality, innovation, and style in their category: so the highest quality cheese or the most beautifully packaged dry pasta compared with all the other cheeses and dry pastas. In other words, according to the premier trade association of the specialty food industry, specialty foods are high quality, innovative, and stylish. They stand out among

729

their peers, on store shelves, for a variety of reasons and command a high price as a result. Clearly, the professional association that represents the interests of this corner of the retail food market both wants to define what specialty food is and needs to acknowledge that this definition is always shifting. At the same time, though, the industry is concerned with an important social reality: that for many potential customers, the terms gourmet and specialty continue to conjure up notions of a fancy, elite, and exotic world that is expensive and exclusive. Finding new customers and helping them move away from earlier associations of exclusivity and expense can be a challenge for today’s specialty food retailers, especially during difficult economic periods. Nonetheless, the specialty food market is a growing and increasingly powerful segment of the larger food industry, perhaps because two things are happening at once: On the one hand, specialty food retailers continue to reach out to new segments of the consumer population and, on the other hand, consumers continue to be increasingly interested in eating high-quality foods. Amy E. Singer See also Artisanal Foods; Ethnic Grocery Stores; Exotic Food and Strange Food; Fine Dining; Grocery Stores and Supermarkets; Online Shopping

Further Readings Hall, S. (2012). Sell your specialty food: Market, distribute, and profit from your kitchen creation. Scottsdale, AZ: S. Richard Hall. Kamp, D. (2007). The United States of arugula: The sundried, cold-pressed, dark-roasted, extra virgin story of the American Food Revolution. New York, NY: Broadway Books. Lewis, J. (2012). Handmade: How eight everyday people became artisan food entrepreneurs and their recipes for success. Rabbit Ranch (self-published). McNamee, T. (2007). Alice Waters and Chez Panisse: The romantic, impractical, often eccentric, ultimately brilliant making of a food revolution. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

730

Grain Elevators/Hoarding and Speculation

GRAIN ELEVATORS/HOARDING AND SPECULATION The modern grain trade developed because of technological innovations such as mechanical grain elevators and agricultural commodity exchanges that were developed in the 19th century by U.S. grain traders. This entry reviews the development of grain elevators and the role of speculation and hoarding in modern grain trade.

Grain Elevators Grain elevators are large warehouses or warehouse complexes where grains are stored, conditioned, and distributed. The facilities are named for the mechanical elevators that lift grain in buckets and into storage silos. Grain elevators were first developed at the key Great Lake port of Buffalo in the 1840s and soon after spread to Chicago to handle the millions of bushels of grain transported by rail from the newly settled Midwest farms. Chicago excelled at building the largest and greatest quantity of grain elevators and became an important grain trading center for the world market. Grain elevators contributed to the transformation of modern grain trading by facilitating new kinds of grain markets.

Grain Elevators and Commodity Markets Grain elevators changed the grain market in two important ways. First, mechanized elevators facilitated the bulk trade of grain. Previously grain was transported in individual bushel sacks, which were labor-intensive because they had to be moved by hand. Grain elevators could unload grain from railcars by mechanically lifting it into storage, which required less labor and increased the speed of moving and storing the grain. The increased speed also necessitated a shift from measuring grain by volume to measuring grain by weight. The second important shift was in the grain trading structure. In contrast to a sack of grain, grain elevators’ bulk storage meant that grain was no longer traceable to individual farmers. To

transfer ownership, the Chicago Board of Trade developed categories and grades of grain and implemented a warehouse receipt system, which tied the stored grain to the market. By 1859, Chicago markets used warehouse receipts to trade and establish futures markets. The new grain market had implications for speculation and hoarding, as described in the following sections. The storage and warehousing of food commodities have changed over the 20th century. Contemporary grain elevators have dramatically increased in size and capacity. Since the 1970s, there have been rationalization and consolidation of grain elevators so that it is not unusual to have grain elevators with more than 2 million bushel capacity. Mergers in the railway industry and grain industry have also fostered very large grain elevator facilities. For example, shuttle grain elevators emerged in the 1990s and are specialty facilities that speed load shuttle trains consisting of more than 110 railcars. Warehouses at these sites can hold more than 7 million bushels of corn and use sophisticated information and computer technology to manage the grain.

Speculation Speculation is a trade based on the prediction of price movements with the uncertain possibility of a reward. As a result, speculation is risky and trades are usually made with no intention of taking physical delivery but with the intention of resale. As commodity markets grew through the 19th century, they attracted financial traders interested in speculation. Speculation in agricultural commodity markets has been a contentious issue. Critics argue that unregulated speculation can negatively influence commodity prices, and proponents claim that speculation brings needed capital and liquidity to markets. Farmer organizations have long argued that speculation distorts market fundamentals and results in unwarranted price swings and price volatility. The U.S. Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 limited speculators’ trading and position sizes and allowed regulators to establish position limits to

Grass-Fed Beef

prevent excessive speculation. However, commodity exchanges have been steadily deregulated since the 1990s, which has led to an increase in speculative capital entering markets. One factor for the rise of speculation is the entry of new kinds of investors in agricultural commodities, including hedge funds, pension funds, and investment banks. These investors would have been unable to invest in commodities before deregulation, and their activities have contributed to a rise in speculative capital. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates commodity markets in the United States and sets speculative position limits for agricultural commodities for many grains, and for other agricultural commodities, speculative limits are determined by specific commodity exchanges. Critics charge that speculation is unduly influencing commodity prices, making it difficult for bona fide hedgers to operate and is increasing price volatility. However, others argue that speculation is needed to keep commodity markets working properly and that there is little evidence of undue manipulation of the markets by increases in speculation.

Hoarding Hoarding is the acquisition of large amounts of a commodity with the aim to monopolize or control the supply in order to manipulate prices. The control of food supplies and prices has implications for food security. Speculative stock holding can occur by holding physical stocks or through control of futures contracts. Hoarding has occurred throughout history, and efforts to regulate and discourage the practice are also common, from Elizabethan England to contemporary state-run grain reserves in China.

Speculation and Hoarding and the 2007–2008 Food Crisis The hoarding of agricultural commodities often occurs during food crises and can also trigger food crises. There are indications that the price run-up of global agricultural commodities leading to the

731

2007–2008 food crisis was worsened by hoarding. In addition, hoarding by grain traders and distributers was reported in Pakistan, India, and the Philippines. The 2007–2008 food crisis fueled debates concerning the regulation of speculation and hoarding. Food crises are generally marked by a sharp rise in commodity prices, and this recent crisis was also accompanied by excessive price volatility. Although a number of market fundamentals contributed to the 2007–2008 food crisis, much of the unusual price volatility and price rises can be attributed to speculation and hoarding. Sarah J. Martin See also Exports; Marketing Boards; Milling; Sherman Antitrust Act; Storage and Warehousing

Further Readings Cronon, W. (1992). Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the great West. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy. (2012). Excessive speculation in agricultural commodities: Selected writings from 2008–2011. Retrieved from http://www.iatp.org/files/2012_ExcessiveSpeculation Reader_web.pdf Robles, M., Torero, M., & Von Braun, J. (2009). When speculation matters (International Food Policy Research Institute IFPRI Issue Brief No. 57). Retrieved from http://www.ifpri.org/publication/when-speculationmatters

Website U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission: http://www.cftc.gov

GRASS-FED BEEF For most of agricultural history, “grass-fed beef” was a pleonasm, or unnecessary qualification; all cattle were grass fed. These animals evolved to graze on grass and other forage. It is only very recently that humans have begun supplementing

732

Grass-Fed Beef

or replacing that diet with grain. As grain-fed beef has come to dominate the market, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) now defines and regulates use of the “grass-fed” label as follows: Grass (forage) fed—Grass and forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage consisting of grass (annual and perennial), forbs (e.g., legumes, Brassica), browse, or cereal grain crops in the vegetative (pre-grain) state. Animals cannot be fed grain or grain by-products and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season. Hay, haylage, baleage, silage, crop residue without grain, and other roughage sources may also be included as acceptable feed sources. Routine mineral and vitamin supplementation may also be included in the feeding regimen. If incidental supplementation occurs due to inadvertent exposure to non-forage feedstuffs or to ensure the animal’s well being at all times during adverse environmental or physical conditions, the producer must fully document (e.g., receipts, ingredients, and tear tags) the supplementation that occurs including the amount, the frequency, and the supplements provided. (USDA, 2007)

Grass-fed animals, as defined above, may consume grass as well as high-fiber forage including legumes and cereal grain crops in the pregrain stage (i.e., stalks and leaves). These are the types of resources cattle have consumed for thousands of years before and after domestication, to which their digestive biology is well adapted, and their ancestors fed, bred, and evolved on pasture or prairie until very recently. The American Grassfed Association (AGA) offers a certification that, in addition to the USDA grass-fed standard, provides assurance that the animals were not confined or treated with antibiotics or growth hormones and that all animals were raised within the United States. Animals in need of antibiotic treatment must be tagged and

removed from the certified grass-fed program following treatment. This entry discusses the issues surrounding the modern production and consumption of grain-fed versus grass-fed beef, which are rooted in this species’ evolutionary history and evolving relationship with humans.

Evolution, Domestication, and Mutualism The wild auroch (Bos primigenius), common ancestor of the European (Bos taurus) and Indian zebu varieties of cattle, ranged throughout Eurasia in the Late Pleistocene Epoch. Analyses from modern DNA suggest that today’s cattle arose from separate domestication events in Africa and Europe and Southwest Asia and South Asia, beginning some 9,000 years ago. Within different environmental and cultural contexts, these animals took on material as well as symbolic value. They provided meat, milk, and blood for consumption, as well as skins and horns for clothing, shelter, and other manufactured products. They also served as draft animals, thereby greatly reducing the workload of farmers tilling the land. In return, humans provided these animals with shelter, access to pasture (i.e., food), and protection from natural predators. For thousands of years, this relationship was mutualistic, meaning both species benefited from the interaction. However, the benefits of this relationship are becoming increasingly one sided with living conditions for most domesticated cattle now characterized by discomfort, disease, and often, suffering. This shift began in the early to mid-20th century and has expanded through the early 21st century. Throughout this period, smaller livestock ranchers gave way to large industrial operations, and cattle were increasingly removed from farms with pasture where they consumed grass forage and concentrated on feedlots fueled by government-subsidized grain.

Industrial Intensification Grain-based (especially corn) animal feed has allowed for tremendous expansion of the meat

Grass-Fed Beef

industry. Governmental policies aimed at keeping grain cheap and abundant have allowed the industry to feed a greater number of animals on less land and raise them to butcher weight much quicker than on forage. The return is greater profits to the industry and cheaper meat available to the consumer. Grain is fed to livestock because it is more cost-effective than grass, provides meat to market for the lowest price, and allows for substantial growth in the industry. Grass-fed beef and other pasture-raised products are not able to take advantage of economies of scale or equivalent governmental subsidies and therefore come at a higher cost to the consumer. The result has been a marginalization of grass-fed beef within the market. The expansion of the grain-based system, however, has come at significant costs. Despite higher prices and limited availability, some consumers are choosing grass-fed beef as an alternative to conventional grain-based production for a healthier nutritional profile of grass-fed meat, more humane (and historically natural) living conditions for the animals, a lighter and more sustainable impact on the environment, and increased food safety.

To Eat Grass-Fed Beef Nutritional Composition and Consumer Health

Grain-fed beef has more total fat and more saturated fatty acids than grass-fed beef. Intake of saturated fat has been consistently associated with risk for chronic disease. In contrast, grass-fed beef is leaner with a greater percentage, and absolute quantity, of omega-3 fatty acids. Intake of these essential fatty acids has been shown to reduce risk of chronic disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and depression. While consumption of animal products has repeatedly been implicated in increasing the risk of certain cancers and cardiovascular disease, it has been argued that grain-fed animal products high in saturated fat are driving this relationship. Intake of grass-fed beef has also been associated with increased plasma and platelet long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (functionally important), total omega-3 fatty acids, and reduced ratio of

733

omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. All three of these biomarkers are negatively associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and numerous cancers. Comparative nutritional analyses also reveal that grass-fed beef has greater antioxidant capacity than grain-fed beef. While grass-fed beef has greater concentrations of long-chain polyunsaturated fats, which are subject to oxidation, there are greater concentrations of vitamins A, C, E, and phytochemicals, including carotenoids and flavonoids that protect against lipid oxidation and inflammation, DNA damage, and cancer. Therefore, replacing grain-fed beef with grass-fed beef in the diet is consistent with better health outcomes. Animal Welfare

Many people agree that humans bear a responsibility to prevent suffering among the animals in our care. The industrial grain-based model of beef production, however, tends to turn a blind eye to this suffering in the name of productivity and profit. Cattle fed a steady diet of grain can develop gastrointestinal ulcers from the acidity of this diet. Raised in confinement, they also stand in close contact with their waste and inhale the volatile gases that emanate from them. Many also agree that livestock are entitled to breathe fresh air and to continue to have access to grass as they evolved to do. These are the conditions afforded most to pasture-raised and grass-fed animals. By reducing animal density and providing sanitary conditions for the animals, grass-fed production precludes the use of habitual antibiotics or other medications that have become routine among industrially raised grain-fed cattle. Under confinement, animals live in close contact with their wastes, which promote the contraction and spread of pathogens, which are increasingly becoming virulent and antibiotic resistant. Food Safety

Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli—three bacterial species known to cause

734

Grass-Fed Beef

gastrointestinal distress and disease in humans— have been linked with industrially produced, grain-fed livestock. Many of these disease-causing bacteria are also increasingly evolving resistance to standard antibiotic treatment. Antibiotic resistance evolves quickly within bacterial communities when chronically exposed to low doses of antibiotics. For some time, livestock producers and epidemiologists have recognized that the more densely concentrated animals (including humans) are kept, the greater risk for infectious disease outbreaks to emerge and spread rapidly throughout the population. To protect its livestock investment, the industry adds low doses of antibiotics to the grain-based feed on a routine basis to prevent the  onset and spread of infection. Coincidentally, the industry also realized that animals reach slaughter weight faster under this grain and low-dose antibiotic regimen. The result, however, has been a perfect storm for the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the guts of industrial cattle, and in the subsequent contamination of the meat during slaughter. While the USDA does not prohibit the addition of antibiotics to the daily feed rations of grass-fed cattle, the AGA certification does. Therefore, consumers concerned about antibiotic resistance and bacterial contamination of their meat may opt for AGA-certified products. Environmental Impact

Raising cattle on grain or grass carries implications for farm ecology and soil fertility. To date, corn- and soy-intensive industrial agriculture has profited from the topsoil fertility deposited from thousands of years of grazing by native species including horse and bison. However, corn and soy are shallowrooted crops that under continuous rotation gradually strip the soil of essential nutrients such as calcium and magnesium and lead to increased topsoil erosion into streams and rivers. As a result, every year the soils of industrially cultivated farmland become increasingly depleted and shallow. Raising cattle on pasture is a means of promoting soil deposition and increasing fertility. Perennial grassland reduces or eliminates erosion, increases

soil organic matter (i.e., fertility), and can be grown on land typically inhospitable to raising crops (e.g., rocky hillsides). The purchase and consumption of grass-fed beef, therefore, can support these practices and ensure a future with more fertile soils.

Or Not to Eat Grass-Fed Beef While many consumers are turning to grass-fed beef for reasons listed above, many are not. Producers and consumers choose grain-fed beef because it is cheaper, has a more pleasing taste and texture, and is often the only variety of beef available in the market. Cost

Grass-fed systems cannot compete when it comes to producing cheap meat. When cattle are raised on pasture, the land will support only a limited number of animals based on primary biological productivity—how much forage is available and how quickly it regenerates. As a result, farmers raising cattle on pasture produce fewer animals per unit of land. Grass-fed animals also grow slower than those fed on grain and, therefore, require a prolonged investment by farmers before reaching slaughter weight. The industrial grain-based system removes cattle from the farm and concentrates them in feedlots, thereby taking advantage of economies of scale and federal subsidies that keep corn prices extremely low. Faster throughput of grain-fed animals on cheap feed has resulted in increased productivity and profits for the industry and cost savings extended to the consumer. Availability

While demand for grass-fed beef has increased over the past several years, market share remains limited, with estimates between 3% and 10% of all beef production. Pasture-based systems require more space as well as time to bring animals to slaughter weight, which together inherently limit the number of animals produced. This results in

Green Revolution, Future Prospects for

greater costs of production and limited access to national and international distribution chains. Most grass-fed beef operations are small or mid-sized farming operations distributing locally or regionally. With such low market share, limited distribution and availability constrain consumer access and choice.

735

do?template=TemplateN&rightNav1=GrassFedMarket ingClaimStandards&topNav=leftNav=GradingCertific ationandVerfication&page=GrassFedMarketingClaims &resultType=

Website American Grassfed Association: http://www .americangrassfed.org

Taste

While cost and availability may be the greatest limiting factors for consumption of grass-fed beef, taste is frequently cited as well. Flavor attributes commonly ascribed to grass-fed beef include barny, bitter, gamey, and grassy. These flavors are  inversely correlated with degree of liking. Conventional beef, however, is frequently described as brothy, umami, juicy, browned, fatty, and salty. These attributes are positively correlated with degree of liking. Nutrition and flavor profile studies have revealed that while grass-fed beef is higher in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) than conventional beef, especially omega-3 fatty acids, concentration of PUFAs are positively correlated with negative flavor attributes and negatively correlated with degree of liking. In other words, the more PUFAs are found in the meat, the less the consumers prefer the taste. Bryce A. Carlson See also Naturally Raised and Fed Meats

Further Readings Daley, C. A., Abbott, A., Doyle, P. S., Nader, G. A., & Larson, S. (2010). A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal, 9(10). doi:10.1186/1475-2891-9-10 Gwin, L. (2009). Scaling-up sustainable livestock production: Innovation and challenges for grass-fed beef in the U.S. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 33, 189–209. doi:10.1080/10440040802660095 Ruechel, J. (2006). Grass-fed cattle: How to produce and market natural beef. North Adams, MA: Storey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2007). Grass fed marketing claim standards. Retrieved from http:// www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.

GREEN REVOLUTION, FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR The term Green Revolution was coined in 1968 by William S. Gaud, director of the U.S. Agency for International Development, to refer to the dramatic increase in food production due to the introduction of new wheat and rice varieties in India, Pakistan, and other South Asian developing countries since the 1960s. The pioneer and main leader of the Green Revolution was the American agronomist Norman E. Borlaug, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contribution to reduce hunger and starvation in the world. This entry briefly describes the historical context and the main achievements of the Green Revolution and discusses the current proposal for an eventual second Green Revolution to secure food for the 9  billion people estimated to populate the Earth by the middle of the 21st century.

Historical Context and Main Achievements After the Second World War (1939–1945), the world was split into two main ideological and political tendencies—namely, socialism and capitalism. In their efforts to dominate the world, these two forces were confronted in the so-called Cold War until 1991. Socialists, championed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, based their idea of progress on a change in the relations of production with the state as the owner of the communal means of production. This was known as the Red Revolution. Capitalists, led by the United States, believed that progress should be

736

Green Revolution, Future Prospects for

achieved through the transfer of science and technology to developing countries threatened with shortage and famine. The Green Revolution was part of this strategy and was applied mainly in South Asia, where it contributed to prevent socialist expansion. India played a key role in the development of the Green Revolution, favored by the direct involvement of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, India had to import 3 to 4 million tons of grain (wheat) to cover its food deficit, a situation that was aggravated by a bad monsoon in 1965 and 1966, which increased the importation needs to 10 million tons. To overcome this dependence, India decided to face the challenge of its own agricultural development by using Western technologies rather than through socioeconomic reforms in the agricultural sector. In this way, experiments with alien varieties of dwarf wheat were initiated with the aim of increasing production. At the beginning, some sectors of Indian society were reluctant to use these varieties because they were obtained and developed elsewhere, but by 1967, their use was widespread. At the same time, the development of a local fertilizer industry also started. These procedures were then extended to other crops (mainly rice) and other countries from South Asia, such as Pakistan. The new wheat high-yielding varieties (HYVs) were developed in the International Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento del Maiz y el Trigo) in Mexico, led by Borlaug, whereas the rice HYVs were created in the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. These research centers were members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. The HYVs, obtained mainly by hybridization from selected dwarf varieties from Japan and Taiwan, were very responsive to a combination of controlled water supply and fertilizer application, especially nitrogen. The main advantages of these dwarf varieties were a greater proportion of grain head to stalk and a shorter growing season, which provided two crops a year, thus doubling the yearly production per

hectare (ha). The Indian government promoted the development of its own research stations to continue the improvement of HYVs adapted to local agroecological conditions and public preferences. With these developments, the total production of wheat and rice experienced dramatic increases. For example, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), wheat production per ha in India increased by a factor of two in the first decade (1970), three by 1980, five in 1990, and seven at the end of the 20th century. In the case of rice, increases were not so spectacular, attaining a 140% increase by 2001. Such productivity gains also involve a saving of land that otherwise should have been needed for cultivation to feed the population. The FAO has estimated that, by 1995, a total of approximately 90,000 ha (approximately 50,000 ha for wheat and approximately 40,000 ha for rice) would have been saved in this way. However, irrigation and fertilization needs also increased leading to undesired consequences. The Green Revolution affected the economic and social structures of low-income and fooddeficit developing countries mostly from South Asia. In Africa, the impact of the Green Revolution was lower than in India and elsewhere, mainly because wheat and rice are minor crops as compared with, for example, maize, sorghum, millet, and cassava, which did not experience significant yield improvements. In addition, African agriculture, depending on rain and irrigation practices, another key factor in the Green Revolution success, is virtually nonexistent due to the lack of suitable infrastructure.

Toward a Second Green Revolution? The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) estimates that global human population will increase at a rate of 6 million people per month— to reach more than 9 billion people by 2050. As a consequence, the FAO and the World Bank predict at least a doubling in food production demand (85% increase in the case of meat), which implies enhanced crop, livestock, and fishing practices.

Green Revolution, Future Prospects for

Securing food for the predicted mid-century world population poses several challenges: • To manage the increased competition for land, water, and energy among food producers • To develop more effective environmental controls to guarantee soil and water quality and biodiversity conservation and to reduce waste • To ensure that the process is socially equitable and contributes to eradicate poverty and hunger, as expressed in the first United Nations Millennium Development Goal • To deal with potential interactions with ongoing climate change, mainly in aspects such as rising temperatures, water availability, or extreme weather events • To contribute to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to attain the goal of 50% to 60% reduction recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change for 2050

To meet such a big challenge, the need for a second Green Revolution, also called GR 2.0 or Greener Revolution, has been proposed, but this time, at a planetary level. The proponents of a second Green Revolution rely on the historical success of the first Green Revolution and the fact that it was based on the application of the new scientific and technological developments available at that time. Therefore, the amazing advances and discoveries of the past decades would be equally well suited to support a second trial of the same nature. One of the more active defenders of a new Green Revolution is John Beddington of the U.K. Government Office for Science, who proposes five major areas of improvement: 1. Crop improvement using genomic techniques: Genetic modifications, for example, markerassisted breeding, allow greater selectivity and reduce randomness in plant breeding, in the selection for better varieties in terms of productivity, disease resistance, or abiotic stress tolerance (drought, salinity, etc.). 2. Crop protection: Improved management of conventional pesticides should be combined

737

with new approaches, for example, the stimulation of natural defenses of plants or the use of insect pheromones to dissuade them from attacking crops. 3. Sustainable livestock farming: This is a problematic sector in the food industry, as meat production is highly inefficient in terms of energy and livestock farming significantly contributes to greenhouse warming due to methane and nitrous oxide emissions. The focus here is to increase production efficiency, and to protect animal welfare and genetic diversity, using new genetic and reproductive technologies, as well as developing new vaccines through genomic techniques. 4. Fisheries and aquaculture: In the case of fisheries, sustainability would be attained primarily by improved management practices, avoiding overfishing, and considering the impact of fishing at the ecosystem level, rather than on individual species. As in the case of crops and livestock, aquaculture may also benefit from genetic manipulation. 5. Mechanization, engineering, and nanotechnologies: Recent developments in communication and monitoring tools, for example, remote sensing and global positioning systems, may be used in activities such as precise delivery of seeds, early detection of disease and water stress, drip irrigation, or precision fertilizer application. The combination of these technologies with nanosensors implanted in the plants or animals would result in more efficient management of water, fertilizers, and pesticides.

According to the supporters of the second Green Revolution, the application of recent scientific and technological innovations is part of the solution and should be complemented with other measures. One of them would be a change of diet by reducing the consumption of meat and dairy products in favor of grains and other vegetable products, or to develop alternative protein sources. On the other hand, the aim of the second Green Revolution is not only to increase food productivity but also to

738

Green Revolution, Future Prospects for

do it in a scenario of environmental and social justice, which requires a parallel revolution in the social and natural sciences.

Critics to a Second Green Revolution The pioneer of the first Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug, believed that its full implementation could provide sufficient food until the end of the 20th century; but he also warned that in the absence of efficient population controls, the success would only be temporary. Green Revolution critics emphasize this point. Besides emphasizing the difficulties in accommodating a further Green Revolution in a landscape of environmental and social justice, Green Revolution opponents argue that, instead of reducing hunger and starvation, a Green Revolution would only serve to increase human population even more, further depleting Earth’s resources. This would generate a positive feedback, in which Green Revolutions and stepping population increases succeeded each other, finally leading to an overpopulated Earth close to its carrying capacity, thus exacerbating environmental degradation, hunger, inequality, political instability, social conflicts, and wars. They also warn against the Earth being transformed into a giant farm for producing food for humans with little or no wilderness left. In this sense, recent studies show that between 1700 and 2000, the terrestrial biosphere made the critical transition from mostly wild to mostly anthropogenic, passing the 50% mark early in the 20th century. Concerning environmental degradation and the Earth’s carrying capacity, a recent comprehensive study at global level reports that humanity has already broken three of the nine boundaries that are considered critical, including the rates of climate change and biodiversity loss and the interference with the nitrogen cycle, as nitrogen continues its progressive accumulation in the biosphere. The latest estimates of the World Wildlife Fund indicate that we would need 1.2 planets like ours to continue growing at our current rate and that this will worsen in the coming decades. Green Revolution detractors use these figures to argue that a further increase in production would be hardly compatible with

environmental sustainability. Moreover, hunger seems not to be only a problem of overpopulation but also of social injustice. For example, in 2005, an estimated 850 million people were undernourished in the world, a figure that increased by 75 million in just 2 years due to rising prices of wheat and corn, an increase due solely to market reasons. This is why some Green Revolution critics believe that, in addition to the implementation of effective population controls, we need to revise our current development system based on market economy, consumerism, and continuous growth, rather than advocating for a second Green Revolution. Valentí Rull and Elisa Rull See also Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences

Further Readings Beddington, J. (2010). Food security: Contributions from science to a new and greener revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 61–71. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0201 Borlaug, N. E. (1996, February 9). The Green Revolution: Past success and future challenges. In 34th Convocation of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (pp. 1–20). New Delhi, India: Indian Agricultural Research Institute. Briggs, J. (2009). Development: The Green Revolution. In R. Kitchen & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of human geography (pp. 634–638). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Godfray, H. C., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., . . . Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327, 812–818. doi:10.1126/science.1185383 Jain, H. K. (2010). The Green Revolution: History, impact and future. Houston, TX: Studium Press. Pingali, P. L. (2012). Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109, 12302–12308. doi:10.1073/pnas.0912953109 Rull, V. (2010). Who needs a greener revolution? EMBO reports, 11, 659–663. doi:10.1038/embor.2010.116 Soby, S. D. (2012). The end of the Green Revolution. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 1–2. doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9393-z

Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences

GREEN REVOLUTION FARMING: UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES The term Green Revolution was coined in the late 1960s to describe new technologies of agricultural production while differentiating them from “red” or communist revolutions. Green Revolution farming involved initiatives to raise food crop yields through modifications to plant architecture (notably wheat and rice dwarfing) and improvements in stress, disease, and pest resistance. It has its roots in Mexico in the 1940s, where research led by the agronomist Norman Borlaug produced high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of wheat. These HYVs, coupled with increased agricultural mechanization, helped Mexico become food self-sufficient. Green Revolution farming spread worldwide in the 1960s assisted by funding from national governments and from the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, which helped set up the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico and the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. Many countries also developed their own Green Revolution farming programs to breed HYVs with indigenous varieties and develop agricultural research and development institutions, infrastructure (notably irrigation), and agrochemicals. The Green Revolution doubled Asia’s food supply over 25 years and created significant additional employment while increasing the net cropped area by only 4% and restraining real food prices. Perhaps inevitably, the Green Revolution has had unanticipated consequences. This entry focuses on the Green Revolution’s broadly positive socioeconomic impacts in terms of poverty reduction and increased food security as well as its largely, but not exclusively, negative environmental impacts. Macroscale trends coupled with microscale data on Green Revolution farming in India are used to examine these issues.

Socioeconomic Consequences Attitudes toward the Green Revolution’s socioeconomic impacts have changed significantly over

739

time. Following the initial euphoria surrounding the “miracle” HYVs and speculation about their potential to alleviate world hunger, there was concern that the Green Revolution technology was scale neutral but not resource neutral. The promotion of Green Revolution technology as a package fostered the idea that HYVs would yield well only when grown with timely applications of irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. But as the Green Revolution’s remit was to raise farm productivity rather than address preexisting socioeconomic and landholding inequalities, an important consequence was that the rich were initially in a much better position to adopt and profit from the technology than the poor. Critics, therefore, blamed the Green Revolution for exacerbating inequalities between the rich and the poor, especially as its emphasis on capital intensity and agricultural mechanization threatened to create unemployment among landless laborers. Some of the initial optimism associated with the Green Revolution started to return in the late 1980s when more positive accounts, based on longitudinal studies, started to appear. In particular, it was argued that the Green Revolution made cereal production more profitable and less risky for all farmer groups and enabled food production to outpace population growth for many years. Contrary to earlier predictions, there was also evidence that small farmers throughout the developing world were not only growing HYVs but also achieving similar yields, cropping intensities, and levels of farm efficiency as large farmers. Even farmers who could not afford the full Green Revolution “package” of input, often found that HYVs usually outyielded traditional varieties so long as they were able to provide careful water management. Other long-term studies showed significant reductions in poverty and improvements in nutrition coinciding with the peak Green Revolution adoption period. Within India, rural poverty declined from 51.2% of all rural households in 1977–1978 to 20.8% in 1990–1991 (Corbridge & Harriss, 2000). Much of this was due to the employment generated by the spread of irrigation technologies that made double-cropping possible.

740

Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences

In addition, Green Revolution profits were frequently reinvested into the rural economy, stimulating nonagricultural employment for marginal farmers and the landless and forcing agricultural wages to rise. As consumers, the poor gained more from the Green Revolution than the rich, resulting in a degree of wealth redistribution that had been largely unanticipated. In particular, the landless poor gained significantly from increased entitlements to cheap HYV staples. These benefits were felt in urban as well as in rural areas as the poor usually spend over half of their income and obtain 70% of their calories (plus most of their micronutrients and protein) from staples. However, the impact of the Green Revolution has been spatially uneven, with limited gains in Africa and in many Asian rain-fed environments. Arguably, the greatest losers have been cash croppers in areas of insecure water supply who were not able to grow HYV seeds but suffered from depressed cereal prices. In addition to the agroecological disadvantages facing many African countries, other constraints have included an inability to benefit significantly from economies of scale within agriculture-related research and development and from international transfers of technology.

Environmental Consequences The Green Revolution has been associated with some significant unanticipated environmental problems due to its intensive nature and high levels of agrochemical use. The leaching of nitrates, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides into surface and groundwater supplies has caused serious ecological and human health problems. Few pesticides restrict their toxicity to the target species, often causing harm to water-dwelling insects and fish as well as soil organisms that improve soil structure and provide nutrients. Humans are also at risk as they handle pesticides directly, often without knowledge of the precautions needed when applying and storing such chemicals. To complicate matters, the yield increases obtained from successive HYVs have slowed since the 1990s and are no longer rising as fast as

population growth. In part, this reflects a decline in public funding for agricultural research plus the adoption of “defensive” breeding strategies that sought to maintain, rather than enhance, yields in the face of environmental stress and control new pest and disease threats. Other contributing factors include the overuse of chemical fertilizers. In India, the overuse of heavily subsidized urea has been associated with soil nutrient deficiencies (especially phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, magnesium, and calcium), organic matter content, and water retention capacity. The Green Revolution’s heavy reliance on irrigation has also caused groundwater depletion in many areas, forcing many farmers to drill deeper boreholes. The Indian state’s provision of subsidized electricity for agriculture provides little incentive for farmers to conserve either water or electricity, creating fears of a groundwater crisis as they are forced to pump water from deeper wells. In India’s Punjab, water shortages coupled with worsening environmental problems, stagnating yields, shrinking markets, rising production costs, and increased indebtedness have even been linked to farmer suicides.

A Village-Based Perspective of the Green Revolution To investigate whether the Green Revolution’s environmental problems have outweighed its food security benefits and whether the key unanticipated consequences of the Green Revolution have been negative or positive, it is helpful to look beyond macrolevel statistics to the experiences of farmers directly affected by it. Longitudinal data from households in Bulandshahr District, Uttar Pradesh, one of India’s core Green Revolution districts, indicates that HYVs provided greater food security for all. In 1972, the average yield for traditional, non-HYV wheat was 1,000 to 1,500 kg/ha (kilograms per hectare), while HYVs yielded 3,000 kg/ha. As was common elsewhere, the earliest and most successful adopters were the wealthiest and most influential farmers who had the largest farms and the best access to credit, HYV seeds, fertilizers, and irrigation water. Those

Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences

who owned a tubewell achieved mean yields of 3,200 kg/ha, whereas farms with unreliable irrigation obtained mean yields of 1,420 kg/ha. Few farmers applied pesticides at this time, but almost all of those who applied recommended quantities of fertilizer obtained significantly higher average yields. Nevertheless, resource-poor farmers still adopted the Green Revolution technology, often by hiring pump sets from wealthier neighbors and substituting manure for chemical fertilizer. The consensus of opinion was that the adoption of Green Revolution farming had not disadvantaged anybody and that the adoption of HYVs had been beneficial as food security, a major concern in village life in the 1960, had improved significantly. Post-2001, follow-up studies indicated that although land ownership had become more positively skewed, there was no evidence to suggest that poor farmers had sold land to wealthier farmers on account of not being able to afford essential inputs for their HYVs. In fact, some of the wealthiest households in 1972 had moved out of farming and sold their land, reinvesting the profits they made from the Green Revolution in the local area. Most of this land was bought by other wealthy villagers, but some was acquired by socioeconomically less dominant groups, creating some interesting shifts in landholding patterns. Perhaps the most significant unanticipated consequence of the Green Revolution, however, has been its impact on marginal farmers and landless families in the village who have benefited from the growth of the nonfarm economy, stimulated largely by the local reinvestment of Green Revolution profits. This has resulted in a rising demand for off-farm labor, diversified employment opportunities, and increased wage rates that have all helped raise the socioeconomic status of the marginal and landless households. Environmentally, there was increasing concern about HYV yield stagnation and declining profit margins associated with local agriculture. Several farmers reported having to sink deeper boreholes to enable them to obtain irrigation and drinking

741

water. Because of soil nutrient and organic matter deficiencies linked to years of intensive farming and an overdependence on cheap, subsidized urea, many farmers also complained of having to apply more fertilizer to maintain yields. Although a few farmers have successfully raised yields by applying animal dung to their land instead of chemical fertilizer, this is not a viable option for many who, in the absence of affordable alternatives, rely heavily on dung as a cooking fuel. The loss of agroecosystem biodiversity is of limited concern to most villagers as although they miss growing crops like pulses, their pest susceptibility and low yields make them risky compared with wheat, rice, and sugarcane. With rising life expectancy and education levels, however, concerns about the environmental and health impacts of agrochemicals are growing, helping stimulate a shift among some farmers to more organic forms of agriculture and traditional crop rotations.

A Fine Balance Both macro- and microscale data on the Green Revolution indicate that its unanticipated consequences have had positive as well as negative dimensions. Perhaps the biggest unanticipated success of the Green Revolution was that it managed, largely by luck, to help all groups of the poor by, in the words of Michael Lipton, “walking two tightropes.” The first tightrope was that in addition to raising the productivity of farmers’ labor, the Green Revolution raised the productivity of land and water faster, creating employment gains without increasing the cultivated area. The second tightrope was its success in benefiting the nonfarm poor through increased farm output and cheaper staple prices while helping farmers by raising total-factor productivity faster. The Green Revolution had less luck in reaching many of the unirrigable environments where many of the poorest people live, failing to alleviate preexisting socioeconomic and landholding inequalities and avoiding the environmental impacts of intensive irrigated farming. Yet the environmental damage associated with alternative

742

Grocery Stores and Supermarkets

routes to increased food production such as extending farming into more marginal and fragile environments could well have been even greater than the Green Revolution’s land- and forest-saving agriculture. Sarah Jewitt See also Chemical Fertilizers; Green Revolution, Future Prospects for; Pesticides; Population and Food Supply; Subsidies

Further Readings Baker, K., & Jewitt, S. (2007). Evaluating thirty-five years of Green Revolution technology in villages of Bulandshahr District, Western Uttar Pradesh, North India. Journal of Development Studies, 43(2), 312–339. doi:10.1080/00220380601125180 Byres, T. J. (1983). Green Revolution in India. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Corbridge, S., & Harriss, J. (2000). Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu nationalism and popular democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Hayami, Y., & Kikuchi, M. (2000). A rice village saga: Three decades of Green Revolution in the Philippines (Published in association with the International Rice Research Institute). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Hazell, P., & Haddad, L. (2001). Agricultural research and poverty reduction. Washington, DC: International Food and Policy Research Institute. Jewitt, S., & Baker, K. (2006). The Green Revolution re-assessed: Insider perspectives on agrarian change in Bulandshahr District, Western Uttar Pradesh, India. Geoforum, 38(1), 73–89. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum .2006.06.002 Lipton, M. (2007). Plant breeding and poverty: Can transgenic seeds replicate the “Green Revolution” as a source of grains for the poor? Journal of Development Studies, 43(1), 31–62.

Websites Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research: http://www.cgiar.org International Food and Policy Research Institute: http://www.ifpri.org

GROCERY STORES SUPERMARKETS

AND

Grocery stores and supermarkets are retail outlets that sell fresh and nonperishable food. The names are commonly interchangeable; however, supermarkets are larger format stores that offer additional categories of nonfood lifestyle items such as cleaning products and health and beauty aids. An examination of these stores reveals the evolution of the shopping experience and the changes in the foodstuffs we buy. This entry explores the history of the grocery store, common marketing strategies, an overview of the contemporary grocery industry, and trends and challenges facing the future of the grocery store.

History of the Grocery Store and Supermarket The origin of the word grocery dates back to the early-15th-century old French word grossier, which is derived from the Medieval Latin grossarius, meaning wholesaler. A grocer was someone who bought edible goods in large quantities and sold them to individual customers. In the United States, where there was significant rural expansion in the 19th century, trading posts sold all kinds of essential goods to settlers. As areas around the trading posts grew into towns, the posts evolved into general stores selling primarily dry goods like flour, coffee, sugar, and beans. Customers would request their items, and a salesperson behind the counter, would weigh out the individual portions of each product. Prior to the early 20th century, most food shops were specialized byproduct, and filling the pantry meant individual trips to the butcher, greengrocer, fishmonger, or bread baker. In 1916, in Memphis, Tennessee, the entrepreneur Clarence Saunders filed a patent for the first “Self Serving Store.” In his patent application, he described the intent of his invention as being able to provide customers with the ability to review the entire inventory of stock available, displayed in an attractive manner, and in which they could help themselves.

Grocery Stores and Supermarkets

Saunders opened the first self-serving Piggly Wiggly store that same year. Customers entered through a turnstile, wound their way through the aisles where they examined and chose merchandise that was individually marked with the price, and then paid for their purchases at the checking and paying station. The concept caught on quickly, and by 1932, there were 2,660 Piggly Wiggly stores. Independent grocery stores and chains also began to adopt the self-service model. Stores benefited from decreased labor costs and increased sales volume by letting the customer choose their merchandise; however, this also contributed to the growth of branded prepackaged goods. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, commonly known as the A&P, started out as a chain of retail tea and coffee stores in 1859. By the late 19th century, A&P was an established grocery store chain. In 1912, acting as both a manufacturer and wholesaler, A&P developed the economy store concept with generic private label merchandise, selling food at discounted prices. The chain grew to  1,600 stores by 1915. Within 15 years, the A&P  chain was the world’s largest retailer with 16,000 stores and $1 billion in sales. By 1950, however, the once mighty A&P began to decline, due in part to its late adoption of the self-service concept. Michael C. Cullen opened the first King Kullen store in 1930 and marketed it as “America’s First Supermarket.” His marketing concept entailed low prices, accepting only cash payments, no delivery service, and large stores with ample parking. In the 1950s, as the automobile became commonplace and populations migrated to suburban areas, the ability to shop in bulk became more prevalent. Self-service, the economies of private label manufacturing, and efficient distribution that resulted in lower prices, combined with ample parking on all four sides of the store, helped usher in the era of the modern grocery store.

Marketing Practices To engage new customers and retain relationships with current customers, grocery stores and supermarkets engage in various marketing practices.

743

This section discusses a few of the common practices: discount pricing, manipulation of the store’s layout, and customer loyalty and promotional programs. Discount Pricing

While the benefits of being able to sell food at lower prices than one’s competitor may be obvious, the challenge remains how to provide good quality at the lowest possible price. Grocery and supermarket margins are extremely low. According to the Food Marketing Institute, between 1984 and 2012, the average net profit after taxes was 1.15%. Discount grocery stores eschew frills such as tasting samples and having employees bag customers’ groceries. They also rely heavily on utilitarian lighting and use of crates and pallets for display as well as on generic private label merchandise. Simple labeling, like the No Name brand used by the Canadian chain No Frills, began as a retail experiment by its parent company, Loblaw Companies Limited. Sales exceeded expectations, and currently, there are more than 200 No Frills stores in Canada. Discount grocery stores are typically developed in low-income or ethnic immigrant areas. However, as food budgets remain tight due to the global financial crisis and as being thrifty has become more socially accepted, traditional discount stores like Aldi in Chicago, Illinois, are moving into higher income areas. In Italy, the discount grocery chain EuroSpin is also attracting upscale customers. Although built in locations that service low-income residents, EuroSpin has closed or remodeled many of its older stores and created fresh modern stores with better lighting and displays. Dry goods are exclusively private label, and food is still displayed on pallets and in crates. Fresh food like cheese, fish, and meat are franchised areas of the stores, allowing for local purveyors to sell their products. Store Layout

Early grocery stores averaged 5,000 to 10,000 square feet; by comparison, a contemporary supermarket averages 50,000 square feet.

744

Grocery Stores and Supermarkets

Retail research shows that American consumers tend to shop in a counterclockwise manner. Fresh food often appeals to shoppers and can put them in a good frame of mind. The scent of fresh bread or pastries can further enhance a shopper’s mood. Music and lighting can also make food look fresher and more appealing. This knowledge has led to a near universal grocery store layout of fresh fruit and baked goods near the entrance, with the center aisles of a supermarket consisting of prepared foods, shelf-stable items, and frozen foods. More elaborate displays of food items are found at the endcaps of the aisles so that shoppers must walk by them to reach the commodity items. Producers can even pay the supermarket chain for prominent placement of their products in prime locations, such as endcaps. Placement on individual shelves falls into three zones: eye, hand, and foot level. Well-known, expensive brands are usually placed at eye level, and manufacturers may also pay for this placement. Hand level is still easy access for customers but generally house less expensive items. Essential commodity items or low-priced items are placed at the bottom so that customers need to bend down to find and choose these items. Customer Loyalty and Promotional Programs

Grocery stores and supermarkets rely heavily on different types of promotional and loyalty programs to attract customers. Some of the more common types are discussed in the following subsections. Trading Stamps S&H Green Stamps were a popular rewards program from the 1930s through the late 1970s. The Sperry & Hutchinson company sold the gummed stamps to retailers; consumers received the stamps based on the amount spent at the store, pasted them into the complimentary collector’s book, and then redeemed them for products in the S&H catalog. The S&H program was also popular in the United Kingdom as the Green Shield program. In the 1960s, S&H claims that their catalog was the largest publication in the

United States. A&P sought to mimic S&H with their own in-house trading stamp called the Plaid Stamp, while Grand Union grocery stores had Triple S Stamps. Coupons The Coca-Cola Company was the first to use coupons. In 1888, Asa Candler, one of the company’s partners, issued paper tickets to customers offering them a free soda. When the Coke  syrup was delivered to a soda fountain, Coca-Cola requested the names and addresses of people who frequented the soda fountain and mailed free drink tickets to their home. In 1909, C. W. Post offered a one-cent coupon for Post’s popular Grape Nuts cereal. Since then, coupons as marketing programs have become widespread, with customers clipping them from magazines and newspapers and redeeming them at participating grocery stores. Coupons come in two basic categories: store issued and manufacturer issued. Although manufacturer-issued coupons have the advantage of being able to be used at any retailer, they do not encourage grocery store brand loyalty like store-issued coupons do. Technology has changed the coupon-clipping culture, as coupons can now be downloaded or scanned on a smartphone in a participating grocery store. Loyalty Programs Loyalty programs reward shoppers with member-only discounts and other consumer-based information. Manufacturers typically provide discounts so that the grocery store does not bear the full cost of the discount. Loblaw, the large Toronto, Canada–based chain, has been expanding its loyalty program to develop customer-centric marketing reports. Such customer reports are valuable tools that manufacturers can use to respond to purchasing trends.

The Grocery Industry There are several categories of retailers within the grocery industry, including hypermarkets, large

Grocery Stores and Supermarkets

retail chains, and independent grocers. This section discusses two of these—large retailers and independent grocers—as exemplars of contemporary changes in the industry. Large Retailers

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2013, global food sales were more than $4 trillion annually in all grocery retailers, including hypermarkets. To understand the scale of the global supermarket business, the annual Deloitte 2014 Global Powers of Retailing Report lists the top 20 largest retailers in the world (excluding hypermarkets, which are classified separately); of these, four are supermarkets: The Kroger Co. (United States), Woolworth’s Limited (Australia), Edeka Zentrale AG & Co. KG (Germany), and Wesfarmers Ltd (Australia). The Kroger Co. is considered a regional supermarket chain, with locations in 31 states. In the 1930s, the Kroger Co. established itself as unique by being the first to monitor product quality and to test the food being sold to its customers. It also capitalized on the potential of the automobile by creating a freestanding store with parking on all four sides. Kroger was an early adopter of the electronic scanner at checkout and one of the first to invest in customer research. Now established as the fifth largest retail outlet in the world, its continued growth can be attributed to its acquisition of smaller regional chains, entry into the niche organic market, and closing of stores in underperforming areas. The grocery industry faces the same challenges as the overall retail industry: slowing growth and excess capacity in developed markets, combined with volatile raw good prices and customer price resistance. Independent Grocers

After decades of consolidation of grocery store big box chains and the domination of hypermarkets, independent grocers are making a comeback. The independent grocer can be a one-off standalone shop or consist of a chain of stores.

745

The nomenclature “independent” indicates niche marketing, such as organic or wholesome, and has the ability to position itself with strong alternative brand identities, a pleasant and social shopping experience, and an emotional connection to their customers. The Whole Foods Effect One of the most influential independent grocers is Whole Foods Market. This Austin, Texas–based company invested in the nascent organic food movement in 1980. At a time when organic food was considered a marginal market, the opening of a 10,500 square foot Whole Foods Market store was considered a risky investment. Whole Foods is now ranked as the world’s 87th largest retailer, having firmly established itself as the leader in organic food sales. The chain is notable for developing stores in areas ripe for upwardly mobile gentrification. Within the real estate world, the “Whole Food effect” is described as the ability to elevate property values in the neighborhood where it is located. Trader Joe’s Trader Joe’s, which is now owned by the discount retailer Aldi North, is another example of successfully developing a strong brand identity that resonates with a particular market segment that responds to offbeat, casual marketing with an accent on wholesome and international ingredients. Its strategy revolves around a heavy private label business, with nearly 80% of its products being Trader Joe branded. The founder of Trader Joe’s, Joe Coulombe, formulated the original concept after realizing that Americans were traveling extensively but could not find similar ingredients in their home markets. Many of Trader Joe’s current products are focused on the rapidly growing ready-to-eat product lines. Wherever it is legally possible, Trader Joe’s has also introduced low-price branded wines, and it is the exclusive retailer of the popular Charles Shaw “Two Buck Chuck” wine. Fortune magazine, in 2010, estimated that Trader Joe’s stores generated $1,750 per square foot, or nearly double the volume of a Whole Foods Store.

746

Grocery Stores and Supermarkets

Retail Grocery Trends In the 21st century, grocery stores and supermarkets must target their offerings in accordance with customer preferences and health and social trends. This section focuses on a few of the recent trends seen in the grocery stores since 2010. Prepared Foods

Far removed from the early days of supplying beans in bulk, contemporary grocery stores are finding significant sales increases in prepared foods. The research company, Packaged Facts, has projected a 7.5% rise in sales in prepared foods from 2010 to 2011, with an estimated $32.5 billion in sales. Prepared foods encompass frozen foods, convenient mixes, fresh or frozen ready-to-eat, and heat-eat categories. In the United States, sales in the frozen food area have been flat or declining for the past few years. Grocery stores and supermarkets have been investing in the perimeter fresh food areas of their stores, which means a decrease in marketing excitement in the center-aisle frozen food sections. However, specialty-diet frozen food selections appear to be gaining in sales. Organic and Natural Foods

The organic and natural food movement has spawned entire grocery store chains like Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe’s. Recent data from the Organic Trade Associations state that in 2013, sales of organic merchandise grew 11.5%, outstripping growth in the overall grocery category. Specialty Diet

Specialty-diet products that cater to market segments like vegetarians, vegans, and adherents of a gluten-free diet have exploded in recent years. The Mintel market research group predicts that the sales of gluten-free products will rise by 48% between 2013 and 2016, representing $15.6 billion in sales.

Connecting With the Customer

Grocery stores and supermarkets seek to develop store brand loyalty with their customers by projecting an aura of well-being in tune with social trends like healthy eating, cause initiatives, and local farm-to-table movements. Capitalized by a hugely successful crowdfunding campaign, Original Unverpackt grocery store opened in Berlin, Germany, in the summer of 2013. The 100% waste-free concept is centered on having zero packaging. Goods—including local and organic products—are sold in gravity bins, which are upside-down bulk containers with a lever that controls the quantity dispensed. Customers dispense the amount of the desired amount into their brought-from-home containers, thus eliminating the need for packaging. The Shop Rite chain of supermarkets in New Jersey is building brand loyalty and customer goodwill by having store volunteers partner with community activists in an annual program to replant shore grass on the local coastal dunes.

Challenges and the Future of Grocery Retailing Despite the recent trends discussed in the previous section, there are still numerous challenges facing the grocery retail industry, including challenges stemming from new technology and alternative business models. Click to Shop

Marketing to millennials and the newly identified “indie woman” is shaping the grocery shopping experience of the future. Millennials are typically described as those born between 1980 and 1995. The indie woman is defined as a single woman, 27 years of age or older, and a bargain hunter, whose social group often revolves around other indie women. Both groups are social media savvy and use their smartphones as a shopping aid. Phones are used to store recipes and shopping lists or to acquire more information about a

Grocery Stores and Supermarkets

product. While QR codes have not achieved wide usage in the supermarket arena, new apps are being developed that will deliver nutrition, caloric, and source information. As smartphone apps start to deliver a richer user interface, it is likely that the day when one’s cupboard and refrigerator shelves interact with one’s phone won’t be far behind. Home Delivery

Fast, efficient delivery of your grocery store purchases has been an elusive target for a number of years. Webvan was established in 1997 with the promise that it would deliver groceries to a customer’s door in less than 30 minutes. Unfortunately, Webvan’s enormous infrastructure investment in a mechanical carousel-based order fulfillment system and a dearth of tech-savvy consumer families in the late 1990s led to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars by its investors. While the collapse of Webvan is a cautionary tale, there is the expectation that Amazon will enter this market. This could eclipse the efforts of start-up grocers and supermarket chains that want to capitalize on the needs of the time-sensitive customer. In South Korea, the Tesco supermarket chain is experimenting with a click-to-shop experience in the subway. Using life-size images of grocery products on the walls of the subway, shoppers, while waiting for the train, can use their smartphones to choose the items wanted, pay online, and have the groceries delivered later that day. The start-up company Instacart is experimenting with another business model. Instacart hires personal shoppers to fulfill customer orders. The company does not own its own stores or vehicles, relying on personal shoppers to use their own vehicle. Instacart currently operates in 10 states in the United States, with plans for significant expansion. Recently, the tech industry has become enamored with the possibility of rapid delivery of groceries. Hello Fresh, a Berlin based start-up has raised more than US$50,000,000 in an attempt to create a global consumer brand that delivers ingredients and recipes to customers.

747

Grocery Stores as a Change for Good

Grocery stores and supermarkets may be in a unique position to influence healthy eating habits. While the individual producer can promote healthy eating with its products, socially conscious grocers can guide customers to overall healthier eating patterns. Transparency and Information The store Corella Meat Shop, based in Barcelona, Spain, has recently begun labeling its meat packages with illustrations of the animal and where the particular cut of meat is from. Although a squeamish consumer may balk at this much information, the illustrations coupled with information about the environmental impact of the animal create an engaged consumer who can make informed choices about meat consumption. Conversely, featuring the relatively lighter eco-footprint of vegetables could increase sales in that area. Food Deserts Food deserts are defined as urban and rural areas where consumers do not have easy access to fresh, affordable food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Survey estimates that 23.5 million people in the United States live in food deserts. The typical modern supermarket business model relies on high volume to offset low profit margins. It also relies on the automobile, assuming that customers have access to private transportation. However, in examining lowincome customers who live in low-income areas in the United States, 4.1% of the population lives at least 1 mile from a supermarket. This results in more time spent buying groceries and frequent trips to a higher priced local grocery store. Urban low-income areas are particularly a challenge for the success of large chain supermarkets. Restrictive zoning and a desire to protect mom-and-pop bodega-type stores results in reduced access to competitively priced food. Metro Foodlands in Detroit, Michigan, is attempting to combat the food desert issue by

748

Growth Hormones and Other Drugs in Meat Products

using customer engagement. It tries to influence customer choices by providing nutritional information, partnering with a chef to provide cooking classes, and offering customers a discount card that rewards healthy food purchases.

Conclusion While the manner of selling groceries has evolved over the years, one thing remains certain: We still need to shop for groceries. How we shop and what will be in our carts, however, continues to change. Judith Klinger See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Apps for Food; Canned Goods; Convenience Foods; Convenience Stores; Coupons; Deli Counter in Grocery Stores; Ethnic Grocery Stores; Farmers’ Markets; Fresh Food; Frozen Food; Generic Brands; Health Food Stores; Hypermarkets; Population and Food Supply; Social Media and Food; Storage and Warehousing; Supply and Distribution Networks

Further Readings Deloitte. (2014). Global powers of retailing 2014: Retail beyond begins [PDF] Retrieved from http://www .deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Chile/Local%20Assets/ Documents/Nuevos/Estudios/CB_GlobalPowers ofRetailing2014.pdf Deutsch, T. (2010). Building a housewife’s paradise: Gender, politics, and American grocery stores in the twentieth century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Kahn, B., & McAlister, L. (1997). Grocery revolution: The new focus on the consumer. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kisler, I. (2013). Trader Joe’s versus Whole Food Market: An organic grocery store marketing analysis. Seattle, WA: Amazon Digital Services. Mayo, J. (1993). The American grocery store: The business evolution of an architectural space. Westport, CT: Praeger. Nebraska Jewish Historical Society. (2011). Mom and pop grocery stores. Omaha, NE: Proforma Identity Marketing.

Websites Food Marketing Institute: http://www.fmi.org Progressive Grocer: http://www.progressivegrocer.com Supermarket News: http://supermarketnews.com

GROWTH HORMONES AND OTHER DRUGS IN MEAT PRODUCTS Cattle producers use growth-promoting hormones to produce more of the lean beef that consumers demand while using fewer resources, such as land and feed. As of January 2013, 30 growthpromoting products were being marketed in the United States. An animal given growth enhancers gains weight more rapidly and produces a leaner product. Reaching market weight sooner results in a reduction in the cost of beef production and lower prices to consumers. Growth hormones in beef are primarily administered using a small pelleted implant that is placed under the skin on the back of the ear of the animal. The implants are designed to release the hormone slowly over time into the animal’s bloodstream. The hormones in growth-promoting implants include estrogens, androgens, and progestins and have been in use since the 1950s. All growth hormones used in meat production in the United States undergo testing and certification by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are reapproved annually for continued use. This entry begins by exploring the use of growth hormones in livestock, including the purpose, governmental requirements, and economics of their use, then discusses similar factors involved with the use of other feed additives in livestock production.

Types of Hormones Used and Their Purpose Classifications of Growth-Promoting Hormones

According to the FDA, both naturally occurring and synthetic hormones are available for use in livestock production. The FDA classifies naturally occurring hormones as those that are naturally produced throughout life in both people and

Growth Hormones and Other Drugs in Meat Products

animals; these hormones include estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone. Synthetic hormones are human-made versions of naturally occurring hormones and include zeranol, which mimics estrogen; trenbolone acetate, which mimics testosterone; and melengestrol acetate, which mimics progesterone. Purpose of Hormone Use

Growth-promoting hormones help stimulate growth in livestock by increasing the efficiency with which feed is converted to muscle. FDA-approved hormone products, when administered to livestock in the proper dosages, supplement the animal’s natural hormone production and help improve growth rates by allowing the animal to produce more muscle and less fat.

749

the animal products that we eat (edible tissue). Furthermore, the FDA requires that the hormone manufacturers demonstrate that the amount of hormone left in each edible tissue after treatment is below the appropriate safe level. The FDA approves these drugs only after numerous studies have shown that the meat from the treated animals is safe for people to eat and that the drugs do not harm the treated animal or the environment. Livestock harvest facilities are required to address any potential chemical concerns, like growth-promoting hormone residues, as part of their facility’s government-mandated Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plan. Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Food Safety and Inspection Service tests for residues of growth-promoting products at harvest that exceed FDA-established safe levels.

Administration of Hormones

Hormones can be administered either as small pelleted implants or as a feed ingredient (see “Feed Additives in Cattle Production” section). The hormone is released into the bloodstream very slowly, ensuring that the concentration remains relatively constant and low.

Requirements for FDA Approval of Growth Hormones Safe Level for Human Consumption

Using scientific data, the FDA establishes the acceptable safe limits for hormones in meat. A safe level for human consumption is a level of drug in the meat that would be expected to have no effect in humans based on extensive scientific study and review. Toxicological Testing

Growth hormones are available for beef production; however, the FDA states that no steroid hormones are approved for growth purposes in dairy cattle, veal calves, pigs, or poultry. Extensive toxicological testing in animals is also required by the FDA to determine safe levels of hormones in

Economics of Using Growth-Promoting Hormones It is estimated that approximately two thirds of cattle raised in the United States are given growth-promoting hormones to accelerate weight gain. According to the animal scientist Michael Fields of the University of Florida, it costs farmers about $1 to $3 per head of cattle to treat their livestock with steroid hormones. Treatment increases animals’ growth by 20%, so each cow in a feedlot typically gains 3 pounds per day. Moreover, it takes 15% less feed for hormonetreated cows to gain a pound of body weight than for an untreated animal.

Feed Additives in Cattle Production Apart from growth-promoting hormones, there are other drugs, called feed additives, that may be given to livestock. Feed additives may be nutritive or nonnutritive and work by either direct or indirect methods on the animal’s system. Many feed additives are available that can prevent certain diseases or help improve the rate of gain and feed efficiency. Unlike growth-promoting hormones, however, many feed additives must be withdrawn

750

Guerrilla Gardening

from cattle’s diet for a certain amount of time before slaughter. Livestock producers who utilize feed additives must be conscious of not only the proper dosage but also the mixing of additives (as some have negative consequences if mixed) and the withdraw times before slaughter. Uses of Feed Additives

Feed additives are used for a variety of purposes including improved growth and feeding efficiency, liver abscess prevention, coccidiosis prevention, heat suppression, scour treatment, internal/external parasite control, shipping fever treatment, bloat prevention, and anaplasmosis prevention.

Further Readings Lusk, J., Roosen, J., & Fox, J. (2003). Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(1), 16–29. Stewart, L. (2013). Implanting beef cattle. Athens: University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. Retrieved from http://www .caes.uga.edu/publications/pubDetail.cfm?pk_id=7430 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2011, February 8). Steroid hormone implants used for growth in foodproducing animals. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/ SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm055436 .htm

Example of a Feed Additive

Among the more common feed additives in cattle production are iconophores. Iconophores are antimicrobial compounds that modify microbial fermentation in the rumen, allowing cattle to get more energy from the feed consumed by improving feed efficiency and changing the types of fatty acids produced in the rumen. In addition to more energy, iconophores are known to reduce the incidence of coccidiosis, acidosis, and bloat and enhance the absorption of nitrogen, magnesium, phosphorus, zinc, and selenium. Regulation of Feed Additives

Like growth-promoting hormones, feed additives are regulated by the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Additives are put through rigorous tests to determine a safe level for human consumption and then given a safe value for production use. Each additive is retested annually and must pass with the same standards as the previous year to stay in use. Casey Rogers See also Cattle Industry; Factory Farming; Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

GUERRILLA GARDENING Guerrilla gardening is the intentional but unauthorized cultivation of plants or crops on abandoned or unused public and private property. Individuals and a small number of organized groups who employ guerrilla gardening as a method of expressing their particular views, often political, usually do their work after dark and without much fanfare to the public until the action is complete. The illegal aspect of this type of activism, regarding access to and trespassing on private or public lands without permission, gives it the clandestine-sounding moniker. It is a documented practice in more than 30 countries worldwide. In the West, guerrilla gardening is frequently associated with grassroots social justice movements concentrated in inner-city locations, also known as food deserts, where industrially packaged food products are more readily available than fresh food and vegetables. Activists claim that by organizing and creating gardens in this fashion, people living in neighborhoods devoid of green spaces have an incentive to think about issues that directly affect their health and well-being. There is an equally important aesthetic purpose to the exercise because targeted

Guerrilla Gardening

properties are often neglected, littered with trash, and lacking vegetation. The goal is to beautify as well as to educate and as a by-product, elicit emotion and feedback from city dwellers, inducing a positive reaction to the possibility of environmental change, one citizen at a time. In fact, guerrilla gardening has been employed in various forms for centuries but has currently gained popularity as an activity due to the mainstream coverage of food-related issues and concerns about food security in the world today. This entry focuses on the use of guerrilla gardening as a tool for change.

Guerrilla Gardeners Guerrilla gardeners are individuals who plant food or flower gardens on abandoned or unused land without legal permission. They treat the land as their own by organizing and procuring tools and volunteers for the planting of vegetable or flower seeds that will grow and produce product for aesthetic value or future consumption by others. These gardeners often do their activity at night so that they are not detected by the owners of the neglected properties, as they are trespassing. In Spanish, guerra is translated as “war,” so that “little war”—guerrilla—then refers to independent “soldiers” gathered to fight or resist the status quo, in this case the owners of derelict land, including public land controlled by the city or government. In the eyes of the guerrilla gardener, beautification is beneficial both aesthetically and nutritionally. People who engage in guerrilla gardening are found all over the world and come from varied backgrounds. With diverse reasons for initiating or participating in this specific activity, devotees differ from conventional backyard gardeners primarily because they want to draw attention to urban blight or land use rights. Because at the moment there is no government or private organization that funds this type of activity, it is populated by volunteers and is frequently practiced with a “pay it forward” type of mentality by individuals who consider themselves activists for the common good.

751

Food scarcity may also drive people to cultivate on parcels of unused land. However, most of them would not consider themselves guerrilla gardeners but instead providers, whose aim is to supplement and procure food for their families. There is a debate as to whether this kind of activity should be considered guerrilla gardening in the popular sense, because guerrilla gardening is common in many developing countries as a tool for survival and not necessarily done to attract discourse about policy change or to draw attention to the lack of nature in city planning. Many cities and counties have rules and regulations in place that prohibit trespassing and any sort of land alteration, often with the threat of fines and/or jail time for violations. Where these regulations are strictly enforced, guerrilla gardening becomes an act necessitating covert activity and is not without serious risk to the gardener or activist.

History of Guerrilla Gardening In the United States, the term guerrilla gardeners came into usage in 1973 after a local New York City woman named Liz Christy organized a group of gardening activists who named themselves the Green Guerillas. They were known for renovating vacant lots, removing trash and debris around abandoned housing complexes, and planting flowers and vegetables for aesthetics as well as an outlet to provoke response. The central garden plot, named the First Community Garden, which is still an active hub today, was located at Bowery and Houston Streets in Manhattan. Prior to this time, during the 1600s, Gerrard Winstanley led a group of reformers called the True Levellers in England. The True Levellers, among other things, were a radical group who believed in the abolishment of property ownership. For one campaign, they took over common land in Surrey, Buckinghamshire, and neighboring counties to cultivate it and distribute the crops without charge to their own group. Perhaps the most widely known guerrilla gardener was a man known as John “Appleseed” Chapman, an American figure popular in American elementary school curriculums. Chapman roamed

752

Guerrilla Gardening

the Ohio valley and elsewhere during the 1800s and planted seeds randomly where he went, presumably to educate, feed, and beautify, though he was also a nurseryman selling trees in advance of settlers, so this was also a business venture. Today, these groups are as diverse as the urban population in general. Some factions consider themselves political activists opposing the depletion of land rights and usage by protesting one garden or seed at a time. Others focus on enhancing their environment by planting to counter the concrete and asphalt that surrounds them.

Popular Guerrilla Gardening Groups The British-based website www.guerrillagardening .org, with Richard Reynolds at the helm, is the foremost example of a loose but cohesive group that engages in this activity today. Reynolds began the venture in his gardenless London suburb in 2004. Observing many blighted spots in the surrounding area, Reynolds began rehabilitating nearby properties including sidewalks, medians, and parking lots. Recognizing the city’s lackluster performance in maintaining derelict properties, he, working alone, took it on himself to change his  surroundings one plot at a time. A guerrilla searches for neglected property to beautify—be it a playground, a tree well, traffic median, or abandoned sidewalk planters. Any small area will do. There are various methods used to actually plant, which is the main purpose of guerrilla gardening. An individual or group organizes to create a plan of action. Tools, seeds, and plants are assembled and prepared for use. A location is chosen and work begins. At the destination, soil is prepared and the plants are put into the ground. On occasions where terrain makes it difficult to access a certain location, the use of seed bombs is employed. Seed bombs, or seed grenades, are constructed with bits of soil and seed held together by some sort of degradable material and lobbed into areas that are in need of modification. Reynolds’s guerrilla gardening website emphatically states that the composition of the seed bombs must exclude invasive seeds to leave the most

positive impact on the environment, and using seeds native to the area is encouraged. The inherent risk in seed bombs is that there is little control over which seeds grow and which do not, but many grenades are lobbed at one time so that there is a good possibility of at least moderate success. Eventually Reynolds started blogging about his urban adventures and gained a wide following. As word spread, others joined him in his endeavor or copied his actions in other parts of London. He became recognized by the media, prompting people to form their own groups and carry out similar activities in other parts of the city and the world. Word of his activism spread to the United States and has grown significantly in many areas. The tendency in the United States is to see a younger group of socially conscious guerrillas, though in general, as elsewhere, there is a wide spectrum of ages and income. Long-time food activists like Mike Winne, author of two books and also a well-known speaker on food justice and policy issues, has said that guerrilla gardening is one of the simplest methods for regular citizens to feel in control of their situation. As if on cue, there is presently a cadre of dedicated foodies, young farmers, social justice advocates, and “weekend warrior” gardeners from New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, Seattle, and elsewhere who call themselves guerrillas. For some of the activists, the longer term goals are to create an atmosphere where policy change is inevitable and geared toward better accessibility to fresh and local food. This movement has its roots in the still evolving good food revolution, the basic tenet of which is that fresh food is better than the ubiquitously available fast food in modern urban centers and must be accessible to all people, regardless of income. There is presently a surge of activism surrounding food and food issues in many parts of the globe, which perhaps coincides with the rise of interest in guerrilla gardening. However, there are only a handful of dedicated guerrilla gardening websites and few books available on the subject, with Reynolds’s hosting the most comprehensive and inclusionary information to date. With the ever

Guerrilla Gardening

changing and gathering momentum of information available on the Internet, new sites about guerrilla gardening and similar forms of activism are sure to surface, attracting more people with more questions, answers, and possibly solutions.

Effects of Guerrilla Gardening To the guerrilla gardener, any plots of city land, parking lots, medians, and sidewalks are fair game and are commandeered and/or invigorated at liberty. Because it is prohibited to change or use government property, activists have sometimes been fined for their actions. On occasion, it has occurred that policy, however slowly, has changed, whereby city officials begin to dialogue with citizens on proposed policy changes. The ideal situation occurs when city planners work with citizen groups to integrate nature with urban sprawl for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. A more common occurrence is that authorities on occasion turn a blind eye and do not pursue the trespassers. Of note is the generally positive response from communities where guerrilla gardening takes place. The gardeners remove trash and rejuvenate the soil, and in doing so, they create a cleaner and aesthetically richer environment. This in turn motivates families to leave their homes more often, mingle with neighbors, and take advantage of nature that was previously unavailable. Guerrillas assume that their input will prompt citizens to take pride in their surroundings, fostering a more concrete sense of community and good will. There seems to be a growing appreciation for the greening of urban neighborhoods, including gardens with edible food situated throughout urban neighborhoods. It is plausible to attribute some of the expectation to the banding together of ordinary citizens who engage in the illicit gardening of public spaces, called guerrilla gardening. Whether this type of activism will result in widespread policy change is yet to be determined, but it has

753

proved to be a tool for creating awareness and for initiating a greater possibility of dialogue between citizen activists and policymakers. Silvana Vukadin-Hoitt See also Food Deserts; Food Insecurity; Food Justice; Food Sovereignty, Policy and Regulation; Foraging; Fresh Food; Human Right to Adequate Food; Locavorism

Further Readings Hardman, M. (2011). Understanding guerrilla gardening: An exploration of illegal cultivation in the UK. Birmingham, UK: School of Property, Construction and Planning, Birmingham City University. Lamborn, P., & Weinberg, B. (Eds.). (1999). Avant gardening: Ecological struggle in the city and the world. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia. Reynolds, R. (2008). On guerrilla gardening: A handbook for gardening without boundaries. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Seed bombs: A guide to their various forms and functions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.guerrillagardening .org/ggseedbombs.html Toronto Public Space Committee. (n.d.). Guerilla gardening. Retrieved from http://www.publicspace.ca/ gardeners.htm Tracey, D. (2007). Guerrilla gardening: A manualfesto. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society. Treehugger. (n.d.). How to make seed bombs (and not get in trouble doing it). Retrieved from http://treehugger .com/lawn-garden/how-to-make-seed-bombs-and-notget-in-trouble-doing-it.html Villano, M. (2012). Guerrilla gardens. USA Today, pp. 28–31. Retrieved from http://www.markwinne .com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Guerrilla_Villano.pdf

Website Guerrilla Gardening Troop Digs: http://www.guerrilla gardening.org/ggtroopdigs.html

H law, the Quran and the Sunna, two other elements of Islamic jurisprudence are used regularly to address contemporary situations not explicitly covered by the Quran and the Sunna. Ijma is the process of obtaining a consensus of legal opinions. Qiyas is reasoning by analogy. To be successful, the scholar will use a process called ijtihad, which means to exert oneself fully to derive an answer to the problem. In Islam, the system of religious laws covers many aspects of daily life, of which the halal food laws are a small part. The degree of involvement in a person’s personal life and the detailed prescriptions are quite extensive. These laws invoke the health aspects of eating, which can be thought of in broad terms—that is, philosophically not medically. Thus, individual laws are not analyzed in terms of current medical or scientific beliefs. Why do Muslims follow the halal dietary laws? The main reason is to follow the Divine Orders.

HALAL FOOD Religious dietary laws are one of the reasons people may not eat the food presented to them. This entry summarizes some of the key issues with respect to the Muslim halal food laws. As the Muslim community grows in countries where Muslims are a minority, the need for many Muslim services will increase, particularly for halal foods. Although the information in this entry is as accurate as possible at the time of writing, the final decision on any product’s halal status rests with the religious authorities providing supervision. The interpretations of religious and secular law herein are those of the author, so the rulings of any particular religious and secular authority may differ from the information presented here.

The Halal Laws The halal dietary laws determine which foods are “lawful” or permitted for Muslims to consume. The basic laws are found in the Quran (recited from 610 to 622 CE) and in the Sunna, the practices of the Prophet Muhammad. Islamic law is called Shari’ah and has been continuously interpreted by Muslim scholars. The basic principles of Islamic laws remain definite and unaltered. However, their interpretation and application may change according to the time, place, and circumstances. Besides the two basic sources of Islamic

O ye who believe! Eat of the good things wherewith WE have provided you, and render thanks to ALLAH if it is He whom ye worship. (Quran II:172)

God reminds the believers time and again in the Quran to eat what is “halal and tayyiban,” meaning “permitted, and good or wholesome.” Although emphasized less commercially, the religious role of tayyiban is also important in Muslim thought and practical discussions of food. 755

756

Halal Food

O, Mankind! Eat of that which is Lawful and Wholesome in the Earth. (Quran II:168) Eat of the good things. We have provided for your sustenance, but commit no excess therein. (Quran XX:81)

In Sura 6 of the Quran, “Cattle,” Muslims are instructed to eat the meat of animals on which Allah’s name has been invoked. Therefore, an invocation has to be made at the time of slaughtering an animal, generally “Bismillah Allah Aquaba”— that is, “God is Great.” (Allah is simply the Arabic word for God.) Eat of that over which the name of Allah hath been mentioned, if ye are believers in His revelations. (Quran VI:119)

While Muslims eat what is permitted specifically or by implication, they avoid eating what is specifically disallowed, such as And eat not of that whereupon Allah’s name hath not been mentioned, for lo, it is abomination. Lo! The devils do inspire their minions to dispute with you. But if ye obey them, ye will be in truth idolaters. (Quran VI:121)

Because Muslim dietary laws relate to divine permissions and prohibitions, if anyone observes these laws, he or she is rewarded in the hereafter, and if anyone violates these laws, he or she may receive punishment accordingly. The rules for those foods that are not specifically prohibited may be interpreted differently by various scholars, often because of concerns for tayyiban, which is then decided using contemporary information. The foods that are specifically prohibited are very few in number and are summarized in the following verses: Forbidden unto you are: carrion and blood and swine flesh, and that which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which hath been killed by

the goring of horns, and the devoured of wild beasts save that which ye make lawful, and that which hath been immolated to idols. And that ye swear by the divining arrows. This is abomination. (Quran V:3)

The halal dietary laws define food products as halal (permitted), haram (prohibited), and put a few items into the category of either mashbooh (questionable) or makrooh (detestable). The halal laws deal with five issues; all but the last are in the animal kingdom. There are 11 generally accepted principles pertaining to halal and haram in Islam that provide guidance to Muslims: 1. The basic principle is that all things created by Allah are permitted, with a few exceptions that are prohibited. Those prohibited exceptions include pork, blood, and the meat of animals that died of causes other than proper slaughtering, food that has been dedicated or immolated to someone other than Allah, alcohol, intoxicants, and inappropriately used drugs. 2. To make lawful and unlawful is the right of Allah alone. No human being, no matter how pious or powerful, may take the law into his hands to change it. 3. Prohibiting what is permitted and permitting what is prohibited is similar to ascribing partners to Allah. This is a sin of the highest degree that makes one fall out of the sphere of Islam. 4. The basic reasons for the prohibition of things are due to impurity and harmfulness. A Muslim is not supposed to question exactly why or how something is unclean or harmful of what Allah has prohibited. There might be obvious reasons and there might be obscure reasons. 5. What is permitted is sufficient and what is prohibited is then superfluous. Allah prohibited only things that are unnecessary or dispensable while providing better alternatives. People can survive and live better without consuming unhealthy carrion, unhealthy pork, unhealthy blood, and alcohol, which is considered the root of many vices.

Halal Food

6. Whatever is conducive to the prohibited is in itself prohibited. If something is prohibited, anything leading to it is also prohibited. 7. Falsely representing unlawful as lawful is prohibited. It is unlawful to make flimsy excuses, to consume something that is prohibited, such as drinking alcohol for supposedly medical reasons. 8. Good intentions do not make the unlawful acceptable. Whenever any permissible action of the believer is accompanied by a good intention, his or her action becomes an act of worship. In the case of haram, it remains haram, no matter how good the intention or how honorable the purpose may be. Islam does not endorse employing a haram means to achieve a praiseworthy end. The religion indeed insists not only that the goal be honorable but also that the means chosen to achieve it be lawful and proper. Islamic laws demand that the right should be secured solely through just means. 9. Doubtful things should be avoided. There is a gray area between clearly lawful and clearly unlawful. This is the area of “what is doubtful.” Islam considers it an act of piety for the Muslims to avoid doubtful things, for them to stay clear of the unlawful. 10. Unlawful things are prohibited to everyone alike. Islamic laws are universally applicable to all races, creeds, and sexes. There is no favored treatment of a privileged class. Actually, in Islam, there are no privileged classes; hence, the question of preferential treatment does not arise. This principle applies not only among Muslims but also between Muslims and non-Muslims. 11. Necessity dictates exceptions. The range of prohibited things in Islam is quite limited, but emphasis on observing the prohibitions is very strong. At the same time, Islam is not oblivious to the exigencies of life, to their magnitude, or to human weakness and capacity to face them. A Muslim is permitted, under the compulsion

757

of necessity, to eat a prohibited food to ensure survival, but only in quantities sufficient to remove the necessity and avoid starvation.

And now to the five topics of concern in halal: (1) prohibited and permitted animals, (2) prohibition of blood, (3) proper slaughtering of permitted animals, (4) meat of animals killed by the Ahl-al-Kitab, and (5) prohibition of alcohol and intoxicants. Prohibited and Permitted Animals

The meat of pigs, boars, and swine is strictly prohibited, as is the meat of the carnivorous animals such as lions, tigers, cheetahs, cats, dogs, and wolves. Also prohibited are the meat of birds of prey such as eagles, falcons, osprey, kites, and vultures. Meat of domesticated animals, especially ruminants, is allowed for food. Also permitted are the birds that do not use their claws to hold down food, including all domesticated birds. Some animal and birds are permitted only under special circumstances or with certain conditions. Horse meat may be permitted for consumption under some distressing conditions. Animals fed unclean or filthy feed must be quarantined and placed on clean feed for a period varying from 3 to 40 days before slaughter to cleanse their systems and make them tayyiban. Acceptable foods from the sea are the most varied among the various denominations of Muslims. Some only accept fish with scales, whereas others consider as halal everything that lives in water all the time. Consequently, prawns, lobsters, crabs, and clams are halal to some but may be makrooh for others. Animals that live both in water and on land (amphibians) are not consumed by observant Muslims. Although these choices are based on interpretations of Islamic law, they may also reflect the custom of the area and the seafood available. There is no clear status of insects established in Islam except that locust is specifically mentioned as halal and eaten by the Prophet Muhammad. Insects are generally considered neutral. However, from deduction of the laws, both helpful insects, like bees, ants, and spiders, and harmful or dirty creatures, like lice, flies, and mosquitoes, are prohibited

758

Halal Food

as food. Honey was highly recommended by the Prophet Muhammad. Other products like royal jelly, beeswax, shellac, and carmine are acceptable; however, some may consider shellac and carmine makrooh. Eggs and milk from permitted animals are permitted, but those from haram animals are prohibited. Prohibition of Blood

Blood that pours forth is prohibited for consumption, whether it is from permitted or nonpermitted animals. Products made with and from blood (e.g., blood sausage) are not accepted by Muslims. Religiously, the blood is defined as that which comes out freely subsequent to slaughter; what remains in the meat after proper bleeding of the animal is not of concern. Proper Slaughtering of Permitted Animals

The meat of animals slaughtered traditionally is called zabiha or dhabiha meat. Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus, if you kill, kill well; and if you perform dhabiha, perform it well. Let each one of you sharpen his blade and let him spare suffering to the animal he slays. (Khan, 1991; Hadith attributed to Sahih Muslim)

Islam places great emphasis on the gentle and humane treatment of animals, especially before and during slaughter. The animal must be given proper rest and water before slaughter, conditions that create stress must be avoided; the animal’s throat is slit horizontally using a very sharp knife. Both carotid arteries and jugular veins along with the trachea (windpipe) and esophagus are cut. When done right on calm animals, the cut results in rapid bleed out, which leads to rapid unconsciousness of the animal. The knife cannot be sharpened in front of the animals, and one animal cannot see another animal being slaughtered. In addition, the animal should be facing Makkah (Mecca), and a blessing must be said at the time of slaughter. Only after the blood is allowed to drain

completely and the animal has become lifeless (insensible) can any dismemberment start. After that, the halal meat is turned over to the secular authorities for further inspection. Animal-derived food ingredients like emulsifiers, tallow, and animal enzymes must be made from halal slaughtered animals. Hunting of permitted wild animals and birds is allowed for the purpose of eating and not merely for deriving pleasure from killing an animal. Hunting during the pilgrimage to Makkah and within the defined boundaries of the holy city of Makkah is strictly prohibited. Hunting is permitted with many different weapons, and the name of Allah should normally be pronounced at the time of releasing the weapon. Trained dogs may be used for catching or retrieving the hunt. The animal has to be bled by slitting the throat as soon as the animal is caught. If the blessing is made at the time the weapon is released and the hunted animal dies before the hunter reaches it, it would still be halal as long as slaughter is performed and some blood comes out. Fish and other creatures that live in water need not be religiously slaughtered, although the method used must be humane, and a blessing need not be said. Similarly, there is no special method for killing locust or other edible insects. The meat of animals that die of natural causes is unlawful to be eaten, unless one saves such animals by slaughtering them halal before they actually become lifeless. A fish that dies naturally is still halal as long as it does not show any signs of decay or deterioration. Meat of Animals Killed by the Ahl-al-Kitab

The question of the permissibility of consuming meat of animals killed by the Ahl-al-Kitab, or people of the book, meaning particularly Jews and Christians, remains controversial. In the Holy Quran, this issue is presented in Sura V, verse 5: This day all good things are made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them.

Halal Food

This verse addresses the Muslims and seems to establish a social context where Muslims, Jews, and Christians could interact with each other. As far as the first part of the ruling is concerned, Muslims are allowed to eat the food of the Jews and Christians as long as it does not violate the first part of this verse. This day all good and wholesome things have been made lawful for you. (Quran V:6)

Many Islamic scholars are of the opinion that the food of the Ahl-al-Kitab must meet the criteria established for halal and wholesome food, including the proper slaughter of animals. They believe that the following verse still holds: And eat not of that whereupon Allah’s name hath not been mentioned, for lo! It is abomination. (Quran VI:121)

However, some Islamic scholars feel this verse does not apply to the food of Ahl-al-Kitab; thus, there is no need to mention the name of God at the time of slaughtering. Prohibition of Alcohol and Intoxicants

Consumption of alcoholic drinks and other intoxicants is prohibited according to the Quran (V:90–91): O you who believe! Fermented drinks and games of chance, and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Leave it aside in order that you may prosper. Only would Satan sow hatred and strife among you, by alcohol, and games of chance, and turn you aside from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: Will you not, therefore, abstain from them.

Although there is no allowance for added alcohol in any beverage, small amounts of alcohol contributed naturally from food ingredients may be considered an impurity and hence are almost always ignored. Ethyl alcohol may be used in various food-processing steps. Most Muslim leaders

759

will accept this as long as the amount of alcohol remaining in the final product is very small, generally less than 0.2%, while ingredients generally need to have less than 0.5% alcohol when added to a food. Each importing country may have its own guidelines, which exporters must strictly adhere to. This area of residual alcohol remains a lively area of discussion within the Muslim community. Some foods use alcohol to enhance the flavor. While it is a common belief that all of the added alcohol burns off during cooking, the dietitian Joanne Larsen, working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, reports that some alcohol may remain. Although the amount retained varies, even after cooking for 2.5 hours, up to 5% of the alcohol can remain. Therefore, the intentional use of alcoholic beverages in cooking is prohibited for Muslims.

Halal Cooking, Food Processing, and Sanitation In food companies, haram materials should be kept segregated from halal materials. The equipment used for nonhalal products has to be thoroughly cleansed using proper sanitation techniques before it is permitted for halal production. Lubricating greases that come in contact with foods should also be free of prohibited substances. Joe M. Regenstein See also Ayurveda and Diet; Christian Food Restrictions; Kosher Food

Further Readings Al-Mazeedi, H. M., Regenstein, J. M., & Riaz, M. N. (2013). The issue of undeclared ingredients in halal and kosher food production: A focus on processing aids. Comparative Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 12, 228–233. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12002 Chaudry, M. M. (1992). Islamic food laws: Philosophical basis and practical implications. Food Technology, 46(10), 92. Chaudry, M. M., & Regenstein, J. M. (1994). Implications of biotechnology and genetic engineering for kosher and halal foods. Trends in Food Science

760

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

and Technology, 5, w165–w168. doi:10.1016/09242244(94)90122-8 Chaudry, M. M., & Regenstein, J. M. (2000). Muslim dietary laws: Food processing and marketing. In F. J. Francis (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of food science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1682–1684). New York, NY: Wiley. Jackson, M. A. (2000). Getting religion: For your product, that is. Food Technology, 54(7), 60–66. Khan, G. M. (1991). Al-dhabah, slaying animals for food the Islamic way (pp. 19–20). Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Abul Qasim. Larsen, J. (1995). Ask the dietitian. Hopkins, MN: Hopkins Technology. Retrieved from http://www .dietitian.com/alcohol.html Regenstein, J. M. (Speaker). (2011). Halal and kosher: The Muslim and Jewish dietary laws [videos]. Retrieved from http://www.cornell.edu/video/playlist/ halal-and-kosher-the-muslim-and-jewish-dietary-laws Regenstein, J. M. (2012, June). Hot topics: The politics of religious slaughter—how science can be misused. Proceedings of the 2012 Reciprocal Meat Conference, American Meat Science Association, Champaign, IL. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ Resource/0041/00418186.pdf Regenstein, J. M., Chaudry, M. M., & Regenstein, C. E. (2003). The kosher and halal food laws. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2(3), 111–127. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003 .tb00018.x Riaz, M. N., & Chaudry, M. M. (2003). Halal food production. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

including its origins, rationale, advantages and limitations, prerequisites, and foundational knowledge, and then it details how HACCP works in practice.

Origins HACCP was originally developed to ensure the safety of food for astronauts. It was designed in the United States, when the National Aeronautical and Space Administration commissioned the creation of a food safety system in 1959. It was not until 1971 that the HACCP system was introduced to the general public, with the first comprehensive publication appearing the following year.

Rationale HACCP is a system to ensure food safety by implementing informed, responsible, and ethical food production practices. HACCP promotes a high standard of professionalism in the food industry. Concerted strategies to implement food safety, particularly in the context of public safety requirements, have traditionally focused on product testing and inspection of food production spaces, followed by reactive measures. In contrast, the focus of HACCP is on prevention. Thus, the proactive HACCP system can be known as the “predict and prevent” method.

Advantages and Limitations

HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINT (HACCP) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point, or simply HACCP, is a food safety system. HACCP is a structured and standardized method to prevent health hazards in the preparation of food for human consumption. It is based on the identification, assessment, and prevention of potential risks. The method is becoming widespread transnationally and is increasingly being enshrined in law as the standard strategy to ensure food safety. This entry first provides an overview of HACCP,

HACCP is a reliable food safety system that evolves to adapt to new information and new technologies. HACCP can result in greater food safety, improved food quality, less waste, lowering of costs, greater professionalism among industry workers, greater education of food handlers, a more positive perception from consumers, and a greater pride of food processors in the end product. A simplified HACCP system can be applied throughout the food chain, from primary producer to final consumer. There is an erroneous perception that the application of HACCP principles requires specialized knowledge and many additional resources, and thus, it is compromised or

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

unfeasible in (a) primary production sites (e.g., agriculture, stock farming, fishing), (b) small and medium enterprises, and (c) domestic environments. However, HACCP cannot guarantee absolute food safety. Its terminology has been criticized as being too technical sounding and, paradoxically, not always specific enough. HACCP implementation can be hindered by many factors, including poverty, climate change, political instability, and the current resistance of global trade to standardization. In certain cases, the implementation of HACCP may have adverse consequences for the taste, appearance, or texture of food. In addition, HACCP is a laborious and time-consuming process, which increases costs when first implemented. For the HACCP system to be implemented successfully, a number of basic prerequisites must be in place.

Prerequisites HACCP depends on certain prerequisite programs (PRPs), including good manufacturing practices. While HACCP focuses on raw materials, products, and processes, PRPs focus on the production environment. For example, a food production environment that involves food handlers should have a hand sink with hot water, antibacterial soap, and hand-drying means—these are required PRPs. PRPs address the following issues: Product: Traceability and recall ability, supplier quality assurance, adequate labeling, and receiving, storage, and shipping of goods Personnel: Personal hygiene, training, cleaning procedures, and clothing Premises: Location, facilities, equipment, storage, maintenance, sanitation, packaging, product information, and transportation

Some PRPs are operational PRPs; that is, they are particularly important PRPs on which a severe risk to food safety may hinge. For example, the physical inability to store chemical products in a different area as foodstuffs is an unacceptable operational PRP.

761

The Basis for HACCP HACCP rests on the knowledge of a series of facts about food safety. Cross-Contamination

Cross-contamination refers to the transfer of dangerous substances or microorganisms onto foods for human consumption. Such contamination can be transferred in the following ways: (a) from raw produce to cooked foods, (b) from produce in risk categories such as allergens to nonrisk food, or (c) from food handlers onto food. It is estimated that up to 97% of foodborne illness incidents in the food industry are related to food handling malpractices. Bacterial Life Conditions

Most bacteria are harmless, but some can cause illness. Harmful bacteria are called pathogens. Fifty years ago, only 4 pathogens were recognized, but now 30 are regularly listed by international health organizations. For bacteria to grow, time, warmth, oxygen, nutrients, moisture, and a neutral PH environment are required. To preserve foods, humans have developed a series of methods to prevent pathogen growth: (a) sun drying, smoking, and sugar or salt preserves (eliminates moisture); (b) brine and vinegar preserves (creates an inhospitable pH environment); (c) vacuum packing (eliminates oxygen); and (d) freezing, refrigerating, or cooking at high temperature (kills bacteria or halts its growth). Temperature and Times

Knowledge of the effect of temperature on bacteria is crucial to HACCP planning and implementation. For example, 212 °F/100 °C—boiling temperature of water, which kills almost all bacteria 180 °F/82 °C—disinfecting temperature of water, which kills most bacteria in utensils and dishes 167 °F/75 °C—minimum acceptable core temperature in cooking (i.e., a food item’s internal temperature, which should be checked by a temperature probe)

762

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

145 °F/63 °C—minimum acceptable temperature in holding cooked hot food before serving 98.6 °F/37 °C—ideal temperature for bacteria to grow (note that it is also the average temperature of human bodies) 95–113 °F/35–45 °C—recommended temperature for hand washing, which must be followed by hand drying to be effective 41 °F/5 °C—maximum acceptable temperature for storing refrigerated food 32 °F/0 °C—freezing temperature of water −0.4 °F/−18 °C—minimum acceptable temperature for storing frozen food

In conjunction with temperature control, an awareness of the importance of time control is crucial to ensure food safety. On average, bacteria double in number every 10 to 20 minutes. The following are commonly recommended times for food preparation, holding, and storage: • Preparation (i.e., the time between taking out of safe storage and cooking or returning to safe storage)—maximum of 30 minutes • Cooking—between 2 and 6 hours depending on item • Serving—within 30 minutes from cooking • Holding (for service)—a maximum of 2 hours (if the room temperature is 50 to 70 °F/10 to 21 °C) or a maximum of 1 hour (if the room temperature is 71 to 90 °F/22 to 32 °C) • Cooling down—within 2 hours from cooking or serving • Storing, or in-house cooked foods—discard after 3 days • Freezing—never refreeze a defrosted food product

High-Risk Foods

Some foodstuffs and ingredients are more likely to cause harm in humans and are classed as “potentially hazardous foods” (i.e., high-risk foods). They include raw meat and fish, eggs and rice, products containing gluten, as well as peanuts, nuts, and seeds.

Consequences of Unsafe Food

Consequences range from mild to severe to fatal. Vomiting and diarrhea are the most common symptoms of mild foodborne illnesses. Serious illnesses and the pathogens commonly associated with them include reactive arthritis (Salmonella), paralysis (Campylobacter), epilepsy (Taenia solium), kidney failure (Escherichia coli), bladder cancer (Schistosoma haematobium), respiratory failure (Clostridium botulinum), or anaphylaxis (allergens, e.g., peanuts). Symptoms generally occur between 3 and 24 hours after the consumption of unsafe food. In the case of allergens, the effect is often immediate.

How HACCP Works The application of HACCP in a given food production space requires the following steps: (a) identification, (b) evaluation, (c) establishing measures, (d) implementing, (e) documenting, and (f) verifying. These are structured in a plan involving seven HACCP steps, in three stages: Thinking and planning 1. Conduct a hazard analysis to identify the hazards. That is, make a comprehensive list of potential risks. 2. Identify critical control points. That is, identify severe risks, points at which there is a risk of compromising food safety. 3. Establish and measure critical limits for each control point. That is, establish when an “acceptable” risk becomes “unacceptable.” Taking action 4. Monitor the critical limits. 5. Establish corrective actions and implement them whenever required. Documenting and reviewing 6. Document and record the application of the system. 7. Verify the effectiveness of the system.

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

Identifying the Hazards

The first step in an HACCP plan is to identify the risks to food safety in a specific food production environment. Food hazards can be allergenic, chemical, microbial/biological, physical, or radiological. Allergenics Allergenic products or ingredients can cause reactions in individuals with an immune system sensitive to them. Between 3% and 5% of the population worldwide have a food allergy. More than 50 food allergens can be commonly found in food manufacturing and production. Allergens belong to the following categories: gluten, nuts, milk, crustaceans, mollusks, eggs and egg products, vegetables, noncereal seeds, sulfur dioxide and sulfites, fish, and legumes (beans). Chemicals Chemical contaminants may enter the food chain in a number of ways. Broadly, contamination may be environmental (e.g., pesticides), induced by food processing (e.g., benzene from soft drink preservation), caused by natural toxins (e.g., the glycoalkaloids of green-tinted potatoes), or caused by foul play (e.g., the tampering with food products or the mislabeling of foodstuffs). Microbial/Biological Substances Foodborne illness can be caused by a number of biological sources. Foodborne bacteria and their most common manner of contamination include the following: • E. coli 0157:H7—undercooked or contaminated beef and pork • Listeria monocytogenes—ready-to-eat meats, raw milk products (note that it can survive refrigeration) • Taenia solium—undercooked infected meat • Staphylococcus aureus—ready-to-eat foods • Salmonella—eggs, poultry, and milk products • Campylobacter—undercooked poultry, contaminated water, and raw milk products

763

• Clostridium botulinum—canned or tinned foods • Clostridium perfringens—meat, poultry, and gravy

Physical Hazards Physical hazards are foreign objects or matter that may enter a foodstuff or food ingredient and cause injury or illness to humans. They include glass, metal, personal items (e.g., jewelry), and insects. Radiological Hazards These are hazards induced by ionizing radiation, such as radioactive contamination. Identifying the Critical Control Points

Critical control points are severe risk points in food processing, which can result in harm to the food consumer if correct control measures are not taken. While some critical control points are common across the board, others are specific to each food production environment. For example, in premises located in a warm climate, leaving egg or milk products unrefrigerated, even for a short period of time, may pose a severe risk. Establishing and Measuring Critical Limits

To ensure food safety, it is necessary to determine when the level of risk becomes unacceptable. For example, when does the cooking of meat present an unacceptable level of risk? When it is cooked to a temperature below 167 °F/75 °C. For example, when does uranium pose an unacceptable level of risk in potable water (i.e., in drinking/ cooking water)? When the uranium content exceeds 0.015 milligrams/liter. Monitoring Critical Limits

When a list of unacceptable limits has been established, the processing of food must be monitored to ensure that those limits are not reached. The planned procedure must be specified in the HACCP plan. Procedures may include observation,

764

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

thermometers, temperature probes, fluorescence tests (for determining the presence of Aflatoxin) and immunochromatographic (IC) strips (for determining the presence of E. coli). Establishing and Implementing Corrective Actions

Each potential for serious risk must be met by a structured and consistently applied preventive action. For example, in a processing plant for raw milk—a product that presents a risk of contamination by pathogens—a preventive action could be the heating of the milk at 161 °F/71 °C for 15 seconds, by using a “high-temperature short-time” pasteurizer. A HACCP plan would establish in advance what will be checked (in this example, temperature), how (by observing an in-built thermometer), when (every 2 hours), and by whom (by X). Documenting the System

HACCP requires documentation of two aspects of the system: (1) development and (2) implementation.

corrective action records; (e) employee training records; and (f) audit records. Verifying Effectiveness

It is generally recommended that verification of the HACCP plan be undertaken at least annually. In addition, a series of controls must be put in place to verify that the HACCP system is being carried out effectively. The HACCP plan must describe the verification procedures, note the frequency of verification, list the individuals responsible, and describe the documentation records to be used in verification. Verification of specific issues includes equipment checks, instrument calibration, monitoring of temperatures by a second person, keeping food samples, and ongoing training of food handlers. Aintzane Legarreta Mentxaka See also Antibacterial Soaps, Detergents, and Dishwashing Liquids; Food Allergies; Foodborne Illness

Further Readings

Development An HACCP plan must be consigned to writing and be readily available in the food-processing environment. The HACCP plan must be specific to the environment and include a flow diagram detailing how each foodstuff will be stored and processed, what the critical points are, and what the procedures to ensure safety are. The following must be also documented: (a) approved suppliers list; (b) HACCP plan summary; (c) HACCP team and assigned responsibilities; (d) description of the foodstuff, its distribution, intended use, and consumer; and (e) flow diagram. HACCP Implementation In addition to the above, as far as feasible, all HACCP procedures must be recorded as soon as each is implemented. The following must be documented: (a) ingredients for which critical limits have been established; (b) processing, storage, and distribution records; (c) temperature records; (d) deviation and

Atkin, L., Bauman, H., Jezeski, J., & Silliker, J. (1972). Prevention of contamination of commercially processed foods. In Proceedings of the 1971 National Conference on Food Protection (pp. 57–83). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Bauman, H. E. (1995). The original concept of HACCP. In A. M. Pearson & T. R. Dutson (Eds.), HACCP in meat, poultry, and fish processing (pp. 1–7). Glasgow, UK: Blackie. European Council. (2005). Guidance document: Implementation of procedures based on the HACCP principles, and on the facilitation of the implementation of the HACCP principles in certain food businesses. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ food/food/biosafety/hygienelegislation/guidance_doc_ haccp_en.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system and guidelines for its application. In Food hygiene basic texts (4th ed., pp. 23–33). Rome, Italy: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.fao.org/docrep/012/a1552e/a1552e00.pdf

Health Food Stores Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, & World Health Organization. (2005). FAO/ WHO guidance to governments on the application of HACCP in small and/or less-developed food businesses. Rome, Italy: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.fao.org/3/a-a0799e.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, & World Health Organization. (2014). Risk analysis [in food safety]. In Procedural manual: Codex Alimentarius Commission (pp. 108–171). Rome, Italy: Author. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ Publications/ProcManuals/Manual_22e.pdf Food and Drug Administration. (1997). HACCP principles & application guidelines. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/ GuidanceRegulation/HACCP/ucm2006801.htm Maynes, T., & Mortimore, S. (Eds.). (2001). Making the most of HACCP: Learning from others’ experience. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead. Mortimore, S., & Wallace, C. (2013). HACCP: A practical approach. New York, NY: Springer. Panisello, P. J., & Quantick, P. C. (2000). HACCP and its instruments: A manager’s guide. Oxford, UK: Chandos.

HEALTH FOOD STORES Health food stores sell food and nutritional products considered beneficial and supportive to an individual’s physical health. Health food stores are a resource for people who adhere to alternative or specialized diets, including vegan, vegetarian, athlete, body-building, gluten-free, raw, and macrobiotic diets; subscribe to alternative healing practices, including naturopathy, homeopathy, and herbal medicine; look for food and health products that are environmentally friendly and socially responsible; or for those who want minimally processed, whole foods made with no artificial additives or chemicals. The development of health food stores parallels the major health, diet, and agricultural reform movements in the U.S. history. This entry explores the history of health food stores in the United States, discusses their role in major alternative

765

health movements, and presents the social and economic criticisms that health food stores and these movements have encountered.

History As the Industrial Revolution took root in the early 19th century in the United States, a number of reform movements formed in opposition to it, including a health reform movement. One of the more prominent leaders of this health reform movement was the Presbyterian minister Sylvester Graham, who advocated for a strict, vegetarian, whole-grains diet. He rallied against all “stimulants,” which included coffee, sugar, spices, and alcohol and advocated for a more “natural” lifestyle than what was fast becoming the norm in the increasingly urban, industrial, and synthetic 19thcentury home. In 1837, a group of Grahamites (followers of Graham’s prescription for living) formed the American Physiological Society in Boston, Massachusetts, started a journal (The Graham Journal of Health and Longevity), and opened a “Graham Store” to sell Graham flour (whole-wheat flour) and other products grown or made using physiological principles (simple, plain food, grown in soil uncontaminated by any additives or artificial processes). This can be considered the first health food store. Benedict Lust, the father of naturopathic medicine, opened a health food store in his Kneipp Water-Cure Institute in New York City in 1895, named after the German health reformist Sebastian Kneipp. This Kneipp Store carried organic foods and supplements used in the developing practice of naturopathic medicine, which emphasized drugless cures. Lust eventually renamed Kneipp Store to the Original Health Food Store, which became the first facility in the United States to use the term health food store. Similarly, the Seventh-day Adventist health reformer Dr. John Harvey Kellogg sold what he called “health foods” out of his Battle Creek Sanitarium in Battle Creek, Michigan. Prepared food products of note sold under Kellogg’s Battle Creek Sanitarium Food Company (subsequently

766

Health Food Stores

the Sanitas Nut Food Company) include the first meat analogs (vegetarian meat substitutes), nut butter (one of the earliest made in the United States), granola (a rolled wheat cereal), wheat flakes cereal, coffee substitutes, and a milk substitute made from nuts (e.g., almond milk). He continued to develop and distribute these health food products through health food stores into the 1940s. As health reform crusaders in the early 20th century, such as Kellogg, Russell Trall, Paul C. Bragg, Gayelord Hauser, and Adelle Davis, traveled the country giving lectures, they left in their wake hundreds of people who then opened health food stores in their towns. After the first vitamins were discovered at the beginning of the 20th century, a vitamin mania of sorts took hold among the health crusaders (Kellogg being one) and their mainly middle- and upperclass American adherents. By the 1930s, vitamins were being produced in pill or tonic form and became commercially available. Health food stores that opened in the decades between 1930 and 1960 generally carried a hefty supply of vitamin, mineral, and herbal (naturopathic) supplements. In the 1920s, an organic agriculture movement emerged in Britain as a reaction against the rise in industrial and chemical methods of farming meant to artificially boost crop yields with synthetic fertilizers. Much like the “physiological principles” outlined by the Grahamite American Physiological Society, organic agriculture sought to work within natural systems and refrain from using anything synthetic or chemical to aid in the process of production. These organic principles were thought to create healthier food for humans and a healthier system overall for the plants, soil, animals, and environment. Organic food was and continues to be a major product sold in health food stores. During the first half of the 20th century, the health food movement remained a small but persistent underground movement with health food stores serving as central hubs. In the 1960s, a new age of diet reform blossomed, and new health food stores aligned with this new philosophy began popping up across the country.

Many of the health food stores opened in the 1960s started as food cooperatives or buying clubs, in which groups of people would pool resources to buy hard-to-find items in bulk—like whole-wheat bread, brown rice, and tofu. One of the first new age health food co-op-turned-store to open was New Age Foods, opened by Fred Rohe in 1965 in the countercultural mecca Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco, California. A year later, Jerry Sealund followed with Far-Fetched Foods, also in Haight-Ashbury. Macrobiotics—a vegetarian, whole-grains diet theory imported from Japan and centered on Eastern philosophy—was the impetus behind the opening of several of the earliest new age health food stores on the East Coast of the United States. New York City saw the first macrobiotic health food store and gift shop Ginza open in 1960 by Herman Aihara, an early importer of macrobiotic foods and ideas to the United States and a close associate of George Oshawa, the founder of macrobiotics. Health food stores that developed on the food co-op model were filled with whole foods sold in bulk bins and bags. Customers would help themselves to whole grains, flours, nuts, dried beans, fresh fruit, and vegetables. Contemporary health food stores more closely resemble conventional supermarkets with aisles of dry packaged goods, frozen goods, produce, bulk foods, and often nutritional supplements with vitamins, minerals and herbs, and bath and body care sections. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there was a boom in the number of health food stores and natural food co-ops, as well as natural food products. Co-ops dominated the natural and health foods market until the 1990s, when several independently owned natural foods markets began large-scale expansion. John Mackey opened SaferWay Foods in Austin, Texas, in 1978. SaferWay would eventually become Whole Foods Market, which grew exponentially from the 1980s through the 2010s and has been a leader in the natural foods supermarket industry since the start of the 21st century. In 2013, Whole Foods Market became the world’s largest retailer of natural and

Health Food Stores

organic foods, with more than 360 stores throughout North America and the United Kingdom. An average Whole Foods Market store carries 21,000 unique products. Other large health food grocery chains with stores across the United States include The Fresh Market, based in North Carolina; Natural Grocers, based in Colorado; and Sprouts Farmers Market, based in Phoenix, Arizona. From the 1990s through the beginning of the 21st century, the natural, organic, and health food grocery industries have seen a steady growth pattern, as well as conventional supermarkets adopting many of their products. At the turn of the 21st century, the balance switched, and conventional supermarkets outsold natural foods stores in organic food products.

Health Food Stores and Alternative Movements Health food stores and natural food co-ops were and are gathering places and centers of knowledge and information exchange, specifically of alternative health and lifestyle movements. The health food store was and is a food business borne out of a lifestyle credo, particularly an oppositional one. Health food stores, which opened during each health, diet, and agricultural reform movement, were set up to provide alternative food products not available elsewhere, as well as advice, guidance, and space for the movement adherents to meet and exchange ideas. Along with print publications, restaurants, and, in some cases, lodgings, health food stores were linchpins in the alternative networks set up to support these reform movements. The Grahamites and the Seventh-day Adventists (who modeled their religious dietary rules on Graham’s) were anti-industrialists, temperance advocates, and generally opposed to the moral and nutritional pitfalls of the newly urban lifestyle of the 19th century. The organic movement developed in direct opposition to the development and widespread use of chemical fertilizers and other industrial agricultural methods aimed at artificially increasing crop yield. The counterculture’s dietary

767

and agricultural beliefs were formed in opposition to the surge in packaged foods, food technology, and industrial agriculture in the 1950s and early 1960s. Vegetarians, organic advocates, and lovers of whole wheat alike found in health food stores an escape from the meat-heavy, pesticide-laden, and overprocessed diet of the conventional world.

Issues of Class and Money Beyond utopian dreams of a pure, natural, whole, and organic food system, health reform movements and health food institutions have had their share of struggles around the issue of social and economic class. In every case, the health reform movements were created and taken up by the middle and upper classes. The 19th- and early-20th-century reform movements, closely tied to temperance and Christianity, laid heavy critique on the lifestyle of both the rich and overfed and the poor, urban population who they saw as indulging in sinful stimulants and unhealthy habits, like drinking alcohol and eating meat, but it was primarily the rich and the middle classes who flocked to the sanitariums and lectures and bought their health food products. Within the counterculture of the mid- to late 20th century, health food stores that broke off from the nonprofit food-co-op model in favor of a for-profit enterprise drew opposition for their alignment with capitalism. The disapproval continued as these types of health foods stores and the natural and organic food industry as a whole experienced financial success and began to expand on a large scale through the 1980s to the 2010s. While many other health food stores began expanding beyond their one storefront long before Whole Foods Market, Whole Foods has been a standout in this area, eventually absorbing many of the competing chains (Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Foods Market of California in 1993, Bread & Circus of Massachusetts and Rhode Island in 1992, and more than a dozen others throughout North America and the United Kingdom). Beyond ties to capitalism, opponents of extensive growth of individual health food companies

768

Herbicide Resistance

believe that bigger is inherently not better because what was initially set up to provide an alternative to the unhealthy norm gets consumed by the mainstream and conventional, ultimately sullying the purity of the intent and the purity of the food at the heart of these alternative movements. The other side of the debate says that the growth and corporatization of organic and natural food companies benefits the Earth and the consumer, making organic more accessible and cheaper, turning more fields and farms over to organic soil and production techniques, and better disseminating the healthful effects of the organic, whole foods diet and lifestyle. The natural and organic foods industry, and health food stores in particular, have been criticized for being too expensive and out of reach for the common consumer. Aware of this critique, health food grocers have found innovative ways to reduce prices on organic and natural foods. Some health food stores and farmers’ markets accept government-issued food stamps as well. Proponents of organic, natural foods note that the market price of conventional agriculture produce and heavily processed foods is artificially low due to government subsidies and that the cost to the environment and individual health is far greater than the cost of buying organic, whole foods. While there is effort on many sides to increase affordable access to natural, organic, sustainably produced whole foods, it is still not possible for many to afford. Annu Ross See also Holistic Medicine (New Age) and Diet; Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified; Macrobiotics; Veganism; Vegetarianism; Vitamins and Other Dietary Supplements; Weight Loss Diets

Further Readings Aoyagi, A., & Shurtleff, W. (2011). History of Erewhon: Natural foods pioneer in the United States (1966–2011) (Extensively annotated bibliography and sourcebook). Lafayette, CA: Soy Info Center. Baer, H. (2001). The sociopolitical status of U.S. naturopathy at the dawn of the 21st century. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 15(3), 329–346.

Belasco, W. (2007). Appetite for change: How the counterculture took on the food industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Engs, R. (2001). Clean living movements: American cycles of health reform. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fromartz, S. (2006). Organic, Inc.: Natural foods and how they grew. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. Haydu, J. (2011). Cultural modeling in two eras of U.S. food protest: Grahamites (1830s) and organic advocates (1960s–70s). Social Problems, 58(3), 461–487. Levenstein, H. A. (2000). The perils of abundance: Food, health, and morality in American history. In J. Flandarin & M. Montanari (Eds.), Food: A culinary history from antiquity to the present (pp. 516–529). New York, NY: Penguin Books. Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. London, UK: Penguin Books. Whorton J. (1982). Crusaders for fitness: The history of American health reformers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

HERBICIDE RESISTANCE Herbicide resistance refers to the ability of some plants or weed species to tolerate chemical treatment because of adaptation, an evolutionary process. The Weed Science Society of America (1998) defines herbicide resistance as “the inherited ability of a plant to survive and reproduce following exposure to a dose of herbicide normally lethal to the wild type.” As a form of herbicide resistance, adaptation is possible only if the genes encoding for resistance have a sufficiently large environmental effect allowing the survival of a weed species in a single generation. The seed of the resistant plant ensures that the resistant trait will be carried forward. In the past 60 years, scientists have noted a pervasive and growing tendency of weeds to resist and adapt to applications of a broad spectrum of herbicides. Despite resistance, herbicides have significantly increased food production worldwide. This entry begins by providing background information on herbicides in general and the development of herbicide resistance in particular. Next,

Herbicide Resistance

it presents the health and ecological consequences of herbicides and herbicide-resistant crops. The entry concludes with a discussion of managing herbicide resistance in light of the need for weed control in industrial agriculture.

Background Herbicides are chemicals that reduce weeds in a variety of settings and are utilized globally to facilitate crop production by decreasing or eliminating weeds that affect specific crops and to manipulate or control unwanted vegetation. The most frequent application of herbicides occurs in row crop farming, where herbicides are applied before or during planting to maximize crop productivity by minimizing other vegetation. Herbicides are often used seasonally, applied in autumn to improve a harvest, or employed in forest management to prepare logged or burned areas for replanting. In suburban and urban settings, herbicides are applied to lawns, parks, golf courses, and other areas. Herbicides are also applied to bodies of water to control aquatic weeds that impede irrigation or interfere with recreational and industrial uses of water. Herbicide development has become a financial boon for the agrochemical business as herbicides are relatively cheap to produce. Across the globe, herbicides are utilized by small farmers and in industrial agriculture for a host of crops. Bernal Valverde (2003) presents the economic impact of herbicide development and sales. He argues, “The developed economies (North America, Europe, and Japan) account for approximately 70 percent of the global agrochemical market.” In 2001, glyphosate represented “67 percent of the US $3.9 billion agrochemical industry . . . other widely used compounds are paraquat, considered the second largest-selling agrochemical” (p. 223).

Development of Resistance Worldwide, weeds have demonstrated resistance to all classes of herbicides that affect the plants’ genetic material, especially to growth and photosynthesis inhibitors. Andrew Cobb and John Reade

769

(2010) report that in the 1950s, herbicide-resistant weeds were first reported in connection with 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), a growth inhibitor, and in the late 1960s, atrazine (a photosynthesis inhibitor) resistance was discovered. While there are thousands of herbicides, 2,4-D and triazine, and their derivatives, are the most common (Hager & Refsell, 2008). 2,4-D is the synthetic plant hormone auxin, which has an essential role in the growth cycle and development of a plant. 2,4-D is absorbed through leaves and transported to the growing tips of roots and stems, dividing cells quickly—so quickly, it kills the plant. With atrazine and its chemical derivatives, plants die from starvation caused by a breakdown in the electron transport process. As a photosynthetic inhibitor, atrazine results in oxidative damage to the plant, because the herbicide speeds up high light intensity As a result of herbicide resistance, a broad spectrum of herbicides has developed. Phenoxy herbicides, containing the growth hormone indoleacetic acid, dominate the herbicidal market. When sprayed on broad-leaf plants, they induce rapid, uncontrolled growth, resulting in the death of the plant affected. When sprayed on crops such as wheat or corn, this type of herbicide selectively kills the weedy broad-leaf plants in a field, leaving the crop relatively unaffected. This herbicidal group is the most popular and is used in weed management either by itself or in combination with other herbicides. The chemicals in herbicides target specific complex proteins that are produced by plant cells, promoting a specific biochemical reaction by acting as a catalyst. Because of the ability of plants to adapt to the natural environment, globally, weed species have become resistant to the herbicides developed over the past 60 years. During World War II, 2,4-D was initially developed simultaneously by the United States and England as a potential chemical weapon. An international outcry regarding its development for warrelated actions resulted in a ban on its usage. After World War II, 2,4-D was released for agricultural purposes when it was discovered that in small amounts, it enhanced weed control for a variety of grass crops, primarily eliminating broad-leaf plants.

770

Herbicide Resistance

Marketed by American Chemical Paint Company as Weedone, the herbicide was considered selective and nontoxic, effective in small doses (2,4-D, 1947). In addition, the chemical was cheap to produce and arrived at a time when farm labor was scarce in the United States and increased food production was essential (Cobb & Reade, 2010). For agricultural purposes, 2,4-D and its derivatives are applied to grasses and broad-leaf weeds when the plants are freshly emerged, young, and growing. Recommendations for herbicide delivery caution users to consider how the spray may drift to food, forage, or other plants that might be damaged or become unfit for consumption. Susceptible crops include, but are not limited to, cotton, okra, flowers, grapes (in growing stage), fruit trees (foliage), soybeans (vegetative stage), ornamentals, sunflowers, tomatoes, beans, and other vegetables, or tobacco. Small amounts of spray drift that might not be visible may injure susceptible broadleaf plants. Atrazine is usually applied as a preemergence herbicide on many crops. It is one of the most widely used pesticides in North America but has not generally been considered to pose an environmental risk because of its low toxicity to standard testing. Paraquat is quick acting and nonselective, killing green plant tissue on contact and is often used to mitigate plants that have developed herbicide resistance. Most risk assessment methods simply compare biologically effective concentrations and not the concentrations of herbicides used. Studies of herbicide resistance have determined that various, highly specific herbicides interfere with single enzymes on metabolic pathways; thus, genetic mutations can result with minimal or multiple changes transforming the focus of an herbicide. The offspring of the resistant plant can carry on this trait. Resistant plants are more likely to appear in weed species with high productivity rather than ones with lower reproductive rates. Modern herbicides are highly specific and interfere with specific enzymes affecting major metabolic pathways. Mutations of a gene may alter the specificity of the herbicide to cause a major change in the plants sensitivity to it. Duration and frequency

of herbicide use strongly influence resistance. Development of resistance is accelerated by excessive dependence on a single herbicidal method. Chemical and biotechnology companies have responded to this predicament by developing new herbicides and bioengineering crops to resist the effects of herbicides. For example, glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup kill broad-leaf plants and grasses that compete with commercial crops. Agrochemical companies such as Monsanto created Roundup Ready seeds that resist the effects of the herbicide through absorption. David A. Mortensen and colleagues (2012) point out that the agriculture industry has relied heavily on glyphosate herbicides when spraying on genetically modified crops, which has created an outbreak of glyphosate-resistant weeds. They argue, “Over recent growing seasons, the situation became severe enough to motivate hearings in the US Congress to assess whether additional government oversight is needed to address the problem of herbicide resistant weeds” (p. 75). In scholarship on this topic, herbicide resistance is blamed on the continued use of herbicides. To address herbicide resistance, biochemical companies developed herbicide-tolerant crops in the form of genetically modified seeds that allow for an increased tolerance to herbicidal spray, thus reducing the need for herbicide dependence and boosting crop production. But transgenic crops have spurred debate as to whether or not this technology will facilitate fewer herbicides used or protect the bioengineered crops from damage that occurs with spray drift. The benefits of sustainability as well as economic gain are common arguments to promote transgenic crops. Also, bioengineered crops are said to provide a solution to world hunger, malnutrition, and environmental disaster. K. H. Madsen and J. C. Streibig argue that the adoption of genetically modified crops results in fewer environmental consequences.

Health and Ecological Consequences Discussions of the health and ecological consequences of herbicides are divisive. The health consequences of herbicides and herbicide-resistant crops

Herbicide Resistance

are not clear. Depending on the herbicide, human health issues such as spontaneous abortion and liver cancer have been reported. Also, reports of herbicides affecting aquatic life and groundwater have also been reported. Groundwater pollution can result from herbicides with an increased dose of a mix of herbicides. Paraquat has also been deemed harmful to both humans and animals. As for other herbicides, according to some sources, toxicity to humans has been minimal, whereas other critics of herbicide use argue that the environmental consequences of continual and growing herbicide use have serious health consequences both for the workers utilizing the herbicide and for the consumers. The National Pesticide Information Center (2009) claims that herbicides are not well absorbed by the skin, yet it also says that sunscreen, insecticide, and alcohol may facilitate absorption. Animals fed with high levels of 2,4-D bore fewer young or had skeletal abnormalities, although the links to humans were not correlated. In addition, herbicides affect nontarget pests such as insects and parasites that feed on insects. Allison A. Snow and Pedro Morán Palma’s 1997 research on bioengineered plants that produce pesticide indicates that “in an agricultural setting, there is the worry that populations of beneficial predators and parasitoids that kill crop pests would plummet if pests are eradicated completely” (p. 93). In relationship to scientific and peer-reviewed trials on the effects of herbicides and herbicide-resistant crops, Snow and Palma state, “Little attention has been paid to the ecological and evolutionary consequences of deregulating market ready transgenic plants” (p. 94). And yet, the effects of herbicides on health and the environment are consistently there throughout scholarship on herbicide use. Since 1974, when Congress approved the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with investigating and setting limits on the amount of herbicide residue in water. This law requires the EPA to determine the level of contaminants in drinking water, including herbicides, at which no adverse health effects are likely to occur. The law does not incorporate legal consequences for inappropriate herbicide use and is

771

based solely on possible health risks and exposure over a lifetime with an adequate margin of safety— called maximum contaminant level goals. Environmentalists have expressed concern over the effectiveness of the EPA’s methods for determining the ecological and human risks to herbicides and the EPA’s ability to take action when herbicides are not utilized as directed. While nationally and internationally the health and environmental effects of herbicides have been studied, results have been inconclusive as far as health consequences are concerned.

Management Because of herbicide use, traditional approaches to weed control such as tillage have been significantly reduced especially in industrial agriculture. In some scholarship, the worldwide tillage of soil has become identified as having positive and negative environmental consequences. David Shaw and colleagues (2012) argue, Tillage has been an integral part of crop production since crops were first cultivated. Growers and scientists have long recognized both beneficial and detrimental aspects of tillage. There is no question that most tillage operations promote soil loss, adversely affect (lower) surface water quality, and negatively impact soil productivity. Weed management is a primary reason for tillage, and until the development of highly effective herbicides, conservation tillage was not feasible. Furthermore, with the development of herbicideresistant (HR) crops, particularly glyphosateresistant (GR) crops, herbicides such as glyphosate minimized the need for tillage as a weed control tactic; the resulting crop production systems have been primary enablers for the success of U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Soil Conservation programs. (p. 1)

Some scientists argue that herbicide-resistant weeds pose a significant threat to soil conservation. Others believe that a balance between tillage and herbicide use would prove to be better for environmental management. Madsen and Streibig

772

Heritage Breeds

argue that tillage of the soil would delay herbicide resistance. According to many scientific studies, varying herbicides in combination with tillage delay resistance. Many reports of herbicide resistance conclude that there is no single solution to the problem; rather, multiple approaches need to be taken. The prevention and management of resistance requires “knowledge of the biology of the weeds and their population dynamics” (Valverde, 2003). Orvin Burnside (1992) believes that “the objective of weed control is reduction of weed density to noneconomic levels, not eradication” (p. 621). In addition, a rotation of herbicides that contain a variety of sites of action as well as mechanical practices such as rotary hoeing, cultivating, and even hand weeding can be approaches to controlling the problem of herbicide resistance. Kristin M. McAndrews

Shaw, D. R., Culpepper, S., Owen, M., Price, A., & Wilson, R. (2012). Herbicide-resistant weeds threaten soil conservation gains: Finding a balance for soil and farm sustainability (Issue Paper No. 49). Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Snow, A. A., & Palma, P. M. (1997). Commercialization of transgenic plants: Potential ecological risks: Will effects of engineered crops exacerbate weed and pest problems? BioScience, 47(2), 86–96. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Basic information about 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) in drinking water. Retrieved from http://water .epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/2-4-d-24-dichlorophenoxyacetic-acid.cfm Valverde, B. (2003). Herbicide-resistance management in developing countries. In R. Labrada (Ed.), Weed management for developing countries, Addendum 1 (pp. 223–244). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Weed Science Society of America. (1998). Technology notes. Weed Technology, 12(4), 789–790.

See also Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Invasive Species

HERITAGE BREEDS Further Readings 2,4-D only begun to fight source. (1947, August 30). Science News-Letter, 52(9), 130. Burnside, O. C. (1992, July–September). Rationale for developing herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Technology, 6(3), 621–625. Cobb, A., & Reade, J. (2010). Herbicides in plant physiology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Hager, A. G., & Refsell, D. (2008). Weed resistance to herbicides. In 2008 Illinois agricultural pest management handbook (pp. 271–278). Urbana: University of Illinois Extension. Madsen, K. H., & Streibig, J. C. (2003). Weed management for developing countries. (pp. 1–10). Available from FAO Corporate Document Repository: http://www4.fao.org Mortensen, D. A, Egan, J. F., Maxwell, B. D., Ryan, M. R., & Smith, R. G. (2012). Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. Bioscience, 62, 75–84. National Pesticide Informational Center. (2012). 2,4-D. Retrieved from http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/24d.html

As issues of cultural and genetic erosion in agricultural practices draw concern from national and international governing bodies, nonprofit organizations, media, and consumers, heritage breeds are attracting increasing attention. This entry discusses definitions and qualifications for heritage breed membership, breed erosion, the perceived values of heritage breeds, and efforts to conserve them.

Terms Involving Heritage Breeds Heritage breeds are typically defined as breeds that were developed and husbanded before the rise of industrial agriculture. Many organizations devoted to conserving heritage breeds provide definitions and specific qualifications within species. For example, according to the Livestock Conservancy (formerly the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy), American heritage chickens must derive “from parent and grandparent stock of

Heritage Breeds

breeds recognized by the American Poultry Association (APA) prior to the mid-20th century; whose genetic line can be traced back multiple generations; and with traits that meet the APA Standard of Perfection guidelines for the breed.” In addition, they must be naturally mating, as opposed to reproductively reliant on artificial insemination like most commercially developed breeds. Also, unlike most commercial breeds, heritage chickens must be capable of a long, productive outdoor life and exhibit a slow growth rate. Heritage breeds is a term found most commonly in breeding and food reform discourse. Agricultural research and livestock conservation work more often target “rare” or “endangered” breeds and “indigenous breeds” than heritage breeds. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has also distinguished “local breeds” occurring from transboundary breeds in just one country. The terms are not synonymous. A breed may be heritage without being rare, although most heritage breeds are indeed rare. A breed may be heritage without being local to a single country, although many local breeds are heritage. And while most indigenous breeds are heritage, a breed may be heritage without being indigenous—many American breeds recognized as heritage, for example, were imported from Europe.

Breed Erosion According to a 2007 FAO report, there are more than 7,500 reported agricultural breeds in the world. Nearly 30% of these are either extinct or at risk, with another 36% of breeds having unknown risk status. From 2000 to 2006, close to one breed extinction occurred each month. According to True Food: Eight Simple Steps to a Healthier You, in the United States, 99% of all farmed turkeys are Broad-Breasted Whites, more than 80% of dairy cows are Holsteins, and just three different breeds comprise more than 75% of pigs and 60% of beef cattle. Genetic diversity is declining not only among breeds but also within them. Primary contributing factors for the decline in both kinds of genetic diversity are the development

773

of intensive large-scale farming practices that rely on a small number of breeds and the transformation of traditional farming practices by the introduction of exotic, nonlocal breeds. As the FAO has noted, both transformations spawn the marginalization of traditional agriculture. According to the FAO, there is also a lack of policies needed to support local agricultural programs, a lack of existing or sufficient breed conservation programs in most countries, and an acute need for breeding programs to incorporate conservation goals.

The Value of Heritage Breeds Increased awareness of breed erosion, along with the FAO’s work, is prompting heightened attention to the value of heritage breeds both intrinsically and as resources for genetic diversity, agroecological conservation, small farm sustainability, and cultural heritage. Genetic Resources

Agricultural conservation researchers and activists have endorsed the conservation of heritage breeds for maintaining genetic diversity, which helps ensure sustainability. Protecting more heritage breeds from extinction alone means greater genetic diversity, but heritage breeds also offer genetic diversity as reservoirs of unique traits well adapted to their traditional ecosystems. In addition, some have suggested that heritage breeds exhibit more genetic diversity within their populations compared with commercial breeds, though others have found contrary results. From the FAO’s perspective, animal genetic resources are a global good, and heritage breeds are a crucial part of the conservation of these genetic resources. Agroecological Conservation

As reservoirs of unique, often long-surviving traits, heritage breeds support agricultural diversity beyond breed diversity by helping to conserve the diverse array of agricultural ecosystems in which they thrive. The criollo cattle, for example, farmed for more than 400 years in northern

774

Heritage Breeds

Mexico, reduces its environmental impact by adopting wider ranging foraging practices during the desert’s dry season compared with the British Angus variety (see Peinetti et al., 2011). Agroecological conservation is important both for promoting more secure food supplies and for preserving cultural values. In the United Kingdom, for example, the efforts of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust (RBST) have been facilitated by enthusiasm for the aesthetics and cultural significance of the British countryside. Small Farm Sustainability

In addition to supporting agricultural environments, heritage breeds are also valuable supporters of indigenous and local livelihoods. In distinction to commercial breeds, which are usually selected for just one or two agricultural functions, many heritage breeds are suited to perform multiple agricultural functions, including providing power, pest control, reproductive services, manure, and varied cuts of meat. This makes them particularly valuable for small farmers who can maintain only a limited number of animals. Cultural Value

Heritage breeds are appreciated for a number of cultural and aesthetic reasons beyond their importance as drivers of sustainability. As their name suggests, they are valued for their ability to connect producers, consumers, and communities to heritage. This is apparent, for example, in conservationists’ attention to the American turkey breed, whose connections with Thanksgiving make its “heritage” value easily recognizable. Heritage breeds are particularly valued by food reformists as crucial for conserving traditional flavors in the wake of the increasing homogenization and industrialization of food flavors. Advocates thus celebrate Heritage Turkeys’ richer range of flavors and juicier, more substantial meat compared with Broad-Breasted Whites. Heritage breeds are also often celebrated for their unique beauty, with Heritage Turkey advocates praising the variety of wingspans, colors, and particular graces found in

the several breeds they focus on recuperating and recalling the role of aesthetics in traditional turkey raising. Intrinsic Value

Beyond the value of heritage breeds as a part of human lives, agricultural conservationists have argued that the intrinsic values attached to conserving biological diversity in the wild hold for agricultural ecosystems as well. From this perspective, the survival of heritage breeds is valuable in and of itself.

Initiatives and Organizations for Breed Conservation Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources

The 2007 Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources represents the first international program for managing the genetic resources of agricultural animals, following the 1996 Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources. The plan was composed by the FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and it calls on national governments to establish systems for recognizing and conserving threatened breeds. It also connects breed conservation to cultural conservation, with Priority 6 requiring that national governments “support indigenous and local production systems and associated knowledge systems of importance to the maintenance and sustainable use of animal genetic resources.” At an international level, the plan encourages the development of risk-assessment procedures for animal genetic resources. Livestock Conservation Groups

Regional Groups Many countries and regions have livestock conservation groups, which conduct breed research, maintain watchlists of livestock and poultry breeds, connect buyers to resources for purchasing heritage breeds, and lead public education initiatives.

Heritage Breeds

The United Kingdom’s RBST hosts an online marketplace for the direct trade of livestock, livestock semen, wool, and land, as well as connecting farmers to butchers dedicated to working with breeds of high pedigree. In addition to the RBST, regional organizations include the Livestock Conservancy, Rare Breeds Canada, the Rare Breeds Trust of Australia, the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand, and the Farm Animal Conservation Trust in South Africa. Organizations covering all of Europe include Safeguard for Agricultural Varieties in Europe and its Monitoring Institute for Rare Breeds and Seeds in Europe. In 2000, there were livestock conservation groups in more than 20 countries, and groups have continued to form since then. International Groups In 1991, following a livestock conservation conference at the University of Warwick in England, Rare Breeds International was formed as an umbrella organization for regional nongovernmental organizations and governmental groups devoted to livestock conservation. Rare Breeds International works to establish livestock conservation groups in regions lacking them, conducts research on rare and indigenous breeds, and provides consultation services to help tackle specific breed conservation challenges. Its functions now include helping to implement the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources.

775

Farm Parks

Farm parks are agricultural operations that invite visitors to become familiar with traditional livestock and farming practices. A growing tourist attraction, many farm parks contribute to heritage breed conservation efforts. The RBST maintains a list of approved farm parks in the United Kingdom. Food Reform Organizations and Specialty Food Suppliers

Food Reform groups, such as Slow Food International, frequently advocate for the consumption of meat from heritage breeds and coordinate their efforts with breed conservation groups. Renewing America’s Food Traditions, for example, is a coalition of seven organizations including both Slow Food USA and The Livestock Conservancy dedicated to conserving traditional American foods and food traditions. Specialty food suppliers such as Heritage Foods USA also aim to conserve heritage breeds by creating a market for heritage meats, relying on an “eat them to save them” philosophy. Justine Wells See also Agritourism; Artisanal Foods; Cultural Identity and Food; Endangered Species; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Seed Conservation

Further Readings

Breed Registries, Breeders Associations, and Breeding Guides

Breed registries and breeders associations establish criteria for classifying breeds, maintain flock books and other breed records, and may also support a marketplace for livestock trading. These organizations often promote the conservation of the breeds they support. For example, the heritage American Jacob sheep is supported by both the American Jacob Sheep Registry and the Jacob Sheep Breeders Association. Another form of advocacy support for heritage breeds are the many breeding guides that give attention to them.

Alderson, L. (1978). The chance to survive: Rare breeds in a changing world. London, UK: Cameron & Tayleur (in association with David & Charles). Alderson, L. (2000, January 1). Genetic diversity blueprint. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 15, 59–65. Berthold-Bond, A., Breyer, M., & Gordon, W. (2010). True food: Eight simple steps to a healthier you. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. (2007). Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the Interlaken Declaration. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ a1404e/a1404e00.htm

776

High-Fructose Corn Syrup

Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. (2007). The state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture—in brief. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ a1260e/a1260e00.HTM Evans, N., & Yarwood, R. (2000, April 1). The politicization of livestock: Rare breeds and countryside conservation. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), 228–248. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00145 Hoffmann, I., & Assessment for Sustainable Development of Animal Production Systems. (2011, July 1). Livestock biodiversity and sustainability. Livestock Science, 139, 69–79. Peinetti, H. R., Fredrickson, E. L., Peters, D. P. C., Cibils, A. F., Roacho-Estrada, J. O., & Laliberte, A. S. (2011, July 1). Foraging behavior of heritage versus recently introduced herbivores on desert landscapes of the American Southwest. Ecosphere, 2(5), 1–14. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00021.1 Ruane, J. (2000, October 18). A framework for prioritizing domestic animal breeds for conservation purposes at the national level: A Norwegian case study. Conservation Biology, 14(5), 1385–1393. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99276.x Toro, M. A., & Caballero, A. (2005, July 29). Characterization and conservation of genetic diversity in subdivided populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1459), 1367–1378. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1680

Websites Convention on Biological Diversity—Programmes— Agricultural Biodiversity: http://www.cbd.int/agro Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: http://www.fao.org/home/en Heritage Foods USA: http://www.heritagefoodsusa.com The Livestock Conservancy: http://www.albc-usa.org Rare Breeds Canada: http://www.rarebreedscanada.com Rare Breeds International (RBI): http://www .rarebreedsinternational.org Rare Breeds Survival Trust: https://www.rbst.org.uk Safeguard for Agricultural Varieties in Europe (SAVE): http://www.save-foundation.net/ SAVE—Monitoring Institute for Rare Breeds and Seeds in Europe: http://www.save-foundation.net/english/ monitor.htm Slow Food International: http://www.slowfood.com

HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a liquid sweetener commonly used in soft drinks and carbonated beverages as well as many commercial baked goods and processed foods. HFCS comes in several forms, but all are made by a procedure that begins with the conversion of corn starch into corn syrup. The unprocessed corn syrup contains approximately 90% glucose, and the name “highfructose corn syrup” comes from the next step, which is an enzymatic process that raises the amount of fructose in the syrup by converting some of the glucose into fructose via an enzymatic process. Many people have been led to believe that HFCS is higher in fructose than other sugars because of the name, and this has contributed to the debate over whether HFCS is different from other sugars in creating uniquely elevated risks for obesity and related health problems. There are studies that demonstrate that sugar, HFCS, and honey all have relatively similar ratios of fructose to glucose, but the concurrent increase in obesity and related health risks with increasing usage of HFCS by the food industry suggests a connection between the product and increased obesity risk. Since 2000, HFCS has become controversial because of the frequency of its use and its potential role in the obesity epidemic. HFCS was introduced in the late 1960s but gained prominence in the 1980s and 1990s after being declared safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1983. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that approximately 4.5% of the United States’ corn crop has been used in the production of HFCS during the 2000s. The main controversies surrounding HFCS stem from the frequency of its use as a food additive and include the following: the similarity or difference between the human body’s ability to process HFCS, sugar, and other sweeteners; whether HFCS consumption can be directly linked to elevated risk for obesity and related health conditions including type 2 diabetes; and the appropriate approach to regulating HFCS

High-Fructose Corn Syrup

777

use by industry and access for consumers. This entry gives an overview of the composition and common applications of HFCS, an introduction to the controversies surrounding the use of HFCS, and a short list of consumer recommendations for safe dietary consumption of HFCS.

used routinely in combination with other sweeteners, both natural and artificial, which can make it difficult to determine the proportion of added sugars contributed by HFCS in a given product.

HFCS and the Food Industry

The recent controversies surrounding HFCS have been primarily concentrated on issues related to HFCS and health, with particular attention to the connection between obesity and soft drinks sweetened with HFCS. For three decades, HFCS received little attention despite its increasing use in processed foods. However, in the early 2000s, studies began linking HFCS to rising rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other preventable illnesses. These studies were often motivated by observations that the extremely steep rise in use of HFCS by food companies correlated almost exactly with the onset of the “obesity crisis” in the United States. Many studies found that consumption of excess sugars, particularly those found in beverages, played a key role in increasing an individual’s risk for becoming obese and developing other health problems frequently associated with obesity. The need to address the looming public health crisis posed by obesity has been a clear objective of many studies of HFCS, but only some of those find it uniquely responsible for the elevation of certain health risks. Others suggest that HFCS is but one contributor to Americans’ overconsumption of sugars from all sources and argue that solutions must focus on reduction of all added sugars. This section begins with an overview of consumption trends and moves on to address the human body’s ability to process HFCS as related to its ability to process other sweeteners (particularly table sugar), the health risks of HFCS consumption, and a discussion of various regulatory approaches to HFCS as well as sugar and other sweeteners.

HFCS has many positive attributes from the perspective of the food industry. It is versatile, increases a product’s shelf life, comes as an easy-to-handle liquid, blends well with other flavors and sugars, and is stable in acidic compounds like soda. In baked goods, HFCS retains moisture and promotes browning. Up until the 1970s, sodas and other processed foods used table sugar as a sweetener and preservative. Although HFCS was experimented with before the 1970s, it was not until the enzymatic process currently in use was developed that a product with appropriate flavor and other qualities needed for use in large-scale food production was yielded. Beginning in the late 1970s, sugar tariffs in the United States caused the price of sugar to rise dramatically. Conversely, corn subsidies paid by the federal government have kept the price of corn relatively stable, so HFCS has historically been a cheap alternative to sugar. Because of its versatility and cost-effectiveness, use of HFCS rose throughout the 1980s and 1990s. However, it has been on the decline during the 2000s, largely as a result of the controversies surrounding its potential health impacts. Despite more recent consumer skepticism, HFCS’s combination of attractive attributes has helped the product become virtually ubiquitous in processed foods, though the full scope of how many foods contain HFCS and how much they contain, on average, remains unclear. One of the issues associated with studying the effects of HFCS consumption is the lack of comprehensive data on how many foods contain the sweetener. Due to its many useful properties, HFCS can be found obviously in sweetened foods like candy bars or soda, as well as savory items like crackers, and even wholesome foods like whole-wheat bread. It is also

Controversies Surrounding HFCS

Consumption Trends

Between 1970 and 1999, many elements of the American home and family life were changing, and these alterations frequently meant an increasing

778

High-Fructose Corn Syrup

reliance on prepared, processed, and packaged foods. Although some critics argue that historical estimates of sugar consumption are skewed, the steady uptick in both the number of products containing HFCS on the market and the amount of HFCS consumed by the average person continued for three decades. Convincing links between obesity and consumption of soft drinks caused concern about consumption of sugars in general and HFCS specifically as the vast majority of commercially produced soft drinks contain HFCS as a primary ingredient. The low cost of HFCS combined with its many desirable qualities have allowed HFCS to continue to be attractive to the food industry even as controversies have caused consumption to level off since the beginning of the 2000s. Some consumers have become wary of the ingredient and attempt to avoid it. Many products feature labels announcing that they are free of HFCS; however, the majority of these products still contain added sugars from other sources to preserve the flavor or preservative properties of the HFCS. For critics of HFCS, these moves in consumer behavior and advertising are seen as evidence of a successful awareness campaign. However, for those more concerned with added sugars of all kinds, this substitution is seen as meaningless and may even create a false impression that a food is a healthier alternative simply because it does not have HFCS as an ingredient. The Human Body and HFCS

Some studies have found that HFCS is not digestively processed in the same way as sugar, honey, or other sweeteners. These studies often offer evidence that fructose is more difficult to process than glucose and extrapolate from that the link between excessive consumption of HFCS containing soft drinks and increased incidence of obesity. This research has been used to make many of the associations between health problems such as heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions and the overconsumption of foods and beverages sweetened with HFCS. More recently, researchers have disputed the evidence for

these claims, citing flaws in testing methodologies that may have led to outcomes that unfairly connected HFCS to health outcomes caused by overconsumption of fructose, which is, in fact, more difficult for the body to process than glucose. Critics argue that confusion created by the product’s name, which refers to the part of the process whereby the fructose content of the corn syrup is raised, has led to an erroneous belief that the product contains more fructose than table sugar, honey, or other common sweeteners. They note that HFCS has a similar fructose to glucose ratio as many traditional sweeteners. There are several commonly used HFCS products, but the two most prevalent— HFCS 55 (55% fructose) and HFCS 42 (42% fructose)—are not remarkably different in fructose content from common table sugar (50% fructose). Some also contend that fructose itself, which they point out is naturally occurring in fruits, is unfairly maligned in studies that do not adequately account for other dietary factors, such as what other nutrients are being consumed with the fructose and how much sugar from other sources is being eaten. Public Health and HFCS

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obesity rates for adults in the United States doubled between 1980 and 2008 and tripled for children during this same period. The incidence of health problems like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and a host of other preventable illnesses has been rising alongside the obesity rates, and the future risks for obese children have created serious alarm. The danger to public health created by the obesity crisis has spurred researchers to look for the main contributors to the problem. The concurrence of increasing use of HFCS with rising incidence of certain health problems caused many researchers to interrogate whether the relationship between the two was causal or coincidental. Some research has indicated that there is a significant connection between HFCS consumption, particularly in the form of liquid calories such as soft drinks or other beverages, and an increase in certain health risks. However, critics cite the similar

High-Fructose Corn Syrup

composition of table sugar and HFCS to support their argument that the added calories from various sugars are more or less interchangeable from a metabolic standpoint. While there has been some disagreement about the specific dangers posed by HFCS, nearly all researchers in this area agree that cutting down on added sugars, sugars that do not come from natural sources like fruit but are added to a product during processing, is key to reducing obesity, particularly in children. Of specific concern to the government, nutritionists, and other health professionals is the increase in consumption of sugary beverages since the 1980s. Liquid calories—in the form of sugary beverages as well as alcohol and, to a lesser degree, fruit juice—are among the key concerns mentioned in dietary guidelines recommending reduction in added sugar calories. Regulation of Products Containing HFCS

As a primary component in most commercially produced sodas, HFCS does account for many of the added calories in sweetened beverages. The relative inexpensiveness of HFCS has also helped keep the cost of soda low for both the producers and the consumers, and this has also contributed to the increase in soda consumption. Most of the legislative attempts to control access to foods containing HFCS are targeted at reducing intake of excess sugars from soft drinks. In the 2000s, many legislative efforts to regulate access to soda and sugary beverages in primary and secondary schools were enacted at the state level. These programs limited access to vending machines in a variety of ways including curtailing the kinds of products offered and the hours the machines would be available. Such programs have also routinely been paired with programs aimed at providing better nutrition for students in school meals. For the most part, communities have welcomed these attempts to curtail children’s access to unhealthy foods in schools. Efforts to regulate HFCS consumption among the general population have often been less well received than measures affecting only school children.

779

Attempts to limit HFCS access for the adult population have typically been focused on recipients of food assistance benefits. Because much of the data on obesity and associated health problems indicate that low-income people are more likely to suffer from these chronic illnesses, some proposals have attempted to limit access to foods containing high levels of HFCS for people using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, otherwise known as food stamps, and people enrolled in the Women, Infants, and Children program. However, these measures are often contested as unfairly limiting the choices of low-income individuals who may not have access to proper supermarkets or face other challenges in attempting to feed their families. Portion size is routinely cited as one of the primary problems with overconsumption of soda as well as other added sugars, fats, and overall calories, and some attempts to limit consumption of soda have focused on limiting portion sizes. Perhaps the most well-known example is the 2012 ban on sales of soda in servings more than 16 ounces at many establishments in New York City, passed by New York City’s Board of Health and supported emphatically by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. There was a good deal of public debate over the measure, and it was later struck down in court. Other measures limiting access to soda and other foods containing high levels of HFCS as well as other sugars have been discussed in Congress periodically, but as of 2014, none have passed. Many people believe that access to foods, no matter how unhealthy, is a matter of personal liberty and are resistant to virtually all measures attempting to limit access to unhealthy food. Measures to educate consumers in order to enable them to make healthier choices, however, have been widely accepted. Labeling requirements have been a well-used tool in creating nutritional awareness and encouraging consumers to limit consumption of products high in calories, excess sugars, and/or fats. The Nutrition and Labeling Education Act of 1990 requires that virtually all products sold for consumption in the United States have a standardized label providing basic information about the nutritional content of

780

High-Fructose Corn Syrup

one serving. The requirements are extremely detailed and specify not only the kind of information required but also the placement and font used for the table as well as the method for determining the portion size and indicating the number of servings per container. Basic information about food ingredients is required, but the amount of various nutrients is not, and some people believe that this creates confusion regarding the health value of products like HFCS in processed foods. For example, labels are required to list the total amount of sugar in a product and do not differentiate between naturally occurring sugars and added sugars. Some have suggested that the current system creates confusion between natural and unnatural sources of sugar and makes it difficult for consumers to differentiate a product high in natural sugars, like unsweetened applesauce, from one that is high in artificial or added sugars, like fruit-flavored gelatin sweetened with HFCS or sugar. However, in 2008, the FDA did determine that products containing HFCS cannot be labelled “natural.” The ruling may have come as a result of pressure from the sugar industry, hoping to keep their primary competition out of the natural foods market. Government subsidies that regulate the price of corn are often cited as giving an unfair market advantage to HFCS, particularly in relation to sugar, which is heavily tariffed. Conflicting pressures from the sugar industry and corn industry lobbyists have affected both the science and the policies related to the use and health value of various natural and artificial sweeteners.

Recommendations for HFCS Consumption While there may be contention about the relative health value of HFCS compared with sugar, nutritional guidelines about consumption of HFCS are clear. Currently, the FDA lists foods containing HFCS in the same category as foods with added sugars from other sources. According to the FDA, overconsumption of solid fats and added sugars, referred to as “SoFAS” calories, is the primary nutritional problem facing Americans today. Its estimates indicate that, as of 2010, the average American consumes more than 200% the

daily recommended value of SoFAS calories. Nutritional guidelines from the government as well as private sources recommend that individuals limit consumption of HFCS as well as other added sugars. The FDA notes that most adults need to cut their consumption of calories from added sugars by more than half in order to be within the recommended range. Because artificially sweetened beverages provide few or no nutrients, they are considered “empty” calories by nutritional standards, and most guidelines indicate that foods high in HFCS and other sweeteners should be avoided entirely. The FDA recommends limited consumption of all liquid calories, including fruit juice, and abstinence from alcohol, soda, and other artificially sweetened beverages to ensure that most of an individual’s calories and nutrition come from solid foods. For children, the FDA recommends limited access to 100% juice and avoidance of drinks sweetened with HFCS or sugar, including those fortified with vitamins and minerals. Gina Szabady See also Beverage Industry; Convenience Foods; Diabetes; Junk Food, Consumption; Junk Food, Impact on Health; Obesity Epidemic; Packaged Food and Preservatives; Tariffs; Taxation, Fat Tax; Taxation, General

Further Readings Bray, G. A., Nielsen, S. J., & Popkin, B. M. (2004). Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79, 537–543. Morabia, A., & Costanza, M. C. (2010). Sodas, high fructose corn syrup, and obesity: Let’s focus on the right target. Preventive Medicine, 51, 1–2. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.05.011 Rizkalla, S. W. (2010). Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data. Nutrition & Metabolism, 7, 82. doi:10.1186/1743-7075-7-82 Varzakas, T., Labropoulos, A., & Anestis, S. (Eds.). (2012). Sweeteners: Nutritional aspects, applications, and production technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Hindu Food Restrictions Warner, D. J. (2011). Sweet stuff: An American history of sweeteners from sugar to sucralose. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. White, J. S. (2013). Challenging the fructose hypothesis: New perspectives on fructose consumption and metabolism. Advanced Nutrition, 4, 246–256. doi:10.3945/an.112.003137 White, J. S., Foreyt, J. P., Melanson, K. J., & Angelopoulos, T. J. (2010). High fructose corn syrup: Controversies and common sense. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 4(6), 515–521. doi:10.1177/1559827610378960

Websites Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—Obesity: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/ publications/aag/obesity.htm Food and Drug Administration—Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010: http://www.health.gov/ dietaryguidelines/2010.asp United States Department of Agriculture—Sugar and Sweeteners: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/ sugar-sweeteners/background.aspx#.UcDN7pz4KSp

HINDU FOOD RESTRICTIONS India is the birthplace of the religion of Hinduism, and it has diverse regional cuisines centered on dairy, legumes, produce, and cereals. In India and Hinduism, food is more than just a tool for survival; it has cultural meaning relating to purity, ritual, kinship, and social stratification. As a result, Hinduism offers many dietary restrictions that followers can choose to abide by. Modern Indian cuisine has been changing to include more meat and to provide a dining-out culture for middle-class families. But a majority of Indians still practice Hinduism, which has an impact on the eating habits of its followers. This entry concentrates on Hindu dietary restrictions by first examining how Hindu asceticism affects diets, then by looking at Hindu diets for special life events, and, finally, by exploring the modern Hindu diet in India and abroad.

781

Hinduism Basics It has been said that Hinduism is not a single religion but rather a compilation of various values and practices with endless variations based on Vedic traditions (which include the oldest scriptures of Hinduism). Important principles of the religion include nonviolence and compassion toward all humans and animals, that the soul is eternal, and karma (the moral law of cause and effect). Hinduism is tolerant of other schools of thought, so followers are able to pick the parts of the religion they wish to incorporate into their lives, including dietary restrictions. There are many gods available for worship within Hinduism, each one representing a certain aspect of God, and some of which appear in many different embodiments. For example, there is Brahma the creator, who is responsible for the creation of everything and everyone on Earth, as well as Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer. These three gods are quite significant in Hinduism, but many more exist, such as Ganesha, the remover of obstacles, recognized by his elephant head. Hindus decide what to include in their belief systems as well as which gods to worship based on their own interpretations of Hindu Holy Scriptures, including the Vedas, the Dharmasastras, the Upanishads, and the Puranas, as well as epics such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Hindus use a caste system with a classification that determines a person’s career and social interactions (especially around meal time). In ancient times, it was believed that this social class would never change throughout a lifetime. Today, only orthodox Hindus abide strictly by the rules of the caste system. The highest caste is the Brahmin, or religious class; followed by the Kshatriyas, or the warrior class; the Vaisyas, or the agricultural class; and, finally, the Sudras, or the peasant class that takes care of the upper classes.

Hindu Asceticism and Diet Because food in India is a cultural construct, every part of the relationship with food has a different

782

Hindu Food Restrictions

meaning. Whether one is growing, cooking, selling, or eating food, it represents ideas of ritual, purity, kinship, personal ethics, and social hierarchy. Food in India is linked to physical and spiritual health, and so Hinduism offers different levels of ascetic practice to achieve the best of both. Fasts and Feasts

Personal Life Fasting, or refraining from some or all types of food or drink (especially for religious observance), is an important aspect of Hinduism that many follow for a variety of reasons and in a range of ways. Some Hindus fast as a way to worship through self-sacrifice, as a method of physical cleansing, or to ask a favor of God. Others use fasting to make a statement, like when the spiritual and political leader Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) fasted to encourage the British, who ruled India at the time, to resolve moral dilemmas in India. When a family member passes away, the regular eating and cooking patterns of the household are changed for 10 to 13 days. This results in different forms of fasting, such as having one meal a day, meat-eating families going vegetarian, or only taking in water. The fast is ended with a feast for family and friends, and some families serve a special vegetarian meal every year on the anniversary of the family member’s death. Holidays Religion-based holidays in India are a time when fasting or feasting is done on a community level. For example, Shivaratri (aka Mahashivaratri) is observed in February or March to celebrate Lord Shiva, and fasting is common, for as short as 24 hours to as long as 21 days. Janmashtami is a festival that commemorates the birthday of Krishna, said to be one of the forms of Lord Vishnu. The holiday is celebrated with a feast, including Krishna’s favorite foods: milk, ghee (clarified butter), yogurt, and sweets such as shrikand (yogurt cardamom pudding).

The Gods and Food

Foods With Religious Significance Certain foods carry religious significance in Hinduism. Rice is regularly served at most temples and is used symbolically during wedding ceremonies as a sign of past and future wealth and prosperity. Ghee is used in everything from cooking to making candles for Hindu services. Because it is considered “pure,” ghee is used in many religious ceremonies. Different deities have favorite foods that are often included in religious ceremonies as an offering. For example, Lord Ganesha was known to love mangoes and modaka, a sweet dumpling, so both can be found in ceremonies for Ganesha. Feeding the Gods One of the regular duties of a Hindu is to offer food to the gods before eating. The food offered to the gods is called prasad, and this happens during a puja, or a Hindu prayer service, both at home and in temples. Fruit, nuts, and sweets are common prasad items and are traditionally placed in front of a picture or statue of a god while praying over it. Afterward, the food is considered blessed and is fed to worshippers as a way to cleanse their spirit and mind. Food Types

Pure Versus Polluted Food A common saying in Hinduism is, “Purity of thought depends on purity of food.” Thus, foods can be labeled as either “pure” or “polluted,” based on who made the food, what is being eaten, and with whom. Kitchens are considered a holy place that must be kept pure, and the cook of the family (typically the eldest female) must bathe first and then cook by sight and smell rather than by taste (tasting while cooking is considered to be polluting). Hospitality is very important to Hindus and considered a very virtuous trait. Being a gracious host is a religious duty, and the entire family pitches in by giving up beds to visiting guests and serving delicious food and plenty of tea, snacks,

Hindu Food Restrictions

and sweets. Traditional Hindu rules still followed by orthodox Hindus can complicate matters. One can only consume food made by an equal or higher caste, and a Brahmin cannot accept any food from lower castes and must eat alone. A higher caste may serve a lower caste but may not dine with him or her to avoid pollution. These laws originated out of hygienic concerns, but eventually, they grew to represent social stratification.

783

not consider avoiding meat to be virtuous, but there are many other reasons why Hindus choose to avoid meat. Meat is very expensive, so even the families that do eat meat consume it sporadically. Higher castes like Brahmins tend to be vegetarians, as do worshippers of Vishnu. Some avoid meat for health reasons, while others do it for animal welfare concerns. The cow is not worshipped by Hinduism, but it is respected as a hard worker, and so it is illegal to slaughter cows in most parts of India.

Pukka and Kaccha Foods There are a few foods that are acceptable to pass between different castes, and those foods are known as pukka foods. Pukka foods are made by frying or basting in ghee, a pure substance, and so many fried breads and sweets made with ghee are shared with the community at temple and festivals. Foods meant just for the family, including ones that are boiled or roasted (rice, vegetables, dal), are called kaccha foods, and they are not considered safe to pass between castes. Food Balance Another way by which Hindus classify foods is based on their effect on the body, aiming to achieve a good balance between different types of foods. There are three categories: (1) Sattvic, (2) Rajasic, and (3) Tamasic. Sattvic foods are considered to be easily digestible and bring clarity and perception. These foods include mangoes, pomegranates, rice, tapioca, sweet potatoes, lentils, milk, and yogurt. Rajasic foods are hot, spicy, or salty and are stimulants, but in large amounts, they can agitate the mind, causing anger. These foods include apples, bananas, corn, potatoes, tamarind, pickles and chutneys, sour cream, fish, and chicken. Tamasic foods are considered depressing and sleep inducing in large amounts. These foods include dark meat, cheese, wheat, brown rice, garlic, onions, avocados, watermelons, and plums. Vegetarianism

Although many Hindus are vegetarians, vegetarianism is not a rule of Hinduism. Hinduism does

Life Event Diets Marriage

Food is incredibly important for marriage ceremonies. Sweets can be served between the bride’s and groom’s families as a symbol of connecting. The actual content of the wedding meal varies depending on region and caste, but all start with rice and end with sweets. For example, South Indian meals will have sambar (vegetable stew) and rasam (spicy soup with lentils and tamarind juice), while West Bengali meals will include more fish and meat dishes. Almost all meals are served on traditional fresh banana leaves, and guests eat with their hands. Pregnancy

Food served to women during pregnancy is all about balancing the body. Pregnancy is considered a “hot” condition, so “hot” foods like meat, eggs, bananas, and mangoes are avoided, while “cool” foods featuring milk products are considered better because they are thought to give a woman more strength. In North India, a woman 5 months into her pregnancy is fed dried dates, coconut, and sweets like laddoos from her parents’ home. Festivals

Festivals in India are plentiful and are based around religious events, history, or agriculture. The festival Makar Sankranti celebrates the sun’s journey to the Northern Hemisphere. Traditional activities include Hindus bathing in rivers, giving

784

Holidays Centered on Food

gifts to the poor, and handing out sweets, such as fresh roasted corn, jalebi (deep-fried chickpea batter soaked in sugar syrup), and halwas (sweets made from shredded vegetables, ghee, and sugar).

The Modern Hindu Diet

back in India, especially males without a female Indian partner. Leena Trivedi-Grenier See also Ayurveda and Diet; Cultural Identity and Food; Ethnic Grocery Stores; Vegetarianism

In India

The restaurant culture in India is relatively new, and it is changing the future of Hindu dining. Previously, dining out was considered unclean, and to this day, many orthodox Hindus refrain from doing so. But as the Indian middle class has been growing, many American fast food restaurants have come into the country, tempting younger generations to dine out and eat a more Western diet. The traditional rules of Hindu diets have relaxed over the generations, with different castes dining together, families eating meat, and less importance on pure versus polluted foods. Only orthodox Hindus strictly follow all of the traditional Hindu dietary restrictions.

Further Readings Achaya, K. T. (1994). Indian food: A historical companion. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. Bahadur, O. L. (1997). The book of Hindu festivals and ceremonies. New Delhi, India: UBS. Kane, P. V. (1941). History of the Dharmasastras (Vol. 2). Pune, India: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Kilara, A., & Iya, K. K. (1992, October). Food and dietary habits of the Hindu. Food Technology, 48(10), 94–104. Olivelle, P. (2008). From feast to fast: Food and the Indian ascetic. In Collected essays: Ascetics and brahmins (Vol. 2, pp. 71–90). Florence, Italy: Firenze University Press. Taylor-Sen, C. (2004). Food culture in India. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Around the World

When Hindu immigrants move abroad, especially to the United States, they are forced to practice a more inclusive form of Hinduism. To restrict eating between castes would make for very small communities of Hindus, so the few temples that exist in the new country tend to discard their sectarian Hindu beliefs to celebrate the many different religious and community needs. Indian grocery stores pop up in the new countries close to Hindu communities and remain a link to their diet in India. Diet changes in the new country vary from person to person, with some people wishing to completely assimilate, some wishing to completely reject a new culture, and others making some changes and adapting their traditions. It is common for Hindu immigrants to eat only Indian food at home but more Western food while at work. Some continue to be vegetarians, while others branch out to experience meat. While cooking in India is mainly a woman’s job, male immigrants tend to learn how to cook with tips from relatives

HOLIDAYS CENTERED

ON

FOOD

Food plays a role in most holiday celebrations. Consuming, sharing, offering, or displaying food is frequently a central activity in holiday rituals, and specific foods often serve as iconic symbols of specific holidays. Issues arise, however, over the meanings of foodways in holidays, the expense and effort involved in including them, the impact on nutrition and health, and the emotional associations with them. This entry surveys types of holidays centered on food and outlines the roles and functions of foodways within those holidays as well as the issues associated with them.

Holidays and Holiday Foods Holidays are days that are officially set aside for observing an event, institution, or idea that is considered significant to a group’s identity. Originating

Holidays Centered on Food

from holy days, the term holidays implies the symbolic nature of these days. Holidays are meant to be more than just time off from the regular routine; they reference the sacred (belief systems or overarching organization of the universe). As such, they involve multiple layers of rituals—recurring symbolic events—and these rituals oftentimes involve food or some aspect of foodways. Holiday foods are usually special in some way: (a) they may contain expensive or forbidden ingredients not eaten on an everyday basis, (b) they may be presented in distinctive symbolic forms, or (c) they may be included in festive displays. Menus for holiday meals usually contrast with ordinary meals, involving more dishes and different expectations for the social setting and behavior at the meals themselves. Other foodways activities— such as procuring special dishes, giving food as gifts, or consuming food in celebratory contexts— may also be part of the overall holiday. The various kinds of holidays and types of rituals involved define the ways in which food is used. Many holidays throughout the world originated as seasonal observances. In ancient times, the solstices and equinoxes marked the passing of the year, and rituals were oftentimes tied to these events. Food, as a basic need for survival, frequently played a role in such rituals. Today, the beginning of a new year is still celebrated with food throughout the world, and many cultures identify specific foods as symbolizing hope for the new year—such as a whole fish for the Chinese, pork and sauerkraut for German Americans, and hoppin’-john (black-eyed peas, rice, and pork) for many in the American South. Historically, the food supply, whether from cultivating crops or from gathering and hunting food from the wild, was shaped by the seasons, and the beginnings and endings of those seasons were oftentimes celebrated with ceremonies. The end of the growing season, in particular, was marked with abundant harvests exuberantly celebrated, laying the foundation for harvest festivals still celebrated today. As cultures developed more complex social institutions, such as churches and nations, they oftentimes overlaid their own meanings onto the

785

observances of the cycles of nature, formally referencing those institutions. National holidays frequently featured foods thought to unify citizens or somehow to represent the identity of that nation. The American Thanksgiving dinner menu, for example, consists of dishes thought to replicate the first harvest of the Pilgrims in 1621. The large roasted turkey symbolizes the abundance of the “new world” as well as references the idea of unity and belonging to a larger community. Religious holidays frequently use food as well, attaching meaning not only to the food itself but also to its preparation and consumption. The Jewish Passover Seder, for example, includes activities and prayers that accompany the meal, and the food’s symbolism is formally acknowledged as part of the ceremonies—unleavened matzos, a roasted hard-boiled egg, a lamb shank bone, bitter herbs, a vegetable dipped into salt, and charoset (a paste of sweetened chopped nuts and apples or dried fruits). For Christian Easter celebrations, crosses are marked into loaves of bread, and baked goods are shaped into the forms of religious symbols. During Lent, the 40 days leading up to Easter, Christians abstain from certain foods; however, the day before Lent begins (Fat Tuesday, or Mardi Gras) is observed with the overconsumption of food, usually in the form of fried dough (that traditionally used up the fat and sugar in the house). Because the Roman Catholic Church historically prohibited eating meat during Lent, a tradition of family and community fish fry dinners during Lent evolved. The intentional refusal of food (fasting) is also significant in some religious holidays. In Muslim cultures, the ninth month of the year, Ramadan, commemorates the revelation of the holy book, the Quran, and is observed with obligatory fasting from sunrise to sundown. The holiday of Eid al-Fitr celebrates the end of Ramadan with feasting and special foods.

Roles and Functions of Food and Foodways in Holiday Celebrations Food as a component of holiday celebrations plays multiple roles. It not only provides sustenance to

786

Holidays Centered on Food

those participating but also can be the focal point of activities and events. The harvest meal, for example, is the culmination of all the work involved in harvesting crops, as well as the setting for the cleanup and disposal that follows (a significant part of foodways that tends to be overlooked). Sharing food represents unity and belonging to a group, and participation in the other aspects of foodways offers opportunities for creating emotional and social networks with other participants. Similarly, giving gifts of food represents friendship or a community or family tie. Food also frequently serves as a symbol, both of the holiday itself and the ideas the holiday celebrates. Cornucopias at Thanskgiving, for example, suggest the abundance of the harvest for which we should show gratitude. The African American holiday Kwanzaa uses a similar image, and the name itself is Swahili for “first fruits.” Invented in 1966 to create unity among African Americans, the holiday, which lasts from December 26 to 31, includes shared meals and a feast. In Spain, near the beginning of Lent, special sweets appear in shops; and candy canes and chocolate hearts have become international symbols for Christmas and Valentine’s Day, respectively.

Social Issues Food does not always play a positive role in holidays, however, and neither do holidays themselves. Sharing or giving food can strengthen social bonds among group members, but it can also highlight who does not belong to a particular group. Not being invited to a family holiday meal can be a painful reminder of unresolved differences and conflicts. Similarly, offering foods that cannot be consumed for some reason (health, religious or ethical dietary restrictions, or cultural definitions of edibility) can highlight the outsider status of an individual. Given human nature, people sometimes use food at holidays to indicate their wealth, demonstrate their culinary skills and knowledge, display the size of their social network, or show off their possessions—all of which, in theory, may affirm a

higher social status for that individual. The sharing of food, then, can become a competition rather than a validation of unity. Even if holiday celebrants are well intended in their sharing of food, food itself tends to carry memories of the past and evoke emotions. These may be overwhelming for some individuals and may make the holiday psychologically painful.

Cultural Issues A number of cultural issues can arise from foodways in holidays. The food itself may be highlighted above the actual message of the holiday and other activities of a more sacred or solemn nature. American Thanksgiving is sometimes called “Turkey Day” after the traditional main dish of the abundant meal typical of that day. Halloween in the United States has evolved into a day celebrating candy and sweet treats (as well as alcohol for adults) and the way children obtain these by dressing in costumes and demanding them from strangers (“trick or treat”). The Mexican Day of the Dead follows Halloween. It features skulls and skeletons formed into sugar candies and baked goods. These symbolize the victory of life over death and are significant symbols in the religious and cultural holiday that honors those who have died in the past year with altars and rituals. The foods associated with the holiday, though, are now entering the United States as part of the general foodways of the Halloween celebration. A similar highlighting of candy is seen in the public parades held on holidays throughout the world, particularly national ones. Candy and trinkets are frequently thrown to bystanders, and for children, at least, that candy—and the grabbing of it off the street—becomes the meaning of the holiday. However, people may have different interpretations of the meanings of a food or foodways activity. For example, some view the Thanksgiving turkey as representing the historical colonization and “consumption” of Native Americans by European settlers. Thus, the holiday is seen as celebrating the discrimination by one group of people over another, rather than celebrating unity. From

Holidays Centered on Food

this viewpoint, the iconic foods of the dinner menu are interpreted as an appropriation of the native culinary culture. Similarly, St. Patrick’s Day is an official religious and national holiday in Ireland, where it is traditionally celebrated with a church service and community parades and festivities. Meals with abundant and festive foods are common, as is the enjoyment of alcoholic beverages. In the United States, however, the holiday has become an unofficially sanctioned day of overindulgence in which bars and pubs open early in the morning and individuals of any ethnic heritage drink large quantities of green beer. Some people view this redefining of the holiday as stereotyping Irish culture. Questions may arise over who has the authority to define which foods are appropriate for a holiday. Outdoor picnics for the American Independence Day on July 4 frequently feature meat (hot dogs, grilled steaks or chicken, and/or barbecued pork or beef) along with other “all-American” dishes. Although these foods are not officially determined by the government, and individuals and groups are free to consume whatever they wish, public and community celebrations tend to offer only those foods, which may suggest to vegetarians, vegans, and individuals with other dietary restrictions or from other culinary heritages that they are not “real” Americans.

Economic Issues Holidays centered on food typically call for additional expenses for food and drink. On the one hand, hosts are expected to provide ample refreshments, and special items for those holiday celebrations are frequently higher priced than everyday foods. On the other hand, many national holidays emphasize foods that are inexpensive and thought to be available to all. Turkey, for example, for the Thanksgiving meal, is one of the most inexpensive meats sold. Holidays in general have been turned into moneymaking opportunities for retailers, and holiday foods are frequently significant commodities. One way in which manufacturers compete for customers

787

is by changing holiday foods to stand out from other brands. These foods then become commodities, valued for their cost rather than their meanings. Some may view such commodification as trivializing the food, or perhaps even the holiday itself.

Health Issues Holiday foods are frequently rich and calorie laden. While small amounts might not be unhealthy, holidays tend to be times in which we suspend the usual rules of nutrition and balanced diets and overeat. They also tend to allow for overindulgence in alcohol, which also has health implications. Lucy M. Long See also Christian Food Restrictions; Halal Food; Hindu Food Restrictions

Further Readings Belk, R. (1994). Carnival, control, and corporate culture in contemporary Halloween celebrations. In J. Santino (Ed.), Halloween and other festivals of death and life (pp. 105–132). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Dietler, M., & Hayden, B. (2001). Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Food Stories. (n.d.). Food holidays. Retrieved from http:// foodstoriesblog.com/food-holidays/ Long, L. M. (2000). Holiday meals: Rituals of family tradition. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.), Dimensions of the meal: The science, culture, business, and art of eating (pp. 143–160). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Long, L. M. (2009). Special occasions. In Regional American food culture (pp. 179–200). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press. Magliocco, S. (1998). Playing with food: The negotiation of identity in the ethnic display event by Italian Americans in Clinton, Indiana. In B. G. Shortridge & J. R. Shortridge (Eds.), The taste of American place: A reader on regional and ethnic foods (pp. 145–161). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Santino, J. (1994). All around the year: Holidays and celebrations in American life. Urbana: University of Illinois.

788

Holistic Medicine (New Age) and Diet

Shuman, A. (2000). Food gifts: Ritual exchange and the production of excess meaning. Journal of American Folklore, 113(450), 495–508. Silverman, D. A. (1997). Dyngus day in Polish American communities. In T. Tuleja (Ed.), Usable pasts: Traditions and group expressions in North America (pp. 68–95). Logan: Utah State University Press. Siskind, J. (2002). The invention of Thanksgiving: A ritual of American nationality. In C. M. Counihan (Ed.), Food in the USA: A reader (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Routledge. Tuchman, G., & Levine, H. G. (1998). New York Jews and Chinese food: The social construction of an ethnic pattern. In B. G. Shortridge & J. R. Shortridge (Eds.), The taste of American place: A reader on regional and ethnic foods (pp. 163–184). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Turner, V. W. (1982). Celebration: Studies in festivity and ritual. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

HOLISTIC MEDICINE (NEW AGE) AND DIET Holistic medicine uses an integrative approach to understand a person’s well-being based on the philosophy that physical, psychological, social, and spiritual health are all interconnected. Food and diet are direct avenues for addressing bodily imbalances as well as maintaining overall health. An imbalance in one area may affect other aspects of health. This view contrasts with the dualistic Cartesian model of traditional Western medicine, which treats the body and mind as separate entities. Holistic medicine spans a diverse array of approaches, most of which are considered as alternatives and outside the purview of mainstream Western medicine. Similarly, the New Age holistic perspective reflects a plethora of frameworks and may eclectically draw from both Eastern and Western spiritual philosophies and practices. At times, it may also share similarities with other established holistic systems such as Ayurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Western herbalism. This entry addresses the intersection between holistic (New Age) medicine and diet.

Historical Background During the late 20th century, the New Age movement rose to prominence in Western society and encompassed many aspects of alternative spirituality, ranging from yoga, meditation, channeling, folk remedies, and holistic health practices (e.g., vegetarianism and veganism) to beliefs about the paranormal and energy fields. While commonalities may underlay certain traditions, a universal definition of New Age holistic medicine does not exist due to the diverse and changing array of practices and belief systems. Additionally, practices once deemed alternative (e.g., yoga, vegetarianism, and meditation) have now become more readily accepted and utilized by mainstream society, further confounding the boundaries between what is considered alternative and conventional. In 2007, the National Institutes of Health reported that 38% of Americans were engaging in some form of complementary or alternative medicine.

New Age Holistic Food Practices The underlying philosophy of many New Age holistic frameworks is that the body, spirit, and mind are deeply connected and affected by lifestyle choices, desires, and beliefs. The goal is to maintain health in all aspects of an individual’s well-being at all times to prevent the onset of illness. However, the path to maintaining wellness differs for each person, just as body chemistries, constitutions, and nutritional needs are individually unique. Natural resources in their raw form offer the strongest means for boosting the body’s immunity and addressing nutritional deficiencies. Examples of these include organic foods, vitamin and nutritional supplements, herbs, and minerals. When foods are highly processed or overly cooked at high temperatures (releasing carcinogens), critical nutrients become damaged and/or can be completely destroyed. This can also occur with the use of food additives and pesticides. To maximize the nutritional benefits of whole foods, some have adopted raw, vegetarian, vegan, or macrobiotic diets, among others. From a New Age

Holistic Medicine (New Age) and Diet

spiritual perspective, the first three can be perceived as avenues toward achieving a higher level of consciousness, whether through the ingestion of foods in their natural states and establishment of a spiritual connection or a spiritual belief underlying the avoidance of animal products and by-products. Consuming foods from one’s locale, such as locally made honey, can also strengthen one’s connection to the land from which the food is sourced. Conversely, fasting offers the body a temporary respite from digestive processes and an opportunity to detoxify and heal. Neither of these should be done for an extended period of time (more than 3 days) without consulting a medical professional. The premise underlying a fast is that the reduction of new toxins introduced into the body leads to (a) the regeneration of cells and tissues, (b) reduced burden on the immune and digestive systems, (c) increased awareness of other senses, and (d) deepened spirituality (if one is fasting for spiritual reasons). An all-water fast is best avoided because it expedites the release of toxins more quickly than can be handled by the body. Fasting is most effective for acute or immediate ailments (e.g., allergies and respiratory illness) and less so for chronic conditions. Orthopathy (or Natural Hygiene) also promotes fasting as a method for healing and restoring the body, along with raw food and/or vegetarian diets. Established in the 1800s by Dr. Isaac Jennings, this movement favors natural remedies over conventional medicine to address illness. Orthopaths rely on 16 physiological laws of life to understand the human body. Though both orthopathy and naturopathy promote healing of the body through natural preventive means, they are not the same. Naturopaths are guided by six core values and employ a variety of treatment modalities ranging from nutritional (e.g., vegetarian, raw food diets) to traditional Chinese medicine and herbal or botanical remedies. Juice diets offer another way to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables in their innate form. Juices should be made fresh, not commercially purchased, to ensure that ingredients have not been overly processed or cooked and to minimize

789

the addition of preservatives. These are also best consumed within approximately 3 days to avoid bacterial contamination due to lack of preservatives. The three main types of juices are green, vegetable, and fruit. Green juices are rich in chlorophyll and use green vegetables (e.g., spinach and kale), which help detoxify and rejuvenate blood circulation in the body. These should not be consumed beyond 10 ounces a day. Vegetable juices aid the immune system and metabolism. Almost any vegetable can be juiced, in any combination of varietal. Fruit juices help cleanse and replenish the body. Similar to vegetable juices, almost any fruit can be juiced, though the recommended daily maximum is 12 ounces because fruits can be high in natural sugar content. While many fad diets have cycled through American society, the alkaline diet is one example of a regimen that uses dietary modifications to achieve optimal health by maintaining an ideal pH level in the body. Foods are categorized as either alkaline (helpful for the body) or acid promoting (lowers pH). Vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and other similar foods are considered alkaline and beneficial to the body. Acid-promoting foods include coffee, alcohol, processed foods, animal proteins, dairy, white sugar, and white flour. A highly acidic diet is thought to promote disease. However, there is debate within the scientific community regarding the effectiveness of an alkaline diet and whether the body self-regulates the pH level independent of diet.

Vibrational Quality of Food and Chakras Certain New Age perspectives also believe that raw food embodies a vibrational frequency that is affected by changes to the structure of the food. For example, those working with the chakra system have identified at least seven basic energy fields within the human body, each corresponding to a core body part or system. This framework, with a long history dating back to Hinduism, is similar to other holistic health systems such as the I Ching (meridians and yin/yang) as well as Ayurveda (five classical elements).

790

Holistic Medicine (New Age) and Diet

The first three chakras are associated with basic needs: survival (base of spine), emotions/sexuality (abdomen), and personal power (solar plexus). The fourth (sternum) and fifth (throat) chakra address psychological needs: love and communication/ creativity. And last, the sixth (forehead) and seventh (crown of head) chakras focus on the spiritual aspects of intuition and spiritual information or knowledge. Although each chakra exists in its own sphere, they also constantly interact with each other to form a vertical column of energy running through our entire body, from the first chakra at our spine base to the seventh chakra at the crown of our head. Dysfunction or imbalance at one level can affect other chakras, with outcomes appearing as physical, emotional, and/or psychological symptoms. Food is one mechanism through which chakra balance can be maintained or reattained, as food is thought to have both vibrational and nutritional qualities. Different foods correspond to different chakra levels. Consumption of too much or too little at any level can easily lead to an imbalanced system. The first three chakras are associated with meat or protein, liquids, and starches, respectively. The fourth and fifth chakras correspond to vegetables and fruits, respectively. However, specific foods are generally not identified for the sixth and seventh chakras because they are viewed to be more spiritual and, thus, less directly connected with the need for energy from food. The vibrational energy from crystals and gemstones may also aid in healing specific bodily ailments and imbalances, especially when used in conjunction with diet.

Plants as Food The use of plants as healing remedies can be traced back more than 50,000 years. In contemporary times, medicinal herbs still play a prominent role in many non-Western holistic health systems, with the World Health Organization estimating that 80% of the world’s population relies on home remedies to treat basic illnesses. In the United States, natural herbal remedies were popular through the early 1900s and then faded with the

rise of the pharmaceutical complex. However, currently there seems to be a resurgence of interest in Western herbalism. Most herbs gently help regulate and balance the body. They are helpful for myriad acute and chronic physical and psychological conditions, as well as in the prevention of illness. For example, a daily tablespoon of elderberry syrup can boost the immune system during cold and flu season. Regular use of local honey can mitigate allergies during hay fever season. Knowledge about dosage and usage are critical to avoid overdosing, toxicity (certain plants/plant parts can be poisonous), and negative interactions with certain foods and conventional medications, including over-the-counter medications and nutritional supplements. Each part of a plant (bark, root, leaf, seed, and flower) reflects unique healing qualities. At times, a remedy may call for the use of an entire plant. Ideally, organic or wild-harvested plants are used to minimize exposure to pesticides and ensure that the plant is in its purest form. Types of herbal remedies can range from teas (infusions/decoctions) to tinctures, syrups, and essential oils. Herbs can also be easily incorporated into everyday diets, such as in salads and dressings. At the heart of Western herbalism lies vitalism. Within the New Age holistic paradigm, plants may be viewed as a living spirit, with a vibrational frequency for healing and deepening spiritual connections. Certain pagan traditions, such as Druids, honor plants and herbs as sacred entities, for both their healing properties and the life force energy they embody. Native American healers and shamans also have a long-established tradition of connecting with herbs and plants for medicinal, healing, and spiritual purposes.

Controversial Issues By the late 1990s, certain practices previously characterized as New Age had become more widely accepted by both the medical community and society at large, especially with increasing awareness and recognition of the mind–body connection. This resulted in the National Institutes of Health’s

Home Fermentation

establishment of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in 1998. In this context, “complementary” medicine refers to the use of alternative healing techniques along with traditional Western medicine, while “alternative medicine” is defined as the replacement of traditional Western medicine with alternative healing techniques. Holistic New Age practices recognized by complementary and alternative medicine include botanical or herbal medicine, meditation, yoga, homeopathy, naturopathy, and energy field manipulation. Because the NCCAM was established to regulate and scientifically study the impact and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions, one of its three long-range goals focuses on the practice of symptom management (instead of wellness or illness prevention), which is consistent with a Western medical approach to health. The effectiveness of New Age holistic medical and dietary practices continues to be scientifically debated today. For example, orthomolecular medicine (also known as megavitamin therapy) touts the use of nutritional supplements above the recommended daily allowance, believing that a balanced body cannot be achieved solely through contemporary Western diet. Because high doses of certain vitamins can be toxic, the safety and effectiveness of this intervention has been repeatedly questioned. Last, though raw, vegetarian, and vegan diets have been recommended by many New Age holistic health paradigms, they are not diets for everyone. Body chemistries are unique and highly individualized, so any restrictive diet can result in nutritional deficiencies, especially among youth and children. Mary Gee See also Ayurveda and Diet; Chinese Traditional Medicine and Diet; Fruitarianism; Macrobiotics; Raw Diets; Veganism; Vegetarianism

Further Readings Balch, P. (2010). Prescription for nutritional healing (5th ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.

791

Hershoff, A., & Rotelli, A. (2001). Herbal remedies. New York, NY: Avery. Judith, A. (1998). Wheels of life: A user’s guide to the chakra system. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn. Kloss, J. (2004). Back to Eden (2nd ed.). Twin Lakes, WI: Lotus Press.

Websites American Holistic Medical Association: http://www .holisticmedicine.org/ National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine: http://nccam.nih.gov/about/ataglance

HOME FERMENTATION Fermentation, a word derived from Latin, and meaning “to boil,” is a form of food processing utilizing microorganisms. Fermentation is currently experiencing a rise of interest and popularity in the United States. Fermentation encompasses a broad variety of products that reflect cultural culinary practices that span both time and space and include familiar items in the West such as wine, beer, pickles, and cheeses, as well as regional specialties like amazake, kimchi, and miso from the East, among many others. The current resurgence of popularity of fermented foods may be due to the health halo effect (i.e., the perception that a food is healthful based on a single characteristic or related characteristics) that surrounds them in the context of the growing interest in the United States in functional foods and natural products. Moreover, home fermentation in particular is on the rise among do-it-yourself (DIY) subcultures and reflects various practices and beliefs that reflect social and political values that include and go beyond health, environmentalism, and resistance of capitalism and industrial food systems. Home fermentation incorporates microorganisms, also referred to as probiotics, to transform fresh foods utilizing naturally occurring bacteria, molds, and yeasts to preserve foods, as well as to transform flavors and textures. This process essentially converts

792

Home Fermentation

carbohydrates, usually sugars, into alcohols and carbon dioxide. Fermentation is also gaining interest for the strong, complex, and pungent flavors it imparts in foods through the preservation process. In addition, nutritional qualities attributed to fermented foods, including the rich flavors that they impart without extra calories, may be another factor in their increasing popularity in the United States. Also of interest in the culinary world is the exploration of regional practices of traditional fermentation preparations both for an appreciation of the exotic as well as a starting point to experiment with new ways of fusing cuisines and fermentation methods taking place at popular urban restaurants such as Momofuku Noodle Bar in New York City. When talking about home fermentation practices in the United States, it is important to include a discussion of Sandor Ellix Katz, touted as the “guru of fermenting food.” Katz positions himself as a “fermentation revivalist” and has been described by the New York Times as “what Timothy Leary was for psychedelic drugs: a charismatic, consciousness-raising thinker and advocate who wants people to see the world in a new way” (Gordinier, 2012). Indeed, for Katz, home fermentation is not merely a food practice but a worldview, and he is active in spreading awareness and sharing skills through his blog, books, and workshops held across North America. This entry begins by providing background and historical information on fermentation. Next, it describes the various types of home fermentation and its relation to contemporary DIY culture. Last, this entry examines the health and dangers, as well as other current issues, associated with home fermentation.

History and Background Fermentation is often framed as distinctly not a trend due to its long history. Fermentation may have been practiced for more than 8,000 years, though it is difficult to date it precisely. Early in its history, the processes were likely spontaneous, uncontrolled, and not well understood. It is likely that fermented foods during these times were

considered a miracle or mystery, and the early ferments were discovered by accident and refined through trial and error over time. Fermentation as a process in the West began to be studied more systematically during the 1500s, though a fuller understanding of the process would take hundreds of years as the discipline of microbiology continued to develop. It wasn’t until the 1800s, with Louis Pasteur’s work with microorganisms and the use of the compound microscope, that fermentation was better understood and that specific biota were associated with different ferments. Fermentation is valued for its ability to increase the storage life of foods as well as to reduce food waste.

Types of Home Fermentation The fermentation process is a chemical transformation of a substrate, such as a food or beverage, into simpler compounds through the use of microorganisms, including molds, yeasts, and bacteria. Important by-products of some fermentation include alcohol as well as various gases. While fermentation is often seen as a form of food preservation, it is also regarded as a culinary approach to enhancing the healthfulness and palatability of some foods. Indeed, it has been suggested that the popularity and endurance of fermentation over its long history is due in part to the ways in which it enhances the flavors of food. Currently, there are many ways to classify fermented products, including by categories of microorganism (i.e., acetobactor, Lactobacilli, or yeasts), classes (i.e., beverages, dairy products), commodity (i.e., legumes, cereals), and many others found around the world. In home fermentation practices around the world, lactic acid fermentations are common and used to transform foods to produce items such as sauerkraut, kimchi, vegetable pickles, olives, fermented milk products (yogurt, kefir, cheeses, etc.), sourdough breads, and many other products. Many other types of fermentations are practiced in the home as well, including alcoholic fermentations producing grape wines, honey wines, beers, and other ferments based on grains or fruits.

Home Fermentation

Do-It-Yourself Culture In his zine, the home fermentation icon Sandor Ellix Katz refers to home fermentation as a DIY practice. DIY is seen as a subculture that presents an alternative to academic and industrial productions of knowledge and goods. DIY encompasses a unique set of values that may include the following: (a) open sharing and learning, (b) the privileging of creativity over profit, (c) an interest in social capital, (d) a desire for self-reliance, and (e) the political project of resisting the commodification of everyday products, including food. DIY practitioners and activists champion manual labor and associated knowledge and may position themselves as “expert amateurs,” generally eschewing professionalization for a democratic and participatory orientation toward production and consumption. Indeed, an exploration of the works of Katz and other home fermentation advocates reflect a DIY sensibility that includes a framework of practices that involve creating, modifying, or repairing objects without the assistance of paid professionals, in this case the preparation of foods that have enhanced health attributes and an extended shelf life that may lead to less reliance on commercially available food products. One popular home fermentation resource, the Fermenters Club, explicitly frames home fermentation in DIY terms, appealing to these values as well as expressing a concern for the environment and promoting the use of home fermentation as a means of eating locally and seasonally. Home fermentation as a movement reflects, through these environmental concerns and practices, the DIY value of reconnecting with the physical and natural world. An important practice of home fermentation, especially as espoused by Katz and others, is the practice of utilizing microorganisms in the immediate environment and, thus, incorporating wild food into your body and in so doing “become one with the natural world” (Katz, 2003, p. 12).

793

history, and in contemporary society where access to food is limited, fermentation is seen as a means of enhancing nutrition, because the process increases the bioavailability of micronutrients that may otherwise be relatively low in vegetable-based diets that are common throughout the developing world. The transformations in the enzymatic process of fermentation may improve the nutritional value and microbial safety of foods. Nutrition of fermented foods, through the probiotics found in them, is often a major draw to the practice of home fermentation in contemporary Western developed countries. Some research suggests that fermented foods improve the overall nutrient density of food, both through the transformation of the nutrient content and through increasing the availability of nutrients, especially minerals such as iron and zinc. The health-related factors that draw many to home fermentation and fermented foods span a wide range of issues. Fermented foods, due to their probiotic content, are often used to address digestive health issues such as irritable bowel syndrome, yeast infections, and diarrhea, among others. Currently, in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration remains neutral on probiotic products and their potential health effects. This may be due to the fact that research is still limited in its ability to establish solid evidence on the scope of the health effects that have been claimed. In addition, the quality and quantity of probiotics found in foods is varied and unreliable, making it even more difficult to discern their health effects as well as to assess how much of various food products must be consumed to obtain health benefits. However, it is commonly accepted that an important value of fermented foods is that they add deep and rich flavors without adding calories—an important concern in many weight-conscious Western developed societies.

Health and Nutrition

Dangers or Risks

Fermentation as a process is both a means of preserving foods by slowing decay as well as a means of making food healthier. Over the course of human

Home fermentation includes a wide range of techniques and practices that have developed over centuries around the world. Most methods are

794

Homesteading

simple and flexible, utilizing microorganisms in the immediate environment, and are generally low-tech. Moreover, home fermentation processes are by and large considered safe and relatively easy. While those who may be new to the practices and methods of home fermentation may have concerns about food safety, and foodborne illness in particular, current research and, perhaps more important, thousands of years of history suggest that fermented foods are quite safe. In fact, in many amateur contexts, whether it is a modern kitchen in the developed global North or elsewhere in the developing world, home fermentation is viewed as having a good safety record. Moreover, the process of fermentation is seen as increasing food safety in many contexts as the edible microorganisms found in ferments make foods resistant to the invasion of potentially harmful microorganisms that contribute to food spoilage and poisoning.

Current Issues Given a brief survey of the food-related media in recent years, it seems that the practice of home fermentation and fermented foods are continuing to grow in popularity. Fermented foods have a steadily increasing reputation for being healthful as well as relatively easy to prepare at home, which may contribute to its growth. Fermented foods, being high in probiotics, have a health halo that draw many who are looking for nutritional strategies of health management and reflects the growing trend in functional foods, also sometimes referred to as nutraceuticals— foods that are associated with disease prevention or health promotion. This characteristic is used as a marketing strategy related to the health halo attributed to probiotics; however, there is not enough research to support many claims. In addition, the popularity of home fermentation and fermented products may also reflect the growing market demand of “natural” products in the United States. Christine C. Caruso See also Canning; Deskilling; DIY Food Movement; Food Waste; Homesteading; Identity and Food; Lactobacilli; Nutrient Density; Raw Diets

Further Readings Gardeners and Farmers of Center Terre Vivante. (2007). Preserving food without freezing or canning: Traditional techniques using salt, oil, sugar, alcohol, vinegar, drying, cold storage and lactic fermentation. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Gordinier, J. (2012, September 17). Better eating, thanks to bacteria. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/dining/ fermentation-guru-helps-chefs-find-new-flavors .html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Katz, S. E. (2001). Wild fermentation: A do-it-yourself guide to cultural manipulation. Lansing, KS: Microcosm. Katz, S. E. (2003). Wild fermentation: The flavor, nutrition, and craft of live culture foods. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Katz, S. E. (2012). The art of fermentation. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Lewin, A. (2012). Real food fermentation: Preserving whole fresh food with live cultures in your home kitchen. Beverly, MA: Quarry Books.

Websites National Center for Home Food Preservation: http:// nchfp.uga.edu Wild Fermentation Portal: http://www.wildfermentation .com

HOMESTEADING The history of homesteading in the United States has always centered on issues of land ownership. This entry first describes the Homestead Act of 1862 and its place in the history of land ownership in the United States. It then looks at efforts to create a new tradition of farm and rural life that embodies environmental values such as sustainability.

Background The first major federal land act in the United States was the Land Act of 1796, under which lands were divided into townships of 6 square

Homesteading

miles. This legislation specified that half of each township was to be divided into sections of 640 acres, the smallest unit available for sale. This minimum, with its fee of $2 per acre, was far beyond the means of most citizens; thus, ownership of land under this legislation was restricted to the gentry. Over the next 66 years, the minimums for the purchase of public lands were steadily reduced, resulting in increased agricultural production. By 1800, the minimum under federal land policy was reduced to 320 acres, with the fee payable over 4 years. In 1820, 80 acres could be purchased at $1.25 per acre, and in 1832, parcels of 40 acres could be sold. Subsequent legislation made ever cheaper land available to a wider population of white Americans.

The Homestead Act of 1862 and Homesteading in the United States During the Civil War, Congress passed the Homestead Act of 1862, which made it possible to claim and secure title to tracts of agricultural land from the public domain by living on and improving the land rather than purchasing it. Under this legislation, an individual could claim 160 acres, and a married couple could claim 320 acres. The individual or couple had to live on the claim and cultivate it for 5 years. Through the act, a greater number of people than ever before could aspire to land ownership. Many African Americans (including those freed from slavery) began looking to the west as a place where they would have the freedom to own their own land. As heads of households, women who were single, widowed, divorced, or deserted were eligible to claim land under this legislation. The act had special provisions for the widows of Union soldiers that reduced the time they needed to “prove up” a claim. Thus, the act expanded the economic options of women decades before the suffrage movement won the vote. With this additional opening of land, the population of the western states grew from about 1 million in 1810 to about 14.8 million in 1869.

795

By 1934, more than 1.6 million homestead applications had been processed, and more than 270 million acres—10% of all U.S. lands—had passed into the hands of individuals. Homesteading had become part of the mythic tale of rags-toriches success in the American story. Almost unnoticed by urban America, the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 repealed the Homestead Act in the 48 contiguous states, but it did grant a 10-year extension on claims in Alaska. In Alaska, there was a surge in homestead applications after World War II and the Vietnam War. During this period, “back-to–the-land” advocates were searching for the same land ownership opportunity that had lured settlers to the western states a century before. However, new homesteaders encountered many of the same hardships as the early homesteaders of the 19th century. The winter weather was harsh, subsistence skills were difficult to learn, the growing season was much shorter than in the lower 48 states, and transportation and housing were very expensive. In addition, the political response to the demands of indigenous peoples regarding land use demands in rural Alaska increasingly made easy acquisition of government land more problematic. By 1988, when the last homestead land was finally conveyed, roughly 10% of the total land in the United States had been given away as homesteads. The Bureau of Land Management estimates put the number of descendants of homesteaders alive as of 2007 at 93 million people.

The Homesteader After Homesteading Whether as “homesteaders” or “back to the landers,” a movement of college-educated young people in the 1960s through the 1980s looked to the American past and began exploring a new, more rural and ecologically inspired lifestyle. For inspiration, they often turned to the writings of Henry David Thoreau, Scott and Helen Nearing, Bradford Angier, and Aldo Leopold, among many others. These writers, with their stress on sustainability, ecology, and environmental issues, contributed to

796

Homesteading

the idea of a new tradition of farming and rural life that was often called homesteading even though it was not part of the formal acquisition of land through the government homesteading program. Young people, mostly white and middle class, bought land with the intention of “returning” to what had been often described and idealized in the literature as a simpler way of life. However, the economics and realities of farming, family demands, and lack of agricultural knowledge often brought many of these back to the landers back to small towns and urban settings to make a living. Those who did succeed most often built their efforts in the context of an already existing and productive family farm, which, in a twist of irony, may have actually been government land granted under the Homestead Act in the 19th century.

Twentieth-First-Century Interpretation of Homesteading The idea of homesteading, with its ideals of isolated self-reliance, has for the most part been replaced in the early 21st century by families, individuals, women, and people of color uniting across class, race, and politics to become part of the creation of a growing number of acres under cultivation in organic, sustainable, and local food production both in the countryside and within the urban landscape. Cities have been pressured to enable residents to develop underutilized urban land for community gardens, to pass codes allowing hen houses and bees in backyards, and to fund the building of permanent farmers’ market venues. Rural small land owners have discovered distinct and profitable niches for small-scale production of cheeses, heritage breed animal products, and specialty vegetable sales, and they have forged economic relationships with urban restaurants by supplying farm-grown produce. Banding together, small producers have increasingly confronted corporate farming’s influence on food production regulation in general as well as in rural politics. Through the Internet and social media, digital technologies have significantly altered the ways in which contemporary rural and urban “homesteaders” communicate and work together.

Thoughtful observers and scholars are beginning to create a history of American homesteading based on letters, diaries, and oral interviews ranging from the late 19th century to the 21st century. They make for compelling reading. In addition, the late 20th and early 21st centuries have seen a proliferation of instructional books on the topic, written largely from the experiences of contemporary back to the landers. Examples of these works are included in the Further Readings for this entry. Leni A. Sorensen See also Community Gardens; Family Farms and Rural Depopulation; Urban Farming and Rooftop Gardens

Further Readings Alaska Public Lands Information Centers. (n.d.). Homesteading and the Homestead Act in Alaska. Anchorage, AK: Author. Retrieved from http://www .alaskacenters.gov/homestead.cfm Beuning, E. (2014). Modern rustic: Starting a homestead: A guide to buying property and moving toward self-sufficiency (Kindle ed.). (Copyright Stephen McDonald) Brown, D. (2011). Back to the land: The enduring dream of self-sufficiency in modern America (Studies in American Thought and Culture). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Coleman, E. (1999). Four-season harvest: Organic vegetables from your home garden all year long. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Falk, B. (2013). The resilient farm and homestead: An innovative permaculture and whole systems design approach. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Gould, R. K. (2005). At home in nature: Modern homesteading and spiritual practice in America. Oakland: University of California Press. Langbert, M. (2008). 19th century land policy and the fed [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://mitchell-langbert .blogspot.com/2008/12/19th-century-land-policy-andfed.html Nearing, S., & Nearing, H. (1990). The good life: Helen and Scott Nearing’s sixty years of self-sufficient living (Reprint ed.). New York, NY: Schocken Books. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). Teaching with documents: The Homestead Act of

Hospital Food 1892. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.archives.gov/education/lessons/homestead-act/ Ussery, H. (2011). The small-scale poultry flock: An allnatural approach to raising chickens and other fowl for home and market growers. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Weaver, S. (2012). The backyard cow: An introductory guide to keeping a productive family cow. North Adams, MA: Storey.

HOSPITAL FOOD Hospital food is the food served and consumed in hospitals by both patients and staff. Hospital food includes the solid foods that make up meal options made available to patients able to eat food by mouth but does not include other forms of nutrition a patient may receive such as enteral nutrition (liquid food mixture direct into the stomach via a tube, known as “tube feeding”) or parenternal nutrition (liquid nutrition direct into a vein). Hospital food, prepared in a centralized kitchen by a professional catering staff, is typically made available in a hospital-wide cafeteria for visitors and staff, in addition to the meals delivered directly to patients in their beds. Hospital food is a $12 billion-a-year industry and has generated an increasing amount of interest recently in both food studies and the general public consciousness due to the intersecting roles of food in the hospital setting: (a) food as nutrition, (b) food as business, and (c) food as therapy. This entry briefly examines the historical context of hospital food, the current standard of operations surrounding hospital food in the United States, and the issues that have brought greater attention to hospital food since the early 2000s.

History of Hospital Food

797

surpassed American medicine in both clinical research and practice. Consequently, as medical practice expanded in the United States after the Civil War ended in 1865, hospitals were built on a European model of medicine in which hospitals provided one full meal a day to patients and relied on families to provide patients with any remaining meals. England’s voluntary hospitals were run by matrons who oversaw all domestic activities, including cooking, plating, and distributing food in the wards. The British nurse Florence Nightingale (1820–1910) believed that the most important job of the nurse was to feed one’s patients and observe the effects of their food. Hospital food was the realm of the nurse and continued to be so until the 20th century. Twentieth-Century Hospital Food

With the progression of clinical knowledge and technological innovation in the early 20th century, nurses increasingly became responsible for clinical activities, delegating meal preparation and distribution to junior staff. By the early 1930s, expanding medical knowledge of nutrition demanded greater attention to therapeutic diets and the physiological role of nutrients in clinical outcomes. The British Dietetic Association was founded in 1935, while the American Dietetic Association boasted more than 1,000 members by the early 1930s. In the 1940s, shortly after World War II and the formation of the National Health Services, hospitals in the United Kingdom assumed full responsibility of food provisioning for patients with the establishment of catering kitchens to provide both patients and staff three meals a day. As the United States had no central health planning system at this time, different types of hospitals offered different types of food provisioning, but the typical American hospital operational model included a catering kitchen that provided multiple meals a day in conjunction with clinical dieticians.

Origins

Market-Driven Reforms

In the 19th century, prior to the start of the American Civil War in 1861, few hospitals existed in the major U.S. cities, and European medicine far

After World War II, under the Hospital Survey and Construction Act (aka the Hill-Burton Act), the American hospital system expanded massively,

798

Hospital Food

reaching almost 7,200 acute care hospitals across the nation by the 1960s. By the end of the 1970s, with the adoption of managed care (cost reduction) as the primary approach to medical practice, cost containment measures forced enough hospitals to close or merge so that the number of hospitals in the United States was reduced to 5,700. Market-driven reforms aimed at reducing the cost of health care meant that nonessential medical services, such as food service, were outsourced to external contractors such as catering professionals who specialized in high-volume, lowcost food production. With increasing technology throughout the medical profession as well as in the food service industry, hospital food became mechanized and industrialized in its production and distribution. Increasing pressure from insurance companies further compounded this trend.

Current Operations of Hospital Food Types of Hospitals

Acute care hospitals in the United States are operated as nonprofit organizations, government/ state jurisdiction hospitals, or profit-making corporations. Of the 5,756 registered hospitals in the United States in 2010, 54% were voluntary notfor-profit hospitals, 30% were publicly run (federal or state) hospitals, and 15% were for-profit hospitals. Insurance companies set parameters for medical provisioning across all types of hospitals, and the continued market-driven nature of the hospital industry means that competition among nonessential medical services, such as food services, remains highly competitive. Hospital Food Service

Whether food preparation is an internal or outsourced process in a hospital, most hospital food is supplied to hospitals through group purchasing organizations. The two food distributors that dominate supply to these group purchasing companies are Sysco and U.S. Foods. Sysco and U.S. Foods supply everything from raw ingredients to prepackaged frozen meals to hospitals. Depending on the catering contracts hospitals have, the centralized hospital

kitchen will produce a range of meals that feed large numbers of people (patients, visitors, and staff), that are typically served hot, and that must travel a distance to get to a patient’s bedside. The delivery of hospital food, an onerous task for any professional kitchen, has eased with catering technology such as “hot boxes” (heated trolleys) and heat lamps. Despite these measures, hospital food has a notorious reputation for being of poor quality with low patient satisfaction, compounded by patients’ loss of appetite and increased food sensitivity during illnesses.

Issues and Changes in Hospital Food At the turn of the 21st century, research began to identify concerns about inadequate food and nutrition in hospitals. In addition to hospital food having a reputation for poor quality, the nutritional value of hospital food was being measured as meager to poor. This coupled with increasing research highlighting the critical role of diet and nutrition in both preventive medicine and in the recovery from illness, particularly cancer, has brought hospital food into the national spotlight. Movements and Trends

Nonprofit organizations, community groups, academics, and medical professionals are coming together to transform hospital food. Partnership for a Healthier America, founded in 2010 as a collaborative nonprofit organization to combat childhood obesity, put forth an initiative in 2012 to challenge hospitals nationwide in adopting wellness meals. Kaiser Permanente is one of 17 hospital systems that have adopted this initiative and have consequently radically changed their food provisioning and hospital meals. Healthy Food for Healthcare has partnered with Physicians for Social Responsibility to transform the sourcing of hospital food to sustainably grown food. Individual hospitals are taking initiative as well to transform the sourcing and production of the hospital food they serve patients. Fletcher Allen Health Care in Vermont and Stony Brook University Hospital in New York are two examples of hospitals with rooftop farms that

Hospital Food

provide a substantial amount of the fresh food the hospital serves patients. Farm-to-hospital projects have developed across the nation, bringing farmers’ markets direct to hospitals for staff, patients, and local communities to purchase fresh produce directly from farmers. Dieticians and physicians are increasingly collaborating in clinical treatment plans as part of a renewed “patientcentered care” approach. Diet and hospital meals are playing a more prominent part in the treatment of certain long-term diseases such as cancer, with the University of Southern California’s Norris Cancer Research Center being a prime example of hospitals promoting vegan meal options for their in-house cancer patients. The Future of Hospital Food

Social scientists have pointed out an absence of the social role of food in hospitals’ food service programs. The value of social mealtimes and the therapeutic value of certain foods, particularly nostalgic foods, remains absent from hospital food plans and clinical treatment plans despite evidence that the social role of food can have a significant impact on physical recovery and wellbeing. What defines “healthy” food and what role food has in medical treatment continues to be at the heart of the issues surrounding hospital food. Future changes to the health care system in the United States will significantly shape these discussions. Emily Earhart See also Catering Business, Off-Site; Consistency of Food Products/Ingredients; Farmers’ Markets; Functional Foods; Nutritionism; Urban Farming and Rooftop Gardens; Values-Based Food Supply Chains; Vegetarianism and Veganism, Health Implications

799

Bendich, A. (2010). Health economics of preventive nutrition. In A. Bendich & R. J. Deckelaum (Eds.), Preventive nutrition: The comprehensive guide for health professionals (pp. 23–50). New York, NY: Humana Press. Bowling, T. (2004). Nutritional support for adults and children: A handbook for hospital practice. Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Medical Press. Dempsey, D. T., Mullen, J. L., & Buzby, G. P. (1988). The link between nutritional status and clinical outcome: Can nutritional intervention modify it? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 47, 352–356. Heath Care Without Harm. (n.d.). Healthy food in health care. Retrieved from http://www.healthyfoodinhealthcare .org/ Institute of Food Technologists. (n.d.). Hospital foodservice initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.ift .org/knowledge-center/focus-areas/food-health-andnutrition/hospital-foodservice-initiatives.aspx Katz, D., & Jacobs, F. N. (2009). Nutrition: The nurturing and healing aspects of food. In S. B. Frampton & P. A. Charmel (Eds.), Putting patients first: Best practices in patient centered care (pp. 75–94). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nestle, M. (2007). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press. Platt, B. S., Eddy, T. P., & Pellett, P. L. (1963). Food in hospitals: A study of feeding arrangements and nutritional value of meals in hospitals. London, UK: Oxford University Press. Scrinis, G. (2008). On the ideology of nutritionism. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 8(1), 39–48. Sultz, H. A., & Young, K. M. (2010). Health care USA (7th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Thomson, D., & Hassenkamp, A. (2008). The social meaning and function of food rituals in healthcare practice: An ethnography. Human relations, 61(12), 1775–1802. doi:10.1177/0018726708098085 The Westminster Diet, & Health Forum Seminar Series. (2006). Food in hospitals. Bagshot, UK: Westminster Forum Projects.

Further Readings Bélanger, M.-C., & Dube, L. (1996). The emotional experience of hospitalization: Its moderators and its roles in patient satisfaction with foodservices. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96, 354–360.

Websites Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: http://www.eatright.org British Dietetic Association: http://www.bda.uk.com Partnership for a Healthier America: http://ahealthier america.org

800

Human Right to Adequate Food

HUMAN RIGHT

TO

ADEQUATE FOOD

A contemporary definition for the human right to adequate food is found in General Comment 12 on the Right to Adequate Food issued by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR, 1999): The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, have physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement. . . . The core content of the right to adequate food implies the availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture [and] the accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights. . . . Accessibility encompasses both economic and physical accessibility. (paras. 6, 8, 13)

The international human rights system, its concepts, and frameworks have an evolutive quality. They are at a very early stage of their development, although they simultaneously have a long history based on diverse cultural norms, religious standards, and moral philosophies. The determination of human rights as universal, inalienable, interrelated and interdependent, and indivisible was first introduced with the establishment of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945. For the first time, there was a formal construction of human rights for everyone, everywhere. These rights are held equally by all human beings regardless of geography, nation, race, sex, religion, age, and so on; human rights cannot be taken away. There is no picking and choosing of human rights; everyone gets all of them at all times. This entry focuses on the evolution of the human right to adequate food from its inception to its current stage of development as of 2014.

Inception The human right to adequate food has evolved enormously since its first articulation in the 1948

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 25(1) entwines the right to food, among other entitlements to clothing, housing, medical care, and social services bundled into the right to an adequate standard of living for all. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (UN General Assembly, 1948, art. 25(1))

The UDHR was prepared in “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family [which] is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (UN General Assembly, 1948, preamble). It served as an inspirational and aspirational document, prepared shortly after the close of World War II when global governments were reeling both from the fresh horrors of war and already positioned in the Cold War standoff. With the exception of the first five articles (human rights to freedom, nondiscrimination, life, prohibition of slavery, and prohibition of torture), the UDHR’s catalog of human rights mirrors this geopolitical struggle. Articles 6 through 21 reflect the United States–led free market ideology and include, for example, the human rights to free speech, religion, legal representation, movement, property ownership, thought, and media. Articles 22 through 27 uphold the Soviet-led communistor socialist-oriented ideology and the related promises of human rights to social security, work, fair pay, vacation time, food, education, health care, child care, and access to cultural life.

Transformation into Treaties Almost two decades passed before the UDHR transformed itself in 1966 into two separate, ideologically driven, and legally binding human rights treaties that expand on the declaration: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Human Right to Adequate Food

and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 11 of the ICESCR contains two short paragraphs that reiterate the right to a standard of living, including food, clothing, and housing, and adds the right to the continued improvement of living conditions. It further expands on the right to food as the fundamental right to be free from hunger and appoints international cooperation through scientific exchange and trade in service to this end. What Article 11 and the ICESCR did not do and what the Cold War frustrated was to link these economic, social, and cultural rights to the political and civil rights of self-determination and public participation. Through the 1960s, the drafters of these human rights treaties did not anticipate, or perhaps did not want to encourage, an engaged civil society that placed economic, social, and cultural demands on the state. Here are two lessons about human rights in general and the right to adequate food in specific. The first is that the right to adequate food is not designed to stand by itself but rather is concurrently integral to—that is, supportive of and dependent on—other rights (e.g., to adequate housing and shelter and to the highest attainable standard of health). Furthermore, as finally underscored at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, Austria, the right to adequate food must be linked to all other human rights, including civil and political rights; people must have the right to participate in the decision-making mechanisms that secure their rights. The second lesson is that human rights concepts and frameworks are subject to correction and expansion. Representing the most recent formal interpretation of the meaning and core content of the right to adequate food, the 10 pages and 41 paragraphs of General Comment 12 cited earlier, correct the patriarchal, patronizing, and sexist language of 1948, which states that the right to an adequate standard of living is held by a “himself” who extends it to invisible members of “his” household—language that is repeated in the 1966 treaty supporting the right to adequate food. Paragraph 1 of General Comment 12 produces the uncompromising revision that “the right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others has

801

physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.” (Bellows, Núñez Burbano de Lara, & Gonçalves Viana, in press; Valente, Suárez-Franco, & Córdova Montes, in press).

State Accountability As a still very young approach, the human rights– based approach to food and nutrition security is better defined in theory than realized in practice, although improvements are steadily underway. The human rights–based approach is based on the idea that states—that is, the duty bearers—in ratifying the ICESCR take on the obligation to progressively realize, to the maximum of their available resources and through international cooperation, the fulfillment of the right to adequate food for their population—that is, the rights holders. At the heart of the human rights–based approach, and what sets it apart from other food and nutrition security approaches, lies the centrality of rights holders’ participatory role in food and nutrition related governance and the introduction of recourse and remedy mechanisms in the service of rights holders who experience violations of their rights. Through these diverse administrative, political, judicial, and other recourse and remedy mechanisms, rights holders can place claims on the state to hold them accountable to their general and specific binding obligations. State accountability for realizing the right to adequate food encompasses much more than ensuring that a population does not hunger or starve. Beyond outlining the dimensions of food availability, accessibility, adequacy, and sustainability, General Comment 12 spells out the specific obligations of states’ parties (those states that have ratified the ICESCR in their national governance bodies) to realize progressively the right to adequate food at three levels (CESCR 1999, para. 15). The first level of specific obligations, to respect, requires that states do not interfere, both within and beyond their territories, with existing access to food or to resources for producing food or with existing and working processes of growing, accessing, and consuming food for local populations in ways that make it impossible to maintain traditions and

802

Human Right to Adequate Food

self-determination (although these traditions are subject to review for their adherence to other human rights principles like nondiscrimination). The second level of specific obligations, to protect, provides that states should, within their jurisdiction, adopt measures to protect individuals from efforts by other nonstate actors (individuals or enterprises) to deprive or interfere with food access, for example, through land eviction or water contamination. The third level of specific obligations, to fulfill, includes two obligations. It asserts that states should proactively engage in enhancing people’s self-determination at the local and national level to produce, access, and use food and nutrition resources (fulfill/facilitate) and that states have the obligation to provide to those, who, for emergency or nonemergency reasons outside their control, need resources (e.g., food donations and cash transfers) to fulfill the right (fulfill/provide). Elsewhere (and after the publication of General Comment 12), the obligation to fulfill has been interpreted even more broadly to include the obligation to fulfill/promote, which requires states to educate its populace about their rights. Finally, the specific obligations of respect, protect, and fulfill are not limited to national boundaries. The extraterritorial character of these obligations is rather defined through the general obligation of international cooperation (UN General Assembly, 1966, art. 2), developed with the directive that “states parties should take steps to respect the enjoyment of the right to food in other countries, to protect that right, to facilitate access to food and to provide the necessary aid when required” (CESCR, 1999, para. 36). Extraterritorial obligations comprise a rapidly developing area in international law, spurred forward by the development in 2011 of the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Civil Society Participation Human rights frameworks evolve through lobbying and pressure, which has come most often from public interest civil society organizations.

At the 1996 World Food Summit in Rome, Italy, civil society groups organized a parallel forum that achieved a number of objectives. This Civil Society Forum on Food Security introduced the International Peasant Movement organization, La Via Campesina, which revealed its proposal of food sovereignty and identified the right to adequate food as the first of this model’s seven principles. Everyone must have access to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food in sufficient quantity and quality to sustain a healthy life with full human dignity. Each nation should declare that access to food is a constitutional right and guarantee the development of the primary sector to ensure the concrete realization of this fundamental right. (Windfuhr & Jonsén, 2005, p. 17)

The parallel forum organized by civil society, in concert with allies in the academy and public sector, directly influenced the outcomes of the World Food Summit and the evolution of the understanding of the right to adequate food. The 1996 World Food Summit Plan of Action calls on “governments, in partnership with all actors of civil society” (UN Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 1996, objective 1.1, para. 14) to clarify the content of the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger . . . and to propose ways to implement and realize these rights as a means of achieving the commitments and objectives of the World Food Summit, taking into account the possibility of formulating voluntary guidelines for food security for all. (Objective 7.4, para. 61)

Civil society groups galvanized through the parallel forum almost immediately issued the 1997 International Code of Conduct on the Right to Adequate Food. Although ultimately unsuccessful in developing legally binding procedures for the fulfillment of states parties’ obligations for the right to adequate food, it nevertheless helped shape General Comment 12 and laid the groundwork for

Human Right to Adequate Food

the nonbinding and voluntary-based system of rights implementation, monitoring, and reporting that would follow. The Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security (Right to Food Voluntary Guidelines) were adopted unanimously by the FAO in November 2004 and published in 2005. The document is recognized as the first intergovernmental negotiation on the development of guidelines for countries to act on their duties as states parties to an individual right within the ICESCR (Oshaug, 2005, p. 276) and “the only complete set of rightsbased guidelines to promote food and nutritional security for all” (Valente, 2010, p. 14). This step forward is therefore also welcomed as “open[ing] up the possibility of putting human rights principles, tools, and instruments at the service of the elaboration of rights-based strategies to promote food and nutritional security, including the respective international and national governance, monitoring and accountability mechanisms” (Valente & Suárez-Franco, 2010, p. 459). The Right to Food Voluntary Guidelines attempts to “empower individuals and civil society to make demands on their governments” (FAO, 2004, Guideline 1.2) and to participate in public consultations and decision-making processes on right to food policies (see, e.g., Guidelines 3.8 and 18.2), as well as to monitor state obligations regarding the human right to adequate food (Guideline 18.1) as a relevant right to food stakeholders (Guideline 6). However, the gap between UN policy that attempts to embrace civil society participation and the realistic engagement of local actors at immense social, geographic, and economic distance from the United Nations presents enormous obstacles. The challenge of making the Right to Food Voluntary Guidelines accessible for civil society use was taken up in the 2007 civil society–based manual Screen State Action Against Hunger! How to Use the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food to Monitor Public Policies, published by Welthungerhilfe (Aid for World Hunger) and FIAN International.

803

Since the 2005 Right to Food Voluntary Guidelines, several initiatives continue to move forward the momentum of a human rights–based approach to adequate food and nutrition. In the wake of the 2007–2008 world food crisis, the UN Committee on Food Security (CFS) went through a reform process to vitalize its function, relevance, governance, and reach. The CFS reform document explicitly articulates a human rights perspective on food security and identifies related key documents, including the Right to Food Voluntary Guidelines, as shaping its mission, suggesting that it could become a forum to promote state accountability to human rights obligations. It also called on nonstate actors to organize themselves autonomously (CFS, 2009, para. 16.), leading to the development of a Civil Society Mechanism, which enables active participation in all CFS activities (with the exception of voting, which is reserved for states on a one-state, one-vote basis). In 2012, CFS member states adopted the first version of a Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition, a document designed for periodic updates and improvements that reaffirms the importance of civil society participation and carries forward the human rights–based approach in global food governance.

Toward a More Holistic and Inclusive Framework Many recent and contemporary initiatives, beyond the scope of this encyclopedia entry, are changing the landscape of international human rights and the human right to adequate food. Most reflect or respond to the escalating struggle between liberal trade policy–oriented and human rights–based approaches to food and nutrition governance. These include but are certainly not limited to (a) the expansion of the concept of the right to adequate food within a food sovereignty framework to include its nutritional and gender dimensions by renaming it the right to adequate food and nutrition; (b) the powerful field of extraterritorial obligations that extend state duties, obligations, and accountability to the activities of its

804

Human Right to Adequate Food

constituents beyond the state’s geographic border; (c) the 2008 Optional Protocol to the ICESCR that came into force in 2013 and that provides recourse to the international human rights system for rights violation complaints by individuals and groups; (d) vociferous disagreement over the legitimacy of a public–private-partnership approach in the democratic governance of food and nutrition policy; and (e) efforts to encourage remaining states (as of 2014, United States, South Africa, São Tome and Principe, Palau, Cuba, Comoros, and Belize) to ratify the ICESCR and more fully join the 161 states in the international community committed to economic, social, and cultural rights. Anne C. Bellows and M. Daniela Núñez Burbano de Lara See also Domestic Food Insecurity; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Food Justice; Food Sovereignty; Green Revolution, Future Prospects for; Hunger

Further Readings Bellows, A. C., Núñez Burbano de Lara, M. D., & Gonçalves Viana, R. D. S. (in press). The evolving nature of the human rights system and the development of the right to adequate food concept. In A. C. Bellows, F. L. S. Valente, & S. Lemke (with M. D. Núñez Burbano de Lara) (Eds.), Gender, nutrition, and the human right to adequate food and nutrition: Toward an inclusive framework. New York, NY: Routledge. Bellows, A. C., Valente, F. L. S., & Lemke, S. (with Núñez Burbano de Lara, M. D.). (in press). Gender, nutrition, and the human right to adequate food and nutrition: Toward an inclusive framework. New York, NY: Routledge. Boincean, S., Ferrante, A., Henriques, G., Landívar, N., Longley, S., & Wolpold-Bosien, M. (2013). Using the global strategic framework for food security and nutrition to promote and defend the people’s right to adequate food: A manual for social movements and civil society organizations. Brussels, Belgium: International Alliance of Catholic Development Agencies. Burity, V., Cruz, L., & Franceschini, T. (2011). Exigibilidade: Mechanisms to claim the human right

to adequate food in Brazil. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Committee on World Food Security. (2009). Reform of the committee on world food security (Final Version; CFS:2009/2 Rev.2. 14, 15 and 17 October 2009). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Committee on World Food Security. (2012). Global strategic framework for food security and nutrition (First Version; Consolidated version agreed in the plenary of the CFS open-ended working group for GSF—27–29 June and 19 July 2012; CFS 2012/39/5 Add.1. 15-20 October 2012). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome, Italy: Author. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2004). Voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security. Rome, Italy: Author. Maastricht University and International Commission of Jurists. (2011). Maastricht principles on extraterritorial obligations of states in the area of economic, social and cultural rights. Maastricht, Netherlands: Author. Oshaug, A. (2005). Developing voluntary guidelines for implementing the right to adequate food: Anatomy of an intergovernmental process. In W. B. Eide & U. Kracht (Eds.), Food and human rights in development: Vol. 1. Legal and institutional dimensions and selected topics (pp. 259–282). Oxford, UK: Intersentia. Suárez-Franco, A. M., & Ratjen, S. (2007). Screen state action against hunger! How to use the voluntary guidelines on the right to food to monitor public policies? Bonn, Germany: FIAN International and Welthungerhilfe. United Nations. (n.d.). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/ charter/ UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (1999). General comment 12: The right to adequate food (Art. 11 of the Covenant) (E/C.12/1999/5). Geneva, Switzerland: Author. UN General Assembly. (1948, December 10). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Hunger UN General Assembly. (1966, December 16). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations Treaty Series 999, p. 171). New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/ Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I14668-English.pdf UN General Assembly. (1966, December 16). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (United Nations, Treaty Series 993, p. 3). New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/ publication/UNTS/Volume%20993/v993.pdf UN General Assembly. (2009, March 5). Optional protocol to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (A/RES/63/117). New York, NY: Author. Valente, F. L. S. (2010). It is time for a rights-based global strategic framework on food security and nutrition. In Right to food and nutrition watch (pp. 13–15). Bonn, Germany: FIAN International. Valente, F. L. S., & Suárez-Franco, A. M. (2010). Human rights and the struggle against hunger: Laws, institutions, and instruments in the fight to realize the right to adequate food. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 13(2), 435–461. Valente, F. L. S., Suárez-Franco, A. M., & Córdoba Montes, R. D. (in press). Closing protection gaps through a more comprehensive conceptual framework for the human right to adequate food and nutrition. In A. C. Bellows, F. L. S. Valente, & S. Lemke (with M. D. Núñez Burbano de Lara) (Eds.), Gender, nutrition, and the human right to adequate food and nutrition: Toward an inclusive framework. New York, NY: Routledge. Windfuhr, M., & Jonsén, J. (2005). Food sovereignty: Towards democracy in localized food systems (ITDG Working Papers). Rugby, UK: Practical Action, The Schumacher Centre. Wopold-Bosien, M. (2013). A human rights–based global framework for food security and nutrition. In Right to food and nutrition watch (pp. 31–32). Bonn, Germany: FIAN International.

HUNGER For some time, the world’s food supply has been more than enough for all to eat well; yet, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of

805

the United Nations (FAO), from 870 million to more than 1 billion people lack the calories they need. The World Food Programme, the food aid arm of the United Nations, reports that hunger is indeed solvable. Whether humanity is making sufficient progress against hunger, as a debilitating, even deadly, condition, is disputed, as much depends on how both hunger and progress are measured. However, as the underlying causes of hunger are identified, solutions begin to emerge. Recently, proposed solutions to hunger focus on addressing power imbalances and transitioning toward the realization of healthy food as a fulfilled human right. One such emerging solution, discussed later in this entry, is an agricultural approach called agroecology.

The Definition and Measurement of Hunger Today, in most societies, most adults can eat only on the condition that they have land and tools to grow food or that they have either currency or a barter item to exchange for food. Thus, “hunger” experienced as a debilitating, even deadly, condition—not the hunger felt after missing a meal—represents a human-created lack of the social power required to meet the conditions for fulfilling a survival need. The FAO is responsible for defining this condition as well as tracking its extent, causes, and solutions. Each year the Rome, Italy–based agency produces a report titled The State of Food Insecurity in the World; and in 2012, for the first time, the agency made explicit its guideline for estimating hunger. For its primary and widely publicized estimate, Prevalence of Undernourishment, the FAO defines undernourishment, or hunger, “narrowly” as an “extreme form of food insecurity, arising when food energy availability is inadequate to cover even minimum needs for a sedentary lifestyle” (p. 50). The FAO adds that this primary estimate captures only such undernourishment that lasts over a year. Importantly, this estimate of global hunger is based on available calories (energy) alone. It does not take into account nutrient availability.

806

Hunger

As more and more people have become aware of the limitations of defining hunger by a single measure of calorie deficiency, the FAO in 2014 began emphasizing what it calls a “suite of food security indicators,” which include not only the adequacy of average available protein and calorie supplies but also vulnerability measures such as grain import dependency and access to safe water and sanitation, among others.

The Extent of Hunger Referring only to the “extreme form of food insecurity” as defined in The State of Food Insecurity in the World, the FAO reported 805 million hungry people worldwide in 2014. In addition, the choice not to include the lack of essential nutrients, such as protein, vitamins, and minerals, as part of the definition of hunger has major consequences. It means that those not included—unless they are deemed calorie deficient— are 1.6 billion people, roughly one quarter of the world’s population, who the World Health Organization estimates to be anemic, many due to iron deficiency. Nor is included the one third of the world’s pre-school-age population estimated to be deficient in vitamin A. Who are the people reflected in these estimates? Roughly half of those considered hungry live in households of small farmers, and another 20% are members of landless rural families, also dependent on farming. About 1 in 10 lives in a herding, fishing, or forest community. The remaining 20% live in poor communities on the edges of urban centers in developing countries.

The Consequences of Hunger The consequences of hunger are impossible to measure precisely, but they are vast—affecting, directly or indirectly, everyone. Each day, 25,000 people, of whom more than 10,000 are children, die from hunger and related causes. In 2005, maternal and child undernutrition contributed to more than one third of all child deaths globally (Lutter, Chaparro, & Muñoz, 2011).

A major consequence of hunger is “stunting,” affecting one fifth of children under 5 years of age, or 165 million worldwide. Stunting—defined as height significantly below median for the age of the reference population—is associated with impaired brain development; and the effects of stunting in the first 2 years of life are irreversible. A 2007 study estimated that stunting is associated with an average 22% loss of yearly income in adulthood. Moreover, adults who were stunted as children are more likely to develop chronic disease. Those who lack enough food also often suffer iron deficiency and anemia, increasing their risk of dying in childhood and of experiencing physical and cognitive impairment. They often find it more difficult to work, bringing serious developmental and economic harm. Anemia contributes to 20% of all maternal deaths. Moreover, insufficient vitamin A, also associated with hunger, causes loss of eyesight of 250,000 to as many as 500,000 children each year. Such devastating disease and early death may suggest a need to update the common understanding of hunger to include not just insufficient calories but also insufficient healthy calories. Unhealthy foods increasingly take a heavy toll, even among the world’s poorest people, including a pandemic of diabetes. Worldwide, among adults between the ages of 35 and 64 years, at least 1 in 10 deaths is attributable to diabetes, and 4 of 5 people with this disease live in developing countries. These categories of affliction overlap, and to date, no agency has attempted a full accounting of the consequences of food inadequacy taking into account both calories and nutrients. However, the total affected is likely to be at least 2 billion people, given that 1.6 billion people have anemia alone. Beyond the physical and psychological suffering, including early death, experienced by those who lack the food they need, is the loss of their full potential contributions to the human community.

The Causes of Hunger For decades, many experts put forth the thesis that hunger resulted from a food supply insufficient to

Hunger

meet the growing population. In 1968, the Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb proclaimed that humanity had lost the battle to feed itself. Because hunger was believed to be the result of food scarcity, in 1970 the plant breeder Norman Borlaug received a Nobel Peace Prize for developing hybrid wheat that significantly increased yields with the application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Borlaug is the person most credited with what is called the Green Revolution that doubled wheat and rice production between the late 1960s and 1990. Since then, popular media has credited him with saving 1 billion people from hunger. Pressure to increase the food supply as the solution to hunger continues today, especially from agricultural industries, including the producers of genetically modified seeds. And population growth is still blamed for hunger. But if lack of food were the root cause of hunger, it would be expected to decline at roughly the same rate that food production increases. As of 2012, however, the number of hungry people had fallen by only 13% over the prior two decades, with China accounting for almost three fourths of that reduction. Food production per person has, however, grown at twice that rate. Similarly, if population growth were the cause of hunger, fewer people would mean less hunger. Yet the world population growth rate has dropped by half since 1970, now at just over 1% a year, while massive hunger persists. Today, more than enough food is produced for all to eat well—fully 40% more for each person on Earth compared with four decades ago. The FAO reports that worldwide more than 2,800 calories are available per person per day. Importantly, the current, abundant food supply represents a fraction of total production. Less than half of all grain produced goes to people directly. For example, 90% of all soy meal goes into feed, as does one third of the global fish catch. In addition, grain is increasingly diverted from the food supply into agrofuel production. Moreover, roughly one quarter of all calories produced worldwide is lost due to waste from the

807

farm to the consumer. Such loss offers additional evidence that insufficient supply is not the cause of hunger. Because some waste is avoidable, it can be seen as potential supply available to humans, and without additional environmental impacts incurred by increasing production. If lack of supply is not the cause of hunger, what is? What prevents such a large number of humans from having access to the ample food produced? The World Food Programme acknowledges that there are many reasons, including poverty, lack of agriculture infrastructure, natural disasters and climate change, inter- and intrastate conflicts, unstable markets, and food waste. Some scholars, though, argue that underlying each of these reasons is social powerlessness. But this observation leads to additional questions: What is the cause of such powerlessness? Moreover, what keeps those with social power from ending hunger? Some scholars suggest that the answer lies in the power of the mental frame, or thought system, that human beings use to observe and create their reality. Thus, it is useful to explore one system of thought regarding wealth, which manifests in societal rules and norms that can result in an imbalance of social power, denying some people access to food. This thought system starts with not only the assumption of a lack of sufficient food as the primary cause of hunger but also a lack of human goodness. In many cultures, humans are assumed to be primarily selfish and competitive. From this distrust of self can come the distrust of neighbor and, ultimately, distrust of democracy—the principle that human beings are able to come together, deliberate, and choose a “common good,” such as the end of hunger. Such distrust can result in turning over societal outcomes to impersonal market forces operating, seemingly, on their own. However, the global market and many national markets largely operate by a primary rule: What will bring the highest return to existing wealth. From this economic driver, wealth accrues to wealth until humanity faces such an extreme concentration of wealth that the bottom half of the world’s people now try to survive on just over 1% of the world’s wealth.

808

Hunger

As a consequence of this system, economic inequalities worsen and food deprivation follows, not only in poor economies. The United States is the world’s leading agricultural exporter, but almost 15% of its citizens are defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as being “food insecure.” In Nigeria, where annual oil income amounts to $92 billion, almost one quarter of children are undernourished. Hunger exists in economies characterized by concentrated wealth because they tend to have high unemployment, low wages, and, increasingly, the exclusion of poor people from access to farmland. All are trends denying many people the economic wherewithal to grow or purchase adequate food. More broadly, highly unequal economies respond to top wealth holders’ capacity to exert “market demand” for relative luxuries, thus moving resources toward their production and away from the provision of essential goods needed by the nonwealthy majority. One example of such skewing of the market and directly relevant to hunger is that more than half of all grain produced in the world—the primary source of calories for poor people—is diverted to livestock for grain-fed meat and to industrial products affordable by the better-off. In addition, by financially supporting political candidates and the lobbying of policymakers, the wealthiest citizens and corporations in many societies are able to shape public policies in ways that compound the negative impact of skewed market forces on hungry people. The concentrated power of agriculture-related businesses, for example, to influence political systems means that the wealthiest farms receive most of what have become substantial subsidies for agriculture in the global North: almost $90 billion in public subsidies annually in the United States and the European Union combined. These subsidies, in some cases, enable countries in the global North to export agricultural products to the global South at prices so low that smallholders there, who are vulnerable to hunger, cannot compete. Other policies in industrial countries benefitting the wealthiest at the expense of hungry people are

those that weaken antimonopoly standards meant to keep a market fair and competitive. As noted previously, the vast majority of extremely undernourished people worldwide make their living by farming, herding animals, or fishing. Many have come to rely on commercial seeds and agricultural chemicals, sold at prices established by monopolies or oligopolies producing them. Since the mid1990s, for example, the top 10 seed companies have doubled their share, now at 73%, of the global seed market. Over time, corporate intermediaries between the food grower and the eater— such as food processors and marketers—have come to secure a larger share of the total return from agriculture, thus diminishing the share remaining in producing countries and in the hands of poor farmers.

The Debate About Progress in Reducing Hunger Whether humanity is making sufficient progress in overcoming hunger is vigorously debated. On this key question, the picture changed radically in 2012. Two years earlier, the FAO had reported that in the wake of the 2007–2008 food price spikes and global economic crisis, the number of people experiencing hunger worldwide, relative to 2005– 2007, had increased by 150 million. In 2009, the agency reported that for the first time, more than 1 billion people were hungry. Then, in its State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012, the FAO reversed its hunger trend line: After redoing its methods and reinterpreting data back to 1990, the agency reported that over the 20 years prior to 2010–2012 hunger had not risen but fallen. Based on the new calculations, it was not in 2009 but much earlier, in 1990, that 1 billion people were hungry, with the number declining through 2006. At that point, progress stalled but did not reverse. Worldwide, the total numerical reduction in hungry people over this period was 132 million. In judging progress, much depends on the measurement used: whether progress is measured, for example, by a decline in the percentage, or a decline in the number, of hungry people. In 1996,

Hunger

186 governments at the World Food Summit organized by the FAO pledged to halve the number of undernourished people worldwide by 2015. But in 2000, the Millennium Development Goals initiative and the FAO shifted the target to halving the percentage of hungry people in developing countries, relative to the 1990 levels. By this measure, in 2012, humanity was roughly three quarters of the way to meeting the goal. Both measures—percentage and number—can be useful, but arguably, the measure that matters most in terms of alleviating human suffering is the number of people affected. To inform those without adequate food that they represent a smaller share of a total population does not offer relief for their suffering. Note that, if measuring progress against the goal of cutting the number of hungry people in developing countries by half, humanity in 2012 would not have been three quarters but only about one quarter of the way to the goal. To learn lessons about what is working to end hunger, it is important to know whether gains are concentrated in a few countries or are widely spread. Over the past 2 decades, advancement in just two countries, China (−96 million) and Vietnam (−24 million), have accounted for 91% of the net numerical reduction in undernourished people. Advances were made in other countries, but they were largely offset by setbacks elsewhere as of 2012. Moreover, when progress against hunger is reported as a global or a regional aggregate—as is most common—humanity can miss critical lessons. Thus, it is vital to probe the differences among countries in progress toward ending hunger.

Solutions to Hunger How humanity understands solutions to hunger is changing. Because the majority of the world’s hungry people are themselves farmers, it is increasingly understood that solutions require changes in the way food is produced. In addition, appreciation is growing that ending hunger depends on changes within personal and social power relationships more broadly, for they determine who has access

809

to what is produced. Whereas the long-dominant view of how to end hunger emphasizes the quantity of crops grown, an emerging focus is on the quality of relationships: those among organisms in the field, farmers themselves, all people in their roles as citizens, as well as the relationship of every human being with the food they eat. Thus, recent approaches by both governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations tend to foster sustainability and resiliency, through means such as education, infrastructure development, and securing equal access and opportunity. On the agricultural front, one emerging solution to hunger is an approach that seeks to produce nutritious food, to be safe and sustainable, and to avoid extreme power imbalances. This approach is called agroecology because it builds on the fast-developing science of ecology. In it, locally developed, largely noncommercial farm inputs—including locally bred, shared seeds along with natural fertilizer and pest controls—replace patented seeds and manufactured pesticides and fertilizers sold by often distant corporations. Agroecological practices include composting and growing multiple crops in one field, making possible beneficial crop interactions, as well as mulching and water conservation—all of which can ensure improved soil and plant health and total-system resiliency. Mounting evidence shows that agroecology can produce the food humanity requires. A 2006 study analyzing 286 projects, involving 12.6 million farmers in 57 countries in the global South, showed that ecological practices resulted in a mean relative yield increase of 79% over a wide variety of systems and crop types. For the global picture, in 2009, scientists at the University of Michigan used 293 examples to examine the potential of organic agriculture. They found that its potential output is greater than the current food supply across food categories. In most estimates, the total gain was 50% greater than the amount of current food production. Concern that widely dispersed power—facilitating the reduction in hunger and embodied in smallholder agriculture—might result in insufficient production is countered by a 1999 study. In it, the

810

Hunger

rural development specialist Peter Rosset concluded that relatively smaller farms are 2 to 10 times more productive per unit area than bigger farms. Moreover, measured by nutrition per acre instead of yield per acre, small farms growing multiple food crops likely outperform large operations that typically grow only one or two crops. Agroecology itself can contribute to the selfdetermination of farmers, thus helping dissolve the powerlessness at the root of hunger. Reliance on purchased, patented seeds and other inputs can lock farmers in to dependence on corporate input suppliers, as well as on banks and moneylenders for credit to buy them. Agroecological approaches, however, involve farming practices not dependent on purchased inputs, such as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and seeds. Agroecology thus can enable farmers to reduce farming costs and indebtedness so that incomes can improve. Thousands of farmers, for example, in Andhra Pradesh, India, moving away from commercial inputs, which account for almost half of their production costs, are seeing their net incomes rise. Leaving behind dependency on purchased inputs, ecological farmers also often develop collaborative working relationships with neighbors as they share their learning about, for example, natural pest controls. Those relationships can build confidence in further experimentation to improve farming practices and sometimes facilitate collaboration beyond the fields—such as in creating marketing cooperatives that keep more of the return from farming in the hands of farmers. One result of these developments is more balanced human power relationships within rural communities. Relying more on knowledge-intensive practices than on money-dependent purchases can also strengthen the power of women. In many parts of the world, women, the majority of the world’s farmers, are denied access to credit. But, because agroecology does not rely on access to credit to buy inputs, the system does not handicap female farmers. Ecological agriculture also requires more labor input, which itself can help reduce power inequities in a world where billions are underemployed or unemployed.

For all these reasons, several international bodies are calling for a shift of public support to ecological farming methods. An example is the 2009 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, which is prepared over 4 years by 400 experts and now is supported by 59 governments. It calls for the redirection of resources toward agricultural development along sustainable, agroecological lines. In this transition, small-scale farmers are leading the way. Worldwide, 200 million small farmers striving for what they call food sovereignty—selfdirection and independence from global seed and chemical corporations—are linked through the international movement Via Campesina. Founded in 1993, the movement now involves 150 local and national organizations in more than 70 countries, whose actions are helping to democratize the food system. Some activists argue that addressing the roots of hunger also requires changes in policies. For example, they call for industrial countries to end subsidies enabling food exports from the global North to undercut producers in the global South. Also important are policies to curtail speculation on agricultural commodity markets that contribute to food price elevation and volatility, as well as policies to prevent governments and corporations in the global North from taking over farmland in developing countries. Between 2000 and 2010, this acquisition, termed land grabbing by opponents because it often takes advantage of unclear legal titles, amounted to land sufficient in area to feed 1 billion people. Thus, many scholars and activists believe that the solutions to hunger require a broad transition, beyond farming itself, to more inclusive and fair economic and political rules and norms affording all citizens a voice in policy formation. From this point of view, the solution to hunger involves a deepening of the concept and practice of democracy itself: In this process, the power of private wealth is removed from its dominance in public decision making so that policy making is kept accountable to the public interest. Citizens’ voices are heard in multiple public forums from

Hunger

village councils to national and international policy-making bodies. Steps in this direction include equity-oriented public policies being taken up in a range of countries. Since 1990, for example, Ghana has cut its number of hungry people by 87% in part through public investment in agriculture, by improved child nutrition and education, and by encouraging the spread of farmer cooperatives. The challenge of ending world hunger has also led to a reexamination of what is a human right. In 2000, the United Nations created the post of Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to promote right-to-food policies worldwide and, along with the FAO, to develop indicators to measure progress in achieving this goal. Today, the constitutions of 23 countries include the right to food. A leader in the right-to-food movement, Brazil, created a legislative framework on the right to food in 2006, and in 2010, the right became part of its constitution. Since 1992, Brazil has cut its number of hungry people by 40% through new civil society and government structures that have provided specific policy and accountability mechanisms. Through them, small-farm produce, for example, is made available at affordable prices in poor neighborhoods. The right-to-food framework has also helped bring about a cash transfer program reaching more than a quarter of Brazilians at risk of hunger, conditioned in part on keeping children in school. In sum, hunger is currently viewed by many in the scientific community not as the result of a scarcity of food but as a scarcity of democracy. Hunger is rooted in a system of thought that leads to distrust of democracy and the disempowerment of citizens and that feeds extreme inequities in human power relationships. Thus, progress can be made, and is being made, where the active engagement of citizens shifts society from a narrow focus on the quantity of food produced to the wider question of the quality of human relationships created—that is, whether they are life enhancing. Hunger eases as society’s decision-making processes, from field and village to national polities and international forums, become more inclusive and fair. Ultimately,

811

the end of hunger approaches to the degree that food becomes a fulfilled human right in democracies answering to all. Frances Moore Lappé See also Domestic Food Insecurity; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Food Justice; Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences; International Food Security; Subsidies

Further Readings Altieri, M. (1995). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Clapp, J. (2012). Food. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. De Schutter, O. (2011). Agroecology and the right to food. Report presented at the 16th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49]. Retrieved from http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/ pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_ agroecology_en.pdf Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (1989). Hunger and public action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ETC Group. (2011). Who will control the green economy? (Communiqué No. 107). Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/ publication/pdf_file/ETC_wwctge_4web_Dec2011.pdf EuropAfrica. (2013). Family farmers for sustainable food systems. Rome, Italy: Author. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2012). The state of food insecurity in the world 2012. Rome, Italy: Author. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2013). The state of food insecurity in the world 2013. Rome, Italy: Author. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2014). The state of food insecurity in the world 2014. Rome, Italy: Author. Green, D. (2008). From poverty to power. Oxford, UK: Oxfam International. Holt-Giménez, E., & Patel, R. (2009). Food rebellions: Crisis and the hunger for justice. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. (2009). Executive summary of the synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press.

812

Hunting

Lang, T., & Heasman, M. (2004). Food wars. London, UK: Earthscan. Lappé, A., & Lappé, F. M. (2003). Hope’s edge: The next diet for a small planet. New York, NY: Tarcher/ Penguin Books. Lappé, F. M., Collins, J., & Rosset, P. (1998). World hunger: 12 myths. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Lutter, C. K., Chaparro, C. M., & Muñoz, S. (2011). Progress towards millennium development goal 1 in Latin America and the Caribbean: The importance of the choice of indicator for undernutrition. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89, 22–30. doi:10.2471/BLT.10.078618 Patel, R. (2007). Stuffed and starved. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House. Pretty, J. (2002). Agri-culture: Reconnecting people, land and nature. London, UK: Earthscan. Pretty, J. (2006). Agroecological approaches to agricultural development (RIMISP Background Paper for the World Development Report 2007). Washington, DC: World Bank. Rosset, P. M. (1999). The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture (Food First Policy Brief No. 4). Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and Development Policy. UN Conference on Trade and Development, & UN Environment Programme. (2008). Organic agriculture and food security in Africa. New York, NY: United Nations. UN Millennium Project. (2005). Investing in development: A practical plan to achieve the millennium development goals. New York, NY: United Nations. Vorlag, B. (2003). Food Inc.: Corporate concentration from farm to consumer. London, UK: UK Food Group. Retrieved from http://www.ukfg.org.uk/docs/ UKFG-Foodinc-Nov03.pdf World Food Programme. (n.d.). Hunger. Rome, Italy: Author. Retrieved from http://www.wfp.org/hunger

HUNTING Hunting is the human practice of attempting to kill wild animals, typically with projectiles. Although hunting provides only a fraction of the U.S. food supply, millions of Americans hunt each year,

bringing home hundreds of millions of pounds of meat. Following a historical introduction, this entry discusses who hunts, why they hunt, related regulations and perspectives, wildlife management, and the recent resurgence of interest.

Origins of Hunting Archaeological evidence from Kenya indicates that early humans (Oldowan hominin) hunted antelope 2 million years ago. Researchers believe that hunting, alongside scavenging of animals killed by other predators, was a key behavioral adaptation in human evolution, providing hominins with the nutritional energy required for increased brain and body size, territorial expansion and migration, and other substantial changes. Wild foods—gathered, hunted, and otherwise procured (e.g., by fishing, netting, or snaring)— were humanity’s primary source of nutrition prior to widespread plant and animal domestication ca. 12000 BCE. Hunting has played significant roles in human cultures around the globe and is prominent in many mythologies. Hunting may have been a primary reason for domestication of the wolf, resulting in the dog, which has assisted human hunters for millennia. In parts of the world, hunting remains an important means of subsistence.

Hunting in U.S. History From the beginning of colonization, hunting has played complex roles in Euro-American history. This history has, for instance, involved beliefs about connections between hunting and savagery (as contrasted with farming and civilization), heroic stories about hunters such as Daniel Boone, and wildlife conservation. Following the Civil War (1861–1865), railroad expansion led to considerable habitat changes across the continent. Railroads also brought profitmotivated hunters west and allowed them to ship meat, fur, and feathers to markets back east. Combined with habitat changes, the market-driven pursuit of wildlife drove many species, including

Hunting

the American bison, to the edge of extinction. A few species, including the passenger pigeon, were pushed over the brink. By the late 1800s, other hunters were responding to this crisis by promoting national wildlife conservation. In alliance with nonhunting naturalists, women’s organizations, and the movement for humane treatment of animals, these hunters (mainly urban upper-class men) agitated for wildlife protection laws; founded advocacy organizations, including the Audubon Society; and sought to eliminate market hunting in favor of regulated recreational hunting. They successfully lobbied for the passage of the Lacey Game and Wild Birds Preservation and Disposition Act of 1900, which prohibited interstate traffic in game taken in violation of state law. This conservation movement encompassed efforts to control the activities of hunters who did not belong to the white, urban upper and middle classes but included American Indians, African Americans, rural whites, and recent immigrants. Over the past century, conservation of popular game species has been well funded and populations have thrived. Since their establishment in 1934, purchase of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (commonly known as Duck Stamps) has been required for hunting waterfowl and has funded wetland habitat protection throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System. In 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly known as the PittmanRobertson Act) dedicated an excise tax on firearms and ammunition to wildlife research, habitat protection, and hunter education. These programs—in combination with hunting license sales—have generated billions of dollars and have been the primary source of funding for wildlife conservation, research, and management. One criticism of this system is that paying for wildlife conservation has given hunters undue influence within wildlife agencies. Hunters have also formed and supported various nonprofit conservation organizations that have protected millions of acres of wildlife habitat. Hunting participation rates rose rapidly in the first half of the 20th century, due in part to economic

813

factors such as affordable firearms, affordable automobiles, and labor laws mandating more time off for workers. By 1945, 25% of American men hunted. In the latter half of the century, participation rates declined. This decline has been attributed to a variety of factors. One factor has been development: As farmland and woodland are converted to residential and commercial uses, many people—especially along the East Coast—lose the places they once hunted in and find it more difficult to access hunting grounds. The changing economy has also been a factor: As Americans work longer hours and more households are supported by two wage earners, people have found it more difficult to make time for hunting. A third factor has been a shift toward more negative attitudes and ideas about hunting.

Hunting, Wildlife Management, and Regulation Hunting and game species populations remain closely linked today. Wildlife scientists manage and improve habitat to favor abundant game populations, which are treated as sustainable natural resources. Scientists also utilize hunting as a management tool. By issuing fewer hunting permits for certain animals (especially females), government agencies seek to keep populations stable or growing. By issuing more permits, agencies seek to reduce populations, especially where density is harming biodiversity or conflicting with human uses of the landscape; these reduction efforts are not always successful. Various state and federal regulations apply to hunting, stipulating which species may be hunted and when. Legal hunting seasons—which vary by species, state, and weapon—can last for days, weeks, or months. Regulations specify the number of animals a hunter may kill per day or per season. For some species, regulations also dictate the sex and approximate age of animals that may be taken; for cervids, such rules focus on antlers. Other regulations restrict the means by which animals may be killed. For many species, hunting at night and using lights are proscribed. For particular species (e.g., black bear), some states allow

814

Hunting

certain practices (e.g., the use of dogs), while others do not. Laws also dictate what equipment may be used, including weapons, sights, and projectiles. The illegal killing of wildlife, referred to as poaching, is investigated by law enforcement officers who specialize in wildlife and environmental crimes. The sale of wild game meat is widely prohibited.

Hunting in the United States Today It is estimated that 13.7 million Americans at least 16 years of age hunted in 2011, plus another 2.2 million 6- to 15-year-olds. Some hunters do not hunt every year; in 2009, it was estimated that 21.8 million Americans hunted at least once in the previous 5 years. Two thirds of U.S. hunters hunt for the first time by 20 years of age; half of those start by 12 years of age. The other third— sometimes referred to as adult-onset hunters— start at 21 years of age or older. One in five starts hunting after 30 years of age. Of U.S. hunters, 89% are male, and 11% are female; in recent decades, female participation has increased slowly, while male participation has declined. About 94% are white, 3% are African American, less than 0.5% are Asian American, and 3% belong to other groups. Although some immigrant groups come to the United States without a hunting tradition, others—including the Hmong (an Asian ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand)—bring a strong tradition. About 6% of the population participates in hunting each year. Participation rates vary regionally: 3% to 4% in regions along the East and West Coasts and 6% to 10% in central regions. Participation rates also vary by population density: 3% of residents in large metropolitan areas hunt, 5% in medium metropolitan areas, 11% in small metropolitan areas, and 18% outside of metropolitan areas. Yet, because so many Americans live in metropolitan areas, residents of those areas accounted for 10.9 million hunters in 2011 compared with 2.8 million from nonmetropolitan areas.

About 78% of hunting occurs on privately owned land, the remainder on public land. In some regions of the country, many hunters pay for the privilege of hunting on someone else’s private land, via a hunting lease. In other regions, private land is hunted for free, whether left open to all hunters or used by individual permission. Hunting occurs on both state and federal public lands. Most hunters use firearms: primarily rifles, shotguns, and muzzle-loading rifles. Bows and arrows of several types are also employed, as are crossbows. Spears and atlatls are legal for particular species in several states.

Hunters’ Motives and Experiences Historically, hunting has been practiced for various purposes, including procurement of food, reduction of pest and predator populations, and enjoyment of hunting itself. The idea of hunting as a “sport” originated in ancient Greece. There, and in Europe during the Middle Ages, hunting was not necessarily for survival and became a ritualized, rule-bound game. The term is an abbreviation of disport, from the Old French desporter, meaning to amuse or divert oneself. Today, hunters disagree over whether hunting should be called a sport. Scholars have established typologies for describing hunters’ primary motivations (e.g., to obtain food, to experience close contact with nature, to master animals). However, individual hunters’ motives are usually complex. One person may hunt to procure wild meat, to feel immersed in nature, to be with fellow hunters, to overcome challenges, and to experience a state of focused alertness. Critics of hunting often distinguish between those who hunt out of necessity and those who hunt out of desire; the former are not criticized as strongly. Yet the distinction is blurry, as traditional subsistence hunters often describe enjoying the hunt. Hunting requires skill, time, and commitment. For many hunters, difficulty and effort are vital parts of hunting. Success rates vary by species and state. In New York, ruffed grouse hunters killed an average total of 2 birds over the course of

Hunting

approximately 10 three-hour outings during the 2011 season. In Connecticut, 27% of deer hunters took an animal in 2008; in total, hunters averaged 33 outings per animal taken. In Montana, 20% of elk hunters succeed in killing an animal each year; on average, they hunt 10 to 12 days before succeeding. Studies indicate that hunters frequently have satisfactory hunting experiences without taking an animal and that many variables contribute to such satisfaction. In connection with hunting, people report experiencing various emotions and states of mind. These vary from person to person, from hunt to hunt, and from one part of the hunt to another. Commonly reported experiences include anticipation as a hunt begins, enjoyment of being outdoors, and excitement if one or more of the hunted species is seen. If a hunter shoots and kills, he or she may experience feelings from pride and elation to awe, gratitude, and sorrow. If a hunter shoots and wounds an animal, but never finds and retrieves it, he or she may feel remorse and shame.

Hunting Ethics and Safety Hunters’ articulations of ethics involve several themes. One is the imperative to make a swift, humane kill (often called a “clean kill”), causing minimal suffering. Another is the importance of respecting the hunted animal. Making full use of the animal, especially as food, is one expression of respect often mentioned. A third theme is “fair chase,” the idea that hunters should not have excessive advantage over animals and that hunted animals should be wild and free-ranging. Debates over fair chase encompass practices such as baiting, hunting within fenced areas, and pursuing birds raised in captivity, as well as technologies that give hunters certain advantages. Completion of a hunter safety course is typically a prerequisite for buying a hunting license. Many states require that hunters wear blaze-orange clothing during firearms seasons. Since the advent of such regulations, hunting-related shooting incidents have declined steadily. In New York State, there were 19 incidents per 100,000 hunters in the

815

1960s. From 2008 to 2012, there were 4.8. During those 5 years, 90% of incidents were nonfatal. Although hunters do sometimes shoot nonhunters, virtually all hunting-related shooting injuries are self-inflicted or inflicted on other hunters, usually members of the same hunting party. Injuries also result from other hunting-related activities, including treestand use.

Species Hunted Various species are hunted in the United States. The most commonly hunted species—white-tailed deer—has a nationwide population of 30 million and may be more numerous now than before European colonization. An estimated 6 million deer are killed by U.S. hunters annually, yielding some 300 million pounds of venison. Additional big game species include other cervids (elk, moose, and mule deer), pronghorn, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, javelina, black bear, and wild pig (an invasive hybrid of feral pig and European wild boar). Wild turkey is also often categorized as big game. Small game includes raccoon, groundhog, and species of rabbit, hare, and squirrel. Upland birds include woodcock, chukar partridge, ring-necked pheasant, and species of grouse and quail. Waterfowl include species of ducks and geese. Furbearers and small predators, hunted but not typically consumed as food, include bobcat and red fox. Some reptiles and amphibians are also hunted, including the American alligator, snapping turtle, and frog species. The use of projectiles to take fish is usually classified as fishing (e.g., bowfishing).

Medium and Large Predators Euro-American hunters and medium-to-large fourfooted predators—particularly the coyote, wolf, and cougar—share a complex history. Predators have long been seen as a threat both to livestock and to game animals such as deer. For centuries, predators were killed by all means possible. In the early 20th century, some wildlife scientists— mostly hunters—became convinced that predators

816

Hunting

did not devastate prey populations but instead kept populations and habitats healthy. Poisoning of predators was banned in the early 1970s. Today, many hunters contend that, in the absence of significant predator populations, hunting is the only practical solution to the serious problems that result from overabundant herbivores such as deer. Yet, concerned about potential declines in deer and elk, some hunters do not want predator populations to rise above certain levels, even where significant populations are viable; these hunters are more apt to support and participate in the hunting of such predators. Other hunters favor more numerous predators and are less apt to support or participate in predator hunting.

Perspectives on Hunting Public opinion surveys demonstrate support for legal, regulated hunting. Support is high (85%) for hunting for food. Support is lower for hunting for sport (53%) or trophies (28%). Although hunters include people of all kinds, in the United States, they are often stereotyped as uneducated, reckless, and cruel. Depictions in popular culture and media—from the Disney movie Bambi to Elmer Fudd in Warner Bros. animated cartoon series Looney Tunes—tend to reinforce such views. In varying degrees, most Americans believe that animals should be treated humanely. This is the central principle of animal welfare. Based on this principle, some argue that hunting is unethical because it subjects animals to stress and suffering. In contrast, others argue that hunting can, and often does, encompass a concern for animal welfare: a concern expressed, for instance, in the ethical imperative to make a “clean kill.” Other counterarguments are that animal death in the wild is no gentler than hunting and that other human activities (including agriculture) inflict more harm on animals and their habitats. From an animal rights perspective, it is argued that the interests of individual animals—including survival and freedom from suffering—deserve the same protections as humans’ interests. Thus, hunting is viewed as immoral and unjust, as are the

practices of eating animals, confining animals, and using animal labor. A contrast is found in many traditional American Indian cultures where animals are understood as “persons” and hunting is seen as part of a broader set of social relations among humans and animals. From an ecofeminist perspective, it is argued that hunting is linked to a masculine identity founded on the domination of women and nonhuman nature. Other feminists, while acknowledging that hunting has served as a metaphor for male aggression, argue that more nuanced analyses are required to understand not only women’s hunting but men’s hunting as well.

Recent Interest in Hunting for Food In recent years, hunting has been linked to a growing interest in healthy, ethical, and ecologically responsible meat. In connection with growing skepticism about the industrial food system—its treatment of workers and animals, its ecological impacts, and the safety and quality of the food it produces—Americans have become increasingly attracted to producing and procuring their own food. Practices such as gardening and raising chickens are appreciated for yielding food that is healthy, ethical, and ecologically responsible and for providing a sense of self-reliance and a direct connection with sources of sustenance. For some Americans, this has extended to an interest in taking up hunting as adults. Wild meat is valued as a healthy food, free of antibiotics and artificial hormones. It is also valued as an environmentally friendly food that does not involve the impacts associated with concentrated animal feeding operations and the production and transportation of feed grain. Wild meat is valued on ethical terms as well. Wild animals live without confinement. If killed swiftly, they die without fear or suffering. Some meat eaters see hunting as a way of taking responsibility for some of the killing that sustains them. In these ways, hunting is framed as a preferable alternative to factory farming. Tovar Cerulli

Hypermarkets See also Factory Farming; Fishing for Sport; Foraging; Free-Range Meats and Poultry; Locavorism; Naturally Raised and Fed Meats

Further Readings Boglioli, M. (2009). A matter of life and death: Hunting in contemporary Vermont. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Cerulli, T. (2011). The meaning of meat: Adult-onset hunters look to the land for sustenance. Northern Woodlands, 18(4), 30–33. Cerulli, T. (2012). The mindful carnivore: A vegetarian’s hunt for sustenance. New York, NY: Pegasus Books. Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Natural Resources/Wildlife Division. (n.d.). 2008 Connecticut deer program summary. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/wildlife/pdf_files/ game/deersum08.pdf Dickson, T. (2010, November–December). Welcome to Montana elk hunting. Montana Outdoors. Retrieved from http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/ articles/2010/ElkHunting.htm#.VFu5qfnF-So Dizard, J. E. (2003). Mortal stakes: Hunters and hunting in contemporary America. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Herman, D. J. (2001). Hunting and the American imagination. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kerasote, T. (1993). Bloodties: Nature, culture, and the hunt. New York, NY: Random House. National Shooting Sports Foundation. (2010). A portrait of hunters and hunting license trends: National report. Newtown, CT: Author. Retrieved from http://www .nssf.org/PDF/HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt.pdf Nelson, M. P., & Millenbah, K. F. (2009). The ethics of hunting: Can we have our animal ethics and eat them too? The Wildlife Professional, 3(3), 33–34. Nelson, R. K. (1997). Heart and blood: Living with deer in America. New York, NY: Random House. New York State Fish, Wildlife Marine Resources. (n.d.). 2011–2012 Cooperator ruffed grouse & American woodcock hunting log. Retrieved from http://www .dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/grouselogreport11.pdf Petersen, D. (Ed.). (1996). A hunter’s heart: Honest essays on blood sport. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Stange, M. Z. (1997). Woman the hunter. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

817

Sterba, J. (2012). Nature wars: The incredible story of how wildlife comebacks turned backyards into battlegrounds. New York, NY: Crown. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, & U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from https:// www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/fhw11-nat.pdf

HYPERMARKETS Hypermarkets are large food retailing establishments that play an important role for both the consumers and the producers. Their economic growth in the past 70 years has created new models of social, cultural, economic, and political interaction between the food retailing industry and the consumers. Their innovative approaches to product distribution and communication to consumers, as well as their size in both economic and spatial magnitude, make hypermarkets an important phenomenon to be studied among food issues. This entry provides a general overview of hypermarkets and focuses on the history of hypermarkets and their development through time. Additional examples of hypermarkets are presented in order to demonstrate the ways in which hypermarkets function. Finally, some conclusions are drawn about the relationship between the hypermarkets and the consumers.

The Definition of Hypermarkets Hypermarkets can be defined as large sales areas of more than 5,000 square meters used for retail purposes. The sales area usually contains a great variety of food and nonfood products (often more than 200,000 different brands) and must be functioning on a self-service basis. Additionally, the required size of hypermarkets requires that they be located in city outskirts or far from central residential areas. Their size and location make it imperative that there is available space for large parking facilities for customers that drive in for their shopping.

818

Hypermarkets

However, the distinction between a very large supermarket and a hypermarket is not a clear-cut one. Consumers in the United Kingdom do not use the term hypermarket, regardless of the size of the retail establishment, whereas other European countries do not differentiate between supermarkets and hypermarkets. The term hypermarket is used mostly in North America and a few European countries. Usually the differentiation between the two is made based on size because supermarkets’ sales area is usually between 2,500 and 5,000 square meters, which makes it possible for them to function within cities.

The History of the Hypermarket Hypermarkets, along with other retail business models such as supermarkets, superstores, and hard discounters, did not occur overnight. They developed through time, together with the cultural, social, and economic transformations of the societies of the West. Establishments that looked similar to the notion of the hypermarket appeared in the United States in the 1870s. Large roofed spaces consisting of independent units, leased stands, and rented booths or compartments where small producers could sell their produce attracted people from long distances. Customers would come to these areas and do their shopping mostly on their own, serving themselves. These, however, were simply large covered markets made up of independent grocers. The societal changes and technological advances that came along at the beginning of the 20th century had a major impact on the ways in which retail systems would function. Large numbers of rural populations would search for a better life in large cities and more industrial areas. The increasing demand for working hands and the Industrial Revolution raised salaries, and the invention of alternative means of transportation (namely, automobiles) raised serious questions about how to meet customer demands. Before the appearance of the supermarket, traditional retailers were specialized, bringing products to customers through pushcarts or

home delivery (e.g., dairy products); there was no self-service. The first retailing stores that ignited the idea of the hypermarket started from chain stores called “five and dime” or “five and ten cent.” Their general marketing philosophy was to purchase nonfood products in volume and sell it at a discount. Additionally, to cut functional costs and maintain lower average prices, they transformed their establishments into self-service stores. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (A&P) adopted the idea, importing tea directly from plantations in China in large volume and cutting the costs. A&P applied the same tactics to other food products, and it transformed from a simple tea store into the A&P Economy Store with other food products such as oils and canned or packaged food, which created the idea of the supermarket. The first real self-service grocery store was Piggy Wiggly, which opened in the U.S. South in 1916. It labeled items according to price and allowed customers to bring items up to a checkout stand by themselves, eventually providing shopping carts. This became the model for later supermarkets. World War II in the 1940s slowed further developments in the food retailing system. The hard work and effort that were required to recover from the devastation the war had caused delayed the progress of the retail system. However, in 1962, the American Sam Walton opened a supermarket in Arkansas, called Walmart, following the idea of buying directly from suppliers. In addition, he created a central network of distribution where all selling products could be gathered. This ensured low prices for consumers and a wide variety of products that would satisfy customer needs. Walton’s ideas set the scene for the development of the hypermarket as we know it today and can be considered as the foundations of modern retail patterns and formats.

Hypermarkets Around the World Hypermarkets are common in the United States and Europe and are now starting to become more

Hypermarkets

and more popular in developing countries around the world. Despite the rapid development that these retail giants have seen in the 1980s and 1990s, the 21st century and the global economic recession that came at the end of its first decade have slowed their economic growth. Only a small number of companies, such as Carrefour, Walmart, Tesco, and Kroger, are key players in the global growth of retail formats of this size and magnitude. What follows is a more detailed examination of the hypermarket brand names that have played a significant role in the global economic growth and development of retail systems. Walmart

Walmart is the number one retailer of this size within the United States. Its first expansion outside the United States began in 1991 with a venture in Mexico and a 50% ownership of the retailer Cifra. It later started to expand to different continents with a small number of operations in Germany and the United Kingdom. However, the retail environment in Europe was not as easy as in the United States, and Walmart withdrew from Germany. Cultural and social traits of consuming patterns in Germany (as well as the rest of Europe) are very different from those in the United States. Walmart’s marketing ideas such as greeting buyers outside the entrance doors and bagging customers’ goods apparently felt intrusive for German customers. Competition from local large retailers with more shops and greater awareness of the local consumer culture contributed to the failure of Walmart in Germany. In the United Kingdom, Walmart purchased ASDA, a large local retail operator, which helped support its operations there. In Asia, Walmart operates in China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam, while similar problems with Germany occurred in Indonesia. In Latin America, Walmart has operations in Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil. Despite Walmart’s reputation as a retail economic power, only 30% to 40% of its total income comes from markets outside the United States. In 2012, the estimated

819

revenue of Walmart was US$446.95 billion, operating in 8,970 locations around the world and employing 2.2 million people. Carrefour

Originating in France, Carrefour is the second largest hypermarket retailer in the world. After a series of visits in the United States and a close observation of the alterations that were taking place in the retail industry at the time, Marcel Fournier, Denis Defforey, and Jacques Defforey decided to start their own retail company. In 1963, from the small French city of Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois, the three partners introduced the idea of the hypermarket, which included a large supermarket and a department store in the same building. In the period 2009–2010, Carrefour owned 1,395 stores around the world. The company employs 412,464 people, and in 2011, it had an estimated revenue of 81.271 billion euros. In 1973, in a joint venture, Spain became the first country that Carrefour entered outside French borders. In contrast with Walmart, more than 51% of Carrefour’s total income now comes from international markets, with European countries accounting for 32%, South America for 12%, and Asia for 7%. One of the most important retail breakthroughs Carrefour offered was products marketed under the company’s brand name. The concept was to offer all food products at much lower prices, while maintaining a standard in quality and, thus, creating an immediate connection with the producer. There are more hypermarket retailers around the world other than the two mentioned here. Tesco, Metro, and Ahold are some companies that have played a significant role in the international hypermarket retail market. However, some retailers function within the geographical limits of their country of origin. For example, in India, there are about 90 different hypermarket companies. The retail company Pantaloon Retail India has the largest number of stores, with 74 operations around the country, while Reliance Mart has the largest retail space in the country with 165,000 square feet.

820

Hypermarkets

Hypermarket Innovations and Market Effects Hypermarkets brought a new framework of thinking and functioning within the general food retail system. The success of the supermarket and the consumer demands it had established brought about a new retail system where size, availability, prices, variety, and convenience were of prime importance. The global appeal these characteristics have is evident by the success and global expansion of the concept of the hypermarket in less than a century. Before 1980, the retail system in the majority of the Western world was domestic and specialized. Consumers would purchase their goods from specialized stores. Additionally, consuming products that were out of season or that originated from a different geographical region was difficult or even impossible. The emergence of the hypermarket minimized distances both practically and literally. Consumers did not have to go to different stores to buy what they wanted. Instead, everything they wanted was concentrated in one place. Products of all sorts from all around the globe were available within a hand’s reach. Hypermarkets (as well as supermarkets) have developed new ways of operating to maximize efficiency and profits. Such innovations occurred in different sectors of the retail industry such as store organization and display, size of product display areas, self-service and consumer convenience, transport and logistics, and packaging and branding. As mentioned earlier, the introduction of products under a hypermarket’s own brand name was a breakthrough, proposing to customers greater value for less money. Store-brand products were usually promoted as cheaper than the major brand names, but of better quality than those with the cheapest price. These strategies allowed hypermarkets to differentiate themselves from the competition while at the same time distancing themselves from expensive brand names.

The most important characteristic of the hypermarket, which is most relevant to food issues, is that it is a concept developed around the distribution of food. Food plays a central role as the main efforts and innovations of these retail giants are concentrated on how to bring food products to their stores. From fresh produce to packaged goods, exotic ingredients and different varieties for all tastes, food is the main element around which the concept of the hypermarket was developed. Giorgios Maltezakis See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Convenience Stores; Grocery Stores and Supermarkets; Supply and Distribution Networks; Warehouse Clubs and Supermarket Loyalty Cards

Further Readings Carrefour Group. (n.d.). Hypermarkets. Retrieved from http://www.carrefour.com/content/hypermarkets Cliquet, G., & Perrigo, R. (2005, April 28–May 1). French hypermarket history and future with issues for American supercenters. Paper presented at the 12th Conference on Historical Analysis and Research in Marketing (CHARM), Long Beach, CA. Retrieved from http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/charm/CHARM% 20proceedings/CHARM%20article%20archive%20 pdf%20format/Volume%2012%202005/78%20 cliquet%20perrigot.pdf Defrancesco, E., Galleto, L., & Thiene, M. (2005). Food, agriculture and the environment: Economic issues. Milan, Italy: F. Angeli. Grunert, K. G. (1996). Market orientation in food and agriculture. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Sedlmaier, A. (2005). From department store to shopping mall: Transnational history of large-scale retail/ VomWarenhaus zur Shopping Mall: Einzelhandel transnational. Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag. Walmart. (n.d.). Our story. Retrieved from http:// corporate.walmart.com/our-story

I clientele. American ice cream gardens were modeled on London pleasure gardens such as Vauxhall. They sold vanilla and lemon ice cream, with strawberry when the fruit was in season. In New York and Philadelphia, free black entrepreneurs opened ice cream gardens for black patrons who were denied admission to white-run establishments. The first ice cream saloon, a very large ice cream parlor, opened in Boston in 1869. The Ladies and Gentlemen’s Coffee, Lunch, and Ice Cream Saloon on Washington Street was brightly lit by gaslight and featured huge, gaudily decorated rooms. In  New York, various ice cream saloons or ice creameries catered to customers of different socioeconomic classes. Elegant shops on Broadway featured fancy displays of cakes and confections, and their dining areas were favored by upper-class women who could enjoy ice cream and light meals. The Patent Steam Ice-Cream Saloon, which catered to the women and children of the middle and lower middle classes, featured a steam-powered ice cream freezer. Members of the working class could find ice cream parlors in the bowery. A number of ice cream parlors organized along similar lines opened in Chicago in 1893 to welcome visitors to the World’s Fair. The ice cream sundae, a popular soda fountain and ice cream parlor treat, was invented in the 1890s, in Ithaca, New York. Nineteenth-century railroads even featured ice cream parlor cars. By the turn of the 20th century, there were ice cream parlors in Europe, Australia, and South America.

ICE CREAM PARLORS An ice cream parlor is a shop where patrons can consume purchased ice cream on the premises. Ice cream parlors have been closely associated with the soda fountain and confectionary shop. Like those, they tend to have brightly lit, fancy interiors. Ice cream parlors originated in the 17th century in Europe. Today, one can find ice cream parlors all over the world. The first Parisian café, Le Procope, owned by an Italian immigrant, Sicilian Francesco Procopio dei Coltelli, began serving ice cream when it opened in 1686. It also set the fashion for ice cream parlor decoration with its marble-topped tables and brightly lit, mirrored interior. In the 18th century, fashionable confectioners in London, such as Gunter’s Tea Shop, served ice cream to female customers in their carriages, while male customers enjoyed their ice cream outside the shop. Later, confectioners in Europe and America added seats indoors. In 1777, a caterer from London, Philip Lenzi, advertised ice cream for sale in his confectionary shop in New York. By the early 19th century, confectioners’ shops in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia featured ice cream prominently in their offerings. Pleasure gardens, sometimes called ice cream gardens, also served ice cream—at first to high society and later to a less socially exclusive

821

822

Identity and Food

In the 1920s to 1940s, ice cream shops began to expand all across America—perhaps due to the emerging car culture. Many, such as Howard Johnson’s, began as simple ice cream stands or small shops and later expanded into restaurants serving a full menu. Soda fountains dominated America’s drugstores, selling ice cream in a variety of forms as a main part of their business. The Depression combined with the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 was tough for ice cream parlors and the ice cream business in general. Ice cream consumption picked up again during World War II in the 1940s, with ice cream being declared an essential food in the United States. During the war, the various branches of the U.S. armed services served ice cream to the troops, and the U.S. navy even opened a floating ice cream parlor in 1945. American ice cream consumption slowly shifted to the home in the 1970s, leading to a decline in the number of ice cream parlors. One exception to this pattern of decline was the gourmet ice cream parlor or scoop shop. High-end, handmade ice creams were sold in retail ice cream parlors beginning in the 1970s. Steve’s Ice Creams was one of the earliest. In the 1970s, this establishment in Massachusetts began mixing name-brand candy and cookies into his smallbatch gourmet ice creams. More recently, this concept has been applied to the big chain model with the spread of Cold Stone Creamery franchises, where employees sing while they mix a wide variety of sweets and fruits into ice cream on cold stone tables. Ben and Jerry’s, a well-known packaged brand, began as a scoop shop in Vermont. Amy’s Ice Creams in Texas offers a wide variety of unconventional ice cream flavors, a hallmark of gourmet or artisan ice cream parlors today. Traditional ice cream parlors have also revived as older Americans experience nostalgia for their youth. One example is Farrell’s. This once familiar West Coast chain had disappeared during the 1980s but has revived since 2009. Baskin-Robbins has shops across the United States, as well as in Saudi Arabia, Australia, Japan, and Korea. This franchise chain began in Southern California in 1945 and has been expanding ever since. Swensen’s

got its start as an ice cream stand in San Francisco, California, in 1948. Today, 300 Swensen’s franchises can be found across Asia, including India and the Middle East. Other notable contemporary ice cream parlors include the Havana landmark, Coppelia. Coppelia is perhaps the largest ice cream parlor in the world. Coppelia opened in 1966 and takes its name from Fidel Castro’s secretary’s favorite ballet. It occupies a modernist flying saucer–shaped building that covers an entire city block. It serves thousands of customers each day, with lines of customers often stretching for more than a block. April Bullock See also Casual Dining Chains; Dairy Industry; Frozen Food; Gourmet and Specialty Foods; Roadside Stands

Further Readings International Dairy Foods Association. (n.d.). The history of ice cream. Retrieved from http://www.idfa.org/ news-views/media-kits/ice-cream/the-history-of-icecream/ Quinzio, J. (2009). Of sugar and snow: A history of ice cream making. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Website Restaurant-ing Through History: http://restaurantingthroughhistory.com

IDENTITY

AND

FOOD

“You are what you eat,” that oft-quoted cliché, taken from the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, paraphrasing Jean Anthelme BrillatSavarin, author of the 19th-century book The Physiology of Taste, sums up the relationship between food and identity. (The original quote was “Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are.”) The brevity of the popular expression belies the complexity of the concepts involved.

Identity and Food

Food traditions, choices, and preferences are integrally tied to identity—to ethnicity, region, nationality, gender, class, politics, and economics. For those cultures for which food is a major source of identity, certain ingredients and certain dishes have become iconic signifiers for group members as well as outsiders. Some cultures and some towns have become so identified with their inhabitants’ ethnic or regional foodways that the names of those foods become metonyms and stand for the group. Hence, issues of authenticity, place, and tradition become conflated with identity, especially with regard to foodways. Identity itself is not a simple matter, for some groups may claim a particular identity, whereas others are labeled with one. Most of us have more than one identity, which affects our relationships with particular foods. We may identify with foods associated with our mother’s or father’s heritage, with the place we were brought up, or with food choices related to food allergies or political preferences—or with all or a part of these. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that identity is not a static label but a process negotiated in the ways in which people live their lives and interact with others—at home and in new situations and cultures. A group’s culture, traditions, and thus its food and foodways inevitably change and adapt over time and space. This entry begins with a discussion of the way that food symbolizes identity and the many forms that identity can take. Next, it presents a discussion of place-based foods and their relationship to identity, as well as a commentary on ethnicity and heritage. The entry concludes with an examination of how foods are used as symbols of belonging— or not belonging—to a particular group.

Place-Based Foods and Identity Foods become associated with particular groups and places due to geography, immigration, food preparation styles, and even marketing efforts. Some foods even acquire place-name sobriquets, such as San Francisco sourdough bread, Chicagostyle pizza, Southern Fried Chicken. The taste—or

823

at least the image—of such place-based foods is integrally related to and cannot be separated from their preparation style and the place where they originated. As well, that preparation style is often related to the native, regional, or ethnic foodways traditions of the cultural groups that settled in a particular area. For example, the Philly cheesesteak (sandwich) has its roots in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s working-class Italian American tradition, as does the hoagie (submarine sandwich). Those particular traditions spread to much of the MidAtlantic region, where immigrants from Sicily and southern Italy settled; eventually, the sandwiches became more identified with their locale rather than their ethnic roots. The same can be said for the other foods previously noted. The people from a particular place also identify with the particular food associated with that place. When commercial enterprises mass produce such foods, making and selling them outside of their “place,” they rarely taste the way they “should,” and those familiar with them are quite clear about the connection between taste, place, and identity; eating a Philly cheesesteak or a New England lobster roll outside of its region is just not done by those with intimate or insider knowledge of a particular food tradition or eating style. Furthermore, the place modifiers are generally not used by in-group members; those who live in the Philadelphia area have no need to refer to a cheese steak with any further adjectives. The same can apply to ethnically named foods (e.g., Jewish apple cake or Irish soda bread), though those adjectives are more likely to be dropped when the foods become so absorbed into mainstream culture that they become implied, such as (African American) soul food or (Chinese) egg rolls. Place-based foods also speak of regional and class identity. While New England lobster, Chesapeake Bay blue crabs, Minnesota Ojibwe wild rice, Northwest salmon, Alaskan halibut, and Louisiana crawfish were all originally First Foods— species that First Nations Peoples not only ate and still eat but also on which they center their cultures—they have become luxury foods, partly due to environmental issues, time-consuming

824

Identity and Food

production, or scarcity due to overpopulation. Lobster was once considered a food for servants and poor people, as opposed to the elite and expensive seafood now reserved for special occasions, yet it is still indelibly associated with its place-name, New England, and almost never marketed without it—or its more specific Maine or “Down East” regional identity. Crawfish, at one time the iconic food of Cajuns, a marginalized southern Louisiana ethnic group with their own language and distinct cultural traditions, has become the official state mascot, and crawfish boils have become high-priced tourist attractions. The relationship between class or social status and food is a shifting category, depending on what one culture reviles versus another. The offal (organ meats) so prized by French chefs used to be regarded as poor people’s food. They came into the  mainstream American consciousness with the late-20th-century renaissance in southern cuisine— from the low country cooking of South Carolina to African American soul food found throughout the southern United States. Now such ingredients are featured in and available, often for considerably higher prices, in specialty restaurants in large urban areas, as well as in southern cities, towns, and rural areas.

Food and Ethnic Identity Food clearly permeates our lives and affects how we “think” about ourselves and others; it is much more than just physical nourishment for most groups and individuals. When emigrants leave their homelands, they carry with them their religious, regional, and ethnic heritage—and, in particular, their food traditions (the way they grow, prepare, and eat food)—even though they cannot always bring the actual foods themselves. From snacks to everyday meals, from seasonal specialties to holiday dishes, food communicates aesthetic, religious, family, and community values from one person to another and from one group to others. Particular foods can key a meal, a day, or an event as related to a particular identity, for example, breakfast foods such as congee (a rice porridge) for

Chinese or Southeast Asians, cold cuts and hardboiled eggs for Germans, or salted grits for Americans in the South. As well, many cultures also have dishes or foods that point to and symbolize their identity for group members and around which many aspects of their culture revolve. Salmon serves this function for many Northwest native peoples, for it is integrally related to sustenance, culture, commerce, and worldview. Ethnic groups, both old and new, use foods to mark the boundaries between insiders and outsiders, but they do so in different ways. This can happen with the most mundane of foods, the comfort dishes (e.g., breakfast foods) we eat only around family or very close friends—or with those foods that are highly marked as symbolic and served only on holidays or at certain times of year (e.g., dyed or decorated hardboiled eggs for Easter). Some foods signal entrée into a private world and are generally not open to outsiders—either for reasons of exclusivity of acquired tastes, as in eating lutefisk (reconstituted lye-preserved dried codfish) and attending lutefisk suppers among Norwegian Americans in the upper Midwest the weekend before Thanksgiving. Still other foods have different meanings for insiders and outsiders. Such foods are not necessarily the same ones with which outsiders are familiar or, if they are, they are often made in more traditional ways, with special ingredients and for different purposes. Many Native American groups in the southeast and Midwest celebrate a Green Corn Festival, a harvest celebration, and they turn it into a public powwow. But at its heart, the event’s most basic function is about families’ preserving corn for the winter—not at all the point for the public. Homemade chicken soup with knaidlach (matzoh balls) served at a Passover Seder connotes in-group identity in a much deeper way than what a delicatessen lists on its daily menu. The holiday’s biblical prohibition against using specific grains, the story of Exodus, Eastern European Jewish food traditions, and memory all lend their layers of meaning to what becomes much more than a bowl of soup and dumplings. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are cultures and towns that use food specifically to

Identity and Food

attract outsiders. Individual items or associated products serve as iconic centerpieces to celebrate heritage although the foods may involve creolized practices (those that derive from more than one culture) as well as ingredients. When tourism bureaus market New England clambakes, small town strawberry festivals, or Baltimore oyster roasts, they capitalize on the association between identity and food product to promote the event as real, authentic, and even nostalgic.

Food as Symbol Sociologists have used a range of food metaphors to describe the mix of cultures in the United States. But while we do come together, it is not as a melting pot, stew, tossed salad, or whatever other food term comes to mind. Cultures may blend, but they also remain distinct; individuals and groups from a particular culture choose which parts to display for themselves, their families, their larger group, and for outsiders. And all of us learn to do this; we select from a range of cultural signifiers, depending on setting, context, audience, and an underlying notion of what constitutes aesthetic competence. While there are rules and expectations for all these factors, any one of them, as well as the rules and expectations themselves, can and do change in different environments. During the early years of the 20th century, for example, Eastern European Jewish, Greek, and Italian immigrants in New York City all shared a taste for strongly seasoned food, especially foods flavored with garlic. The contemporary mainstream culture at that time, however, believed that strong-tasting foods caused disorderly and licentious behavior, so social workers attempted to persuade newcomers that their food preferences were somehow not just distasteful but morally corrupt and not American. An aesthetically proficient performance of identity, therefore, depends on both performer and audience sharing the same understanding of those rules, which does not always occur between groups from different cultures who speak different languages and eat different foods. Thus, using the wrong fork or spoon at a formal dinner, adding soy sauce to homemade (Jewish) chicken soup, serving beer in

825

crystal glasses at a picnic, or not knowing how to use chopsticks at a traditional Chinese meal (or using them for Thai food) clearly marks one as an outsider, one who does not know the rules for culturally appropriate behavior. The relationship between food and identity is not always a positive association. The use of food names as labels for ethnic groups is an age-old and widespread practice that occurs among peoples all over the world. One group often uses the stereotypical food preferences of another as an epithet: Germans, whom Americans fought in World War I and II, were known as krauts (cabbages); the British have long referred to the French as frogs; and the British themselves were once called limeys for their sailors’ being issued limes to prevent scurvy during long voyages. As  Edmund Leach has noted, in certain cultures, the most insulting names one can use are often those of animals one would never eat: chazer (pig) for Jews and cur (dog) or ass for European Americans. The easiest and most accessible part of a new culture for those on the outside, food is also so basic to life that when a group’s eating practices differ from what another considers to be the norm, members of that latter group tend to react negatively and even pejoratively. One should not assume that food totally maps onto or mirrors cultural heritage. Rather than representing one culture, a particular food can signify several at once; so it pays to be aware of the subtleties, for cross-cultural combinations are so ubiquitous that one may not recognize the original influences. In the United States, Americans are so accustomed to such combinations that they frequently don’t recognize the original influences of food traditions that are now taken for granted— or they assume that a particular food has unique ties to a particular place. For instance, many regard pork tenderloin and fresh-picked corn as somehow unique to Iowa, yet breaded pork tenderloin has its roots in traditional Czech cooking—and is popular in Illinois and Indiana— while just about every state in the United States grows corn. Subs, pizza, bagels, spaghetti, tacos, and egg rolls have become “American” foods, yet not one of these foods is without its roots in

826

Imported Food

cultures from other places. Those changes, adaptions, fusions, and recombinations, however, create what has become known as “American” to Americans and to the rest of the world. Rachelle H. Saltzman See also Authenticity of Cuisines; Ethnic Foods, Marketing of; Locavorism

Further Readings Brillat-Savarin, J. A. (1949). The physiology of taste. New York, NY: Heritage Press. Brown, L. K., & Mussell, K. (Eds.). (1984). Ethnic and regional foodways in the United States: The performance of group identity (pp. 169–184). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Humphrey, T. C., & Humphrey, L. T. (Eds.). (1988). “We gather together”: Food and festival in American life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Jochnowitz, E. (2004). Flavors of memory: Jewish food as culinary tourism in Poland. In L. M. Long (Ed.), Culinary tourism (pp. 97–113). Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Leach, E. R. (1979). Anthropological aspects of language: Animal categories and verbal abuse. In W. A. Lessa & E. Z. Vogt (Eds.), Reader in comparative religion (4th ed., pp. 153–166). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Long, L. M. (2009). Introduction: Food and identity in the Americas. Journal of American Folklore, 122(483), 3–10. Preston-Werner, T. (2009). Gallo Pinto: Tradition, memory, and identity in Costa Rican foodways. Journal of American Folklore, 122(483), 11–27. Saltzman, R. H. (2004). Rites of intensification: Eating and ethnicity in the catskills. In L. M. Long (Ed.), Culinary tourism (pp. 226–244). Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Stern, S., & Cicala, J. A. (Eds.). (1991). Creative ethnicity: Symbols and strategies of contemporary ethnic life. Logan: Utah State University Press.

transport for consumer consumption. The exchange of foods between countries is an everincreasing and expanding business that is contingent on supply and demand, political and economic interdependency, and trade agreements between nations. The importation of foods for domestic consumption possesses both benefits and drawbacks for the economies of trading countries, resulting in contradictory perspectives on the topic. This entry provides a brief history of U.S. food imports, gives an overview of the primary domestic agencies involved in food transactions, discusses key U.S. trade agreements and federal legislation surrounding the importation of food and drink, and examines import food safety regulations and standards. It explores American consumer activities that seek to offset the negative impact of imports on the environment, foreign labor, and the U.S. economy through buying organic foods, shopping at farmers’ markets, investing in community supported agriculture (CSA) schemes, and consuming fair-trade products. The United States is one of the largest food importers in the world. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service calculated through its Global Agricultural Trade System that in July 2013 alone the importation of foodstuffs into the United States totaled $8,700,895,845. The large amount of money spent on imported foods adds significantly to Americans’ food intake. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), approximately 15% of all food purchased by Americans every year is shipped into the United States, allowing U.S. consumers to have access to a wide variety of consumables. The bulk of nondomestic foods brought into the United States comes from its three biggest trading partners: China, Canada, and Mexico.

Government Oversight

IMPORTED FOOD An imported food is defined as any food or drink not produced domestically that has to be brought into a country by means of air, land, or sea

Enforcing international trade activities, facilitating the import of food and drink, and overseeing consumer safety in the United States falls under the auspices of several government organizations that work in conjunction with one and other, but

Imported Food

each has its own distinct role to play in the network of food distribution within the country. Domestic regulatory agencies include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection, USDA, the FDA, and the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All imports into the country are inspected and managed at the nation’s borders by officials from the Customs and Border Protection who ensure that goods shipped into the country comply with U.S. import regulations. The USDA has two departments that regulate imports into the United States: (1) the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service and (2) the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The Animal Plant Health Inspection Service monitors all plant and animal materials, and their by-products, that are brought into the country. Food Safety and Inspection Service administers regulations on the importation of egg, meat, and poultry products for consumption. The FDA oversees all food and drink products available for purchase on the U.S. market, both foreign and domestic, to guarantee food safety. The FDA has oversight on all food imports with the exception of meat and poultry, which are monitored by the USDA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages consumption of domestic and foreign wildlife food products such as venison, buffalo, and elk.

International Trade Agreements China and the World Trade Organization

The rapidly expanding Chinese economy, lower production costs in China, and a favorable exchange rate have enabled U.S. consumers to have a high degree of purchasing power. The favorable economic climate for Chinese imports in the United States has also been fuelled by the strengthening of trade relations between the two countries and China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. These factors have created an environment of reduced trade barriers and have allowed for a more open system of goods exchange between the two countries. As a result of these factors, the past few decades have

827

seen a significant increase in goods shipped from China to the United States, including food and drink, and the growing presence of Chinese-made products on American grocery store shelves. Critics of the United States’ expanding trade relationship with China have argued that the increase in Chinese exports to the United States has negatively affected employment figures, caused shrinkage in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors of the economy, and contributed to the rising fiscal debt of the United States. North American Free Trade Agreement

The cross-border trade between the United States and its North American neighbors, Canada and Mexico, is governed by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Begun by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and enacted into law in January 1994 under the Clinton administration, the agreement sets up a trading zone between the three countries to better facilitate the exchange of goods and services through the reduction and elimination of tariffs. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representatives, agricultural exports from Canada and Mexico to the United States in 2010 reached a total of $29.8 billion with fresh fruits and vegetables, live animals, meats, and snack foods topping the list of imported foods. Companies wishing to export foods to the United States under this trade agreement must complete a certificate of origin to demonstrate that the goods are produced within the NAFTA trading area. Firms that provide sufficient proof that they have the right to conduct business within the trilateral market area are entitled to its special trading freedoms, while companies that are not based within the three countries are excluded from taking advantage of the rights and privileges offered through the NAFTA legislation. Due to the agrarian diversity between the three countries, separate bilateral agreements within the NAFTA legislation were drawn up to address the specific needs of the American, Canadian, and Mexican domestic agricultural industries. The U.S.– Canadian agricultural section of the NAFTA agreement was an extension of the U.S.–Canada

828

Imported Food

Free Trade Agreement that was signed into law in  1989. This agreement aimed to increase cross-border trade of goods and services, including agricultural products, by decreasing economic barriers. The U.S.–Mexican agricultural agreement in the NAFTA legislation abolished tariffs on agrarian transactions between the two countries by 2008. While many analysts agree that NAFTA has had a positive financial impact on the U.S. economy since its inception, they differ in opinion about how much total economic benefit the agreement has had on the economy.

Food Safety Food safety has increasingly become a significant issue in the United States as cases of illness and even death have been reported due to unsafe food consumption. Cases of food contamination have included both intentional adulteration through purposeful poisonous additions to consumables and unintentional adulteration through the presence of drug or pesticide residue in foods. Yearly outbreaks of foodborne diseases, including Escherichia coli and Salmonella, have also posed a threat to the health and safety of consumers in the United States. According to its 2011 estimates, the Centers for Disease Control  and Prevention reported that approximately 48 million Americans became ill and 300,000 died from foodborne pathogens. Many instances of food contamination have been linked to the consumption of imported foods, raising concerns about the regulation of these goods and the viability of customs inspection and oversight. Due to the high volume of foreign foods brought into the United States each year, not all of them can be inspected. The FDA estimates that only about 1% of products are examined by government officials. U.S. import food safety concerns have mainly focused on goods coming from developing countries, and imports from China have been a particular worry. Increases in Chinese food imports in the U.S. market over the past few years have been seen to be accompanied by the rise in the number

of cases of food adulteration linked to the consumption of these imported goods. Food Safety Legislation

Food Safety Modernization Act Health concerns have prompted lawmakers to pass legislation that provides the government with greater oversight and powers of intervention on goods brought into the country to ensure that they comply with the same food production standards as domestic producers. The FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act is the key piece of legislation that governs food safety of both U.S. foods and imports. This legislation was made into law in 2011 and revised in 2013 to provide more stringent controls on the food supply. It provides the FDA with greater powers to monitor and regulate food import standards at their foreign source and at the U.S. border to create better food safety compliance. This legislation sets out the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP), which requires foreign suppliers of U.S. food companies and foreign companies shipping directly to the U.S. market to carry out periodic evaluations of their production activities to ensure that they meet U.S. food safety guidelines. Companies have to keep records of risk-based assessments and quality checks at their facilities. These records are subject to inspection by FDA-licensed firms located in the country in which food or drinks are produced. A separate FSVP has to be issued by FDA-licensed inspectors for every food exported to the United States, and each FSVP has to be reassessed every 3 years. Importers are assigned a specific Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System so that federal authorities can identify and track a company’s food exports to the United States. These new measures allow the FDA to take a proactive stance on food safety standards, providing the agency with the ability to more closely monitor foods before they arrive for inspection and clearance at the U.S. border. Critics of these regulations point to the uncertainty surrounding how this new system will be implemented, who will be responsible for carrying out food checks and inspections within the

Imported Food

country of origin, and whether adequate funds will be made available by Congress to enforce these requirements. Country of Origin Labeling A vital part of federal food safety regulations is the Country of Origin Labelling (COOL). Created under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, COOL was strengthened and refined with the passage of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Farms Bills of 2002 and 2008). These acts require COOL to be placed on covered domestic and imported food commodities, including fresh fruits and vegetables, meat, pork, and poultry. If these covered commodities undergo significant alteration through processing or in combination with other covered food products, they are exempt from COOL regulations. Labeling must be written in English to provide customs officials, traders, retailers, and shoppers with accurate information about the origins of products. Labels must include information about where and when a food was raised or grown and manufactured. The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) carries out the management of COOL on foreign and domestic foodstuffs to ensure that items are labeled appropriately. AMS regulations allow certain merchants to be exempt from food source identification, including restaurants, lunch rooms, salad bars, delicatessens, and food stands. COOL legislation has been criticized in recent years for unfair trading practices. In 2008, Canada filed a case against the United States at the WTO over its COOL policies. The country claimed that United States’ COOL rules in connection with raising and processing muscle cut meat violated the country’s responsibilities to member nations in the WTO. Canada asserted that U.S. COOL policies created unnecessary and costly labeling requirements for countries wishing to export meat to the United States, which gave domestic producers a financial advantage. After several appeals, the WTO ruled in favor of Canada in 2012, requiring the United States to amend its COOL legislation to

829

provide greater transparency of the food production process. Under new U.S. rules for COOL administration, which went into effect in May 2013, COOL labels must clearly show which countries were involved in each step of the food process. If livestock were raised abroad, but processed in the United States, this has to be stated on the COOL. The AMS estimates that the cost for producers and retailors to fully implement these new requirements will range from $53.1 million to $192.1 million.

Counter Movements Goods brought in from overseas have to travel long distances to reach markets. The distance goods are moved from producer to consumer is known as food miles. The large number of food miles involved in the chain of international food distribution results in huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane, to be released into the atmosphere every year, damaging the environment and posing a danger to the health of human beings and wildlife. The need to consider and reduce food miles has given rise to people’s concern for how and where their food is grown. By altering their consumption practices, people can help reduce the amount of pollution caused by food transport. These concerns coupled with issues of consumer safety, labor exploitation abroad, and the domestic agricultural economy have prompted some Americans to alter the types of imports that they buy, or decrease or completely eliminate their consumption of nondomestic foods. Organic Foods

Developing countries often follow different agricultural and environmental standards, utilizing chemicals in the growing process that have been banned in the United States because of the threat they pose to people and wildlife. The hazards associated with the use of synthetic insecticides and herbicides on imported foods have caused some Americans to turn to the consumption of organic products. According to the Organic Trade Association, Americans bought $35.1 billion worth

830

Imported Food

of organic foods in 2013, an increase of 11.5% from 2012. The objective of producing organic foods is to safeguard the consumer and the health of the environment through the elimination of harmful chemicals in the food chain. Organic foods came under government regulation with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Under this legislation, the AMS controls organic food production, making sure that growers and producers adhere to federal guidelines. Food labeled and sold as organically certified products must meet National Organic Program standards. Foods must be grown with the use of nonsynthetic pesticides and processed without artificial additives. Organic foods are readily available in specialty shops and in many grocery stores. Local Foods

Farmers’ Markets Issues of food safety have caused some consumers to turn away from food imports to focus on purchasing domestically produced goods. Farmers’ markets offer consumers the opportunity to purchase foods such as meat, cheese, fruits, and vegetables that are produced locally, are transported fresh from the field to the market, and are grown in season. The AMS estimated that 8,144 farmers’ markets were in operation across the country in August 2013. Buying foods at farmers’ markets allows shoppers to guard against the risk of foreign food contamination and support the local economy and farming communities in their area. Acquiring food through farmers’ markets also ensures that food miles are reduced. Community Supported Agriculture In some locations, domestic farm production is sustained through CSA schemes. Begun in the United States in the 1980s, CSA programs allow individuals to invest capital in local farms in exchange for a weekly share of in-season products from these farms. The 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture estimated that 12,549 U.S. farms were involved in CSA schemes. Farms run on CSA schemes often utilize organic methods of growing foods and raising livestock, which are beneficial to

the consumer and the environment. These goods are produced and distributed locally, limiting the carbon emissions used in moving them from farm to table, encouraging community relationships and fostering the domestic agricultural economy. Fair Trade

To counter labor exploitation abroad and encourage environmental protection in developing countries, a system of fair trade was developed. Fair-trade organizations, including Fair Trade International and Fair Trade USA, work to ensure ecological sustainability and best labor practices overseas. Companies in the developing world that obtain Fair-trade certification must demonstrate that they provide adequate working conditions for their employees, pay fair wages, and use environmentally sound growing and production processes. While not all international goods are covered under fair-trade auspices, some brands of items such as coffee, tea, and chocolate can be bought with the fair-trade guarantee. These certified products are widely available in the United States and can be found in most major supermarkets. Kelly A. Spring See also Fair Trade; Food Miles; Food Safety; Food Safety Agencies; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Sustainable Agrifood Systems, Effect on Environment

Further Readings Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). CDC estimates of foodborne illness in the United States, CDC 2011 estimates: Findings. Retrieved from http:// www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborneestimates.html Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The world factbook— North America: United States. Retrieved from https:// www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ geos/us.html Ecobichon, D. J. (2001). Pesticide use in developing countries [Online]. Toxicology, 160, 27–33. Retrieved

In Vitro Meat from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0300483X00004522/ 1-s2.0-S0300483X00004522-main.pdf?_tid=570da0501f88-11e3-8f46-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1379415798_ 726b6247f0158379d4d76d6a434c95ce Office of the United States Trade Representatives. (n.d.). North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Retrieved from http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/ free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-tradeagreement-nafta U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. (2014). Agricultural marketing service (AMS). Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ COOL U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. (2014). Farmers markets and local food marketing. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/ AMSv1.0/farmersmarkets U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2010). Ensuring the safety of imported products: Q&A with David Elder. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ ConsumerUpdates/ucm048631.htm U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Food Safety Modernization Act: Proposed rules to help ensure the safety of imported food. Retrieved from http://www .fda.gov/downloads/food/guidanceregulation/fsma/ ucm365450.ppt Weinstein, B. L. (2004). Has NAFTA fulfilled its promise? In A. M. Rugman (Series Ed.), North American economic and financial integration: Vol. 10. Research in global strategic management (pp. 339–348) [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/books .htm?chapterid=1757773 Wilkins, J. L. (2010). Consumer perceptions of seasonal and local foods: A study in a U.S. community [Online]. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 41(5), 415–439. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/03670240214066

Websites Organic Trade Association: http://www.ota.com/organic/ faq.html U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, GATS: http://www.fas.usda.gov/gats U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library, Alternative Farming Systems Information Center: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/csa/csa .shtml

831

IN VITRO MEAT In vitro, or cultured, meat is meat that is produced outside of a living animal. Originating from Latin, the words in vitro literally mean “in glass,” and in this context, the words refer to the production of meat in a test tube or other artificial environment. Living animals produce meat in vivo—that is, within a living organism. In vitro meat production is a new process that addresses concerns about the increase in meat consumption, population growth, land use, environmental impact, and ethical considerations. Over half of the global agricultural land is used for livestock production, and livestock significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions. In vitro meat  production could mitigate these issues while  increasing the supply of meat. Along with these environmental and productivity pressures, the ethics involved with animal production and slaughter is challenging food scientists who are searching for ways to utilize biotechnology to increase the supply of food that is safe and healthy. In 2008, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (or PETA) offered a $1 million prize to the organization or person who could come up with the first method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices. As of 2014, this challenge has not been met.

The In Vitro Process To produce in vitro meat, scientists take cells from an animal, such as a cow, and place the cells in a culture medium in an environment that supports a biological process, such as a petri dish. Both nonskeletal and skeletal muscle cell types have been used to source in vitro cell production. The cells are activated by a physical shock to divide. Scientists experimenting with the in vitro meat process are trying to find ways to generate meat that has an acceptable texture and three-dimensional properties like those found in naturally produced meat. The combination of growth factors and the addition of hormones cause the cells to become meat. Because this process is conducted in a controlled environment, in vitro meat production has the

832

In Vitro Meat

potential to incorporate specific nutritional and textural requirements. For example, a certain fat content or particular antioxidants could be specified. While in vitro meat production has taken place in laboratories, some scientists speculate that large-scale, industrial in vitro meat could produce as much meat as large-scale slaughterhouses; but as of 2014, scaling of the process is unproven. Research of in vitro meat production systems is currently focused on ways to improve predictability and to use technology for in vivo meat substitutes.

Origins of In Vitro Meat Willem van Eelen, a Dutch scientist, was granted a patent in 1999 for a process of creating meat without killing animals. He purportedly began thinking about the idea after reflection on his time as a prisoner of war in a Japanese prison camp during World War II. van Eelen proposed using stem cells to grow organic meat products that were never part of a living organism. In 2005, the Dutch government awarded him a €2 million grant to support his research into the development of meats that bypass animal husbandry. Also in 2005, American Jon F. Vein secured a patent for his method of producing tissue engineered ex vivo for consumption. In 2007, the In Vitro Meat Consortium was founded at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. It is an international organization of scientists concerned with food production and the environmental impact (especially water and land resources and carbon emissions) of large-scale meat production. TIME magazine declared van Eelen’s in vitro meat project one of the 50 breakthrough ideas of 2009. Currently, organizations, such as New Harvest, are funding research into in vitro meats.

Resistance to In Vitro Meat Among those who oppose in vitro meat is the food journalist Michael Pollan. When asked by the New York Times Magazine readers what he thought of in vitro meat, Pollan responded, I think I’ll pass, but probably won’t have to. Cloning meat, or making it in an incubator, is an interesting thought experiment for animal rights

philosophers and journalists, but I doubt we’ll actually see it on menus any time soon. Meat has a lot more to it than muscle cells—not to put you off your feed, but you also have to get the fat and sinews, the connective tissue and the blood right to make it organoleptically acceptable.

Others find the idea of eating in vitro meat disorienting and disconnected from the natural world. General resistance to technology and industrialized agriculture contributes to relative unpopularity of the idea in spite of the ethical and environmental potentials. Vegetarians and vegans argue that any effort to prolong a meat-reliant food culture is counterproductive to the adoption of a meatless cuisine.

The Future of In Vitro Meat While experiments prove that in vitro meat is a possibility, the viability of large-scale in vitro meat production is unproven and problematical. Just acquiring enough stem cells for the process would require the invention of new systems and tools. The production of meat with acceptable taste and texture is also yet to come. While in vitro meat produced today meets standards for pizza and sauces, it is unclear how scientists will produce a steak that can meet consumer expectations. However, new developments and technologies continue to emerge, and many companies are seeking a viable and scalable nonmeat meat option. Robyn S. Metcalfe See also Animal Rights; Factory Farming; Naturally Raised and Fed Meats; Veganism; Vegetarianism

Further Readings Cohen, D. (2012, October 24). Grow your own meat. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/mobile/technology-15402552 Datar, I., & Betti, M. (2010). Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 11, 13–22. Langelaan, M. L. P., Boonen, K. J. M., Polak, R. B., Baaijens, F. P. T., Post, M. J., & van der Schaft, D. W. J. (2010). Meet the new meat: Tissue engineered skeletal

Industry Labor and Labor Unions muscle. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 21(2), 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2009.11.001 McHugh, S. (2010). Real artificial: Tissue-cultured meat, genetically modified farm animals, and fictions. Configurations, 18, 181–197. Newman, L. H. (2014, October 10). Yum: This lab-grown meat cookbook includes recipes for dodo nuggets. Future Tense. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/ blogs/future_tense/2014/10/10/the_in_vitro_meat_ cookbook_created_in_the_the_netherlands_has_50_ recipes.html Pollan, M. (2011, October 6). Michael Pollan answers readers’ questions. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://michaelpollan.com/articlesarchive/michael-pollan-answers-readers-questions/

Websites Impossible Foods: http://impossiblefoods.com/about/ Institute of Food Technologists—Food Technology magazine: http://www.ift.org/food-technology.aspx New Harvest: http://www.new-harvest.org/

INDUSTRY LABOR

AND

LABOR UNIONS

Industry labor and labor unions, as they pertain to food, can be organized into three overarching industry sectors: (1) agriculture; (2) packing, distribution, and retail; and (3) service. In all three areas, the primary investment of food industry labor is in delivering food to a consumer. Labor unions are a part of food industry labor because they represent workers who are employed, or in some way provide labor, in all three of the aforementioned areas. Although food industry labor and food industry labor unions are a part of a global system, this entry uses the system in the United States as its primary example for food industry labor and food labor unions.

Agriculture Sector Farms and Agricultural Workers

Historically, agricultural workers on farms (e.g., farmers) were the primary resource for food industry labor, with farms being the primary

833

source of food products for the food industry. With the individual or family farm, individuals grew enough food to support themselves and their families and then sold, or otherwise distributed, whatever excess food they had to other members of their community or another external market. Their labor is primarily concerned with the production of food. In different countries over different periods of time, this process has been governed, regulated, and/or forcibly administered by various forms of government and economic systems such as capitalism. The different types of industry labor that exist in the farm arena of the agricultural sector include the following: hobby (belonging to an individual or a small collection of individuals, not intended for large-scale food distribution or market share), family (typically owned and operated literally by members of the same household), and the factory farm (an intensive form of farming that is based on large-scale, industrialized agribusiness and typically owned by a corporation or multinational company). Instead of unions, farms and farmers tend to organize themselves into collectives, whereby the holdings of several farmers are run as a joint enterprise in which member-owners engage in joint farming and commerce activities to leverage greater market share and bargaining power. Typically, the government (both federal and municipal, depending on the area or country) regulates both the farm industry and the labor that supports it. Given the inherent essentialness of food to both human life and social stability, the government is an important element of the farm industry because the government can implement cost-setting and price-stabilizing initiatives, such as subsidies, during periods of large-scale economic hardship to ensure adequate food production. Farmworkers and Migratory Labor

Farmworkers in the context of food industry labor are involved primarily with the act of picking or harvesting the food grown on farms. On all types of farms, the industry labor that performs this task is often performed by migrant or seasonal laborers who move between different types of crops as the growing periods or seasons change.

834

Industry Labor and Labor Unions

It  is considered largely unskilled labor, as it does not require an educational degree to enter the field or a specialized education to perform. In the United States, farmworkers and migratory labor generally comprise new immigrants or temporary residents of the country. The size of the labor industry involved with farmworkers and crop harvesting is largely determined by the government’s regulation of immigration. Historically, such crop picking was performed first by Chinese laborers (late 1800s to 1900s), then Japanese laborers (early 1900s), and more recently, Mexican and Central/South American laborers. The largest labor union associated with the rights and representation of farmworkers and migratory laborers in the United States is the United Farm Workers of America. The United Farm Workers of America was created in 1966 when the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, led by the Filipino organizer Larry Itliong, and the National Farm Workers Association, led by Cesar Chavez, merged. Historically, in the United States, organizing farmworkers was difficult because of the migratory nature of the job and because there were few regulations that defined or protected farmworker labor. For example, legislation such as the 1938 National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act excluded farmworkers from the right to organize a union, from bargaining collectively, and from being paid a minimum wage. Before 1966, farmers (“growers”) were not legally obligated to pay farmworkers, even if the farmworkers were under an employee contract. Since (and even before) the passing of the National Labor Relations Act, farmworkers have been organizing and lobbying to rectify the lack of labor industry regulation and enforcement. Due to their efforts, the government enacted the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act in 1983, replacing an earlier law, the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963, and amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to include the right to a minimum wage for farmworkers. Farmworkers are still actively working to pass a national Farm Worker’s Bill of Rights that would

guarantee basic and essential safety, health, and economic-related regulations and enforcement procedures, but as of 2014, such regulations are limited to amendments and addendums to existing labor laws in individual states. Examples include the states of California and New York.

Packing, Distribution, and Retail Sector Packing and Distribution

Packing and distribution can be understood as the parts of food industry labor involved with taking the food grown on farms and then sorting, preparing, packing, and distributing it for retail and/or the process through which the food harvested from the farm is made into another item or a part of another item that is then sorted, prepared, packaged, and distributed for retail. The  food industry laborers involved with these two sectors include sorters, packagers, canners, preparation specialists, line assemblymen, distributers (e.g., truck drivers and loaders, train car operators and loaders, boat captains and loaders, and air pilots and loaders), among many others. The scale of production involved with this industry labor can be as small as individuals (e.g.,  families) or as large as multinational corporations (e.g., Nabisco, Frito-Lay, and Unilever); however, it is most often associated with industrial markets and capitalist market systems. Due to the heavily industrialized nature of the distribution industry by multinational corporations, the demographics for workers in food packing and distribution are incredibly diverse, as they vary depending on the part of packing and distribution that a laborer works in and where in the country or the world he or she works. Government regulation is a part of food industry labor in packing and distribution because of the need to have safe and healthy practices around food meant for public consumption. The labor unions most often associated with food industry labor in packing and distribution are the Teamsters, Warehouse Workers United, and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Many of the original gains for labor

Industry Labor and Labor Unions

unions and labor in general in the United States come from organizing efforts done in the early 1900s regarding working conditions in factories and transportation systems that participated in material production related to food packing and distribution. The creation and passage of the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act, which was the first legislative initiative to provide for collective bargaining, and the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (i.e., the Wagner Act), which required businesses to bargain in good faith with any union that was supported by the majority of their employees, were both spurred on by the demands of factory and transportation workers, many of whom were in the food labor industry. Retail

Food industry labor in retail is concerned with the selling of food to consumers and customers in retail sites whose predominant market is food related. There are many different types of retail sites for food in the United States and around the world, including food markets, green grocers, grocers, discount warehouses, mom-and-pop shops, farmers’ markets, specialty shops (e.g., butchers, bakeries, patisseries), and Internet web shops. Food industry labor in retail includes labor involved with the ordering, stocking, selling, and preparing of food for sale. Government regulation of food retail is an important part of this sector because it imposes health and safety standards for the workers providing the retail labor and for the consumers purchasing food from food retail settings. The labor unions most often associated with food industry labor in retail in the United States are the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, comprising approximately 1.3 million members in 2014; Food and Retail Workers United; and the Industrial Workers of the World.

Service Sector Food industry labor in the service sector of the  food industry pertains predominately to the buying, selling, preparing, cooking, and serving of

835

food in restaurants. The industry labor involved with restaurants is divided between “front of the house” labor (e.g., hosts, waitstaff) and “back of the house” labor (e.g., cooks, dishwashers). In the United States, there are more than 10 million employees in the food service industry; it is the second largest private sector employer and the largest part of the nation’s food system. Food industry labor unions in the food service sector are increasing in the United States and abroad. For the United States, there is less than 0.01% union density nationwide for workers employed in the food service industry. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012, the median pay for a worker in the service sector of food industry labor was $18,400 annually, or $8.84 per hour. As of 2012, there were 4,438,100 jobs in food service with a project percent rate of change in employment expected to grow by 12% between 2012 and 2022; the national average as of 2012 was 11%. Government regulation is a critical component of this sector because it imposes health and safety standards for the workers providing the food and for the consumers eating the food in these settings. The unions most closely associated with the food service sector are UNITE HERE—formed by the merger of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE) and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE)—and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United. Front of the House

In restaurants, front of the house generally refers to the labor of the people who directly interact with the customers of a restaurant. This includes the hosts of the restaurant (i.e., host and/or hostess) and the servers who serve the customers the food made by the restaurant. Two quasi-front of the house labor positions are table bussers and food runners. Table bussers clean the tables of a restaurant during a meal (i.e., dirty plates during the course of service) and after a customer

836

Intellectual Property Law and Recipes

has finished his or her meal and left the table; they do not generally interact with customers at a restaurant or instigate their prolonged acknowledgment or interaction. Food runners bring food from the kitchen to the customers’ table in a restaurant and also do not generally encourage a customer’s prolonged acknowledgment or interaction. Back of the House

Back of the house labor in restaurants generally refers to the labor of the people who stock, prepare, and cook the food served to the customers in restaurants. They generally do not interact directly with customers, though there are restaurants where customers can be seated within proximity of the chef preparing the food and interact (usually only marginally) with him or her. Chefs generally receive the highest wages of all the positions in food service.

Socioeconomic and Political Issues The food industry in the United States has been accused of engaging in racist, sexist, and economically unethical labor practices. Workers in all three sectors (agriculture; packing, distribution, and retail; and service) of the food industry have experienced racist and sexist hiring practices. The following are examples of such labor practices often associated with the various sectors: Agriculture • Immigration regulations restricting from which countries food workers can enter the United States and for how long they can work as food workers • Lack of career advancement and unclear processes through which a worker can become a manager Packing, distribution, and retail • Hiring based on gender preferences or genderized expectations for particular occupations • Segregation and discriminatory preference for white or native-English-speaking employees (for retail positions involving direct customer interaction)

• Higher rates of pay for men than for women in the same position • Lack of career advancement and unclear processes through which a worker can become a manager Service • Segregation and discriminatory preference for whites and European nationals over other ethnicities and nationalities for front-of-thehouse positions • Lack of transparency in hiring practices • Preference for European accents over other nonnative English-based accents • Higher rates of pay for men than for women in the same position • Higher rates of pay for whites over nonwhites in the same position

Caitlin M. Boston See also Migrant Labor; Restaurant Chefs; Restaurant Waitstaff; Worker Safety

Further Readings Royle, T., & Towers, B. (2002). Labour relations in the global fast-food industry. New York, NY: Routledge. Ruiz, V. (1987). Cannery women, cannery lives. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Stromquist, S. (1997). Unionizing the jungles: Labor and community in the 20th century meat packing industry. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Employment projections: Employment by detailed occupation. Retrieved from http://www.bls .gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm Valdéz, D. N. (2011). Organized agriculture and the labor movement before the UFW. Austin: University of Texas Press.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND RECIPES The dishes and recipes that chefs create are perhaps the most important assets for their careers and businesses. But what happens when a competitor

Intellectual Property Law and Recipes

copies a chef’s creation? Recent high-profile events have drawn attention to this issue and to the role of intellectual property (IP) law in the culinary industry. In fact, however, U.S. law provides very little protection against unauthorized copying of dishes and recipes. This entry addresses the role of copyright, patent, and trade secret laws in the culinary industry and the ways in which chefs seek to informally police copying without legal remedies.

Creativity and Copying in the Culinary Industry Since the publication of the first cookbooks, chefs have touted their own creativity and the inventiveness of their dishes. The rise of nouvelle cuisine, molecular gastronomy, and televised cooking competitions has added emphasis to the importance of culinary creativity. Yet as long as there have been assertions of creativity there has been copying. Chefs serve dishes that they have tasted at other restaurants, and cookbook authors republish recipes taken from other cookbooks. If this copying occurred in other creative fields like music or cinema, the aggrieved parties would have resorted to IP laws to stop the behavior and receive compensation for it. Culinary creativity, however, exists in one of IP law’s “negative spaces”—an area of creative production with little or no formal legal protection.

Copyrighting Recipes and Dishes Copyright law protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. To qualify for protection, a work must be original and minimally creative. Importantly, the originality requirement does not mean that the work must be novel or unique; rather, it simply cannot be copied from another source. In addition, the level of creativity required for copyright protection is very low; any spark of creativity will suffice. Despite these incredibly low hurdles, U.S. courts have generally ruled that culinary recipes do not qualify as copyrightable works of authorship. Courts have typically analyzed recipes as literary works akin to stories or poems. According to this

837

analysis, a recipe that merely describes the amounts of various ingredients and the steps that are required to create the final dish lacks the originality and creativity that are essential to copyright. Courts have ruled that when all someone does is describe a series of manual steps for producing some result, the resulting textual document is insufficient to clear the hurdles. They have analogized recipes to a description of how to manufacture a pharmaceutical by combining certain compounds in certain ways. Accordingly, the simple transcription of ingredients and steps is considered to be an uncopyrightable statement of facts lacking creative expression. Some courts have noted, however, that if a recipe is “spiced up” with additional literary elements, such as descriptions of the origin of the dish or personal recollections, those elements could obtain copyright protection. As noted, to consider the copyrightability of recipes, all of the courts have focused on them as literary works. If, instead, they had considered the “work” at issue to be the dish rather than the recipe, the analysis might have been different. From this perspective, the work that a chef or cookbook author creates is a certain combination of flavors, aromas, appearances, and textures that are embodied in a composed dish. The recipe, then, is merely a method for describing how the work might be performed. According to this analysis, an appropriate analogy is to a music composition: The culinary dish is like a concerto, and the recipe is like the notation for performing it. Now, the important legal questions would be whether dishes can exhibit creative expression and whether there are examples of them that are original. Perhaps the most important hurdle to this approach to culinary dishes is that the current U.S. copyright statute does not list dishes as an example of a copyright work of authorship. Whether courts could include them under the current copyright regime or whether an affirmative act of Congress is necessary are currently open legal questions.

Patent Law and Trade Secret Law Certain kinds of culinary creativity might, in theory, be protectable under patent law. Unlike

838

Intellectual Property Law and Recipes

copyright law, which protects original works of authorship, patent law protects new and useful inventions. To qualify for a patent, an invention must be new, useful, and nonobvious. Here, the newness requirement truly means “novel.” The invention cannot have been described or produced ever before. This is a much higher standard than that in copyright law. Additionally, the nonobvious requirement means that the inventiveness of the contribution must be highly significant. If the claimed invention would have been obvious to someone skilled in the field, then it will not receive a patent. Finally, to obtain a patent, an inventor must submit the invention to administrative review, which can take more than a year and cost thousands of dollars. The differences between copyright and patent law indicate why most chefs will not find patent law helpful for protecting their creations. The thresholds for novelty and inventiveness in patent law are very high, and most recipes will fail to reach them. Culinary creativity often involves tweaks to established dishes or recombinations of ingredients in new ways. Very few such changes are likely to clear the high bar in patent law. Perhaps more important, though, is the examination requirement. Very few chefs will have the resources or the inclination to invest years of their time and thousands of their dollars in a highly uncertain process. By the time the patent is issued, they may well be serving different dishes anyway. Although patent law is unlikely to provide much protection to chefs’ recipes or dishes, it may be more useful to those inventing novel cooking techniques or chemical ingredients. Those involved in molecular gastronomy or modernist cuisine may produce new methods for preparing food that will satisfy the heightened demands of patent law and that might provide sufficient financial return to justify the costs of a patent application. Given the limitations of copyright law and patent law for protecting culinary creativity, some chefs might consider using trade secret law to prevent employees from preparing their dishes at other restaurants or sharing them with other people. Some recipes, most notably those for

Coca-Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken, have been successfully protected as trade secrets. Yet trade secret law has important limits that hinder its usefulness for chefs. Most significantly, trade secret law does not prevent competitors from “reverse engineering” a recipe. That is, if other chefs can figure out how to prepare the dish after seeing and tasting it, trade secret law will not prevent them from doing so. Given the nature of culinary creativity, almost all dishes will likely be easy to reverse engineer by other professional chefs.

Informal Protection for Culinary Creativity IP laws provide recipe creators with very little protection against those who copy their work. Accordingly, many chefs have adopted other strategies for minimizing the effects of copying. These strategies may provide the same benefits of formal legal protection without the attendant costs and inconveniences. First, many chefs simply do not care about copying because they prefer to be constantly developing new dishes. Because dishes can be so easily copied by others, chefs may be motivated to develop new dishes to stay ahead of the competition. Thus, paradoxically, the existence of rampant copying may in fact speed up the pace of culinary innovation. By the time others have copied their dishes, creative chefs will have moved on to new concepts. In this, culinary creativity may share features of the fashion industry. Next, chefs may seek to refocus their energy and investment on aspects of cooking that can less easily be copied. For example, performance, showmanship, and the dining environment may tend to play a more important role in attracting and retaining patrons than do new recipes. This change of focus from the easily copied to the more difficultly copied corresponds to similar shifts by musicians away from recorded music and toward live performances. It is worth noting, however, that this kind of shift is less available to the cookbook publishing industry. Thus, the availability of copies of recipes for free on the Internet may significantly affect cookbook sales.

Intellectual Property Rights

Finally, and perhaps most important, chefs seem to operate within a system of professional norms that govern permissible conduct with respect to borrowing and copying others’ dishes. In general, the culinary industry is open to sharing, and most chefs encourage others to modify and adapt their dishes. Informal norms dictate that if a chef borrows another chef’s dish, he or she must change it sufficiently by incorporating different ingredients or techniques, or he or she must provide attribution to the original chef. Outright copying of existing dishes without attribution violates the community’s norms and can result in the offending chef being ostracized. The existence of these norms may provide the appropriate incentives and rewards for creativity while preventing copying. Moreover, they can do so without the expenses of formal legal rules. Whether a system of formal IP protection is, nonetheless, necessary is an open question. In addition, the creation of a formal legal regime would require answering a number of further very difficult questions. For example, how creative should a dish be to qualify for protection? Should the threshold be as low as copyright law, as high as patent law, or somewhere in between? How long should protection last? Copyright protection generally lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, a term that seems facially implausible for dishes. And how similar should other dishes be allowed to be without violating a right? What number of different ingredients or techniques would be required to avoid infringement? Given the current level of culinary creativity, some writers have wondered whether it is best to avoid these and other difficulties with formal legal protection. Christopher Buccafusco See also Intellectual Property Rights; Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables

Further Readings Buccafusco, C. (2007). On the legal consequences of sauces: Should Thomas Keller’s recipes be per se copyrightable? Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 24, 1121–1156.

839

Fauchart, E., & von Hippel, E. (2008). Norms-based intellectual property systems: The case of French chefs. Organization Science, 19, 187–201. Raustiala, K., & Sprigman, C. J. (2012). The Knockoff economy: How imitation sparks innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Court Cases Lambing v. Godiva Chocolatier, No. 97-5697, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 1983 (6th Cir. Feb. 6, 1998). Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996).

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are exclusive legal rights to particular creations of the mind, or intangible assets, that governing bodies grant to people or groups of people, usually for a set period of time. IPRs are granted for creations that are considered to be industrial property, including inventions, architectural designs, symbols, and geographical indications, and for expressive works like musical compositions, literary and artistic works, films, photographs, performances, computer programs, and recordings. The former category is often granted in the form of patents and trademarks, whereas the latter category is usually recognized by copyrights and related rights. People and groups can also claim IPRs for recipes, foodprocessing technologies, food brands, sources of food origin, and edible plant varieties. The grant of IPRs is usually dependent on the creation meeting certain criteria, including novelty, nonobviousness, and usefulness. Historically, the explicit purpose of IPRs has been to stimulate innovation by rewarding creative minds with temporary monopolies and legal recognition that they could exploit for their benefit for a limited time, before their creations became public goods. However, the efficacy and equity with which IPRs fulfill this purpose today is contested. Debates about IPRs have become even more prominent politically as they have become subject to international standardization and oversight.

840

Intellectual Property Rights

IPRs related to food have garnered significant attention due to the prevalence of undernutrition, malnutrition, and overnutrition, and to inequalities of power between different nations and groups in access to and authority over food’s production and consumption. Plant genetic resources, or the DNA of plants, continue to be a particular point of contention, due to the importance of agriculture to subsistence, livelihood, and global trade. Organizations like the World Trade Organization have attempted to create international standards for IPRs, but the complexity of maintaining legal systems to recognize and protect IPRs locally, nationally, and internationally has proved a formidable and continuing challenge to governing bodies concerned with food production and distribution.

Contextual History The concept of intellectual property has a long history, but it is not a universal given. IPRs as they are widely discussed today are rooted in the European and American legal systems and serve as an umbrella term for several legal regimes that converged in the 20th century and continue to be institutionalized at various scales. Although property is not understood in the same way in all cultures and societies, the extension of international legal systems and policies has led to the framing of certain intangible goods, as with physical objects, in terms of Euro-American categories and philosophies. The concept of intellectual property follows European philosophers, including John Locke and G. W. F. Hegel, in understanding ideas, inventions, and creative expressions as the results of personal genius and individual effort and as extensions of particular selfhood. Consequently, according to this logic, societies are morally obligated to reward the individual creators of intangible products with formal recognition and with exclusive use of the fruits of their labors. Furthermore, utilitarian reasoning posits that such rewards are necessary to motivate individuals to continue generating new creations of the mind for collective use and benefit. A few examples of intellectual property protection survive from ancient Greece and Rome,

including one case from the 6th century BCE, in which chefs could exploit monopolies on their culinary creations for single-year terms. Yet the practice of recognizing what we now call IPRs burgeoned in Medieval Europe, where guilds and monarchs granted monopolies and privileges on techniques and technologies for creative work. Often, these rights were granted for assets already in the public domain and were explicitly intended to control trade for political and economic purposes, rather than to stimulate innovation. However, in 1624, the Statute of Monopolies in England shifted the grant of exclusive rights to novel creations only. The American colonies adopted England’s laws for patenting and copyrighting and similar laws are now being applied globally. In the United States, claimants of food-related IPRs can meet the patent requirements by creating food products, compositions, and processes that feature such things as reduced calories, microwavability, different textures, added convenience, extended shelf life, flavoring with additives, and adherence to special diets. Claimants can also seek trademark protection for branded products and techniques and for foods associated with geographic locations.

International Intellectual Property Rights Policies Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property

Over the past century, and more rapidly in recent decades, international conventions and governing bodies have followed the example of the United States and European countries in attempting to standardize IPRs, and global agreements and policies have proliferated as a result. One of the first of these agreements was the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in 1883 and still in effect and as of 2014 managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization. However, international trade and IPRs remained largely unrelated in legal terms until the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which took place from 1986 to 1994. The end of this round saw the establishment of the World Trade

Intellectual Property Rights

Organization and of the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which continues to be the most comprehensive international trade agreement regarding IPRs. Negotiations in support of the TRIPS agreement were led by a group of developed countries, and since terms of the Uruguay Round required agreement to the entire package of negotiation, many developing countries were forced to compromise, even though some wanted to keep IPR issues out of multilateral trade agreements. The TRIPS agreement went into effect in 1995, and for the first time, all signatories were required to harmonize their intellectual property rules based on minimum standards of protection. Under the national treatment and most favored nation principles, TRIPS holds that each country treat all foreign IPR holders the same as it would its own nationals. Under the principle of nondiscrimination, patents must be available for any inventive product or process, in any field of technology, for a minimum granting period of 20 years. Some developing countries and other policy commentators expressed concern that these changes would create excessive burdens of implementation, so an extended deadline for implementation was granted to some countries to address this problem. Others worried that the TRIPS agreement could challenge the abilities of some countries to control trade and IPRs, if necessary, to ensure the health and nutrition of their citizens. Exclusions to the terms of the agreement were added to offer flexibility in interpretation of the standards to resolve this problem. Members are allowed to exclude inventions from patentability if they are necessary to protect public morality and order; human, plant, and animal life and health; and the environment. These exceptions have the potential to be critical to food security, but the subjectivity with which this exclusion can be interpreted has served to further contentions about the agreement. Plant and Animal Protections

Further complication comes from Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS agreement, which allows members to exclude plants and animals (other

841

than microorganisms) and their essential biological processes from international patentability but requires them to protect plant varieties by patents or sui generis (i.e., unique) systems. This clause directly relates to agriculture and biotechnology and, therefore, to food security. Prior to TRIPS, many developing countries did not have protection systems for IPRs to plant varieties, partially due to the fact that IPR is a concept rooted specifically in the Euro-American context, and private ownership of entities like crop germplasm, or DNA of a particular food plant, is not a universally salient notion; in some cultures, these concepts are even explicitly counter to social norms and religious beliefs. Moreover, other international agreements, like the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, adopted by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in 1983, had previously asserted that food plant germplasm belonged to a common heritage and was to be preserved and made available for the benefit of all. As a result, some countries and groups have actively resisted adopting the framework of international IPRs under TRIPS. Meanwhile, seeing that IPRs are playing a critical role in international policy and trade, others have advocated moving quickly to adopt at minimum some form of plant variety protection (PVP). Adoption is intended not only to put countries in compliance with TRIPS but also to protect against vulnerability to “biopiracy,” or an outside party’s unjust claim to IPRs on products or processes with which they feel they have a prior relationship. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), first adopted at an international convention in 1961, is a PVP form of IPR agreement that some EU nations and developing countries prefer to patents. UPOV is commonly referred to as a protection of breeders’ rights, allowing breeders exclusive rights for at least 20 years for any varieties they develop that are relatively uniform, reproductively stable, distinct from other varieties, and not already marketed. The UPOV agreement is distinct from a patent in that it allows for the private use of protected varieties for nonmonetary benefit or for

842

Intellectual Property Rights

research. Even PVPs like the UPOV have been criticized, however, for their limitation of farmers’ privileges to exchange seeds, a common practice in traditional agriculture, and for their implicit orientation toward cultivation of a few commodity crops for export markets.

Intellectual Property Rights and Other Rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights

By encouraging farming for international sale over farming for subsistence, these changes in agricultural policy will continue to have economic effects, some of which have the potential to enhance food security and others of which could further challenge nutritional health. On the global scale, economic and political inequality between nations provokes concern about the equity with which IPRs will be exercised. Food security advocates call attention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, which proclaims the right of all people to a healthy standard of living, with an explicit reference to food. Some argue that this international agreement takes moral and temporal precedent over trade agreements like TRIPS. Convention on Biological Diversity

Additionally, TRIPS has had to contend with the principle of national sovereignty over plant genetic resources, which is recognized in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), first adopted in the UN Earth Summit in 1992. This agreement seeks to protect each country’s right to control how different germplasm are used within its borders and which germplasm is exported and imported. The CBD’s principle of sovereignty is related to the concept of food sovereignty, under which various nations and other groups have claimed their rights, not to the exclusive use of intellectual property but to self-determine the features of their food system, with a focus on the demands and desires of local people rather than those of global markets.

Technical Knowledge The primary objectives of the CBD include the conservation of biological diversity and the equitable and fair sharing of benefits that come from the utilization of genetic resources. Concerns about genetic erosion, or loss of biodiversity, due to the focus on patented commodity crops have led to continued empirical analyses of the effects of IPRs on biodiversity. The CBD also recognizes that traditional knowledge (TK) must be preserved and valued. Analysis of TK makes clear that local cultures have long developed not only plant and animal resources for food but also technologies and information that are essential to the continued use, conservation, and development of food for humans. The CBD requires that anyone using TK in new contexts secure consent and permission from the people who maintain it, but this has historically proven difficult. Nonetheless, despite continued conflict and inconsistency between the mandates of the CBD and those of TRIPS and UPOV, advocates promote these IPR systems as possible avenues for protecting the bearers of TK. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a supplement to the CBD adopted in 2000, further complicates the implementation of IPRs through TRIPS, because it maintains countries’ sovereign rights to determine their acceptance of living modified organisms, which are built on existing genetic resources but are considered novel, patentable products of biotechnology. Some countries are concerned about the possible effects of genetic contamination, in which genetically modified organisms unintentionally cross with local plant varieties, because the bearers of IPRs for genetically modified organisms can claim patent infringement if their patented genetic material is found in other varieties without grant of the IPR-bearer’s permission. Several cases throughout the world have indicated that these conflicts between IPRs and other rights are real, rather than merely potential, problems.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Study

Points of Possible Resolution Despite attempts to standardize legal systems on intellectual property on the international scale, the diversity of organizations, stakeholders, and agreements involved poses significant challenges not only to the establishment of laws but also to their implementation and enforcement. However, some countries have taken advantage of the flexibility of the TRIPS agreement by instituting non-UPOV sui generis PVP systems that are more attuned to local needs, practices, and cultural norms related to ownership of genetic material and TK. Some countries are also exploring the use of geographic indicators, which act like a type of trademark, to protect their food products and processes. Participants hope that using IPR regimes in these ways will allow for international trade, food security, biodiversity conservation, and national sovereignty. Meanwhile, organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organization and the CBD, as well as regional consortiums, are working to make trade relations and recognition of IPRs more equitable for all. Madeline Chera See also Biopiracy; Food Sovereignty; Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Intellectual Property Law and Recipes; International Food Security; Seed Conservation; Trademarks; World Trade Organization

Further Readings Blakeney, M. (2009). Intellectual property rights and food security. Oxford, UK: CABI. Dutfield, G., & Suthersanen, U. (2008). Global intellectual property law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Lightbourne, M. (2009). Food security, biological diversity and intellectual property rights. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. O’Donnell, R. W., O’Malley, J. J., Huis, R. J., & Halt, G. B., Jr. (2008). Intellectual property in the food technology industry: Protecting your innovation. New York, NY: Springer.

843

Posey, D. A., & Dutfield, G. (1996). Beyond intellectual property: Toward traditional resource rights for indigenous peoples and local communities. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development Research. Swanson, K. W. (2011). Food and drug law as intellectual property law: Historical reflections (Northeastern University School of Law Research Paper No. 49-2011). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1822223 Tansey, G., & Rajotte, T. (Eds.). (2008). Future control of food: A guide to international negotiations and rules on intellectual property, biodiversity and food security. London, UK: Earthscan.

Websites International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD): http://ictsd.org World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): http:// www.wipo.int World Trade Organization (WTO): http://www.wto.org

INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDY

OF

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) is a landmark 3-year (2005–2007) study cosponsored by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the UN Education and Science Organization, the UN Development Programme, the UN Environmental Organization, the Global Environmental Facility, and the World Bank that had “business as usual is not an option in agriculture” as a major conclusion. Made up of a global assessment and five subglobal regional assessments, the goal of the IAASTD was to assess agricultural knowledge, science, and technology (AKST) over the past 50 years and to formulate recommendations for the next 50 years in order to ask how AKST can

844

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Study

be used to reduce hunger and poverty; improve rural livelihoods, nutrition, and human health; and facilitate equitable environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable development. It also projected a series of alternative future scenarios based on that knowledge and current trends in critical variables, such as land use, water availability, population growth, climate change effects, demographic changes, and patterns of income distribution. The IAASTD process also produced summaries for decision makers of each assessment (produced simultaneously) and a synthesis report highlighting eight identified critical crosscutting themes that needed to be addressed by AKST: (1) bioenergy, (2) biotechnology, (3) climate change, (4) human health, (5) natural resource management, (6) trade and markets, (7) traditional and local knowledge and community-based innovation, and (8) women in agriculture. The IAASTD followed a unique multistakeholder process that included government and civil society representatives. Private industry was included in civil society, in keeping with UN Major Groups delineations. Other civil society representatives came from consumer, producer, nongovernmental, and institutional organizations. In all, more than 400 experts from more than 100 countries and a wide variety of disciplines related to agriculture and rural development collaborated on the final assessments. The IAASTD was also innovative in that it sought to achieve gender balance among its panel of experts and to bring their perspectives into dialogue in a variety of ways by drawing them from both the global South and the global North; from the social, economic and biophysical disciplines; and from conventional and ecoagricultural approaches. This entry discusses the background and findings of this collaborative international study.

consultative process to ascertain whether a review of AKST was necessary. This was prompted by discussions among the World Bank, nongovernmental organizations, and agribusiness regarding how to assess the role and importance of modern biotechnology. Some expressed concern that transgenic had not been given its due in terms of its potential contribution to sustainability and food security; in contrast, others argued that a scientific assessment of the productivity, sustainability, and safety of genetically modified organisms would be mixed, at best. After the formation of an international steering committee, 11 international consultations were held with governments, scientists, and civil society, which resulted in the recommendation that a multithematic, multispatial, and multitemporal review of AKST was necessary. This broader mandate was then carried forward to a 2004 intergovernmental meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, where participants endorsed a review process governed by a geographically balanced and multistakeholder bureau combining 30 governments and 30 civil society representatives to integrate a wide array of concerns, to allow a full range of views, and to build consensus across regions and perspectives. Authors and review editors who adjudicated the peer review were nominated by stakeholders and selected by the bureau; they worked on their own behalf and not as representatives of the stakeholders that nominated them. Additional individuals, governments, and organizations participated in the two rounds of peer review that took place during the formation of the documents. The actual research, public consultation, and writing took place between 2005 and 2008. At its conclusion, the reports were brought back to an intergovernmental plenary in Johannesburg in 2008, where they were approved by 58 of the 61 governments in attendance. Only Australia, Canada, and the United States withheld assent.

Background The roots of the IAASTD are in the August 2002 Earth Summit (World Summit for Sustainable Development) in Johannesburg, South Africa, where the World Bank announced a global

Findings While the IAASTD assessments recognized that there has been considerable scientific and technological success in increasing the productivity of a

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Study

relatively narrow range of crops over the past 50  years, they also argued that this has been achieved at serious social and environmental costs and in a way that is unsustainable for the future. Furthermore, despite its achievements, the current global food system has been unsuccessful at solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity and is unlikely to do so following its current path. People have benefited unevenly from these productivity increases between and across regions due to inequality and “different organizational capacities, sociocultural factors, and institutional and policy environments” (IAASTD, 2009c, p. 5), and in particular, it has been the poor in the global South who have gained the least. Lack of sustainability was associated both with large, industrial farming in which environmental problems are considered “externalities” or “market failures” and with poor, smallholder farming in which deforestation or soil degradation is the result of a vicious circle of poverty in which farmers undermine the ongoing productivity of the natural environment and their future livelihoods to feed their families in the present moment. Costs have also been cultural, with increasing “monocultures of the mind,” loss of local knowledge, and community breakdown. Demand for food is projected to double within the next 25 to 50 years, primarily in the global South. The agricultural sector needs to develop so that it can meet this challenge in an environmentally and socially sustainable manner, enhance rural livelihoods, and provide a platform for development in other sectors. However, this will have to be done in the context of continuing limitations, such as less availability of labor, water, and arable land; increasing land and land policy conflicts; loss of biodiversity, agricultural biodiversity, and ecosystem services; increasing water and air pollution; habitat destruction; soil erosion and degradation; food safety and human health threats; rural depopulation; loss of livelihood; and increasing inequality and climate change. Agriculture is bumping up against limits that severely constrain its ability to maintain or increase rates of productivity across the globe. Moreover, the

845

capacity of large, industrial farming to provide increasing quantities of cheap food is based on the availability of cheap oil in the form of agrochemical inputs and fuel to power farm machinery and transport, as well as cheap water for irrigation, which may very well be limited in the future. According to the IAASTD, existing AKST and its institutional and organizational environment are not adequate to meet these future challenges. Except in a few countries, current trends show the progressive privatization of agricultural research and extension, a narrowing of research domains, and the erosion of agricultural sciences in universities and centers of public research. Accompanying this are shifts in funding levels and sources for agriculture. Public sector research funding, especially that relevant to the global South, has stalled and become a progressively smaller share of the total spending of AKST. In contrast, private sector funding is growing, but the focus is primarily on markets of the global North, and is narrowly oriented toward productivity goals and not focused on environmental sustainability or the needs of the world’s poor. While the requirements of large and medium farmers continue to be significant, particularly in relation to land use and their importance to food systems, a large share of AKST should be targeted at those previously underserved sections of society: asset-poor farmers, women, and ethnic minorities. Pro-poor progress depends on increased public research and extension investment that targets this group and understands both the complexity of challenges facing small, poor farmers and the broad range of responses needed to address them. Investment in AKST, for instance, that increases the resilience of local food systems to environmental and economic shocks can underpin small farm sustainability and food security, particularly in light of appropriate policy choices. Agricultural systems are varied and complex, as are the social and environmental contexts in which they operate. Agriculture is multifunctional in that there is an “inescapable interconnectedness of agriculture’s different roles and functions.” Agriculture is a “multi-output activity producing not only commodities (food, feed, fibers, agrofuels,

846

International Food Security

medicinal products and ornamentals), but also noncommodity outputs such as environmental services, landscape amenities and cultural heritages” (IAASTD, 2009a, p. 4). This multifunctionality and “systemness” of agriculture must be integrated into AKST to enable environmental, social, and economic sustainability over the medium and long term. While existing AKST can deal with some of the environmental and social causes underlying declining productivity, real progress depends on a multidisciplinary, agroecological approach to allow agriculture to maintain or increase productivity while addressing social, economic, and environmental sustainability issues. This approach understands that farmers, farm households, and farming-based communities are producers and managers of ecosystems and ecological services and that there is a need to internalize as many externalities as is possible along the value chain. It also recognizes that farmers and local communities themselves have developed local and traditional knowledge, which might be complementary to, and profitably integrated with, formal AKST under the appropriate circumstances. Some challenges depend primarily on the development of new and emerging AKST, such as paying small farmers for ecological services, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, and strengthening and redirecting AKST to integrate principles of gender equity. JoAnn Jaffe See also Climate Change; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Hunger; Soil Degradation and Conservation; Sustainable Agrifood Systems

Further Readings International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. (2009a). Agriculture at a crossroads: Executive summary of the synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. (2009b). Agriculture at a crossroads: Global report. Washington, DC: Island Press.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. (2009c). Agriculture at a crossroads: Global summary for decision makers. Washington, DC: Island Press. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. (2009d). Agriculture at a crossroads: Synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Website United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Early Warning and Assessment: http://www.unep.org/ dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/ Default.aspx

INTERNATIONAL FOOD SECURITY The term food security is an elusive and everevolving concept. By one count, there are nearly 200 different definitions of the term. The specific ways in which food (in)security is defined has important implications for how the problem is monitored and measured and how policy prescriptions are devised. Differing conceptualizations of food insecurity can lead to widely varying estimates on its prevalence. For example, in June 2009, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), using estimates of “undernourishment” derived from national-level food balance sheets and assumptions about national-level distribution capacity, estimated that the number of foodinsecure people in the world had risen to 1.02 billion. Alternatively, in the same month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, using a simulation model based on prices and production, estimated that 833 million people globally were food insecure. Yet, while debates over how to define and measure food (in)security rage, one thing that all sides agree on is that food insecurity, and related issues of hunger and malnourishment, is widespread, affecting nearly one in every seven people in the world. Moreover, while the incidence of food insecurity has declined over time, particularly in South America and Asia, the absolute number of people

International Food Security

experiencing prolonged or episodic food insecurity has increased. The situation is particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa, where it is estimated that nearly half of the population is food insecure. This entry traces the ways in which food (in)security has been defined over time, the factors that contributed to significant changes, and the policy approaches that emerge from the varying definitions. This entry also identifies three significant shifts in the definition of food security, each of which has had important implications on how policymakers, relief organizations, and donors structure their responses. Understanding how these definitions overlap and play out in practice suggests that the concept of food security revolves around three central pillars: availability, access, and utilization. These pillars are used to discuss food security challenges in the context of global climate change in the final section.

Supply-Side Definition In 1974, world leaders held the first World Food Conference in Rome in response to two unprecedented years of high food prices and a devastating famine in Bangladesh. At the time, there was widespread fear that the global food system was out of control. Despite strong statements from the U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that within 10  years of the conference no child would go to bed hungry, the fundamental preoccupation of the conference was to address concerns of food prices and supplies, while also seeking to limit systemic risks to the food system posed by crop failures in major global breadbaskets. In the final report that emerged from the first World Food Conference came the first globally accepted definition of food security: the “availability at all times of adequate world supplies of basic food-stuffs . . . to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption . . . and to offset fluctuations in production and price” (United Nations, 1975). This definition highlights both the practical concern for food price and production volatility that plagued the global food system at the time, as well as the predominance of positivist intellectual approaches in the 1970s.

847

The preoccupation with food supplies and prices meant that the nation-state became the primary unit of analysis in policy debates about food security. Common measures of food security that emerged from this definition focused on whether or not a nation could access sufficient dietary energy, measured in terms of daily calories per person, to sustain the population. In many cases, national food self-sufficiency became synonymous with national food security. This narrow definition, which placed food security at the national level and which focused almost exclusively on questions of ensuring adequate national food supplies, available dietary energy, and stable prices, led to a very specific set of policy prescriptions. These include, among others, beggar-thy-neighbor trade policies, including export bans during low production years; operating parastatal food marketing agencies to act as national food reserves; and attempts to address national food deficits in poor countries with massive imports of subsidized grains from wealthy countries. The adverse effects of these policies are well documented. Beggar-thy-neighbor policies, particularly when imposed by major grain producers, can lead to rapid increases in global food prices, which hurts consumers the world over, while at the same time driving up the import bill for food in the country that imposed the ban. Despite wellestablished evidence of the adverse consequences of this policy approach, export bans in the name of food self-sufficiency remain common. As recently as 2010, Russia placed an export ban on wheat after a series of weather-induced crop failures, leading directly to a rapid rise in the global price of wheat. Because many of the world’s poor spend 70% to 80% of their total disposable income on food, a rapid increase in staple food prices leads to a dramatic contraction in the amount of food they can purchase. Frequently, increases in food prices force poor people to forego other important expenditures, such as medicines or school fees; limit the quantity and quality of foods they eat; or a combination of the two. Thus, efforts to achieve national food security through trade restrictions on foods can lead

848

International Food Security

directly to a contraction in the ability of poor people to access enough to eat. In Africa, the conflation of national food self-sufficiency and food security continues to guide many governments’ policy approaches to agricultural development and trade. In Zambia, for example, the government routinely spends more than 60% of its agricultural budget subsidizing the production and marketing of maize, as well as actively regulating the trade of maize and other key staples, in an effort to achieve food selfsufficiency. However, despite these efforts, rural poverty and the prevalence of malnutrition have remained virtually unchanged for more than a decade. Using an assortment of farm subsidies to promote surplus food production in developed agricultural economies, and exporting these surpluses to food-deficit countries in the form of food aid or through commercial exports, is another outgrowth of the supply-side definition of food insecurity. The common justification for this approach is that  the comparative advantage of poor, foodimporting nations is surplus labor. As such, these countries should not divert this resource to the production of low-value staple foods that can be  more cheaply procured from places like the United States or Europe. Importing cheap, highly subsidized foods, both through commercial imports and food aid, frees up labor in importing countries that can be more profitably directed toward manufacturing, extractive industries or high-value export agriculture. However, a significant body of literature has shown that this approach can be extremely damaging to the importing countries and lock them into a “poverty trap” that is difficult to escape. By flooding markets in poor countries with subsidized food, local food producers find it increasingly difficult to compete. This in turn means that many local food producers stop producing food for local markets and/or receive significantly less for their products than would be the case otherwise. As a result, the potential for local farmers, who are often the poorest segments of these societies, to use agriculture as a vehicle out of poverty is diminished

at the same time that the country’s vulnerability to changes in global food prices increases.

Demand-Side Definition The Malthusian preoccupation with food supplies that dominated food security discussions in the 1970s was incapable of coping with one glaring paradox: the coexistence of widespread hunger in the presence of adequate national and international food supplies. Indeed, recent analysis has shown that changes in aggregate food supply do not effectively help predict changes in other potentially valuable ways of measuring food (in)security, such as changes in the prevalence of stunting and undernourishment among children below 5 years of age. According to a recent calculation, the global population of undernourished people has increased by 9% since 1990 despite a 12% rise in global food production per capita. Amartya Sen’s seminal work on poverty and famines in 1981 initiated a significant shift in the conceptualization of food (in)security from a focus on supplies to a more nuanced concentration on access and entitlements to food. Through rigorous theoretical codification and empirical analysis, Sen (1981) was able to effectively demonstrate that starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough to eat. It is not the characteristic of there being not enough food to eat. While the latter can be a cause of the former, it is but one of many possible causes. (p. 1)

The weight of evidence brought to bear by Sen and others on the relationship between food access and food security prompted a rapid reevaluation of how food (in)security is defined and, thereby, acted on. By 1983, the FAO significantly revised its definition of food security in ways that placed questions of food access at the center. By its definition, food security is achieved when “all people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic foods they need” (FAO, 1983). By transforming issues related to food security from a concern with aggregate food supply to one focused

International Food Security

on the capacity to access food, the relationship between food (in)security and poverty, and its corollaries of social, political, and economic disenfranchisement, were brought into sharper focus. Yet the shift from measures of food supplies and available calories to questions of food access has raised a number of thorny issues in terms of how to measure food (in)security and how to respond to it. In particular, if food security is fundamentally an issue of food access, what is the most appropriate unit of analysis for measuring its incidence, the household or the individual? Studies of intrahousehold food access have provided compelling evidence that significant power differentials within households, in terms of control over household resources and access to income, have implications for the individual’s capacity to consistently access sufficient food. However, effectively measuring an individual’s capacity to access food is both methodologically challenging and costly. As a result, while most studies acknowledge the importance of intrahousehold power differential in shaping food access conditions, the household is the most common unit of analysis in food security studies and tends to be the primary focus of policy interventions aimed at improving food access. Household-level studies of food insecurity have shown that while catastrophic events, such as war or drought, are associated with severe contractions in people’s capacity to access food, most food insecurity is actually seasonal or episodic, and is directly related to chronic poverty. Policy responses to humanitarian disasters are very different from those that seek to address episodic food access constraints resulting from poverty. On the one hand, humanitarian disasters related to natural events such as droughts can often be predicted well in advance, through famine early warning systems and other predictive models. However, anticipating a food disaster and acting on it are two very different things. For example, due to a host of legislative restrictions on food procurement and shipping, the United States, the world’s largest food donor, has a median food delivery time to disaster areas of 5  months. In many ways, mobilizing the political will to act on impending food disasters is a far

849

greater challenge than coping with the problem once resources have been made available. On the other hand, coping with food access constraints resulting from chronic poverty are far more challenging to address, in part because it is so difficult to effectively target interventions, such as food aid and other safety nets, to those in need. As a result, direct interventions, such as feeding programs aimed at filling food access gaps among the very poor, struggle to contribute to long-term improvements in the incidence of food insecurity. Instead, indirect interventions, such as policies aimed at promoting employment and agricultural productivity growth among the poor, coupled with improvements in market conditions and resource access and control among the vulnerable, have been shown to be effective at improving people’s long-term capacity to access food.

Food Quality and Preferences Supply- and demand-side definitions of food security often rely on objective measurements to evaluate the incidence of food insecurity. For example, in some studies, a household is determined to be food insecure if they cannot consistently acquire 80% of the World Health Organization’s required daily caloric intake. Metrics like this are problematic, because ensuring sufficient access to calories, at the household or individual level, misses important qualitative dimensions of food, including the nutritional qualities and cultural preferences. A combination of intellectual advancements and disciplinary shifts has pushed food security studies to become cognizant of the qualitative dimensions of food when seeking to respond to and understand food (in)security. On the one hand, advancements in human nutrition research have yielded important insights into the role of micronutrient access and utilization in promoting physical and cognitive development. As a result, an increasing amount of work aimed at improving the incidence of childhood growth stunting, and other common anthropometric measures of nutritional inadequacy, has shifted away from a myopic focus on macronutrients, such as carbohydrates and

850

International Food Security

protein, and has instead begun to develop ways of increasing people’s access to critical micronutrients. This is frequently done through the fortification of processed foods, as wells as, increasingly, through the production of crops that are biofortified. For example, in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, vitamin A deficiency has been shown to be a major contributor to growth stunting among children. In seeking to address this, a consortium of agricultural research institutes have developed hybrid maize and sweet potato strains that are naturally rich in vitamin A. The other dimension of the qualitative turn in food security studies and programing is the recognition of the importance of cultural norms and values surrounding food. The appreciation of cultural food norms on food acceptance and its relationship to human dignity emerged out of a broader critique of positivist intellectual traditions that began in the 1980s. In many places, culturally rooted food preferences play an important role in whether or not relief food meant to address food insecurity is actually consumed by the target population. If a local population culturally proscribes the consumption of certain foods, or the population does not know how to prepare them because they are not a part of its normal diet, then much of this food may not be consumed. As a result of this qualitative turn in food security studies, a modified definition of food security emerged from the 1996 World Food Summit: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for a healthy and active life” (FAO, 1996). This definition has become the most commonly used definition of food security and suggests that the concept of food security can be seen to revolve around three fundamental pillars: availability, access, and utilization.

Future Food Security Concerns Recent studies suggest that under current economic and population growth projections, the world will need 70% to 100% more food by 2050 than is

currently produced today. This challenge is significantly compounded by the mounting evidence that human-induced climate change is significantly altering global and regional food systems. This will have important implications for our capacity to achieve the goal of universal food security. Using the three fundamental pillars of food security as a lens for identifying strategies for improving food security in the context of global climate change is critical for identifying policies and approaches to help mitigate its effects. One of the fundamental ways in which global climate change will affect food security is in terms of food availability. Changing rainfall patterns and temperatures caused by climate change will radically alter the agroecological conditions of many farming regions. Responding to this change in ways that ensure that food availability is not adversely affected will require a host of investments in both crop sciences, aimed at identifying new seed varieties and farming practices that perform well under these changing conditions, as well as significant support to allow farmers, particularly poor farmers, to adapt to these changing conditions. Global climate change will also significantly alter the geography of food production in the world, by expanding the potential for food production in places that were once too dry or cold, while at the same time diminishing production in more traditional breadbaskets. This in turn could have important implications in terms of food access. On a global scale, food access conditions could be affected by infrastructural bottlenecks in emergent food production regions, which limit the capacity of these regions to effectively link to global food markets. At the same time, the adverse effects of climate change in important food production areas, or regions where the majority of the population rely on agriculture for their livelihoods, may lead to a contraction in the physical and economic capacity of these populations to access sufficient food through either production or through exchange. Finally, coping with the uncertainty in the global food system caused by global climate

Invasive Species

change, and its effects on people’s capacity to access food, will require significant improvements in food utilization, both at an individual and global level. At an individual level, improving the utilization of foods requires improvements in sanitation and food preparation methods to ensure that the body can effectively utilize the nutrients consumed. At a more macrolevel, improving food utilization will require significant advancements in food storage and strategies to limit food wastage. In these ways, individuals and societies can make better use of the food that is produced, thereby expanding the capacity of the food system to make food available for a growing population. Nicholas J. Sitko See also Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Food Justice; Global Warming and Future Food Supply; Human Right to Adequate Food; Hunger

Further Readings Barrett, C. B. (2010). Measuring food insecurity. Science, 327(5967), 825–828. doi:10.1126/science.1182768 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1983). World food security: A reappraisal of the concept and approaches (Director-General’s Report). Rome, Italy: Author. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1996). Declaration on world food security (World Food Summit). Rome, Italy: Author. Maxwell, S. (1996). Food security: A post-modern perspective. Food Policy, 21(2), 155–170. doi:10.1016/0306-9192(95)00074-7 Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009). Food security: Definition and measurement. Food Security, 1(1), 5–7. doi:10.1007/s12571-008-0002-y Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlements and deprivation. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Shipton, P. (1990). African famines and food security: Anthropological perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 353–394. doi:10.1146/annurev .an.19.100190.002033 Smith, M., Pointing, J., & Maxwell, S. (1992). Household food security, concepts and definitions: An annotated

851

bibliography (Vol. 8). Brighton, UK: University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies. United Nations. (1975). Report of the World Food Conference, New York, November 5–16, 1974. Rome, Italy: Author.

INVASIVE SPECIES The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service defines an invasive species as “one that is not native to an ecosystem and which causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” Invasive species stem from the categorization of species as native or introduced. Native species are those that historically occurred in a given habitat. These form part of the greater community of plants, microorganisms, pollinators, and other species that exist in balance. Introduced species are species that can survive in an introduced environment. This entry begins by describing how invasive species are introduced to an environment. Next, it describes their survival mechanisms. Then, it examines various methods of controlling invasive species, and it concludes with a discussion of other, perhaps beneficial, uses for invasive species.

Introduction Into an Environment Humans (Homo sapiens) are a species whose journeys take them across the planet, but other species (animals, insects, plants, and microorganisms) also travel. Although plants and microorganisms may not walk on two legs, they may travel long distances if they attach themselves to people, who then unwittingly spread them while moving from place to place. Other species may be introduced deliberately: People may bring them back from their journeys because they are beautiful or because they provide a useful function. The species that humans “introduce” to places far from their origin are often beneficial, such as agricultural crops. Consider the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Hundreds of years ago, the tomato

852

Invasive Species

Many invasive species of plants, animals, insects, and pathogens have developed highly effective survival methods. Such strategies of adaptability and growth enable invasive species to outcompete and dominate a landscape over time.

invasive plant introduced from Europe in the mid-1800s, kills off the mycorrhizal fungi that trees need to take up nutrients from the soil. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) has roots that release a toxin into the soil to kill off neighboring plants, thus allowing the weed to keep more water and nutrients for itself. Other survival methods include fast reproduction (often producing multiple generations in a year) and high dispersal of seed. For instance, each garlic mustard plant can produce hundreds of seeds, which can lay dormant for 5 or more years, waiting for the right conditions for germination. However, plants can also be spread vegetatively rather than by seed. Plants such as mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) and the Japanese angelica tree (Aralia elatus) form large clonal stands that grow out larger every year, forming thick monocultures that crowd out other species. Covering the ground in times when other plants are still dormant (very early spring or late fall) gives some weeds an edge up over other species. Some plants increase their chances of survival through self-pollination; that is, a male and female is not required to pollinate.

Plants

Animals

Plants are able to thrive in habitats that are disturbed (plowed or dug up for building development) as well as in various other conditions: a crack in the sidewalk, a highly polluted environment, little water, or too much water. The Norway maple tree (Acer platanoide), for example, is a tree that tolerates various soil, temperatures (it is extremely shade tolerant), and pollution, so it outcompetes native trees such as sugar maple trees and reduces forest diversity because it forms a dense canopy under which fewer species are able to grow. Plants are relatively pest free. The pests and diseases that normally keep invasive species in check remain in their original place of origin and do not accompany them to their new home. A plant’s ability to exude chemicals into the ground can also keep other plants at bay. For example, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), an

Invasive animals also outcompete other species for food or resources. The Asian carp, which can eat almost anything, was brought to the United States intentionally to remove algae from ponds. The Burmese python, which are also not fussy about what they eat, are often imported as pets and then released into the wild when they become too large. Lionfish became established after being released from aquariums into the wild. They are eating their way through marine reefs at the rate of about 7,000 pounds of seafood per acre per year, and native fish do not recognize them as predators. Green crab (Carcinus maenas), considered one of the worst invasive species, can survive in a wide range of salinities and temperatures. It preys on a variety of young species of oyster and other crabs, affecting productivity of fisheries and habitats.

was “introduced” into the United States from its original place of origin, Mexico. Apart from a few plants that may grow up where seeds have fallen or in a compost pile, the tomato plant does not spread out and disperse from its original site; it must be replanted. Other introduced species, however, do more than just survive in their new habitats. They produce progeny and can escape the confines of their original site. They can crowd out crops or take over parklands and watersheds. Such species become known as invasive or noxious. Invasive species in natural landscapes can become a monoculture and destroy the natural ecology and diverse communities of the existing habitats. This upsets the natural balance and has repercussions along the food chain, from pollinators to birds to mammals.

Survival Methods

Invasive Species

Insects

Two examples of invasive insects are the hemlock woolly adelgid and the emerald ash borer. The hemlock woolly adelgid is native to Asia, but it was first discovered in the United States in 1924. Currently, about 50% of hemlock in the eastern United States is infested with this invasive insect, which continues to spread. The emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) is native to Asia but has become invasive in the United States. It has no known predators here, and it can devastate populations of ash trees as it spreads. Pathogens

The American chestnut tree used to be one of the most common hardwood trees in the northeastern United States. Today, due to the chestnut blight, spread by the Asian bark fungus (Cryphonectria parasitica) carried to the United States on imported Asian chestnut trees, there are fewer than 100 mature trees. Another fungi, Asomycota, has wiped out nonresistant populations of Dutch elm trees.

Control Methods Conservation groups and federal and local governments have adopted several methods to attempt to control invasive species. However, to date, there have been no complete eradications of an invasive species, so the objective is mainly one of prevention and targeted control of further spread. The following subsections discuss various methods of control. Preventive Methods

The U.S. Forest Service has been collaborating with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and others to prioritize and take regulatory action to prevent the introduction of invasive species, plants, animals, insects, and pathogens into the country. Education of wholesalers, retailers, landscapers, and individuals who buy, plant, or otherwise distribute plants,

853

animals, and other materials is important to avoid spreading or planting invasive species. Several states have bans on importing invasive species; however, such bans have not been adopted consistently by all states. Targeted Control

One method of targeted control involves targeting emerging species and destroying them before they become widespread. In this method, certain areas that are of strategic priority are selected and biological, cultural, chemical, and physical controls that have been found to be effective are implemented to reduce the population of the invasive species. For example, a seaweed (Caulerpa texifolia) covers more than 30,000 acres of the Mediterranean Sea and was discovered near San Diego in 1999. The area was isolated and eradication measures were implemented; now the species is prohibited. A common method of targeted control is biological control, which involves reintroducing predators for a given invasive species. However, this has not been without its drawbacks. For example, a parasitic fly that was introduced to attack the gypsy moth (an invasive feller of trees) began to attack native giant silk moths, resulting in their decline. A fly that was introduced to reduce the prolific seed spread of spotted knapweed has become a key factor in the feeding and proliferation of deer mice, a vector for lyme disease and hantavirus. Restoration

This involves the heavy use of herbicides and intensive resources to kill invasive species and then reintroduce indigenous species.

Beneficial Uses Another strategy for managing invasive species that has been discussed in scientific circles but not fully explored is harvesting invasive species for food (as some invasive species are edible), medicine,

854

Irradiation

or other products. Some have expressed concern that the beneficial use of an invasive plant could further its spread. Conceptually, though, this has potential as a strategy for sustainability to harness what is abundant and to use what is wasted. Furthermore, invasive species are changing our ecosystems day by day. The current strategies do not provide easy solutions for permanently ridding crops of invasive weeds or forests of invasive pathogens. There are not enough resources or funding available for the widespread use of pesticides or herbicides. Furthermore, as pesticides and herbicides become more widespread, invasive plants become increasingly tolerant of them. However, because some invasive species are edible or have medicinal or other beneficial qualities, some view them as a new source of abundant resources. Tama Matsuoka Wong See also Herbicide Resistance; Pesticides

Further Readings Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 [7 USC 2814], as amended by the Plant Protection Act, 2000. Ohlson, K. (2011, May 24). Making the best of invasive species. Retrieved from Smithsonianmag.com/sciencenature/making-the-best-of invasive-species Robbins, J. (2006, April 4). A weed, a fly, a mouse and a chain of unintended consequences. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/ 04/04/science/04mice.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Tallamy, D. (2007, November). Bringing nature home. Portland, OR: Timber Press. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service. (2004, October). National strategy and implementation plan for invasive species management. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/documents/ Final_National_Strategy_100804.pdf U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Invasive species. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fws .gov/invasives/ Wilcox, C. (2013, July 1). The worst marine invasion ever. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/ health_and_science/science/2013/07/lionfish_invasion_ the_invasive_fish_are_eating_so_many_native_species_ that.html

Yoon, C. K. (2003, September 9). Forensic botanists find the lethal weapon of a killer weed. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes .com/2003/09/09/science/09WEED.html

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM See Media Portrayals of Food Issues

IRRADIATION Food irradiation is a process conducted in specialized facilities whereby ionizing radiation (gamma rays, electrons, or X rays) is applied to food to destroy or reduce microorganisms that cause foodborne illness. Irradiation destroys harmful bacteria like Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Listeria, thereby improving food safety. It is also used instead of fumigation to control insects in imported food such as spices, fruits, and vegetables and to extend a food’s shelf life by retarding sprouting, ripening, and other inherent mechanisms of maturation. Irradiation has been approved for use in more than 60 countries for various applications and purposes in a wide variety of foodstuffs. After describing the history and process of food irradiation, this entry discusses its various effects and applications.

History of Food Irradiation In 1905, shortly after the discovery of gamma radiation and X rays due to radioactivity (1895–1896), researchers in the United States and Great Britain filed patents for using ionizing radiation to kill foodborne bacteria. The science and technology associated with the process remained in their infancy until the creation of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1946. The most extensive research program in the United States, however, was launched by the Department of Defense in 1951. The Army Quartermaster Corps spent more than $50 million over the next 30 years to determine if irradiated foods were wholesome

Irradiation

and could enhance military “logistics and morale” by improving the menu for soldiers in the field. Were it not for the army’s desire to provide “fresh” battlefield rations and the Atomic Energy Commission’s mission to promote civilian uses of atomic power, commercial food irradiation might never have been developed.

Processing of Food by Irradiation Food irradiation involves exposing food to ionizing radiation under controlled conditions. The types of ionizing radiations used are covered by international standards of the Joint Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization Codex Alimentarius Commission. Specific regulations concerning the radiation and sources of radiation in the United States can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations.

855

radiation for a defined period of time. The majority of commercial facilities uses gamma irradiation and will continue to do so for a considerable time. Electron Beams E-beams are produced by accelerating a stream of electrons generated by an electron gun. They are generated by machines and not by radioactive materials. The high-energy electrons are focused into a narrow beam, which is scanned across food as it travels perpendicular to the beam direction, through the irradiator. E-beams can deliver doses at a high rate, and in less than a second can impart a dose that would take gamma irradiation facility hours to deliver. In contrast to gamma facilities, e-beams can be switched on and off. E-beams, however, do not penetrate into food to a depth as great as gamma rays: A typical penetration depth is of the order of 3 cm in water, a major constituent of much foodstuff. They are therefore not as suitable for treating large bulk packages of food.

Food Irradiation Technologies

Gamma ray, electron beam (e-beam), and X-ray radiation have different properties and therefore present different technological benefits and disadvantages, but they all give rise to the same effects in food. Gamma Rays Gamma rays are emitted spontaneously during the radioactive decay of radioisotopes such as Cobalt 60 (Co-60) and Cesium 137 (Cs-137). The vast majority of food irradiation facilities are Co-60 gamma irradiation facilities. Co-60 is a radioactive metal that decays with a half-life of 5.3 years (i.e., every 5.3 years the amount of Co-60 will halve in value). This isotope has been used routinely and safely for many years to eliminate harmful organisms in many products, in the sterilization of medical and dental equipment, in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and in the radiation treatment of some cancers. For food irradiation, the gamma ray source is pulled out of the water bath in which it is safely stored and brought to the massively shielded irradiation chamber where the food is exposed to

X Rays The X-ray units used in food irradiation are more powerful versions of the machines used in hospitals and dental offices for imaging. Electrons are accelerated at a metallic target (e.g., tantalum, tungsten, or gold), causing electronic transitions, which emit characteristic X rays. The process is not efficient; much of the energy is lost as heat in the metal target. At present, very few foods are irradiated by X rays. X rays are more penetrating than e-beams, which makes it possible to process large bulk packages without the need for radioactive material. They can be switched on and off like e-beam machines but unlike gamma rays. None of the radiation techniques described above induces, at the specified energy levels, measurable amounts of radioactivity. Therefore, the natural content of radioactivity of food is not affected by these ionizing radiations. Dosimetry

A given dose of gamma, e-beam, or X-ray radiation gives rise to a similar effect. Dosimetry is the

856

Irradiation

measurement of absorbed radiation dose (commonly referred simply to as dose). Dose has units of gray (Gy): 1 Gy is equal to the transfer of 1 Joule of energy per kilogram of material (food). Food irradiation generally utilizes treatment doses of thousands of gray (kilogray, kGy): 1 kGy is equal to 1,000 Joules per kilogram (of food). That energy would raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by less than 0.3 °C, so that irradiation does not “cook” the food. International health authorities have endorsed the safety of irradiation for all foods up to 10 kGy. Dose is the key processing parameter in food irradiation, and dosimetry is used to • establish the irradiation facility’s operating parameters necessary to deliver a given radiation dose (e.g., conveyor speed or other parameters that determine the duration of exposure) and • monitor the routine operation of the irradiation facility.

cascade through the food. The high reactivity of the free radicals and excited molecular ions so produced form very reactive intermediates, which can undergo a variety of reactions leading to stable chemical products, often referred to as radiolytic products. Of particular importance are reactions involving the water that makes up most of a cell’s volume. When radiation interacts with water, it produces fragments such as hydrogen (H) and hydroxyls (OH). These radicals can react with each other to form hydrogen peroxide, a strong oxidizing agent, and peroxide radicals. The radicals can react with dissolved oxygen and with all the many organic and inorganic molecules found in food and modify their chemical structure. The chemical substances produced by irradiation in proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and vitamins in solution, solid, or frozen state belong to many chemical classes that are also formed in food that has been subjected to other processing treatments and thus are not exclusively formed by irradiation.

Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Food: Radiolytic Products

Applications of Irradiation

Chemical changes can occur via primary and secondary indirect radiolysis effects. If radiation interacts with the atoms of the DNA molecule, or some other cellular component critical to the survival of the cell, it is referred to as a direct effect. Such an interaction may affect the ability of the cell to reproduce and, thus, survive. There is a correlation between cellular DNA content or chromosome volume and radiosensitivity, particularly in simpler organisms. Parasites and insects, which have large genomes, are rapidly destroyed by extremely low doses of radiation. Higher doses are required for bacteria, and in turn, even higher doses are required for viruses, the smallest pathogens that have nucleic acid. Doses approved for food may not be sufficient to remove viruses. Energetic electrons (secondary electrons) are produced in food during irradiation. These secondary electrons then collide with other molecules or electrons in the material and form either energetic molecular ions or further electrons that

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of irradiation to control foodborne pathogens in a variety of products, including spinach and iceberg lettuce, herbs and spices, grains, poultry, ground beef, and seafood (FDA Ionizing Radiation for the Treatment of Food Rule, 1986). Availability of some such fruits and vegetables, as well as poultry or ground beef, remains limited to a few grocery stores. The amounts of tropical fruits irradiated as well as the amount of ground beef constitute less than 1% in weight of total market share. Most spices in the United States are now irradiated, thereby eliminating the need for fumigation to get rid of insects, and of Salmonella, a major contaminant in imported spices. According to the European Food Safety Authority, in 2009, China was the leading country in the use of food irradiation (146,000 ton), and three countries, including the United States (92,000 ton) and Ukraine (70,000 ton), made up

Irradiation

857

three quarters of the total amount of food irradiated in the world in 2005. Safety, Security, and Environmental Aspects

Public health agencies, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, have recognized the potential of food irradiation to prevent many infectious diseases that are transmitted by meat, poultry, fresh produce, and other foods. In 1999, a Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/International Atomic Energy Agency/ World Health Organization Study Group concluded that foods treated with a dose smaller than 10 kGy can be considered chemically safe and nutritionally adequate. Currently, the International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible for updating and maintaining various irradiation databases as resources for researchers, government officials, and the general public, including the Food Irradiation Clearances Database, a database of country approvals of irradiated foods for human consumption. In the United States, the effectiveness of the treatment in eliminating pathogens is regulated as a food safety process, by either the Department of Agriculture or the FDA, often in concert with state authorities, just as is the case now for milk pasteurization or retort canning. The FDA establishes regulations for the labeling of irradiated foods. Labels must contain the words Treated With Radiation or Treated by Irradiation and display the irradiation logo, the Radura (Figure 1). The safety of operations of irradiation facilities is regulated separately by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The safe transport of the radioactive sources is regulated by the Department of Transportation. Cost

Any processing method, even one as simple as washing, will add to the cost of a food. It is estimated that the increase in price for irradiated fruits and vegetables would be of the order of 2 to 3 cents per pound. The increase would amount to

Figure 1

Radura, the International Symbol for Irradiation

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Images. (2013). Retrieved from http://www .fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/ teach-others/download-materials/image-libraries/fsis-images/ CT_Index

3 to 5 cents per pound for poultry and meat products. While irradiation of spices and dried herbs adds to their cost, the cost of fumigation to remove undesirable insects is eliminated. Palatability of Irradiated Food

The irradiation-induced changes in food components are generally small and not significantly different from those reported in other conventional preservation processes, especially those based on thermal treatment such as pasteurization, canning, or even cold storage. The changes in some components that are sensitive to irradiation, like some vitamins, may be minimized by using proper treatment conditions. In some cases, increased concentrations of several vitamins after irradiation treatment have been reported. Consumer Attitudes Toward Irradiated Foods

Because the majority of food irradiation facilities involve gamma rays from radioactive decay, and because the proliferation of nuclear materials

858

Irradiation

is controversial, it has attracted greater public scrutiny than most food-processing techniques. The high cost of irradiation facilities, the need for specialized facilities, and customer apprehension have affected the commercial prospects of food irradiation. Even after 70 years of research and development, food irradiation’s future is uncertain because cultural, economic, and technical factors are still in flux. That resistance may disappear if e-beam machines and X rays become costeffective alternatives to radioactive materials. In the future, irradiation may play a significant role in reducing the enormous spoilage in the global food supply and may lead to increased levels of quality assurance in the international trade of food products, especially as a postharvest phytosanitary (quarantine) treatment. Bernard Gallois See also Codex Alimentarius; Food Safety Agencies; Pest Control; Salmonella

Further Readings Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Irradiation of food. Retrieved from http://www.cdc .gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/irradiation_food/ FDA Ionizing Radiation for the Treatment of Food Rule, 21 CFR § 179.26 (1986) International Atomic Energy Agency. (1999). Facts about food irradiation. Vienna, Austria: Author. Retrieved from http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/ foodirradiation.pdf Radiation Information Network, Idaho State University. (n.d.). Food irradiation. Pocatello, ID: Author. Retrieved from http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/food .htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Food irradiation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/food_irrad.html World Health Organization. (1988). Food irradiation: A technique for preserving and improving the safety of food. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/38544#sthash.9S klVRc1.dpuf

J During World War II, food rationing led to an increased interest in salty snacks as a result of a severe shortage of sugary sweets and chocolates. The only snack foods abundant during the war were salty corn, potato, and peanut snacks. In the 1950s, television advertising also influenced the significant rise in junk food consumption. Since World War II, the rising prevalence of fast food restaurants have markedly increased junk food consumption, which is in conjunction with a rising proportion of the U.S. population that is overweight or obese. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that as of 2013, 69% of American adults are clinically overweight or obese, and the childhood obesity rate has more than tripled in the past three decades for children of ages 6 to 11 years. The economic cost of obesity caused by medical expenses, excess mortality, and disability is $270 billion, according to the Campaign to End Obesity. According to Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, the McDonald’s Corporation has become a powerful symbol for the U.S. service economy, which currently accounts for 90% of America’s new jobs. There were around 1,000 McDonald’s restaurants in 1968, whereas today, they account for around 28,000 worldwide, with almost 2,000 new establishments opening each year. In addition, McDonald’s hires nearly 1 million people annually, and the company has employed an estimated one out of eight U.S. workers.

JUNK FOOD, CONSUMPTION Junk food describes products that have little nutritional value but high fat, sugar, salt, caffeine, and calorie content. Common junk food items include salted snacks, candy, sweet desserts, fried fast food, and sugary beverages. Junk food consumption focuses on patterns of consumption rather than its health implication. Various factors that have contributed to a change in traditional junk food consumption patterns include eating out, the rise of expendable income, gender roles, globalization, increased junk food availability, advertising, conditioning and environment, portion sizes, palatability, and assorted economic factors. This entry examines the consumption profile associated with junk food as well as attempts to alter the increase in junk food consumption.

Junk Food Consumption in the United States America’s relationship with food changed in the period after World War II, which introduced a radical increase in convenience as a guiding principle behind domestic food production and consumption. Historically, junk foods became an important part of the American diet in the 1920s, but the end of Prohibition in 1933 led to a spike in junk food consumption as salty snacks were provided free to customers to increase drink orders.

859

860

Junk Food, Consumption

Gender Roles Gender roles, and particularly women’s increased participation in the workforce, has made a significant impact on the increase in junk food consumption. Prior to World War II, traditional families consisted of a father who worked and a mother who remained at home. After the war, women entered the workforce in record numbers. According to Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, around one third of American mothers with young children were employed in 1975 and today nearly two thirds of the same demographic works outside of the home. In addition, Schlosser notes that three quarters of money spent on food a generation ago was on meals to prepare at home and today nearly half of the money used for food is spent on eating out, and the majority of that is spent at fast food restaurants. The rise in convenience foods has allowed women to spend more time working outside of home and less time on cooking family meals.

Globalization and Increased Junk Food Availability In the early days of commercial food production, most food was not known outside its place of origin. Food from around the world is now available year-round in many countries, and foods that were once reserved for special occasions are now available to eat on a regular basis. Globalization has led to increased junk food accessibility, which has caused a positive correlation between the presence of and overconsumption of junk foods. The availability of fast food, the quantity and diversity of sweet and salty snack foods, and the consumption and sale of these products have proliferated dramatically since the 1970s. A 2003 report published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture titled Fast-Food Consumption Among U.S. Adults and Children: Dietary and Nutrient Intake Profile has indicated that the number of fast food restaurants increased from around 30,000 in 1970 to 140,000 in 1980. During that 10-year period, junk food sales increased by around 300%. As of 2001, there were around 222,000 fast food establishments in the United States generating more than $125 billion in sales. A CDC brief titled

Incorporating Away-From-Home Food Into a Healthy Eating Plan has highlighted that the total number of food service establishments in the United States has almost doubled in the past three decades, increasing from 491,000 in 1972 to 878,000 in 2004. Another study by Zeke Bryant in the SS-AAEA Journal of Agricultural Economics titled “Who Consumes Fast-Food and Why?” finds that the per capita number of fast food restaurants in the United States doubled from 1972 to 1999 with an obesity rate increase from 13.9% to 29.6%. People who work longer hours have the tendency to eat at their desks, graze throughout the working day, and have a preference for speed and taste over nutrition and quality. Accessibility has allowed people who are time poor to consume short-term gratifying, but unhealthy, foods. The CDC Incorporating Away-From-Home Food Into a Healthy Eating Plan brief notes that eating away from home can be a major factor influencing increased energy intake. A recent University of California, Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research study has found that junk food consumption increases when people live and work near fast food restaurants. The study used 2007 data on junk food consumption by California teens living in neighborhoods with high concentrations of junk food outlets (dollar stores, convenience stores, fast food restaurants) compared with the eating habits of teens living near healthier food outlets (grocery stores, farmers’ markets). The study found that nearly three quarters of the teens lived in or went to school in neighborhoods with more than seven times more junk food outlets than healthy food outlets. The teens living in the highly concentrated junk food neighborhoods were 18% more likely to eat fast food at least twice a week and 17% more likely to drink soda every day than the teens living in areas with less junk food availability. A separate University of California–Los Angeles study used 2003 California Health Interview Survey data to find that each day two thirds of California teens drink soda, nearly half eat fast food, and only a quarter eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables. The study also found that

Junk Food, Consumption

soda consumption is associated with the presence of these sugary beverages in school vending machines.

Advertising and Marketing Intensive marketing campaigns and easy access to foods have significantly changed eating behavior. Many junk food manufacturers spend billions of dollars on targeted youth advertising to increase sales. In 2005, the American Journal of Public Health studied the “Nutritional Content of Foods Advertised During the Television Programs Children Watch Most” and found that convenience foods and sweets constitute 83% of advertised foods. The American Heart Association found in a 2011 Statistical Sourcebook that in addition to being sedentary, people tend to eat while watching television. Each one-hour increase in television viewing is associated with an additional 167 calories, often through foods commonly advertised on television. While watching television, many people have the tendency to mindlessly eat and snack on high-calorie and high-fat snack foods in response to targeted advertisements. Consumption of food in front of the television tends to lead to consumption of more food that is poorer in quality. Watching television is also linked with a lack of physical activity and burning fewer calories, which further amplifies the propensity toward obesity. Early marketing campaigns for Cracker Jack, the candy-coated peanut and popcorn snack that included a toy “surprise” in every package, were so successful that they encouraged other large companies to invent confections and engage in advertising campaigns that targeted children. The most effective campaigns were those that claimed healthful junk food contents, created catchy slogans, and had toys in their product boxes. McDonald’s first motto, “Quality, Service, Cleanliness and Value” ensured that customers knew that they could rely on those qualities at every McDonald’s they visited, no matter the location. In 1961, a Hamburger University was launched in Elk Grove, Illinois, to train all franchisees in proper McDonald’s management. By targeting families in advertising, McDonald’s

861

became extremely successful. The Ronald McDonald clown character debuted in 1963 on television and was an instant triumph for the company. The fast food chain began as a simple hamburger, fries, and milk shake restaurant and has won over many customers as a result of its continual innovation and adaptation to market conditions. To cater to changing tastes and consumer demand, the operation continually experiments and expands its menu.

Eating Out and the Rise in Expendable Income A contributing factor to the rise in junk food consumption is the increase in eating out. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food intake survey found that between 1977 and 1996, daily caloric intake from food eaten outside the home increased from 18% to 32% with a 40% increase between 1987 and 2000 in the population that reported eating three or more commercially prepared meals per week. A CDC brief about away-from-home foods notes that eating out accounted for 34% of total energy intake in 1995, which was a significant increase from 18% in 1977–1978. The rise in dual-income households (in which both spouses work long hours and typically do not have time to prepare home-cooked meals) and women working outside the home has coincided with the demand for take-out meals and convenience in food preparation. For this demographic, fast food restaurants provide quick and relatively inexpensive sustenance. An article in Obesity Reviews titled “Fast Foods, Energy Density and Obesity: A Possible Mechanistic Link” states that there is a tendency to choose foods higher in energy density when dining out. These highenergy-dense foods typically have high fat content and low moisture content (lack of fruit and vegetables). By the late 1990s, dollar sales per fast food outlet were comparable to those in full-service restaurants. SAGE Publications’ Encyclopedia of Obesity notes that take-out and drive-through traffic now accounts for more than 60% of all fast food sales, emphasizing consumers’ preference for convenience.

862

Junk Food, Consumption

Conditioning and Environment Historically, the availability of particular foodstuffs may have been limited. If a person who has lived off of a poor diet for most of his or her life were to be presented with the opportunity to eat a varied diet, it may take time before the individual expands the variety of what he or she consumes. As a result of prior conditioning, many people who have grown up in poor rural areas and move to modern urban areas (with enormous food choice) tend to stick to a simple diet. Physical and social environments influence beliefs and attitudes about dietary behaviors, health, and physical activity. Various psychological influences and conditioning can evolve to become deep-seated consumption patterns that can persist into adulthood. Historically, humans have eaten what is available to them, even if it is not very palatable. However, the increase in junk food availability has meant that parental feeding habits and childhood experiences can become lifetime conditioned food preferences. Three parenting styles have received the most attention for their impact on increasing junk food consumption, which include overcontrol, dietary restriction, and using food as a reward. Parents who excessively control their children’s eating habits may interfere with their children’s ability to monitor and regulate caloric intake. Despite this, healthy parent–child interactions regarding consumption patterns will be established if children grow up with healthy foods. If parental behavior allows the consumption of fats, sweets, or other junk foods, the risk of overconsumption of these foods leading to obesity is significantly increased. For example, children who have grown up in a family that consumed food at a communal dinner table where every member ate the same healthful meal were conditioned to eat what was served. The frequency of family meals and the presence of parents at the dinner table have been associated with better diets and higher consumption of fruits and vegetables. Some children who are given a diet different from adults, such as deep-fried chicken or pizza, will be conditioned to consume this type of diet from childhood.

Desserts and sweets are commonly used as food rewards, and vegetables are often presented as a contingency to dessert foods. This type of parental conditioning aims to reinforce or strengthen a behavior, such as achievements or compliance, through food. Because food is eaten for pleasure as well as for the biological drive of hunger, food rewards are primary reinforcers for desirable behavior. Leann Birch, a child psychologist from Pennsylvania State University, has determined that strategies of using junk food as rewards for desired behavior can decrease preferences for vegetables in the long run because the contextual cues for consuming healthful foods are predominantly negative. A 2007 British Journal of Nutrition study as well as a Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology report suggest that children of mothers with a high-fat and highsugar diet while pregnant are more likely to consume junk food themselves. Conducted on rats, the study found that a pup whose mother ate excessive amounts of junk foods when pregnant or breastfeeding had a much greater preference for these foods later in life.

Portion Sizes and Palatability A significant aspect that has increased junk food consumption is the availability of large portion sizes, which are increasingly common in restaurants, vending machines, and supermarkets. Those eating out are often served large portions of foods that are higher in calories, saturated fat, and cholesterol compared with home-prepared food. One study by S. A. Bowman and colleagues used the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) data. Collected in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1998, the study used data from 6,212 individuals of ages 4 to 19 years and found that 30% of the children ate at quick-service restaurants during the 2-day survey. Of the 30%, the children who ate at quickservice establishments consumed an average of 187 kilocalories more than those who did not. Coupled with this, fast food establishments often encourage patrons to upgrade or supersize their meal to a larger portion for greater value.

Junk Food, Consumption

These concepts along with establishments that offer all-you-can-eat deals encourage mass junk food consumption. The rise in junk food consumption has also been associated with food palatability. Restaurants are apt to serve food that tastes good rather than food that is healthy, and individuals tend to have higher energy intakes when a variety of highly palatable foods are available. In 2008, Paul Johnson and Paul Kenny conducted a study at the Scripps Research Institute that suggested that junk food consumption alters brain activity in a manner similar to addictive drugs such as cocaine or heroin. After several weeks with unlimited junk food access, the pleasure centers of rat brains became desensitized, which required more food for pleasure. Once the junk food was taken away and replaced with a healthful diet, the rats starved themselves for 2 weeks rather than eating the available nutritious food.

Economic Factors The frequency in which a household consumes junk food can be influenced by a number of economic choices, including money and time spent on grocery shopping, time spent preparing dinner, how often a family dines together, and the amount of money spent on nonfood products. Demographic factors that have an effect on junk food consumption include race, income, head of household gender, and age as well as education. Low socioeconomic communities have limited resources to meet their food needs. As this group is disproportionately affected by poor food access, living in areas termed food deserts, it is difficult for them to obtain healthy food at affordable prices. In food desert areas, there is a significant absence of supermarkets, adequate transport, healthy food, and local markets. Fast food restaurants and corner shops with junk food tend to be prolific in low socioeconomic neighborhoods and offer food that is convenient, cheap, and tastes good despite being calorie dense and of low nutritional value. An obesogenic environment that includes the physical and social surrounding may inhibit goals

863

of healthy eating. In such neighborhoods that lack convenient access to supermarkets, there may be significant difficulties in obtaining fresh fruit and vegetables. Access to supermarkets has been shown to vary by neighborhood socioeconomic level and ethnic composition. In wealthier neighborhoods, supermarkets are three times as prevalent compared with poor areas.

Attempts to Alter Junk Food Consumption Patterns There have been education proposals to target specific groups of households, socioeconomic communities, and certain demographics that consume large quantities of fast food; however, this requires a lot of data before being successfully put into place. Recent proposals that aim to curb junk food consumption have been “fat taxes,” or government-levied taxes on fattening and sugary foods and beverages. Many states already have sugary beverage taxes, but there is currently no federal fat tax. It has been suggested that a significant tax on junk foods will curb consumption of these foods and nudge consumers to purchase healthier products. Stephanie Cavagnaro See also Childhood Obesity; Convenience Foods; Fast Food; Gender and Foodways; Obesity Epidemic

Further Readings Fryar, C. D., & Ervin, R. B. (2013). Caloric intake from fast food among adults: United States, 2007–2010 (NCHS Data Brief No. 114). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db114.htm Garcia, G., Sunil, T. S., & Hinojosa, P. (2012). The fast food and obesity link: Consumption patterns and severity of obesity. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine. Kant, A. K. (2000). Consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods by adult Americans: Nutritional and health implications. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72, 929–936.

864

Junk Food, Impact on Health

Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Food access research atlas. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda .gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas.aspx World Health Organization. (n.d.). Global and regional food consumption patterns and trends. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_ foodconsumption/en/index.html

JUNK FOOD, IMPACT

ON

HEALTH

The consumption of large quantities of junk food contributes to life-threatening diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Foods that are processed and contain excessive calories, fat, sugar, salt, and/or carbohydrates are referred to as junk food. It is a general term used for any food or beverage with high calories and low nutritional value. Because junk food is a broad category, sometimes, the term itself may be misleading. For example, potatoes may be perceived to be an unhealthy choice (i.e., as junk food), when, in fact, cooked or baked potatoes are not classified in this category. On the contrary, processed potatoes such as French fries and potato chips are classified as junk food. To understand the phenomenon of junk food and its impact on health, this entry focuses on health problems associated with the consumption of junk food.

Availability of Junk Food in the United States Junk food is inexpensive, easily accessible, and readily available in the United States. Because of its widespread availability and, at the same time, being an affordable food, the likelihood of consuming junk food in everyday life is high. Studies have shown that this category of food is the primary source of added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat within children’s diets. These foods are ubiquitous and sold in convenience stores, supermarkets, vending machines, and other venues such as cafeterias, school stores, classrooms, fund-raising activities, and restaurants.

Junk food is marketed to both children and adults. Advertisements on television, via the Internet, in magazines and newspapers, and on billboards tempt consumers to indulge in highly flavored, low-nutritional-value sweet confections, beverages, baked goods, and other junk food. A growing volume of literature now points to an inverse association between the availability of unhealthy food choices and daily fruit and vegetable consumption.

Obesity Childhood obesity is a health issue that has attracted much attention over the past two decades, especially because children with high body mass index (BMI) are more likely to die from endogenous causes when compared with those with lower BMI. Children’s consumption of additional kilocalories above their average needs and the additional sugar characteristic of junk food items can lead to such high BMI and thus obesity. With more than 25 million children being overweight or obese, costing billions of dollars in weight-related medical bills, an initiative—called Let’s Move!— was launched in 2009 by U.S. first lady Michelle Obama in collaboration with several national organizations to counter this epidemic. The goal of the initiative is to eliminate childhood obesity within a generation through the provision of healthy food in schools, better and accurate foodstuff labeling, effective public service announcements, and, importantly, getting children to be physically active. Today, in the United States and elsewhere, an increasing number of families dine more frequently in fast food restaurants with oversized meals rather than at a dinner table in their homes. As the traditional family meal has been replaced with convenience and junk food, which lacks nutritional value, the population of obese and overweight children and adults has increased.

Diabetes Chronic consumption of high amounts of added sugar in junk food can lead to diabetes, which is

Junk Food, Impact on Health

the seventh leading cause of mortality in the United States. Excessive eating of a large meal or snack with high contents of simple carbohydrates causes a rise in blood sugar levels, which induces the pancreas to secrete insulin to transport glucose from the bloodstream to cells for energy. Insulin regulates carbohydrate and fat metabolism in the body. Over time, as the pancreas becomes overworked and is not able to produce sufficient amounts of insulin, glucose may accumulate in the blood. This will eventually progress to insulin resistance, resulting in type 2 diabetes. Regular consumption of large portions of junk food is one of the risk factors for diabetes. Energy is needed for the functioning of our internal organs and external body movements. More than 60% of the body’s energy comes from simple and complex carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates are refined sugars with little nutritional value and are easily digested by the body. Refined sugars such as fructose, galactose, glucose, lactose, maltose, and sucrose are found in packaged and processed foods. Pizzas, chips, chocolates, ice cream, and many products made from white flour such as cakes and cookies are examples of such packaged and processed foods. Furthermore, fructose as found in these foods does not suppress hunger hormones but, instead, blocks the brain’s signals to suppress overeating. So, in addition to insulin resistance, regular consumption of these foods in large portions can lead to accumulated dietary fat in the liver, muscles, and fat tissues. Foods rich in complex carbohydrates, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, act as fuel to produce high energy. Complex carbohydrates have high nutritional value, including fiber, vitamins, and minerals, and the body takes a longer period of time to digest them. Glucose produced from the slow digestion process enters into the blood, reacts with the adequate insulin produced by the pancreas, and then is stored in the muscles and liver for sustained energy. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes are major sources of complex carbohydrates foods. Consumption of these slow-digestive, high-fiber foods helps prevent people from overindulging in food, which,

865

along with regular exercise, contributes to good health and may lower one’s chance of developing diabetes.

Heart Diseases and Stroke Junk foods are rich in salt, sugar, and saturated and/or trans fats. A diet high in sodium can contribute to high blood pressure, which is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and stroke. On average, Americans eat more than the recommended amount of sodium per day. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than three quarters of the sodium that Americans consume is usually consumed in restaurants and from prepackaged and processed foods. Increased cholesterol in blood is also a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Consumption of saturated fats in dairy products and meats increases the low-density lipoproteins (LDL) known as “bad” cholesterol in the blood. Trans fats, mainly produced from hydrogenated vegetable, found in snack foods, including chips, packaged or microwave popcorn, and frozen dinners, not only raise LDL but also decrease high-density lipoproteins (HDL) that are essential for carrying LDL cholesterol from the arteries to the liver for removal. Coronary artery disease develops over time due to plaques formed by accumulated cholesterol in the arteries, causing narrowing of the arteries. This may lead to a complete occlusion of a coronary artery or rupture of a plaque, producing a clot in the artery. When the blood flow that carries oxygen to the heart is interrupted, heart cells die or are damaged, resulting in a heart attack, which in some cases may be fatal. A clot in the blood vessel can also reduce the oxygen supply to the brain and cause a stroke, which is a leading cause of mortality in the United States. Eating junk foods rich in fat and salt can increase the chances of heart attack and stroke at any age. Behavioral modifications such as regular exercise and eating a diet low in fat, salt, and sugar can lower the risk of heart disease and stroke. To protect the heart and brain, a better understanding and knowledge about the sources of sodium and

866

Junk Food, Impact on Health

sugar as well as the top contributors of fat in one’s daily diet are important.

Reducing Junk Food Intake Schools are considered as the second home to children between the ages of 5 and 17 years because they spend a large amount of time there. Given children’s preferences toward less healthy items such as cookies, candies, sports drinks, and carbonated sodas, to name a few, and the widespread availability of junk foods in schools, many children are likely to consume at least one junk food while at school. Many health advocates assert that the first step in reducing childhood obesity is the strict monitoring of junk foods in schools, with the goal of removing snacks and beverages rich in sugar, fats, and/or sodium and replacing them with more of whole-grain foods, fresh fruits, and water fountains. They argue that school cafeteria meals should be revamped to include more healthy food choices to prevent or reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity in the United States. However, others argue against policies prohibiting the sale of junk foods, noting, for instance, a potential loss in revenue. Health advocates also seek to stop food companies from using media to advertise junk food and fast food to children and from advertising through the means and localities where children tend to spend time, such as television, Internet, schools, and playgrounds. Instead, they urge the media to promote healthy eating habits. Health education, with an emphasis on the awareness of nutritional values and the benefits of regular exercise, can help mitigate the impact of junk food on health. A general rule of thumb advocated by health and medical professionals is to avoid simple carbohydrate foods and high-calorie meals, even when prepared at home. Although some people find complex carbohydrate meals to be bland in taste, they can be modified in healthful ways to improve taste. Suggested modifications include the following: adding fruits to oatmeal instead of sugar; sprinkling sodium-free spices on

eggs for breakfast; baking with whole-grain flour rather than with white flour; adding green vegetables to foods; using spicy mustard instead of mayonnaise. Fruit intake can be increased through consuming smoothies prepared from a combination of different fruits, water, fat-free yogurt, and milk. In addition, sugar-sweetened beverages can be replaced with hot or cold green tea with lemon and honey. Homemade salad dressings can also be healthy substitutes for processed sauces. Introducing new recipes using low-fat, less salt and sugar, and high fiber can also help one modify his or her diet. Other suggestions have also been offered to promote a healthy food environment and reduce Americans’ intake of junk food: The government could provide incentives to food industries to produce products using healthy ingredients and high nutritional values. Restaurants and fast food chains could reformulate their menu items to reduce the amount of saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. Such suggestions aim to prevent or reduce the prevalence of health problems such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stroke by eradicating junk food and by promoting low-calorie and highnutrition foods and beverages. Sitaji Gurung See also Childhood Obesity; Diabetes; Fast Food; LowFat Foods; Low-Sodium Foods; Snack Foods; Vending Machines

Further readings Avena, N. M., Rada, P., & Hoebel, B. G. (2008). Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(1), 20–39. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.019 Bergen, D., & Yeh, M. (2006). Effects of energy-content labels and motivational posters on sales of sugarsweetened beverages: Stimulating sales of diet drinks among adults study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106(11), 1866–1869. doi:10.1016/j .jada.2006.08.002 Boutelle, K. N., Fulkerson, J. A., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & French, S. A. (2007). Fast food for family

Junk Food, Impact on Health meals: Relationships with parent and adolescent food intake, home food availability and weight status. Public Health Nutrition, 10(1), 16–23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Improving the food environment through nutrition standards: A guide for government procurement. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/salt/pdfs/dhdsp_ procurement_guide.pdf Datar, A., & Nicosia, N. (2012). Junk food in schools and childhood obesity. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(2), 312–337. doi:10.1002/pam .21602 Johnson, P. M., & Kenny, P. J. (2010). Dopamine D2 receptors in addiction-like reward dysfunction and

867

compulsive eating in obese rats. Nature Neuroscience, 13(5), 635–641. doi:10.1038/nn.2519 Lustig, R. H., Schmidt, L. A., & Brindis, C. D. (2012). Public health: The toxic truth about sugar. Nature, 482(7383), 27–29. doi:10.1038/482027a Shah, N. (2013). USDA wants limits on junk foods sold in vending machines. Education Week, 32(21), 6–7. Taber, D. R., Stevens, J., Evenson, K. R., Ward, D. S., Poole, C., Maciejewski, M. L., . . . Brownson, R. C. (2011). State policies targeting junk food in schools: Racial/ethnic differences in the effect of policy change on soda consumption. American Journal of Public Health, 101(9), 1769–1775. doi:10.2105/AJPH .2011.300221

K Kosher supervision may be done by individual rabbis or by kosher certification agencies that employ rabbis. One or more rabbis usually run a kosher certification agency or are on staff to advise on policy and to answer questions. The rabbis do not necessarily do the direct supervision; rather, a mashgiach (plural mashgiachim), or kosher supervisor, is responsible for day-to-day inspection and supervision. A rabbi may be a mashgiach, but ordination (smicha) is not necessarily a job requirement for mashgiachim. The mashgiach inspects food production plants and supervises kitchen staff on the rabbi’s behalf. The mashgiach consults the rabbis if the mashgiach has any questions but makes basic decisions independently. There are a number of religious laws pertaining to food preparation or consumption, which are discussed in the remainder of this entry. These relate to meat, fish, dairy, equipment and utensils, temperature, days on which cooking is prohibited, and who can handle certain foods or perform certain preparation tasks.

KOSHER FOOD Kosher is the Hebrew word for “fit” or “proper.” Kashrut (in Sephardic and Israeli Hebrew) and kashrus (in Ashkenazi Hebrew) are used to refer to the concept of maintaining kosher food service or home kitchens and selecting kosher food products. Keeping kosher is used to refer to the practice of eating only kosher food. The laws of kashrut are derived from a number of sources in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The reason given for many of the food-related commandments in the Torah is “so that you may be holy,” although some are commandments with no reason explicitly stated. Food cannot become kosher if it did not start out kosher. However, food can become nonkosher through a variety of mechanisms. It is therefore necessary for commercially prepared food to be supervised or approved by inspection through a reputable rabbi or kosher certification agency. Contrary to common misperception, the rabbi or kosher certification agency does not “bless” the food. Blessings are made before and after eating one’s own food to thank God for the food and do not affect the kashrut status of the food. Rather, kosher supervision, or hashgacha, ensures that the food never comes into contact with nonkosher food and is not prepared using nonkosher equipment.

Meat Kosher meat must come from an animal from a kosher species that has been killed according to Jewish law and is disease free. The animal must not have “died in the field,” that is, from any cause other than from kosher slaughter (Exodus 22:31). Kosher species of land animals must have cloven

869

870

Kosher Food

hooves and be ruminants (chew their cud); (Leviticus 11:9–12). Common kosher species include cows, goats, sheep, and deer. Horses, despite being ruminants and having hooves, do not have cloven hooves and are therefore not kosher. Pigs have cloven hooves but are not ruminants, so they are not kosher. Dogs and cats neither have hooves nor are ruminants, so they are not kosher. Nonkosher animals are not considered unclean as animals but rather consuming their flesh is considered to desecrate the Jewish body. Rather than applying a rule to what constitutes a kosher bird, the Torah provides a list of birds that are not permitted to be eaten (Leviticus 11:13–19; Deuteronomy 13:11–20). Many of the species meant by these words have been lost across the ages, so there are now two approaches to determining whether a bird is permitted. One approach is that Jews may not eat any bird for which there is not a tradition for eating. The other approach is that the birds we know are not kosher tend to be carnivorous or carrion eaters, therefore Jews are permitted to eat any bird that is not predatory and is not a carrion eater. All birds, even if they ordinarily do not fly, are considered birds rather than land animals. Most game birds (e.g., ducks, geese) are kosher, as are chickens and turkeys. When a new bird is proposed as food, as in the case of ostriches currently and in the case of turkeys when Jews moved to the Americas, there may be controversy over whether the bird belongs to a kosher species. Kosher animals must be killed in a quick and painless way called shchita. First, the shochet, or ritual slaughterer, makes a blessing acknowledging the commandment to perform shchita. Shchita is achieved by slicing through the trachea and large blood vessels of the neck in one motion using a flawlessly razor-sharp blade. This causes an immediate and drastic drop of blood pressure in the brain, rendering the animal immediately unconscious and leading quickly to death. If shchita is not done properly, the meat is not kosher due to the suffering the animal endured. Different sizes of blades are used for differently sized animals to ensure that the animal is not decapitated in the

process; decapitation is considered cruel and renders the meat nonkosher. To ensure the flesh is cut and not torn, the shochet must check the blade before slaughtering each animal. This is usually done by running the blade along the top of a fingernail to feel for tiny imperfections. If there are imperfections, the blade must be sharpened and rechecked before it is used again. Animals that are killed according to Jewish law are not stunned prior to slaughter, because stunning often leaves the animal conscious and distressed. Although no slaughter is free of animal distress, Judaism aims to make the actual killing process as pain free as possible both psychologically and physically for the animal. After the animal has been killed, the sciatic nerve of land animals must be removed or the thigh sold to a nonkosher butcher. The sciatic nerve is removed because Jews do not eat it to remember when Jacob wrestled the angel, who injured him in the thigh (Genesis 32:25–33, Zohar 1:170b). The meat is then drained and salted to remove the blood. The reason for the prohibition against consuming blood is because the blood contains the life force of the animal. Most of the viscera are discarded as well due to their blood content. Liver is the only organ that is routinely eaten, and salting it is insufficient to remove the blood. In the case of liver, or if a person cannot consume added salt, meat can be broiled at high temperature in a slotted pan that is used only for this purpose.

Dairy and Eggs All milk and eggs must come from kosher species. Traditionally, Jews only used milk products that had been supervised from cow to consumer due to the practice of farmers and dairies adding milk from nonkosher animals to augment the flavor or improve profits. Because it is illegal in the United States and many other countries to add milk from sources not mentioned on the packaging, Rav Moshe Feinstein, a prominent adjudicator of Jewish law in North America, ruled that commercially processed milk, specifically in the United

Kosher Food

States, could be assumed kosher without supervision. This ruling was then extended to other countries by rabbis based on their local milk processing laws and practices. Milk can also be certified kosher without constant supervision, in which case the kosher certifying agency inspects the plant regularly. Nevertheless, many people do not accept chalav stam (ordinary milk) and insist on constant supervision. Constantly supervised milk is termed chalav yisrael (or chalav yisroel), literally meaning “Jewish milk.” It is still common in some countries for country farms to add pig’s milk for sweetness, so even people who hold by chalav stam must exercise caution when traveling. Dairy products other than fresh milk may be kosher or nonkosher depending on the equipment and other ingredients used. In some countries, ultrahigh temperature pasteurized milk must be specifically certified, because it typically shares equipment with nonkosher soups. However, in some countries, such as Australia, it is illegal for milk to be processed with shared equipment, and ultrahigh temperature milk has the same status as fresh chalav stam milk. Eggs that will be cracked before cooking must be inspected for blood spots. If an egg is cracked into a hot pan and is found to contain blood, the pan is no longer kosher (the kosher status of equipment and utensils is discussed in more detail in a later section of this entry). Therefore, eggs are not cracked directly into pans or batters but rather into a clear container and thoroughly inspected. If an egg is found to contain blood in the white, it may be removed and the rest of the egg used. However, if blood is in the yolk, the egg must be thrown away and the container rinsed. Debris is common in eggs, whereas frank blood is not. However, if there is a doubt, such debris should be treated as blood.

Prohibition on Mixing Meat and Milk Jews may not derive benefit from a mixture of meat and milk heated together (Exodus 34:26). This originally referred only to land animals but was extended to birds as well due to the possibility

871

that uninformed people might consider poultry the same as meat of land animals and therefore may think that it is okay to mix all meat with milk. Many such prohibitions exist to prevent inadvertent mistakes by those who are less educated in Jewish law. The separation of meat and milk applies not only to the foods themselves but also the equipment and utensils. Kosher kitchens may be either dairy or meat, or the two may be carefully separated in the same kitchen. The separation of utensils and equipment is discussed in further detail in the Equipment and Utensils section of this entry. Although rennet, typically used in the production of cheese, is prepared from dried calf stomach, the stomach goes through a drying process such that it becomes as hard as wood and is therefore no longer considered meat. However, for rennet to be kosher, it must come from an animal that was killed through shchita. Due to advances in food technology and the high cost involved in making kosher calf rennet or calf-derived enzymes, vegetarian microbial “rennet” is used to produce most kosher cheeses.

Fish All fish are pareve (neither meat nor dairy, neutral) provided they are a kosher species (have fins and true scales that detach cleanly from the skin), because fish are considered part of the sea. They also do not have to be killed in a special way. Although fish is pareve, there are some restrictions on whether fish can be prepared with or served with dairy or meat. Sephardic Jews do not eat fish and dairy immediately touching, but they may be served at the same meal and be prepared using the same equipment. This ruling is for the same reason as that for poultry and milk but is less stringent because of the distinctive appearance of most fish. Moreover, it usually only applies to obvious dairy products such as milk and cheese, rather than ingredients such as butter. For most Jewish communities, fish and meat may not be eaten together due to health concerns (Pesachim 76b). This is presumably because fish

872

Kosher Food

and meat cook at different temperatures, and to fully cook the meat would ruin the fish, leading to people not thoroughly cooking the meat. Although many authorities find no health problem in eating them together, the custom remains in most communities. Fish and meat may be prepared on the same equipment if the equipment is cleaned between uses.

Vegetables and Fruit All fresh fruit and vegetables are pareve until they are prepared or cooked using nonpareve equipment or utensils.

Equipment and Utensils Equipment and utensils used for meat or dairy must not be used for foods that will be served in, respectively, a dairy meal or a meat meal. Kosher food also cannot be prepared or served using nonkosher equipment or utensils. This means that even vegan or vegetarian food may not be kosher. The reason for separating equipment and utensils that are used for different kinds of food is that on a microscopic (and metaphysical) level, small particles (the “taste,” or ta’am) of a food is absorbed into the item and can be extracted by other food during the cooking or preparation process. From a halachic (Jewish legal) perspective, such transfer occurs in most materials (including metal, but not glass according to Sephardic authorities) and is facilitated by heat, moisture, and sharpness (i.e., cutting a lemon or a pepper with a knife or a “sharp” substance). Anytime cooking or steaming occurs, the ta’am is transferred. Cold liquid does not on its own transfer ta’am to items; however, transfer does occur with soaking overnight or if the liquid comes in direct contact with food. Items that are to be kashered (made kosher/ neutral) must be cleaned and left unused for 24 hours. This rule is known as eino ben yomo (“not of the day”). After this period, any ta’am that might have been absorbed is considered ta’am lifgam, a bad taste. However, if a utensil or piece of equipment becomes nonkosher (or if it is dairy or

meat and needs to be pareve), it may or may not be able to be kashered. There are four main methods to kashering, and the method used depends on the temperature at which the item has been used: libun gamur (complete purification), libun kal (simple purification), hagalah (scalding), and irui (infusion). Libun gamur refers to heating something until it is red hot, either using a blow torch to heat every part of it until it glows red or putting it directly in a very hot fire. Libun gamur is typically used for grills and often for frying pans, spatulas, or baking pans. Libun kal refers to heating something until a piece of paper or straw scorches when it touches the item. Libun kal is sometimes used for pans but is typically used to determine when a stove top is kashered. Having placed a baking sheet on top of the stove, the burners are turned on high. When the baking sheet is very hot, a piece of paper or straw is touched to it. If it scorches, the stove is kashered and ready to be turned off. Hagalah refers to boiling water, putting the items to be kashered into the boiling water, and making it boil over. Hagalah can only be used for items that were used with sufficient liquid for the temperature to remain low—for example, ladles or sauce pans. Irui is an alternative to hagalah for items that are too large to be able to go into a pot. It involves pouring boiling water onto an item, such as a sink or countertop. Whether an item can be kashered depends largely on whether the material will stand up to the temperature required to kasher it and whether the material is overly porous. Very porous materials, such as clay, may continue to harbor food particles despite kashering. To destroy those particles, the clay would have to be heated to a temperature so high that it would break the item.

Passover For the festival of Passover, all the above rules apply with the addition of the prohibition against owning or consuming chametz, leavened grain (halachic grains are wheat, spelt, oats, barley, and rye). All foods, equipment, and utensils must be free of chametz and kashered for Passover.

Kosher Food

Ashkenazi authorities also prohibit kitniyot, foods that bear a resemblance to grains in their natural form (e.g., corn, beans, and rice). However, it is generally not necessary for them to avoid equipment and utensils that have been used with kitniyot.

When Cooking Is Not Allowed It is forbidden to cook on Shabbat (the Jewish Sabbath, sundown Friday to nightfall Saturday) or to prepare for other days on Yom Tov (festival days) for someone who is not ill. If a factory is owned exclusively by Jews, the kosher certification agency will probably require that they close on these days. It is sometimes not applicable to factories that are not exclusively Jewish owned, but kosher restaurants and markets usually cannot be open on Shabbat or Yom Tov. The laws pertaining to these issues are largely beyond the scope of this entry; however, this is something that may be encountered in commercial kashrut.

Who Can Handle or Cook Food The rabbis of the Talmud instituted a rule to prevent Jews from being swayed by lavish meals or intermarrying: Although basic foods (e.g., boiled vegetables) may be prepared by anyone, delicacies (defined as food that one would serve to a monarch) must have a Jew involved in some way in its cooking. This includes foods such as cakes, roasts, and glazed carrots but not steamed broccoli or potato chips. Typically the mashgiach will light the pilot light or turn on the oven so as to not interfere with the day-to-day running of the business but to fulfill the requirement. In some countries, a variety of foods may be “approved” but not “certified,” meaning that the certifying agency has evaluated a product but does not do regular supervision. In these instances, definition of a delicacy is much more restricted to enable people to use more commercially available foods. In the case of bread, which is a food that requires a Jew’s involvement in the cooking process, people may be advised to toast an approved bread to meet this requirement. As mentioned previously, all milk products had to be supervised throughout production, but now

873

there are health code deterrents to prevent people from mixing in milk from other sources. There are still some requirements relating to even chalav stam dairy products. Because cheese looks quite similar regardless of the type of rennet used, a Jew must add the rennet to kosher cheese. Grape juice and wine require constant supervision and may not be handled by non-Jews before being cooked (including pasteurization). This is because grape products were valid for use in the Holy Temple, and a rabbinical prohibition was enacted for fear that the wine might be used in foreign worship or dedicated to idols prior to it being used in the Temple. However, once grape products are cooked, they are deemed unfit for use in the Temple and thus may be handled by anyone and still be kosher. Despite the fact that there is currently no standing Temple, this requirement remains.

Kosher Style “Kosher style” is used to refer to Ashkenazi-style cuisine, featuring foods such as rye bread, beef tongue, corned beef, blintzes, kugel, and bagels with lox and cream cheese. However, kosher style restaurants and delis are usually not kosher even if they use kosher products. This is because they serve meat and milk items together, use the same equipment for both milk and meat, or are not supervised by a mashgiach. Kosher restaurants are not allowed to serve both milk and meat, because dishes will inevitably be mixed up, and patrons could order both milk and meat foods. Some kosher restaurants, however, have a meat restaurant and offer separate dairy catering, or vice versa. Commercially produced kosher foods are always certified (or approved) by a reputable kosher certification agency or rabbi unless they fall into a category of product that is assumed kosher without certification. Israel Berger See also Animal Rights; Bible-Based Diets; Halal Food; Hindu Food Restrictions; Mormon Food Practices; Religion and Foods, Requirements and Labeling

874

Kyoto Protocol

Further Readings Blech, Z. Y. (2009). Kosher food production. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell. Greenberg, B. (1983). How to run a traditional Jewish household. Darby, PA: Diane. Greenwald, Z. (1999). Let’s learn about kosher food. Nanuet, NY: Feldheim.

KYOTO PROTOCOL The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty established in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997, by the third session of the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It entered into force on February 6, 2005. The aim of the protocol is to stabilize humaninduced climate change, which disproportionately affects poor areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, compromising food security and sustainable development. The protocol binds all industrialized countries listed in Annex 1 to lower national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by agreed-on targets compared with 1990 levels: 5% for the first commitment period (2008–2012) and 18% for the second (2013–2020). Under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” Annex 1 countries commit to reducing GHG emissions not only through national policies but also through marketbased measures, most notably the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM permits industrialized countries to acquire carbon credits—one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent—by eliminating emissions (sources) and establishing removals (sinks) through targeted projects in “developing” countries. To date, agriculture is largely treated as a net source of GHG emissions, rather than a potential sink for climate change mitigation. There are political economic and technical obstacles in including sustainable agriculture as a mitigation strategy under the protocol, though at present, the issue is high on international policy agendas.

Agriculture and Land Use Rules in the Clean Development Mechanism While agriculture accounts for just 4% of global gross domestic product, the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change estimates that it contributes 10% to 12% of total global GHG emissions annually and more than 30% if one includes deforestation and the use of nonrenewable energies used for production, processing, distribution, refrigeration, transport, disposal, and so forth (Conway, 2012, pp. 306–307). Because (industrialized) agriculture affects climate change significantly, it is included in Annex A of the protocol as a source of GHG emissions under the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) section of the CDM. Sustainable agricultural practices such as minimum or no tillage, integrated pest management, and agroforestry are not specifically listed as possible means to earn carbon credits, though carbon sequestration from agricultural soils has the potential to offset 5% to 15% of global fossil fuel emissions and increase grain production in the global South (Conway, 2012, p. 311). Because of this exclusion, rules for the LULUCF sector are arguably the most controversial aspect of the protocol, for they only allow carbon credit accounting for “afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990” (Art. 3.3). Projects that preserve forests through sustainable agriculture have not usually been funded through the CDM, though many of the world’s 3 billion small farmers could benefit from this market.

Getting Agricultural Mitigation on the Global Agenda The ostensible reason carbon sinks from agriculture have not been included in the protocol is the difficulty and expense of measuring net carbon changes from agriculture given nonhuman disturbances such as fire and insects, which affect soils and forests over time (Kurz, Stinson, Rampley, Dymond, & Neilson, 2008, p. 1554). Technical complications have thus been an obstacle to implementing effective CDM measures geared toward sustainable agriculture. Political economic factors such as the role of transnational corporations and government agencies that clear tropical forests for monocultures must also be taken into account. The issue of carbon credits for agriculture has so far been set aside over worries that some Annex 1 countries may make unreasonable claims for carbon sinks that would otherwise occur naturally.

Kyoto Protocol

Yet the need to incorporate sustainable agriculture as a mitigation strategy for the CDM and similar carbon markets has been recognized. As early as 2006, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended changing the LULUCF section of the Kyoto Protocol to Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, a shift seconded by other stakeholders such as the African Climate Solution Group that presented at the 2007 UN Climate Change Conference in Bali and the 2008 Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, led by New Zealand (who, significantly, did not commit to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol). Perhaps most influentially, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, led by the World Bank and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, published a 2008 document titled Agriculture at a Crossroads, which outlines recommendations for incorporating agriculture into global climate change policies.

The Future of Global Climate Change Policy The Kyoto Protocol was reinstated in December 2012 at the 18th Annual United Nations Climate Change Conference in Doha, Qatar. At this meeting, the Conference of the Parties agreed to extend the protocol to a second commitment period through the Doha Amendment to Annex B. More important, for the future of global climate change policies, the Conference of the Parties ratified the 2011 Durban Platform, through which a successor to the protocol is expected to be formulated by 2015 and implemented “universally” by 2020. Universal participation in global climate change policies is still far from being achieved, however. While nearly 200 industrialized countries ratified the Kyoto Agreement for the first commitment period, only 37 ratified the Doha Amendment, which commits them to a second period. The United States—still the highest emitter of GHG— ratified neither. Marisa Wilson

875

See also Climate Change; Deforestation for Agriculture; International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Study

Further Readings Brown, S., Swingland, I. R., Hanbury-Tenison, R., Prance, G. T., & Myers, N. (2002). Changes in the use and management of forests for abating carbon emissions: Issues and challenges under the Kyoto protocol. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360(1797), 1593–1605. doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1021 Burger, A. (2009, April 6). FAO urges negotiators to include agriculture in post-Kyoto climate pact. Retrieved from http://globalwarmingisreal .com/2009/04/06/fao-urges-negotiators-to-includeagriculture-in-post-kyoto-climate-pact Conway, G. (2012). One billion hungry: Can we feed the world? (pp. 287–328). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kurz, W. A., Stinson, G., Rampley, R., Dymond, C. C., & Neilson, E. T. (2008). Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada’s forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(5), 1551–1555. doi:10.1073/ pnas.0708133105 Niles, J. O., Brown, S., Pretty, J., Ball, A. S., & Fay, J. (2002). Potential carbon mitigation and income in developing countries from changes in use and management of agricultural and forest lands. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360(1797), 1621–1639. doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1023

Websites United Nations Environment Programme—International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: http://www.unep.org/ dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/ Default.aspx/ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—Kyoto Protocol: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_ protocol/items/2830.php

L LABELING: ORGANIC, LOCAL, GENETICALLY MODIFIED

However, branding is an important issue, because it encompasses some of the broader persuasive goals of labels. Branding is the use of language and symbols to construct a product identity, to build loyalty to a brand, and to motivate favorable consumer action. For example, it is reported that the Campbell’s Soup Company declined to use GM tomatoes in its products, because of the fear that it might undercut consumers’ perceptions that Campbell’s soups are “natural” and “wholesome.” Branding often is carried out over long periods of time with the help of advertising agencies. One of the most famous branding campaigns in the United States is the “Got Milk?” campaign, which encouraged the consumption of milk. The campaign utilized a wide variety of appeals, including a “cute” visual image: a milk mustache on celebrities after drinking milk. While labels also influence and persuade, the process is a bit more subtle. For example, a label that proclaims that a product is “gluten free” is of immediate interest to consumers with gluten allergies. At the same time, however, the label may suggest to other consumers that the company has good intentions and that the product is “natural” and “wholesome.”

AND

Food labels include contents, source, weights and measures, safety warnings, nutrition counsel, price, and other pertinent information. Labels facilitate food commerce by identifying contents, providing recognizable units of weights and measures, and specifying price. Labels protect consumers by providing product information and assurance certifications that increase consumer confidence in the integrity, safety, and wholesomeness of food products. Food labeling is connected to branding, a marketing strategy that tries to develop an image for a food product. Food labels date at least to the Bronze Age, where they usually identified the contents and the source of the product, such as a palace or a temple. Government agencies are often involved in the labeling of food. Food labeling in the United States today has political overtones, for example, in ballot measures about labeling genetically modified (GM) food. This entry touches on the history of food labeling, but focuses on food labeling in the United States, with particular attention on labeling organic, local, and GM food.

Food Labels: Past and Present Labels and Branding

In the so-called bazaar economy, food usually is unbranded. Consumers and sellers often engage face-to-face before the purchase. In the so-called brand economy, food bears labels that assure

In this entry, the term label is used rather than the term branding. The former term seems more intuitive and is common in everyday usage. 877

878

Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified

consumers about contents, weights and measures, quality, and price. Labels have a long history. Surviving labels from the Bronze Age typically associate wines and oils with a well-known producer, such as a temple or a palace. Therefore, labels had a persuasive function (attaching status), in addition to their informative function. One of the early and best known food purity labels is the German Reinheitsgebot (1516), which stipulates that beer should be brewed only from barley, hops, and water. In modern times, this traditional label (“Brewed under the German purity law of 1516 with only natural ingredients”) led to conflict with non-German beers, such as Budweiser®, the well-known American beer, which contains rice. The American Budweiser beer was also involved in a trademark controversy with a beer with a similar name from the Czech Republic. In 2007, Greenpeace, an organization focused on exposing and solving environmental problems, alleged that some of the rice in American Budweiser beer was genetically modified and demanded a response from the company. These conflicts over beer illustrate how complex a seemingly simple label can be.

Food Labels in the United States Food labels in the United States have an interesting and complex history that spans at least 120 years. President Theodore Roosevelt signed the original Pure Food and Drug Act into law in 1906. This law prohibited misbranded and adulterated food and drinks. However, there was no approval system for foods before they were introduced into the marketplace. In 1913, the Gould Amendment required that contents be clearly marked on the outside of the food package. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1924 that an article is “misbranded” if it is not the identical thing that the brand indicates it to be. With the creation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the 1930s, the nation opened a new chapter in food labeling. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required that colors be approved before they could be used in products. The 1938 act also required that food labels use the standard or common name

for the food. By the 1950s, food standards had been issued for many foods, including canned tomatoes, flour, cereals, milk, and cheese. These standards were akin to a list of ingredients. In the 1940s, World War II fostered new links between food and patriotism. During this intense, national war effort, complete with rationing, posters urged citizens to grow a “Victory Garden.” The purpose was to free conventionally produced food for shipment to soldiers. Victory Gardens and the push to engage in canning led to the creation of personal labels, such as “Marie’s Strawberry Preserves.” These canning labels celebrated individual war efforts and, in addition, affirmed the role of women and others on the home front in the international battle against the Axis Powers. The Delaney Committee in 1950 began to look into the safety of food additives, with a particular focus on additives linked to cancer in humans. This early work led to a list of food substances approved by experts as safe for their intended use. In 1966, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act required honest and informative labels on food and other products. During the 1960s and 1970s, concerns about the quality of infant formula led to the passage of the Infant Formula Act of 1980. The United States addressed nutrition labeling with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act passed in 1990. Food nutrition information, serving sizes, and terms such as low-fat and light were standardized. In this era, the FDA began to approve some health claims on food labels, such as “reduction of risk in coronary heart disease.” It is now common in the United States to see standardized food labels that contain information about calories, fat, sodium, and vitamins. An updated version of FDA labeling requirements is located in Chapter 9 of Title 21 of the U.S. Code. Even the word label is carefully defined: The FDA has tried to keep pace with developments in food technologies, but the pace of change sometimes outstrips the regulatory process.

Weights and Measures and Bilingual Labels Two of the most basic functions of food labeling are to ensure accuracy and to protect consumers.

Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified

This philosophy underlies what is called “legal metrology,” but which is more commonly known as “weights and measures.” For instance, a recent trip to the supermarket revealed the following labels: (a) a label on a can of Arizona Iced Tea® states that the can contains 23 fluid ounces (680 milliliters); (b) a package of Darigold Butter® is divided into “four quarters,” according to its label. The weight of the butter is reported as “one pound” or “453 grams.” These examples include a liquid product and a solid product. The labels also illustrate the use of both the metric system and the nonmetric system. At this basic level, food labeling is a matter of fair and accurate reporting of the weights and measures of contents. This labeling facilitates commerce. Consumers can use the information in a variety of ways, including assessing value for their money. However, there are some complexities. For example, while consumers in the United States have become accustomed to certain weights and measures, such as buying one pound of butter, they may find it awkward to divide weight in grams by 28.4 to obtain the weight in ounces. Another kind of confusion is introduced into the marketplace, especially with regard to pricing, when new weights and measures replace traditional weights and measures. Consumers who are accustomed to buying a package of one pound of cheese (16 ounces) may find that new packages contain only 12 ounces. To assist in this situation, supermarkets often provide another kind of label—a price per ounce label—for the sake of fair comparison. Yet another interesting feature of food labels is the requirement of bilingual labeling. Meat exporters in the United States now face bilingual labeling requirements from approximately one dozen nations. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has bilingual requirements, which stipulate that all mandatory information on a food label must be displayed in both French and English. Mexico is in the process of requiring Spanish/English labels on certain food products. In Belgium, food labels must be printed in French and Dutch. Currently, there is some interest in relying more on well-recognized symbols and color coding in food

879

nutrition labels, as globalization means that food labels likely will cross national borders.

The “Organic” Label The development of the “organic” label in the United States required more than 10 years of negotiation and debate. The official process began in 1990, when Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act. This legislation paved the way for the creation of a National Organic Standards Board. The purpose of the board was to advise the secretary of agriculture in setting standards for a national organic program. The initial proposal for national organic standards was rejected in 1997. In 2000, organic advocates and consumers sent more than 275,000 responses to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, most asking for stricter standards. The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an updated version of its organic rules. The National Organic Standards were subsequently implemented in 2002. The final standards included prohibitions on irradiation and sewage sludge. The federal regulations governing the National Organic Program are lengthy and complex; they are also evolving. At present, for example, agricultural land must be free of prohibited substances for 3 years prior to harvest. The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, however, is detailed and in constant flux. Copper sulfate may be used, but it is limited to one application every 2 years, while ash from manure burning is prohibited. Growers must agree to be inspected and must receive official certification. With respect to the “organic” label that a consumer might see on food products, the phrase “100% organic” is reserved for food that is produced and handled according to all relevant sections of the regulations. These stipulations include matters such as mandating crop rotation to improve the soil and prohibiting the use of volatile, synthetic solvents in processing. Despite the stringent regulations, small and medium-sized organic farms are being challenged by large, industrial farms. Thus, some of the values of the organic movement are threatened. For example, as long as the feed is “organic,” cattle may never eat a blade of grass. Farmers have been given temporary permission to

880

Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified

spray apple and pear trees with antibiotics. Critics, such as the Organic Consumers Association, continue to seek stricter guidelines.

The “Local” Food Label Some of the values of the original organic movement have resurfaced in the local food movement. The term locavore (one who tries to eat locally produced food) appeared in the public vocabulary around the year 2005, alongside the growth in the number of farmers’ markets and natural food stores and the publication of books such as Plenty: Eating Locally on the 100 Mile Diet (2007). But the “local” label raises some interesting issues. If one defines local as grown in one’s own state, then Texas-grown produce could legitimately utilize the label, even though it is 800 miles from El Paso to Texarkana. By comparison, the dimensions of the state of Rhode Island are only 48 miles by 37 miles. In 2008, Congress amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to define local and regional to signify within 400 miles of the origin of the food product. This endeavor to view a foodshed in much the same way as a watershed added a new ingredient to locavore thinking. But critics argue that an emphasis on food miles (an emphasis on the transportation of food) neglects other significant issues. For example, the concept of total energy use might be a better way to focus attention on sustainable food practices.

Labeling of Genetically Modified Food GM food is defined as food in which the DNA has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. While cross-breeding to produce hybrids has been practiced for centuries, it occurs within a species (e.g., tomatoes). Genetic engineering allows for selected genes to be transferred between nonrelated species (e.g., fish and tomatoes). At present, genetic engineering is concentrated in the area of food production. A plant might be engineered in such a way, for example, as to resist pests or even pesticides. GM foods that are eaten directly are rare in the United States; however, when one considers GM corn and soy, it is clear that many foods contain GM ingredients.

Food labeling has become more and more of a political issue. The development of the “organic” label in the United States was an example of public input into a regulatory agency (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). The campaigns to require the labeling of GM food, however, represent a different type of political activity. To date, the voters in two states have expressed their opinions on the labeling of GM food through ballot initiatives. In 2002, the citizens of Oregon voted 70% No to 30% Yes on Measure 27, which would have required labels on GM food. In 2012, California voters rejected Proposition 37, the so-called Right to Know Proposition, by a margin of 53% No to 47% Yes. To be fair, however, it is useful to look at the arguments both for and against labeling GM foods. Arguments for GM Labels

One of the most common arguments in favor of labeling GM food is that consumers have the right to know. Rights discourse is common and sometimes powerful in the United States, as in the case of civil rights, but it does not have a long tradition in the area of food rights. A second argument in favor of labeling is that GM food may have unintended consequences. This appeal, a popular form of which can be found in the blockbuster film Jurassic Park, is based on the premise that when humans tinker with nature there is no way of predicting all the outcomes. A third argument for labels on GM food is that these foods are not “natural.” Indeed, the use of the term natural was part of the campaign to develop the “organic” label in the United States and surfaced, again, in the campaign for California Proposition 37. The campaign against foods that are not “natural,” especially in Europe, tried to label these foods as “Frankenfood.” The Frankenfood designation is adapted from the well-known novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, first published anonymously in 1818, and popular films in the Frankenstein genre. Arguments Against GM Labels

Opponents of labels on GM food utilize four main arguments, starting with the claim that there

Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified

is no significant difference between conventional food and GM food. Opponents assert that there are no major differences in nutrition and, furthermore, that there are no significant health or safety differences. Second, according to opponents of labels on GM food, the requirement to label would create bureaucratic “red tape” and would raise costs for producers and consumers. From this perspective, labeling would interject unnecessary government interference into the food system. Third, those against labels on GM food contend that the proposed regulations are poorly written and would lead to a litigation nightmare. Finally, opponents of GM labels assert that advocates of labeling are missing the point: GM food is one way to help feed the world. From this perspective, GM food is a good thing; it represents progress. The Future of GM Food Labels

The next chapter on labels on GM food is being written today. The European Union, typically reluctant to allow GM food, has given approval to a GM potato that has higher concentrations of starch. This potato, from the German company BASF, may have uses in paper production and animal feed. In the United States, there is considerable discussion about AquAdvantage® fish, which grow twice as fast as conventional fish. Whole Foods, a national grocery store, announced that it would require all products containing GM organisms to be labeled, effective in 2018. Some observers say that it is only a matter of time before the labeling of GM food is an accepted practice in the United States. Indeed, after the defeat of California Proposition 37, campaigns to label GM foods were launched in Michigan, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington. The labeling of GM food already is required in many nations around the world, including South Africa, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, China, and the European Union.

Final Thoughts In one sense, food labels are only part of the broader food equation. Another aspect of food politics is the issue of control. Labels may convey information, and have a persuasive impact on consumers, but the

881

ownership of food patents and food technologies is another matter altogether. In the past, commentators have expressed concern when too few organizations control too many media outlets. The same logic might be applied to food, if too few organizations control too much of food production. Michael S. Bruner See also Fair Trade; Free-Range Meats and Poultry; Functional Foods; Kosher Food; Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables; Low-Fat Foods; Trademarks

Further Readings Bevan, A., & Wengrow, D. (2010). Cultures of commodity branding. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (n.d.). Food labelling for industry. Retrieved from http://www.inspection.gc .ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch2e.shtml European Commission. (n.d.). Health and consumers: Food. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/ biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm Hockert, C., & Oppermann, H. (2011). Weights and Measures Program requirements. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Meadows, M. (2006, January/February). A century of ensuring safe foods and cosmetics (The Centennial Ed.): FDA Consumer Magazine. Retrieved from http:// www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ FOrgsHistory/CFSAN/ucm083863.htm United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438 (1924). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. (n.d.). National organic program. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams .fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateA&navID= NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPNationalOrgani cProgramHome&resultType=topNav=leftNav=Nation alOrganicProgram&acct=nop U.S. Government Printing Office. (n.d.). U.S. Code, Title 21: Food and Drugs. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (§§ 301–399f) (chap. 9). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionUScode.act ion?collectionCode=USCODE&searchPath=Title+21& oldPath=isCollapsed=true&selectedYearFrom=2010& ycord=1073

882

Labeling, Legislation and Oversight

Weirich, P. (Ed.). (2007). Labeling genetically modified food: The philosophical and legal debate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

LABELING, LEGISLATION AND OVERSIGHT Consumers use labels such as food labels to help them make the choices that maximize their satisfaction and well-being. Labels are especially useful when making choices about goods that have experience or credence characteristics. Experience goods are those for which a consumer cannot ascertain quality until after the good is used, such as the amount of chicken in chicken soup. Credence goods are those for which a consumer cannot ascertain quality, even after the product is used or consumed, as in the case of organically produced foods. Federal legislation is often passed for the labeling of goods with experience and credence characteristics. Oversight for food labeling in the United States falls under the purview of both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and to a lesser extent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). While the FDA oversees food safety issues and the nutrition facts label on most packaged foods, the FTC oversees labeling that may affect business practices or competition. From the early 19th century through almost three quarters of the 20th century, labeling regulation focused on food safety and packaging. Since the 1970s, the focus has included health claims. The 21st century has brought a host of compound issues that make labeling regulation increasingly complicated, including “bundled” claims, consumer behavior based on values, product production practices, international trade, and the amount and placement of label information.

The 20th-Century Labeling Legislation Federal laws for food labels were first promulgated in 1906 with the passage of the Pure Food Act, although several states enacted state laws as early as 1874. There were many adulterated, unsafe, and

even poisonous foods for sale, developed for an increasingly industrialized food system. Public outcry generated by journalistic muckrakers and Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle provided enough evidence for Congress to act in 1906. The Gould Amendment of 1913 required that food package contents be marked on the outside of the package in terms of weight, measure, or count. In 1938, Congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which replaced the Pure Food Act of 1906 and expanded the oversight of the FDA. In 1950, the Oleomargarine Act required labeling margarine to inform consumers that margarine is not butter. In 1966, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act required food and all other products that crossed state lines to be honestly labeled. The FTC regulates labels that affect commerce. As well as being a source of information, labels are a form of advertising. Advertising can affect competition in the marketplace. The 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act declared unfair methods of commerce illegal, but it did not specifically address advertising. The Wheeler-Lea Act, which addressed unfair or deceptive acts or practices and included food and drug advertising specifically, was passed in 1938. Another era of increasing consumer reliance on processed and packaged foods occurred in the 1960s. Labeling legislation was passed to guide consumer behavior toward healthier choices. A 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health ultimately led to the passage of the 1973 nutritional guidelines requiring the labeling of certain foods: those with added nutrients and those for which a nutrition claim was made on the label or in advertising. Consumer distrust of food advertising and labeling increased in the 1980s. Notable false claims on labels include “Fruit Juicy Hawaiian Punch,” which contained only 10% juice, and “Wonder Bread Helps Build Strong Bodies 12 Ways,” which was no different from any other fortified bread. Claims by Kellogg’s Rice Krispies cereal as fortified with energy-releasing B vitamins helped spur the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. This act established standards for health and nutrition claims and mandated most foods to have nutrition facts labels.

Labeling, Legislation and Oversight

The 1997 Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act relaxed procedures for proving a health claim (FDA, n.d.). The rules were relaxed further in 2003. The Center for Science in the Public Interest called the FDA a “sleeping watchdog” during this time period.

The 21st-Century Labeling Issues In the first decade of the 21st century, the FDA continued to take a deregulated approach. In 2003, the FDA did require the labeling of trans fats on the nutrition label. During the first 5 years of the new century, the number of simplistic front-ofpackage (FOP) label claims that provided a composite image about a product increased, as did health claims, and values-based labels emerged. Values-based labels include those related to the way food is produced, including organic or without genetic modification. The Obama administration supports increased enforcement of labeling laws by federal agencies. FOP labeling composites have been proposed by both industry and government as a method to help consumers navigate the many health claims that have proliferated and decrease the complexity of available information. The food industry has developed several FOP programs, including Smart Choices, NuVal, Guiding Stars, Healthy Ideas, and Nutrition IQ; however, Smart Choices is already defunct because the scoring system used to describe foods as healthy could include many foods high in sugar, fat, or both. Values-based labels (e.g., fair trade, organic, locally grown, no genetic engineering) are on the increase. Currently, there is no agreement among industry, consumer advocacy organizations, and governments about how to label products with some of these characteristics (or lack of a characteristic, as in “no genetic engineering”). The science of product development is progressing more quickly than the science used to test the safety or efficacy of these products. On the one hand, business tends to oppose values-based labels that do not benefit their sales directly; on the other hand, some consumer advocacy organizations support mandatory food labeling (e.g., genetic engineering

883

labeling), including the Truth in Labeling Coalition, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Organic Consumer Association. The U.S. government allows voluntary labeling of many values-based characteristics. Organic, natural, free range, and nebulous words such as fresh are now regulated with regard to labeling. Food safety is one component of labeling efforts, but supporters are also interested in economic and environmental sustainability. The U.S. National Organic Standards went into effect in 2002, and it required that products labeled “organic” must be certified. Locally grown claims are another recent example of food labeling initiatives. From a food safety perspective, knowing where food is grown helps identify contamination points. However, currently, there are no federal regulations as to what constitutes “local” in labeling. At the international level of “local,” Country of Origin Labeling was implemented in 2009 and is regulated by the USDA. This label requires retailers to provide consumers with information about where the meats and perishable agricultural items originate—primarily to address food safety concerns.

Summary Three federal agencies have oversight over most food labeling in the United States: FDA, FTC, and USDA. The FDA is responsible for food safety, the FTC for labeling that unfairly affects competition, and the USDA for labeling that affects agriculture or trade. Food labels have been a contentious issue from the original passage of the Pure Food Act in 1906 and remain contentious in the 21st century as consumers demand information in simple forms and care about increasingly complex food system issues, including how their food is produced and from which country the food originates. Jane Kolodinsky See also Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Food Safety; Fraud; Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Halal Food; Kosher Food; Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified; Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables; U.S. Department of Agriculture

884

Labeling, Nutrition

Further Readings Agricultural Marketing Service. (n.d.). Country of origin labeling. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/ AMSv1.0/cool Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.). Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/ enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reformproceedings/fair-packaging-labeling-act Institute of Medicine. (n.d.). Examination of front-ofpackage nutrition rating systems and symbols. Retrieved from http://www.iom.edu/Activities/ Nutrition/NutritionSymbols.aspx Janssen, W. (1981). The story of the laws behind the labels. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ WhatWeDo/History/Overviews/ucm056044.htm Kolodinsky, J. (2012). Persistence of health labeling information asymmetry in the United States: Historical perspectives and twenty-first century realities. Journal of Macromarketing, 32(2), 193–207. doi:10.1177/0276146711434829 U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011). Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Retrieved from http://www .fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ ProductRegulation/ucm132818.htm U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Significant dates in U.S. Food and Drug Law history. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/history/ milestones/ucm128305.htm Wall, E. C. (2002). A comprehensive look at the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966 and the FDA Regulation of Deceptive Labeling and Packaging Practices: 1906 to today. Retrieved from http://dash .harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846774/Wall. pdf?sequence=1 Young, J. H. (1989). Pure food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

LABELING, NUTRITION Nutrition labels are ubiquitous in contemporary culture; yet up until the 1960s, nutrition labeling was virtually nonexistent in the United States. Not until consumers began purchasing convenience foods and prepackaged food products was there a

need for food to have nutrition labels. Now there are very few foods, processed or not, that can be purchased without a label of some kind. All packaged food from both large and small companies must have nutritional information included on the packaging. Food labels in general were created by government regulatory bodies and were forged out of a need to provide honestly labeled, nonadulterated food to the masses. Nutrition labels have a modern history, with the largest push for regulation happening in 1990, the most recent changes happening in 2006, and a proposed change in the works for 2014. Over all, these labels were created for both public health and commercial purposes and ultimately attempt to provide consumers with useful information so that they can make informed choices on the foods they eat.

Nutrition Labeling Education Act In 1990, advancements in food-processing technology and the desire of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other organizations such as the Council for Responsible Nutrition to develop uniform policies regarding food labeling led to the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). The NLEA amended the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, which was originally passed in 1938. This revision gave the FDA authority to require manufacturers of all packaged foods to include on their foods a nutrition label stating ingredients and serving sizes in an amount that is customarily consumed. Before this act, food manufacturers had the authority to create their own serving sizes, which made comparing the nutrition of food products across brands difficult. With the passage of the NLEA, nutrient contents were standardized and were required to be expressed in the context of the daily diet. In addition, a nutrition label, including important ingredients, was required to be included on all packaged foods, beginning in 1994. The NLEA also further standardized health claims that began to take shape in the 1980s and defined terms such as lite and low-fat. Some exemptions to the NLEA include food products made by small businesses or

Labeling, Nutrition

885

foods with insignificant amounts of nutrients such as coffee and most spices. The NLEA does not include labeling regulations for meat and poultry products and alcoholic beverages, as they are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Alcohol, Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the Department of Treasury, respectively.

General Structure The nutrition label’s general structure has been standardized since the 1990s. The label lists the percentages of recommended Daily Values, based on a daily diet of 2,000 calories, supplied in the food (Figure 1). Daily Values are standardized and based on a system of recommendations based on the Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) of each specific nutrient. The intake is based on what is considered to be sufficient for approximately 97% of all healthy adults in the United States. The RDI is based on the Recommended Daily Allowance, which was introduced in 1968. Updated Recommended Daily Allowances were introduced in 2007, amending the older RDIs, yet the 1968 version of RDIs is still used in nutrition labeling. The label begins with a standard serving measurement expressed in common household measurements and the number of servings contained in the package. Below the serving size are the calories per serving and the calories from fat. The calories from fat category may be omitted if the product contains less than 0.5 gram of total fat per serving. Listed next are the total fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates, and protein levels. Fiber and sugar may be included, yet their contents are not required unless the product contains more than 1 gram of each per serving. In 2010, the FDA updated the vitamins and minerals required to be present on labels. Vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron must be included on all nutrition labels. All other micronutrients are optional. To determine the level of micronutrients in foods, companies may develop databases or use ones that were previously developed by other food companies.

Figure 1

Current Nutrition Label

Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Proposed changes to the nutrition facts label. Retrieved from http:// www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocume ntsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm385663.htm

Modern Changes to Nutrition Labeling Trans Fat

In 2006, the FDA began to feature the grams of trans fat per serving on nutrition labels as a way for people to better choose heart-healthy foods. Trans fat is formed by the hydrogenation of vegetable oils and can increase unhealthy cholesterol in the bloodstream, which can lead to clogged arteries. This label change led to the public rejection of many foods that contained trans fats. In 2008, the New York City Board of Health, with support from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, banned trans fats from all city restaurants. In 2013, the FDA announced that it will require the

886

Labeling, Nutrition

food industry to slowly phase out the use of all trans fats in the upcoming years. Proposed Label Changes

In 2014, the FDA proposed changes to the structure and aesthetics of the nutrition label (Figure 2). The proposed changes would require additional information about the amount of added sugars included in products and update of Daily Values on nutrients such as sodium, fiber, and vitamin D. Manufacturers would also be required to include values of potassium and vitamin D on the label because modern science considers these nutrients to be of public health

significance. Serving sizes will be adjusted to reflect how consumers currently eat, as these values have not been updated since the original label was created in the 1990s. Aesthetically, the percentage of Daily Values will be shifted to the left to make them more visible. In addition, calories per serving and serving size will be more prominently displayed in the hopes that this easy-to-see information will help mitigate public health concerns such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Overall, the FDA hopes that these changes will allow consumers to make more informed choices, have a better understanding of nutrition science, and use the labels to maintain or adopt a healthy lifestyle.

History of Food Labeling and Nutrition Labeling

Figure 2 Proposed Nutrition Label Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Proposed changes to the nutrition facts label. Retrieved from http:// www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocu mentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm385663 .htm

In the United States, the federal government has been involved in the regulation of food and drugs since the USDA was formed in 1862. When President Lincoln appointed the chemist Harvey Wiley to serve in the USDA, it marked the beginning of the Bureau of Chemistry, the predecessor of the Food and Drug Administration. Wiley devoted his career to raising awareness of the problems associated with adulterated food. He worked to develop standards for food processing and was a main proponent for the Pure Food and Drug Act. Passed in 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act was enacted as a way to protect consumers from adulterated or mislabeled foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors that were sold through interstate commerce. In 1939, the first food standards were enacted for canned tomatoes and other tomato products, beginning the conversation about general food standards and labeling procedures. Between 1940 and 1960, food regulation became more complex and far reaching and included agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency all taking part in the overall goal of food safety and promotion. Increased regulations on pesticides and other farming inputs were also enacted during this time. In 1966, the Fair

Labeling, Nutrition

Packaging and Labeling Act, which required all consumer products that participated in interstate commerce to be honestly and informatively labeled, was passed. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, due in part to increased media coverage and consumers’ desire to learn more about health, the general public became concerned with the contents of packaged food and drug products. In 1980, the USDA published the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This guide included seven guidelines and urged Americans to adopt simple habits such as eating a variety of foods and avoiding too much sugar. The guidelines were the cornerstone for the implementation of a labeling system to help Americans pay attention to and adhere to these suggestions. In the 1990s, nutrition labels were implemented on all packaged products, providing information to aid consumers with making informed choices.

Nutrient Content and Health Claims In the 1970s, scientific knowledge grew rapidly, and the link between health and diets became more apparent. Consumers were interested in having more knowledge regarding what was in their food, especially in processed and packaged products. Many food manufacturers responded to this interest by adding claims about a special aspect of their food product to entice customers to purchase the product. Many of these claims were unsubstantiated or ambiguous and included nutrient content claims such as “very low in fat” or “high in iron” or health claims that linked certain products to reduction of disease or illness. The FDA began restricting unsubstantiated nutrient claims in response to this advertising tactic. In 1984, the Kellogg Company evaded FDA restrictions on health claims when their All Bran cereal included a recommendation from the National Cancer Institute to eat foods high in fiber, as it could reduce the likelihood of cancer. This text implied that eating the high-fiber All Bran could help prevent cancer, yet it did not explicitly say it, making the claim beyond the reach of the federal agency. Other companies copied Kellogg’s strategy. During the years before the FDA fully regulated food

887

claims, packaged food companies took advantage of this less regulated aspect of food labeling and began including such health claims on thousands of products. It was clear that consumers were listening to the claims being made during this time: Six months after the Kellogg All Bran campaign debuted, All Bran’s market share increased significantly. In 1989, almost 40% of new food products contained a health message of some sort, many of which toted unsubstantiated benefits or untrue claims. Realizing that this loophole in claims regulation could potentially threaten the FDA’s authority over labeling statements, the agency battled against the FTC’s less-stringent health claims regulation to ensure that health claims were scientifically viable. In the early 1990s, the FDA took control of health claims, ensuring that stringent scientific evidence is present for a health claim to remain on a product. The overall standardization of both food and nutrition labeling has given consumers more complete and consistent information about what packaged foods contain. It has also shielded consumers from unsubstantiated claims and companies’ manipulation of health claims to increase market share. The rationale behind stringent labeling was that if the information were present, the consumer would have the opportunity to make more informed decisions when purchasing food products. Alternatively, consumers may consider claims information an overload, leading them to pay less attention to the changes and updates in food labeling procedures. Nicolette Spudic See also Consistency of Food Products/Ingredients; Dietary Guidelines and Graphics; Fats, Role in Diet; Fiber, Role in Diet; Nutrient Density; Trans Fat and Hydrogenation

Further Readings Barstow, C. (2002). The eco-foods guide: What’s good for the earth is good for you. Gabriola, British Columbia, Canada: New Society. Grunert, K. (2013). Nutrition labeling. In B. Caballero, L. Allen, & A. Prentice (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human

888

Labeling and Branding, Fruits and Vegetables

nutrition (Vol. 3, pp. 315–319). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Retrieved from http://papers .ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2243465 The Law, Science & Public Health Law Site. (2005, August). Milestones in U.S. food and drug law history. Retrieved from http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/FDA/ milestones.html Merrill, R. A., & Francer, J. K. (2011). Organizing federal food safety regulation. Seton Hall Law Review, 31(1), 61–173. Nestle, M. (2002). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014, June). Labeling & Nutrition. Retrieved from http://www.fda .gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/ LabelingNutrition/default.htm Welsh, S., Guthrey, J., Fox, J., & Cleveland, L. (1995). Who uses nutrition labeling, and what effects does label use have on diet quality? Journal of Nutrition Education, 27, 163–172. Retrieved from http://www .sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0022318212804225

LABELING AND BRANDING, FRUITS AND VEGETABLES All packaged and canned foods must contain labels specifying the manufacturer and brand name, ingredients and dietary information, and weight or volume. Increasingly, fruits contain small branding labels as well not only to display pricing codes but also to create buyer loyalty. Labels and branding on fruits and vegetables can often confuse consumers. Understanding how to read and interpret them is important when making a decision on what to buy. Fruits and vegetables are nutritious, regardless of their packaging, branding, or origin. However, focusing only on the appearance and price may deflect consumers from choosing the best product for their needs. For example, there are many things to consider when choosing fruits and vegetables, whether fresh, frozen, or canned, and the labels, if read and understood correctly, provide all the information a consumer needs to make educated decisions on what to buy.

This entry examines types of labeling and branding of fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables. Fresh fruits and vegetables sold in grocery stores have a price look-up (PLU) sticker on them. The sticker consists of a barcode, company brand, and country of origin. (The adhesive on the PLU is food safe; however, the sticker is not edible.) The Produce Marketing Association (PMA) created PLU codes in 1949. The purpose of the PLU code was to develop more of a self-service style of grocery shopping. Since the birth of this PLU sticker, agribusiness has taken over most farming, and the PMA has grown accordingly. It has become the focal point of coordination in large-scale national and international produce marketing. The International Federation for Produce Standards is associated with PMA. It assigns and administers PLU codes and keeps a database of them. Originally intended to speed up checkout in supermarkets, PLU codes are now being pushed as a means to provide quality accountability and to limit the costs involved in tracing bad products that have already been distributed. The barcode number on the PLU sticker reveals how the fruit or vegetable was grown and what kind of fruit or vegetable it is. If the PLU code has only four numbers, then the fruit or vegetable is conventionally grown with pesticides. If the PLU code has five numbers and the first number is an 8, then it is a genetically modified organism (GMO). If the PLU code begins with the number 9 and has four numbers that follow, then the produce is grown organically, without pesticides, herbicides, and petrochemicals. GMOs are heavily debated and are a very controversial topic in the food world, but supporters and opponents of GMOs both seem to agree that GMO products should be labeled so that consumers are conscious of what they are buying. When it comes to labeling of organic produce, trust that a product is organic only if it has the U.S. Department of Agriculture–certified organic stamp on it. If farmers go through the process to cultivate organic crops, then they will most likely get their crops certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. When a label says “local,” it does not mean organic, and vice versa. To be considered “local” produce, it has to travel a shorter distance of “food miles” after it is picked.

Lactobacilli

Frozen fruits and vegetables are flash-frozen within a 24-hour period after picking to ensure that they stay fresh for a long period of time. Read the labels for any nutrition information and for any added ingredients, such as added sugars, added sodium, and preservatives. The labels on canned fruits and vegetables may confuse consumers, who might think they are making a healthier choice than they actually are. The truth is that canned fruits and vegetables contain additives that make them nonperishable. For example, some canned vegetables contain sodium to preserve the vegetables, and some canned fruits have added sugars to preserve the fruit. Look for “unsweetened” or “in their own juices” and “low sodium” on the label for the healthiest choices. Dried fruit is similar to any other packaged fruit or vegetable. Look at the label to see if there are any added ingredients, most likely sugar. Expiration dates are typically printed on fruits and vegetables that are considered perishable. Canned, frozen, and dried fruits and vegetables have a much longer shelf life than fresh produce does. The labels “Best before” or “Best if used by” that appear across a product are just a recommendation by the company. There are a variety of reasons as to why consumers buy a specific brand: brand loyalty, brand recognition, packaging, aesthetics, and, of course, cost. Store brands are comparable in quality to name brands, and the cost is usually much less. A trend has been the branding of fruits and vegetables with stickers, usually in bright colors to catch consumers’ attention. Chiquita and Dole were among the first to label bananas this way, attempting to forge brand loyalty, even though there might not be alternative brands for sale. Increasingly, other fruits and vegetables are sold with identifying stickers, either to distinguish products or simply to serve as a form of advertisement for whatever properties the grower would like to highlight. Sarah E. Crowell See also Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Labeling: Organic, Local, and Genetically Modified; Organic Agricultural Products, Policies on; Price Look-Up Codes

889

Further Readings Hart, D. L. (2013). Decode food labels: What are you eating? (Kindle ed.). McCarthy, R. (2008). Food labels: Using nutrition information to create a healthy diet. New York, NY: Rosen. Taub-Dix, B. (2010). Read it before you eat it: How to decode food labels and make the healthiest choice every time. New York, NY: Plume.

LACTOBACILLI Lactobacillus is the name of a genus of common bacteria. The bacteria in this family break down the starch and sugar; because of this, they are often used for processing food. These bacteria are best known for being used to ferment dairy products into yogurt and cheese. Many species of Lactobacilli are considered beneficial to human health and are referred to as probiotics. This entry takes a closer look at the microbiology of Lactobacilli, their use in food production and functional foods, and health claims associated with these bacteria.

Microbiology Lactobacilli are gram-positive rod-shaped bacteria. The genus Lactobacillus contains many species, and within each species, there are often many subspecies and strains. This bacteria type is found throughout the environment, including on the surface of plants and in the digestive systems of animals and humans. In humans, Lactobacilli are found in the mouth, vagina, and intestines. The various species of Lactobacilli have genetic variations that allow them to digest different kinds of carbohydrates. Lactobacilli ferment monosaccharides, disaccharides, and oligosaccharides. These bacteria can process many complexities of carbohydrates that are indigestible to humans. They are facultative anaerobes, capable of living in environments with and without oxygen. The product of their metabolism can be lactic acid, alcohol, or a combination, depending on the bacterial strain.

890

Lactobacilli

Food Production Humans have been taking advantage of the anaerobic fermentation of Lactobacilli to process foods for thousands of years. Today, there are two common types of pickles: those made by soaking in salt and vinegar and those made with salt but left to ferment and make their own acids. Placing vegetables in a sealed container with some salt and simply waiting a few weeks (or days) will result in many popular types of food, such as sauerkraut, soy sauce, pickled cucumbers, and cured olives. The initial activity in the pickling process comes from a variety of bacteria, but once the acidity is high enough, most activity is due to the presence of Lactobacilli. Although Lactobacilli are present throughout the natural environment, it is easier to use a preexisting culture for many foods. This is typically accomplished by retaining some of the mixture of a fermented food and adding it to a new batch. This is the most common method of producing a series of consistent loaves of sourdough bread, where pieces of unbaked dough are retained for the next batch. The type of Lactobacillus used in foods varies. A single strain of Lactobacillus is rarely the only agent of fermentation in a food; rather, it works synergistically with other bacteria or yeasts. Table 1 presents a list of some popular fermented foods and their associated strain of Lactobacillus.

Longer exposure of a food to a Lactobacillus can result in food spoilage, depending on the salinity and pH of the food brine. Because acetic acid will evaporate from an open container faster than water, high temperatures can also increase the pH of pickles and increase the likelihood of spoilage.

Health Claims Elie Metchnikoff (1845–1916) was a Russian immunologist and microbiologist and a Nobel Prize winner who first developed and popularized the idea that lactic acid–producing bacteria, particularly Lactobacilli, were beneficial to health. At the time, he believed that lactic acid prevented bad bacteria in the intestines and that these bad bacteria caused aging. In the early 20th century, as a result of Metchnikoff’s promotion, yogurt and kefir became popular as antiaging health foods. This opened up a century of study on the health benefits of probiotics, as well as continued interest in how to package and sell the bacteria as a product. Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria are the two most common genera of bacteria sold as probiotics. The beneficial effects of Lactobacilli come from the bacteria-digesting starches. The most simple of these effects is breaking down carbohydrates that are difficult for humans to digest, such as lactose, into digestible lactic acid. There are other known health benefits provided by the symbiotic Lactobacilli in the human gut.

Table 1 Popular Fermented Foods and Their Associated Strain of Lactobacillus Food Name

Strain of Lactobacillus

Yogurt

Lb. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus

Mozzarella

Lb. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus, Lb. helveticus, Lb. lactis

Swiss

Lb. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus, Lb. lactis

Kefir

Lb. kefir, Lb. kefiranofacies, Lb. brevis

Sausages

Lb. sakei, Lb. curvatus

Sauerkraut

Lb. plantarum, Lb. brevis

Pickles (cucumber)

Lb. plantarum, Lb. brevis

Kimchi

Lb. plantarum

Rice wine (sake)

Lb. sakei

Lb. = Lactobacillus; ssp. = subspecies.

Land Grant Colleges/Extension Units

The bacteria produce B vitamins that can be absorbed by the host. Some bacteria types help bind to and prevent the uptake of heavy metals. One of the most important benefits of these bacteria is that they reduce diarrhea due to infection or inflammation. Some popular literature promotes probiotics for a whole host of health benefits. There are many claims that have not yet been substantiated by medical research. Hypothesized benefits currently being researched include reduction of inflammatory symptoms in the intestines and reduction of some autoimmune inflammatory conditions, weight loss, and reduced cholesterol levels. In terms of drawbacks, cases of infection with Lactobacilli are known but extremely rare. Individuals with compromised immune systems should be cautious about taking probiotics as a supplement if there is a chance of sepsis.

Functional Foods As the health benefits of Lactobacilli and other beneficial bacteria are discovered, many companies are looking to include these bacterial cultures in their food. A food with an augmented health benefit, such as added bacteria, is known as a functional food. Lactobacilli are classified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a food additive that is Generally Recognized as Safe, but there are no Food and Drug Administration standards for quality (in terms of bacterial strain) or quantity of these bacteria in food. If a food is labeled “live and active cultures,” it must have living bacteria. There are many considerations for a company that wants to include probiotic bacteria in food. The selected bacteria have to be safe, identifiable, industrially produced, and beneficial. The bacteria need to be identifiable so that the strain can be known; some strains of a species can be much more beneficial than others. The selected species also has to either be innocuous or improve the flavor and texture of food. Because Lactobacilli produce lactic acid as a result of carbohydrate fermentation, live and active Lactobacilli can result in a sour flavor to food. Because of this, these bacteria are often added to foods that are already sweet and sour, such as fruit juice. Another option is to place the bacteria in capsules to be swallowed like pills or

891

to include “prebiotics” in the food. Prebiotics are complex carbohydrates that are intended to improve the growth of beneficial bacteria already living in the gut. Most prebiotics are in the form of dietary fiber, which consists of complex polysaccharides. Some research suggests that prebiotics are more effective at increasing levels of Bifidobacteria than Lactobacillus in the intestines; it is not clear if the health benefits of one are better than the other. Ellen M. Ireland See also Canning; Dairy Industry; Fiber, Role in Diet; Functional Foods

Further Readings Divya, J. B., Varsha, K. K., Nampoothiri, K. M., Bindumol, I., & Pandey, A. (2012). Probiotic fermented foods for health benefits. Engineering Life Sciences, 12(4), 377–390. doi:10.1002/elsc.201100179 Katz, S. E. (2012). The art of fermentation. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Marteau, P. R., de Vrese, M., Cellier, C. J., & Schrezenmeir, J. (2001). Protection from gastrointestinal diseases with the use of probiotics. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 73(2 Suppl.), 430S–436S. Podolsky, S. H. (2012). Metchnikoff and the microbiome. Lancet, 380(9856), 1810–1811. Venugopalan, V., Shriner, K. A., & Wong-Beringer, A. (2010, November). Regulatory oversight and safety of probiotic use. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 16(11) [Serial on the Internet]. Retrieved from http://wwwnc .cdc.gov/eid/article/16/11/10-0574_article.htm

Website University of Maryland Medical Center. Lactobacillus acidophilus: http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/ supplement/lactobacillus-acidophilus

LAND GRANT COLLEGES/ EXTENSION UNITS The term land grant colleges has come to refer specifically to U.S. institutions of higher learning that were funded by the sale of federal lands as called

892

Land Grant Colleges/Extension Units

for originally under the Morrill Act of 1862 and then by subsequent federal legislation. In fact, several states had set up land grant institutions of higher learning in the United States well before the Morrill Act, but the great impetus came with this federal legislation and funding. The institutions that already existed used the money to expand their facilities and offerings, while many states started up new institutions with these funds. In almost all instances, these colleges and other institutions evolved over the decades to grow into major educational institutions ranging from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to the great network of state universities. Although during these years most of these institutions branched out to educate young people in every possible field including the liberal arts—and usually added graduate schools for several professions—the early goal of the land grant act was to start and support institutions that featured vocational courses in fields such as engineering, agriculture, and animal husbandry. Subsequent acts of Congress increased federal funding for scientific research and extension services that provided information and hands-on support designed to improve both the lives of farmers and the quality and quantity of the nation’s food supplies.

The History of Land Grant Colleges Until the 19th century, most American colleges had been founded by religious denominations or private individuals, but as early as 1785, Georgia had issued a charter to fund a state university, and North Carolina followed 4 years later. Other states followed, but colleges and universities in general stressed the liberal arts over technical and vocational disciplines. The first institution to explicitly stress instruction in what was known as “scientific agriculture” was the Gardiner Lyceum in Maine. Similar private schools were established in Massachusetts (1832) and Connecticut (1848), but it was not until 1855 before two states— Michigan and Pennsylvania—established agricultural colleges; Maryland followed in 1856. Although these newly established colleges did require that the state acquire or turn over land,

they are not considered land grant institutions. This distinction actually began with the Land Ordinance of 1785, which called for surveying the land west of the established states and then dividing it up into townships and setting aside a portion of land for common, or grade, schools (first through eighth grades). In 1836, Congress authorized setting aside land for establishing state universities; although land grant institutions, these were not specifically designed as federally financed agricultural institutions. That reputation belongs to the colleges and universities founded under the Morrill Act of 1862, named after Justin S. Morrill, the representative from Vermont who introduced the bill in 1861. In fact, he had introduced an earlier version of the bill in 1857, but President James Buchanan had vetoed it. Under the Morrill Act of 1862, each state (excluding at the time the Confederate states) was to be assigned the profits from the sale of acreage owned by the federal government, primarily in the territory west of the Mississippi, with the acreage to be based on the number of members each state had in Congress. In other words, the term land grant does not refer to the land on which a state might build or enlarge a university but to the land that was set aside to be purchased by new settlers or speculators. Although these newly funded institutions were by no means required to limit their courses to disciplines related to agriculture, some states did designate the money to their agricultural colleges, and in almost all instances, the practical arts and sciences were to be stressed. There was even considerable resistance to characterizing these institutions as “agricultural colleges”—“national schools of science” was one preferred name. However, it was not a coincidence that this same year—1862—saw the passage of the Homestead Act, which opened up vast amounts of land for farming, and another act establishing a Department of Agriculture. President Lincoln signed these bills during the first year of the Civil War, not anticipating that the war was going to drag on and demand so much of the country’s people and treasure. Within the first 10 years of the Morrill Act of 1862, all 37 states had at least applied for federal

Land Grant Colleges/Extension Units

funds, and 24 land grant institutions were operating. Despite some resistance from various educators and organized farm groups, both the preexisting institutions and the newly formed ones considered courses in the new agricultural sciences as high on their agenda. Geology, botany, zoology, and other traditional disciplines could be taught with emphasis on their practical applications to agriculture and animal husbandry. Chemical analysis in particular was being applied to find the best soils and fertilizers for individual crops. Somewhat ironically, supporters of these land grant institutions often found themselves arguing against characterizing them as agricultural colleges and insisting that they were not designed to turn out farmers fit only for manual labor. At the same time, they had begun to recognize that if these institutions were to be truly scientific, they should also have experimental units, which would require more federal funding. This additional funding would await further acts of Congress, but in the meantime, the Morrill Act of 1862 had quietly initiated something almost revolutionary in America’s history: federal funding for education. Although the original American land grant colleges gradually dropped the word agricultural from their names (although several institutions, e.g., Texas A&M University, retain A&M [agricultural and mechanical] in their name) and most have grown into large universities offering a vast spectrum of courses and degrees, their impact on American agriculture cannot be overestimated. One of the more influential examples involves the institution known today as Iowa State University. It had begun as the Iowa State Agricultural College and Model Farm in 1856, and it became the first institution to accept the land grant offer under the Morrill Act of 1862. It was also a pioneer in introducing degrees in domestic science and veterinary science. Between 1885 and 1887, by which time it was the Iowa State Agricultural College, Henry C. Wallace, who would go on to establish the agricultural extension program in Iowa before serving as secretary of agriculture (1921–1924), attended it. His son, Henry A. Wallace, attended Iowa State Agricultural College from 1906 to 1910, graduating

893

with a degree in animal husbandry. Wallace later developed the high-yield hybrid corn that transformed the role of corn (maize) in the world’s agriculture and diet; he also was a pioneer in introducing statistical analysis to agriculture and eventually became the secretary of agriculture (1933–1940), helping save American agriculture during the difficult Depression years. Other states’ land grant institutions have similar success stories, and most continue to provide courses, researchers, and graduates who help improve both the quality and quantity of the nation’s agriculture.

Extension Units Educational institutions’ agricultural extension units and services have a history independent of but related to America’s land grant colleges. In fact, the term extension course or extension program was first used in England in the late 19th century to refer to academic courses offered to individuals not otherwise enrolled in colleges, and to this day, many American colleges offer extension courses. The application of variations of extension services to agriculture, although not using the term as such, can be traced back at least 3,000 years, when ancient Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Chinese governments introduced ways to help farmers improve crop yields. During the 19th century, many nations began to engage in the equivalent of agricultural extension services: The British government introduced a program that sent agents into rural areas to advise and help farmers; by 1875, Germany alone had more than 70 governmentsupported agricultural research stations and also sent agents into rural areas. During the 20th century, and most especially after World War II, variations of agricultural extension programs spread throughout the world, particularly in underdeveloped nations. These programs tend to be supported by the nations’ governments, by supragovernmental organizations such as the World Bank, and by privately funded nongovernmental organizations. Such extension programs have become crucial to the food produced by the many nations whose populations are still characterized as largely rural

894

Land Grant Colleges/Extension Units

and agricultural in nature, as the support they provide may run from funding campaigns to curing diseases among large export crops, to advising about marketing small-farm products. In many cases, the extension agents also serve as advisors on issues that have more to do with public health, nutrition, and domestic practices than with agriculture in the narrow sense. Taken together, these extension programs have played a major role in the world’s food production, and today, they are increasingly aiming at what is known as sustainable agriculture. The emergence of agricultural extension units in the United States followed a somewhat different course and came about through four major pieces of federal legislation. One was the Morrill Act of 1862, which established the land grant colleges; several of these colleges began to maintain what were little more than demonstration gardens and plots used to test crops and fertilizers. In 1875, however, Wesleyan University in Connecticut established the country’s first true agricultural experiment station to apply basic scientific analysis to improving crop yields and animal products, and in the years that followed, a number of states began to set up similar research stations. Then, in 1887, the major impetus toward making the findings of scientific agriculture more available to American farmers came with the passage of the so-called Hatch Act of 1887, named after a representative from Missouri, William H. Hatch, who as chairman of the House Agricultural Committee was instrumental in getting the bill—formally H.R. 2933—through Congress to President Grover Cleveland’s desk. This act called for federal funds to be paid to support agricultural research stations, and within a few years, all the states were supporting scores of these stations, most of them attached to the land grant colleges. Every 3 months, these research laboratories and testing stations sent out bulletins with relevant findings in areas such as soil analysis, appropriate fertilizers, plant diseases, and cattle nutrition. What began with the goal of applying more scientific knowledge and methods to increase production and income from crop farming and animal husbandry expanded over the

years to include advice and support for improving the general conditions of rural life. The next federal bill was the Second Morrill Act of 1890 (Morrill was by then a senator), which mandated far more generous federal funding of the land grant colleges. Although these funds were not limited to courses in agriculture, in general, they allowed the colleges to free up funds from the salaries of college staff to support these research stations. The Morrill Act of 1890 is also notable for having insisted on granting the land grant status and funds to all-black colleges. The fourth bill and the one that specifically provided funds for extension agents to visit farmers was the Smith-Lever Act of 1914; because the law requires that states share in the funding, this is commonly known as the cooperative extension service under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under this same act, the 4-H clubs that had been growing around the country since 1902 were organized nationally. Because rural America was then organized around counties (and largely remains so today), the personnel responsible for advising the farmers became known as county agents, although the terms agricultural agent and extension agent are also used. John S. Bowman See also Cooperatives; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Food Science Departments/Programs in Universities; Green Revolution Farming: Unanticipated Consequences; U.S. Department of Agriculture

Further Readings Eddy, E. D. (1957). Colleges for our land and time: The land-grant idea in American education. New York, NY: Harper. Edmonds, J. B. (1978). Magnificent charter: The origin and role of the Morrill land-grant colleges and universities. Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press. Jones, G. E., & Garforth, C. (1997). The history, development, and future of agricultural extension. In B. E. Swanson, R. P. Bentz, & A. J. Sofranko (Eds.), Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual

Landrace (pp. 3–12). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5830E/w5830e03.htm Marcus, A. (1985). Agricultural science and the quest for legitimacy. Ames: Iowa State University Press. McDowell, G. R. (2001). Land grant universities and extension into the 21st century: Renegotiating or abandoning a social contract. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Nevins A. (1962). State universities and democracy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Rivera, W. M., & Gustafson, D. (Eds.). (1991). Agricultural extension: Worldwide institutional evolution and forces of change. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Ross, E. D. (1942). Democracy’s college: The land-grant college in the formative stage. Ames: Iowa State College Press. True, A. (1937). History of agricultural experimentation and research in the United States, 1607–1925. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Williams, R. L. (1991). The origins of federal support for higher education: George W. Atherton and the landgrant college movement. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Websites American School Search: http://www.american-schoolsearch.com International Agricultural Extension Programs: http://www.fao.org/nr/research-extension-systems/reshome/en U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture—Cooperative Extension System Offices: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension

LANDRACE A landrace is an identifiable, yet genetically variable population of domesticated crop or animal species that is selected by local farmers and adapted to the local agroecosystems, cultural practices, and climate in which it develops. Landraces are thus characteristic of the regions in which they have been developed. In the 1935 publication Phytogeographic Basis of Plant Breeding, Nikolay

895

Vavilov identified many of these regions and found that these centers of diversity, which came to be known as “Vavilov centers of origin,” still contained considerable genetic diversity between and within landraces, and this diversity supported considerable cultural diversity. The vast majority of these centers are in the global South. This entry discusses the characteristics and emergence of landraces as well as the importance of preserving and conserving the remaining landraces. The genetic variability of landraces allows them to express differential responses to pests, diseases, and changeable environmental conditions. The resultant adaptability and resilience mean that landraces provide high yield stability with moderate yield levels under conditions of low use of industrial inputs. Producers are provided a level of security, even under unfavorable growing conditions, because only some individual plants or animals may be adversely affected. Most landrace crops are cultivated in intercrops, mixtures of diverse species grown together in the same field. Such intra- and interspecies diversity, however, is not considered ideal for commercial farming. Intraspecies diversity means that the crop is not necessarily responsive to high levels of industrial inputs, and interspecies diversity increases labor intensiveness, especially because it may preclude weed control with chemical herbicides. Landraces are particularly adapted to the farming systems of small-scale producers, especially in the global South, but pressures to adopt industrial farming methods and to augment cash returns have led to dramatic declines in landrace-based production since the 1950s. Landrace crops are different from cultivars, which have been selectively bred to a uniform, standardized set of desirable characteristics, and plant varieties, which are cultivars to which patent protection has been applied. Landrace animals are different from formal breeds in that they are bred using traditional breeding methods and are selected for function, ability, and adaptability to local context, rather than uniform appearance or a single production-related characteristic. Like landrace crops, their genetic diversity offers resistance to

896

Landrace

parasites, diseases, and environmental variability. Landrace animals retain a broad range of traits that make them resilient and self-sufficient. They are fertile and capable of natural mating; they display natural behavior and maternal instincts; and they have a long period of productivity within a context of longevity and the ability to forage. Landraces are usually given names—particularly if more than one of the same crop or animal species are raised in an area—which often reflect the region in which they are grown and may also contain a reference to distinguishing traits of interest. Landraces are part of the cultural heritage of regions, countries, and humankind. They are an important source of agricultural diversity and, in light of declining genetic diversity in agriculture and the risk that this poses to food security, it is crucial to conserve as many of the remaining landraces as possible to serve as resources for crop and livestock improvement. Although some early plant scientists discounted human selection of crop landraces or argued that selection was done “unconsciously,” currently there is little doubt that landraces emerged as a result of both natural and artificial, or conscious, selection by farmers. Humans used the phenotypes, or expressed characteristics of the genetic code, of wild plants as they selected from traits already existent or resulting from cultivation. Nature played a part, particularly in “weeding out” individuals or populations unable to survive or compete under certain agroecological conditions. Furthermore, some traits not consciously selected for accompanied those that were. For example, in some cases, selecting for bigger seeds may have also included selecting for resistant, tall, and late plants. Although the degree of selection practiced depended on the individual case, before the development of hybrids, it was a widespread practice to save or exchange seed and other planting materials to be used in the next round of cultivation, and in some places, it still is. Some farmers like to experiment, and random variation of selection along with the introduction of new types as people moved with their crops provided plenty of material with which to work. Farmers likely

noticed crops with special, desirable attributes in their own plots or elsewhere, which they then harvested, replanted, and observed to see if the desirable traits were persistent. If successful, these crops would then be multiplied. Selection by farmers has been reported to be practiced regularly during harvest, with some crops, such as smallheaded grains, selected for by field or by area, and others, such as coarse grains, fruits, vegetables, and herbs, selected for as individuals. Farmer selection has created genetically diverse landraces of major and minor crops that differ in the following: need for water; ability to withstand pests, fungus, and disease; soil type; day length; seeding time; harvest time; days to maturity; height; nutritional attributes; use; and social and cultural value. They are thus a valuable resource on which future breeding depends. Although some of the genetic resources that could be used by breeders still remain in wild or weedy relatives of landraces, the ability to access them easily and in relation to their cultivation and use is enhanced through preservation or maintenance in situ, where the plants are grown in their own agroecological environment, or conservation ex situ, where seeds, plants, cuttings, or other propagative materials are conserved or stored off-site in a controlled environment, for example, in seed banks. Recognition of the importance of preservation and conservation of remaining landraces is aided by action in the international arena with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of the Food and Agriculture Organization. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture aims to recognize the role of farmers and farmer knowledge in creating landraces, establish a system of access to landrace genetic materials for farmers and scientists, and ensure that farmers and countries of origin equitably share any benefits derived from their use, in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is supported by the Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which endeavors to provide a strategic framework and

Last Meals

priority set of activities in order to ensure that plant genetic resources will be available for sustainable agriculture that supports food security in the face of climate change. JoAnn Jaffe See also Endangered Species; Heritage Breeds; Multifunctionality in Agriculture; Seed Banks; Sustainable Agrifood Systems, Effect on Environment

Further Readings Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematicsitemap/theme/seeds-pgr/gpa/updating/en/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www .planttreaty.org/content/texts-treaty-official-versions Harlan, J. R. (1975). Our vanishing genetic resources. Science, 188, 618–621. Nabhan, G. P. (2009). Where our food comes from: Retracing Nikolay Vavilov’s quest to end famine. Washington, DC: Shearwater/Island Press. Robinson, R. (2007). Return to resistance. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: IDRC. Zeven, A. C. (1998). Landraces: A review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica, 104, 127–139.

LAST MEALS News articles concerning those just executed often mention final repasts. Since 2003, the weblog Dead Man Eating has posted end-of-life meals in U.S. prisons. Other websites list the more extravagant orders; some bloggers also ask readers to ponder: “What would you request as your last meal?” Beyond initial curiosity, people seem drawn to the subject by being reminded of their own mortality and perhaps puzzling over the character of the condemned, although in fact, little can be inferred about personality, guilt, or innocence from the final repast owing to years of deprivation of

897

certain foods and their preparations in prison, anxiety, and the desire for solace offered by particular items and the meanings they hold. This entry examines the nature of special meal requests prior to execution, reasons for food choices, and the origins and perpetuation of this custom.

Choice of Food and Beverage Texas has carried out about one third of the executions in the United States since the death penalty was resumed in 1976. Between December 7, 1982, and September 10, 2003, 245 of the 310 Texas inmates on the eve of execution ordered special last meals. French fries headed the list of items at 48% of requests. At 35%, burgers were second in popularity, often cheeseburgers and frequently with double meat patties. Chicken, almost always deep fried, was included in 19%. Steak occurred in 18% of orders. Ice cream, including shakes, appeared in 29%. Pie, cake, and other pastries figured in 29% of orders; seven inmates ordered multiple desserts. Sodas were included in 30% of the requests. Although the last meal in Texas is served at 4:00 p.m., 2 hours before execution, 21% of the inmates ordered breakfast, mostly eggs, sausage, and hash browns, sometimes with biscuits and gravy; the exception was one man who asked for two boxes of Frosted Flakes and a pint of milk. Certain items turned up infrequently. Only 16% of meals contained salad and 12% included milk. Other than deep-fried potatoes and onion rings, vegetables were evident mainly by their absence, found in only 4% of meal requests; these included carrots, peas, green beans, cauliflower, broccoli with cheese topping, corn on the cob, and fried okra. Many last meal orders sought beverages, food, and preparations that rarely appear on prison menus. Milk tends to be available only at breakfast but not every day in some facilities. Casseroles, goulash, and soy-stretched chicken dishes are common on daily menus, with pudding or flavored gelatin for dessert. Meals have been trimmed in some prison systems from three to two on weekends and holidays, or to days when inmates are not working.

898

Last Meals

A number of prisoners combined two, three, or even four types of meat in a meal order and also asked for multiple sodas and pastries. If a single helping of meat, starch, and sweet represents the “normal” meal, then 73 of the 245 meals (30%) of Texas prisoners involved excessive amounts of food. In an analysis of the contents of 193 last meal orders of prisoners executed between 2002 and 2006 in several states, researchers found that the average number of calories in a last meal request was 2,756 (in four instances, it was 7,200 or more), which is greater than the 2,200 to 2,400 recommended for sedentary males for an entire day. The most frequent items asked for were meat (83.9%), fried food (67.9%), desserts (66.3%), and soft drinks (60%). Final meal requests, however, are subject to cost and availability restrictions, which vary from $20 in Texas to $40 in Florida and $50 in California.

Reasons for Selections An emphasis on sensory experiences looms large in food choice among condemned prisoners who miss the taste and texture of savory fried chicken, juicy burgers, and sugar-laden pies, cakes, and sodas. Many orders were quite specific regarding the number of items or the manner of preparation; for instance, one inmate requested, “Six pieces of crispy fried chicken, four jalapeno peppers, four buttered buttermilk biscuits, chef salad (with bacon bits, black olives, ham, and Italian dressing), six Sprites, and white cake with white icing.” A second factor, social class based on education and income, also has salience in explaining meal selection. An examination of 196 biographies of prisoners executed in Texas reveals that 21 individuals (11%) had 7 years or less of schooling, 50 (26%) made it through middle school, 30 (15%) graduated from high school, 17 (9%) had some junior college experience, five (2.6%) went to a 4-year college but not all graduated, and the largest number at 68 (35%) dropped out of school in the 10th or 11th grade (i.e., by age 16 years when they were no longer legally compelled to attend). Two thirds (135) committed murder for financial gain,

or in some fashion benefited materially. Given their underprivileged backgrounds and underclass status, they likely chose the kind of food as a last meal—burgers, French fries, fried chicken—that had been readily obtainable and familiar to them before incarceration. Moreover, steak, lobster, and shrimp have long been considered prestige or luxury items owing to price, and they are certainly not part of ordinary prison fare, which probably accounts for their presence in many last meal requests (although not granted in Texas). In addition to sensory qualities and the impact of social class, food choice sometimes is influenced by ethnicity and regional upbringing. Of the 245 meal requests in Texas, 16 were for tacos, burritos, quesadillas, enchiladas, or simply “Mexican platter” or “Mexican lunch”; 5 inmates asked for tortillas with their meal, and 28 specified the addition of jalapenos, picante sauce, salsa, red pepper, or chili powder to their food. Not all of these prisoners bore a Latino identity, but many grew up in Texas and hence were familiar with these foods and condiments and their flavor principle. The five requests for chicken-fried steak, usually with “country gravy” or “white gravy;” two for fried okra; two others for a “big bowl of grits;” nine for BBQ beef, ribs, or chicken; one for mustard greens and spiced beets; and another for “1/2 pound of chitterlings” likewise indicate regional influence from different areas of the South. Recent research on the effects of “mortality salience” (preoccupation with one’s death) confirms the hypothesis that individuals turn to their own culture and worldview as a psychological buffer, choosing familiar and therefore comforting food and beverage over something foreign and that when suffering existential anxiety about death, there is often impaired self-control and more indulgent food choices. Dietary restrictions owing to religious beliefs and practices seem to have played no part in last meal requests, at least not in Texas. Is gender a factor? In provisioning mythology, red meat is masculine, while the more delicate chicken and fish, along with fruit, vegetables, and salad, tend toward the feminine. Males select fried food, females prefer baked food. Men eat heartily, women daintily.

Last Meals

Of the dozen women executed in seven states since 1976, seven declined a final meal and two consumed only a beverage and a small snack from a vending machine. One moderate meal was for salad, pickled okra, pizza, strawberry shortcake, and cherry limeade and another consisted of sweet peas, fried chicken, Dr. Pepper, and apple pie. Two other selections epitomized feminine food preference: One inmate requested steamed broccoli and asparagus salad, strawberries, and a cup of tea and another asked for banana, peach, and garden salad with ranch dressing, which she did not eat. In sum, 58% of the 12 women in the United States, including three in Texas, declined a meal in contrast to 21% of men in Texas; one woman demanded a masculine plate of BBQ ribs and fried onion rings; and four women (33%) preferred restrained servings of mainly feminine cuisine. More than 90% of these 12 women, then, chose nothing or female foods in moderate amounts in contrast to men in Texas who ordered substantial portions of meat and fried food but little fruit, salad, or fresh vegetables. Studies of “comfort food” preferences, often selected during times of stress, suggest that men tend to choose foods that are whole meals and items such as steak, casseroles, and soup in contrast to women who often opt for salads, fruit, and snack food. The male choices possess a nostalgic character associated with meals prepared by others in their youth; the female selections exhibit qualities of convenience, indulgence, and, perhaps in some instances, an implicit rejection of the traditional role of homemaker. Several inmates, both male and female, asked for only a beverage, perhaps because of anxiety; others nibbled on snack food, ate sparingly, or requested little. A few prisoners have utilized the occasion to make political or moral statements by pointedly not requesting or not consuming a final repast. One refused the last meal out of strong convictions against abortion. On the card for setting forth the final meal request, an inmate in Texas wrote, “Justice, temperance, with mercy.” Another penciled, “God’s saving grace, love, truth, peace and freedom.” A third indicated, “Justice, equality, world peace.” In Texas, a white supremacist gang

899

member asked for an enormous meal but ate nothing of whatever was served him as a subversive act mocking the custom of a last meal. Consequently, a state legislator who chaired the Senate Criminal Justice Committee demanded an immediate end to the tradition of providing a special end-of-life meal. A final factor accounting for food choice is that of the physical and emotional comfort as well as pleasant memories triggered by the taste, texture, aroma, and mouth feel of food, which accounts for the overwhelming presence of cakes and pie, ice cream, and milkshakes in so many final repasts; breakfast served late afternoon a couple of hours before execution; and seemingly unusual choices (a bag of Jolly Ranchers, an olive, an “old-fashioned cheeseburger”) or highly caloric meals. Food items and preparations enjoyed in the past can serve as reminders of familiar things and carry pleasant associations with places and people. The desire for comfort food as a determinant of what is chosen for a last meal before dying is consistent with studies of how food is sometimes employed as a coping mechanism in situations of stress and duress—that is, a craving for or an overindulgence in sweets, fats, and carbohydrates. The anticipation, and for some prisoners the actual experience, of comforting physical sensations of warm, easily eaten, filling foods and the emotional association of food with particular individuals and pleasurable events provide relief of distress for many inmates facing their execution; this factor dominates in explaining culinary selection among the condemned.

Origins and Perpetuation of the Last Meal Tradition Sacrificial rituals in ancient Greece during calamities or in efforts to avert a future catastrophe sometimes involved selecting a criminal, a poor man, or other marginal individual to be chased out of the city or even killed. The victim was treated to a special food or an excellent dinner in order to make this stand-in for the community appear to be a more valuable and representative member. In Rome, on the eve of entering the arena, gladiators

900

Liquor Stores

received an elegant dinner provided by the host of the show as symbolic compensation to those about to die. In 18th-century England some prisoners with funds hosted their own dinner party in prison on the eve of hanging; other condemned inmates received only bread, water, and gruel, or were starved. By the late 19th century in the United States, the provision of a distinctive end-of-life meal for the condemned was a firmly established tradition and was often reported in newspapers. Some prisoners have found the offer of a last meal offensive, whereas others have appreciated the care that the cooks took in preparation. For some wardens and members of execution teams, the last meal is a means of calming the prisoner and also a welcome distraction in having to cope with putting someone to death. Members of the public either develop a sympathetic identification with prisoners by recognizing their common humanity through eating and coming to terms with death or infer that requests for “monstrous” meal portions represent an uncontrollable, monstrous character justifying death for the safety of all. Scholars have interpreted differently the tradition of allowing one to freely choose a final meal, contending that it is a means of rendering a grim act of violence by the state less horrific; a way for the state to confirm that the condemned possessed autonomy and agency as volitional beings who committed heinous crimes and therefore deserve the punishment meted out to them; or a demonstration of forgiveness by the state and a call for forgiveness by the public in showing kindness to the condemned. While the meanings of the customary last meal vary, the fact remains that it became an important component of the execution ritual in much of the United States.

Friese, M., & Hofmann, W. (2008). What would you have as a last supper? Thoughts about death influence evaluation and consumption of food products. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1388–1394. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.003 Gordon, T. J. (2005). Debt, guilt, and hungry ghosts: A Foucauldian perspective on Bigert’s and Bergström’s Last Supper. Cabinet Magazine Online. Retrieved from http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/events/lastsupper gordon.php Jones, M. O. (2007). Food choice, symbolism, and identity: Bread-and-butter issues for folkloristics and nutrition studies (American Folklore Society presidential address, October 2005). Journal of American Folklore, 120(476), 129–177. doi:10.1353/jaf.2007.0037 Jones, M. O. (2014). Dining on death row: Last meals and the crutch of ritual. Journal of American Folklore, 127(503), 3–26. LaChance, D. (2007). Last words, last meals, and last stands: Agency and individuality in the modern execution process. Law & Social Enquiry, 32(3), 701–724. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2007.00074.x Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (n.d.). Final meal requests. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/ web/20031202214318/http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/ finalmeals.htm Wansink, B., Cheney, M. M., & Chan, N. (2003). Exploring comfort food preferences across age and gender. Physiology & Behavior, 79, 739–747. doi:10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00203-8 Wansink, B., Kniffin, K. M., & Shimizu, M. (2012). Death row nutrition: Curious conclusions of last meals. Appetite, 59, 837–843. doi:10.1016/j .appet.2012.08.017

Website Dead Man Eating: deadmaneating.blogspot.com

Michael Owen Jones See also Cultural Identity and Food; Gender and Foodways; Identity and Food; Prison Food

Further Readings Bremmer, J. (1983). Scapegoat rituals in ancient Greece. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 87, 299–320.

LIQUOR STORES The law applicable to liquor stores is a combination of state law enabled by federal law, thus allowing liquor stores in each state to operate under a variety of different laws. Liquor stores sell alcoholic beverages in an unopened state (packaged) to

Liquor Stores

be consumed off premises. The stores do, however, fall into several categories, which are discussed in this entry. Some states require that all sales of packaged alcoholic beverages take place through alcoholic beverages control stores, also known as ABC stores. These stores can be run either by the state through an ABC agency (these stores are also known as monopoly stores) or through private stores licensed by the state to sell packaged alcoholic beverages. Often, even when private companies are licensed to run the stores, the prices for specific beverages are controlled by the state, eliminating competition. In some states, ABC stores sell only spirits, with the lower alcohol products, wine and beer, being allowed to be sold in grocery or other stores. In other states with ABC systems, only beer can be sold outside of ABC stores. The sale of alcoholic beverages is a direct source of revenue in states with a strict ABC system, sometimes including profit on the sales as well as sales tax. In addition to controlling prices, ABC stores also control the sale of alcohol by deciding what will be sold, when it will be sold, and where it will be sold. One argument as support for statecontrolled ABC stores is that it keeps the citizenry from participating in vice. A similar argument is used to justify a state-run lottery system. Both ABC stores and the lottery make money for the state. Another reason for the use of an ABC system is a belief that only by state-controlled sales can a community ensure that sales will not be made to underage consumers. The ABC system can guarantee and totally control where liquor is sold. This can mean that proximity to schools or places of worship can be limited, but it can also mean that small communities may not have easy access to alcoholic beverages, because the state may determine that it is inefficient to place an ABC outlet in the town. On the other end of the spectrum are states that allow packaged liquor to be sold at grocery stores, liquor stores, or other types of stores. States with a more open system do not control prices, do not control hours of sale, and have few restrictions on location of stores. All that is required is that the

901

seller obtains a packaged liquor license. The state makes its money on sales taxes and application fees for the liquor license. Between the most liberal sales states and the most restrictive ones are various hybrids. Some states use the ABC agency system to also control and sell tobacco. In states with a lottery, often lottery tickets are also sold at stores where liquor is sold. The ABC stores and other liquor stores must obtain their alcohol through a liquor distributor. Ever since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (i.e., the repeal of the Volstead Act, which was initially enacted to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment’s ban on the production, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors), a system of liquor distributors was required to keep distilleries and other alcohol producers from selling directly to users. The states’ power to control the distribution and sale (as well as production) of liquor was a provision of the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment. It exempted the interstate sale of alcoholic beverages from the constitutional provisions of interstate commerce. In recent years, the number of states using a strict ABC system has been declining. As of 2014, only eight states continue to run their own ABC stores. Many states have decided that either maintaining the stores is not profitable or that determining what its citizens may drink and at what price is not a function of state government. Those states that maintain their stores argue that inefficiencies that might result in higher liquor prices actually contribute to the public welfare by ensuring that fewer people can afford to drink. Some have also argued that the privatization of liquor sales will result in higher incidences of automobile accidents or death, binge drinking, or drunkdriving deaths, although studies do not support such claims. A state that wishes to control the number of liquor stores within its borders may do so by regulating the number of licenses that it issues. Ten states license companies to run the ABC stores, and some states allow individual counties to determine the sale of alcohol. In most states, the sale of packaged liquor and the sale of alcohol for consumption on premises require two different licenses: (1) a packaged

902

Listeria

liquor license and (2) a saloon or on-premises license. In some states, it is not possible to hold both licenses, but that practice is not universal among the states. In some states—in particular, states with wineries—the ability to sell wine produced by the winery directly to consumers has been carved out as an exception to the need to have a third-party distributor. These wineries often are also allowed to sell glasses of their wine on the premises to encourage packaged sales. Some states also allow the direct sales of beer brewed on the premises as in brewpubs but do not allow the sale of the beer as a bottled beverage. Those states with the most liberal alcoholic sales laws treat the sale of alcoholic beverages as any other item in commerce, except for the special license required and the limitations based on the minimum age for legal purchase. In these states, alcohol of all types can be purchased at grocery stores, gourmet and specialty shops, drug stores, corner stores and convenience stores, or almost any other retail outlet. Liquor sales in these states are subject to competition, because the state does not regulate the sales price. Similarly, the states do not regulate the time of sale based on the fact that alcohol is sold at these outlets, so the stores can be open and sell alcohol on their own schedule. The outlets, however, do collect appropriate taxes and are inspected occasionally to ensure that underage sales are not made. Elizabeth Williams See also Alcohol; Alcohol Regulations, History of; Beverage Industry

Further Readings Bethel, S. K. (2009). The valuation of liquor store operations: An invaluable guide for the appraisal of liquor store businesses, real estate and equipment. Glendale, CA: Mattatall Press. National Alcohol Beverage Control Association. (2014). The control states. Retrieved from http://www.nabca .org/States/States.aspx Rogers, A. (2015). Proof: The science of booze. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

LISTERIA Listeria refers to a group of bacteria of which one species, Listeria monocytogenes, is predominant in causing a serious and potentially fatal disease known as listeriosis. The bacterium poses particular problems to both the food industry and regulator because it is widespread, can grow in chilled foods, and is relatively resistant to control measures when compared with other non-spore-forming foodborne pathogens. Characteristically, it infects the young, old, pregnant, and immunocompromised and generally causes its most significant clinical outcomes (e.g., septicemia, meningitis, fetal death) in these populations.

Listeriosis as a Disease There are two types of listeriosis infection. The most serious invasive form is rare in the general population, with an incidence (cases per 100,000 population per annum) usually less than 1. However, the consequences of infection can be severe and include (not exclusively) meningoencephalitis and septicemia in nonpregnant cases and fetal death in pregnant women. Around 20% to 30% of cases are fatal, with an estimated 255 listeriosis deaths occurring in the United States every year, and 90% require hospitalization. Most fatalities involve the elderly with predisposing conditions leading to lower immunity, fetuses, or newborn babies. Infection in healthy people is likely only when a very large number of cells is consumed, but infection in at-risk groups occurs when foods are contaminated at lower concentrations. However, the concentration may be very low; in an outbreak involving frankfurters, L. monocytogenes was present at 5 hectares) who represent only 16% of the total number of land owners. In total, the companies that produce export crops and sugarcane account for approximately 75% of the formal water rights in Ecuador, but they have additional access to far more water informally. Water access is increasingly concentrated, especially by the banana plantations on the coast of Ecuador. In Paraguay, negative health effects from soybean production for export provide another example. This production process dramatically pollutes the soil and groundwater. An illustration from North and Central Mexico shows how small farmers are increasingly deprived of their water access because of agribusiness vegetable production for export to the United States. Severe aquifer depletion by the agro-export chains causes smallholders, who have less access to capital for investments in deep tubewells, to lose their agriculture-based livelihood opportunities. Another example is from the Palestinian Territories. As a result of the use of irrigation water to produce fruits and vegetables for export from Israel, poor domestic and irrigation water users are deprived of their water resources. Smallholders also have fewer possibilities to export their produce because of problems with product quality and quantities, and the lack of access to credit, knowledge, political influence, and product certification. As a consequence, in many places, the costs and benefits of virtual water export are distributed unequally. The costs (pollution, depletion) are shifted to the exporting

1461

countries and smallholder communities, while the benefits are concentrated in agribusiness and exporting companies. Locally, new configurations of labor and water resources use emerge. In particular, for many women in the global South, water extraction, resources depletion, agribusiness employment and problematic labor, income, and health conditions are directly related. In general, there is a shift in water governance whereby political decision making on important water use and quality issues is relocated from the local and national domains to the international domain. Control over the virtual water flows and the regulations that govern them are increasingly determined by a minority of agrifood chain actors operating transnationally or from the importing countries.

Water Stewardship Initiatives Initiatives to certify agricultural production and counter the problematic effects of virtual water trade show a strongly growing interest in water stewardship certification and water offset schemes. Sustainability standards for water are different from those for most other natural resources because water is essential for life and has no substitute; the livelihoods of many smallholder producers depend directly on irrigated agriculture. Also, water has many locally defined values that go beyond the economic value of water. Furthermore, the complexity and large geographical and time scales of river and groundwater hydrology make it difficult and costly to monitor and assess water use and contamination. With respect to the sustainability certification debate, water is also different from carbon dioxide emission, because unlike the latter, water consumption and contamination have localized effects that cannot be mitigated elsewhere. Whereas private standards often reinforce the political and market power of private sector agrifood chains in local water management—to the detriment of local water user communities and national governments—sustainability certification also has the potential to enable local, regional, national, and international organizations of water

1462

Water Rights

user communities to stake claims and negotiate to protect their water sources and livelihoods. Jeroen Vos and Rutgerd Boelens See also Commodity Chains; Sustainable Agrifood Systems; Sustainable Agrifood Systems, Effect on Environment; Water Rights

Further Readings Allan, J. A. (2003). Virtual water—the water, food, and trade nexus: Useful concept or misleading metaphor? Water International, 28(1), 106–113. Boelens, R., & Vos, J. M. C. (2012). The danger of naturalizing water policy concepts: Water productivity and efficiency discourses from field irrigation to virtual water trade. Agricultural Water Management, 108, 16–26. Hobbelink, H., & GRAIN. (2013). Secando el continente africano: Detrás de la acumulación de tierras está la acumulación del agua [Drying the African continent: Behind the accumulation of land and water]. In A. Arroyo & R. Boelens (Eds.), Aguas Robadas. Despojo hídrico y movilización social [Stolen waters: Hydrological dispossession and social movements] (pp. 35–49). Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala. Hoekstra, A., & Chapagain, A. (2008). Globalization of water: Sharing the planet’s fresh-water resources. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Vos, J. M. C., & Boelens, R. (2013) Sustainability standards and the water question (Research Report). Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen University.

Websites Alliance for Water Stewardship: http://www.alliancefor waterstewardship.org Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN): http://www.grain.org Justicia Hidrica/Water Justice Alliance: http://www.justicia hidrica.org Water Footprint Network: http://www.waterfootprint.org

WATER RIGHTS In most countries in the world, the agricultural sector consumes by far the greatest amount of freshwater. At the same time, a large and steadily

growing part of the world’s food production directly depends on irrigation. The issue of how to arrange rights to irrigation water, in relation both to other water users and and to uses other than irrigation, has become a pivotal issue in international policy debates. Often, however, efforts to develop modern water rights override the question of how existing water property relations actually function. This commonly leads to water reform and intervention programs that bypass the grounded experiences and lessons of local, farmer-managed water use systems—systems that involve community or other forms of collective group control, which in many regions contribute the most to local and national food security. These systems of organized complexity are the core of user-controlled water governance and require interdisciplinary understanding. Therefore, this entry approaches locally existing (“living”) water rights frameworks. Water rights become manifest, simultaneously, in water infrastructure and technology, in normative arrangements, and in organizational frameworks, all embedded in their ecological, political–economic, and cultural–symbolic contexts. Water rights are authorized demands to use (part of) a water flow, including certain privileges, restrictions, obligations, and penalties accompanying this authorization, among which a key element is the faculty to take part in collective decision making about management of the water use system. This entry shows how water rights consist of multilayered access and control rights that closely relate to various normative frameworks. Water rights—in contents and distribution—are objects of contestation and a product of power relations, and they constitute a power relation by themselves.

Legal Complexity and Water Rights Diversity Irrigation and drinking water systems managed by user groups and communities feature an enormous diversity of rules and rights to operate and maintain these systems and guarantee water distribution. This stems from the historical process of matching regulatory norms, organizational forms, and hydraulic infrastructure to the particular

Water Rights

requirements of each place. It also results from the user-to-user and user-to-manager negotiations and confrontation with wider interest groups and power structures. Therefore, local water laws, rules, and rights embody particular combinations of various (official and nonofficial) normative sources. Most local rights and rules are not written down, or rather, they are “written” in the infrastructure and materialized in bonds of mutual obligations and agreements. Though largely invisible to outsiders, such rights systems usually consist of clear, widely popularized patterns of norms. These local reference frameworks constitute the pivot of water use systems. To understand local water rights, it is important to analyze these plural normative roots from the perspective of their historical, cultural, and political contexts. Thus, it is necessary to focus beyond community level. Local water use systems interact with and adopt nonlocal rules, particularly those emanating from both the laws of the state and the realities of the market. State law has often become entangled and reinterpreted by local communities. It constitutes an important source of power, and local communities often seek to use a strategic selection of state rules, rights, and procedures and those promoted by market-based water policies. Therefore, local farmer and community water rights systems have their own rule-making capacity and, simultaneously, are surrounded and affected by rules and forces emanating from the broader societal setting, from the local to the global. Especially when conflicts arise, users strategically select and mobilize these outside norms and forces to legitimize and strengthen their claims. Water allocation and distribution are also closely enmeshed in economic and noneconomic institutions and networks of social and political relations. Local transfer of water rights, for instance, happens in social contexts that give importance to maintaining collaboration mechanisms and networks. Also, power games, discrimination, and corruption often strongly influence water allocation by bureaucratic agencies. Consequently, questions of how to obtain water rights, define their contents, and allocate and materialize rights to users do not involve technical and

1463

managerial issues alone. Apart from reflecting local climatic, agroproductive, and geophysical circumstances, water rights are strongly influenced by social norms that regulate distribution and redistribution practices in all spheres of community life. These may have to do with, for example, the overall community rules, family and gender relationships, power structures, organizational forms, and local rituals and beliefs. Thus, water rights are closely entrenched in historically established cultural systems with their own values, meanings, and symbols. For example, through years of water defense actions, or collective investments to construct and upkeep infrastructure, communities have consolidated not only their water rights but also their sense of togetherness and identity as water rights collectives.

Collective and Individual Rights Water rights may be collective or individual rights. Collective water rights are the authorized claims on water use and control by a user organization vis-à-vis third parties (individuals or collectives), whose interests may be in conflict with its own. These rights also determine the collective forms and conditions for access to the water source and the prerogatives and burdens assumed as a group versus those of third parties. Individual water rights are within the system; they establish relations for access to water and other privileges and obligations among the different users of the group. In most situations, the need to clearly define rights and obligations is a direct consequence of the fact that the use of water for irrigation can only be organized collectively. All users need to join in order to satisfy their own crop and household water needs. They are aware that they require input from the rest to guarantee production by and reproduction of the water use system. Water user groups feature a juxtaposition of dovetailed, interdependent interests to make up an organizational network capable of managing its own system by itself. Whereas individual water rights have especially a function internal to the system, collective water rights often have mainly an external function and determine the conditions for controlling water from

1464

Water Rights

certain sources. A group’s collective rights relate to other parties who may be interested not only in using the water but also in a series of privileges related to water use, such as aqueduct easements, rights of way, and decision-making rights over the water sources. These third parties may be individual users, other collectives, other water use sectors, or even nonuser groups with particular interests in water rule or profit making. The external function of collective rights also becomes apparent in the defense of local rights systems and their autonomy vis-à-vis other normative systems, such as government legislation, market-oriented rights privatization regimes, and powerful outside agents. Whereas government-granted water rights commonly relate to individuals, water rights in community systems are generally granted to families as members of the collective and who meet the corresponding collective obligations. The rights of each individual are derived from and embedded in the collective rights and duties. These rights are often not transferable to outsiders by individual decision, but they belong to the collectivity; when an individual stops using water, it reverts to the community. By contrast, in regions and systems in which water rights have become individualized over time, for example, because of (market-oriented) water rights privatization policies, (bureaucracy-driven) installation of individual water titles, or due to community disintegration, rights and duties are consequently “disembedded” and separated from other fields of social and community life. Here, the notions of both individual and collective rights acquire different meaning and content. In systems where individualized rights are the general rule, this has often led to redistributing water rights according to prevailing socioeconomic relationships, giving way to the inclusion of other types of users, such as large companies or nonagricultural businesses with economic power to buy up water rights within the system.

Mechanisms of Water Rights Acquisition Given the plurality of interacting (state and nonstate) sociolegal frameworks, in many regions of

the world, it is common to see that different authorities and frameworks establish and recognize different mechanisms for obtaining water rights. Each mechanism’s enforcement depends on whether the users recognize the legitimacy and execution capacity of the authorities regulating these mechanisms and on whether these users are able to defend their rights approach in practice, internally and vis-à-vis third parties. Irrigation water rights are often attached to land rights, and therefore, land entitlement changes (e.g., through land reform or sale) may change water rights distribution. But water rights frameworks are relatively autonomous social fields; therefore, their link with land rights is by no means a given. In differing contexts, the following mechanisms can be found for accessing irrigation water rights: • A water rights concession: Entitlements granted by the state administration. Formal resource ownership remains in state hands but users (collectives or individuals) get rights to use, distribute, and manage water internally for a given period. The state usually charges concession fees and maintains ultimate dominion over the water. • Historic rights: Authorized claims based on “prior appropriation,” legitimized as acquisition by the first users in the past (“first come” claims: “first-in-time, first-in-rights”). Rights-holders may be settlers or indigenous peoples. • Socioterritorial rights: Rights over water sources originating in or flowing through a sociogeographical territory (including “riparian rights,” based on the possession of land with a water source, or located along a stream). • Transfer of water rights: Mechanisms to transfer water rights from one holder to the other are diverse, ranging from sale, rental, barter, donation, and inheritance to marriage. Each mechanism is attached to particular norms (especially obligations and restrictions) regarding the conditions of transfer, the universe of possible transferees, and so on. In community systems, individual transfers are generally embedded within a collective property regime that establishes that rights cannot be “taken out of

Water Rights

the system.” In many communities, selling and buying of water rights is not even allowed within the system to prevent water accumulation and avoid the loss of community control over water allocation. Selling of water itself, for example, when a farmer sells his or her weekly or monthly water turn, generally encounters less restrictions. • Acquisition of rights by force: Forced rights expropriation by powerful groups (e.g., through colonization or the actions of local landlords) has sometimes but not always received state backing, even though, commonly, it has become institutionalized in local proceedings, within prevailing power structures. • Users’ investment: Communities and families invest their resources (e.g., in kind, labor, capital, time, and intellectual or ritual contributions) to build or rehabilitate water infrastructure; this generates water rights for the users to whom the labor is attributed.

Within a given region, it is common to find several such mechanisms in force simultaneously, in many different expressions. Moreover, there is interaction among these mechanisms; they may reinforce or oppose each other.

Contents of Water Rights Access and Control Rights

A water right authorizes the right-holder to obtain water from a particular source and have a share in the decision making concerning principles and processes for managing water within the system. Existing allocation patterns have evolved historically, based on local principles of justice as well as on power relations and social contradictions. Consequently, to conceptually understand the functioning of water rights, it is essential to look at water rights contents as they become manifest in particular situations. Water rights can be conceptualized as “bundles of rights,” since these contents of water rights, apart from the privileges, also relate to several layers of conditions, permissions, restrictions, obligations, and penalties.

1465

Successful collective action requires the precise definition of these aspects so that each water user will clearly know what to contribute and what will be received in exchange. The absence of consensual criteria usually leads to uncontrolled competition, conflicts, noncompliance of maintenance tasks, and, finally, to destruction of the system. The privileges that form part of the bundle of rights, according to the case and respective property definitions, include local agreements and inclusions/exclusions regarding the rights to access water and infrastructure, rights to operate the system, and rights to share in decision making about the system’s governance and rule making. In a community system, obligations and counterparts to the enjoyment of rights relate to overall compliance with the system’s water use and operational norms and may include pecuniary contributions, labor for system construction and upkeep, material contributions, and intellectual and organizational contributions to system management (meetings, posts, etc.). Possible penalties for the noncompliance of duties may include exclusion from a turn in the water rotation, fines, or the denial of water rights for one or more seasons. Usually, penalties are progressive—to put increasing pressure on rule offenders and to give them opportunities to change their behavior. Unlike water rights embedded in community systems, state regulations are usually uniform and commodity oriented, and they are entrenched in a different rationality. In state systems, the bundle of users’ rights tends to be restricted and biased toward obligations and vertically established privileges. To specify the notions of “rights,” a conceptual distinction can be made among the property regimes that prevail in a water rights context. Depending on the social and political organization of water property rights—who authorizes the right, what regulations and faculties the authorizing entity has, or which claims and privileges are associated with the user’s right (the contents of the right)—a distinction can be made among public property regimes (state-owned property rights), private property regimes (individual institutions or persons who own the water access and control rights),

1466

Water Rights

common property regimes (collective group ownership), and free access situations (no regulations for water use and control).

In bureaucratically managed irrigation systems, the state holds all or most of the decision-making rights; user rights are usually (different degrees of) water access and operational rights. In private property systems, rights of access and decision making are vested in the individual owner, who has all the rights to use, manage, and regulate the water; to exclude or include others; and to transfer these property rights. In a common property regime, rights are vested in user collectives and communities, who have local control over the full range of water access, operational, and decisionmaking rights. In practice, it is common to find a dynamic juncture and interaction of rights originating from different sources, normative frameworks or property regimes.

Internal Allocation Principles and Modes of Water Scheduling Together with the question of who obtains water rights and how, an important question is when and how much water will be accessed by the rightholder and by what principles this is arranged. It is common to make a distinction among the following three steps of water service provision: 1. Allocation refers to assigning water access rights (shares, volumes) to right-holders (fields and/or users)—the distribution of water rights.

the distinction is less clear: The allocation process often coincides with the scheduling process, and local manifestations of allocation and scheduling are dynamically intertwined. For example, the principle that “families receive water according to their labor investment in system construction” identifies the right-holders, determines how much water they will receive, and specifies local answers to the questions of when, where, and under what conditions water will be provided. Therefore, rights rationalities of systems governed by state law and those following water delivery according to rules of market-based demand and supply tend to be quite different from farmer-managed systems, with respect to acquiring rights, determining the contents of “rights bundles,” and operationalizing water allocation in practice. A (nonexhaustive) overview of internal allocation/scheduling modes—which specify and operationalize the earlier mentioned mechanisms for rights acquisition—highlights the enormous diversity found in local irrigator communities: Right-holders receive water proportional to the irrigation area they possess in the system (similar to “engineers” design procedures—more land ownership means more water access rights). All right-holders have equal application times when receiving their water flow (irrespective of the area they want to irrigate; this principle may also give landless families opportunities to get water rights). All right-holders receive water to irrigate the same preestablished irrigation area (equal area shifts).

2. Scheduling refers to the set of operational rules establishing frequency, time, duration, flow rate, and the ordering of water delivery among water users and system levels.

All right-holders receive the same flow and the same duration without limits to the area they want to irrigate (equal volume rights, irrespective of the irrigated area).

3. Distribution (delivery) is the process of water proportioning in practice.

All right-holders receive an amount of water sufficient to “fill their field” (“until finishing,” without absolute limits on the turn duration).

This distinction is common to irrigation manuals, project-driven system development, and service approaches in state-managed irrigation systems. But in indigenous and farmer-managed systems,

Right-holders receive water proportional to the irrigable area they possess, but only up to a preestablished limit (“with a top limit,” to share scarcity among everyone).

Water Rights

Right-holders receive water according to the “investments” they made during the irrigation system construction (contributions in capital, labor, and others). Right-holders receive water according to the transfer agreements that they have negotiated (e.g., purchase and sale of water shares, exchange of water rights for other resources, etc.). Right-holders receive water according to their land’s location (e.g., “tail end” or “head end,” or according to altitudinal zones, etc.). Right-holders have “open access” (“free usage” depending on water availability, which in scarcity situations often means access according to power structures and defense capability) Right-holders who are first on the land have priority (“first come, first served”) Right-holders receive water according to demand (with or without restrictions), generally applied in situations of water abundance. It is also basic to demand management approaches of “modernization schools” allocating scarce water through “hightech” volumetric control devices and with volumebased water fees. Right-holders receive water according to the utility or usefulness that this resource offers them (e.g., compensating those with less opportunities for productive utility of the water). Right-holders receive water according to the size of their family unit (more household members means more need. It is also applied to divide water among communities according to the number of rightholders in each participating community). Right-holders receive water according to their social position (e.g., “priority for the elderly,” or water access priority according to class, gender, or caste). Right-holders receive water according to the priority granted to certain crops they grow in the irrigation system (often related to local livelihood social security systems).

Many of these principles and modes refer to characteristics related to right-holding families, even when the characteristics of their fields are

1467

decisive. By contrast, projects designed by agencies and engineering institutes usually allocate and schedule water in relation to irrigated land or to irrigable areas only. In these designs, crop water requirements and water use efficiencies tend to have priority over water’s social function. Often, the technical balance among the system’s agricultural and physical characteristics overrides the social balance among human users. Here, we have one central issue around which community and engineers’ perceptions of equity diverge.

Dynamics of Water Rights Water rights are dynamic. Their contents and distribution respond to social, economic, ecological, and climatic changes. Water rights changes can be gradual or abrupt. They relate to processes that put pressure on local water use, such as demographic growth and migration, reorientation of production, agrarian reform and land redistribution, water reform (e.g., legislative and policy changes, privatization, or the nationalization of water ownership and services), climatic or geophysical causes, or large-scale purchase by agrocommercial sectors or extractive industries (so-called water grabbing). These changes generate discussions and often conflicts among users. Adjustments in rights require new negotiations in which power relations and equity considerations shape a new normative configuration. Water rights are also dynamic in how they materialize from concept to practice. Actual water distribution often differs significantly from planned schedules and formal allocation patterns. Possessing formal rights does not automatically mean that one also has access to water, and vice versa: Without formal rights, people may still access water and have decision-making control. In part, this results from water’s fluid and transitory nature, with flows variable in time and space. Varying availability of water means that water rules and rights also fluctuate. In periods of scarcity, rules and rights tend to be strict; in times of abundance, users commonly apply other, less restrictive rules or enforce them less strictly. A source that is common property in the dry season may be considered “open access”

1468

Water Rights

when the rains start. The complexities and contingencies of nature, human societies, and their technologies entail that water rights necessarily are dynamic. As a consequence, users’ practices may differ greatly from legally and locally established water rights; water distribution is subject to permanent negotiation and contestation. Above all, groups with less clout have difficulty not only in obtaining water rights but also in implementing them. To understand water control, therefore, beyond formalized (official or local) rights that defines rightholders’ status, it is vital to look at rights in action. Boelens and Zwarteveen (2002, p. 81) conceptually distinguish among different degrees of water rights’ materialization in negotiation and adaptation processes to capture the difference between institutionalized rights and actual rights that govern concrete water distribution and social relations.

making about water distribution in day-to-day practice. Mostly, materialized rights are not written down and may be authorized by routine, unspoken informal agreements or privileges conquered by everyday negotiation.

Reference rights specify the formal status and conditions of right-holders and their privileges, restrictions, and obligations. They are formulated in accordance with the prevailing normative framework and may be general (e.g., legal rights that originate from national water regulations) or location specific (e.g., formalized norms in farmer communities’ own irrigation regulations).

Rutgerd Boelens

Activated rights (“rights in action”) refer to the process of transforming reference rights into operational rules and procedures, as in water distribution schedules or water decision-making procedures. Activation of water rights refers to users’ actions to overcome constraints that they may encounter, which involves particular knowledge, technology, labor and economic means, as well as, often, continuing processes of bargaining and social struggle. Activating rights make conceptual or paper rights “tangible,” showing the contents of rights and obligations while also manifesting the various ways in which formal rights are interpreted. Materialized rights refer to the rules and rights that emerge in practice—the actual water use and distribution rules and the arrangements for decision

Both the definition of water rights’ contents and the route to transform reference rights into materialized rights make the abstract notion of “water rights” concrete. They are also processes of inclusion and exclusion, in terms of who can access water, who participates in decision making about water use and management, and who has legitimate authority to set norms and authorize claims. Defining, implementing, and materializing water rights in the field, in the policy office, and in the academy, far from being neutral, technical processes, are simultaneously technical, organizational, cultural, and political exercises.

See also Food Sovereignty; Water in Global Agrifood Chains

Further Readings Achterhuis, H., Boelens, R., & Zwarteveen, M. (2010). Water property relations and modern policy regimes: Neoliberal utopia and the disempowerment of collective action. In R. Boelens, D. Getches, & A. Guevara (Eds.), Out of the mainstream: Water rights, politics and identity (pp. 27–55). London, UK: Earthscan. Benda-Beckmann, F. von. (2007). Contestations over a life-giving force: Water rights and conflicts. In P. Boomgaard (Ed.), A world of water (pp. 259–277). Leiden, Netherlands: KITLV Press. Boelens, R. (2009). The politics of disciplining water rights. Development and Change, 40(2), 307–331. Boelens, R. (2015). Water, power and identity: The cultural politics of water in the Andes. London, UK: Earthscan/Routledge. Boelens, R., & Vos, J. (2012). The danger of naturalizing water policy concepts: Water productivity and efficiency discourses from field irrigation to virtual water trade. Journal of Agricultural Water Management, 108, 16–26.

Websites on Food Boelens, R., & Zwarteveen, M. (2002). Gender dimensions of water control in Andean irrigation. In R. Boelens & P. Hoogendam (Eds.), Water rights and empowerment (pp. 75–109). Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Bruns, B. R., Ringler, C., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (Eds.). (2005). Water rights reform: Lessons for institutional design. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Molle, F. (2004). Defining water rights: By prescription or negotiation? Water Policy, 6, 207–227. Roth, D., Boelens, R., & Zwarteveen, M. (Eds.). (2005). Liquid relations: Legal pluralism and contested water rights. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Ruru, J. (Ed.). (2010). Contemporary indigenous peoples’ legal rights to water in the Americas and Australasia [Special issue]. Journal of Water Law, 20(5). Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68, 249–262. United Nations Development Programme. (2006). Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis (Human Development Report No. 2006). Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2006). Water and indigenous peoples. Paris, France: Author. Vos, H. de, Boelens, R., & Bustamante, R. (2006). Formal law and local water control in the Andean region: A fiercely contested field. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(1), 37–48. Wegerich, K., & Warner, J. (Eds.). (2010). The politics of water. London, UK: Routledge.

Website Justicia Hídrica/Water Justice: http://www.justiciahidrica .org

WEBSITES

ON

FOOD

Internet access has become virtually ubiquitous within the developed world, and access continues to grow year after year even in the developing countries. Because everybody eats, and because many people enjoy discussing food and its various

1469

aspects, websites pertaining to food have become extraordinarily popular. A wide range of websites on food can be found online; these include food blogs, recipe sites, sites representing food and equipment manufacturers, sites representing chefs and restaurants, sites related to food publications, review sites, food delivery service sites, and informational sites. While other types of sites, including hybrids of these categories, can certainly be found online in abundance, this entry will focus on these particular types of websites.

Food Blogs A blog (short for “Web log”), in general terms, is a frequently updated website authored by one or more individuals that showcases information, opinions, and links to other websites, usually with a particular editorial voice or point of view, and often pertaining to a specific subject. Food blogs may relate to recipes, restaurants, techniques, equipment, travel, dietary considerations, or some combination of these or other topics. Food blogs have become such an integral part of the food media ecosystem that the James Beard Foundation now includes both Group Food Blog and Individual Food Blog categories alongside mainstream journalists and traditional food writers. Furthermore, traditional print publications such as Saveur magazine have gotten into the game, honoring food blogs with annual awards for writing, video, recipes, and more. Opinions range widely as to what makes a good food blog, and a simple Web search will reveal countless lists of “best food blogs.” However, a few food blogs are visited much more frequently than others. According to The Daily Meal (www.the dailymeal.com), which publishes an annual list of the top food blogs by visitor count, Simply Recipes (www.simplyrecipes.com) is currently at the top of the pile—this site, which publishes a variety of recipes, averages 2.1 million unique visitors monthly and has topped the list for 4 years straight. Group blog The Kitchn (www.thekitchn.com), which includes a variety of recipes and tutorials, is currently ranked second, averaging over a million unique visitors each month. The Pioneer Woman

1470

Websites on Food

(www.thepioneerwoman.com/cooking), written by the Food Network personality Ree Drummond, currently ranks third, while Cake Wrecks (www. cakewrecks.com), a comedy blog that catalogs baking blunders, ranks fourth. As this small sampling demonstrates, food blogs can range widely in scope even while sharing a common core focus.

Recipe Sites Chefs of all skill levels turn to the Internet as a source for recipes. In fact, according to Web traffic analytics company Alexa, AllRecipes (www.all recipes.com) is one of the most popular websites in the world, ranking Number 200 in the United States as of this writing. AllRecipes boasts a growing collection of tens of thousands of recipes from a variety of sources that users can review, share via social media, save to virtual “recipe boxes,” or print. Many recipes include nutritional information and some include photos or instructional videos; users are welcome to submit their own recipes for potential publication. Recipes are a common part of many foodrelated websites, even if they are not necessarily the primary focus. For example, the website for the cable channel Food Network (www.foodnetwork .com) is primarily an online presence for the network and its programming, but it is the second most popular recipe site online after AllRecipes, according to business reference site eBizMBA. Likewise, the website for General Mills–owned Betty Crocker (www.bettycrocker.com) serves as an online home for the brand, but it also offers a wide variety of recipes, virtually all of which call for Betty Crocker–brand products as ingredients.

Sites for Food and Equipment Producers Websites are important tools for companies of all sizes in terms of marketing, branding, and customer interaction. Unsurprisingly, manufacturers of food-related gadgets, appliances, and equipment, as well as makers of all types of ingredients, sundries, and condiments typically have a Web presence, even if minimal. Some producers’ websites contain little more than contact

information or suggestions on where to purchase products, while other websites are quite complex and allow manufacturers and purveyors to offer their wares to customers nationwide. This is particularly true of manufacturers and distributors of certain types of ingredients and proteins that might be difficult to find in a local grocery store (e.g., ostrich meat, buffalo meat, caviar, whole fish, fine steaks, rare spices, volcanic salts, and chemicals for molecular gastronomy). These types of manufacturers and distributors often make their wares available for sale through their own e-commerce portals.

Chef and Restaurant Sites Chefs and restaurants worldwide have invested significant amounts of time and money into establishing Web presences for themselves. Rare indeed is the restaurant that does not have even a minimal Web presence for itself; even out-of-the-way momand-pop establishments now have tools at their disposal, many of them free or extremely low cost, that allow for the creation of a simple website. Restaurant websites typically include a variety of photos and perhaps videos of the establishment, menus, directions and contact information, and, increasingly, the ability to make reservations online. The largest provider of online restaurant reservation services is OpenTable (www.opentable .com), which is free for diners and allows reservations to be made quickly and easily via the Web. OpenTable also provides tools that allow restaurant owners to embed a reservation request form in their own websites, eliminating the need for website visitors to leave the site in order to make a reservation. Many chefs choose to lend their personal identity and gravitas to their restaurants’ websites; for example, Jean-Georges Vongerichten’s website (www.jean-georges.com) serves primarily as a portal to his two dozen different restaurants, and the Chicago-based chef Graham Elliot’s eponymous website (www.grahamelliot.com) leads directly to the site for his restaurant, Graham Elliot Bistro. It is becoming increasingly rare to find chefs who maintain a separate Web identity

Websites on Food

for themselves, though many chefs are migrating to social media channels (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) as a way to post personal thoughts and to connect with fans and diners.

Websites for Food Publications The Internet has made it difficult for print-based publications to survive on print advertising revenue and subscription fees alone. Furthermore, today’s media climate demands that print publications have an online presence as well; most food-related publications also have websites that typically mirror their sensibilities and aesthetics. Most of the major food magazines like Saveur (www.saveur.com), Food & Wine (www .foodandwine.com), and Bon Appétit (www .bonappetit.com) reproduce most, if not all, of the content featured in their printed editions; this content is often bolstered by food blogs, recipe archives, featured videos, and other web-only content that is often monetized by advertisements. Some food publications with significant online presences have embraced a paywall model as a way to counterbalance declining subscription fees and dwindling advertising dollars. The website for America’s Test Kitchen (www.americastest kitchen.com), for example, which publishes the ad-free Cook’s Illustrated and Cook’s Country magazines and produces America’s Test Kitchen and Cook’s Country programs for PBS, features a sophisticated subscription offering that allows access to full episodes and their entire recipe archive, while casual website visitors can only access select content.

Review Sites Review sites allow consumers to offer their unvarnished feedback on a variety of topics, and restaurants in particular are subject to scrutiny via online reviews. Yelp (www.yelp.com) allows anyone to post a review of his or her experience at a wide range of establishments, including restaurants, while other sites such as UrbanSpoon (www .urbanspoon.com) offer similar functionalities but

1471

focus specifically on restaurants. A handful of review sites, on the other hand, curate the reviews that they receive; most notably, Zagat (www.zagat .com) collates user reviews to generate a variety of scores and uniquely worded reviews for dining establishments. Restaurants are not the only entities subject to review online. Product reviews are ubiquitous online; most e-commerce sites, regardless of size, allow customers to rate their purchases and sometimes write full-fledged product reviews. Cooking .com, for example, which sells an enormous range of cookware, allows customers to rate and review virtually any product in its catalog, which can have significant effects on sales.

Food Delivery Service Sites In the age of the Internet, people are talking on their phones much less frequently, choosing instead to text each other or use their computers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is becoming increasingly easy to order food for online delivery, particularly in major urban areas. Sites such as Delivery.com, GrubHub (www.grubhub.com), and SeamlessWeb (www.seamless.com) serve as intermediaries between consumers and restaurants; customers place their orders online, which are relayed to restaurants via fax or computer terminal, and the restaurant delivers the food to the hungry customer. Some large chain restaurants, such as Domino’s Pizza (www.dominos.com), on the other hand, have created their own infrastructure for this type of transaction, removing the need for a third party. Urban dwellers are also increasingly able to order their groceries online and schedule a convenient home delivery window. New York City– based FreshDirect (www.freshdirect.com), for example, operates a central warehouse and its own fleet of delivery trucks to deliver groceries all over the Big Apple, while a bevy of smaller grocers uses third-party solutions to offer similar services. Grocery delivery is still fairly uncommon in most American cities, as logistics can make the business model quite expensive, but FreshDirect is an example of a thriving Web-only

1472

Weight Loss Diets

grocery operation that may eventually be duplicated at scale in other markets.

Informational Sites Food information sites can take almost any form, but some of the most frequently encountered types of informational sites related to food pertain to nutrition data and reference materials, political or industrial campaigns, and health-related sites. These categories are not mutually exclusive, nor are they exhaustive; in many cases, they may overlap with each other. Nutritional data are of interest to many, and a number of sites are available that aim to make access to this information more accessible. Many restaurant websites and food manufacturers now include nutrition information as part of their Web presence, but information on a wide range of foods is available through other sources as well. NutritionData (nutritiondata.self.com) and Fooducate (www.fooducate.com) are two particularly useful food nutrition databases that are privately operated. The federal government also operates a number of nutrition data sources, including the National Agricultural Library (fnic.nal.usda .gov) and Nutrition.gov. Political and industrial campaigns often leverage the Web as an outreach or marketing tool; as a result, it is not difficult to find websites related to particular efforts. Consumer discretion is advised, particularly as politically motivated campaigns may not always convey all sides of every issue; the Non-GMO Project (www.nongmoproject.org), for example, takes issue with genetically modified organisms and does not present any of the potential positives of such foodstuffs. However, some campaigns are not politically motivated, and many offer extremely useful information. Seafood Watch (www.seafoodwatch.org), for example, a program that is managed by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, advises consumers as to what types of fish are sustainably farmed and which are endangered or threatened by poorly managed fishing practices. Health-related sites, including sites pertaining to specific diets, folk medicines, and home remedies related to foods, are plentiful online; many sources

are quite reputable and extensive, including the Mayo Clinic’s information on diet and healthy living (www.mayoclinic.org) or the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ extensive website (www .eatright.org). However, many sites may contain dubious information that is of questionable value. Savvy users of the Web should proceed with caution and attempt to cross-verify information against reputable sources, particularly if something sounds “too good to be true.” Ryan S. Eanes See also Advertising and Marketing of Food; Apps for Food; Crowdsourced Reviews of Restaurants; Online Advertising; Online Shopping; Social Media and Food

Further Readings Aspray, W., Royer, G., & Ocepek, M. G. (2013). Food in the Internet age. New York, NY: Springer. Grunert, K. G., & Ramus, K. (2005). Consumers’ willingness to buy food through the Internet: A review of the literature and a model for future research. British Food Journal, 107(6), 381–403. Weber, K., Story, M., & Harnack, L. (2006). Internet food marketing strategies aimed at children and adolescents: A content analysis of food and beverage brand web sites. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106(9), 1463–1466. White, G. K., & Manning, B. J. (1998). Commercial WWW site appeal: How does it affect online food and drink consumers’ purchasing behavior? Internet Research, 8(1), 32–38.

WEIGHT LOSS DIETS The practice of eating in a regulated fashion with the intent of decreasing body weight dates to ancient times. It was relatively rare until the late 19th century in Western Europe and North America. Since then, many different weight-reducing diets, as well as products and services to assist in diet-induced weight loss, have been developed. The practice has spread to many countries, although it is still most prevalent in North America and Western Europe. Despite extensive research, there

Weight Loss Diets

is little agreement about which dietary prescriptions work best for weight loss or how dietinduced weight loss affects human health. The majority of people who lose weight by dieting regain most of the weight within a few years. This entry focuses on the history of weight loss dieting, types of diets, and the debates about their efficacy and effects on health.

History For most of human history in most of the world, fatness has been seen as desirable, and fasting or restricted eating have primarily been used for moral or spiritual reasons. Anthropologists estimate that 80% of human societies on record have a preference for plumper women, and many associate fatness in men with health, virility, and power. In some cultures, such as the Tuareg of Niger, women cannot be “too fat.” However, since antiquity, some people have regarded extreme fatness as an undesirable condition requiring treatment. Ancient medical practices in Egypt, China, India, and Tibet prescribed a range of treatments to combat obesity, including acupuncture and enemas, as well as restrictions on when, what, and how much to eat. Hippocrates wrote that people desiring to lose weight should exercise before meals and eat only when still panting from exertion, drink cold and diluted wine with their meals, and season their food with sesame and other fatty substances to satisfy their appetites with small amounts of food. There are legends about famously corpulent figures, such as King William I of England, attempting to lose weight by fasting, going to health spas, or consuming nothing but alcohol. The British poet Lord Byron supposedly ate nothing but biscuits and soda water for days at a time, avoided meat, used tobacco for appetite control, and binged and purged both for mental clarity and to maintain a slender physique. However, practices like these were not widespread. Concern over obesity defined as a pathological state appears to have first entered the medical literature among a series of dissertations in German universities during the 18th century. Arguing over the etiology of fat accumulation, they offered various

1473

chemical and mechanical remedies. The English physician George Cheyne advocated the most influential of the diets springing from this research: a milk and seed diet that the doctor himself followed in shedding a considerable portion of his more than 400 pounds (lb). He was also among the first to equate obesity with sin, and a lithe frame with virtuousness. Most diet fads before the late 19th century were primarily concerned with moral and spiritual purity or physical complaints such as indigestion and constipation, not body size. In the 1820s, the Presbyterian minister Sylvester Graham became famous for promoting the consumption of whole grains instead of white bread and advocating the avoidance of animal products, spices, and alcohol to reduce sexual urges. Graham and his followers, who desired to be robust and not thin, weighed themselves and the food they ate to prove they were not losing weight and still had hearty appetites. An 1893 pamphlet titled Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public by the English undertaker William Banting is often cited as the origin of the first popular weight loss diet. In the pamphlet, Banting describes previous failed attempts to lose weight by fasting, going to spas, exercising, and following other diets. The diet that finally helped him lose weight was designed by Dr. William Harvey and was based on the lectures of the French physiologist Claude Bernard of Paris. It limited the consumption of sugar, starchy foods, beer, milk, and butter. Banting’s meals consisted primarily of meat, greens, fruits, and dry wine. The pamphlet was widely read and “banting” was adopted as a verb meaning to diet, as in “Do you bant?” Even before the rise of banting, some dietary advice and medicines that had previously been touted as cures for dyspepsia or neurasthenia in the United States began to be revived as methods for “slimming.” Additionally, three new weight loss techniques based on the emerging science of human metabolism became popular: (1) fasting, (2) slow chewing, and (3) calorie counting. The nutritional calorie (or kcal) was introduced to the American public by William Atwater, a U.S. Department of Agriculture chemist, in a series of

1474

Weight Loss Diets

articles in Century Magazine in 1887. It quickly became the dominant measure of food used in dietetic science, and the new weight loss techniques all promised to help people lose weight by consuming fewer calories than they expended. Fasting for weight loss became particularly popular among upper- and middle-class adolescent girls in Britain, France, and the United States in the 1890s. Many of them idolized Lord Byron, and a small number were diagnosed with the newly named disorder anorexia nervosa. Slow chewing was also known as Fletcherism, after its most prominent advocate, Horace Fletcher. In addition to recommending that people chew food a minimum of 32 times before swallowing, Fletcher advocated eating only when very hungry and limiting protein intake. Calorie counting was popularized by the Yale economist Irving Fisher and the physician and public health advocate Eugene Lyman Fisk in their 1915 book How to Live, Rules for Healthful Living Based on Modern Science. These diet trends were encouraged by publications from the growing life insurance industry linking higher than average weight with mortality. Some historians suggest that dieting for weight loss faded from popularity for several decades after the 1920s, as the ideal body, especially for women, became more voluptuous, and new beliefs about immutable body types became popular. However, new books and products designed to assist in weight loss continued to appear, and the concern about fatness as a health risk continued to grow. In 1942–1943, the insurance company Metropolitan Life produced ideal weight tables for men and women, which created the first standardized ranges for “normal” and “excess” weight by height and age and helped enshrine the idea that above-average weights were unhealthy. Medical research began to associate obesity with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and heart disease, although the question of whether those relationships are causal is the subject of ongoing debate. In the 1950s, Dr. Ancel Keys and the American Heart Association began to promote the theory that saturated fat causes cardiovascular disease and to advocate diets low in total and saturated fats for both health and weight loss. This

theory is sometimes referred to as the “lipid hypothesis” and is also the subject of ongoing debate. Beginning in the 1950s, a wider array of diet, light, and low-calorie products became available. In 1951, Tasti-Diet brand canned fruit, sweetened with saccharin instead of sugar, became the first low-calorie food sold nationwide in the United States. The first no-calorie soft drink, Diet Rite, was introduced in 1958 and was followed by Tab cola in 1963. By the 1980s, food industry trade magazines were reporting that consumers of diet foods no longer considered themselves unusual and that light and low-calorie products had outgrown their niche market status and now occupied shelf space along with “regular” groceries. Commercial diet services and plans also proliferated. A Brooklyn homemaker named Jean Nidetch founded Weight Watchers in 1963 after the support group she had started to help her stick to a weight loss diet grew too large for her living room and prompted her to start teaching classes around New York City for other women seeking weight loss advice and support. Jenny Craig founded her eponymous weight loss program based on frozen and packaged foods in 1983. Slimfast meal replacement shakes were introduced in 1987. Meanwhile, news media began to report on a growing “epidemic” of fatness, and public health organizations and doctors increasingly prescribed weight loss diets to people defined as overweight and obese according to new standards based on body mass index (BMI), a ratio of weight to a square of height. Current estimates of the number of American adults who diet for weight loss vary from 56 million (when those who diet to maintain their current weight are excluded) to 108 million. In 2009, sales of weight loss products and services, including diet foods and membership clubs but excluding prescription medical procedures and pharmaceuticals, exceeded $1.4 billion in Western Europe and $30 billion in the United States.

Types of Weight Loss Diets Most contemporary weight loss diets fall into one of four categories: (1) low-fat, (2) low-carbohydrate, (3) low-calorie, and (4) very-low-calorie diets.

Weight Loss Diets

Low-fat diets have been used for weight loss since the 1920s and were particularly popular in the United States in the 1990s. Fat is more energy dense than carbohydrates or protein, with approximately 9 calories/gram compared with 4 calories/ gram in the carbohydrates and protein, so dieters restricting their fat intake may eat fewer calories than they would otherwise and rely on stored body fat for energy. Some low-fat diets like the Ornish and Pritikin diets (named for the doctors who created them) were originally designed to prevent heart disease, but they are promoted for weight loss as well. Both of those diets restrict total fat to 10% or less of caloric intake and virtually eliminate most sources of saturated fat, like animal products. The Mediterranean diet, based on some traditional dietary patterns in Italy, Greece, Spain, and Morocco, recommends using olive oil as the principal source of fat in the diet and limiting sources of saturated fat. Low-carbohydrate diets (or low-carb diets) are sometimes traced to William Banting. Robert Atkins repopularized the method in the 1960s after he lost a significant amount of weight by eliminating starchy and sugary foods from his diet (inspired by a 1963 JAMA article). The 2002 publication of Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution prompted another resurgence. Other low-carb diets include the Dukan, Stillman, Protein Power, South Beach, and Paleo diets and some low-glycemic index diets. Their recommendations about how much carbohydrate to consume range from fewer than 20 to 100 grams per day, typically advising that dieters consume fewer than 20% to 30% of total calories in carbohydrate, approximately half of the Food and Drug Administration nutritional recommendations. The Zone diet popularized by Dr. Barry Sears is sometimes considered a low-carb diet, although it recommends consuming 40% of calories from carbohydrates. There is some debate about how low-carb diets induce weight loss. Very-low-carb diets can promote ketosis, a state in which the body’s cells use ketones derived from fat for energy rather than glucose, which may cause fat to be eliminated from the body. Low-carb diets may also cause people to consume fewer calories than they

1475

would otherwise because fat and protein are more satiating than carbohydrates, because they reduce the blood glucose and insulin spikes caused by carbohydrate consumption, or because the diets tend to be monotonous. Low-calorie diets are designed to create an energy deficit and force the body to rely on stored energy by restricting daily consumption by 500 to 1,000 calories below estimated energy needs. Popular examples of low-calorie diets include Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, the Volumetrics Eating Plan, the DASH diet developed by the National Institutes of Health, and sometimes the Mediterranean diet. In addition to the calorie deficit, these diets typically promote eating “nutritionally dense” foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, which are supposed to reduce feelings of hunger despite the calorie deficit. Very-low-calorie diets are similar to low-calorie diets, but they reduce total intake to 200 to 800 calories per day. Examples include the Optifast diet, which consists of consuming 800 calories per day in the form of protein-rich meal replacement shakes, and the 2–4–6–8 diet, in which the dieter consumes 200, 400, 600, and 800 calories per day in a 4-day cycle. Physicians and dieticians typically do not recommend that dieters attempt a verylow-calorie diet without medical supervision due to deaths attributed to very-low-calorie diets in the 1970s. Fad diets or crash diets are usually pejorative terms referring to diets that either become popular quickly (and often briefly) or are designed to cause weight loss very quickly. Some fad or crash diets fit into one of the above categories. Others emphasize the consumption of one particular food, like grapefruit or açai berries, or restrict consumption to one kind of food, such as cabbage soup or juice. Fasting or modified fasts used for weight loss, such as the Master Cleanse (Lemonade) Diet, may also be considered a fad or crash diet. The Master Cleanse, invented by Stanley Burroughs in 1941, involves consuming only diluted lemon juice with maple syrup and cayenne pepper for up to 15 days along with a nightly saltwater drink designed to prompt bowel movement.

1476

Weight Loss Diets

Efficacy There is intense, ongoing debate about which diets, if any, result in safe and lasting weight loss. In clinical studies, low-fat, low-carb, low-calorie, and very-low-calorie diets have all been shown to cause short-term weight loss, with maximum losses usually occurring between 6 and 12 months. However, in longer studies, most participants regain at least some of the initial weight lost, and many regain all of the weight or more, regardless of the type of diet followed. According to some research, 76% of dieters weigh more than they did at baseline 3 years after beginning their diet, and after 5 years, the number jumps to 95%. Fourteen review studies on weight loss research published between 1976 and 2007 all concluded that weight loss diets do not result in significant or lasting weight loss for the vast majority of research participants, regardless of the diet followed. According to Mann et al. (2007), there have only been seven clinical studies of weight loss dieting that randomly assigned participants to diet or control groups and followed them for at least 2 years. In those studies, participants in the diet groups all lost weight initially. However, only three studies found a significant difference between the dieters and the control group at 2 years, and those differences were quite small: an average of 1.1-kilogram (kg; 2.4-lb.) loss, ranging from a 4.7-kg (10.4-lb.) loss to a 1.6kg (3.5-lb.) gain. In 14 studies without control groups, average initial weight loss was 14 kg (30.8 lb.), but participants on average gained back all but 3 kg (6.6 lb.) in 2 years. In eight studies that tracked how many participants weighed more at the followup than at baseline, the average was 41% (with a range of 29%–64%), and in every case, it was higher than the percentage of participants who maintained most of the initial weight loss. The National Weight Control Registry was founded in 1994 to record and research successful weight loss. Anyone who has lost at least 30 lb. and maintained it for at least a year is eligible to join, and the registry currently has more than 10,000 members with an average weight loss of 66 lb. maintained for an average of 5.5 years. Virtually all National Weight Control Registry members (98%) report that they modified their food intake in some

way to lose weight, but there is no consistent pattern to the diets followed. Because the registry does not represent a random sample of those who attempt weight loss, their success has limited generalizability to the entire population of weight loss dieters. Some research suggests that weight loss dieting may actually cause weight gain. A 2003 study of 15,000 preteens and teens found that those who dieted gained more weight than the nondieters over 3 years, an outcome that could not be explained by differences in starting weight, caloric intake, or fat intake. Research on adult dieters has shown that dieting causes metabolic changes that may drive future weight gain, including an increase in hormones such as ghrelin that promote hunger and a decrease in hormones such as leptin and peptide YY that suppress hunger and increase metabolism. In a 2009 study, 50 obese adults who lost an average of 30 lb. following a very-low-calorie diet and exercise plan had altered hormonal levels a year after the diet began and reported feeling far more hungry and preoccupied with food than before they lost the weight. They had also regained an average of 11 lb., despite being on a diet and exercise plan designed to help them maintain their initial loss. People who have lost weight have been found to burn fewer calories at rest and while exercising than people who weigh the same without having dieted. Bob Schwartz, a former health club owner who has written several diet advice books, claims to have helped many people gain weight by putting them on weight loss diets for 3 days at a time and then allowing them to eat normally until their weight rebounds, usually with a few additional pounds. Some researchers and health practitioners have suggested that the failure of dieting to produce long-term weight loss for most people demands a paradigm shift, sometimes called Health at Every Size. This promotes dietary modifications and exercise for the sake of health and well-being rather than for weight control.

Health Effects Weight loss has been shown to reduce some risk factors for cardiovascular disease while it lasts;

Wet Markets and Hawking

however, there is little research on long-term health outcomes. One study of more than 5,000 adults with type 2 diabetes that randomly assigned half of the participants to a low-calorie diet and exercise regimen was stopped after 11 years because the intervention and control groups had nearly identical rates of heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular deaths, and the researchers decided that it was futile to continue. Weight cycling, or losing and then regaining weight, is the most typical outcome of weight loss dieting. Repeated weight cycling is sometimes called yo-yo dieting. Some research has suggested that weight cycling might increase some risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Others claim that even temporary weight loss reduces the risk of developing diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Current evidence about the independent effects of weight cycling is not conclusive. Some weight loss diets are alleged to have positive or negative health effects independent of their ability to reduce weight. Low-carb diets have been criticized for encouraging the consumption of large amounts of fat and animal protein, which some research has linked to cancer and cardiovascular disease. Some studies have also linked the Atkins Diet to increased inflammation and stress hormones, which might increase the risk of heart disease. Other studies have found that low-carb diets improve some risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including levels of triglyceride, HDL (“good cholesterol”), and VLDL (a “bad cholesterol”) in the blood. A 2003 review of low-carb diets in JAMA concluded that there was no compelling reason to conclude that low-carb diets were unsafe. S. Margot Finn See also Bible-Based Diets; Low-Fat Foods; Obesity Epidemic; Paleo Diet

Further Readings Albala, K. (2005). Weight loss in the age of reason. In C. E. Forth & A. Carden-Coyne (Eds.), Cultures of the abdomen: Diet, digestion, and fat in the modern world (pp. 169–184). New York, NY: Palgrave.

1477

Biltekoff, C. (2013). Eating right in America: The cultural politics of food & health. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Guerrini, A. (2000). Obesity and depression in the Enlightenment: The life and times of George Cheyne. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Mann, T., Tomiyama, A. J., Westling, E., Lew, A. M., Samuels, B., & Chatman, J. (2007). Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments: Diets are not the answer. American Psychologist, 62, 220–233. Nestle, M., & Nesheim, M. (2012). Why calories count: From science to politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Parker-Pope, T. (2011, December 28). The fat trap. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes .com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap .html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Schwartz, H. (1986). Never satisfied: A cultural history of diets, fantasies, and fat. New York, NY: Free Press. Strychar, I. (2006, January). Diet in the management of weight loss. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174(1), 56–63. Taubes, G. (2007). Good calories, bad calories: Fats, carbs, and the controversial science of diet and health. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Vester, K. (2010). Regime change: Gender, class, and the invention of dieting in post-bellum America. Journal of Social History, 44, 39–70.

Websites Health at Every Size: http://www.haescommunity.org National Institutes of Health (NIH)—WeightLoss/Dieting: http://health.nih.gov/topic/WeightLossDieting National Weight Loss Control Registry (NWCR): http://www.nwcr.ws/default.htm

WET MARKETS

AND

HAWKING

In contrast to large supermarkets, wet markets and street hawkers remain the main outlets from which many people globally still buy their food. Wet markets are retail food markets comprising multiple stallholders each typically selling a single type of commodity. The markets are called wet markets because of the extensive use of water to keep foods fresh and fish alive in the absence of refrigeration.

1478

Wet Markets and Hawking

In many cities, the markets are located in buildings that were made for that purpose, but there are also informal street markets, bazaars, or places for hawkers where small cart retailers also sell food. Although important from health, social justice, and sociocultural standpoints, food trading in wet markets and through hawking is not always perceived in positive terms and has been identified as a place where zoonotic diseases are spread. This entry focuses on foods and food retailing of wet market traders and hawkers, trader and hawker food vending and public health, and the sociocultural aspects of the markets and hawking.

Food Selling by Market Traders and Hawkers That hawking and market trading predate capitalism should not come as a surprise. They are an intrinsic element in the process of specialization of human activity. Through the specialization of labor and the trading of goods, with or without the use of money, societies are able to flourish and meet their dietary needs. Indeed, one need think only of the nutritional capacity of places to understand how the trading of goods over space enables both a more diverse and more nutritious context of food consumption. There is evidence, for example, that foods were traded via informally organized food markets in Africa and Asia as early as the 3rd century. Early markets were, in fact, hawker markets. These were informal spaces where sellers transported their goods to locations where they felt that they were most likely to meet potential customers, such as along a path or roadway, at a crossroads, or at some other gathering place. Some of the more successful market traders founded shops. With increases in urbanization and industrialization, the competition over the use of public spaces led to conflicts between those wishing to move their goods through cities and towns and those who are buying and selling within the streets. Those with greater power over how the urban space was to be used exerted considerable pressure to constrain and contain those who sold their goods as hawkers

on the streets. As a result, more formal municipal wet markets were developed, which produced a distinction between hawkers and market traders. Furthermore, municipal authorities sought to reduce competition between street vendors and those who owned or rented larger shops in order to enable a freer movement of vehicles and the goods they carried through the cities and towns. Within the wet markets today, the commodities are typically spatially separated into five broad groups: (1) fresh fruit, (2) fresh vegetables, (3) dried and preserved foods, (4) live and fresh fish, and (5) live and freshly butchered meat. Each commodity tends to be located in separate areas of the market, with several vendors selling the same commodity and competing for customers. There is often no dairy, bread, artisanal food, or convenience food to be found in the markets. Instead, most sales are of raw food or individual ingredients that are then taken home or to a cooked food stall to be prepared. Unlike in the farmers’ markets found in Western countries, wet market traders and street hawkers often sell animals, fish, meats, fruits, vegetables, and dried goods that they have purchased from a wholesaler or from the farmer rather than having produced it themselves. Another distinction between the hawkers and market sellers and the farmers’ markets one might find in Europe or North America is that the former tend to be open every day, and while the wet markets tend to operate during daylight hours, hawker traders may sell early in the morning or late at night. Unlike the exchange in the supermarket or corner shop, market traders and hawkers sometimes bargain on prices, though in certain places, this practice is becoming less and less the convention. Bargaining with regard to food prices is not encouraged, for example, in the wet markets of Hong Kong. This is not to suggest that street hawking and hawkers’ bazaars do not still exist. In many Asian and African cities and towns, there are hawker markets that are sanctioned by local municipal governments. However, because hawkers typically sell goods in small quantities from either the back of a vehicle or from a table or cart that can be

Wet Markets and Hawking

moved quickly, many hawkers continue to sell on the street, often in violation of local regulations. Thus, in many Asian cities, there are areas known as “hawker black spots,” and a corresponding army of individuals are employed by the government to control illegal street trading of goods and food. This sort of trading persists because of extreme wealth differentials, which limit employment opportunities, and because of the demand for the lower cost food that is available via this means because the seller’s overheads are low. Illegal food trading is also food trading that is unregulated with regard to food safety.

Market and Hawker Trading and Links to Public Health Food safety and biosecurity are big issues for all types of food sellers, including both large multinational supermarket chains and street hawkers. The contaminants one finds include bacteria such as Salmonella, which is often associated with chicken and chicken products, and parasites such as those associated with cows, sheep, and goats. Because they decay rapidly, fish become sources of ammonia, putrescine, and cadaverine, and as a result of their living in polluted waters, their flesh can carry pesticides that poison humans. Supermarket-type stores reduce such risks by developing and monitoring their own supply chains and using refrigeration technology extensively. Market traders and particularly street hawkers, however, typically buy from wholesale markets and have limited access to refrigeration technologies. Keeping chickens and fish alive makes some sense, particularly as a good number operate in outdoor conditions where raw meat will quickly spoil when the weather is warm. Moreover, in many places where markets are still dominant, local cultural norms construct food quality not around the sell-by and use-by dates that have become the norm in North America and parts of Europe, but around seeing the animal before it died and knowing when it died. Some cooking practices dictate absolute freshness of the ingredients, such as with steaming fish or eating it as sushi or sashimi. Similarly, buying live chickens

1479

is a way to protect families against worms and other similar foodborne illnesses. Customers, usually women, handle and inspect live poultry in markets in the same way one might handle or inspect a head of lettuce or a tomato. As a result, it is more likely that those who are not farmworkers will be exposed to zoonotic diseases via market and hawker trading compared with supermarkets. Zoonotic viruses are viruses that transfer from animal species to humans. Between 2002 and 2003, an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome that killed hundreds of people worldwide was traced back to civets, ferret badgers, and raccoon dogs that were sold as food in a market in Guangdong in south China. Chickens exported from China to be sold in the markets in Hong Kong were also implicated in the spread of the disease. More recently, there have been outbreaks of bird viruses such as H7N9 virus, which is deadly to humans and not fully understood. Genome testing has shown that the transference had occurred when humans came in contact with infected chickens. Because a greater number of humans are likely to come into contact with the live chickens through market trading than would be the case on farms and in places where chickens come into contact with wild birds, animals, and bats, markets and hawkers have been identified as the source of the outbreaks. Although some studies indicate that chickens are initially contracting the illnesses in farms, closing wet markets is considered a solution by both governments and global centers concerned with disease control. Despite these public health risks, markets and hawkers also offer some public health advantages. Unlike supermarkets that stock their shelves with foods that are high in food additives, fat, sugar, and salt, the dominant foods available in the markets are fresh and unadulterated. A number of public commentators have recently commented that supermarketization has not only changed the way people in North America and parts of Europe shop and eat but also influenced what we consider to be “fresh” and “raw”; for example, in many Asian markets, fresh fish in the markets are those that are still alive.

1480

Wet Markets and Hawking

Sociocultural Contributions of Wet Markets and Hawker Places While commentators describe supermarket shopping as discouraging community, alienating, and dreary, such a criticism is not leveled at markets and street traders. Wet markets and hawker bazaars are recognized as spaces of social interaction and learning about food. One need only visit a wet market to witness the social interactions and community that form around daily buying and selling. Elderly people spend time in the market spaces, because often there is a stool or chair available for them to sit and watch. Customers develop relationships with particular sellers; shoppers may ask sellers to obtain particular foods and save them for the customer’s next visit. Busy markets are also made more lively by the presence of multiple activities, from the display and preparation of raw foodstuffs for sale to the haggling and giving of advice that characterizes the interactions between the seller and the buyer, to the friendly exchanges among customers and buyers that have nothing to do with the work of selling and buying food. These exchanges are visible and made possible by the close configuration of bodies and food one finds in markets, which is not part of the spatial arrangement found in a self-service, sanitized, and prepackaged design that is adopted by the supermarket. In the wet markets and hawker bazaars, traders share knowledge about foodstuffs both via talking and through the visual display of foods. Whole and sometimes live animals are visible within the stalls. Children accompanying a parent, grandparent, or caregiver witness the reduction of the whole to the component parts and thus learn that chickens are not reducible to some uncountable number of drumsticks or wings. Similar knowledge is conveyed regarding fruits and vegetables. Often roots or leaves are left on, and certain foods are available only when they are in season. Because there is no packaging, shoppers can experience smells and textures, and children learn what a ripe mango or tomato should look and feel like. Sellers also offer cooking suggestions with regard to specific foods, depending on their freshness or ripeness, or what variety they are.

Nutritional advantage, knowledge transfer about a regional food system, and social wellbeing are not the only ways by which wet markets and hawker bazaars benefit the urban food system. There are socioeconomic benefits as well. In addition to being places that tourists increasingly seek out to find the “real” Asian city that they are visiting, the food availability within the markets is often more affordable than what one finds in the supermarket. This is partly due to the relatively low overheads of market traders and hawkers and also because of the way in which food is delivered to the customer. Because food is not prepackaged, customers are able to buy only what they need. In markets, shop owners may even open prepackaged items, split the contents, and then repackage goods to meet their customer’s requirements. This not only results in lower domestic food waste than is the case for rigidly defined amounts of packaged food but also enables those with limited incomes to buy what they can afford. Megan K. Blake See also Artisanal Foods; Convenience Foods; Farmers’ Markets; Grocery Stores and Supermarkets; Salmonella; Supply and Distribution Networks

Further Readings Brown, A. (2006). Contested space: Street trading, public space and livelihoods in developing cities. Rugby, UK: ITDG. Cross, J. C., & Morales, A. (2007). Street entrepreneurs: People, place and politics in local and global perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Friedburg, S. (2009). Fresh: A perishable history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gay, P. du. (2004). Self service: Retail, shopping and personhood. Consumption, Markets, & Culture, 7(2), 149–163. Geertz, C. (1963). Peddlers and princes: Social change and economic modernization in two Indonesian towns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Smart. J. (1989). The political economy of street hawkers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong, SAR: University of Hong Kong Press.

Whaling for Food

WHALING

FOR

FOOD

Hunting and killing whales for food dates back centuries and once spanned the globe. Whaling became industrialized and commercial in the modern era (17th–20th centuries), as fleets were organized, became competitive, and relied increasingly on more sophisticated means for tracking whales. The popularity of whaling decreased the whale stocks to such dire levels that in 1982, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) banned commercial whaling for food or other purposes. Whaling for food continues today, but it is highly controversial and politically charged. Only a fraction of the world population consumes whale, but the continued public controversy over whether it is morally acceptable to consume a dwindling and intelligent species makes whaling for food a pressing issue today. This entry examines the history behind the whaling controversy, focusing on Japan, where much of the controversy is focused.

History of Whaling The popularity of whale meat has ebbed and flowed throughout recorded history. In earlier times, hunting whales was an efficient means of providing food for many with one kill, despite the logistical difficulties. As the demand for whale oil increased in the industrializing nations of Europe and North America, whale meat took a backseat to whale oil and blubber, processed for lighting, fuel, and other purposes; whale oil was still used in the commercial production of margarine throughout the 20th century. High in protein, whale meat became popular for a brief period in postwar Japan, enabling citizens to fight off malnutrition in the 1950s and 1960s. Growing concern over the numbers of certain whale species led to much discussion about banning whaling in the 1970s, resulting in the 1982 decision by the IWC to ban all commercial whaling so as to allow whale stocks to replenish themselves. The ban went into effect during the 1985–1986 whaling season and dramatically affected whale consumption levels across the globe.

1481

Although national whaling industries were also affected by the 1982 ban, some countries have found ways to avoid having to abide by it. Norway filed a formal objection in 1982 and, therefore, is allowed under IWC rules to continue to hunt whales. Japan resumed hunting whales under a provision of the IWC ban that allowed the killing of whales for scientific research. Iceland did not officially object to the ban as Norway had done, but it later sought an exception under the scientific research provision. Native populations in nations including Canada, Greenland, Indonesia, and the Faroe Islands are allowed to hunt whales as a means of perpetuating tradition, though recently, there has been some controversy over indigenous whaling in Greenland, where whale meat has been offered for sale to tourists in restaurants and supermarkets.

Controversy Over Japanese Whaling Japanese whaling has been the subject of intense international controversy and provides an intriguing case study to explore the issues behind whaling for food. Initially, the Japanese government and the whaling industry claimed to be conducting scientific research, although critics questioned why whalers had to kill whales for their studies and why Japan’s whaling quotas typically numbered in the hundreds, not the dozens. More recently, opponents of Japanese whaling have contended that very few peer-reviewed articles have been published regarding Japanese research. Critics charge that the Japanese whalers are killing whales in the name of taste, not science. Although Japanese whalers take tissue samples and perform other activities on hunted whales, they take the remaining meat and package it for consumption and sale in the Japanese market. These “leftovers” are sold at a price fixed by the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research and the government Ministry of Fisheries. Presumably, the profits made by the sale of whale meat cover the cost of the current whaling season and the cost of future expeditions. Technically, whale meat produced by the Japanese may be sold only in Japan,

1482

Whaling for Food

since the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species banned the international commercial trade in all whale products. Japan may trade whale meat with Norway or Iceland, which take exception to the IWC ban, or they may sell or trade whale products to nations not bound by the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species or IWC bans. Japanese whalers have killed an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 whales every year since the IWC ban, though at great cost. Demand for whale meat is declining in Japan and elsewhere. In 2012, the Tokyo-based Dolphin and Whale Action Network estimated that about three quarters of the whale meat caught from the previous summer went unsold in Japanese markets. Despite attempts to introduce more schoolchildren to palatable forms of whale meat (e.g., in the shape of fish sticks), public opinion polls suggest that the vast majority of the Japanese population, as high as 95%, have never consumed or only rarely consume whale meat. The taste of whale meat may be a factor in its decline; the taste and texture of whale meat is less like fish and more like game. Diners compare the taste with venison, moose, caribou, or slightly rancid beef. Usually eaten plain or prepared simply, whale meat’s gamey taste does not appeal to all palates, especially those expecting a lighter, fishier taste.

Opposition to Whaling Opponents of whaling have stressed on the importance of species protection, argued that whaling is an inhumane practice, and drawn attention to its serious environmental consequences. Protecting whale species is a compelling reason for many to oppose whaling. Precise counts of whales are difficult, given the wide range of habitat and the relative absence of funded studies to estimate numbers. At the height of industrial whaling, an estimated 1 million sperm whales, along with hundreds of thousands of baleen whales, were killed primarily for oil and fished nearly to extinction. The IWC reports that since the implementation of the IWC ban, many whale species are in the process of recovering.

The ethics of slaughtering whales gives consumers pause, certainly, especially when one considers that whales and dolphins, along with wolves, elephants, apes, and corvids, are thought to be among the most intelligent nonhuman animals. Humans do not consume chimpanzees, antiwhaling advocates charge, so why should they consume whales, which create complex social structures and express interest in interacting with humans? Whaling is not the only reason for declining whale populations; many whales are killed as bycatch from fishing and may be injured or even killed in collisions with ships. In the past two decades, animal welfare and animal rights organizations have drawn attention to whaling, especially by Japan, as an inhumane practice. The two most notable organizations, Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, have patrolled the Southern Ocean (named a whale sanctuary in 1994), but for different purposes. Greenpeace began its antiwhaling activities in 1974, and the organization has used confrontational but nonviolent tactics to bring media attention to whaling and to educate the public about issues of conservation and the humane treatment of animals. The Sea Shepherd Society works to actively stop whaling, usually by getting between the whaling ships and the whales, often with harrowing results, as the popular American television series Whale Wars documents. Since modern whaling is so visible and well documented, it is also extremely controversial. Animal rights and animal welfare proponents object to the inhumanity of the kill, asserting that whales suffer for a length of time before dying. The whaler’s response to these charges has been to use grenade-armed harpoons. The grenade is supposed to explode inside the harpooned whale, killing it instantly with a minimum of pain. Antiwhaling activists are especially critical of Japanese whaling, which continues to have a low initial “success” rate with grenade-armed harpoons and therefore resorts to secondary harpoons and high-caliber rifles. There are no laws governing the slaughter of whales, and in extreme cases, it may take hours for a whale to die if the grenade

Wine

harpoon and secondary harpoons are unsuccessful. Environmental groups join animal welfare organizations in the criticism of whaling, arguing that whale populations maintain the stability of marine ecosystems. Adding to environmental and ethical concerns over whale meat is a growing body of evidence that suggests that whale meat might be harmful. Because whales concentrate ingested pollutants in blubber, it is no surprise that the scientists who tested various forms of whale meat found the meat to be “highly contaminated” with levels of organic contaminants, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, and mercury that exceeded internationally determined “tolerable daily intake” and posed high risks to consumers who ate whale meat regularly. Despite these warnings, however, whaling for meat continues, and the nations of Japan, Greenland, and Norway have lobbied to lift the IWC ban on whaling. Given the growing chorus of opposition and rising numbers of disinterested consumers, however, it remains to be seen whether whaling for food will continue. Carol Helstosky See also Animal Rights; Aquaculture/Fish Farming; Overfishing and Fisheries Depletion

Further Readings Dolin, E. J. (2008). Leviathan: The history of whaling in America. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Francis, D. (1990). History of world whaling. New York, NY: Penguin Books. McCurry, J. (2012, June 14). Japan’s appetite for whale meat wanes. The Guardian (Online ed.). Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/ jun/14/japan-appetite-whale-meat-wanes Shoemaker, N. (2005). Whale meat in American history. Environmental History, 10(2), 269–294. Simmonds, M. P., Haraguchi, K., Endo, T., Cipriano, F., Palumbi, S. R., & Troisi, G. M. (2002). Human health significance of organochlorine and mercury contaminants in Japanese whale meat. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, 65(17), 1211–1235.

1483

WINE This entry presents an overview of the history of wine and viticulture, beginning with archaeological evidence from the Caucasus region and then reviewing its expansion in the eastern Mediterranean region and then elsewhere in Europe. The entry concludes with a brief discussion of wine and health.

Origins of Wine and Viticulture For years, there has been an ongoing discussion among historians and archaeologists about where the first wine was made. However, it is safe to say that the “cradle of wine” is located in the region of present-day Georgia and the Caucasus Mountains. Archaeological evidence of cultivated grape seeds have been found at the archaeological site Shulaveris-Gora. The site is situated in the Transcaucasus region and is dated to between the 6th and 4th millennia BCE and belongs to the Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe Chalcolithic culture. Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) dating analyses of the cultural layer where the seeds were found indicate that they date to the 7th millennium BCE. At other sites belonging to the same culture, a ceramic vessel was found with ornamentation appearing to depict grapes; this might well be the “label” of grapes and wine. Inside the vessel was sediment that proved to consist of wine residue or fermented grape juice, the tell-tale chemical being tartaric acid, which precipitates in the process of fermentation. The importance of grapes as a crop in Georgia is still significant, and Georgia still produces a great quantity of wine, much of it in traditional methods. Permanent viticulture demanded new economic and social structures. Viticulture spread from Asia Minor to the eastern Mediterranean. Phoenicians from what is now Lebanon had trade routes along the Levant and carried wine to Sicily, the North African coast, and Carthage, and as far as southern Spain, where they set up colonies. The Egyptians enjoyed wine, and storage vessels from King

1484

Wine

Tutankhamun’s tomb even bear vintage dates. The Minoans in Crete also learned to produce wine very early, and through their close connections with the Greek mainland, viticulture soon emerged there as well. The Greeks in antiquity preferred very strong, sweet wines that could withstand shipping in amphorae. These they lined with resin for waterproofing, giving the wine a flavor still familiar today in the Greek wine known as retsina. Wine was usually diluted with water before being served. The Greeks brought wine further west; one of the first areas where they introduced the vine was in the fertile soil of southern Italy, the geographic area known as Magna Graecia (aka Oenotria). Around the same time, the Etruscans grew grapes for wine in central Italy.

Wine in Ancient Rome During the Roman Empire, wine production changed as the Romans created wines of higher quality than before. In late antiquity, they introduced the practice of storing wine in wooden barrels, where it could be kept longer, maturing and taking on the flavor of oak. Sometimes the barrels themselves were stored in the attic, a so-called fumarium where the smoke from the kitchen passed through and gave the wine a smoky taste. Like the Greeks, the Romans diluted the wine with water— with hot water during winter, and with ice from the peaks of the Appenines in the hot summer months. The Romans introduced wine and the vine to the rest of Europe. Although the Greeks planted the first vineyards in Provence, the Romans introduced viticulture to the rest of France. It is highly likely that grapes introduced by the Romans in the Bordeaux region of France are the forerunners of many of today’s well-known Bordeaux red wines. The Romans also brought wine to the Iberian Peninsula and as far north as Great Britain and the wine districts of Germany.

aftermath of the fall of the empire brought financial collapse. Market and transportation routes disappeared, and several high-quality wines disappeared from the market. The general stagnation during the Middle Ages leaves us with few clues or information regarding wine and wine production up to the time of Charlemagne. The laws and conquests of Charlemagne led to the spread of Christianity, along with knowledge of how, where, and when vines were grown and wine produced. Wine in this era was not stored for a long period of time but was consumed as soon as the fermentation was done. The wines were often sour and rustic, and from time to time, spices from the Far East were added. After distillation was invented, wine was sometimes fortified with alcohol. Beginning in the 14th century, harvests started to fail and famine and starvation became a hard reality. During this period, known as the Little Ice Age, wine was not a beverage for the common man. The acreage of wine production shrank considerably because wine grapes could no longer be grown in the colder northern latitudes. Viticulture spread, albeit slowly, to the New World in the 16th century, and later, new vineyards were established in Australia, South Africa, South America, and North America. However, the majority of vineyards in Europe were struck by Phylloxeravastatrix during the latter half of the 19th century, which was a major setback to the vineyards of Europe, especially in France. Because the insect that carries this plant disease is native to North America—some American rootstocks were resistant—the wine industry in Europe was saved by grafting European vines to resistant American rootstocks In the 20th century, wine production became global and has expanded to six continents. According to the International Organization of Vine and Wine, the top 10 wine producers in 2011 were France, Italy, Spain, the United States, Argentina, China, Australia, Chile, South Africa, and Germany.

The Spread of Viticulture in Europe and Beyond

Wine and Health

During the height of the Roman Empire, wine production in what is today Europe flourished, but the

Wine has been considered a healthy beverage in both ancient and modern times. The medicinal

Worker Safety

properties of wine were highly appreciated in ancient times, in part simply because wine was purer and more hygienic than water. However, the hazards of consuming great quantities of wine have also been known for a very long time; the story of Noah’s drunkenness in the Old Testament story is one example. Some recent research has come up with evidence suggesting that wine in moderation may have positive effects on human health. In particular, much attention has been given to mechanisms by which red wine might confer health benefits. Some studies suggest that moderate consumption of wine by healthy adults may help prevent coronary disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular-related diseases by helping prevent blood clots and hardening of the arteries. Another line of research has examined the possibility that the alcohol in wine works as an anticoagulant that eases blood flow and prevents blood clots. Wine, especially red wine, contains powerful antioxidants and polyphenols, and some research suggests that these substances help decrease LDL (low-density lipoprotein), the socalled bad cholesterol, in the human body. Some studies have indicated that wine may lower the risk for some forms of cancer and may help maintain mental health in old age. Although coverage in the popular press has highlighted the health benefits of red wine, research has not definitively established causal linkages between wine and health. Moreover, some recent research has suggested that there may be dangers associated even with moderate consumption of alcohol, such as an increased risk of breast cancer. In any case, researchers agree that wine should be consumed only in moderate amounts. The Mayo Clinic recommendations for healthy adults are up to 5 ounces (148 milliliters) of wine a day for women of all ages and men older than age 65 and up to 10 ounces of wine a day for men age 65 and younger. The limit for men is higher because men generally weigh more and have more of an enzyme that metabolizes alcohol than women do. Ulrica Söderlind See also Alcohol Regulations, History of; Beverage Industry; Cancer-Fighting Foods; Cholesterol, LDL and HDL

1485

Further Readings Johnson, H. (2003). Hugh Johnson’s wine companion: The encyclopedia of wines, vineyards, and winemakers. London, UK: Mitchell Beezley. McGovern, P. E. (2003). Ancient wine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McGovern, P. E. (2009). Uncorking the past: The quest for wine, beer, and other alcoholic beverages. Berkeley: University of California Press. Philips, R. (2001). A short history of wine. New York, NY: Ecco Press. Unwin, T. (1991). Wine and the vine. London, UK: Routledge.

WORKER SAFETY Worker safety in the food industry is a pressing concern in an increasingly industrialized global food system. Workers labor in all stages of food production and distribution: growing, harvesting, processing, transportation, marketing, and retail. Worker safety encompasses the minimization of exposure to acute dangers present in a workplace, as well as consideration for immediate and long-term consequences for worker health and vitality. In the initial stages of the food system, from growing to processing, workers encounter increased risks to personal safety. National and international organizations that advocate for worker safety have been established due to concern for the sustainability of the global food system and its dependence on farmworkers and food-processing workers. This entry focuses on the risks to worker safety present in agricultural industries and the measures taken by lawmakers and advocacy organizations to reduce these risks.

Risks to Worker Safety in Farm Labor The National Safety Council identified agriculture as the most hazardous industry in the United States. Agricultural workers, specifically farmworkers contracted to grow and harvest produce, encounter numerous hazards in their daily labor.

1486

Worker Safety

Environmental conditions, such as dust and heat, pose immediate risks to worker health. Without proper protective gear, agricultural workers who are exposed to organic dust (dried particles of plants, animals, chemicals, molds, pollens, insects, bacteria, and feces that become airborne) can develop respiratory illnesses, including acute and chronic bronchitis, sinusitis, organic dust toxic syndrome (ODTS), and farmer’s lung. ODTS is a flu-like illness that causes fever and chills. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimates that at least 1 in 10 agricultural workers will experience an episode of ODTS. Farmer’s lung is a debilitating allergic disease caused by inhaling mold spores. According to OSHA, 30% of Americans disabled by respiratory illnesses are farmers suffering from farmer’s lung. The weather is another immediate safety concern for agricultural workers, especially those laboring in crop fields. Without sustained access to shade and water, field-workers can suffer from heatrelated illnesses such as nausea, dizziness, dehydration, and heat exhaustion. Heatstroke continues to be the primary cause of acute, work-related deaths among field-workers. Common growing practices, including the use of insecticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers, present both acute and long-term health hazards to farm laborers and their families. Workers are exposed to these harmful chemicals in various ways, including through the direct application of the chemical by the worker to a site, the application of the chemical to a worker via pesticide drift (affecting workers laboring in and living near application sites), or through the process of harvesting crops that have been systematically treated with the chemicals. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports an average of 10,000 to 20,000 physician-documented cases of acute pesticide poisoning of agricultural workers each year, the actual number of cases is difficult to determine. Farmworkers often choose not to visit doctors or do not have access to them. In addition to the risk of acute poisoning, farmworkers exposed to pesticides identified as bad actor agents by the Pesticide Action Network, such as the commonly

employed metasodium and chlorpyrifos pesticides, are at risk of developing certain types of cancers, nerve damage, reproductive problems, and increased likelihood of birth defects. Farmworkers in the United States and internationally also face risks of violence and physical assault from their supervisors and forced labor or enslavement by employers. In the United States, field and crop workers are often contract workers who are organized and managed by independent farm labor contractors (FLCs). The presence of FLCs in the increasingly complex supply chains offers producers and retailers access to large number of workers without the hassles or responsibilities of directly hiring and managing those workers. FLCs typically work independently to acquire, retain, and directly supervise farmworkers, the majority of whom are either guest workers participating in the H-2A visa program or undocumented immigrant workers. This system has been blighted by abuses that result in compromised worker safety and violations of human rights. Workers have been subjected to forced labor, peonage, kidnapping and captivity, beatings, shootings, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. The International Labor Organization (ILO) has identified agriculture as one of the global industries most vulnerable to forced labor practices. Growers of products such as coffee, bananas (in Latin America and the Caribbean), and cocoa (in West Africa) have been accused of similar safety and human rights violations, with the additional allegation of forced labor of children under 14 years of age. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a community-based organization of primarily immigrant farmworkers employed in the tomato and citrus industries of south Florida, began advancing allegations of modern-day slavery in the late 1990s and have since been integral in the successful prosecution of nine slavery cases.

Risks to Worker Safety in Industrial Meat Production Since the mechanization of the slaughter and meatprocessing industries in the early 20th century,

Worker Safety

industrial meat production has become one of the most hazardous industries in the world. Increased global demand for meat and poultry products has created pressures on multinational corporations to develop intense growth facilities, also known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or factory farms, and massive processing plants. These processing plants employ thousands of workers in assembly-line techniques to kill, inspect, decontaminate, dismember, and package tens of thousands of animals per plant per day. CAFOs present acute and long-term risks to the health and safety of factory farmworkers. According to the EPA, a CAFO is an agricultural operation that raises animals (for more than 45 days) on a confined land area without grass or vegetation. The operation of these facilities includes internal management of feed, feces, and urine; dead animals; and processing (slaughter and rendering). Factory farms that house tens of thousands (and in some cases hundreds of thousands) of cows, pigs, and chickens in a confined space must account for the collection and disposal of the waste from those animals. Manure “lagoons” are a common technique used to divert and store manure in 20 to 45 gallon underground pools. These pools release gases that pose serious health risks to farm factory workers. The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (Ontario, Canada) identified the leading cause of sudden death in the workplace as exposure to toxic levels of hydrogen sulfide from manure storage pits. Workers have also died after falling into these pits. CAFO workers, too, are at high risk of developing ODTS and farmer’s lung. According to OSHA, the most common potential hazards for acute injury in the meatpacking industry are machinery, knives, falls, back injuries, toxic substances, cumulative trauma disorders, and infectious diseases. Machinery such as bone splitters, head splitters, band saws, jaw pullers, snout pullers, and cleavers pose particularly high risks to worker safety. Documented cases of machineryrelated injuries include amputations of hands, fingers, arms, legs, and even decapitation. Severe accidents involving lacerations and blindness are often caused by hand knives, and many accidents

1487

have been attributed to worker overcrowding. Falls due to wet and slippery floor surfaces (made especially treacherous by the accumulation of animal fat) are common. Back injuries are also common for employees required to carry carcasses weighing up to 300 pounds over their shoulders. Workers who are exposed to toxic chemicals, including ammonia, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, may suffer headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, skin irritations, burns, chest pains, coughing, and even death. Cumulative trauma disorders, also known as repetitive stress injuries, include tendonitis and carpal tunnel syndrome and can cause severe pain and weakness. Untreated, these disorders can disable a worker. The ILO identified musculoskeletal disorders, including carpal tunnel syndrome, as the most common workrelated health disorder. Workers are also routinely exposed to bacteria that can result in infectious diseases, including brucellosis, erysipeloid, leptospirosis, and dermatophytoses. Brucellosis, erysipeloid, and leptospirosis are caused by bacteria and can result in a range of ailments including headaches, vomiting, weakness, muscle aches, joint pain, secondary infections, and, in the case of leptospirosis, kidney and liver damage. Dermatophytoses, commonly known as ringworm, is a fungal infection that causes hair loss and scaly yellowish spots on the skin and scalp. The ILO and the United Nations have identified increasing instances of mental disorders related to stress-inducing work conditions and noted the increased likelihood of substance abuse in workers employed in stressful occupations. Escalating concerns for the emotional and psychological health of meat-processing and factory farmworkers are leading to studies of stress disorders that may be related to the traumatic environments (by nature bloody and morbid) of these industries.

Regulating Worker Safety The regulation of worker health and safety is administered by various government departments and influenced by international organizations, as well as public media and consumer activism.

1488

Worker Safety

In the United States, the Department of Labor, the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the EPA all contribute to the oversight of the food industry, including administering regulations and policies that affect worker health and safety. More than 180 federal laws exist to manage labor practices. Notable labor legislation includes the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938), which established a federal minimum wage; required time-and-a-half compensation for overtime work; established a maximum 44-hour, sevenday work week; prohibited employment of children under the age of 16; and restricted employment of children between the ages of 16 and 18 to nonhazardous positions. Agricultural workers, however, were not initially protected by the Act. In 1960, Edward R. Murrow and the Columbia Broadcasting System aired Harvest of Shame, a documentary chronicling the living and working conditions of migrant farmworkers in the United States. The documentary highlighted the risks to worker health and safety and advocated for change in the agricultural industry. The Federal Labor Standards Act was amended in 1966 to include, to a minimal extent, farmworkers. While farmworkers have since been included in minimum wage provisions, overtime compensation and child labor restrictions still do not apply to agriculture. Children between 12 and 16 years of age can be employed as adults. OSHA is tasked with overseeing the health and safety of the majority of workers in the United States, but the EPA is responsible for regulating the health and safety of workers who apply pesticides and farmworkers who are consistently exposed to pesticides. The EPA has implemented the Worker Protection Standard in an effort to manage the exposure of agricultural workers to hazardous pesticides that are commonly used in the industry. The Worker Protection Standard focuses on educating workers on preventative measures, like wearing protective clothing and seeking decontamination after exposure, and on establishing restricted-entry intervals after the application of pesticides. These restrictions may be waived on a case-by-case basis following a risk–benefit analysis.

The industrial meat production industry has also been affected by federal legislation. After the publication of Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle (1906), the meat industry was subject to intense scrutiny. While Sinclair’s work was intended to draw attention to the hazardous working and living conditions of immigrant workers, the public and the federal government were more concerned with the contamination of their food products. Federal investigations into the conditions of meatprocessing facilities resulted in the Pure Food and Drug Act and Federal Meat Inspection Act in 1906. These Acts, however, did not provide for the health and safety of workers. In fact, according to OSHA, the U.S. federal government still does not provide specific standards for worker health and safety in the meatpacking industry. International organizations, including the ILO and Social Accountability International, as well as the United Nations, advance principles of occupational health and safety that include freedom from forced labor practices; abolition of child labor; access to personal protection equipment; access to medical attention; access to toilets, potable water, and sanitary food storage; clean and safe housing; and recording of all accidents. The World Day for Safety and Health at Work campaign, sponsored by the ILO and the United Nations, advocates for international awareness and action to improve working conditions for all laborers. Most recently, the focus of the campaign has been on understanding and reducing occupational diseases (including musculoskeletal disorders and respiratory illnesses related to workplace dusts) developed from worker exposure to high-risk substances and practices. In recent years, numerous consumer-centered initiatives have been organized to advocate for improvements in working conditions and to prioritize worker health and safety. The movement for fair-trade labeling, which began in the 1980s, requires that all products receiving the fair-trade label must comply with a set of standards that privileges workers. All participants in the supply chain—from growers to wholesalers—must comply with the health, safety, and environmental

World Trade Organization

standards established by the Fairtrade Labelling Organization International. Sara B. Dykins Callahan See also Factory Farming; Farmworkers; Industry Labor and Labor Unions; Meat Processing; Migrant Labor

Further Readings Bowe, J. (2008). Nobodies: Modern American slave labor and the dark side of the new global economy. New York, NY: Random House. Eisnitz, G. (2006). Slaughterhouse: The shocking story of greed, neglect, and inhumane treatment inside the U.S. meat industry. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Imhoff, D. (2010). The CAFO reader: The tragedy of industrial animal factories. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media. International Labour Organization. (n.d.). International labour standards on migrant workers. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/subjects-coveredby-international-labour-standards/migrant-workers/ lang—en/index.htm Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society (Rev. New Century ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Compliance assistance agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/ compliance/topics/wages-agricultural.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/twor .html

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, FOOD STANDARDS See Codex Alimentarius Commission

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international organization that governs the rules of trade between nations and promotes the liberalization of

1489

trade. By liberalizing trade, the WTO seeks to remove what it has defined as “barriers to free trade.” Examples of barriers to free trade are high tariffs, subsidies, and protectionist policies such as taxation or giving priority to domestic manufacturers in government procurement contracts. In certain circumstances, the WTO has stated that it supports trade barriers to protect people against the spread of disease and for consumer protection. In addition to its primary purpose as an organization for trade liberalization, the WTO is also a place for governments to negotiate trade agreements, and it serves as a forum to settle international trade disputes. The WTO plays an important role in regulating trade in agriculture and promotes the liberalization of agriculture. This entry provides a brief historical background of the WTO’s inception, explains the purpose of the organization, and describes its dispute settlement process. In addition, this entry specifically explores WTO’s influence on food and agricultural trade and puts forward critiques of the organization.

The Inception of the WTO Many current global financial and trade systems were conceived at the Bretton Woods Conference. The Bretton Woods Conference, held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July 1944, was convened to create a new international monetary system for the purpose of regulating international and monetary order shortly after the chaos of World War II. The conference was attended by 730 delegates from 44 countries (the majority of which were Allied Powers during World War II). The system arising from the Bretton Woods Conference was premised on a foundation of trade, monetary stability, and economic development. Two international financial institutions were established at the conference, namely, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The conference also planned the establishment of an international trade system that would be overseen by the proposed International Trade Organization (ITO). Despite having the ITO charter approved at a UN Conference on Trade and

1490

World Trade Organization

Employment in Havana, Cuba, in 1948, the United States Senate did not ratify the Havana charter, and as a result, the establishment of the ITO was aborted. In the interim, the Havana delegates developed a document and signed an interim agreement called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Due to the failure to establish the ITO, GATT was signed on October 27, 1947, and became the primary multilateral agreement regulating international trade. GATT officially came into effect on January 1, 1948. GATT was primarily concerned with tariff reduction and the elimination of discriminatory treatment in trade. It dealt with trade in goods and set trading codes. However, GATT lacked both an organizational framework and an enforcement mechanism, as it relied on voluntary compliance by its members. As GATT was not originally conceived as a trade organization, its form continued to evolve throughout several rounds of negotiations. The WTO was created at the last round of GATT’s Uruguay Round of negotiations, which took place from 1986 to 1994. At the end of the Uruguay Round, new areas of trade previously outside the GATT domain were also added. These areas include services, intellectual property, textiles, and agriculture, as well as investment policies of member nations that may affect multilateral free trade. In addition, the organization possessed new mechanisms to resolve disputes. The WTO was formally established on January 1, 1995, and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. As of June 2014, 160 countries were counted as members of the WTO.

WTO: Its Functions and How It Works According to the organization, the WTO’s main purpose is to ensure that trade is predictable and flows smoothly and freely. It has two governing bodies—the Ministerial Conference, which meets once every 2 years, and the General Council, which acts as the primary decision-making body. Each member of the WTO has one vote in the decisionmaking process. The WTO has six main functions: 1. To administer WTO trade agreements 2. To act as a forum for trade negotiations

3. To handle trade disputes among members 4. To monitor members’ trade policies 5. To provide technical assistance and training for developing countries 6. To cooperate with international organizations

The WTO is highly influential as it establishes the rules that govern international trade. Its secretariat and operation are financially supported by its members’ dues. Member dues are determined by assessing a member’s share/contribution to world trade and assigning a percentage of the WTO financial budget based on this information. The WTO agreements are wide in scope, covering numerous matters, including goods, services, and intellectual property. Membership in the WTO also entails an obligation to support trade liberalization and uphold multilateral trade agreements. The WTO operates within the following five trading principles. The trade without discrimination principle is achieved through the most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment. The MFN treatment was established during GATT and continues to be observed by the WTO. MFN is a key WTO priority in the trade of goods, services, as well as in trade-related aspects of intellectual property. The principle of MFN is that each member of the WTO treats all other members of the WTO equally. This means that an agreement between country A and country B to lower the tariff rate for a particular product must apply to all other WTO members. However, agreements to lower barriers between countries often involve trade concessions. Due to the MFN principle, a country can “free ride” on another country’s trade concessions and reap the benefit of lower tariffs or less barriers without having to concede trade benefits or deal with the complex and lengthy process of negotiation. There are temporary exemptions to the MFN treatment and limited instruments to override the MFN. MFN exemptions may occur when nations have preferential agreements that were established prior to GATT. The nondiscrimination principle also

World Trade Organization

1491

entails national treatment, namely, that foreign goods and local goods should be treated equally after the foreign goods have entered the local markets. Providing equal treatment is also extended to foreign services as well as foreign intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and trademarks).

developing countries, especially for the least developed countries. This is done to assist them in the process of transitioning to an open market, to encourage development, and to make it easier for these members to implement their commitments to trade agreements.

The second principle is free trade or liberalization of trade, which entails the removal/reduction of what the WTO considers to be trade barriers, including but not limited to tariffs, import bans, and custom duties. The process of liberalizing trade entails the opening of markets through negotiations between members.

Dispute Settlement Mechanism

The third trading principle is predictability. This principle entails making all tariffs and trade policies transparent through the reporting of trade policies to the WTO and ensuring that members have access to the information. In addition, the Trade Policy Review Mechanism provides a surveillance tool for the WTO to access information with respect to a member’s national trade policies. Another method obtained for trade predictability is referred to as binding, through which WTO members bind their commitment to free trade and open markets by ensuring a cap on customs tariff rates. The fourth trading principle is the promotion of competition. “Fairer” competition is premised on the idea that opening the market and freeing trade ensures “undistorted competition.” The WTO claims that fair competition in trade can be achieved by discouraging the dumping of products and avoiding subsidies that make products cheaper than the cost of production. The final trading principle is encouraging development and economic reform in developing countries. The majority of WTO members are developing countries and countries that are in the process of transitioning to market economies. Through the previous GATT agreements, WTO must allow for technical assistance and trade concessions for

The WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism (DSM) was established during the Uruguay Round. It is an important component of the organization’s function as a forum to settle trade disputes. The most common trade dispute faced in the WTO is usually a violation dispute in which one member claims that another member has violated GATT terms or agreements. Other disputes revolve around “nonviolation” disputes, wherein a member country claims that the action of another member has led to a nullification of trade benefits from being a WTO member. The DSM establishes timelines to address disputes and has four main stages. The first stage of the DSM begins with a 60-day period of consultation between affected members. Should this step fail to resolve the issue, with the agreement of the affected countries, the director general of the WTO would act as a mediator to address the conflict. The second stage, the panel review, entails establishing a dispute panel if resolution is not achieved through mediation. Choosing the three to five panel members may be complicated by the fact that each party to the dispute must approve the candidates. Should the parties fail to agree on the makeup of the panel, the director general will choose the panel members. After the panelists are selected, they review the dispute, which may be presented in an oral and/or a written argument. Should the report and final decision made by the panelists be challenged, the dispute goes to the appeal stage. The appellate body consists of seven members who serve 4-year terms, and the members may support, modify, or reverse the panel review report. Within 30 days of the report, WTO members must approve the report, which will be final unless a unanimous vote is made to challenge

1492

World Trade Organization

its acceptance. The decision of the appellate body is implemented, and the affected party is provided with 30 days to outline how it will comply with the report. It is important to note that the DSM and the WTO cannot force members to comply with the decisions made by the dispute settlement body. However, members can make retaliatory trade sanctions or suspend concessions. While the WTO’s DSM process has improved significantly from its GATT predecessor, it is still plagued with longer than expected timelines, political tensions based on the power of certain WTO members, and lack of compliance with the decisions made by the dispute settlement body.

WTO’s Influence on Food and Agricultural Trade The WTO plays a significant role in governing food and agricultural trade. The Agreement on Agriculture provides the foundation for agricultural liberalization and the reform of agriculture trade by 1. outlining concessions and commitments that members must undertake, 2. providing rules on domestic support and export subsidies, 3. providing an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and 4. setting out ministerial decisions concerning least developed and net food importing developing countries.

The WTO argues that these agreements will improve predictability and stability for both importing and exporting members. With regard to food and agriculture, the liberalizing of agriculture may conflict with a member nation’s interest in protecting its citizen’s health and safety. In some cases, other WTO members have raised questions as to whether measures taken by certain nations to protect both the environment and labor are merely ways to protect domestic manufacturers from competition with

foreign manufacturers. The challenge of identifying which policies are legitimate is another issue affecting various agriculture trades. The most recognized dispute pertaining to this matter is the European Community’s (EC) ban on all hormones used to fatten cattle, a measure they have adopted for health and safety reasons. The EC ban is a subject of major dispute affecting Canada and the United States. As the major importers of beef, the United States and Canada utilize hormones in their beef production and argue that the EC ban is discriminatory and against WTO principles. Despite the WTO’s ruling in favor of the United States and Canada, the EC continues to uphold its ban and has received trade retaliation from both the United States and Canada in the forms of increased tariffs on EC products. With respect to agriculture, there are loopholes for which the WTO has coined the term green box (analogous to green traffic lights). The green box allows domestic support for agriculture without limits as long as it has been determined that such support does not distort trade or causes only minimal trade distortion. Under the green box subsidies, certain domestic subsidies are exempted from countervailing-duty action. Article 6 and Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture outline the details on what the WTO considers to be green box subsidies. Usually, permitted green box subsidies are government-funded programs, programs that include direct income support for farmers, or environmental protection and regional development programs. It is argued by critics that the sale of agricultural products below real cost is legitimized through this policy and that richer countries such as the United States and those within the EC provide significant subsidies to staple crops such as corn or wheat, which then results in product dumping in developing countries. The Blair House Agreement on agriculture, developed in November 1992 during the Global Asset Allocation era, is also an interesting point of contention for WTO members. This bilateral agreement between the United States and the EC provides a system of exemptions that allow for continued farmer subsidies in both the United States and EC communities. This

World Trade Organization

agreement provided the EC with the flexibility to implement domestic support and export subsidy reduction targets.

Criticism of the WTO Criticisms of the WTO are varied. Some critics believe that the WTO should be abolished, while others believe in reforming the organization. The majority of critics have charged that the WTO has been responsible for furthering the gap between the rich and the poor and, more specifically, that the WTO trade agreements hurt small farmers. Proponents of the free trade system believe that by operating under the law of comparative advantage, nations will specialize, and this will lead to greater efficiency in production and cost. Proponents further state that this efficiency will lead to an increase in standards of living, higher rates of employment, and greater economic growth. However, critics argue that this vision has not been and will never be realized under the WTO trade system. With the abolishment of a minimum price system for farmers, the prices of many commodities have gone down, while the cost of farming and farm inputs (resources, e.g., seed, fertilizer, and equipment) has gone up. There is also significant pressure on developing countries to open up their agricultural markets to cheaper foreign products that, they claim, destroy the local agricultural economy. Furthermore, due to international pressure to specialize and produce certain commodities/cash crops, many farmers are vulnerable to fluctuation in market prices that leads to increased farm debt and, in some cases, hunger. Critics have argued that the WTO holds countries and small farmers hostage to unpredictable international market forces, most notably the stock market. They propose that agriculture prices at the basic level should take into account the costs of growing, labor, and maintaining the land. With respect to the ban on hormone-treated beef, critics argue that the WTO ruling is an example of how the organization favors international trade while undermining the precautionary principle and the health and safety of residents even

1493

though the WTO claims that the legitimacy of measures such as banning certain products must be established through scientific evidence. In the case of the hormone ban, critics point out that the WTO dispute panels (which mostly consist of economists, lawyers, or trade experts) have no capacity to judge scientific evidence. Furthermore, determining a product’s safety based on current science is premature and insufficient to predict potential long-term risks. In terms of transparency, democracy, and decision making, opponents of the WTO argue that the WTO has grown increasingly more powerful yet has very little accountability. Proponents of the WTO counter this view by maintaining that the WTO is a transparent and democratic organization based on a one member one vote basis. However, critics charge that the richer countries and their lobbyists bully many developing countries, as many developing countries do not have the capacity nor the financial resources to participate in the complex negotiation process or in the filing of disputes. Critics have also charged that the WTO is not being inclusive and transparent, pointing out the existence of exclusive meetings to which certain countries were invited, while others were not invited to participate. Some have argued that the WTO’s rules and agreements often require that member countries change their agricultural policies, intellectual property laws, and, at times, their constitutions to serve the purposes of opening the market and furthering free trade. Reformists believe that considering the changing times and the changing market conditions, the WTO should reflect on its current framework and modernize the organization. Although in principle the WTO members each have one vote, some WTO members from developing countries claim that the larger and more developed nations have more influence and have often joined forces with other developed nations to exert pressure against them. Reformists argue that the WTO needs to strengthen the role of its executive staff, increase transparency, develop a more equitable framework in dealing with informal negotiations, and improve the procedure and enforcement of sanctions. It is

1494

World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF)

uncertain whether or not the WTO will adopt these reforms and whether the organization is open to considering alternative views to free trade. Tammara Soma See also Anti-Globalization Movements/World Trade Organization; Fair Trade; Tariffs

Further Readings Bohne, E. (2010). The World Trade Organization: Institutional development and reform. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Buterbaugh, K., & Fulton, R. (2008). The WTO primer: Tracing trade’s visible hand through case studies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Danaher, K., & Burbach, R. (2000). Globalize this! The battle against the World Trade Organization and corporate rule. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Jawara, F., & Kwa, A. (2003). Behind the scenes at the WTO: The real world of international trade negotiations. New York, NY: Zed Books. Josling, T. (2003). Key issues in the World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(3), 663–667. Macrory, P. F. J., Appleton, A. E., & Plummer, M. G. (2005). World Trade Organization: Legal, economic and political analysis. Boston, MA: Springer. Narlikar, A. (2003). The World Trade Organization: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Patel, R. (2007). Stuffed and starved: The hidden battle for the world’s food system. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: HarperCollins. Stewart, T. P. (1999). The GATT Uruguay round: A negotiating history (1986–1994). Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

WORLD WIDE OPPORTUNITIES ORGANIC FARMS (WWOOF)

ON

World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF) is an international network of organizations that matches visitors (WWOOFers) with organic farm hosts. The goal is to spread knowledge

about organic farming techniques and sustainable ways of living to a new generation of would-be farmers and young adults looking for ways to reduce their negative impact on the environment. Visitors are provided with experiential learning, and farmers are provided with a network of volunteer learners within a structure that presumes mutual understanding about basic expectations for learning about and helping with farm activities. With WWOOF hosts in nearly 100 countries, WWOOFers and hosts find that expectations and experiences may in fact vary. This entry focuses on the rewards and challenges of WWOOFing.

A Brief History of WWOOF WWOOF began in 1971 in the United Kingdom with an informal arrangement between a few willing volunteers from London and an organic farm in Sussex. As the idea spread, it came to be known by the founder’s name as Sue Coppard’s Land Army and then as Working Weekends on Organic Farms. The basic concept was that volunteers would learn about organic farming techniques and, in exchange for helping with farm tasks, would be provided with accommodation and food. The name was changed to Willing Workers on Organic Farms, as WWOOF spread to other countries and farm stays lengthened. Then the word work began raising warning flags for various countries’ labor and immigration authorities. In 2000, the name was changed to World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms. Some 56 countries have national WWOOF organizations. These organizations are independent and vary in size and scope. As an example, WWOOF USA listed 1,600 host farms in 2013, and WWOOF UK listed 550 hosts. WWOOF Moldova has 9 hosts and 19 active WWOOFers, and WWOOF Kazakhstan has 11 WWOOFers but no active hosts. Most national organizations, but not all (e.g., WWOOF Nepal), publish a host list, which can be accessed by members. Some WWOOF organizations have a particular focus. For example, WWOOF Nigeria focuses on school garden projects.

World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF)

Fees charged to WWOOFers and hosts vary from one national organization to another, as do levels of organization and quality of information provided for and about hosts. Some national WWOOF organizations charge no fee. Systems for providing feedback on hosts (by WWOOFers) and on WWOOFers (by hosts) vary and are not systematically used either by WWOOFers or by hosts. Some WWOOF organizations (e.g., WWOOF Japan) evaluate host farms to verify their suitability, and others (e.g., WWOOF USA) do not. In countries lacking a national organization, hosts and visitors can join WWOOF Independents, a related organization that serves as an information exchange where the number of host farms is too small to support a national WWOOF organization. WWOOF Independents identifies 253 hosts in 41 countries. Hosts pay nothing but are expected to register annually. WWOOFers pay roughly US$25 to obtain contact information for WWOOF Independent host farms. WWOOF Independents hosts the website and publishes a guide to WWOOFing and a guide to hosting. The remaining details are arranged between the WWOOFer and the host. The first international WWOOF conference was held in 2000 and was attended by representatives from 15 countries, who agreed to draw up guidelines to provide some uniformity across programs. No such guidelines exist as of 2013.

WWOOF Rewards The potential rewards of WWOOFing are numerous. It is one way to pass on skills to a new generation of people interested in exploring organic farming as a way of life. WWOOFing offers international exchange and cross-cultural learning opportunities. Hosts who are proud of the farms and lifestyles that they have developed can share their accomplishments with interested world travelers. WWOOFers enjoy interaction with families of a host country that they would not experience as tourists, and they acquire life skills. Farm families whose ability to travel is constrained by the nature of their work learn about and develop

1495

connections with countries they may never visit. While the costs incurred in hosting may be significant, the assistance provided by willing, though often inexperienced, visitors can also benefit the host. WWOOF hosts may learn from the experiences of WWOOFers who have acquired techniques from different hosts. They may also benefit from developing and refining the lessons that they are passing on to their guests. WWOOFing represents a growing international network based on shared values surrounding sustainable farming.

WWOOF Challenges WWOOFing challenges include mismatched expectations, labor and immigration laws, and insurance. Mismatched Expectations

Mismatched expectations between hosts and WWOOFers are a by-product of international, cross-cultural communication between experienced farmers and novice visitors. The existence of those mismatches of expectations is reflected in the FAQs (frequently asked questions) published by various national WWOOF organization websites and by experience reports posted on the Internet. The varying nature of host farms’ practices and procedures with respect to WWOOFers, together with the lack of common guidelines for national WWOOF organizations, can amplify the challenge. For example, many large WWOOF organizations, including WWOOF USA, do not vet hosts to verify the appropriateness of the host farm or of accommodations for WWOOFers. Others, for example, WWOOF Japan, have a host application process with an annual fee, and the host must be approved by WWOOF Japan. WWOOFers may not be aware of these differences. Accommodations and eating arrangements can vary, as can the interest WWOOFers may have in learning about organic agriculture and sustainable ways of living. A farmer looking for an enthusiastic mentee will be disappointed to encounter a

1496

World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF)

tourist looking for free food and lodging. An enthusiastic trainee will be disappointed to encounter a corner-cutting farmer looking for free labor or a remote rural resident who has little involvement in food production. Immigration Laws

Immigration laws are potential barriers for would-be WWOOFers. WWOOF organizations around the world counsel WWOOFers that these laws are strict and usually prohibit foreign nationals from “working” or even “volunteering” in a host country. While these organizations are careful to emphasize that they cannot help with visas or immigration issues, their websites tend to advise WWOOFers to describe themselves as “visitors,” not “workers” or “volunteers.” Various WWOOF organizations report that visas have been denied and WWOOFers have been denied entry, when immigration officials have not accepted the WWOOFer’s described purpose for entering the country. Some countries, such as New Zealand, have taken the official position that volunteering on farms while receiving free food and accommodation is paid work. On the other hand, New Zealand offers a working holiday visa, which is recommended by WWOOF New Zealand. The working holiday visa originated in the United Kingdom and is available in some 35 countries, but not the United States. Because there is no reciprocity, many countries will not issue working holiday visas to U.S. citizens. There are a few bilateral programs permitting U.S. citizens to work in some countries, including Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea. Labor Laws

Labor laws can be barriers for WWOOF hosts. WWOOFers are visitors, not employees, according to the intent of the international and national organizations. While most national WWOOF organizations publish guidelines about hours that a WWOOFer may expect to be engaged in

experiential learning, these guidelines vary and are not enforced. Moreover, the national organization’s FAQs themselves may be internally inconsistent. Thus, for example, WWOOF USA’s website advises hosts that WWOOFers are expected to spend a half day engaged in farm activities. At the same time, the website advises WWOOFers in its FAQs that they may be expected to help out much longer during some periods such as harvest season. As another example, WWOOF Mexico tells WWOOFers to expect to help with chores 5 to 7 hours per day, but its website goes on to emphasize that WWOOF Mexico does not involve volunteer work and is not a work exchange program. WWOOF France warns hosts that a WWOOFer must not replace a regular employee. It advises hosts seeking employees to contact their local labor exchange. Laws setting fair labor standards and providing for a minimum wage are designed to protect against their circumvention and to protect employees from exploitation. They typically include legal definitions of “employee,” “volunteer,” “intern,” and “trainee” that constrain a host’s ability to characterize the visiting WWOOFer as a nonemployee. WWOOF hosts who are growing food for profit, requiring a full day of work, and providing little or no supervision or education may be unable to demonstrate that the WWOOFer is not an employee, subject to the protections of labor laws. It is possible that the WWOOF host would not prevail, if the WWOOFer were to file a claim for unpaid wages or for workers compensation due to injury. For the WWOOFer to qualify as an intern or trainee in the United States, for example, the WWOOFer, not the host farmer, must be the primary beneficiary of the WWOOFer’s activities. The internship program must provide educational value. The intern must not displace regular employees and must work under close supervision, and the host farm must derive no immediate advantage from the intern’s activities. It may help if the host has an established curriculum and a training program that systematically exposes the

World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF)

intern to most aspects of running the farm. To further demonstrate the program’s educational value and that the WWOOFer is not displacing regular employees, a WOOFer’s unsupervised time spent on routine or repetitive tasks should be limited. In the United States, each state has its own approach to interpreting and enforcing fair labor laws. The State of Washington is unique in having established a farm internship program that provides for oversight by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (SB 6349). This statute, passed in 2009, strictly limits the farm size and annual number of interns allowed in the program. Both the host and the intern must complete form agreements and submit them to the department. It is unknown whether this statute will prove to be a model for other states. Although WWOOF USA does not report adverse experience with either federal or state labor laws, its website also does not warn either hosts or WWOOFers of these potential challenges.

1497

the business has only one employee, including a temporary employee. The California Division of Workers Compensation has fined farmers whose relatives or neighbors have been found helping on their farms without workers compensation insurance. The success of American WWOOF hosts in obtaining workers compensation coverage for nonemployee interns or trainees is unknown. The WWOOF USA website does not report adverse experience with respect to liability or workers compensation insurance. Nor does it warn hosts of potential exposure to claims or fines because the hosts lack or are unable to obtain insurance for their visitors. Charity Kenyon and Michael R. Eaton See also Agritourism; Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Farmers’ Perspective; Family Farms and Rural Depopulation; Organic/Biodynamic Farming; Sustainable Agrifood Systems, Effect on Environment

Further Readings

Insurance

Another challenge for hosts may be obtaining liability insurance coverage. Whether a farmer’s homeowner’s or farm comprehensive general liability policy would provide coverage for injured interns is a topic to be explored with an insurance agent, broker, or attorney. Some countries, for example, Italy, require nonprofits to provide insurance to their members. The WWOOF Italia website provides details of their insurance coverage and represents that the policy satisfies the legal requirements for the lowest possible premium. O V Europa organized as a nonprofit in 2006 to provide insurance for various volunteer groups, including WWOOF volunteers and hosts outside North America. The insurance coverage applies everywhere and covers all WWOOFers except those in North America, including Canada. Within the United States, some states, including, for example, California, require all employers to carry workers compensation insurance, even if

Greenman, A. (2012). The practical guide to WWOOFing. Retrieved from http://www.lulu.com Orsi, J. (2012). Practicing law in the sharing economy: Helping people build cooperatives, social enterprise, and local sustainable economies. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association. Washington State Legislature. (n.d.). Establishing a farm internship program: Washington State Legislature, 2009–2010, SB 6349. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/ summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=6349

Websites O V Europa Insurance: http://www.oveuropa.com United States Department of Labor, New Department of Labor Guidelines on Internships: http://internships .about.com/od/internships101/a/departmentoflabors newguidelinesforinterns.htm World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms: http://www.wwoof.org Worldwide Opportunities on Organic Farms, USA: http://www.wwoofusa.org

X XEROPHTHALMIA Xerophthalmia is a condition of the eye caused by an extreme systemic vitamin A (retinol) deficiency disorder (or VADD). The eye becomes increasingly thick and dry due to keratinization (hardening due to keratin deposits). Blindness usually occurs unless preventive treatment occurs. Xerophthalmia is the leading cause of childhood blindness in the world. Vitamin A deficiency is a serious public health issue and has reached epidemic proportions in parts of the developing world where diets are based on staples low in vitamin A, such as Southeast Asia, parts of Africa, and Latin America. Xerophthalmia appears primarily under conditions of chronically poor diets deficient in vitamin A. Children younger than 5 years suffer the most from xerophthalmia. Infections such as measles, parasites, and diarrheal disease stress young children’s bodies, often precipitating the sudden onset of deficiency conditions like xerophthalmia. Poverty and infectious diseases are the two most common reasons for the rise of xerophthalmia in population groups. The World Health Organization estimates that 195 to 250 million preschool-age children suffer from vitamin A deficiency. The World Health Organization also estimates that 250,000 to 500,000 children become blind each year from vitamin A deficiency, with nearly half of them dying within 12 months after losing their vision.

Xerophthalmia is actually the manifestation of a number of abnormalities associated with vitamin A deficiency, including night blindness (nyctalopia), corneal ulceration, retinopathy, xerosis of the conjunctiva and cornea (Bitot’s spots), keratomalacia, and ocular inflammation. Vitamin A also plays an important role in cell function, growth, immunity, and reproduction. Night blindness is generally one of the first symptoms signaling a deficiency of vitamin A. This reflects the role of vitamin A (retinol) in the formation of rhodopsin, the visual pigment crucial for dark adaptation in receptors on the retina. Ethiopians have 27 names for night blindness, suggesting a long history of the condition in that part of the world, and the Papyrus Ebers (ca. 1520 BCE) chronicles the curing of night blindness in ancient Egypt by squeezing liver into an afflicted person’s eyes. In 1857, the missionary and explorer David Livingstone mentioned what could have been Bitot’s spots in his African bearers’ eyes.

Prevention and Treatment Prevention and treatment programs exist, but are often difficult for the families of affected children to follow up with because of factors such as the distance they must travel to clinics and a lack of financial resources to grow or buy vitamin A–rich foods. Two forms of vitamin A are available in the human diet: (1) preformed vitamin A (retinol and its esterified form, retinyl ester) and (2) provitamin

1499

1500

Xerophthalmia

A carotenoids, which can be converted into vitamin A by normal metabolic processes. Preformed vitamin A is found in foods from animal sources, including dairy products, fish, and meat (especially liver). By far the most important provitamin A carotenoid is beta-carotene. Traditional approaches to the problem of xerophthalmia have included nutrition education, fortification of staple local foods with beta-carotene, and distribution of high-dose supplements of 200,000 IUs to children presenting with the symptoms of vitamin A deficiency. Nutrition education proves effective only when foods rich in vitamin A are within the financial reach of the population in question. The best food sources of preformed vitamin tend to be vitamin A–rich animal foods, such as liver and eggs, and carotenoid-rich dark green or orange fruits and vegetables. Many families of children suffering from vitamin A deficiency cannot afford these foods. Another problem with carotenoid-rich foods is that research results suggest that the bioavailability of provitamin A carotenoids such as beta-carotene is not as high as previously believed. Fortification programs work only when food staples are processed in centralized locations. Given the circumstances of many families in areas where xerophthalmia exists, fortification is not always feasible because families cannot afford these foods either. Some researchers hope that biofortification measures might prove to be a solution to the problem of nutritional blindness. Although it is controversial because it sometimes involves gene manipulation as well as plant breeding, biofortification could be a cost-effective solution to the problem of vitamin A deficiency. For example, genetically engineered golden rice contains beta-carotene (converted by the body into vitamin A). Orange sweet potatoes that, unlike white and yellow sweet potatoes, are high in beta-carotene have been distributed in Uganda under the U.S. global hunger and foot security initiative. As with other carotenoid-rich foods, optimal absorption takes place in the presence of a form of oil or fat. Issues with changes in color, texture, or taste affect the acceptance of new foods like these by affected populations.

The period of weaning presents severe health challenges to the young child. Supplementation with low-cost doses of 200,000 IUs of vitamin A every 6 months for children aged 1 to 5 years helps in the prevention of vitamin A deficiency. Infants 6 months of age or younger receive one dose of 50,000 IUs. Some clinicians believe that supplementation for pregnant women would also be beneficial to the developing child, as well as to the mother. For children with a diagnosis of xerophthalmia, treatment requires 200,000 IUs once a day for 2 days, followed by 4,500 IUs per day. Problems inherent in this approach include the inability of mothers to get the child to a health clinic, if one is nearby, staffed by trained personnel. The problem of toxicity due to these high doses may affect the outcome, as does possible intolerance of the child to the large doses of vitamin A. Although supplementation helps some afflicted children survive, some remain blind or partially blind, placing a huge burden on their families and society. Solutions to the problem of childhood blindness due to vitamin A deficiency will require the cooperation of governments, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), educators, and many other stakeholders. According to D. S. McLaren and K. Kraemer, quoting data from 1968, in spite of interventions and awareness programs, of the 40% of children afflicted with xerophthalmia who survive, 25% still remain completely blind and 50% to 60% are partially blind, unable to attend school or to participate wholly in society. Cynthia D. Bertelsen See also Antioxidants; Codex Alimentarius; Famines; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Vitamins and Other Dietary Supplements

Further Readings McLaren, D. S., & Kraemer, K. (2012). Xerophthalmia. In D. S. McLaren & K. Kraemer (Eds.), Manual on vitamin A deficiency disorders (VADD): Vol. 103.

Xerophthalmia World review of nutrition and dietetics (pp. 65–75). Basel, Switzerland: Karger. Sommer, A. (2008). Vitamin A deficiency and clinical disease: An historical overview. Journal of Nutrition, 138, 1835–1839. Sommer, A., & Vyas, K. S. (2012). A global clinical view on vitamin A and carotenoids. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 96(Suppl.), 1204S–1206S.

1501

World Health Organization. (2009). Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in populations at risk, 1995–2005. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc .who.int/publications/2009/9789241598019_ eng.pdf World Health Organization. (n.d.). Micronutrient deficiencies: Vitamin A deficiency. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/

Resource Guide http://www.ciachef.edu/bachelors-degree-applied -food-studies/

Academic Programs The American University of Rome (Italy) MA in Food Studies http://www.aur.edu/gradschool/graduateprograms/food-studies/introduction/

Cornell University (USA) Division of Nutritional Sciences MS, MS/PhD, PhD in Molecular Nutrition, Human Nutrition, Community Nutrition, International Nutrition, Animal Nutrition, Dietetics Internship http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/

Benedictine University (online, USA) MSc in Nutrition and Wellness http://online.ben.edu/msnw/masters-innutrition-wellness Boston University, Metropolitan College (USA) MLA in Gastronomy https://www.bu.edu/met/adult_college_programs /graduate_school_program/post_graduate_ degree/food_science_degree/index.html Carleton University (Canada) BSc (Honours) in Food Science and Nutrition Program http://www.carleton.ca/chem/fsn/ Chatham University (USA) MA in Food Studies http://www.chatham.edu/mafs City University of London (England) MSc in Food Policy http://www.city.ac.uk/communityandhealth/ phpcfp/foodpolicy/courses/index.html City University of New York: The Graduate Center (USA) PhD in Food Studies http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Degrees-Research/ Doctoral-Programs/InterdisciplinaryConcentrations The Culinary Institute of America (USA) BPS in Applied Food Studies

Cornell University (USA) Department of Food Science BS, MS, MPS, PhD in Food Science and Technology http://foodscience.cornell.edu/ Indiana University, Bloomington (USA) Anthropology of Food, Food Studies PhD Concentration http://www.indiana.edu/~anthro/grad/food Studies/ Institut European d’Histoire et des Cultures de l’Alimentation, Universite de Tours (France) Histoire et Cultures de l’Alimentation, Master d’Histoire et des Cultures de l’Alimentation http://www.iehca.eu Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts (USA) BA, AA, diploma in Culinary Arts BA, AA, diploma in Pâtisserie and Baking Program BA, AA, diploma in Hospitality & Restaurant Management BA, AA, diploma in Culinary Management Online http://www.chefs.edu/

1503

1504

Resource Guide

Le Cordon Bleu International MA, BA, diploma in Culinary Arts BA, AA, diploma in Hospitality Management BA, AA, diploma in Gastronomy http://cordonbleu.edu/ George Mason University (USA) Department of Nutrition and Food Studies Undergraduate Minor in Nutrition Undergraduate Nutrition Certificate Graduate Nutrition Certificate MS in Nutrition http://chhs.gmu.edu/nfs/index.html Green Mountain College (USA) MS in Sustainable Food Systems http://masters.greenmtn.edu/msfs.aspx Gustolab Institute (Italy) Center for Food and Culture Study abroad programs: University of Illinois Urbana Champaign ACES “Food & CultureFood Media”; University of Massachusetts Amherst “Critical Studies on Food in Italy” http://www.gustolab.com/ Marylhurst University (USA) MS in Food Systems and Society http://marylhurst.edu/academics/schoolscolleges-departments/school-graduate-studies/ food-systems-society/ms-food-systemssociety/index.html Metropolitan University College (Denmark) Bachelor’s Degree in Global Nutrition and Health http://www.phmetropol.dk/English New Mexico State University (USA) Department of Anthropology Graduate Minor in Food Studies http://www.nmsu.edu/~anthro/Graduate_ Minor_Food_Studies.html The New School for Public Engagement (USA) BA, BS in Food Studies http://www.newschool.edu/public-engagement/ ba-bs-food-studies/ New York University–Steinhardt (USA) Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health

MA, PhD in Food Studies MPH, PhD in Public Health http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/nutrition/food/ma/ Ryerson University (Canada) School of Nutrition & Center for Studies in Food Security Post-degree Certificate in Food Security http://ce-online.ryerson.ca/ce_2009-2010/ program_sites/program_default.asp?id =2102 Selcuk University (Turkey) Faculty of Vocational Education BA, MA in Family Economy and Nutrition Teaching http://www.selcuk.edu.tr/default_en.aspx Sterling College (USA) BA in Sustainable Agriculture BA in Sustainable Food Systems http://www.sterlingcollege.edu/academics/areasof-study/sustainable-food-systems/ Tufts University (USA) MS, PhD in Agriculture, Food & Environment http://nutrition.tufts.edu/1174562918439/ Nutrition-Page-nl2w_1177953852962 .html The Umbra Institute (Italy) Certificate in Food Studies http://www.umbra.org/academics/food -studies/ Universita degli studi Roma Tre (Italy) Masters in Human Development and Food Security http://host.uniroma3.it/master/human development/index.htm Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC, Open University of Catalonia) (Spain) Food Systems, Culture and Society Masters in Food, Society and International Food Governance Postgraduate diploma in Food Systems and Governance http://www.uoc.edu/masters/eng/master/web/ food_systems_culture_society/ food_systems_ culture_society/

Resource Guide

Université du Québec à Montréal (Canada) Certificate in Management and Sociocultural Practices of Gastronomy http://www.etudier.uqam.ca/programme? code=4035 Université François Rabelais, Tours (France) Master in History and Food Culture http://www.univ-tours.fr University of Barcelona (Spain) Biennial master’s degree in History and Culture of Diet http://www.ub.edu/alimentacio/eng/pres_eng .html University of British Columbia (Canada) Land and Food Systems MFS, MSc, PhD in Food Science MSc, PhD in Integrated Studies in Land and Food Systems MFRE in Food and Resource Economics MSc, PhD in Human Nutrition BS in Agroecology BS in Food, Nutrition, & Health BS in Global Resource Systems http://www.landfood.ubc.ca/graduate/ University of California, Davis (USA) Program in International and Community Nutrition Designated Emphasis in PhD program http://picn.ucdavis.edu/ University of Gastronomic Sciences (Italy) BA in Gastronomic Sciences (in English and Italian) MA in Gastronomy and Food Communications (in English and Italian) MA in Food Culture and Communications (in English) MA in Italian Gastronomy and Tourism (in English) http://www.unisg.it University of London, School of Oriental & African Studies (England) Anthropology & Sociology MA in Anthropology of Food http://www.soas.ac.uk/anthropology/ programmes/maanthoffood/

1505

University of New Hampshire (USA) Dual Major in EcoGastronomy http://www.unh.edu/ecogastronomy/ University of Oregon (USA) Undergraduate Minor in Food Studies Graduate Specialization in Food Studies http://foodstudies.uoregon.edu/ University of the Pacific (USA) MA in Food Studies http://www.pacific.edu/foodstudies University of Vermont Food Systems Graduate Program MSc in Food Systems http://www.uvm.edu/foodsystemsprogram/ Vrije Universiteit Brussel MA in Food History and Culture http://research.vub.ac.be/food-history

Journals Agriculture and Human Values; http://link .springer.com/journal/10460 Annual Review of Food Science and Technology; http://www.annualreviews.org/journal /food Anthropology of Food; http://aof.revues.org/ Appetite; http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ appetite/ British Food Journal; http://www.emeraldinsight .com/journal/bfj Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1541-4337 Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition; http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/bfsn20/current Culture and Agriculture; http://onlinelibrary .wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2153-9561 Eating Behaviors; http://www.journals.elsevier .com/eating-behaviors/ Ecology of Food and Nutrition; http://www .tandfonline.com/loi/gefn20 Family Economics and Nutrition Review; http:// www.cnpp.usda.gov/family-economics-andnutrition-review Food, Culture and Society; http://www.bloomsbury .com/us/journal/food-culture-and-society/

1506

Resource Guide

Food and Foodways; http://www.tandfonline .com/toc/gfof20/current Food & History; http://brepols.metapress.com/ content/121194/?v=editorial Food Microbiology; http://www.journals .elsevier.com/food-microbiology/ Food Policy; http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ food-policy/ Food Quality and Preference; http://www .journals.elsevier.com/food-quality-andpreference/ Food Research International; http://www .journals.elsevier.com/food-researchinternational/ Food Reviews International; http://www .tandfonline.com/toc/lfri20/current Gastronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies; http://www.gastronomica.org/ Hospitality & Society; http://www.intellectbooks .co.uk/journals/view-Journal,id=194/ International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity; http://www.ijbnpa.org/ International Journal of Food Microbiology; http://www.journals.elsevier.com/internationaljournal-of-food-microbiology/ International Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and Food; http://www.ijsaf.org/ Journal of Agrarian Change; http://onlinelibrary .wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1471-0366 Journal of Animal Science; http://www.journal ofanimalscience.org/ Journal of Food Distribution Research; http:// ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/36440 Journal of Food Science; http://onlinelibrary .wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1750-3841 Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior; http://www.jneb.org/ Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; http://www.andjrnl.org/ Journal of Sensory Studies; http://onlinelibrary .wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1745-459X Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/ (ISSN)1097-0010 NFS Journal (Society of Nutrition and Food Science); http://www.snfs.org/journal.html

Petits Propos Culinaires; https://prospectbooks .co.uk/ppc-petits-propos-culinaires/ Public Health Nutrition; http://journals .cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=PHN

Organizations and Annual Conferences Academy for Eating Disorders; http://www .aedweb.org/web/index.php Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; http://www .eatright.org/ Agriculture, Food & Human Values Society; http://afhvs.org/ American Farmland Trust; http://www.farmland .org/ American Society for Nutrition; http://www .nutrition.org/ Amsterdam Symposium on the History of Food; http://bijzonderecollectiesuva.nl/ foodhistory/amsterdam-symposium-on-the -history-of-food/ Association for the Study of Food and Society; http://www.food-culture.org/ The European Food Information Council; http:// www.eufic.org/ Food Studies Conference (Open Ground Publishing); http://food-studies.com/theconference FOST (Social and Cultural Food Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel); http://research.vub.ac.be/ food-history Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; http:// www.iatp.org/ Institute for Food Safety and Health; http://www .iit.edu/ifsh/ Institute of Food Science and Technology; http:// www.ifst.org/ Institute of Food Technologists; https://www .ift.org/ International Association of Culinary Professionals; http://www.iacp.com/ International Chefs Congress; http://www .cvent.com/events/10th-annual-starchefs-cominternational-chefs-congress/event-summary1b1fb882566f4552a12f00d58393d2fe.aspx

Resource Guide

International Ethnological Food Research Group; http://www.siefhome.org/wg/fr/index .shtml International Forum on Food and Nutrition; http://www.barillacfn.com/en/eventi/5international-forum-on-food-nutrition/ International Union of Food Science and Technology; http://www.iufost.org/ Greater Midwest Foodways Alliance; http://www .greatermidwestfoodways.com/ The Land Institute; http://www.landinstitute.org/ Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture; http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/ National Restaurant Association; http://10times .com/national-restaurant-association National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; http:// sustainableagriculture.net/

1507

Oxford Symposium on Food & Cookery; http:// www.oxfordsymposium.org.uk/ Rodale Institute; http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ Society for the Anthropology of Food and Nutrition; http://foodanthro.com/ Society of Nutrition and Food Science; http:// www.snfs.org/ Soil and Water Conservation Society; http://www .swcs.org/ Southern Food & Beverage Museum; http:// southernfood.org/ Southern Foodways Alliance; https://www .southernfoodways.org/ Sustainable Agriculture Education Association; http://sustainableaged.org/ World Resources Institute; http://www.wri .org/

Index Entry titles and their page numbers are in bold, and a volume number precedes the page number. Figures and tables are indicated with (fig.) and (table).

A&P, 2:743–744, 2:818 A&W Root Beer, 2:477 Abalone, fishing policies and, 2:519 Abarca, Meredith, 1:84 Abbott Laboratories, 1:71–72, 1:93 ABC stores, 2:901 Abdu’l-Bahá, 2:693–694 Aboveground Storage Tank Water Resources Protection Act (2014), 3:1456 Absolut Vodka, 3:1319 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2:695, 2:797, 3:1040, 3:1472 Accelerating Progress in Obesity (McGuire), 3:1057 “Acceptable daily intake,” 2:503 Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture Initiative, 2:547 Accion International, 2:956 Accum, Frederick Carl, 2:670 Ace Hotel, 2:702 Achatz, Grant, 1:349, 2:501, 2:980, 2:982 Acidification, of soil, 3:1285 ACQTASTE, 2:591 Acqua Panna, 2:982 Action Aid, 1:452 Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases (WHO), 2:926 Activated water rights, 3:1468 Activia, 3:1037 Actual versus constructive knowledge, 2:905–906 Acute hyperglycemia, 1:356 Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, 2:875 Adamchack, Raoul W., 2:651 Adams, Carol, 3:1422 Adams, John, 1:34 Addiction Recovery Program, 2:994 Administration on Aging, 1:395 Adrenaline auto-injectors (AAI), 2:542–544 Adrià, Ferran, 1:297–298, 2:501, 2:979–982, 3:1197

Adulteration, food safety and, 2:608 Adulteration of Food Act (1872), 2:527 Adulteration of Food and Drink Act (1860), 2:527 Advanced Publications, 2:588 Advent Awakening movement, 3:1255 Advertising Age, 2:590, 3:1065–1066, 3:1387–1388 Advertising and marketing of food (in general), 1:1–6 advertising and marketing, defined, 1:1 art depicting food in advertising, 1:68 buzzwords and humor in, 1:5 consumer choice, 1:5 dairy industry and, 1:339 food blogging, 1:3–4 food labels and branding, 2:877 food packaging, 3:1108 generic brands, 2:708–710 grocery stores and supermarkets, marketing practices, 2:743–744 historic perspective, 1:1–3 junk food advertising bans, 1:108 magazine and newspaper advertising, 2:936–939 marketing boards, 2:941–945 online advertising, 3:1065–1068 pet food, 3:1139–1140 restaurant chefs, 3:1194 social media, 1:3 strategy and, 1:5–6 subliminal advertising, 3:1318–1320 trademarks, 3:1376–1390 YouTube and viral videos, 1:4–5 Advertising and marketing of food to children, 1:6–9 advertising and marketing, defined, 1:6 beverage industry and, 1:119–120 of “children’s foods,” 1:213–214 contemporary practices, 1:8 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:530–533 historical perspective, 1:6–8

1509

1510

Index

regulation efforts, 1:8–9 regulatory prohibitions, 1:9 self-regulatory efforts, 1:9 shelving and product placement, 3:1262–1263 Advertising Self-Regulatory Council, 3:1364 Advertising Standards Canada, 1:9 Affirmative action, 1:404–405 Aflatoxins, 1:9–12 acute and chronic aflatoxicosis, symptoms and prevalence, 1:9–10 classification of, 1:9 food safety, 2:607 prevention and monitoring of, in food supply, 1:11–12 Africa global climate change and future food supply, 2:719–723 hunger in, 2:808 international food security, 2:848 soil degradation and conservation, 3:1287–1288 street food in, 3:1310–1311 See also Nigeria; individual names of countries African Climate Solution Group, 2:875 African National Congress, 2:666 Agatston, Arthur, 2:916–918, 3:1475 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 1:149 Aging, population and food supply issues of, 3:1148 Agrarianism, 1:12–17 agrarian demonstration and food riots, 2:603 ecological, 1:14–15 evolution of concept, 1:12–13 limitations of, 1:16–17 literary, 1:16 “new agrarianism,” 1:13–14 religious, 1:16 urban, 1:15–16 Agreement of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (1995), 1:248 Agreement on Agriculture, 2:547, 2:942 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), 1:244 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 2:840–843 Agricultural Act (1948), 1:453 Agricultural Act (1949), 1:453 Agricultural Act (1954), 1:453 Agricultural Act (1956), 1:453 Agricultural Act (1965), 1:453 Agricultural Act (1970), 1:454 Agricultural Act (2014), 1:454, 1:458 Agricultural acts. See Farm bills Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933), 1:453, 3:1320, 3:1412 Agricultural Adjustment Act (1938), 1:453 Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories (University of Georgia), 1:201–202

Agricultural Census (2007), 1:472–473 Agricultural extension units, 2:893–894 Agricultural knowledge, science, and technology (AKST), 2:843–846 Agricultural Marketing Act (1929), 3:1412 Agricultural Marketing Act (1946), 2:611, 2:829 Agricultural Marketing and Agreement Act (1937), 2:709 Agricultural Marketing Development Fund, 2:942 Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA), 2:627, 2:829–830 Agricultural Testament Farming Farming, An (Howard), 1:277–278, 3:1089 Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, 1:476, 2:834, 3:1314 Agriculture Act (2014), 3:1415 Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act (1973), 1:454 Agriculture and Food Act (1981), 1:454 Agriculture at a Crossroads (FAO), 2:875 Agriculture Risk Protection Act (2000), 1:323 Agritourism, 1:17–21 contemporary, 1:18–19 economic impact of, 1:20 evolution of, 1:18 farmers’ markets, 1:469 multifunctionality in agriculture, 2:1000–1001 variations on, 1:19–20 Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer, 2:712 Agrobiotechnology. See Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) Agroecology, 2:809–811, 2:1000–1001, 3:1018, 3:1137 Aguilera, Christina, 3:1361 Agyeman, Julian, 2:580, 2:652 Ahara (diet), 1:86 Ahl-al-Kitab, 2:758–759 Ahmad, A., 2:1000 Ahold, 2:819 Aiello, Leslie, 3:1113–1115 Aihara, Cornellia, 2:930 Aihara, Herman, 2:766, 2:930 Ainsworth, Scott, 2:583 Air France, 1:21 Air Union, 1:21 Airline meals, 1:21–22 historical development of, 1:21 role and production of, 1:21–22 types of, 1:22 Ajinomoto Company, 3:1396 Alar, 1:22–25 “Alar scare,” 1:24–25 ban on, 1:23–25 effect of, on plants, 1:22–23 Alaska pollock, fishing policies, 2:523 Alaskan salmon, fishing policies and, 2:521

Index Albert, Eddie, 1:24 Albertsons, 1:295, 1:396, 3:1166 Alcohol, 1:25–29 artisanal spirits, 1:79–83 bioethanol “wine,” 1:128 as cancer-fighting food, 1:163 as carcinogen, 1:175 cultural beliefs and practices, 1:25–26 as food versus drug, 1:26–27 French Paradox, 2:680 halal dietary laws and, 2:759 liquor stores, 2:900–902 mixology, 2:972–975 popularity of, 1:28 protected designation of origin (PDO), 3:1171–1174 smuggling history and, 3:1275–1276 social tasks of, 1:27–28 Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (Department of the Treasury), 1:30–32, 1:80, 1:167, 2:885, 3:1339 Alcohol industry, regulation and taxation of, 1:29–33 labeling, standards, and packaging, 1:31–32 licensing, 1:30 modern-day alcohol industry and, 1:32–33 taxation, 1:30–31 three-tier system, 1:29–30 Alcohol regulations, history of, 1:33–37 ancient regulations, 1:33–34 colonial American laws, 1:34–35 Eighteenth Amendment, 1:27, 1:31, 1:36, 2:973 present-day legislation, 1:36–37 Temperance movement, 1:35 twentieth-century regulations, 1:36 Twenty-First Amendment, 1:29, 1:36, 2:973 Aldi, 2:709, 2:743, 2:745 Alexa, 3:1470 Alexander I (tsar of Russia), 1:193 Algonquins, pellagra and, 3:1124 Alimentation Couche Tard, 1:292 Alinea, 1:348–349, 2:501, 2:980, 2:982 Alkon, Alison, 2:580, 2:652 All Bran (Kellogg), 2:887, 3:1363–1364 All Pro Eating, 1:273, 1:274–275 All Pro Eating (APE), 1:273 Allan, John Anthony, 3:1458 Allen, Roy, 2:477 Allen, Will, 2:579 Alliance for a Green Revolution, 2:715 Alliance for a Healthier Generation, 1:120 Alliance for Better Foods, 2:688 Alliance for Food and Farming, 2:689 Alliance to Feed the Future, 2:687–689 Allman, T. P., 3:1374 Allrecipes, 1:60

1511

AllRecipes, 3:1470 Almond Board of California, 2:944 Alternative fuels, sustainable agrifood systems and, 3:1334–1335 Altria Group, 2:583 Amazon, 1:298, 2:747, 2:918, 2:943, 3:1070 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 1:23, 1:96–97, 3:1080, 3:1291 American American Viticulture Area (AVA) (label), 3:1369 American Association of Bovine Practitioner’s, 1:190 American Association of Pediatrics (AAP), 1:149–150, 3:1056 American Association of Swine Veterinarians, 3:1449 American Backflow Prevention Association, 3:1374 American Bar Association, 3:1038 American Beverage Association, 1:117–120, 2:583, 2:689, 3:1355 American Bird Conservancy, 2:584 American Cancer Society (ACS), 1:160–163, 1:173–177, 2:996, 3:1437 American Cereal Company, 3:1387 American Chemical Paint Company, 2:770 American Cleaning Institute, 1:46 American Community Gardening Association (ACGA), 1:264–265 American Cookery, 2:587–588 American Correctional Association, 3:1168 American Council on Science and Health, 1:24, 2:689 American Craft Distillers Association, 1:80 American Culinary Federation (ACF), 1:390–391, 1:392, 3:1191, 3:1193–1194 American Distilling Institute (ADI), 1:80–82 American Enterprise Institute (AEI), 2:687 American Express Publishing Company, 2:588 American Farm Bureau Federation, 1:453, 1:454, 2:583, 2:686 American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, 2:687 American Federal Trade Mark Act, 3:1387 American Fish Culture Society, 1:63 American Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (2004), 2:540 “American” foods, in ethnic grocery stores, 1:413 American Grassfed Association (AGA), 2:732, 2:734 American Heart Association (AHA) beverage industry, 1:120 cardiac disease and diet, 1:179–180 cholesterol, 1:226 dietary fats, 2:483, 2:484 junk food, 2:861 low-sodium foods, 2:925 recipe testing, 3:1181 trans fat, 3:1390

1512

Index

vegetarianism and veganism, 3:1437 vending machines, 3:1442 weight loss diets, 3:1474 American Hotel & Lodging Educational Institute, 1:390–391 American Institute for Cancer Research, 1:161, 1:163–164 American Jacob Sheep Registry, 2:775 American Journal of Public Health, 1:121, 2:861 American Lung Association, 2:666 American Marketing Association, 1:6, 3:1388 American Medical Association, 2:484–485, 2:930 American Natural Hygiene Society, 2:694 American Physiological Society, 2:765 American Poultry Association (APA), 2:772–773 American Press Institute, 3:1022 American Psychological Association, 1:214 American Public Health Association, 3:1020 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), 2:627, 2:629 American Red Cross, 1:135 American Soybean Association, 3:1425 American Vegetarian Convention, 3:1428 American Wasteland: How America Throws Away Nearly Half of its Food (and What We Can Do About It ) (Bloom), 2:672 American Way of Eating, The (McMillan), 2:650 Americans Against Food Taxes, 1:119, 3:1355 “America’s Farmers” campaign, 2:687 America’s Test Kitchen (company), 2:590, 3:1471 America’s Test Kitchen (television program), 2:640–641 AminoSweet, 3:1015 Ams, Charles, 1:168 Amy’s Ice Creams, 2:822 Anatolia Foundation, 3:1249 Anconi, Janine, 1:69 Anderson, Michael, 1:326 Anderson, Tracy, 1:97 Andreas, Peter, 3:1275 Andrés, José, 1:84 Andrews, David, 3:1141 Angelic Organics, 1:267, 1:269 Anheuser-Busch, 1:144, 3:1033, 3:1166 Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life (Kingsolver), 2:648 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA), 2:611–612, 2:853 Animal Factories (Mason, Singer), 1:431 Animal feed, toxicity testing, 3:1385 Animal feeding operations, 1:338–339 Animal Liberation Front, 1:39 Animal Liberation (Singer), 1:37–39, 2:650 Animal Machines (Harrison), 1:431, 3:1141 Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, 2:827

Animal rights, 1:37–42 animal welfare, defined, 1:430 bans on food and hunting, 1:104–106 birth of movement, 1:38–39 cattle industry and animal welfare issues, 1:188–190 dairy industry and, 1:335–339 DIY food movement and animal welfare, 1:375 eating animals and, 1:39–41 fishing for sport, 2:512–513 front groups, 2:687 grass-fed beef, 2:733 historic perspective, 1:38 hunting, 2:816 impact of animal rights movement on food habits, 1:41 naturally raised and fed meats, 3:1018–1019 performance art and, 3:1127 placentophagy and, 1:44 poultry industry, 3:1157–1158 veganism and, 3:1422 vegetarianism and, 3:1429 in vitro meat, 2:832–834 See also Ethical issues; Factory farming; individual religious dietary practices Animal Rights International, 1:39 Anisakis, 2:607 Anke.ca Organics, 3:1070 Anne (queen of England), 1:222 Anorexia, 3:1317–1318 Anthropophagy, 1:42–45 anthropophagous criminals, 1:43–44 art and politics, 1:44–45 defined, 1:42 evidence of, 1:42–43 in popular culturegy, 1:43 prion diseases, 1:43–44 survival and medicinal anthropophagy, 1:43 Anthroposophy, biodynamic food and, 1:125 Antibacterial soaps, detergents, and dishwashing liquids, 1:45–47 antimicrobial agents in, 1:46 categories of antibacterial agents, 1:45–46 categories of soaps and detergents, 1:46 defined, 1:45 regulation, 1:46 using soap and water versus, 1:46–47 Antibiotics and superbugs, 1:47–50 antibiotic resistance, 1:47–49 antibiotic use in food, 1:50 antibiotics used for animals, 2:675–677, 2:715 causes of antibiotic resistance, 1:49–50 development of antibiotics and, 1:50 historical perspective, 1:47

Index Anti-globalization movements/World Trade Organization, 1:51–54 food-related arguments, 1:52–54 globalization overview, 1:51–52 WTO history and, 1:52 See also World Trade Organization Antioxidants, 1:54–55 cancer and, 1:161–164, 1:176 role of, 1:54–55 sources of, 1:55 Anti-Saloon League campaign, 1:35 Anti-Slavery Campaign, 1:475–476 Antitrust laws, 1:55–60 boycotts and, 1:145 food company mergers and acquisitions (2012-2013), 1:55–57, 1:56 (table) grocery brands, consolidation, 1:57 grocery retailers, consolidation, 1:57 policy issues, 1:57–58 Appadurai, Arjun, 1:84, 2:580 Appeal to Reason (newspaper), 2:951 Appelbombe, Peter, 1:258 Appellation and indications of origin (AIO), 3:1171 Appellations of origin (AO), 3:1171 Appert, Nicolas, 1:167, 1:170–171 Apple, 1:60, 1:276, 1:298, 1:310, 1:318 Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar, 1:181–183, 1:185 Apples, Alar and, 1:23 Appliance Magazine, 3:1185 Applied Research Center (ARC), 1:397–398 Apprenticeships, in food service industries, 1:391 Appropriate scale, circular food systems and, 1:234 Apps for food, 1:60–62 crowdsourced reviews of restaurants, 1:326–327, 3:1212 future of, 1:61 marketplace and popularity, 1:60 marketplace shortcomings, 1:61 reviews of, 1:60–61 AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., 2:714 Aquaculture/fish farming, 1:62–64 aquaponics, 1:64–67 business of, 1:63–64 criticism of, 1:64 dead zones in fisheries, 1:340–342 fish contaminants, 2:502–507 fishing industry and, 2:516–518 historical perspective, 1:62–63 types of, 1:63 AquAdvantage fish, 2:714, 2:881 Aquafina (Pepsi), 3:1455 Aquaponics, 1:64–67 choosing fish and plants for, 1:66 cultivating fish and plants for, 1:66–67

1513

locating facility for, 1:67 overview, 1:64–65 production rates and, 1:67 systems design, 1:66 traditional methods compared to, 1:65 waste materials and, 1:65–66 Aramark, 1:257, 1:316–317, 1:396 Arbitron, 3:1361 Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), 2:529, 2:921, 3:1424 Archestratus, 2:497 Architectural Digest, 3:1392 Arctic Cooperatives, 1:314 Arellano, Gustavo, 1:85 Aristotle, 3:1448 Arizona Iced Tea, 2:879 Arizona Republic, 3:1024 Ark of Taste, 3:1268 Armed Forces Recipe Service, 2:965 Armour, 2:946–947, 2:948 Armstrong, Louis, 2:570 Army Quartermaster Corps, 2:854–855 Art, anthropophagy as, 1:44–45 Art and Science of Dumpster Diving, The (Hoffman), 2:674 Art de la cuisine Française, L’ (Carême), 2:499 Art depicting food, 1:67–69 examples, 1:68–69 overview, 1:67–68 Art using food as a medium, 1:69–70 examples, 1:69–70 logistical considerations, 1:70 Artificial flavors and fragrances. See Natural and artificial flavors and fragrances Artificial sweeteners, 1:70–74 aspartame, 1:72–73 cyclamates, 1:71–72 saccharin, 1:71, 2:550 sucralose, stevia, and modern artifical sweeteners, 1:73–74 Artisanal foods, 1:74–79 artisan donut shops, 1:380 community building and, 1:78 defining, 1:77 economic sustainability and, 1:77–78 history of, 1:74–77 regulation and food safety, 1:78 Artisanal spirits, 1:79–83 distiller categories and definitions, 1:79–80 Prohibition and, 1:80–81 small and large artisanal producers, 1:81–83 Arton, 1:299 Ascaris lumbricoides, 2:607 ASDA, 2:819 Asia convenience stores in, 1:293 cooperatives in, 1:314

1514

Index

frozen food, 2:692 global climate change and future food supply, 2:719–723 See also individual names of countries Asian Farmers Association for Sustainable Rural Development, 1:53 Asociacion de Loncheros, 2:634 Asparagus Festival (Stockton, California), 2:564–565 Aspartame, 1:72–73, 3:1014–1015 Aspen (Colorado), smoking ban in, 3:1271 Aspergillus fungi, 2:607 Asset reorganization. See Bankruptcy laws Assize of Bread and Ale (AssisaPanis et Cervisiae) (laws), 1:98, 2:967, 3:1386 Association for Convenience and Fuel Retailing, 2:970 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, 1:135 Association of American Railroads, 2:950 Association of Animal Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), 3:1139 Association of Dressings and Sauces., 2:687 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 3:1392 Association of Independent Competitive Eaters, 1:274–275 Association of Public Health Laboratories, 1:383 Associazione Verace Pizza Napoletana (The True Neapolitan Pizza Society), 3:1144 Astro Biobest Antiox Yogurt, 2:938 At Home With Madhur Jaffrey, 1:297 Athenaeus, 1:33 Athens (Ohio) Food Policy Council, 2:599 Atkins, Robert C., 2:651–652, 2:916, 2:918, 3:1475 Atkins Diet, 2:485, 2:915–919, 3:1477. See also Low-carbohydrate diets Atkins Diet and Philosophy, The (Bentley), 2:918–919 Atkins For Life (Atkins), 2:916 Atomic Energy Commission, 2:854–855 Attaway, J. A., 1:163 Atwater, W. O., 3:1414 Atwater, William, 3:1473–1474 Au Bon Pain, 1:181 Aunt Jemima, 3:1387–1389 Austin (Texas), food trucks in, 2:636 Australia food trucks in, 2:637 MSG, 2:992 Australian Wheat Board, 2:943 Authenticity of cuisines, 1:83–86 authenticating foods, 1:85–86 authenticity in food studies, 1:86 connotation of “authentic,” 1:83–84 cookbooks and, 1:84–85 ethnic restaurants as authentic versus staged, 1:417 globalization and, 1:86 in mass media, 1:85 “staged authenticity,” 1:85

Automated Point of Sale Machine (U.S. Patent 5083638), 3:1253 Automatic Canteen Co., 1:317 Automats, 1:159, 3:1348, 3:1440 Aversion to foods. See Disgust Avocados, as cancer-fighting food, 1:161 AVRDC (World Vegetable Center), 3:1241 Ayurveda and diet, 1:86–92 Ayurvedic concepts, 1:87 diet, digestion, and metabolism, 1:87–88 dietetic factors of, 1:89–92, 1:90 (tables) holistic medicine, 2:789 individual differences in nutritional need, 1:89 role of taste in nutrition, 1:88, 1:89 (tables) Aztec culture art using food as medium in, 1:69–70 chocolate and, 1:221–222 military rations, 2:963 B12 (vitamin), 3:1435–1436, 3:1437 Baba, S., 1:223 Babcock, Stephen M., 3:1414 Babette’s Feast (film), 2:569 Babies Are Human Beings, 1:96 Baby food, 1:93–98 adult use of, 1:97 commercial food companies, 1:94–95 experts’ recommendations for, 1:96–97 formula and cereal, 1:93–94 homemade, 1:95–96 safety of, 1:95 Baby Food Diet, 1:97 Bacardi Rum, 2:975 Bachoco, 3:1033 Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), 2:713–715 Back of the house (restaurants) industry labor and labor unions, 2:836 restaurant management, 3:1204 “Back-to-the-land” movement, 1:76 Backward vertical integration, 3:1444–1445 Bacteria, 2:605–607 food safety and, 2:605–607 foodborne illness and, 2:653–655 HACCP and, 2:761–762 probiotic, 2:889–891 sprouts and, 3:1300–1301 street food, 3:1311 types of, 2:605–607 (See also E. coli; Listeria; Salmonella) See also Food safety; Foodborne illness; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Home fermentation; individual names of bacteria Baez, Joan, 1:144 Baha’i Faith, 2:693–694 Bailey, Liberty Hyde, 1:13–14

Index Baillie, Jonathan, 1:401 Bain Capital, LLC, 1:180 Baker, John C., 1:99 Bakeries, 1:98–101 bread processing and, 1:146–149 history of, 1:98–99 trends, risks, challenges, and role of, 1:100 twentieth-century technology and business models developed, 1:99 twentieth-first-century practices, 1:99–100 See also Donut shops Balance and Columbian Repository, The, 2:972 Balanced vertical integration, 3:1445 Balcones Distilling, 1:81 Balfour, Eve, 3:1089 Ball (jars), 1:75 Bamberger, Michelle, 2:666 BancoSol, 2:956 Band of Mercy, 1:39 B&G Foods, 3:1265 Banerjee, M., 1:202 Bankruptcy laws, 1:101–104 Chapter 7, 1:101 Chapter 9, 1:101–102 Chapter 11, 1:102 Chapter 12, 1:102–103 Chapter 13, 1:103–104 Chapter 15, 1:103–104 Bans on food, cultural and health-related, 1:104–109 cultural ethics and animal welfare, 1:104–105 healthy food movement and fatty food bans, 1:106–109 overfishing, endangered species, taboo food, 1:105–106 smuggling and bans, 3:1276 Banting, William, 2:915, 3:1473, 3:1475 Banting Diet, 2:915 Bar codes, for tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1344 Bar food, 1:109–111 across U.S., 1:110–111 trends, 1:109–110 Barański, M., 1:161 Barefoot Contessa Foolproof (Garten), 1:297 Barger, Jorn, 1:137 Barilla, 3:1067 Barley flour, milling of, 2:967 Barnard, Neil, 3:1420 Barnard College, 1:256 Bartending profession, 2:972–973, 2:975 Barter and the informal economy, 1:111–115 definitional and theoretical issues of barter, 1:112–113 definitional and theoretical issues of informal economy, 1:113

1515

food and, 1:113–114 overview, 1:111–112 scale and scope of, 1:112 BASF, 2:529, 2:714, 2:881, 2:990 Baskin-Robbins, 2:822 Basmati rice, anti-globalization movements and, 1:54 Bassett, Thomas, 1:263 Bataille-Benguigui, Marie-Claire, 3:1279 Batali, Mario, 2:639, 2:702, 3:1194 Bateson, John, 3:1253 Batterberry, Ariane, 2:588 Batterberry, Michael, 2:588 Battistone, Sam, 3:1120 Battle Creek Sanitarium, 2:765 Bauccio, Fedele, 3:1141 Bauman, Zygmunt, 1:432–433 Baumann, Shyon, 1:83–84 Bayer, 2:990 Bayless, Rick, 1:84 BBC, 1:306 Beall Degerminator, 3:1123 “Beans and Cornbread” (song), 2:570 Bear, minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Beard, James, 1:194, 2:590, 3:1025, 3:1194 Beard on Food (Beard), 3:1025 Beatles, 2:570 Becherer, John, 2:688 Beckham, David, 3:1361 Beddington, John, 2:737 Beech-Nut, 1:94, 1:97, 3:1262 Beef aversion to meat, 3:1430 Christian food restrictions and, 1:227 cooking temperature, minimum, 1:308 E. coli, 1:382 effect of climate change on meat production, 2:722 free-range, 2:677–679 naturally raised and fed meats, 3:1016–1021 nitrate, nitrite, and cured versus uncured meats, 3:1025–1029 welfare of beef cattle, 1:189 See also Animal rights; Cattle industry; Free-range meats and poultry; Grass-fed beef; Growth hormones and other drugs in meat products; Halal food; Kosher food; Meat processing; Naturally raised and fed meats; Nitrate, nitrite, and cured versus uncured meats Beef Trust, 2:946 Beer, home brewing of, 1:30, 1:374 “Beer summit,” 1:328–329 Bees and colony collapse disorder, 1:115–117 bee keeping, 1:115–116 collapse disorder and possible causes, 1:116

1516

Index

DIY food movement, 1:374 hive and honey production, 1:115 “Beggar-thy-neighbor” policies, 2:847 Belagali, S. L., 1:203 Belben, Mike, 2:701 Bell, Glen W., 2:478 Bell peppers, as cancer-fighting food, 1:161 Bellagio Hotel and Casino, 1:152 Bellows, Anne, 2:579 Beluga caviar, food trends and, 2:633 Ben and Jerry’s, 2:822 Benefat, 2:920 Benefiber, 2:494 Bennett, Hugh, 3:1413 Bentley, Amy, 2:918–919 Berman, Rick, 2:688 Bernard, Claude, 3:1473 Bernays, Edward, 2:686, 2:950 Bernhardt, Sarah, 1:193–194 Bernstein, Sondra, 1:299 Berries, as cancer-fighting food, 1:161 Berry, Wendell, 1:13–16, 2:648 Bertrand, Marianne, 1:404 Best, Steven, 3:1422 Best Food Blog Awards, 1:138 Best Recipes in the World, The (Bittman), 1:297 Beta-carotene, in cancer-fighting foods, 1:162 Better Business Bureau, 1:214 Better Homes and Gardens, 1:305 Betty Crocker, 1:2, 3:1470 Beverage industry, 1:117–121 fat taxes, 3:1353–1356 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:530–533 health concerns, 1:118 industry background, 1:117–118 marketing to children, 1:119–120 nutrition standards for schools, 1:120–121 soda and food bans, 1:107, 2:779 sports nutrition, 3:1295 sugar-sweetened beverage tax, 1:118–119 take-out drinks, 3:1348 See also Wine Beverage Marketing Corporation (BMC), 3:1455 Beyond Organic (documentary), 1:267 Bezzera, Luigi, 1:250 Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten, 2:925 Bible agrarianism and, 1:14, 1:16 animal rights and, 1:42 locust infestations referenced in, 2:913, 2:914 Mormon food practices, 2:993 religion and foods, requirements and labeling, 3:1188 wine and, 3:1485

See also Bible-based diets; Christian food restrictions; Christianity; Judaism; Kosher food; Mormon food practices; Seventh-day Adventist food practices Bible-based diets, 1:121–124 biblical precedence, 1:121–122 current trends, 1:123–124 historical perspective, 1:122–123 obesity and religious adherence, 1:122 Biden, Joe, 1:328–329 Bifidobacteria, 2:890 Big Gay Ice Cream Truck, 2:635 Big Night (film), 2:571 Bija Vidyapeeth (Earth University), 3:1249 Bile, 1:224 Bimbo Bakeries, 1:100, 3:1033 Biocultural diversity, 3:1251 Biodiversity. See Multifunctionality in agriculture; Seed banks; Seed conservation Biodynamic farming. See Organic/biodynamic farming Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening (Pfeiffer), 3:1088 Biodynamic food, 1:124–127 anthroposophy and, 1:125 biodynamic certification, 1:125 menu characteristics, 1:126, 1:127 (table) nutrition from, 1:125–126 producing, 1:124–125 trends in, 1:126–127 Biofuels, 1:128–131 alternative fuels as sustainable agrifood system, 3:1334–1335 biodiesel, 1:129–130 biomass, defined, 1:128 first-generation, 1:128–130 food supply versus biofuel supply, 3:1148 second-generation, 1:130–131 Biological contaminants, in fish, 2:505 Biomarker reductionism, 3:1048 Biopiracy, 1:131–133 charge of, 1:131–132 critiques of extractive practices, 1:132 international law and policy, 1:132–133 “Biopiracy,” 1:54 Bioterrorism, 1:133–136 biological weapons, 1:133–134 emergency preparedness, 1:134–135 hospital disaster plans, 1:135–136 Bioversity International, 3:1241–1242, 3:1244, 3:1247, 3:1249 Birch, Leann, 2:862 Bircher-Benner, Maximilian, 3:1176 Birdseye, Clarence, 2:515, 2:690, 3:1160 Bisphenol A (BPA), 1:171, 3:1111, 3:1291 Bittman, Mark, 1:297 BJs Restaurant & Brewery, 1:182

Index BJ’s Wholesale, 3:1453–1454 Blackwell, Michael, 3:1141 Blackwood, Frances (Mary A. Hammond), 3:1023 Blair, Dorothy, 2:643 Blair House Agreement (1992), 3:1492 Blockage, food riots and, 2:603 Blogging, 1:136–141 advertising and marketing of food (in general), 1:3–4 blog, defined, 1:137–138 food blogging, 1:136–137, 1:138–140, 3:1283 See also Websites on food; individual names of blogs Blood glucose level, 1:355–358 Blood pressure. See Cardiac disease and diet Bloodroot Feminist Vegetarian Restaurant, 3:1206 Bloom, Jonathan, 2:672 Bloomberg, Michael, 1:107, 2:779, 2:885, 3:1153, 3:1353–1354 Bloomberg School of Public Health (Johns Hopkins University), 2:598, 3:1140–1141 Bloomfield, April, 2:702, 3:1282 Bloomin’ Brands, 1:180, 1:182 Blue Bottle, The, 1:249 Blue Corn Alianza, 3:1036 “Blue laws,” 1:35 Blumenthal, Heston, 2:501, 2:974, 2:980–982, 3:1030, 3:1396 Blythman, Joanna, 2:650–651 Bob Evans Restaurants, 1:181, 3:1120 Bocuse, Paul, 1:194, 1:307 Bocuse d’Or International Culinary Competition, 1:307 Body mass index (BMI), 3:1053 Boelens, R., 3:1468 Bogdanovich, Martin, 1:169 Bohnett, Newell, 3:1120 Bon Appétit (magazine), 2:588–590 Bon Appétit Management Company, 1:317–318, 1:472–475 Bon Jovi, Dorothea, 3:1122 Bon Jovi, Jon, 3:1122 Bon Jovi Foundation, 3:1122 Bonanza Steakhouse, 1:182 Bonefish Grill, 1:180, 1:182 Book of Mormon (Smith), 2:993 Booker, Eric “Badlands,” 1:274, 1:275, 1:276 Books, factory farming information and, 1:431 Bookseller, 1:297 Bordeaux, 1:32, 3:1484 Borden, 1:168, 1:170 Borden, Gail, 1:93, 1:171 Borlaug, Norman E., 2:735–736, 2:738–739 Borlaug, Paul, 2:807 Born, Branden, 2:912 Boron, necessity of, 2:968 Bosnia, ethnic grocery stores and, 1:412

1517

Boston College, 1:258 Boston Cooking School, 2:587, 3:1302 Boston Cooking-School Cook Book (Farmer), 3:1302 Boston Cooking-School Magazine of Culinary Science and Domestic Economics, The, 2:587 Boston Globe, 3:1025 Boston Tea Party, 1:143, 1:250, 3:1275 Botanical Gardens Conservation International, 3:1241 Bottled-in-Bond regulations (1897), 1:31 Botulism, 1:141–143 botulinum toxins, 1:141 canning and, 1:171–172 causes of foodborne botulism, 1:141–142 estimates of illness from, in U.S., 1:141 infant botulism, 1:142 reducing home-induced botulism, 1:142 symptoms and treatment of botulism intoxication, 1:142 Boulder County (Colorado) Food and Agriculture Policy Council, 2:599 Bourbon, 1:32, 1:81 Bourdain, Anthony, 2:590, 2:981, 3:1194 Bourdieu, Pierre, 1:290, 3:1172 Bourlag, Norman, 2:711 Bové, José, 2:480 Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. See Mad cow disease Bowman, S. A., 2:862 Boycotts, 1:143–146 boycott watch programs, 1:145 early examples of, 1:143 example of unintended consequences, 1:144–145 food riots and, 2:603 international, 1:143–144 labor practices and, 1:143 legal aspects of, 1:144 Bozahane, 1:249 Bracero Program, 2:959 Brahmacharya (behavior), 1:86 Brambell, Roger, 3:1018 Brambell Commission, 3:1141 Brandes, Bernd, 1:44 Brandworkers International, 1:398–399 Braverman, Harry, 1:351 Bravo, 1:306, 2:982 Brazil Special Programme for Food Security (United Nations) in, 3:1294 Brazil, microloans in, 2:956 Brazilian Landless Workers Movement, 2:619 Bread & Circus, 2:767 Bread and Roses, 3:1206 Bread processing, 1:146–149 consistency of food products/ingredients, 1:280 fermentation, 1:148

1518

Index

milling, 1:147–148 overview, 1:146–147 wheat plant, 1:147 See also Milling Breakage, packaging and, 3:1109 Breastfeeding, 1:149–152 alternatives and support, 1:150–151 benefits, 1:149–150 controversies, 1:151 technique and alternatives, 1:150 timing and duration of, 1:149 Breslin Bar & Dining Room, The, 2:702 Bretton Woods Agreement, 1:52, 3:1489 Breuckelen Distilling, 1:81–82 Brill, Steve, 2:659 Brillat-Savarin, Jean, 2:822, 2:915 Brinker, Norman, 1:183 Brinker International, Inc., 1:180, 1:183 Briseño, Rolando, 1:69–70 Bristol-Myers, 1:93 British Airway’s, 3:1396 British Columbia (BC) Association of Farmers’ Markets, 1:459 British Columbia Milk Marketing Board, 2:941–942 British Dietetic Association, 2:797 British East India Company, 3:1275 British Journal of Nutrition, 2:862 British Medical Journal, 3:1297 British Petroleum, 3:1444 Broadline distributors, 1:372 Broccoli, as cancer-fighting food, 1:162 Broekmans, W. M. R., 1:161 Brominated vegetable oil (BVO), 1:108–109 Brooklyn Standard, 1:295 Brotman, Jeffrey, 3:1453 Brown, Alton, 2:640, 2:982 Brown, Nancy Marie, 2:651 Brown University, 1:255 Brownell, Kelly, 2:650 Brownell, Kelly D., 3:1353 Brown-Forman’s Woodford Reserve, 1:81 Bryant, Zeke, 2:860 Buchanan, James, 2:892 Buckley, T. H., 1:364–365 Buddhism Buddha, 3:1189 religion and foods, requirements and labeling, 3:1189 vegetarianism and, 3:1428, 3:1430 Budweiser, 2:878, 3:1362 Buffalo Bob, 1:7 Buffalo Trace Distillery, 1:81, 1:83 Buffalo Wild Wings, 1:182 Buffets/all you can eat, 1:152–154 health issues of, 1:153

history and background, 1:152–153 waste from, 1:153–154 Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film), 2:572 Bulli, El (Adria), 1:297 Bulot, “Bayou Boyd,” 1:274 Bunge, 3:1424 Bunyan, Paul, 1:274 Burdack-Freitag, Andrea, 1:21 Bureau for Consumer Protection (FTC), 3:1363 Bureau of Competition (FTC), 2:491–492 Bureau of Consumer Protection (FTC), 2:491 Bureau of Corporations (FTC), 2:490 Bureau of Economics (FTC), 2:491–492 Bureau of Indian Affairs, 3:1372 Bureau of Land Management, 2:795 Burger King, 1:145, 1:181, 1:184–185, 2:478, 2:480, 3:1390 Burgundy, labeling of, 1:32 Burke, Edmund, 2:950 Burnside, Orvin, 2:772 Burroughs, Stanley, 3:1475 Burton, Brooke, 1:140 Burton, F., 3:1375–1376 Bush, George H. W., 2:827 Businesses, bankruptcy and. See Bankruptcy laws Butcher, Ellen R., 1:401 Butler, Harold, 3:1121 Butterflies and other lepidoptera, decline in population of, 1:155–157 causes of decline, 1:156 effects of decline, 1:156 global response and solutions, 1:156 monitoring, 1:155 population status, 1:155 Buy Fresh, Buy Local, 3:1370 Byers, T., 1:162, 1:163 C ration, 2:965 Cachaça, labeling of, 1:32 Cadbury Ltd., 3:1387, 3:1388–1389 Café 180, 3:1122 Café Central, 1:250 Café Griensteidl, 1:250 Cafe Procope, 1:249–250 Café Royal, 1:251 Cafeterias, noninstitutional, 1:159–160 Caffe Espresso, 1:251–252 Cain, James M., 1:364 Cake Wrecks, 3:1469–1470 Calcium, necessity of, 2:968 Calgene, 2:713, 3:1034 California Certified Organic Farmers, 3:1075 Division of Workers Compensation, 3:1497 Health and Safety Code, 3:1202

Index Health Interview Survey, 2:860 Milk Advisory Board, 1:339 Milk Processors Board, 2:944 Olive Oil Council, 3:1063 Organic Foods Act (1990), 3:1075 Proposition 37, 2:880–881 restaurant inspections, 3:1200–1202 Retail Food Code, 3:1200–1201 State Department of Fish and Game, 2:516, 2:519 California Agriculture, 3:1315 California Cuisine and Just Food, 2:652 California Olive Ranch, 3:1063 California Pizza Kitchen, 1:181–183 Calorie Control Council, 1:72, 2:687 Calories fiber and, 2:496 low-calorie diets for weight loss, 3:1475 obesity and, 3:1054–1059 Calories Count: Report of the Obesity Working Group (FDA), 2:550 Calvert, Sandra L., 3:1262 Cambridge University, 1:254 Campaign for Fair Food (CIW), 1:144, 1:476, 3:1335 Campaign to End Obesity, 2:859 Campbell, Joseph, 1:169 Campbell, T. Colin, 1:161–163, 3:1420 Campbell Soup Company, 2:877, 3:1389, 3:1395 Campbell’s Soup Cans (Warhol), 1:170, 2:570 Campesino a Campesino, 2:576 Campion, Charles, 2:701–702 Campo No Aguanta Mas, El, 3:1035 Campylobacter jejuni, 2:605, 2:654 Canada convenience stores, 1:293, 1:295–296 cooperatives, 1:313, 1:314 family meals/commensality, 1:446–447 farmers’ markets, 1:459–460 fishing policies, 2:520, 2:523 food banks, 2:554 food festivals as social action, 2:566–567 marketing boards, 2:942–943 NAFTA, 3:1031–1036 overfishing, 3:1095 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1346 Canadian Cancer Society, 1:160–161 Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2:879 Canadian Institute for Health Information, 3:1357 Canadian Wheat Board, 2:942–943 Cancer-fighting foods, 1:160–165 individual types of foods, 1:161–164 overview, 1:160–161 vegetarianism and veganism, 3:1438 Candler, Asa, 1:319, 2:744

1519

Cannabis in food, 1:165–167 food-based retail marijuana concentrate (FRMC), 1:166 legalization and, 1:165–166 marijuana-infused products (MIP), 1:165–167 Canned goods, 1:167–170 canned pet food, 3:1139 cultural development and, 1:168 globalization and glocalization of, 1:169–170 military and expeditions, 1:168–169, 1:170–171 technological development and, 1:167–168 Cannibal: The Musical (film), 2:572 Cannibalism. See Anthropophagy Canning, 1:170–173 commercial canning trends and consumption, 1:172 DIY food movement, 1:374 food safety and, 1:171–172 history of, 1:170–171 home canning decline and revival, 1:172–173 Canning Across America, 1:173 Canning Age: Devoted to the Canning, Packing and Allied Industries (1922), 1:169 Cannon, Poppy, 3:1025 Canteen Vending, 1:317 Cantu, Homaro, 2:981 Capital Grille, 1:182 Cap’n Crunch, 3:1066 Carbohydrates diabetes and, 1:357 low-carbohydrate diets, 2:915–919 low-fat foods and, 2:920 Paleo diet, 3:1112–1116 Carbon dioxide, global warming and future food supply, 2:720. See also Climate change Carbon footprinting, food miles and, 2:595 Carcinogens and the relation of cancer to diet, 1:173–177 cancer overview, 1:173–174 cancer-fighting foods, 1:160–165 food safety and, 1:174–175 global burden of cancer, 1:174 nutrition and risk of cancer, 1:175–176 role of diet in personal exposure, 1:174 Card, David, 1:403–404 Cardiac disease and diet, 1:177–180 changing diet to affect heart disease, 1:178–179 cholesterol and, 1:224–227 diet and heart disease reversal, 1:179–180 fiber in diet, 2:494–496 French Paradox, 2:679–682 junk food and impact on health, 2:865–866 overview, 1:177–178 public health efforts to control heart disease, 1:179 public health impact, 1:178

1520

Index

role of fats in cardiovascular disease, 2:481–486 vegetarianism and veganism, health implications, 3:1437 CARE, 1:452 Careers Through Culinary Arts Program, 1:392 Carême, Antonin (Marie-Antoine), 1:193, 2:498–499, 2:501, 3:1192 Cargill, 1:397, 2:715, 2:945, 2:947, 3:1424 Carlile, Richard, 3:1440 Carlin, John, 3:1141 Carlson, A. J., 3:1353 Carnation, 1:170 Carpenter, Novella, 2:649 Carrefour, 2:819 Carrington, Hereward, 2:694 Carrots, as cancer-fighting food, 1:162 Carson, Rachel, 1:14–15, 1:202, 2:502, 3:1089, 3:1134–1135 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2:714, 2:842 Carter, Jimmy, 1:30, 3:1074 Caruana, Albert, 3:1262 Caruso, Denise, 2:651 Casey, Robert P., Jr., 2:717–718 Cash cropping, exports and, 1:427 Caste system (Hinduism), 2:781 Casual dining chains, 1:180–185 casual dining chain concepts, 1:181–182 dining industry segments, 1:181 history of, 1:184–185 industry trains, 1:183–184 overview, 1:180–181 restaurant company leaders, 1:182–183 See also individual names of casual dining chains Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human (Wrangham), 3:1177 Catering business, off-site, 1:185–188 growth and expansion, 1:188 history, 1:185–186 industry profile and operations, 1:186–187 process and concerns, 1:187–188 Caterpillar Inc., 2:556–557 Catherine of Siena, 1:229 Cato the Elder, 1:277 Cattle industry, 1:188–192 animal welfare issues, 1:188–190 climate change and, 1:238–242 E. coli, 1:382 effect of climate change on meat production, 2:722 ethical implications, 1:192 factoring farming of cattle, 1:430 fracking and impact on food/water, 2:665–666 free-range meats, 2:675–679 GMOs, 2:715 grass-fed beef, 2:731–735

growth hormones and other drugs in meat products, 2:748–750 hormones used in beef cattle, 3:1305–1306 human health issues, 1:190–192 intensive rotational grazing and, 3:1333–1334 mad cow disease, 2:933–936 See also Dairy industry; Heritage breeds; Manure lagoons/ methane Causation-in-fact, proving, 2:907 CBS, 1:23–24 Cederberg, C., 2:643 Celebrity chefs, 1:192–197 contemporary, 1:194–195 cookbooks of, 1:297–298 defining, 1:193 effect of, on eating habits and cooking practices, 1:196–197 fine dining and, 2:500–501 ghostwriters for celebrity chefs, 2:715–717 historical perspective, 1:193–194 internationally, 1:195–196 Celiac disease, 2:723, 2:725–726 Census Occupation Codes (2010), 2:960 Census of Agriculture (USDA), 2:830 Centennial Exposition (1876) (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), 1:70 Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), 2:688, 3:1355 Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 2:611 Center for Neighborhood Technology, 3:1455 Center for Regulatory Affairs, 2:611 Center for Responsive Politics, 2:582–583 Center for Science in the Public Interest, 1:107, 2:533 Center for Veterinary Medicine (FDA), 3:1385 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) anthropophagy, 1:43 baby food, 1:95–96 beverage industry, 1:118, 1:120 Bible-based diets, 1:122 bioterrorism, 1:135 botulism, 1:141 breastfeeding, 1:149 buffets and “all you can eat,” 1:153 canning, 1:172 carcinogens and relation of cancer to diet, 1:174–175, 1:177–179 cattle industry, 1:190 chemical fertilizers, 1:204–206 children’s foods, 1:211, 1:213 E. coli, 1:381, 1:383 fat tax, 3:1354 fish contaminants, 2:506 food advertisements in schools, 2:532–533 food allergies, 2:539 food policy councils, 2:596

Index food safety, overview, 2:604–605 food safety agencies, overview, 2:611–612 foodborne illness, 2:657 high-fructose corn syrup, 2:778 imported food, 2:828 irradiation of food, 2:857 junk food, 2:859–861, 2:865 litigation concerning food issues, 2:907 low-sodium foods, 2:926 migrant labor, 2:958 nutrition education, 3:1044 portion sizes, 3:1154 raw milk and pasteurization, 3:1180 restaurant inspections, 3:1200 Salmonella, 3:1223–1224 school lunches, 3:1232 school wellness programs, 3:1236, 3:1237 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1343 vending machines, 3:1441 Centre for Development and Environment, 3:1288 Century Magazine, 3:1473–1474 Cereal, children’s advertising and, 1:6–7 Cerreta, Denise, 3:1121–1122 Certification for biodynamic food, 1:125 fair trade, 1:437–438 fisheries certification programs, 2:507–510 food safety, 2:604 in food service industries, 1:390–391 naturally raised and fed meats, 3:1017 organic foods, 3:1073, 3:1074, 3:1076, 3:1090–1091 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1344 Certified Culinary Professional, 1:390 Certified Master Chefs, 1:390 Certified Naturally Grown, 1:268 Chakrabarty, A. M., 2:713 Chakras, 2:789–790 Chametz, 2:872–873 Champagne, 1:32, 3:1369 Chan, Margaret, 2:586 Chandler, Asa Briggs, 3:1387 Chang, David, 2:590 Change Comes to Dinner (Gustafson), 2:649 Channel One News, 2:531–533 Chapagain, Ashok, 3:1459 Chapian, Marie, 1:123 Chaplin, Charlie, 2:569–570 Chapman, Arnie “Chowhound,” 1:274 Chapman, Dorothy, 3:1023 Chapman, John “Appleseed,” 2:751–752 Charaka Samhita, 1:91, 1:92 Charbay’s R5 Whiskey, 1:82

1521

Charitable organizations, 1:197–201 creating nonprofit corporations, 1:198–199 governance and ownership of nonprofit corporations, 1:199 international, 1:200–201 limited liability companies (LLC), 1:199 tax status of, 1:199–200 Charlemagne (king of the Franks), 3:1484 Charles II (king of England), 1:250 Charles VI (king of England), 3:1171 Charoen Pokphand Foods, 2:1003 Chase, Craig, 3:1370 Chase, Richmond, 1:72 Chavez, Cesar, 1:144, 1:476, 2:834, 2:952, 3:1314, 3:1316–1317 Cheerios, 1:4, 1:7, 3:1067 Cheese Whiz, 1:110 Cheesecake Factory, 1:180, 1:182–183 Chefs, recipes of. See Intellectual property law and recipes; Intellectual property rights Chemical fertilizers, 1:201–204 effect of, on environment and human health, 1:202–203 macronutrients in fertilizers, 1:201–202 precautionary principle, 1:203–204 types of, 1:201 Cheney, Ian, 2:953 Cherokees, pellagra and, 3:1124 Chestnut, Joey “Jaws,” 1:274 Chestnut blight, 2:853 Cheyne, George, 3:1473 Chez Panisse, 1:195, 2:500, 2:909 Chianti, labeling of, 1:32 Chicago, food trucks in, 2:635 Chicago Board of Trade, 2:730 Chicago Tribune, 3:1022–1024 Chicago World’s Fair (1893), 1:6 Chicken free-range, 2:675–679 minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 See also Poultry industry Chicken McNuggets, 3:1157 Chico-San, 2:930 Child, Julia, 1:194, 1:297–298, 2:569, 2:571–572, 2:638, 2:910, 3:1024–1025, 3:1071, 3:1194 Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health, 3:1058 Child and Adult Care Feeding Program, 3:1229–1230 Child Nutrition Act (1966), 3:1412 Child Nutrition Act (2010), 2:954 Child Nutrition and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children Reauthorization Act (2004), 3:1234 Child Trends Data Bank, 1:445–447 Childe, Gordon, 3:1118

1522

Index

Childhood obesity, 1:204–209 contributors to, 1:205–207 economic cost of Western diet, 1:385–386 family meals/commensality, 1:443–447 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:530–533 junk food and impact on health, 2:864 overview, 1:204–205 solutions to, 1:207–208 vending machines and, 3:1441–1442 Children advertising and marketing to (See Advertising and marketing of food to children) baby food, 1:93–98 with diabetes, 1:356 domestic food insecurity and impact on, 1:377–378 as family farm labor, 1:441 family farms and birth rate, 1:443 family meals/commensality, 1:443–447 food allergies in, 2:543 hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) in, 1:383–384 infant botulism, 1:142 infant formula expiration dates, 1:422 marijuana-infused products (MIP) and, 1:166 nutrition education, 3:1044–1045 Children’s Bureau of the federal government, 1:96 Children’s Crusade, 1:35 Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), 1:9, 1:120, 1:214, 2:532 Children’s foods, 1:209–216 domestic food insecurity and, 1:377–378 at home, 1:210–211 in marketplace, 1:212–215 overview, 1:209–210 at school, 1:211–212 See also Baby food Childs Cafeterias, 1:159 Chile, fishing policies and, 2:521 Chili peppers, as cancer-fighting food, 1:162 Chili’s Bar & Grill, 1:180, 1:182–183 China anthropophagy and, 1:45 famine and, 1:451 frozen food, 2:692 hunger and food production, 2:807, 2:809 imported food, 2:827 pest control in, 3:1133 soybean oil production, 3:1425 Chinese food (in U.S.) “Chinese restaurant syndrome,” 2:991, 2:992 ethnic restaurants, 1:414, 1:415 hanging ducks and restaurant inspections, 3:1202

marketing of, 1:409 take-out foods, 3:1349 Chinese traditional medicine and diet, 1:216–221 children’s foods at school, 1:217–218 contemporary applications, 1:220–221 historical background, 1:217–218 historical background, assigning qualities to food, 1:216–217 thermostatic qualities, flavors, and movement, 1:218–220 wei and wu wei, 1:218 yin and yang, 1:218 Chipotle Mexican Grill, 1:181, 3:1072 Chloride, necessity of, 2:968 Chocolat (film), 2:572 Chocolate, 1:221–224 cacao and world economy, 1:222 early history of, 1:221–222 health and, 1:222–223 See also Fair trade Choi, Roy, 2:636 Cholesterol, LDL and HDL, 1:224–227 concerns about, 1:225 dietary interventions, 1:226 fats and role in diet, 2:487–488 junk food and, 2:865–866 lipid measurements, 1:225–226 role of lipoproteins and cholesterol in body, 1:224–225 See also Cardiac disease and diet; Fats, role in cardiovascular disease ChooseMyPlate (USDA), 1:207, 1:226, 1:359, 1:363, 1:363 (fig.), 3:1151, 3:1152, 3:1256 Choppers, for restaurants, 3:1196–1197 Chorleywood (bread process), 1:99 Chowhound, 1:137, 1:327 Christian food restrictions, 1:227–229 contemporary restrictions, 1:228–229 regimes of restriction, 1:227–228 social and economic context, 1:228 Christianity agrarianism and, 1:16 Bible-based diets, 1:121–123 fruitarianism and, 2:693 halal food and, 2:758–759 health food stores, 2:767 holidays centered on food, 2:785 Lent, 1:227, 2:785–786 religion and foods, requirements and labeling, 3:1187–1188 Seventh-day Adventists and, 3:1255 vegetarianism and, 3:1428, 3:1430 wine and, 3:1484 Christianson, Linda, 2:565 Christmas, 2:786 Christy, Liz, 2:751

Index Chromium, necessity of, 2:968 CHS, 1:313 Church, Ruth Ellen, 3:1022, 3:1024 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). See Mormon food practices Church suppers, 1:229–232 contemporary practices, 1:231 food of, 1:231 history of, 1:230–231 overview, 1:229–230 Church Temperance Society, 2:633–634 Church’s Fried Chicken, 1:294 Cicero, 2:602 Cider, home brewing of, 1:30 Cigarette vending machines, 3:1441 Ciguatera poisoning, 2:608, 2:655–656 Cinnabon, 3:1388 Circular food systems, 1:232–238 characteristics of, 1:233–235, 1:233 (fig.), 1:234 (box), 1:235 (box) goals of, 1:232–233 policies and institutions for, 1:235–238 Cirio, 1:169 Citizen rights, circular food systems and, 1:237–238 Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, 2:686, 2:689 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 1:37 Citizenship and Immigration Services (U.S. Department of Homeland Security), 1:472 Citrus fruits, as cancer-fighting food, 1:163 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1:405 Civil Society Forum on Food Security, 2:802 Civil Society Mechanism, 2:803 Civil War, canned goods and, 1:168, 1:171 Claiborne, Craig, 1:194 Clapp’s, 1:94 Clapton, Eric, 2:570 Class Action Fairness Act (2005), 2:908 Class actions. See Litigation concerning food issues Clayton Antitrust Act (1914), 1:57, 2:490, 3:1265 Clean Air Act, 2:940 Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), 2:874–875 Clean Water Act, 2:940, 3:1380 Clear on Calories initiative, 1:119 Clemson University, 2:678, 3:1334 Cleveland, Grover, 2:894 Cleveland Clinic, 1:223 Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Food Policy Coalition, 2:599 Climate change, 1:238–243 causes and implications for food system, 1:239 contributions from food and agricultural sectors, 1:239–240 contributions to food and agricultural sectors, 1:240–242

1523

economic cost of Western diet, 1:387–388 famine and, 1:449 food miles and, 2:592–596 global warming and future food supply, 2:719–723 Kyoto Protocol, 2:874–875 overview, 1:238–239 population and food supply, 3:1147–1148 Climate Change Conference (Bali) (UN), 2:875 Climate Change Conference (UN), 2:875 Climate Smart Agriculture, 2:662 Clinton, Bill, 2:577, 2:827 Clinton, Clifford, 1:160 Clinton, Hillary, 1:328 Clinton’s cafeteria, 1:160 Closed-loop systems, 3:1339–1340 Closing the Food Gap (Winne), 2:598, 2:652 Clostridium botulinum, 2:606 Clostridium difficile, 1:49 Clostridium perfringens, 2:654 Clover, Charles, 1:41 Clower, William, 2:681 CNN, 1:276 Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), 1:144, 1:397–399, 1:475–476, 3:1035, 3:1486 Coalitional front groups, generally, 2:687 Cobb, Andrew, 2:769 Coca-Cola art depicting food, 1:68 bans on food, 1:108–109 beverage industry, 1:117, 1:120 boycotts, 1:144 childhood obesity, 1:206 corporate food services, 1:317, 1:319 food lobbying, 2:583, 2:586 front groups, 2:689 FTC, 2:492–493 grocery stores, 2:744 intellectual property, 2:838 mixology, 2:975 subliminal advertising, 3:1318–1319 television advertising, 3:1361–1362 trademarks, 3:1386–1387, 3:1389 vending machines, 3:1440 vertical integration, 3:1445 water products, 3:1455 Cockrall-King, Jennifer, 2:649 Coconut oil, 3:1426–1427 Coco’s Coffee Shop, 3:1120 Cod fishing policies, 2:521–522, 2:523 overfishing of, 3:1095 Code of Federal Regulations (Federal Register), 2:855, 3:1150 Code of Hammurabi, 3:1448

1524

Index

Codex Alimentarius, 1:243–246 consensus, 1:246 defined, 1:243 on dietary fiber, 1:246 evolution of, 1:243–244 FAO and, 2:547–548 food additives, 2:527 fraud and, 2:670 fresh food, 2:684 gluten-free foods, 2:725 irradiation of food, 2:855 organizational structure, 1:244–245, 1:244 (fig.) risk analysis framework, 1:245–246 Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1:246–248 FAO and, 2:547–548 on fiber, 2:494 food additives, 2:527–528 guiding purposes of, 1:247 Listeria, 2:904 projects of, 1:247–248 regulatory scheme of, 1:246–247 street food, 3:1311 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1346 Codex Trust Fund, 1:247 Coffee, fair trade, 1:437 Coffeehouses and coffee shops, 1:248–253 contemporary practices, 1:252–253 historical developments, 1:249–252 pancake houses and breakfast joints, 3:1120–1121 Cognac, 1:32, 3:1389 Cohen, Matt, 2:636 Colbert, Don, 1:123 Cold Stone Creamery, 2:822 Coleman, K. J., 3:1058 Colgate, 3:1139–1140 Collaborative Research Support Program, 2:718 Collective restaurant management, 3:1206 College dining services, 1:253–258 early history, 1:253–255 in late nineteenth century to World War II, 1:255–256 post-World War II, 1:256–257 students as consumers (1980s to present), 1:257–258 College education, in culinary arts, 1:392–393 College of William and Mary, 1:254 Colman’s, 3:1387, 3:1389 Color Additive Amendments (1960), 2:527, 2:550 Color of Food, The (ARC), 1:396 Colorado State University, 2:616, 3:1374, 3:1449 Coltelli, Francesco Procopio dei, 2:821 Columbia Broadcasting System, 3:1488 Columbia University, 1:444–445 Comfort Café, 3:1122 Coming Home to Eat (Nabhan), 2:648

“Coming to the Foodshed” (Kloppenberg, Henrickson, Stevenson), 2:910 Commemorative consumption, 1:332–333 Commission on Agriculture and Rural Development (EU), 3:1173 Commitment Five, 2:534 Committee on Food Security (UN), 2:803 Committee on School Lunch Participation, 3:1229 Committee on World Food Security (CFS), 2:623 Commodity chains, 1:258–263 defined, 1:258–259 framework of, 1:259 globalization and transparency, 1:262 governance of, 1:259–260 related approaches, 1:260–262 See also Distribution centers; Supply and distribution networks Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), 3:1309 Commodity Foods Program, 3:1231 Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 2:731, 3:1309 Commodity networks, 1:261 Common Agricultural Policy, 2:999 Common Agricultural Policy (EU), 2:997 Common Borders, 3:1035 Common Fare (meal program), 3:1169 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), 2:524 Common Law, 1:43 Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, The (Spock), 1:96 Community Food Projects: Indicators of Success Fiscal Year 2011 (Community Food Security Coalition), 2:599 Community food security defined, 1:376–377 measuring, 1:377 See also Domestic food insecurity Community Food Security Coalition, 2:577–578, 2:599 Community gardens, 1:263–266 challenges of, 1:265–266 contemporary movement, 1:264–265 future of, 1:266 history of, 1:263–264 impact and outcomes, 1:265 Community Gardens, 1:263 Community supported agriculture (CSAs), consumers’ perspective, 1:266–271 consumer motivation for joining a CSA, 1:268–269 CSA difficulties, 1:269–270 history of CSA, 1:267–268 imported food, 2:830 overview, 1:266–267 types of programs, 1:268

Index Community supported agriculture (CSAs), farmers’ perspective, 1:271–273 adapting to changing market, 1:273 benefits for farmers, 1:271 challenges for farmers, 1:271–273 Commutation Act (1784), 3:1275 Comodo, 3:1207 Compaction, of soil, 3:1285–1286 Compass Group PLC, 1:317 Compass North America, 1:318 Compassion in World Farming, 2:677 Competitive eating, 1:273–277 Association of Independent Competitive Eaters/All Pro Eating, 1:274–275 contests, 1:275–276 criticism and dangers of, 1:276–277 fair and carnival food competitions and displays, 1:435 history of, 1:274 International Federation of Competitive Eating (IFOCE), 1:274 logistics, 1:276 media exposure, 1:276 Compleat Angler or, the Contemplative Man’s Recreation, The (Walton), 2:512 Complete Guide to Home Canning (USDA), 1:172 Composting, 1:277–279 circular food systems and, 1:233 (fig.) industrial, 1:279 logistics, 1:278–279 overview, 1:277–278 ConAgra, Inc., 2:921, 2:947 Concentrated feeding operations (CAFOs), 1:338–339 Condé Nast, 2:588–590 Confederate Army, 1:168 Conference on Environment and Development (UN), 2:997 Conference on Trade and Development (UN), 1:438 Conference on Trade and Employment (UN), 3:1489–1490 Confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), 2:675–677 dairy industry, 1:338–339 defined, 1:429 naturally raised and fed meats, 3:1016–1021 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, 3:1140–1143 See also Cattle industry; Factory farming; Manure lagoons/methane; Poultry industry Confucianism, food practices, 3:1189–1190 Conglomerate vertical integration, 3:1445 Conko, G., 2:551 Consensus Action on Salt and Health, 2:926 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 1:454–455, 1:457 Consistency of food products/ingredients, 1:279–281 designing products, 1:279 in farmers’ markets, 1:467–468

1525

food additives, 2:525–530 ingredients, 1:279–280 irradiation and, 2:854–858 manufacturing, 1:280 quality standards, 1:280–281 Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (2008), 2:880 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), 2:718, 2:736, 2:969, 3:1241, 3:1243, 3:1244, 3:1247 Consumer cooperatives, 1:314–315 Consumer Cooperatives Worldwide, 1:314 Consumer Reports, 1:326 Consumer trust, 1:281–284 advertising and marketing of food (in general) and, 1:5–6 conceptualizing, 1:282 exercising, 1:282–283 “food chain actors,” 1:284 impact of food trust on consumers, 1:284 reasons for decline in, 1:281–282 scope of, 1:283–284 Consumer-based front groups, generally, 2:686 Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, 3:1454 Contagione, De (Fracastoro), 3:1448 Contamination, food safety and, 2:608 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (USDA), 2:862 Contour plowing, 3:1286 Contraceptive products, in vending machines, 3:1442–1443 Contract laws, 1:284–286 components of, 1:285–286 types of, 1:284–285 “Contract Management” (Warner), 1:317 Convenience, packaging and, 3:1109 Convenience foods, 1:286–291 categories, 1:286–287 commensality and cooking, 1:288 consumers of, and reputation, 1:288–289 convenience societies and hyperactive convenience food customers, 1:287 deli counters in grocery stores, 1:347 diet and health, 1:289 grocery stores and supermarkets, 2:746 media use and media effects, 1:289–290 mini-marts, 2:969–972 social movements against, 1:290 take-out food as, 3:1349 See also individual names of foods and restaurants Convenience stores, 1:291–296 beverages, 1:293–294 early developments of convenience retailing, 1:291–292 fast food and retailing, 1:294–295

1526

Index

food products, snacks, and grocery items in North America, 1:293 food products in stores worldwide, 1:293 gas stations and mergers, 1:292 health reform, 1:295–296 layout of, 1:292–293 merchandise of, 1:293 mini-marts, 2:969–972 negative associations with health and diet, 1:295 product development, 1:294 services offered worldwide, 1:292 supermarket expansion into convenience retailing, 1:295 Convention and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea, 2:522 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), 3:1401–1402 Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species, 3:1481–1482 Convention on Biodiversity (UN), 2:714 Convention on Biological Diversity (UN), 1:132, 2:842, 2:896, 3:1244, 3:1247, 3:1367 Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, 2:522 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, 2:520 Convention on the Conservation and Management of the Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea (1994), 2:523 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons, and on their Destruction, 1:134 Cook, Ann Turner, 1:94 Cook, Shirley, 1:123 Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover, The (film), 2:572 Cookbooks and the publishing industry, 1:296–299 avant-garde cookbooks and celebrity chefs, 1:297–298 electronic media, 1:298–299 foreign rights and international sales, 1:299 gender and foodways, 2:707 ghostwriters for celebrity chefs, 2:715–717 overview, 1:296–297 self-publishing, 1:299 Cooked (Pollan), 2:648 Cookers, for restaurants, 3:1196 Cooking as leisure activity, 1:299–304 cooking as chore versus, 1:302–303 family meals/commensality, 1:447 feminist and poststructural perspectives, 1:303 gender, class, race, and, 1:301–302 leisurely or pleasurable aspects of cooking, 1:301 open kitchens, 3:1071–1072 overview, 1:299–300 rise in, 1:300–301

Cooking Channel, 2:634, 3:1194 Cooking competitions, 1:304–307 corporate-sponsored contests, 1:304–305 by and for culinary professionals, 1:306 overview, 1:304 at public festivals, 1:304–305 television programs, 1:305, 2:641 Cooking Matters, 1:208 Cooking temperatures, minimum, 1:307–309 for beef, gammon, goat, mutton, lamb, 1:308 for chicken, turkey, poultry, 1:308 controversies about, 1:308–309 for eggs, 1:308 for fish and shellfish, 1:308 overview, 1:307–308 for pork, bear, reptiles, wild game, 1:308 for vegetables, 1:308 Cooking temperatures, U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines for, 1:309–312 overview, 1:309–310 reasons for, 1:310–311 safe minimum internal temperature chart, 1:311 (table) U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 1:310 Cooking With Sky Prawns, 2:914 Cook’s Country, 3:1471 Cook’s Illustrated (magazine), 1:299, 2:590, 2:640, 3:1471 Cook’s Illustrated (television program), 2:640–641 Cool Haus, 2:636 Coop fédérée, La, 1:313 Cooperatives, 1:312–316 in agrifood system, 1:312 consumer cooperatives, 1:314–315 contemporary challenges of, 1:315–316 defined, 1:312 fair trade, 1:438, 1:439 food coop model and health food stores, 2:765–766 producer cooperatives, 1:312–314 worker and social cooperatives, 1:314 Copenhagen City Heart Study, 2:679 Coppelia, 2:822 Copper, necessity of, 2:968 Copyright, for recipes and dishes, 2:837–838 Cora, Caat, 2:716 Cordain, Loren, 2:916, 3:1113 Corella Meat Shop, 2:747 Corn corn flour milling, 2:967–968 GMO, 2:713–715 monoculture, 2:985–986 NAFTA on maize, 3:1032–1034 pellagra and, 3:1123–1124 Corn Laws, 1:451 Corn Palace (Mitchell, South Dakota), 1:70

Index Cornell University, 1:96, 1:255, 1:257, 3:1205 Cornell University Food and Brand Lab, 1:153 Corona, 3:1033, 3:1166 Corporate Accountability International, 3:1457 Corporate food service, 1:316–319 business models and philosophy, 1:317–318 deskilling and, 1:350 history, 1:317 overview, 1:316–317 trends in, 1:318 Corporate-sponsored contests cooking competitions, 1:304–305 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:532 Cortés, Hernán, 1:221 Cosby, Bill, 3:1361 Costa Coffee, 1:253 Costco, 2:710, 3:1070, 3:1453–1454 Coulombe, Joe, 2:745 Council for Responsible Nutrition, 2:884 Council of Better Business Bureaus, 1:120 Council of Europe, 2:529 Council on Foods and Nutrition (AMA), 2:484 Country Natural Beef, 3:1418 Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), 2:829 Coupons, 1:319–322 consumer use of, 1:320 Groupon and, 1:319, 1:320–321 history of, 1:319 retailer strategy, 1:319–320 Coyle, Neva, 1:123 Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, 1:181, 1:183 Cracker Jack, 1:6, 2:861 “Craft” alcohol, 1:32–33, 1:79–80 Craig, Jenny, 3:1474 Craig, K., 3:1374 Crandall, Dorothy, 3:1025 Crandall, Philip G., 3:1345 Cream of Wheat, 1:7, 2:937 Crescent Manufacturing Company, 1:305 Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, 2:608, 2:933, 2:934 Criswell, Ann, 3:1023 Critical control points food safety and, 2:608 identifying, 2:763 See also Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Crockett, Davy, 1:274 Crop insurance, 1:322–326 crop insurance industry structure, 1:323–324 future of, 1:325 history of, in U.S., 1:322–323 implications of, 1:324–325 types of, 1:324

1527

Crop management, organic production and, 3:1086 Crop rotation, 3:1286, 3:1333–1334 Crosby, H., 1:169 CrossFit, Inc., 3:1113 Crowdsourced reviews of restaurants, 1:326–327, 3:1212 Crowley, James, 1:328–329 Crucial Design, 1:349 Cruciferous vegetables, as cancer-fighting food, 1:162 Cruelty, to animals. See Animal rights Cruz, Philip Vera, 3:1314 Cube packaging, 3:1109–1110 Cudahy, 2:946 Cuising and Empire (Laudan), 2:649 Cuisinier Roial et Bourgeois, Le (Massialot), 1:186 Culinary arts training. See Education in food service industries Culinary Content Network, 3:1066 Culinary creativity. See Intellectual property law and recipes; Intellectual property rights Culinary diplomacy, 1:327–329 “beer summit,” 1:328–329 examples, 1:328 overview, 1:327–328 Culinary Institute of America, 1:392–393 Cullen, Michael C., 2:743 Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability (Alkon and Agyeman), 2:652 Cultivating Food Justice (Alkon, Agyeman), 2:580–581 “Cultural food colonialism,” 1:417 Cultural identity and food, 1:329–334 canned foods and, 1:172 commemorative consumption, 1:332–333 commodity chains, social and cultural dimensions of agrifood commodities, 1:261–262 community, place, and cultural belonging, 1:330 culture, food, and political economy, 1:333–334 environment and, 1:331 ethnic foods and marketing, 1:406–410 ethnic foodways, 1:331–332 ethnic grocery stores, 1:410–413 ethnic identity, 2:824–825 food bans and cultural ethics, 1:104–105 holidays centered on food, 2:784–788 immigrants and diaspora, 1:332 overview, 1:329–330 recollection, 1:332 take-out food, 3:1349 UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage and world cuisines, 3:1401–1404 vegetable oils in food traditions, 3:1426–1427 wet markets and hawking, 3:1480 See also Chinese traditional medicine and diet Cultural Revolution (China), 1:45 Cultural tourism, 3:1382

1528

Index

Culture of the Land (book series) (University Press of Kentucky), 1:13 Cummings, Claire Hope, 2:651 Cupcakes for Courage, 2:635–636 Cured meats. See Nitrate, nitrite, and cured versus uncured meats Current Population Survey (U.S. Census Bureau), 2:960 Cuvier, Georges, 1:400 Cyclamates, 1:71–72 Dahmer, Jeffrey, 1:44 Daily Meal, The, 3:1469 Dairy Business Association, 2:584 Dairy cattle, welfare of, 1:188–189 Dairy Farmers of Canada, 2:944 Dairy Farmers of Ontario, 2:941 Dairy industry, 1:335–340 arrangements used for dairy farming, 1:338–339 milch cows, 1:337–338 milk and dairy products, 1:335–337 Monsanto hormone-free milk and FTC, 2:483 overview, 1:335 raw milk and pasteurization, 3:1178–1181 response to industrial dairying, 1:339 Dairy-Lo, 2:920 Daniel’s Diet, 1:123 Danisco, 2:529 Danish Fat Tax Act (2011), 3:1355 Danish Tax Ministry, 3:1355 Dannon, 3:1037 Danny’s Coffee Shop, 3:1121 Dansinger, M. L., 3:1058 Darden, Bill, 1:182 Darden Restaurants, 1:180, 1:182 Darigold Butter, 2:879 Darity, William A., Jr., 1:405 D’Arrigo Bros., 1:408 D’Arrigos, 1:408 Dartford Iron Works, 1:167 Dasani (Coca-Cola), 3:1455 DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, 1:180 Data Quality Act (DQA), 2:585 DataBar, 3:1163 Datta, J. K., 1:202 Daum, Peggy, 3:1024 Davidson, Alan, 2:914 Davis, Adelle, 1:96 Davis, Clara, 1:96 Davis, Ellen, 1:16 Daxenberger, Andreas, 3:1305 Day of the Dead (Mexico), 2:786 DDB Needham Life Style Survey, 1:444 De Garine, Eric, 3:1279

de la Reyniere, Alexandre Balthazar Laurent Grimod, 3:1212–1213 De Re Agricultura (Cato the Elder), 1:277 De Schutter, Olivier, 2:623 Dead Man Eating, 2:897 Dead zones in fisheries, 1:340–342 basic mechanism, 1:340–341 causes and prevalence, 1:341–342 dead zones, defined, 1:340 remedies, 1:342 Dean & DeLuca, 2:728 Dean Foods, 1:339 Death row prisoners, last meals of, 2:897–900 Declaration of Nyéléni, 2:623 Deen Paula, 2:640, 2:642 Deep Economy (McKibben), 2:648 DeFazio, Peter, 3:1075 Defective products, proving, 2:906–907 Defforey, Denis, 2:819 Defforey, Jacques, 2:819 Deforestation for agriculture, 1:342–346 agriculture’s role in deforestation, 1:343–344 contributing factors, 1:344–345 overview, 1:342–343 protecting natural forests, 1:345 rate of deforestation, 1:344 See also Forestry management Degebassa, A., 1:202 DeGroff, Dale, 2:974 Dehorning, of cattle, 1:189 Del Monte Foods Company, 1:95, 1:169 Delaney, James, 2:549 Delaney Committee, 2:878 Delano Grape Strike, 1:476, 3:1314, 3:1317 Deli counter in grocery stores, 1:346–347 deli regulations, 1:346 food safety, 1:347 labor standards in delis, 1:346 Delish.com, 3:1066 Deliver Me From Bondage: Using the Book of Mormon and the Principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as They Correlate (Harrison), 1:123 Delmonico’s, 1:365, 3:1100 Deloitte 2014 Global Powers of Retailing Report, 2:745 DeLuca, Giorgio, 2:728 Demeter, 1:125, 3:1073, 3:1088, 3:1091 Dempster, Tom, 3:1142 Denham, Simeon, 3:1440 Denmark, fat tax in, 3:1355 Denny’s, 1:181, 3:1120–1121 Densmore, Helen, 2:915 Denver Post, 3:1023 Department of Natural Resources, 2:584 Departments of Health and Agriculture, 2:611

Index Derrida, Jacques, 1:433–434 Description of England (Harrison), 1:277 Desha (habitat), 1:91 Design, of menus. See Restaurant menu design Design and decor of restaurants, 1:347–350 features of, 1:348–350 importance of design, 1:347–348 Deskilling, 1:350–355 “consumer deskilling,” defined, 1:350–351 culinary skills and, 1:351–352 evolution of, in food consumption and production, 1:351 knowledgeable food provisioning, 1:354 “reskilling” and, 1:352–353 types of, 1:353–354 “Desperately Seeking Authenticity” (Laudan), 1:84 Desrochers, Pierre, 2:649, 2:912 Detroit Free Press, 3:1022 Detroit’s D-Town Farmers, 2:579 Development Programme (UN), 2:843 DeWitt brothers, 2:675 Dharmasastras, 2:781 Diabetes, 1:355–358 characteristics and associated conditions, 1:355–357 diabetes mellitus, defined, 1:355 junk food and impact on health, 2:864–865 managing, 1:357–358 vegetarianism and veganism, 3:1438 Diabetes Prevention Program, 3:1057 Diamond, Harvey, 2:694 Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 2:713, 3:1247 Diet, weight and, 3:1057–1058 Diet Delight, 1:72 Diet for a New America (Robbins), 1:40, 2:935 Diet Number 7, 2:930 Diet Rite, 3:1474 Dietary Allowances, 3:1226 Dietary analysis, Paleodietary reconstruction and, 3:1118–1119 Dietary fat defined, 2:487 monounsaturated fatty acids, 2:488 polyunsaturated fatty acids, 2:488 saturated fatty acids, 2:487–488 trans fat and hydrogenation, 3:1390–1391 trans-fatty acids, 2:488–489 See also Fats, role in cardiovascular disease; Fats, role in diet; Trans fat and hydrogenation Dietary fiber, 1:176, 1:246 Dietary Guidelines and graphics, 1:358–364 childhood obesity programs and, 1:205, 1:207 ChooseMyPlate, 1:207, 1:226, 1:359, 1:363, 1:363 (fig.), 3:1151, 3:1152, 3:1256 development of national dietary guidelines U.S., 1:360

1529

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), 1:360 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2010), overview, 3:1415 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) (USDA), 1:205, 1:207 elderly nutrition, 1:395 fats and role in diet, 2:489 fiber in diet, 2:495 Food Guide Pyramid, 1:207, 1:362, 1:362 (fig.), 3:1039, 3:1256 food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG), 1:359, 1:360–361 need for national dietary guidelines, 1:359–360 on nutrient density, 3:1038–1039 overview, 1:358–359 Dietary Reference Intake, 1:395 Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (2006), 3:1296–1297 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, 2:550, 2:938, 3:1296–1297 Dietary supplements. See Vitamins and other dietary supplements Diggers, 1:13 Dine.com, 1:326 DineEquity, 1:181–183 Diners, 1:364–367 economy and regulations, 1:366–367 health and safety issues, 1:365–366 origins of, 1:364–365 Diplomatic Culinary Partnership, 1:328 Discovery Channel, 1:276 Discrimination, in workplace, 1:404 Disgust, 1:367–370 aesthetics of, 1:369 emotion of, 1:367–368 exotic food and strange food, 1:418–421 meat aversion, 3:1430 object-based, 1:369 taste-based, 1:368–369 usefulness of, 1:369–370 Disney, Walt, 2:570 Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), 1:30, 1:80–81 Distillers, categories of, 1:79–80 Distribution centers, 1:370–373 brief history of, 1:371 distribution of olive oil, 3:1062–1063 employment in distribution sector, 1:396–397 fair-pricing dilemma and, 1:373 industry labor and labor unions, 2:836–837 overview, 1:370–371 supply chain management, 1:371–372 supply chains and food distribution centers, 1:372–373 See also Food miles; Supply and distribution networks Divine Husbandman, 1:217

1530

Index

Divya, J., 1:203 DIY food movement, 1:373–376 concept of, 1:373–374 criticism of, 1:375 examples, 1:374–375 home fermentation, 2:793 DNA. See Genetically modified organisms (GMOs); Paleodietary reconstruction, modern techniques in; Seed banks; Seed conservation; Seed exchange networks DNA bar coding, 3:1345 Do It Themselves Movement, 2:672 Dodo, 1:401 “Doggy bags,” 3:1348 Doha Amendment, 2:875 Doherty, Kieran, 3:1317 Dole Food Company, 1:305 Dolphin and Whale Action Network, 3:1482 Do-Maker process, 1:99 Domestic animals, endangered species and, 1:401–402 Domestic Fair Trade, 3:1335 Domestic food insecurity, 1:376–379 alternative concepts to household food security in U.S., 1:376–377 context and correlates of household-level food insecurity, 1:378 effectiveness of programs for reducing household food insecurity, 1:378 impact of, 1:377–378 measuring household and community food security, 1:377 overview, 1:376 Domino’s, 1:74, 2:478 Domino’s, 1:60 Donham, Kelly, 2:676 Donkin, Bryan, 1:167 Donner Party, 1:43 Donut shops, 1:379–380 artisan donut shops, 1:380 birth and growth of donut shop chains, 1:379–380 early history of, 1:379, 3:1120–1121 mechanized beginnings of, 1:379 Donut Vault, 1:380 Dorcas Society, 3:1256 Doritos, 1:4 Dormition Fast, 1:227 Doshas, 1:87–92 Dosimetry, 2:855–856 Dosti, Rose, 3:1022 Doughnut Corporation of America, 1:379 Doughnut Plant, 1:380 Douglas, Mary, 1:27–28, 2:645, 3:1278 Doutor, 1:253 Dow, 2:624, 2:990 “Downer cows,” 1:190

Downing, Thomas, 3:1100 Downing’s Oyster House., 3:1100 Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution, The (Atkins), 2:651–652, 2:916, 2:918 Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution (Atkins), 2:916, 3:1475 Dr. August Oetker KG, 2:692 Dr. Pepper Snapple products, 2:492–493 Dram Shop Act, 1:34 Drexel University, 2:614, 2:616 Drèze, Xavier, 3:1261 Drought Relief Service, 3:1413 Drummond, Ree, 3:1469–1470 Dry pet food, 3:1139 Drylot dairy operations, 1:338–339 Dufresne, Wylie, 2:980 Dugan, Marie, 3:1022 Dumpster diving. See Freegans and dumpster diving Dunkin’ Donuts, 1:60, 1:253, 1:294, 1:380, 3:1121 Dunlop, Marion Wallace, 3:1316 DuPont, 1:71, 2:625, 2:714, 2:990 Durand, Peter, 1:167 Durban Platform (2011), 2:875 Dutch East India Company, 1:250 Dylan, Bob, 1:252 Dynamo Donut, 1:380 E. coli, 1:381–384 cattle industry and, 1:190 Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1:247 defined, 1:381–382 diagnosis, testing, epidemiology, 1:383 environmental sources of, 1:382 exposure, infection, and illness, 1:382–383 fish contaminants, 2:505 food safety, 2:605–606 foodborne illness, 2:654–655 hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), 1:383–384 litigation concerning, 2:904–905, 2:907 minimum cooking temperature, 1:308 Eagle, The, 2:701–702 Early Childhood Obesity Prevention Policies, 3:1056 Earth Summit (UN), 2:842, 2:844 Earth’s Best, 1:97 East India Company, 1:250, 3:1275 East West Centers, 2:930 East West Foundation, 2:930 Easy Living (film), 2:570 Easy-open packaging, 3:1109 Eat Drink Man Woman (film), 2:571 Eat Real Festival, 2:636 Eat Right Ontario, 3:1181 Eat This Book: A Year of Gorging and Glory on the Competitive Eating Circuit (Nerz), 1:276 Eat Your Heart Out (Hightower), 2:480

Index Eater National, 3:1212 Eating Animals (Foer), 1:431 Eating disorders, competitive eating and, 1:276–277 Eaton, S. Boyd, 3:1113 Eats on Feets, 1:151 Ebert, Roger, 2:571 EBizMBA, 3:1470 Ebstein, Wilhelm, 2:915 Ecclesiastical law, alcohol regulation and, 1:33 Eclipse Stove Works, 1:305 EcoGastronomy (University of New Hampshire), 2:910 Economic cost of the Western diet, 1:384–389 agritourism and, 1:20 artisanal foods and, 1:77–78 barter and the informal economy, 1:111–115 of circular food systems, 1:237 commodity chains, 1:258–263 cultural identity and food, 1:333–334 diners, 1:366–367 domestic food insecurity, 1:376–379 economic cost of the Western diet, 1:384–388, 1:384–389 elderly nutrition, 1:395 exports and, 1:424–425, 1:427 family meals/commensality, 1:443–447 farmworkers and economic inequalities, 1:473–474 fishing policies and creation of economic exclusion zones, 2:520–522 food carts, 2:558–559 food deserts, 2:561–562 food packaging, 3:1109–1110 foot riots, 2:601–604 global spread of Western diet, 1:388 grain elevators/hoarding and speculation, 2:730–731 grass-fed beef, 2:734–735 Green Revolution, 2:739–740 grocery discount pricing, 2:743 health food stores, 2:767–768 holidays centered on food, 2:787 indirect costs, 1:387–388 junk food consumption, 2:861, 2:863 low market cost of calorie-dense diet, 1:384–385 marketing boards, 2:941–945 medical costs, 1:385–387 microloans and, 2:955–958 of misinterpreted food expiration dates, 1:422–423 monopolies, 2:987–991 NAFTA, 3:1031–1036 naturally raised and fed meats, 3:1020–1021 overview, 1:384 packaging, 3:1109–1110 pesticides, 3:1135–1136 storage and warehousing, 3:1306–1310 street food, 3:1311–1312

1531

tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1345 underground economies, 3:1396–1400, 3:1396–1401 urban farming and rooftop gardens, 3:1404–1407 veganism, 3:1423 of water supply, 3:1455 See also Domestic food insecurity; Employment: U.S. food sector; Environmental issues; Equal opportunity employment/discrimination; Farmworkers; Food aid; Food insecurity; International food security; Taxation, fat tax; Taxation, general; World Trade Organization Economic Research Service (USDA), 1:381, 2:496, 2:576, 2:922, 3:1084 Economic Research Survey (USDA), 2:747 Ecuador, virtual water and, 3:1461 Eddie Rockets, 1:364 Edeka Zentrale AG & Co. KG, 2:745 Edible tags, 3:1345 Edmonton Food Bank, 2:554 Edmunds, George F., 3:1264 Education and Science Organization (UN), 2:843 Education Foundation Accrediting Commission (ACF), 1:392 Education in food service industries, 1:389–394 formal training, 1:391 overview, 1:389 programs of study, 1:391–392 restaurant management, 3:1205 training venues, 1:392–393 types of training, 1:389–391 Edwards, Ferne, 2:674 Eggs as cancer-fighting food, 1:162 Egg Products Inspection Act, 2:611 minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Egnatius Mecennius, 1:33 Egypt, street food in, 3:1311 Egypt (ancient), military rations used by, 2:964 Ehrlich, Paul, 2:807 Eighner, Lars, 2:673 Eighteenth Amendment, 1:27, 1:31, 1:36, 2:973 Ei-kei, Tei, 1:251 Einstein Bros Bagels, 1:181 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 1:328 ElBulli (restaurant), 1:349, 2:501, 2:979–980 Elderly nutrition, 1:394–396 need for, 1:394 types of programs, 1:394–395 Elderly Nutrition Program, 1:394 Electron beams, 2:855 Eli’s Cheesecake, 2:565 Elliot, Graham, 3:1470

1532

Index

Ellis, Curt, 2:953 Ellison, Ralph, 3:1398 Emerald ash borer, 2:853 Emergency Food Assistance Program, 2:553 Emergency Rapid Response Food Crises Fund (ERRFCF), 2:718 Emeril Live! (television program), 2:639 Empire Magazine, 3:1023 Employment: U.S. food sector, 1:396–399 bartending profession, 2:972–973, 2:975 farmworkers’ working conditions and labor abuses, 1:474–475 food chain sectors, 1:396–397 future of, 1:399 industry labor and labor unions, 2:833–836 labor issues, 1:398 labor unions and nonprofit organizations, 1:398–399 meat processing, 2:945–959 overview, 1:396 regulation and labeling, 1:397–398 See also Equal opportunity employment/discrimination; Farmworkers; Migrant labor; Restaurant chefs; Restaurant management; Restaurant waitstaff; Worker safety Encyclopedia of Obesity, 2:861 Endangered species, 1:400–402 culture versus conservation, 1:401–402 defined, 1:400 extinction through passive means, 1:402 factors contributing to endangerment of species, 1:400–401 saving animals versus conserving plants, 1:402 whaling for food, 3:1481–1483 Energy Act (2005), 2:664 Energy balance, obesity and, 3:1054–1055 Energy bars, 3:1295 Energy Independence and Security Act (2007), 1:129 Energy-dense foods, 3:1054–1059 childhood obesity and, 1:205–206 economic cost of Western diet, 1:384–388 fiber in, 2:496 See also Calories England alcohol regulation and, 1:33 family meals/commensality, 1:446–447 Irish Great Hunger and, 1:450–451 last meals (18th century), 2:900 smuggling history and, 3:1275 See also United Kingdom Enlightenment, coffeehouses and coffee shops, 1:249–250 Enova oil, 2:919–921 Entamoeba histolytica, 2:607 “Entitlement” theory of famine, 1:451 Entrave, food riots and, 2:603

Environment, Power, and Society (Odum), 3:1128 Environmental issues Alar, 1:22–25 bees and colony collapse disorder, 1:115–117 butterflies and other lepidoptera, decline in population of, 1:155–157 of cattle industry, 1:191–192 chemical fertilizers, 1:201–204 circular food systems, 1:232–238, 1:233 (fig.), 1:234 (box), 1:235 (box) climate change, 1:238–242 of community gardens, 1:266 composting, 1:277–279 dead zones in fisheries, 1:340–342 deforestation for agriculture, 1:342–346 endangered species, 1:400–402 of exports, 1:426 factory farming and, 1:430–431 fish contaminants, 2:502–507 forestry management, 2:660–663 fracking and impact on food/water, 2:663–667 frozen foods, 2:692 herbicide resistance, 2:768–771 invasive species, 2:851–854 irradiation of food, 2:857 Kyoto Protocol, 2:874–875 landraces, 2:895–897 monoculture, 2:986–987 multifunctionality in agriculture, 2:1000–1001 organic foods and health implications, 3:1082–1083 overfishing and fisheries depletion, 3:1093–1096 packaging, 3:1108, 3:1111–1112 pesticides, 3:1136 portion sizes, 3:1154 poultry industry, 3:1156 steroid hormones in food, 3:1305–1306 sustainable agrifood systems, effect on environment, 3:1338–1342 take-out foods, 3:1350 threats to clean drinking water, 3:1378–1381 urban farming and rooftop gardens, 3:1405–1406 veganism and, 3:1421 vegetarianism and, 3:1430, 3:1438–1439 of water supply, 3:1456–1457 whaling for food, 3:1481–1483 See also Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Locavorism Environmental Justice Foundation, 1:203 Environmental Organization (UN), 2:843 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Alar ban by, 1:23–25 antibacterial soaps, detergents, and dishwashing liquids, 1:46 bees and, 1:116

Index bioterrorism and, 1:134 buffets and “all you can eat,” 1:153–154 carcinogens and relation of cancer to diet, 1:175 factory farming, 1:429 farmworkers, 1:474 fish contaminants, 2:503 food labeling, 2:886 food lobbying, 2:584–585 food safety agencies, generally, 2:611–612 fracking, 2:665–666 front groups, 2:688 herbicide resistance, 2:771 manure lagoons/methane, 2:940 organic foods, 3:1081 pesticides, 3:1134–1136 steroids in food, 3:1305 terrorist threats to food and water, 3:1374 water, 3:1455 worker safety, 3:1486–1488 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), 3:1320–1323 Epic of Gilgamesh, 1:342–343 Epicurious Cookbook, The, 1:298 Epicurious.com, 1:298 Eppley Institute for Research, 1:23 Equal, 1:73 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 1:397, 1:405 Equal opportunity employment/discrimination, 1:403–406 affirmative action, 1:404–405 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1:405 discrimination, 1:404 exploitation, 1:403–404 reverse discrimination, 1:405 sexual harassment, 1:405 See also Gender and foodways Erewhon Trading Company, 2:930 Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculosckeletal Disorders: Guidelines for Retail Grocery Stores (OSHA), 1:346 Erosion, of soil, 3:1285 Esaki, H., 1:164 Escherich, Theodor, 1:381 Escoffier, Auguste, 1:169, 1:193–194, 1:350, 2:499, 3:1192–1193 ESPN, 1:276 Espresso, coffeehouses and, 1:250–251 Esselstyn, Caldwell, 3:1420 Estrogen-mimicking compounds, 3:1015 ETC Group, 1:132 Ethical Food movement, 1:146 Ethical issues cattle industry and ethical implications, 1:192 factory farming as failure of social ethics, 1:432–433

1533

fishing for sport, 2:512–513 hunting, 2:815, 2:816 nutraceuticals, 3:1037–1038 self-checkout in grocery stores, 3:1254 social media and food, 3:1282–1283 veganism and, 3:1421–1422 veterinary science, 3:1450 whaling for food, 3:1482–1483 Ethnic foods, marketing of, 1:406–410 ethnic foods and ethnicity, defined, 1:406 marketing examples, 1:407–409 marketing strategies, 1:406–407 Ethnic grocery stores, 1:410–413 ethnic markets and community, 1:412–413 ethnicity and otherness, 1:410 history of grocery stores, 1:410–411 mainstream groceries around world, 1:411–412 Ethnic restaurants, 1:413–418 business of, 1:415–416 defined, 1:414 finding, 1:415 future of, 1:417–418 historical perspective, 1:414–415 for “insiders,” 1:416 “outsiders” in, 1:416–417 overview, 1:413–414 as staged versus authentic experience, 1:417 Eugene, Rudy, 1:44 Euromonitor, 1:301 Europe food banks in, 2:554 frozen food, 2:691–692 GMO crops, 2:714 PDO laws, 3:1172–1173 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1346 United Kingdom, 2:554–555 European Charter on Counteracting Obesity, 1:8 European Commission, 1:114, 2:698, 3:1087, 3:1172 European Community (EC), 3:1492–1493 European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources’ network, 3:1241 European Directive 2011, 2:645 European Economic Community (EEC), 2:524, 2:998–999, 3:1200 European Energy Strategy, 2:666 European Fair Trade Association, 1:437 European Federation of Food Banks, 2:554 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2:528, 2:678, 2:697, 2:856–857, 3:1297 European Union (EU) alcohol regulation and, 1:32 Animal Health and Welfare Panel, 2:677–678 cattle industry, 1:189

1534

Index

Codex Alimentarius, 1:244 dairy industry, 1:338 EU Regulation 543/2011, 1:281 exports, 1:425 FAO and, 2:546–547 fisheries certification programs, 2:509 fishing industry, 2:516 fishing policies, 2:521, 2:524–525 food additives, 2:528–529 food aid, 2:534 food allergies, 2:540 food banks, 2:553, 2:554 food bans, 1:105–108 food labels, 2:881 food lobbying, 2:585 fracking, 2:663–664, 2:666 frozen foods, 2:690, 2:692 functional foods, 2:696–698 gluten-free foods, 2:725 hormone-treated beef, 3:1306 horse meat scandal and, 1:106 hunger, 2:808 mad cow disease, 2:934 MSG, 2:992 multifunctionality in agriculture, 2:997–999 nutraceuticals, 3:1038 organic foods, 3:1084, 3:1086, 3:1090 restaurant inspections, 3:1200 sports nutrition, 3:1296–1297 sprouts, 3:1300 subsidies, 3:1322–1323 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1346 terroir, 3:1368–1369 trademarks, 3:1386 veganism, 3:1421 vegetable oils, 3:1426 EuroSpin, 2:743 Eutrophication, 1:341–342 Evangelical Christianity, food restrictions and, 1:229 Evaristti, Marco, 1:44 “Event,” factory farming as, 1:433 Everglades Village, 3:1335 Every Day With Rachael Ray, 2:589 Excel (Cargill), 2:947 Excitotoxins, 3:1014–1015 Executions, last meals of prisoners, 2:897–900 Exodus Plan, The (Cook), 1:123 Exotic Appetites (Heldke), 1:84 Exotic food and strange food, 1:418–421 in fine dining, 2:499–500 overview, 1:418–419 social functions of, 1:420–421 types of, 1:419–420

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, 1:208 Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (USDA), 3:1045 Expedia, 1:320 “Expensive tissue hypothesis,” 3:1113 Expert-based front groups, generally, 2:687 Expiration dates, 1:421–423 defining, 1:422 historical perspective, 1:421–422 labeling and branding fruits and vegetables, 2:889 misinterpretation and cost, 1:422–423 Exploitation, in workplace, 1:403–404 Export Administration Regulations, 1:145 Exports, 1:423–428 agricultural production and structural inequality, 1:424–425 food security and, 1:426–427 global food chain and, 1:425–426 international trade and, 1:423–424 overview, 1:423 Express, L’, 3:1213 Eye health. See Xerophthalmia Eyre, David, 2:701 EZ-FRESH, 2:494 Fable of the Bees, The (Mandeville), 1:115 Facebook, 1:145, 2:633, 3:1067, 3:1284 Factory farming, 1:429–434 animal welfare issues, 1:430 antibiotic use in food and, 1:50 availability of information, 1:431 climate change and, 1:238–242 as critique, 1:431–432 dairy industry and, 1:335–339 defined, 1:429 as “event” of modernity, 1:433 historical overview, 1:429–430 human subjectivity and, 1:433–434 social ethics failure and, 1:432–433 sustainability and public health, 1:430–431 See also Animal rights; Cattle industry; Manure lagoons/ methane Fad diets, 3:1475 Fagone, Jason, 1:276 Fair and carnival food, 1:434–436 commonality of, 1:436 competitions and displays, 1:435 as identity markers, 1:435–436 overview, 1:434–435 Fair Food Agreements, 1:476 Fair Food (Hesterman), 2:652 Fair Food Program, 3:1035–1036 Fair Labor Standards Act (1938), 1:397, 2:834, 3:1488

Index Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (1966), 2:878, 2:882, 2:886–887 Fair trade, 1:436–441 criticism of, 1:439–440 development of products, 1:438–439 imported food, 2:830 labeling and certification, 1:437–438 overview, 1:436–437 See also Sustainable agrifood systems Fair Trade International, 1:437–438, 2:830 Fair Trade Towns (label designation), 3:1336 Fair Trade Universities (label designation), 3:1336 Fair Trade USA, 1:398, 1:438, 2:830 Fairchild, David, 3:1241 Fairfood International, 1:200–201 Fairleigh Dickinson University, 3:1205 Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, 1:437, 3:1488–1489 Fairview Gardens, 1:267 Family, Career and Community Leaders of America, 1:392 Family farms and rural depopulation, 1:441–443 characteristics of family farms, 1:441–442 demographic trends, 1:442–443 lack of agricultural land, 1:442 mechanization and industrialization, 1:442 size of family farms, 1:442 Family Meal, The: Home Cooking With Ferran Adria (Adria), 1:298 Family meals/commensality, 1:443–448 in advanced industrial countries, 1:446–447 anthropological and historical studies, 1:443–444 children’s foods at home, 1:210–211 cultural change and, 1:447 economic and sociological studies, 1:444 frequency of shared meals in U.S., 1:444–445 social interaction during mealtime, 1:445–446 U.S. food choice at mealtime, 1:446 FamilyMart, 1:292 Famine Codes, 1:450 Famines, 1:448–453 causes of, 1:449–452 definitions and descriptions, 1:448–449 efforts to limit famine and suffering, 1:452 Famous Dave’s, 1:182 Fancy Food Show (trade show), 2:727, 2:729 Fanta, 2:938 FareShare, 2:554 Far-Fetched Foods, 2:766 Farm Animal Conservation Trust, 2:775 Farm Animal Rights Movement, 1:39–40 Farm Animal Welfare Council (United Kingdom), 3:1018 Farm bills, 1:453–458 debates about, 1:457–458 Farm Bill (1973), 3:1413

Farm Bill (1990), 3:1075, 3:1414 Farm Bill (1996), 2:626–627 Farm Bill (2002), 2:627, 3:1346 Farm Bill (2008), 2:627, 3:1260, 3:1346 Farm Bill and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, 2:626–627 historical evolution of, 1:453–454 interest groups, 1:454–455 origin of, 1:453 policy future, 1:458 politics of, 1:456–457 provisions of, 1:455–456 subsidy programs, 3:1152 Farm City (Carpenter), 2:649, 3:1405 Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act (1963), 2:834 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (2002), 1:454, 2:829 Farm Standard, 3:1091 Farm to School, 1:208, 2:685 Farm Worker’s Bill of Rights, 2:834 Farmer, Fannie, 2:587, 3:1302 Farmers, bankruptcy and, 1:102–103 Farmer’s Fridge, 3:1442 Farmers Market Coalition, 1:459 Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), 2:976, 2:977 Farmers’ Market Promotion Program, 2:627 Farmers’ markets, 1:458–464 authenticity and regulation, 1:462–463 cooking with seasonal produce from, 1:464–466 defining, 1:459–460 food deserts and, 2:563 history, development, and distribution, 1:460–461 imported food and, 2:830 key themes from literature and practice, 1:461–462 mobile markets, 2:976, 2:977 overview, 1:458–459, 1:464 SNAP and WIC, 2:627 Farmers’ markets, cooking with seasonal produce, 1:464–467 benefits for home cooks, 1:464–465 challenges of, 1:465–466 meaning of “local,” 1:464 See also Locavorism Farmers’ markets, farmers’ perspective, 1:467–471 community focus on farmers, 1:471 cost-effectiveness and quality assurance, 1:467–468 creation of retail market for independent farmers, 1:468–469 food engagement between farmer and consumer, 1:470–471 forms and sizes of markets, 1:469–470 historical background, 1:468

1535

1536

Index

Farmers of Forty Centuries, or Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea and Japan (King), 3:1089 Farming, cooperative community gardens, 1:263–266 Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), consumers’ perspective, 1:266–271 Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), farmers’ perspective, 1:271–273 kibbutzim (Israel) communal farming, 1:18 Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease (Howard), 3:1089 Farmworkers, 1:471–476 boycotts and labor practices, 1:144 economic inequalities confronting, 1:473–474 estimates of, in U.S., 1:473 exports, agricultural production, and structural integrity, 1:424–425 historical background and current context, 1:472–473 industry labor and labor unions, 2:833–834 legal protections and regulations, 1:475–476 NAFTA and, 3:1031–1036 overview, 1:471–472 safety risks to, 3:1485–1486 solidarity and organizing efforts, 1:476 working conditions and labor abuses, 1:474–475 WWOOFers, 3:1494–1497 See also Worker safety Farnsworth, Philo, 3:1360 Farouk Brigades, 1:45 Farrell’s, 2:822 Fast food, 2:477–481 business model, 2:477–478 consequences, 2:478–481 farmworkers and Campaign for Fair Food (CIW), 1:476 labor strikes, 3:1315 obesity and, 3:1054 popularity, 2:478 See also individual names of fast food chains Fast Food Forward, 3:1315 Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the American Meal (Schlosser), 1:431, 2:859–860, 2:910, 2:935, 2:953 Fast Food Nation (film), 1:40 Fast Paleo, 1:60 Fast-casual dining, 1:180–181 Fast-Food Consumption Among U.S. Adults and Children: Dietary and Nutrient Intake Profile (USDA), 2:860 Fat Duck, 2:501, 2:980, 2:982, 3:1030, 3:1396 Fat Fallacy, The: Applying the French Diet to the American Lifestyle (Clower), 2:681 Fat Is in Your Head, The (Shedd), 1:123 Fat replacers, 2:921 Fats, role in cardiovascular disease, 2:481–486 causes and risk factors, 2:482–483 CHD prevention, 2:483–484

coronary heart disease (CHD), 2:481–482 critiques of fat theory, 2:485 dietary recommendations, 2:484–485 history, 2:482 trans fat and hydrogenation, 3:1390–1391 See also Cardiac disease and diet Fats, role in diet, 2:486–490 bans on fatty foods, 1:106–107 changing attitudes toward fats, 2:486–487 dietary fat, overview, 2:487 guidelines, 2:489 monounsaturated fatty acids, 2:488 polyunsaturated fatty acids, 2:488 saturated fatty acids, 2:487–488 trans-fatty acids, 2:488–489 Faviken, 2:660 FD&C Act, 2:527, 2:528 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (1996), 1:454 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, 2:813 Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 1:31 Federal Bureau of Prisons, 3:1169 Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 3:1360–1361, 3:1363 Federal Crop Insurance Act (1980), 1:323 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), 1:322, 1:323, 1:325 Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act (1994), 1:323 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 3:1373 Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act, 3:1135 Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (1966), 3:1302 Federal Farm Board, 3:1320 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) (1938), 2:527–528, 2:611, 2:670, 2:878, 2:882, 2:884, 3:1014, 3:1200, 3:1296 Federal Food Safety Modernization Act (2011), 3:1200 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1947), 1:46, 1:475, 3:1135 Federal Labor Standards Act (1966), 3:1488 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), 2:795 Federal Meat Inspection Act, 2:611, 2:749, 3:1488 Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (Duck Stamps), 2:813 Federal Trade Commission, 2:490–493 beverage industry, 1:120 on children’s advertising, 1:7–8 children’s foods, 1:213–214 examples of work, 2:492–493 Federal Trade Commission Act (1914), 2:882, 3:1265 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:532–533 food labels, 2:882–883 goals and organization, 2:491–492 history of, 2:490–491

Index labeling, 2:886–887 nutraceuticals, 3:1037–1038 price wars, 3:1166 A Review of Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents, 1:8 sports nutrition, 3:1297 television advertising, 3:1363–1364 Federal Trademark Act, 3:1388 Federal Trademark Dilution Act (1995), 3:1389 Federated Co-operatives Ltd., 1:314 FedEx, 3:1070 Fedoroff, Nina, 2:651 Feeding America, 2:553 Feinstein, Rav Moshe, 2:870–871 Female circumcision, performance art and, 3:1126 Feminist restaurant management, 3:1205–1206 Fenton Communications, 1:24 Fermentation DIY food movement and, 1:374–375 exotic food and strange food, 1:419–420 Lactobacilli, 2:889–891 as preservative, 3:1158, 3:1160 See also Home fermentation Fermenters Club, 2:793 “Fern bars,” 1:185 Ferrero, Sylvia, 1:85 Festa Italiana (Hartford, Connecticut), 2:567 Feuerbach, Ludwig, 2:822 FIAN International, 2:803 Fiber, role in diet, 2:493–496 cancer and, 1:176 Codex Alimentarius, 1:246 controversies about, 2:496 fiber in food, 2:494 fiber in health and policy, 2:494–495 Fiber-based food packaging, 3:1110–1111 Fibersol, 2:494, 2:496 Field to Table, 2:566–567 Fields, Michael, 2:749 Figs, as cancer-fighting food, 1:162 Filière, 1:261 Financial sector grain elevators and, 2:730–731 storage and warehousing, 3:1306–1310 Findus Group Limited, 2:692 Fine dining, 2:497–501 in courts of Europe, 2:498 fine dining today, 2:500–501 overview, 2:497–498 restaurants and development of haute cuisine, 2:498–500 Finger Lakes distillery, 1:81–82 Finley, Karen, 3:1126 First Amendment, 1:37, 2:532 First Church, The (Mann), 1:230–231

1537

First Community Garden, 2:751 First Research, 1:99 Fischler, Claude, 3:1279 Fish Christian food restrictions and, 1:227 farming (See Aquaculture/fish farming) fish/fish oils as cancer-fighting food, 1:162–163 minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Fish, Albert, 1:44 Fish contaminants, 2:502–507 contributing factors to contamination, 2:505–506 forms of contamination, 2:503–505 history and scope of seafood contaminants, 2:502 seafood safety policies and consumer recommendations, 2:502–503 strategies for reducing contaminant intake, 2:503 Fisher, Irving, 3:1474 Fisheries certification programs, 2:507–510 challenges and concerns related to, 2:509–510 governance of, 2:508 purpose and scope of program standards, 2:507 Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (1976), 2:522 Fisheries Proclamation (Proclamation 2668), 2:521 Fishing for sport, 2:510–514 contemporary sport fishing and commodification, 2:512 ethics of, 2:512–513 goals of, 2:511 history of and tackle for, 2:511–512 regulation and conservation of, 2:513 Fishing industry, 2:514–519 aquaculture, 2:516–518 background, 2:514–515 contemporary industry, 2:518 effect of climate change on fisheries, 2:722 fishermen and bankruptcy, 1:102–103 food trends leading to diminished species, 2:631–633 frozen foods and, 2:690 isinglass, 3:1431 overfishing and fisheries depletion, 3:1093–1097 problems and solutions, 2:515–516 processing, transporting, and marketing, 2:515 sushi, 3:1329–1331 See also Overfishing and fisheries depletion Fishing policies, 2:519–525 coastal, 2:519–520 economic exclusion zones, 2:520–522 policies affecting cod, Alaska pollock, and whales, 2:523 policies affecting international trade, 2:523–524 policies of European Union, 2:524–525 regional fisheries management organizations, 2:522–523 transboundary, 2:520 Fisk, Eugene Lyman, 3:1474 Fit for Life (Diamond), 2:694 FitPick initiative, 3:1442

1538

Index

Fitzgerald, F. Scott, 1:255 Five Guys Burgers and Fries, 1:181 Flandrin, Jean-Louis, 3:1279 Flavor in Chinese medicine and diet, 1:216–217 food from farmers’ markets, 1:464–465 See also Natural and artificial flavors and fragrances Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States (FEMA), 3:1014 Flavr Savr (Calgene), 2:711, 2:713 Flaxseed, as cancer-fighting food, 1:163 Flay, Bobby, 1:306, 2:639, 2:716 Fleischmann’s, 1:148 Fleishman, Adam, 3:1396 Fleming, Alexander, 1:48 Fleming, Cecil, 3:1022 Fletcher, Horace, 3:1474 Fletcher, Jason, 3:1355 Fletcher Allen Health Care, 2:798–799 Flexitarian diet, 2:996 Flickr, 3:1282 Flik, 1:317 Florence Exhibition (1861), 1:169 Flowers Foods, 1:100 Fluorine, necessity of, 2:968 FMI, 3:1069 Foer, Jonathan Safran, 1:431 Foie gras production, 1:105 Fojol Brothers of Merlindia, 2:635 Folic acid, in cancer-fighting foods, 1:162 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act (1990), 1:454 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (2008), 1:454, 2:829, 3:1415 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Food Additives Amendment, 3:1014 Food, Inc.: How Industrial Food Is Making Us Sicker, Fatter, and Poorer—And What You Can Do About It (documentary), 2:953–954 “Food: Too Good to Waste,” 2:646 Food additives, 2:525–530 cancer and, 1:175 FDA on, 2:549–550 Food Additives Amendment (1958), 2:549 function of, 2:525–526 market for, 2:529 natural and artificial flavors and fragrances, 3:1012 safety and regulation, 2:526–529 toxicity testing, 3:1383–1385 Food Adulteration Act (1860), 2:670 Food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:530–533 direct advertising, 2:531–532 indirect advertising, 2:532

product sales, 2:530–531 proposed guidelines for food advertisements in schools, 2:532–533 See also Advertising and marketing of food to children Food aid, 2:533–538 commitment and right to adequate food, 2:534–535, 2:534 (table) Food Aid Convention, 2:533–534 future of, 2:537–538 overview, 2:533–534 types of, 2:535–537, 2:537 (table) Food allergies, 2:538–542 diagnosis of, 2:540 epidemiology, 2:539–540 etiology, 2:541 food safety and, 2:608 HAACP and, 2:763 history of, 2:539 labeling and, 2:540 overview, 2:538 prevention and treatment, 2:541 symptoms of, 2:540 See also Food allergies: impact on life Food allergies: impact on life, 2:542–545 anxiety, depression, and stress, 2:543–544 diagnosis, 2:542–543 food allergies, defined, 2:542 interventions to reduce psychological impact, 2:544 management, 2:543 quality of life impact, 2:543 symptoms, 2:542 Food Alliance, 1:198, 3:1017 Food and Agriculture Act (1977), 1:395, 1:454 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2:545–548 aquaculture and fish farming, 1:62 aquaculture/fish farming, 1:62 climate change and, 1:243–244 Codex Alimentarius, 1:244, 1:246–248 Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 2:774 cooperation strategy, 2:546 deforestation for agriculture, 1:344 dietary guidelines, 1:361 exports, 1:426 famine, 1:452 FAO Decentralized Cooperation Programme, 2:803 FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Food and Food Trade, 1:244, 1:246 FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), 2:527, 2:547, 2:855 FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, 1:243 fish contaminants, 2:502, 2:505–507 fishing industry, 2:514, 2:518

Index food additives, 2:527 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:533–534 food aid, 2:533–534 food sovereignty, 2:617, 2:619–620, 2:622–623 food waste, 2:643 fresh food, 2:684 Green Revolution, 2:736 heritage breeds, 2:773 history, 2:545–546 human right to adequate food, 2:803 hunger, 2:805–809, 2:811 IAASTD, 2:843–846 international food security, 2:846, 2:848 Kyoto Protocol, 2:875 landraces, 2:896 multifunctionality in agriculture, 2:998 nutrition education, 3:1043 overfishing and fisheries depletion, 3:1093 portion sizes, 3:1154 role and function of, 2:546 seed banks, 3:1240–1241 seed conservation, 3:1246–1247 Special Programme for Food Security (UN), 3:1291–1294 street food, 3:1311 veganism, 3:1421 Food and Drug Act (Canada), 3:1346 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2:548–552 advertising, 2:938 aflatoxins, 1:11 Alar and, 1:23 antibacterial soaps, detergents, and dishwashing liquids, 1:46–47 artificial sweeteners, 1:71–73 baby food, 1:95 background, 2:549 beverage industry and, 1:120 on bioengineered food, 2:551 bioterrorism and, 1:134 botulism, 1:142 canning, 1:171 carcinogens and relation of cancer to diet, 1:174, 1:175 childhood obesity, 1:207 cholesterol, 1:226 FAO and, 2:548–549 fats and cardiovascular disease, 2:484–485 fats in diet, 2:489 Federal Trade Commission, 2:493 fiber, 2:495 food additives, 2:527–528, 2:549–550 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:532–533 food bans and, 1:105, 1:107, 1:109

1539

food expiration dates, 1:422 food labeling, 2:550–551, 2:878, 2:882–887 food safety agencies, generally, 2:611–612 food safety issues, overview, 2:551–552, 2:608–609 fraud and, 2:667, 2:670–671 free-range meats and poultry, 2:675–676 frozen food, 2:692 functional foods, 2:698 growth hormones and drugs in meat products, 2:748–750 heritage breeds, 2:776 high-fructose corn syrup, 2:780 home fermentation, 2:793 imported food, 2:826–828 irradiation of food, 2:856–858 Lactobacilli, 2:891 low-fat foods, 2:920 low-sodium foods, 2:926 macrobiotic diet, 2:930 MSG, 2:992–993 NAFTA, 3:1035 natural and artificial flavors and fragrances, 3:1012–1014 newspaper food columns, 3:1024 nutraceuticals, 3:1037–1038 organic foods, 3:1082 overview, 2:548–549 packaging, 3:1105, 3:1111 pet food, 3:1139 portion sizes, 3:1150, 3:1152–1153 raw diets, 3:1177 restaurant inspections, 3:1200 soy and phytoestrogens, 3:1289–1291, 3:1291 sports nutrition, 3:1296–1299 sprouts, 3:1300 steroid hormones in food, 3:1302–1306 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1346 television advertising, 3:1363–1364 toxicity testing, 3:1385 trans fats and hydrogenation, 3:1390 USDA and, 3:1414 vending machines, 3:1441 water, 3:1455–1456 weight loss diets, 3:1475 worker safety, 3:1488 Food and Nutrition Board (IOM), 1:395, 2:495, 3:1042 Food and Nutrition Service (USDA), 1:212, 3:1181–1182, 3:1230, 3:1235 Food and Quality Protection Act (1996), 3:1135 Food and Retail Workers United, 1:399, 2:835 Food and the City (Cockrall-King), 2:649 Food and Water Watch, 1:57, 1:431, 3:1456

1540

Index

Food & Wine, 2:588, 2:590 Food apps (applications). See Apps for food Food banks, 2:552–557 critiques of, 2:555–557 global expansion of, 2:553–555 origins of, 2:553 overview, 2:552–553 Food Banks Canada, 2:554, 2:556 Food Blog Alliance, 1:139 Food Blog Code of Ethics, 3:1283 Food Blog Connect, 1:139 Food Blogger Camp, 1:139 Food carts, 2:558–560 economic issues, 2:558–559 health and safety issues, 2:559–560 types of, 2:558 “Food chain actors,” 1:284 Food Chain Workers Alliance, 1:396, 1:398–399, 1:473, 2:959 Food Code (Washington state), 2:905 Food coloring agents bans on, 1:108 issues of food additives, 2:525–530 See also Food additives Food Corporation of India, 3:1308 Food deserts, 2:560–564 access to healthy and nutritious foods, 2:561 attitudes and behaviors relating to food purchases, 2:562 childhood obesity, 1:206 economics and, 2:561–562 food justice, 2:563 food security, 2:562–563 grocery stores and supermarkets, 2:747–748 local food movements, 2:563 mini-marts and, 2:971 mobile markets and, 2:977–978 overview, 2:560–561 Food fairs and festivals, 2:564–568 belonging and, 2:564–565 changing traditions and, 2:565 commercialization of, 2:567 multicultural ideology and, 2:565–566 as social action, 2:566–567 Food Fight (Brownell, Horgen), 2:650 Food First, 1:53, 2:575–576 Food for Life (Comida para la Vida), 2:566 Food for Peace Act, 2:536, 2:537 (table) Food Guide Pyramid (USDA), 1:207, 1:361–363, 1:362, 1:362 (fig.), 3:1039, 3:1256 Food Hygiene in Catering Establishments: Legislation and Model Regulations (WHO), 3:1200 Food in popular media, 2:568–573 connection between food and media, 2:569 food and the feminine, 2:571–572

food and the masculine, 2:572–573 food as cultural and familial unifier, 2:570–571 food as political signifier, 2:573 food references in early and mid-twentieth century media, 2:569–570 overview, 2:568–569 See also Celebrity chefs; Food magazines; Food TV; Internet; individual names of films; individual names of television programs Food insecurity, 2:573–579 community-based approach, 2:577–578 dependency approach, 2:575–576 domestic food insecurity, 1:376–379 emergency food system, 2:576–577 food aid, 2:533–538, 2:534 (table), 2:537 (table) food deserts, 2:562–563 food policy councils and food security, 2:597 food sovereignty concept compared to, 2:622 food stamps and WIC, 2:628 global warming and future food supply, 2:719–723 in industrialized world, 2:576 mini-marts, 2:970–972 modernist approach in the global South, 2:574–575 nutrition education, 3:1043–1044 overview, 2:573–574 pay-what-you-can cafés, 3:1121–1123 urban farming and rooftop gardens, 3:1405–1406 urbanization of agricultural land, 3:1409–1410 See also Domestic food insecurity; Food banks; Human right to adequate food; Hunger; International food security; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Food intake, weight and, 3:1055–1056 Food isotope maps, 3:1345 Food justice, 2:579–582 activist origins, 2:579–580 food justice scholarship, 2:580–581 food writing in books, 2:652 Food Justice (Gottlieb, Joshi), 2:580, 2:652 Food Labeling and Education Act (1990), 3:1364 Food lobbying, 2:582–587 concerns about, 2:583–584 examples of, 2:584–586 size and scope of, 2:582–583 strategies, 2:583 Food magazines, 2:587–592 closure of Gourmet, 2:589 digital editions of, 2:591 early history of, 2:587–588 independent, 2:590–591 mergers and acquisitions, 2:588 overview, 2:587 resurgence of, 2:589–590

Index scope of content in, 2:588–589 See also individual names of magazines Food Management, 1:317 Food Marketing Institute, 2:743 Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? (McGinnis, Gootman, Kraak), 1:8, 1:120 Food miles, 2:592–596 background and development of concept, 2:592–593 criticism, 2:593–594 impact of concept, 2:595 overview, 2:592 strategies for consumers to reduce food miles, 2:594–595 Food Miles Report, The: The Dangers of Long-Distance Food Transport, 2:592 Food Movements Unite! (Holt-Giménez), 2:652 Food Network celebrity chefs, 1:194, 1:196 cookbooks, 1:298–300 cooking competitions, 1:306 food magazines, 2:589–590 Food Network in the Kitchen (app), 1:60 Food Network Magazine, 2:590–591 food trucks, 2:634 food TV, overview, 2:638–642 food writing in books, 2:652 launch of, 2:638–639 molecular gastronomy, 2:982 websites on food, 3:1470 Food Not Bombs (FNB), 2:672–674 Food Nutrition Service (USDA), 2:625–626, 2:627 Food policy councils, 2:596–601 Community Food Projects: Indicators of Fiscal Year 2011 (Community Food Security Coalition), 2:599 examples of work by, 2:598–599 food security and, 2:597 goals of, 2:598 growth in, 2:599 importance of, 2:597–598 Knoxville Food Policy Council creation, 2:596–597 overview, 2:596 shaping policy, 2:600 Food Politics (Nestle), 2:586 Food preparation carcinogens and, 1:176–177 labeling and branding fruits and vegetables, 2:888–889 solar cookers, 3:1288–1289 See also Convenience foods; Food safety; Foodborne illness; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Restaurant cooking technologies Food production migrant labor in food production chain, 2:958–959 monopolies, 2:989–990

1541

multinational conglomerates’ effect on, 2:1001–1004 naturally raised and fed meats, 3:1016–1021 olive oil production problems, 3:1062–1063 organic production, 3:1083–1087 Paleodietary reconstruction and interpretive challenges, 3:1118–1119 population and food supply, 3:1146 protected designation of origin (PDO), 3:1171–1174 safety risks to workers, 3:1486–1487 See also Soil degradation and conservation; Sustainable agrifood systems; Sustainable agrifood systems, effect on environment Food Project, 3:1407 Food provisioning, deskilling and, 1:350–355 Food pyramid. See Dietary Guidelines and graphics Food Research and Action Center, 2:630 Food Revolution (television program), 2:640 Food riots, 2:601–604 causes of, 2:602–603 moral economy and, 2:601 rioters and authorities, 2:601 types of, 2:603 Food Rules (Pollan), 2:651 Food safety, 2:604–610 allergy and hypersensitivity, 2:608 artisanal foods and, 1:78 bacteria, 2:605–607 Codex Alimentarius, 1:243–248, 1:244 (fig.) contamination and adulteration, 2:608 dangers and side effects of preservatives, 3:1104, 3:1105–1106 diners, 1:365–366 E. coli, 1:381–384 exports and, 1:426 factory farming, sustainability, and public health, 1:430–431 FDA on, 2:551–552 fish contaminants, 2:502–507 food additives, 2:526–529 foodborne illness, 2:652–657 grass-fed beef, 2:733–734 imported food, 2:828–829 irradiation, 2:857 mad cow disease, 2:933 naturally occurring toxins, 2:608 occurrence of foodborne illness, 2:604–605 organic foods and health implications, 3:1079–1082 parasites, 2:607–608 prions, 2:608 of prison food, 3:1167 raw diets, 3:1176–1177 raw milk and pasteurization, 3:1178–1181 restaurant cooking technologies, 3:1198–1199 restaurant inspections, 3:1199–1203

1542

Index

safety systems and regulations, 2:609–610 shelf life, 3:1256–1259 street food, 3:1311 sushi, 3:1329–1331 take-out foods, 3:1349–1350 toxicity testing, 3:1383–1385 vectors and contributing agents, 2:609 viruses, 2:607 vulnerability, 2:608–609 See also Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP); Packaged food and preservatives; Packaging; Tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale Food safety agencies, 2:610–612 brief history of U.S. agencies, 2:610–611 modern-day U.S. agencies, 2:611–612 See also Codex Alimentarius; Codex Alimentarius Commission; Federal Trade Commission; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); U.S. Department of Agriculture; World Trade Organization Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA, 1:346, 2:611, 2:749, 2:827, 3:1152 Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA), 3:1414 Food Safety Authority of Ireland, 2:667 Food Safety Modernization Act (2010), 2:551–552 Food Safety Modernization Act (2011), 2:611, 3:1200, 3:1346 Food Safety Modernization Act (2012), 2:605 Food Safety Modernization Act (2013), 2:828 Food Safety Research Office of the National Agricultural Library, 2:611–612 Food Sanitation Law, 2:529 Food science departments/programs in universities, 2:612–617 critiques and recent developments in food science departments, 2:615–616 food science as academic program, 2:613 leading programs, 2:613–614, 2:614 (table), 2:615 (table) overview, 2:612–613 trends, 2:616 See also individual names of universities Food Security Act (1985), 1:454 Food security organizations, 1:373 Food service training. See Education in food service industries Food sovereignty, 2:617–622 multifunctionality in agriculture, 2:1000–1001 origins of concept, 2:617–618 peasant rights and indigenous food sovereignty, 2:621

pillars of, 2:618–621 policy and regulation, 2:622–625 Food sovereignty, policy and regulation, 2:622–625 emergency of food sovereignty concept, 2:622–623 key policy areas, 2:623–625 Food Sovereignty movement, 1:53 Food Stamp Act (1964), 2:626, 3:1412 Food Stamp Act (1977), 2:626 Food stamps and WIC, 2:625–631 benefits restrictions, 2:628 brief history of, 2:626–627 eligibility and benefits, 2:627–628 impact of, on food security, 2:629 impact of, on health, 2:629–630 overview, 2:625–626 participation, 2:628–629 recent programs, 2:627 WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 2:627 WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children), 1:360, 1:378, 2:574, 2:576–578, 2:625–626, 2:628–630, 2:779, 2:977, 3:1412 See also Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Food Standards Agency (U.K.), 1:8 Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2:529 Food storage, cancer and, 1:175 Food supply, terrorist threats to, 3:1375–1376 Food tourists, 3:1381–1383 Food trends leading to diminished species, 2:631–633 consuming fish, 2:632–633 consuming the food chain, 2:631 Food trucks, 2:633–637 corporate food service, 1:318 East Coast, 2:634–635 evolution of, 2:633–634 internationally, 2:637 Midwest, 2:635–636 modern resurgence of, 2:634 Pacific Northwest, 2:637 South, 2:636 street food, 3:1312 West Coast and Pacific, 2:636–637 Food TV, 2:637–642 cooking show history, 2:638 Food Network launch, 2:638–639 (See also Food Network) health information, 2:640 impact of, on cooking skills, 2:639–640 overview, 2:637–638 role of, 2:641–642 science and technology, 2:640–641 social messages on, 2:641 Food walls (automat restaurants), 1:159, 3:1348

Index Food waste, 2:642–648 circular food systems and, 1:232–238, 1:233 (fig.), 1:234 (box), 1:235 (box) conceptualizing, 2:644–645 measurement of, 2:645 overview, 2:642–643 responses to, 2:645–646 supply chain and, 2:646–647 types of, 2:643–644 See also Environmental issues Food writing in books, 2:648–652 books about industrialization of food supply, 2:649–651 food justice, 2:652 ghostwriters for celebrity chefs, 2:715–717 local food movement and criticism, 2:648–649 nutritionism and dietary advice, 2:651–652 overview, 2:648 vegetarianism and, 3:1432 Foodbank, 2:554–555 FoodBank Johannesburg, 2:555 FoodBank South Africa (FBSA), 2:555 Food-based retail marijuana concentrate (FRMC), 1:166 Foodbloggers.net, 1:139 Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System, 2:604–605, 2:612 Foodborne illness, 2:652–657 common sources of, 2:653–656 consequences of unsafe food, 2:762 food contamination and, 2:656 food safety and, 2:657 Listeria and control of foodborne pathogens, 2:903–904 (See also Listeria) outbreaks, 2:656 overview, 2:652–653 street food, 3:1311 in U.S., 2:653 wet markets and hawking, 3:1479 See also Food safety; Litigation concerning food issues; Tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale Foodborne Outbreak Online Database, 2:604–605 FoodChamps.org, 1:207 Foodie SnapPak, 3:1282 Foodista, 1:139 Food-level reductionism, 3:1047 FoodNet, 2:604 Foods of minimal nutritional value (FMNV), 3:1234 Foodservice Management Professional, 1:390 FoodShare, 2:566–567 Foodshed concept, 3:1128 Foodspotting, 3:1282 Fooducate, 3:1472 Foodways. See Cultural identity and food; Gender and foodways FOOL, 2:591

1543

For Dummies, 1:139 Foraging, 2:657–660 controlling invasive species and, 2:660 as fad, 2:660 motivation for, 2:658 overharvesting fears, 2:659–660 overview, 2:657–658 poisoning risk from, 2:659 public land controversy, 2:659 quality food for free, 2:658 reconnecting with land and food, 2:658–659 types of wild plants, 2:658 Ford, Henry, 2:946 Ford Foundation, 2:711, 2:736, 2:739 Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA), 2:826 Foreign Assistance Act (1961), 2:717 Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP), 2:828 Forestry management, 2:660–663 challenges of, 2:663 cultural services, 2:662 deforestation for agriculture, 1:342–346 overview, 2:660–661 provisioning services, 2:661 regulating services, 2:662 supporting services, 2:662–663 Forster, J., 2:968–969 Fort WorthStar-Telegram, 3:1023 Fortune, 2:745 Forward vertical integration, 3:1445 Foster, John Bellamy, 3:1148 Four Seasons Restaurant, 1:349 Fournier, Marcel, 2:819 Fracastoro, Girolamo, 3:1448 Fracking, impact on food and water, 2:663–667 agriculture and livestock, 2:665–666 air quality, 2:666 international efforts, 2:666 overview, 2:663–664 process of, 2:664 soil degradation, 3:1285 water quality and availability, 2:664–665 Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN), 2:874 France fat tax in, 3:1355–1356 gastronomic meal of the French, 3:1401, 3:1403 Francione, Gary, 3:1422 Franco-American, 1:408 Frankenfood Myth, The (Miller, Conko), 2:551 “Frankenfoods,” 2:714, 2:880 Franklin, Benjamin, 1:34, 1:322 Franklin Infant Food, 1:93 Fraud, 2:667–671 complexity of, 2:671 historical perspective, 2:667–668

1544

Index

impact of food fraud, 2:668–670 motivation for, 2:668 regulation and labeling issues, 2:670–671 testing for food fraud, 2:670 See also Tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale Frederick the Great (king of Prussia), 1:250 Fred’s Market, 1:154 Free to Be Thin (Chapian, Coyle), 1:123 Freedom From Want (Rockwell), 1:68 Freedom Industries, 3:1456 Freegan Movement, 2:671–673 Freegans and dumpster diving, 2:671–674 foods found in dumpsters, 2:672 Freegan Movement, 2:671 how to dumpster dive, 2:674 identifying people who dumpster dive, 2:672–674 overview, 2:671–672 reasons for dumpster diving, 2:672 Free-range meats and poultry, 2:675–679 animals in total confinement compared to, 2:675–677 grazing animals, 2:677–678 Freidberg, Susanne, 2:684 Fremont Canning Company, 1:94, 1:169 French, Simone, 3:1262 French Chef, The (television program), 2:638 French Laundry, The, 2:589 French Paradox, 2:679–682 CHD and alcohol, 2:680 criticism, 2:681 food, food practices, and, 2:680–681 in mainstream media, 2:679–680 overview, 2:679 in popular culture, 2:681–682 French Women Don’t Get Fat (Guiliano), 2:681 Freon-12, 3:1184 Fresh Direct, 3:1069–1070 Fresh food, 2:682–686 farmers’ markets and farmers’ perspective, 1:468 fragile fresh produce and genetically modified fresh food, 2:683–684 fresh and frozen fresh, 2:683 health and community benefits of fresh foods, 2:684–685 overview, 2:682 raw food and processed fresh foods, 2:683 risks of consuming fresh food, 2:684 Fresh (Freidberg), 2:684 Fresh Healthy Vending, 3:1442 FreshDirect, 3:1471–1472 Freud, Sigmund, 1:250–251 Friedan, Betty, 1:149 Frieden, Thomas, 3:1354 Friedman, Ken, 2:702

Friend of the Sea (FOS), 2:507, 2:509–510 Friendly’s, 1:181 Frigidaire, 3:1184 Frito-Lay, 1:4, 1:74, 3:1265 Front groups, 2:686–689 characteristics of, 2:686–687 examples of, 2:687–689 history of, 2:686 overview, 2:686 Front of the house (restaurants) industry labor and labor unions, 2:835–836 restaurant management, 3:1204 Front-of-package (FOP) labels, 2:883 Frozen food, 2:689–693 early methods of, 2:690 environmental impact of, 2:692 evolutions of frozen meals, 2:690–691 freezing meat, poultry, fish, 2:690 health and dietary effects of, 2:692 modern developments, 2:690 packaging, 2:691 refrigerator design and size, 3:1184–1187 worldwide, 2:691–692 Fruitarianism, 2:693–696 diets and practices, 2:693 historical examples, 2:693–694 motivation for, 2:694–695 as movement, 2:695 nutritional issues of, 2:695 Fruits as cancer-fighting foods, 1:161–164 labeling and branding fruits and vegetables, 2:888–889 scurvy and Vitamin C, 3:1238–1239 Fry, T. C., 2:694 Fuddrucker’s, 1:185 Fukuoka, Masanobu, 3:1089, 3:1128 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, 3:1378 Full vertical integration, 3:1445 Functional bodies, 3:1048 Functional foods, 2:696–700 consumer acceptance of, 2:699–700 definitions, 2:696 expectations and fears, 2:697 markets for, 2:698–699 overview, 2:696 regulation, 2:697–698 Fungi, 2:607 Furie, Noel, 3:1205–1206 Futrell, Sue, 3:1370 Future Foundation, 1:300, 1:301–302 Gagnaire, Pierre, 2:980 Galen, 3:1448 Gallup Poll, 1:445–447, 2:695, 3:1419

Index Gamma rays, 2:855 Gammon, minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Gandhi, Mohandas, 2:694, 2:782, 3:1316 Gandhi, Renu, 3:1303 Ganesha (Hindu god), 2:781 Garcia, Deborah Koons, 2:952 Garden City Plots, 1:263 Gardiner Lyceum, 2:892 Garlic, as cancer-fighting food, 1:163 Garlic and Sapphires (Reichl), 3:1211 Garlic mustard, 2:852 Garlic Mustard Festival, 2:660 Garlick, Theodatus, 1:63 Garten, Ina, 1:297, 1:298 Gaslight Café, 1:252 “Gastrodiplomacy.” See Culinary diplomacy Gastropubs, 2:701–703 birth of, 2:701–702 growth of movement, 2:702 modern-day, 2:702–703 overview, 2:701 U.S. expansion, 2:702 Gates, Bill, 3:1361 Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., 1:328 Gates Foundation, 2:715 Gaud, William S., 2:735 Gault, Henri, 3:1213 Gault Millau (guidebook), 1:195, 3:1213 Gels, sport nutrition, 3:1295 Gender and foodways, 2:703–708 alcohol regulation history and women’s issues, 1:33 bartending profession and gender, 2:975 circular food systems, 1:236 cooking as leisure activity, 1:301–302, 1:303 family meals/commensality, 1:447 feminist food studies, 2:705–707 food columns in newspapers and women’s pages, 3:1022, 3:1025 food in popular media, 2:571–573 food production, 2:704 gender composition of foreign-born food service workers, 2:961, 2:962 gender of waitstaff, 3:1215 hunting and gender, 2:814 junk food consumption, 2:860 overview, 2:703 performance art using food, 3:1126 restaurant management, 3:1205–1206 spirituality, 2:705 structural relations, 2:703–704 symbolic representations, 2:704–705 “Gene gun,” 2:712 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1:52, 1:244, 2:524, 2:622, 3:1490–1492

1545

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist’s Nutrition Council, 3:1255–1256 General Electric, 3:1184 General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, 2:522 General Mills, 1:2, 1:7, 1:100, 1:182, 1:185 General Motors, 3:1184 Generally Recognized as Safe Affirmation Petition, 2:920 “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS), 2:489, 2:527, 2:920, 3:1014, 3:1105 Generic brands, 2:708–710 consumer perception and preference, 2:708 future of, 2:710 genericization, 2:710 market presence of, 2:709–710 marketing orders for generic advertising, 2:708–709 GENESYS, 3:1242 Genetic mutation, poultry factory farming and, 1:430 Genetic nutritionism, 3:1048 Genetic Resources Action International, 3:1460 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), 2:710–715 biopiracy and, 1:133 development and promotion of, 2:711–713 early growth of GMO crops, 2:713–714 FDA on bioengineered food, 2:551 fresh food and, 2:683 Global Food Security Act of 2009, 2:717–719 labeling: organic, local, and genetically modified, 2:877–882 labeling and branding fruits and vegetables, 2:888 overview, 2:710–711 PLU codes and, 3:1161 resistance to expansion of GMO crops, 2:714–715 terminator technology, 3:1365–1368 Genetics, obesity and, 3:1054 Geographical indications (GI), 3:1171 George, Matthew, 1:436 George IV (king of England), 1:193 George Mason University, 1:119 George Ohsawa Macrobiotic Foundation, 2:930 George VI (king of England), 1:328 Gerber, 1:94–95, 1:97, 3:1262 Gerber, Daniel, 1:94, 1:97, 1:169 Gerber, Dorothy, 1:94 Gerber, Sally, 1:94 Gereffi, Gary, 1:259–260 German Vegetarian Society (Vegetarierbund Deutschland), 3:1428 Gestational diabetes, 1:356–357 Getz, Arthur, 3:1128 Ghana Cocoa Board, 2:942–943 Ghostwriters for celebrity chefs, 2:715–717 Giardia, 2:656 Giddens, Anthony, 1:282

1546

Index

Giessen Raw Food Study, 3:1177 Gilbey’s Gin, 3:1319 Gilroy (California) Garlic Festival, 1:306 Ginsberg, Allen, 1:252 Ginza, 2:766 Giuliano, Mireille, 2:681 Givaudan, 2:529 Glass, for food packaging, 3:1110 Gleason, J. A., 3:1058 Glickman, Dan, 3:1142 Global Agricultural Trade System, 2:826 Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform, 2:619 Global Campaign to End Violence Against Women, 2:620 Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT), 3:1241–1242, 3:1247 Global Environment Monitoring System—Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme, 1:202 Global Environmental Facility, 2:843 Global Food Loss and Waste Measurement Protocol, 2:645 Global Food Security Act of 2009, 2:717–719 Global Food Security Act of 2009, overview, 2:717–719 IAASTD, 2:843–846 See also International food security Global FoodBanking Network (GFN), 2:553–557 Global Forest Resources Assessment, 1:344 Global Horizons Manpower, Inc., 1:475 Global Investigative Journalism Network, 2:951 Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources (2007), 2:774–775 Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources (1996), 2:774, 2:896 Global Security Act (2014), 2:718 Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition, 2:803 Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health (2004), 1:8, 3:1353 Global warming and future food supply, 2:719–723 effect of climate change on crops, 2:721–722 effect of climate change on fisheries, 2:722 effect of climate change on meat production, 2:722 future policy to mitigate effects, 2:722–723 influences on, 2:720–721 overview, 2:719–720 See also Climate change Globalization anti-globalization movements, 1:51–54 authenticity of cuisines and, 1:86 barter, informality, and food, 1:113–114 canned goods and, 1:169–170 Chinese traditional medicine, diet, and, 1:216 coffeehouses, coffee shops, and contemporary practices, 1:252–253

commodity chains, 1:262 convenience stores worldwide, 1:292 cookbooks, foreign rights, and international sales, 1:299 deskilling and, 1:352 economic cost of the Western diet, 1:388 ethnic foods and marketing, 1:407 fiber in food supply and, 2:496 of industrial chicken industry, 3:1158 junk food availability, 2:860–861 See also Cultural identity and food; Economic cost of the Western diet; Ethnic foods, marketing of; Ethnic grocery stores; Ethnic restaurants; Imported food Glucose, diabetes and, 1:355–358 Gluten-free foods, 2:723–727 celiac disease, 2:723, 2:725–726 gluten-free diet, 2:724 gluten-free flours, 2:968 gluten-free food products, 2:724 labelling, 2:724–725 overview, 2:723–724 Goat, minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 GoBio!, 3:1069–1070 Godey’s Lady’s Book, 2:936 God’s Answer to Fat: Lose It! (Hunter), 1:123 Godwin, Erik, 2:583 Godwin, R. Kenneth, 2:583 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 3:1088 Gold, Jonathan, 1:85, 3:1212–1214 Gold Rush, The (film), 2:569–570 Goldacre, Ben, 3:1051 Goldberg, Alan, 3:1142 Goldberger, Joseph, 3:1123–1124 Golden Rice anti-globalization movements and, 1:54 resistance to, 2:714 Gonzalez, Angel, 1:44 Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat (Taubes), 2:651–652 Good Food Guide, The, 2:702 Good Food (magazine), 2:588 Good Food (television program), 2:640 Good Housekeeping, 1:94 Good Jobs Nation, 3:1315 Google, 1:60, 1:318, 1:326, 2:975, 3:1067 Gootman, J. A., 1:8, 1:120 Gottlieb, Robert, 2:580–581, 2:652 Gould Amendment (1913), 2:878, 2:882 Gourdough’s, 2:636 Gourmand Awards for Best Cookbook, 1:299 Gourmet, 2:587–590 Gourmet and specialty foods, 2:727–729 defining gourmet, 2:727 specialty foods, historical perspective, 2:727–728 specialty foods, modern-day, 2:728–729

Index Government Accounting Office, 3:1226 GRACE Communications Foundation, 2:952 Graham, Sylvester, 2:694, 2:765, 3:1428, 3:1473 Graham Elliot Bistro, 3:1470 Graham Journal of Health and Longevity, The, 2:765 Grahamite American Physiological Society, 2:766 Grahamites, 2:765, 2:767 Grain elevators/hoarding and speculation, 2:730–731 during 2007-2008 food crisis, 2:731 grain elevators, defined, 2:730 grain elevators and commodity markets, 2:730 hoarding, 2:731 speculation, 2:730–731 storage and warehousing, 3:1306–1310 Grain Futures Act (1922), 3:1412 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (USDA), 1:11 Grameen Bank, 2:955, 2:956 “Grameen method,” 2:955 Grand Central Oyster Bar, 3:1101 Grand Cru Beer & Cheese Market, 3:1066–1067 Grand Lux Café, 1:183 “Grand National Recipe and Baking Contest,” 1:305 Grand Union grocery, 2:744 Grange, 1:454 Grape Nuts, 1:319, 2:744, 3:1255 Grapes, as cancer-fighting food, 1:163 Grapes of Wrath, The (Steinbeck), 2:952 Grass-fed beef, 2:731–735 animal welfare issues, 2:733 consumption of, 2:734–735 environmental impact of, 2:734 evolution, domestication, mutualism, 2:732 food safety of, 2:733–734 industrial intensification, 2:732–733 nutritional composition and consumer health, 2:733 overview, 2:731–732 Gray, Margaret, 2:651 “Gray” trade, 1:113–114 Great Bengal famine, 1:451 Great Good Place, The: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts and How They Get You Through the Day (Oldenburg), 1:253 Great Hunger, 1:450–451 Great Leap Forward, 1:451 Great Menus, 3:1208 Greater Kansas City (Missouri) Food Policy Coalition, 2:599 Greece (ancient) bee keeping and, 1:116 fine dining in, 2:497 fraud and, 2:667 last meals in, 2:899–900

1547

Green, Joe, 3:1361 Green, John J., 2:581 Green, Victor H., 3:1399 Green crab, 2:852 Green Guerillas, 2:751 Green Revolution cultural identity and food, 1:333 deforestation for agriculture, 1:343, 1:345 exports, agricultural production, and structural integrity, 1:424–425 fishing industry, 2:517 food insecurity, 2:575 food sovereignty, 2:624–625 gender and foodways, 2:704 genetically modified organisms, 2:711 hunger, 2:807 monoculture, 2:986–987 NAFTA, 3:1034 pesticides, 3:1134–1135 population and food supply, 3:1146 seed banks, 3:1240–1241 Green Revolution, future prospects for, 2:735–738 anti-globalization movements, 1:53 criticism, 2:738 historical context and main achievements, 2:735–736 new agrarianism and, 1:14 second Green Revolution, 2:736–738 Green Revolution farming: unanticipated consequences, 2:739–742 environmental consequences, 2:740 positive and negative consequences, 2:741–742 socioeconomic consequences, 2:739–740 village-based perspective of Green Revolution, 2:740–741 Green Shield, 2:744 Greenhouse gas emissions cattle industry and, 1:191 climate change and, 1:238–242 food miles and, 2:592–596 global warming and future food supply, 2:719–723 See also Environmental issues; Manure lagoons/methane Greenmarket, 1:295 Greenpeace, 2:878, 3:1426, 3:1482 Greensgrow Farms, 3:1406 Greenstein, Leah, 1:140 Greenwashing, 2:593 Gregori, D., 3:1277 Grey Brothers, 1:160 Griffith, J. L., 3:1058 Grimes, Sara M., 3:1262 GRIN-Global, 3:1242 Grocery Manufacturers Association, 2:583, 2:688

1548

Index

Grocery stores and supermarkets, 2:742–748 challenges and future of, 2:746–748 farmers’ markets and, 1:460 food desert, 2:560–564 generic brands, 2:708–710 gourmet and specialty foods, 2:727–729 grocery industry, 2:744–745 history of, 2:742–743 hypermarkets, 2:817–820 liquor sold in, 2:901 marketing practices, 2:743–744 mini-marts, 2:969–972 price wars, 3:1164–1167 self-checkout in grocery stores, 3:1253–1255 shelving and product placement, 3:1259–1263 trends, 2:746 warehouse clubs and supermarket loyalty clubs, 2:744, 3:1453–1454 See also Convenience stores; Distribution centers; Ethnic grocery stores; Online shopping; Supply and distribution networks; Wet markets and hawking Grocery Workers United, 1:399 Gross, Joan, 2:674 Grotius, Hugo, 2:520 Groupe Danone, 1:339 Groupe Limigrain, 1:313 Groupon, 1:319–321 Growing Food and Justice for All Initiative (GFJI), 2:579 Growing Power, 2:579, 3:1405 Growmark, 1:313 Growth hormones and other drugs in meat products, 2:748–750 economics of, 2:749–750 FDA approval requirements, 2:749 steroids, 3:1302–1306 types and purposes of hormones, 2:748–749 Grubwithus, 3:1282 Gruma, 3:1033 Guardian (London), 3:1362 Guérard, Michel, 1:194 Guerilla gardening, 2:750–753 effects of, 2:753 guerilla gardeners, 2:751 history of, 2:751–752 overview, 2:750–751 popular groups, 2:752–753 Guide Culinaire, Le (Escoffier), 1:350, 2:499, 3:1192 Guide on Safe Food for Travelers (WHO), 3:1311 Guinness, 1:109 Gulp drinks, 1:293–294 Gunas, 1:87–92 Gunter’s Tea Shop, 2:821 Gupta, S., 1:202 Gustafson, Katherine, 2:649 Gustavsson, J., 2:643

Guthman, Julie, 2:650 Guy, Kolleen, 3:1172 H2A Temporary Guest Worker (visa program), 1:472–473, 1:475 Haarmann, Fritz, 1:44 Haber–Bosch process, 3:1088 Hach Homeland Security Technologies, 3:1374 Haire, Mason, 1:289 Halal food, 2:755–760 halal cooking, food processing, and sanitation, 2:759 laws of, 2:755–757 meat of animals Ahl-al-Kitab, 2:758–759 prohibited and permitted animals, 2:757–758 prohibition of alcohol and intoxicants, 2:759 prohibition of blood, 2:758 proper slaughtering of permitted animals, 2:758 Hallelujah Acres, 1:123, 1:229 Halloween, 2:786 Halverson, Marlene, 2:677 Hamad, Khalid al, 1:45 Hamburger University (McDonald’s), 2:861, 3:1205 Hamilton, Alexander, 1:30, 1:35 Hamilton, Alexander V., 3:1302 Hamm, Mike, 2:579 Hammond, Mary A., 3:1023 Hammurabi’s Code, 2:667 Handbook of Medical Sociology (Turner), 3:1148 Hands That Feed Us, The (Food Chain Workers Alliance), 1:396 Handwerker, Nathan, 1:274 Hanrahan, Charles, 3:1304 Hansra, B. S., 1:202 “Happy Cows” (advertising campaign), 1:339 Happy Meal (McDonald’s), 1:7, 1:107 Hard Rock Cafe, 1:182 Hardart, Frank, 3:1440 Hardee’s, 1:294 Hardiness Zone Map (USDA), 1:241 Harl, Neil, 1:58 Harlan, Harry, 3:1241 Harlan, Jack, 3:1241 Harmful algal blooms (HABs), 2:505 Harper, Alethea, 2:597 Harris, Jennifer, 3:1262 Harris, Lillian, 3:1398 Harrison, Benjamin, 3:1264 Harrison, Colleen C., 1:123 Harrison, George, 2:570 Harrison, Ruth, 1:431, 3:1141 Harrison, William, 1:277 Hart, Mary, 3:1024 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act (1965), 2:959 Hartevelt, Renée, 1:44

Index Hartford (Connecticut) Food Policy Commission, 2:599 Hartford Courant, 1:327 Harvard University, 1:254, 2:486, 2:714, 2:981, 3:1358 Harvey, William, 2:915, 3:1448, 3:1473 Hassall, Arthur Hill, 2:670 Hastings Review, 1:8 Hatch, John, 3:1142 Hatch, William H., 2:894 Hatch Act (1887), 2:894, 3:1414 Hawaii Oceanic Technology, 2:517 Hawaiian Punch, 2:882 Hawkers. See Wet markets and hawking Hayes, Tom, 3:1142 Hays, Mark, 3:1457 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), 2:760–765 advantages and limitations, 2:760–761 basis for, 2:761–762 botulism, 1:142 Codex Alimentarius, 1:248 consistency of food products/ingredients, 1:280 deli counters in grocery stores, 1:346 FAO and, 2:548 food safety, 2:604, 2:609 fresh food, 2:684 growth hormones and drugs in foods, 2:749 Listeria, 2:903 logistics of, 2:762–764 origins, 2:760 Pathogen Reduction—Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Final Rule, 1:346 prerequisites, 2:761 rationale, 2:760 HBO, 2:571 Health Affairs, 3:1354 Health Canada, 1:109 Health food stores, 2:765–768 alternative movements and, 2:767 history of, 2:765–767 issues of class and money, 2:767–768 Health halo effect, 2:791 Health issues of farmworkers, 1:474–475 gluten-free foods, 2:723–726 herbicide resistance, 2:770–771 Lactobacilli, 2:889–891 low-fat foods, 2:920, 2:922–923 MSG, 2:991–993 nutritionism, 3:1046–1051 oxalic acid and oxalates, 3:1098 packaging, 3:1111 pesticides, 3:1136–1137 portion sizes, 3:1154 rickets, 3:1218–1219

1549

scurvy, 3:1238–1239 sports nutrition, 3:1298–1299 steroid hormones in food, 3:1304, 3:1305 street food, 3:1311 veganism and, 3:1420–1421 vegetarianism and, 3:1429–1430 weight loss diets, 3:1477 wet markets and hawking, 3:1479 xerophthalmia, 3:1499–1501 See also Junk food, impact on health; Labeling, nutrition Health Reform Vision, 3:1255 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (2010), 1:211, 3:1227, 3:1230, 3:1234, 3:1441 Healthy Bodegas Initiative, 1:295 Healthy Choice, 2:921 Healthy Dining Finder, 1:184 Healthy Food for Healthcare, 2:798 Healthy food movement, food bans and, 1:106–107 Healthy Incentives Pilot, 2:627, 3:1260 Healthy People 2000, 2:921 Hearst Magazines, 3:1066 Heart disease. See Cardiac disease and diet Heat, as preservative, 3:1159–1160, 3:1179 Heath, Dwight, 1:26 Heaven Hill, 1:81 Hefner, Hugh, 2:588 Heidseck, 3:1389 Heineken, 3:1166 Heinerman, John, 1:123 Heinz, 1:94–95, 1:171, 2:1002, 3:1262, 3:1388 Heinz, J. J., 1:169 Heldke, Lisa, 1:83–84, 1:417 Hello Fresh, 2:747 “Help Lord-The Devil Wants Me Fat “ (Lovett), 1:123 Hemlock woolly adelgid, 2:853 Henaut Biscuits, 3:1387 Hendrickson, John, 2:910 Henry III (king of England), 2:667, 3:1386 Henry Street Settlement House, 1:394 Hepatitis A, 2:607, 2:655 Herbal remedies, 2:790 Herbicide resistance, 2:768–772 background, 2:769 development of resistance, 2:769–770 health and ecological consequences, 2:770–771 management, 2:771–772 overview, 2:768–769 See also Invasive species; Pest control; Pesticides Heritage breeds, 2:772–776 breed erosion, 2:773 initiatives and organizations for breed conservation, 2:774–775 terms involving, 2:772–773 value of, 2:773–774

1550

Index

Heritage Foods USA, 2:775 Hero Ctesibius, 3:1439–1440 Hero of Alexandria, 3:1439–1440 Herod the Great, 3:1248 Hershey, 1:222, 2:920, 2:938 Hesterman, Oran B., 2:652 Hidden Persuaders, The (Packard), 3:1318–1319 Higgins-Lewis, Jude, 3:1122 High school programs, in culinary arts, 1:392 High-density lipoprotein (HDL). See Cholesterol, LDL and HDL Higher Education Collaboration for Technology, Agriculture, Research, and Extension (HECTARE), 2:718 High-fructose corn syrup, 2:776–781 controversies, 2:777–780 food industry and, 2:777 overview, 2:776–777 recommendations, 2:780 Hight, Les, 3:1120 Hightower, Jim, 2:480 High-yielding varieties (HYVs) (wheat), 2:736 Hill-Burton Act, 2:797–798 Hills, Arnold, 3:1176 Hill’s Science Diet, 3:1139–1140 Hindu food restrictions, 2:781–784 fasting and feasts, 2:782 food types, 2:782–783 Hindu asceticism and diet, 2:781–782 Hinduism basics, 2:781 holistic medicine, 2:789 life event diets, 2:783–784 modern Hindu diet, 2:784 religion and foods, requirements and labeling, 3:1189 vegetarianism and, 3:1428, 3:1430 Hippiatrika, 3:1448 Hippocrates, 2:539, 2:679, 3:1473 Hipstamatic, 3:1282 Hirsh, Joseph, 1:33–34 Hirst, Damien, 2:570 Hladik, Maurice, 3:1406 Hoard’s Dairyman, 1:338 Hoch, Stephen J., 3:1261 Hochschild, Arlie, 1:303 Hoekstra, Arjen, 3:1459 Hoffman, John, 2:674 Holder, Eric, 3:1266 Holidays centered on food, 2:784–788 cultural issues, 2:786–787 economic issues, 2:787 holidays and holiday foods, 2:784–785 requirements and labeling for religion and foods, 3:1187–1190 roles and functions of food and foodways, 2:785–786

social issues, 2:786 See also individual names of religions; individual names of religious dietary laws Holistic medicine (New Age) and diet, 2:788–791 controversies, 2:790–791 historical background, 2:788 New Age practices, 2:788–789 plants as food, 2:790 vibrational quality of food and chakras, 2:789–790 Holmgren, David, 3:1127–1128 Holstein cows, dairy industry and, 1:337–338 Holt, L. Emmett, 1:96 Holt-Giménez, Eric, 2:652 Holyoke, Edward, 1:254 Home delivery, by grocery stores and supermarkets, 2:747 Home fermentation, 2:791–794 current issues, 2:794 dangers and risks, 2:793–794 DIY foods and, 2:793 health and nutrition, 2:793 history and background, 2:792 overview, 2:791–792 types of, 2:792 Home preserving artisanal foods and, 1:75 canning and, 1:170–173 See also Preservatives Home Shopping Network, 3:1363 Homestead Act (1862), 2:892 Homesteading, 2:794–797 background, 2:794–795 Homestead Act and homesteading in U.S., 2:794, 2:795–796 twenty-first-century interpretation of, 2:796 Hominy, 3:1124 Homogenization, 3:1179–1180 Hopkins, Martha, 1:299 Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, 3:1141 Hopper, Edward, 1:364 Horgen, Katherine Battle, 2:650 Horizon Organic, 1:339 Hormel, 1:170, 1:171 Hormel Foods, 1:170, 1:397, 3:1314–1315 Hormones in food. See Growth hormones and other drugs in meat products; Steroid hormones in food Horn, Joseph, 3:1440 Horn and Hardart’s Automat, 1:159 Horse meat, EU scandal and, 1:106 Horsemen of the Esophagus: Competitive Eating and the Big Fat American Dream (Fagone), 1:276 Hospital food, 2:797–799 current operations of, 2:798 future of, 2:799

Index history of, 2:797–798 issues and changes in, 2:798–799 Hospital Survey and Construction Act (aka the Hill-Burton Act), 2:797–798 Hospital Survey and Construction Act (Hill-Burton Act), 2:797–798 Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE), 2:835 Houndstooth Pub, The, 2:702 House Committee on Legislative Oversight (Harris Commission), 3:1361 Household Cyclopedia, The (Hamilton), 3:1302 Household food insecurity. See Domestic food insecurity Houston Chronicle, 3:1023 How the Other Half Lives: Studies Among the Tenements of New York (Riis), 3:1398 How to Live, Rules for Healthful Living Based on Modern Science (Fisher, Fisk), 3:1474 How to Mix Drinks or the Bon Vivant’s Companion (Thomas), 2:972 Howard, Albert, 1:14, 1:277–278, 3:1073, 3:1089 Howard Johnson’s, 1:182, 1:184, 2:822 Hu Sihui, 1:219 Huang, M. T., 1:163 Hubert, Annie, 3:1279 Hudson Guild-Fulton Senior Association, 1:394 Huerta, Dolores, 1:476, 3:1314 Huffington Post, 1:431 Huldschinsky, Kurt, 3:1218 HUMAN Healthy Vending, 3:1442 Human right to adequate food, 2:800–805 civil society participation, 2:802–803 future of, 2:803–804 inception, 2:800 state accountability, 2:801–802 transformation into treaties, 2:800–801 United Nations on, 2:800 Human Rights Council (UN), 2:618 Humane Slaughter Act, 2:611 Humane Society of the United States, 1:318, 2:678, 2:687–688, 3:1423 Humane Watch, 2:688 Hungary, fat tax in, 3:1356 Hunger, 2:805–812 causes of, 2:806–808 consequences of, 2:806 definition and measurement of, 2:805–806 extent of, 2:806 microloans and, 2:956–957 reducing, 2:808–809 solutions to, 2:809–811 Hunger Games, The (film), 2:573 Hunger Strike: The Anorectic’s Struggle as a Metaphor for Our Age (Orbach), 3:1317

Hunger strikes, 3:1169–1170, 3:1315–1318 Hunt Saboteurs Association, 1:39 Hunter, Frances, 1:123 Hunting, 2:812–817 contemporary practices, 2:814 ethics and safety, 2:815, 2:816 medium and large predators, 2:815–816 motivation and experiences, 2:814–815 origins of, 2:812 perspectives on, 2:816 prohibitions, 1:105 recent interest in hunting for food, 2:816 species hunted, 2:815 in U.S. history, 2:812–813 wildlife management, regulation, and, 2:813–814 Huntley & Palmers, 3:1387 Hurst, Fannie, 3:1120 Hydraulic fracking, 3:1285 Hydrogenation, 3:1390–1391 Hydroponics, 1:64, 1:65 Hynes, Patricia, 3:1205–1206 Hyperion, 1:299 Hypermarkets, 2:817–820 Carrefour, 2:819 definition of, 2:817–818 history of, 2:818 innovations and market effects, 2:820 internationally, 2:818–819 Walmart, 2:819 Hypoglycemia, 1:356 Hypoxic waters, 1:340–342 I Prayed My Weight Away (Pierce), 1:122 “I Was a Cookbook Ghostwriter” (Moskin), 2:716 Iams, 3:1139–1140 IBISWorld, 1:317 IBP, 2:946–948 Ice cream parlors, 2:821–822 Iceland, fishing policies and, 2:521–522 ICESCR, 2:800–804 Idaho potatoes, 3:1369 Identity and food, 2:822–826 food and ethnic identity, 2:824–825 food as symbol, 2:825–826 overview, 2:822–823 place-based foods and identity, 2:823–824 IFT-accredited food science programs, 2:613–614 IGrill (Apple), 1:310 IHOP, 1:181, 1:182–183 Ikeda, Kikunae, 2:991, 3:1393–1394 Imitation of Life (Hurst), 3:1120 Immigrant groups ethnic restaurants of, 1:415 food carts and Jewish vendors, 2:559

1551

1552

Index

immigration laws and WWOOF, 3:1496 underground economies and, 3:1397–1399 Immigration and Nationality Act, 1:397–398 Immigration Reform Act (1986), 2:959–960 Immunoglobulin E (IgE), 2:542 Imperial Airways, 1:21 Imported food, 2:826–831 counter movements, 2:829–830 food safety, 2:828–829 government oversight, 2:826–827 international trade agreements, 2:827–828 marketing boards, 2:944 overview, 2:826 In Defense of Food (Pollan), 2:648, 2:651 In Meat We Trust (Ogle), 2:650 In vitro meat, 2:831–833 future of, 2:832 origins of, 2:832 resistance to, 2:832 in vitro process, 2:831–832 In Vitro Meat Consortium, 2:832 Incorporating Away-From-Home Food Into a Healthy Eating Plan, 2:860 Independence Day (U.S.), 2:787 India farmers’ markets in, 1:461 food bans in, 1:108 GMO crops, 2:714 Green Revolution and, 2:736 mixology and, 2:975 organic farming, 3:1089 pest control in, 3:1132–1133 restaurant culture in, 2:784 (See also Hindu food restrictions) Indian Coffee House, 1:253 Indian Line Farm, 1:267 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, 2:522 Indigenous peoples climate change and, 1:241–242 famine and, 1:449 fishing by, 3:1094 food sovereignty, 2:621 hunting by, 2:814 Indigenous Rights movements, 1:53 pellagra and, 3:1124 pest control by, 3:1132–1133 Indigenous Terre Madre, 3:1268 Indonesia, palm oil and, 3:1425 Industrial Revolution bakeries, 1:99 bread processing, 1:147 canning and, 1:171 FAO and, 2:545 fats in diet and, 2:487

food safety and, 2:610 health food stores, 2:765 media portrayals of food issues, 2:951 natural and artificial flavors and fragrances, 3:1012 preservatives, 3:1160 strikes and, 3:1313 Industrial Workers of the World, 2:835 Industry labor and labor unions, 2:833–836 agriculture sector, 2:833–834 farmworker solidarity and organizing efforts, 1:476 packing, distribution, and retail sector, 2:834–835 service sector, 2:835–836 socioeconomic and political issues, 2:836 See also Employment: U.S. food sector; Worker safety Infant Care booklet (Children’s Bureau), 1:96 Infant Formula Act (1980), 1:422, 2:878 Infectious Disease Society of America, 2:676 Influenza A virus (H1N1), 1:190 Infomercials, 3:1362–1363 Ingeborg, Boyens, 2:651 Inorganic chemical contaminants, in fish, 2:503–504 Insecticides. See Pest control; Pesticides Insects, as invasive species, 2:853 Instacart, 2:747 Instagram, 1:5, 3:1207, 3:1282 Institute for Cetacean Research (Japan), 1:106, 3:1481 Institute of Economic Affairs, 2:668–669 Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), 2:613 Institute of Medicine (IOM), 3:1055–1056 beverage industry and, 1:120 childhood obesity, 1:205, 1:208 children’s advertising, 1:8 elderly nutrition, 1:395 fiber, 2:494–495 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:532 low-sodium foods, 2:926 nutrition education, 3:1042 school food, 3:1227 taxation, 3:1357 vending machines, 3:1442 Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), 3:1032 Insulin, diabetes and, 1:355–358 Insurance, for WWOOFers, 3:1497 Intangible cultural heritage (ICH). See UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage and world cuisines Integrated pest management, 3:1132 “Integrators” (poultry industry), 3:1155 Intellectual property law and recipes, 2:836–839 copyrighting recipes and dishes, 2:837–838 creativity and copying in culinary industry, 2:837 informal protection for culinary creativity, 2:839–840 patent law and trade secret law, 2:838–839

Index Intellectual Property Office, 3:1388–1389 Intellectual property rights, 2:839–843 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2:842 contextual history, 2:840 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2:842 overview, 2:839–840 plant and animal protections, 2:841–842 seed banks and, 3:1243–1244 seed patents and implications, 3:1247 standardization of legal systems, 2:843 technical knowledge, 2:842 trade-related aspects, 2:840–841 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN), 2:842 Interactive Advertising Bureau, 3:1066 Interagency Working Group (FTC, FDA, USDA, CDC), 1:120, 2:532 Inter-American Development Bank, 3:1032 InterCourses (Hopkins), 1:299 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2:687, 2:720, 2:874–875 Internal Revenue Code, 1:32 Internal Revenue Service, 1:199–200 International Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, 1:150 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 1:174–175, 2:585–586, 2:921, 3:1082 International Air Transport Association (IATA), 1:22 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, 2:875 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, 2:810 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Study, 2:843–846 background, 2:844 findings, 2:844–846 overview, 2:843–844 International Association of Culinary Professionals, 1:390 International Atomic Energy Agency, 2:857 International Board on Plant Genetic Resources, 3:1241 International Bottled Water Association, 3:1455 International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters), 1:396–397 International Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento del Maiz y el Trigo), 2:736 International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO), 2:547 International Code of Conduct on the Right to Adequate Food (1997), 2:802 International Coffee Organization (ICO), 1:251–252 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, 2:522, 3:1331 International Convention on the Rights of Peasants, 2:623 International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), 1:312, 1:314 International Co-operative Fisheries Organization, 1:314

1553

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2:800–801 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2:534 International Culinary Tourism Association, 3:1381 International Declaration on Peasant Rights, 2:621 International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), 2:888, 3:1162–1163 International Federation of Competitive Eating (IFOCE), 1:274–275, 1:276 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), 3:1074, 3:1083, 3:1085, 3:1088, 3:1090 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 1:452 International Food Blogger Conference, 1:139 International food security, 2:846–851 climate change and, 1:238–242 demand-side definition, 2:848–849 exports and, 1:426–427 food aid, 2:533–538, 2:534 (table), 2:537 (table) food quality and preferences, 2:849–850 future concerns, 2:850–851 IAASTD, 2:843–846 overview, 2:846–847 supply-side definition, 2:847–848 International Forum on Food Sovereignty (2007), 2:623 International Halibut Commission, 2:521 International Herald Tribune, 3:1213 International House of Pancakes, 3:1120 International Institute of Agriculture, 2:546 International Labor Organization (ILO), 3:1486–1488 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, 2:739 International Monetary Fund (IMF), 1:112, 1:424, 2:575, 2:617, 2:624, 3:1032, 3:1489 International Network of Community Supported Agriculture (URGENCI), 1:267 International Nongovernmental Organization/Civil Society Organization Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC), 2:623 International Numbering System, 2:992 International Olive Council, 3:1062–1063 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2:604, 2:609, 2:670 International Organization of Vine and Wine, 3:1484 International Peasant Movement, 2:802 International Planning NGO/CSO Committee for Food Sovereignty, 2:618 International Plant Genetic Research Institute, 3:1241 International Reciprocal Trade Association, 1:112 International Rice Research Institute, 2:736, 2:739 International School of Hospitality and Tourism Management (Fairleigh Dickinson University), 3:1205 International System of Units, 3:1302

1554

Index

International Trade Organization (ITO), 3:1489–1490 International Treaty on PGRFA (Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture), 2:896, 3:1240–1241, 3:1244, 3:1247 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 1:400–402 International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), 2:841–842 International Union of Food Science and Technology (IUFoST), 2:613 International Whaling Commission (IWC), 1:105–106, 2:523–524, 3:1481–1483 International Year of Cooperatives (2012), 1:316 Internet coffee houses and, 1:252 factory farming information on, 1:431 online advertising, 3:1065–1068 social media and food, 3:1281–1284 websites of marketing boards, 2:943 See also Blogging; Online advertising; Online shopping; Social media and food; Websites on food Intervention (Caruso), 2:651 Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children’s Food (NRDC), 1:23–24 Invasive species, 2:851–854 beneficial uses, 2:853–854 control methods, 2:853 introduction into an environment, 2:851–852 survival methods, animals, 2:852 survival methods, insects, 2:853 survival methods, pathogens, 2:853 survival methods, plants, 2:852 Investigative journalism. See Media portrayals of food issues Invisible Man, The (Ellison), 3:1398 Iodine, necessity of, 2:968 Ionizing radiation, on food, 2:856 Iowa Arts Council, 3:1370 Iowa Place-Based Foods, 3:1371 Iowa State University, 2:893, 3:1205, 3:1370 IPad (Apple), 1:298 IPC, 2:623 IPhone (Apple), 1:318 Iran, fishing policies and, 2:520 Iran, Russian-Iranian Fisheries Commission and, 2:520 Ireland, Great Hunger and, 1:450–451 Irish Republicans, hunger strikes by, 3:1317 Iron, necessity of, 2:968 Iron Chef (Cora, Symon), 2:716 Irradiation, 2:854–858 applications of, 2:856–857 consumer attitudes toward, 2:857–858 cost of, 2:857 history of, 2:854–855 ionizing radiation on food, 2:856

palatability of irradiated food, 2:857 processing of food by, 2:855–856 safety, security, environmental aspects of, 2:857 symbol for, 2:857 (fig.) Isenberg School of Management (University of Massachusetts), 3:1205 Ishizuka Sagen, 2:929 Isinglass, 3:1431 Islam coffeehouses and coffee shops, 1:249 halal food, 2:755–760 holidays centered on food, 2:785 religion and foods, requirements and labeling, 3:1188 Israel, cooperatives in, 1:313 Isreal, Mark, 1:380 Italian food (in U.S.), marketing of, 1:407–408, 1:412 Italy, Venice coffeehouses and coffee shops in, 1:249 Ithaca College, 1:258 Itliong, Larry, 1:476, 2:834 It’s Complicated (film), 2:572 iTunes (Apple), 1:60, 1:276 J. Walter Thompson (JWT), 3:1387 Jack Daniel’s, 1:30 Jack in the Box, 1:382–384, 2:904–906 Jackson, Dan, 3:1142 Jackson, Jesse, 1:144 Jackson, Michael, 1:43, 3:1361 Jackson, Wes, 1:15 Jacob Sheep Breeders Association, 2:775 Jaffrey, Madhur, 1:84 Jainism, 2:693, 3:1428, 3:1430 James, Walter, 3:1088 James Beard Foundation, 1:318, 3:1180, 3:1469 James Madison University, 1:255–256 Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution (television program), 2:640, 2:684 Jamie’s School Dinners (television program), 2:640 Japan CSA history and, 1:267 fat tax in, 3:1356 fishing policies and, 2:520, 2:522 food additives, 2:529 sushi and, 3:1329–1331 threats to clean drinking water, 3:1378 whaling for food, 3:1481–1482 Japan Airlines, 1:21 Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, 1:155 JBS, 1:397, 2:945, 2:948–949, 2:1003 Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging (USDA), 1:395 Jefferson, Thomas, 1:31 Jell-O, 3:1361 Jennings, Isaac, 2:789

Index Jenny Craig (diet), 3:1474, 3:1475 Jesus, 1:121, 1:227–228, 2:693, 3:1187 Jim Beam, 1:81 Jim Crow era, underground economies and, 3:1398–1399 Jochnowitz, Eve, 1:267 John Burgess & Co., 3:1389 John Dory Oyster Bar, The, 2:702 John (king of England), 2:667 John Wiley & Sons, 1:299 Johnny Rockets, 1:364 Johns Hopkins University, 1:71, 2:598, 2:676, 3:1140–1141 Johnson, Lyndon B., 1:394, 1:404, 3:1229 Johnson, Paul, 2:863 Johnson, Philip, 1:349 Johnson, Renée, 3:1304 Johnson and Wales, 1:392–393 Johnston, José, 1:83–84 Joint Committee on Taxation, 3:1354 Jonathan Byrd’s Cafeteria and Banquet Facility, 1:160 Jones, Jacqueline (Jo Ann Vachule), 3:1023 Joos, Sandra, 3:1372 Jordan, Louis, 2:570 Joseph, Alun, 1:462 Joseph Smith and Natural Foods: A Treatise on Mormon Diet (Heinerman), 1:123 Joshi, Anupama, 2:580–581, 2:652 Journal, 3:1022 Journal des Gourmandes et des Belles (de la Reyniere), 3:1212 Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2:860 Journal of Dairy Science, 2:677 Journal of Public Economics, 3:1355 Journal of the American College of Nutrition (Vinson and colleagues), 1:162 Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2:862 Juan Valdez Café, 1:253 Judaism alcohol regulation and Hebraic laws, 1:33 halal food and, 2:758–759 holidays centered on food, 2:785 identity and food, 2:825 Israeli kibbutzim and, 1:18 Jewish vendors and food carts, 2:559 Passover, 2:785, 2:824, 2:872–873, 3:1188 religion and foods, requirements and labeling, 3:1188–1189 synagogue dinners and, 1:230 See also Kosher food Judas Iscariot, 1:227 Juice diets, 2:789 Jukes, D., 1:244 Julie and Julia (film), 2:571–572

1555

Julie and Julia (Powell), 1:297–298 Julie/Julia Project, The, 1:298 Jungle, The (Sinclair), 1:433, 2:549, 2:882, 2:910, 2:935, 2:947, 2:951, 3:1488 Junk food, consumption, 2:859–864 advertising and marketing, 2:861 attempts to alter patterns, 2:863 conditioning and environment, 2:862 eating out and rise in expendable income, 2:861 economic factors, 2:863 gender roles and, 2:860 globalization and increased availability of junk food, 2:860–861 junk food bans, 1:108 portion sizes and palatability, 2:862–863 in U.S., 2:859 Junk food, impact on health, 2:864–867 availability of junk food in U.S., 2:864 diabetes, 2:864–865 heart disease and stroke, 2:865–866 obesity, 2:864 reducing junk food intake, 2:866 Just Food, 2:579 Just Harvest USA, 1:398–399 Kaccha foods, 2:783 Kadoma, Shintaro, 3:1394 Kahan, Paul, 2:702 Kahvehane, 1:249 Kaiser Permanente, 2:798 Kala (time), 1:91 Kandel, William, 1:472–475 Kansas City Star, 3:1023 Kao Corporation, 2:921 Kapha, 1:87 Kaplan, David, 3:1038 Karana (processing and preparation), 1:90 Kästner, Martin, 1:349 Katz, David, 1:153 Katz, Sandor Ellix, 2:792, 2:793 Kaur, M., 1:163 Keep America Beautiful, 2:689 “Keep Food Affordable,” 2:687 Keiller’s Dundee, 3:1387 Kellogg, John Harvey, 2:765, 3:1255 Kellogg Company, 1:6–7, 1:228, 2:887, 2:1002, 3:1037, 3:1363–1364 Kelly, Katherine, 3:1406 Kennedy, Diana, 1:84 Kennedy, John F., 1:404, 2:626 Kennedy, Mae, 3:1398 Kennedy, Robert, 2:553 Kenny, Paul, 2:863 Kenton, Leslie, 3:1176

1556

Index

Kentucky Fried Chicken. See KFC Kerr, Alexander, 1:171 Kerr, Graham, 2:638, 3:1194 Ketchup, life cycle analysis of, 1:234, 1:234 (box) Key, Wilson Bryan, 3:1319 Keyline Plan, The (Yeoman), 3:1128 Keys, Ancel, 2:482, 3:1474 Keystone Center, 2:550–551 KFC, 1:144, 1:216, 1:294, 2:478, 2:838, 3:1390 Khaˉ’ir Beg, 1:249 Khanafari, A., 1:223 Khrushchev, Nikita, 1:328 Kibbutzim (Israel), communal farming and, 1:18, 1:313 Kids as Customers: A Handbook of Marketing to Children (McNeal), 1:7 Kids LiveWell, 1:184 Kim, M., 1:163 Kimball, Christopher, 2:590 Kimchi, 1:242 Ki-moon, Ban, 2:575 King, F. H., 3:1089 King, Glen, 3:1238 King Kullen, 2:743 Kingsolver, Barbara, 1:16, 2:648, 3:1370 Kirchenmann, Frederick, 3:1142 Kirschenmann, Fred, 1:15 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara, 3:1127 Kissinger, Henry, 2:847 KitchenAid, 1:4 Kitchens (residential) kitchen space and gender issues, 2:706 open kitchens, 3:1071–1073 trophy kitchens, 3:1391–1392 Kitchens (restaurants). See Restaurant chefs; Restaurant cooking technologies Kitchn, The, 3:1469 Kiwi, 1:401 Klebeck, Mark, 1:380 Klebeck, Mike, 1:380 Kloppenberg, Jack, Jr., 2:910 Kneipp Water-Cure Institute, 2:765 Knickerbocker Magazine, 2:973 Knox, 2:937 KNOX Gelatin, 1:305 Kobayashi, Takeru “the Tsunami,” 1:274, 1:276 Kogi BBQ, 2:636 Konner, Melvin, 3:1113 Korbel California Champagne, 1:32 Korea climate change and, 1:242 exotic food and strange food, 1:419 Kosher food, 2:869–874 cooking forbidden on Sabbath, 2:873 dairy and eggs, 2:870–871

equipment and utensils, 2:872 fish, 2:871–872 “kosher style,” 2:873 meat, 2:869–870 overview, 2:869 for Passover, 2:872–873 people involved in cooking process, 2:873 prohibition on mixing meat and milk, 2:871 vegetables and fruit, 2:872 KOVAL, 1:81 Kraak, V. I., 1:8, 1:120 Kraft Foods, 1:337, 2:583, 3:1265, 3:1388–1390 Kramer, Keith, 2:478 Kratchie, Ed, 1:275–276 Krishna (Hindu god), 2:782 Krispy Kreme, 1:379–380, 3:1121 Kroc, Ray, 2:478 Kroger, 1:57, 1:295, 1:396, 2:745, 2:819 Kroll, D., 3:1374 Krueger, Alan B., 1:403–404 Kuninaka, Akira, 3:1394 Kurti, Nicolas, 2:978 Kushi, Aveline, 2:930 Kushi, Michio, 2:930 Kushi Institute, 2:930–931 Kwanzaa, 2:786 Kwok, Ho Man, 2:992 Kyoto Protocol, 2:874–875 agricultural mitigation, 2:874–875 agriculture and land use rules in clean development mechanism, 2:874 future of climate change policy, 2:875 L. monocytogenes, 2:902–903 La Choy Food Products Company, 1:169, 1:409 La Leche League, 1:95, 1:150 Labeling, legislation and oversight, 2:882–884 alcohol industry and, 1:31–32 dietary fiber, 2:496 employment in, 1:397–398 expiration dates, 1:421–423 fair trade, 1:437–438 FDA and, 2:550–551 food allergies and, 2:540, 2:543 food fraud issues and, 2:670–671 functional foods, 2:696–697 gluten-free foods, 2:724–725 high-fructose corn syrup, 2:779–780 imported food, 2:829 low-fat foods, 2:921–922 MSG, 2:992–993 naturally raised and fed meats, 3:1016–1017 nitrate and nitrite, 3:1025–1029 sustainable agrifood systems, 3:1336

Index twentieth-century legislation, 2:882–883 twentieth-first-century issues, 2:883 Labeling, nutrition, 2:884–888 general structure of labels, 2:885, 2:885 (fig.) history of, 2:886–887 modern changes to, 2:885–886, 2:886 (fig.) nutrient content and health claims, 2:887 Nutrition Labeling Education Act, 2:884–885 Labeling: organic, local, and genetically modified, 2:877–882 genetically modified foods, 2:880–881 labels and branding, 2:877 “local” food labels, 2:880 nitrate and nitrite, 3:1027 “organic” labels, 2:879–880 past and present food labels, 2:877–878 in U.S., 2:878 weights and measures and bilingual labels, 2:878–879 Labeling and branding, fruits and vegetables, 2:888–889 Labor, feminization of, 2:706–707 Labor and Monopoly Capital (Braverman), 1:351 Labor and the Locavore (Gray), 2:651 Labor force. See Employment: U.S. food sector; Farmworkers; Fast food; Food production; Industry labor and labor unions; Worker safety Labor issues, employment in food sector and, 1:398–399 Labor Management Relations (Taft–Hartley) Act (1947), 2:947 Lacey Game and Wild Birds Preservation and Disposition Act (1900), 2:813 Lactobacilli, 2:889–891 food production, 2:890, 2:890 (table) functional foods, 2:891 health claims, 2:890–891 microbiology, 2:889 Ladies and Gentlemen’s Coffee, Lunch, and Ice Cream Saloon, 2:821 Ladies’ Home Journal, 1:94 Ladner, Peter, 2:649 Lady Moon Farms, 3:1334 Lagasse, Emeril, 2:639 LaLanne, Jack, 1:122 Lamarche, Jeremy, 1:462 Lamb, minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Lamont, Corliss & Company, 3:1387 Land Act (1796), 2:794–795 Land grant colleges/extension units, 2:891–895 agricultural extension units, 2:893–894 history of, 2:892–893 Morrill Act and, 2:892–894 Land Grant Extension System, 3:1135 Land Institute, 1:15 “Land of Cockaigne,” 1:68 Land O’Lakes, 3:1264–1266

Land Ordinance (1785), 2:892 Land use effect of climate change on crops, 2:721 family farms and, 1:442 Kyoto Protocol, 2:874 Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), 2:874–875 Landers, Ann, 3:1024 Landrace, 2:895–897 genetic diversity of, 2:895–897 landrace crops and animals, defined, 2:895 Lane County, Oregon Food Policy Council, 2:598 Lang, Tim, 2:592, 2:597 Language bilingual food labels, 2:878–879 food as, 2:706 PLU codes, 3:1163 Lanham Act, 1:73 Lark: Cooking Against the Grain (Sundstrom), 1:299 Larsen, Joanne, 2:759 Last Exit on Brooklyn, 1:252 Last meals, 2:897–900 choice of foods and beverages, 2:897–898 origins and perpetuation of last meal tradition, 2:899–900 reasons for selections, 2:898–899 websites about, 2:897 Last Supper, church suppers and, 1:230 Last Supper series (Hirst), 2:570 Latin America, farmers’ markets in, 1:461 Latino grocery stores, 1:411–412 Laudan, Rachel, 1:84–85, 2:649 Lavin, Chad, 2:652 Lavine, Larry, 1:183 Lawrence, Felicity, 2:650 Lawrence, Robert, 3:1141 Lawrenceburg Distillers Indiana (LDI), 1:82 Lawrey, R., 2:1000 Lawson, Nigella, 1:298–299 Lawton, Geoff, 3:1129 LDS. See Mormon food practices Lea and Perrin’s, 3:1387 Leach, Edmund, 2:825 Leahy, Patrick, 3:1075 Lebovitz, David, 3:1282 Lee, Sandra, 1:374 Leff, Jim, 1:137 Lefkofsky, Eric, 1:320–321 Leftovers, take-out foods and, 3:1348 Legal issues antiwhaling campaigns, 1:105–106 biopiracy, 1:132–133 charitable organizations, 1:197–201 contract laws, 1:284–286

1557

1558

Index

deli counters in grocery stores, 1:346–347 endangered species, 1:401 farmworkers’ legal protections, 1:475–476 fishing policies, 2:519–525 fraud, 2:667–671 guerilla gardening, 1:75–753 intellectual property law and recipes, 2:836–839 intellectual property rights, 2:839–843 litigation concerning food issues, 2:904–908 smuggling, 3:1273–1276 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1345 WWOOF and, 3:1495–1497 See also Antitrust laws; Children’s foods; Farm bills; Global Food Security Act of 2009; Intellectual property law and recipes; Intellectual property rights; Litigation concerning food issues; North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); School food; Sherman Antitrust Act; Taxation, fat tax; Taxation, general; Trademarks; Water rights Leipoldt, C. Louis, 2:914 Leite, David, 1:4 Leite’s Culinaria, 1:4 Leland, Charles G., 2:973 Lema, A., 1:202 Lenin, Vladimir, 1:250–251 Lent, 1:227, 2:785–786 Lentil Festival (Pullman, Washington), 1:436 Lenzi, Philip, 2:821 Leopold Center for Sustainable Agricultural at Iowa State University, 1:15 “Less Food Means More Money in Your Wallet,” 2:646 Let’s Move!, 1:119, 1:207, 2:684, 2:864, 3:1441 Letter on Corpulence Addressed to the Public (Banting), 2:915 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 2:683 Levitt, Adolph, 1:379 Levkoe, Charles, 2:580 Libby’s., 1:94 Liberty Gardens, 1:263–264 Lick and Lather (Anconi), 1:69 Liebig, Justus von, 3:1088 Liebig’s, 1:93, 1:168 Life cycle, of food, 2:595 Life of Luxury or Apicius, The (Archestratus), 2:497 Lifestyle modification, weight and, 3:1057 LifeWorks, 1:317 Lightweighting, 3:1109 Like Water for Chocolate (film), 2:572 Limelight coffeehouse, 1:252 Limited liability companies (LLC), 1:199 Lincoln, Abraham, 2:892 Lindeberg, Staffan, 3:1113 Lindt & Sprüngli AG, 1:222

Linnaeus, Carolus, 1:222 Lion House, 2:995 Lionfish, 2:852 Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, 2:484 Lipids. See Cholesterol, LDL and HDL Lipton, Michael, 2:741 Liquor stores, 2:900–902 ABC stores, 2:901 licenses, 2:901–902 states allowing grocery-store sales of liquor, 2:901 Listeria, 2:902–904 cattle industry and, 1:190 control of foodborne pathogens, 2:903–904 fish contaminants, 2:505 food safety, 2:605 foods implicated in outbreaks, 2:903 (table) L. monocytogenes, 2:902–903 listeriosis, 2:902–903 regulation, 2:904 Litigation concerning food issues, 2:904–908 actual versus constructive knowledge, 2:905–906 class action lawsuits, 2:907–908 Jack in the Box example, 2:904–905 negligence, 2:905 reasonable person standard, 2:905 strict product liability, 2:906–907 tort law, generally, 2:905 See also Legal issues Little Baby’s Ice Cream, 1:4 Little Caesars, 3:1145 Little General Store Inc., 1:294 Liu, R. H., 1:162 Live animals, as food, 1:419 Livestock Conservancy, 2:775 Livestock Conservancy, The, 2:772–773, 2:775 Livestock management, organic production and, 3:1086 Living Biogenic Nutrition, 3:1176 Living Dead (film), 2:572 Living Social, 1:321 Living Soil, The (Balfour), 3:1089 Lobbying and Policymaking (Godwin, Ainsworth, Godwin), 2:583 Lobbying Disclosure Act (1995), 2:582 Lobbying Disclosure Act (2007), 2:582 Loblaw Companies Limited, 2:743, 2:744, 3:1445 Local educational agencies (LEAs), 3:1234 Local exchange trading systems (LETS), 1:114 Local Harvest, 1:267 Local Organic Markets (Mexico), 3:1337 Locavore’s Dilemma, The: In Praise of the 10,000-Mile Diet (Desrocher, Shimizu), 2:649, 2:912

Index Locavorism, 2:908–913 anti-globalization movements and, 1:52–54 canning and, 1:173 context of, 2:909 critiques of, 2:912 evolution of, 2:909–910 farmers’ markets and meaning of “local,” 1:464 food writing in books about, 2:648–649 holistic medicine, 2:789 imported food and, 2:830 labeling: organic, local, and genetically modified, 2:877–882 reasons for, 2:910–912 sustainable agrifood systems and localization, 3:1340–1341 Locke, John, 1:250 Locust infestations, 2:913–915 Biblical references, 2:913, 2:914 pervasiveness of, 2:913–914 Logan’s Roadhouse, 1:182 Loiseau, Bernard, 3:1213 Loma Linda University, 3:1255 Londis, 1:292 Longbourne Coffee-House, 1:251 Longevity, diet and, 1:177–178 LongHorn Steakhouse, 1:180, 1:182 Longoria, Eva, 3:1361 Look AHEAD, 3:1057 Look to the Land (James), 3:1088 Los Angeles (California) County Department of Health, 2:634 County Superior Court, 2:634 Department of Public Health (LADPH), 3:1201 food trucks in, 2:636 Los Angeles Times, 1:84, 1:305, 3:1022, 3:1024 Los Angeles Weekly, 1:85 Louis XIV (king of France), 2:498 “Love Food, Hate Waste,” 2:646 Lovett, C. S., 1:123 Low-carbohydrate diets, 2:915–919 Atkins and, 2:485, 2:651–652, 2:916, 2:918–919, 3:1475, 3:1477 criticism of, 2:917–918 defining, 2:916–917 effectiveness of, 2:917 history of, 2:915–916 influence of, 2:918–919 proposed mechanism of weight loss from, 2:918 for weight loss, 3:1475 Low-densitity lipoprotein (LDL). See Cholesterol, LDL and HDL Lowes, 3:1069, 3:1070 Low-fat foods, 2:919–924 health issues and controversies, 2:920, 2:922–923 labeling, 2:921–922

1559

low-fat diets for weight loss, 3:1475 market for, 2:919–921 problems with fat replacers, 2:921 Low-income deficient countries (LIFDCs), 3:1291 Low-sodium foods, 2:924–927 defined, 2:924–925 impact of sodium reduction, 2:925–926 initiatives to reduce sodium intake, 2:925 international efforts to reduce sodium consumption, 2:926 overview, 2:924 Loyalty programs. See Warehouse clubs and supermarket loyalty cards Lubin, David, 2:546 Lubin’s (extracts), 3:1389 Luby’s (cafeteria), 1:160 Lucas, Dione, 3:1194 Luckenback (Texas) chili cook-off, 2:567 Lucky Peach, 2:590–591 Lucretius, 2:539 Lugar, Richard, 2:717 Lugar-Casey Food Security Act (or S.384), 2:717 Lunch wagons, 1:364–365 “Lurp” (Long Range Patrol Ration), 2:965 Lust, Benedict, 2:765 Luxus consumption, 2:643 Lynch, Robert, 3:1354 Lyons, Norma Duffy, 2:565 Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States, 2:802 Macapagal-Arroyo, Gloria, 1:329 MacAusland, Earle R., 2:588 Macdonald, Herb, 1:152–153 Machine run speeds, 3:1109 Mackey, John, 2:766 MacKinnon, J. B., 2:648 Mackintosh’s Good News, 2:570 Macrobiotics, 2:929–933 categories and examples of food recommendations, 2:932–933 foods and principles of, 2:931–932 history of, 2:929–931 Macrobiotics Today, 2:930 Macronutrients, vegetarian/vegan diet and, 3:1435 Mac’s, 1:292 Mad cow disease, 2:933–936 factory farming and, 2:935–936 fallout, 2:935 food safety and, 2:933 impact of, 2:934–935 origins of, 2:933–934 Madre, Odessa Marie, 3:1398 Madsen, K. H., 2:770, 2:771–772

1560

Index

Maeybeck, A., 2:643 Maffeis, C., 3:1277 Magazine and newspaper advertising, 2:936–939 advertising content, format, and regulation, 2:937–938 future issues in print advertising, 2:938–939 history of print advertising vehicles, 2:936–937 Maggi, Julius, 3:1395 Maggi sauce, 2:991 Maggiano’s Little Italy, 1:183 Magic Pan, 1:185 Magnesium, necessity of, 2:968 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (2006), 3:1096 Magruder, Jeremy, 1:326 Mahabhutas, 1:87 Maharaja Mac, 2:480 Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board, 2:942 Maine Lobster Festival, 1:306 Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, 3:1074 Maize, NAFTA on, 3:1032–1034 Major League Eating (MLE), 1:273–274, 1:276 Maker’s Diet, The (Rubin), 1:123 Malaysia, palm oil and, 3:1425 Malaysian Palm Oil Board, 3:1425 Malkmus, George, 1:123 Malpighi, Marcello, 3:1448 Malthus, Thomas, 1:450, 3:1145, 3:1146 ManageFirst, 1:390 Mandeville, Bernard, 1:115 M&Ms, 3:1362 Manganese, necessity of, 2:968 Manhattanville College, 1:257 Mann, Rev. J. T., 1:230–231 Mann, T., 3:1476 Manual for Army Cooks (1896), 1:168 Manufacturing proximity, packaging and, 3:1109 Manure lagoons/methane, 2:939–941 cattle industry and, 1:191 climate change and, 1:239–240 dairy industry, 1:338 industrial meat production, 3:1017–1018 overview, 2:939–940 Mao Zedong, 1:451 Maple Leaf Farms, 1:305 Maquis, 3:1324 Mare Liberum (Grotius), 2:520 Mares, Teresa, 2:581 Marijuana-infused products (MIP), 1:165–167 Marine Mammals Protection Act, 2:524 Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), 2:507–510 Mark, Jason, 3:1405, 3:1407 Market Basket (program), 3:1405 Market riot, food riots and, 2:603

Marketing, defined, 1:1, 1:6. See also Advertising and marketing of food (in general); Advertising and marketing of food to children Marketing boards, 2:941–945 goals, strategies, and programs, 2:941–942 methods and instruments, 2:942–944 public policy issues, 2:944 Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation, 1:120 Markets. See Ethnic grocery stores Marks & Spencer, 2:702 Marmite, 3:1395 Marriott, J. Willard, 1:317 Marriott (food service company), 1:257 Mars, 2:920, 3:1139–1140 Martinez, Raul, 2:634 Marx, Karl, 2:644 Mason, Andrew, 1:320, 1:321 Mason, Jim, 1:431, 2:651 Mason, John, 1:171 Mason, Patrick L., 1:405 Mason (jars), 1:75, 1:171 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 1:168, 2:892, 2:975 “Massengill Incident,” 2:670 Massialot, Francois, 1:186 Master Cleanse (Lemonade) Diet, 3:1475 Mastering the Art of Cooking: Selected Recipes (Child), 1:297 Mastering the Art of French Cooking: Selected Recipes (Child) (app), 1:298 Mastering the Art of French Cooking (Child), 1:194, 2:569 Materia dietetica, 1:217 Materialized water rights, 3:1468 Matrix, The (film), 2:572 Matsuhisa, Nobuyuki, 3:1396 Maye, Abukar, 3:1407 Mayflower (donut shop), 1:379 Mayo Clinic, 3:1224, 3:1472, 3:1485 McAloo Tikki Burger, 2:480 McCabe, Ciara, 3:1394 McCain Inc., 2:692 McCutcheon, Priscilla, 2:581 McDonald, Maurice, 2:477 McDonald, Richard, 2:477 McDonald’s advertising and marketing to children by, 1:7 animal rights and, 1:40 anti-globalization movements, 1:52 boycotts, 1:145 as casual dining chain, 1:181 Chinese traditional medicine and diet, 1:216 college dining, 1:257

Index convenience food industry, 1:290 E. coli, 1:382 employment, 1:396 fast food industry, generally, 2:477–480 food bans and, 1:107 French Paradox, 2:682 junk food consumption, 2:859, 2:861 locavorism, 2:911 mad cow disease, 2:935 McCafé, 1:253 media portrayals of food issues, 2:953 NAFTA, 3:1035 poultry industry, 3:1157 restaurant management, 3:1205 Slow Food, 3:1267 social media and food, 3:1284 television advertising, 3:1362 trans fats, 3:1390 vertical integration, 3:1444 McDougall, John, 3:1420 McDougall Plan, The (McDougall), 3:1420 McGinnis, J. M., 1:8, 1:120 McGovern, George, 1:394 McGuire, S., 3:1057 McHenry, Jennifer, 3:1066 McHughen, Alan, 2:651 MCI (Meal, Combat, Individual) rations, 2:965 McIntosh, G. H., 1:163 McKenzie Bourbon, 1:81–82 McKibben, Bill, 2:648 McMichael, Philip, 2:1000 McMillan, Tracie, 2:650 McNeal, James, 1:7 McNeil, 1:73 McSaracosti (McDonald’s), 2:480 Meacham, Brian, 3:1122 Mealku, 3:1282 Meals on Wheels, 1:394 Meaning of Life, The (film), 2:573 Measure H (California legislation), 2:953 Meat Inspection Act (1906), 2:947, 3:1413 Meat processing, 2:945–949 history of, 2:945–946 meatpacking industry strike, 3:1314–1315 as oligopoly, 2:948–949 restructuring meat processing, 2:946–947 working conditions and wages, 2:947–948 workplace injury and illness, 2:948 Meatpaper, 2:591 Medford (Massachusetts) High School, 1:145 Media portrayals of food issues, 2:949–955 changing social forces, 2:951–952 molecular gastronomy, 2:982 muckraking, defined, 2:949–950

1561

multimedia food muckraking, 2:952–954 newspaper food columns, 3:1021–1025 restaurant chefs, 3:1194 rhetorical history of muckraking, 2:950–951 Medicaid, 1:386, 1:474, 3:1354 Medicare, 1:386, 1:394, 3:1354 Mediterranean Diet, 1:180, 2:679–682, 3:1401, 3:1403–1404, 3:1426 Meehan, Peter, 1:297, 2:590 Meijer, 3:1069, 3:1070 Meiwes, Armin, 1:44 Melba, Nellie, 1:193–194 Mellin’s, 1:93 Mendel in the Kitchen (Fedoroff and Brown), 2:651 Menshikov, Mikhail, 1:328 Mercer, David, 2:674 Merchant, James, 3:1142 Mercury contamination, fishing policies and, 2:520 Merholz, Peter, 1:137 Merisant, 1:73 Messenger, Helen, 3:1023 Metal, for food packaging, 3:1110 Metamucil, 2:494 Metchnikoff, Elie, 2:890 Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), 2:676 Methodism, 1:228 Metro, 2:819 Metro Foodlands, 2:747–748 Metropolitan Life, 3:1474 Mexican Farm Labor Program, 1:472 Mexican food (in U.S.) ethnic restaurants and, 1:417 food festivals as social action, 2:566 marketing of, 1:408–409, 1:412 Mexico Day of the Dead, 2:786 exports and agricultural production, 1:425 food sovereignty, 2:622–623 NAFTA, 3:1031–1036 pellagra and, 3:1124 sustainable agrifood systems, 3:1337 traditional cuisine, 3:1401, 3:1403 Meyer, Frank, 3:1241 Meyer, Heinrich H. D., 3:1305 Meyer, Karsten, 3:1305 Meyers, Nancy, 2:572, 3:1392 Michelin food magazines and, 2:589 gastropubs and, 2:702 Michelin Guide, 1:195, 1:326, 2:499, 3:1211–1213 Michell, Roger, 1:328 Michigan State University, 2:614, 3:1205 Mickey Leland Childhood Relief Act (1993), 2:626

1562

Index

Microloans, 2:955–958 assessment of, 2:957–958 history of, 2:956 role of, in food businesses, 2:957 role of, in reduction of poverty and hunger, 2:956–957 structure of, 2:955–956 Micronutrients, vegetarian/vegan diet and, 3:1435 Middlebury College, 1:257 Miewald, Christiana, 3:1372 Mignonette (yacht), 1:43 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (1983), 1:397–398, 1:475, 2:834 Migrant labor, 2:958–963 characteristics of U.S. food service production workers (2012), 2:960 citizenship status of foreign-born food service workers, 2:961, 2:962 countries of origin, 2:960 ethno-racial composition of foreign-born food service workers, 2:961, 2:962 food production chain, 2:958–959 gender composition of foreign-born food service workers, 2:961, 2:962 historical perspective, 2:959–960 industry labor and labor unions, 2:833–834 occupational distribution of foreign-born food service workers, 2:960–961 poultry industry, 3:1156–1157 wages of foreign-born food service workers, 2:962 Military rations, 2:963–966 in ancient times, 2:963–964 in eighteenth and nineteeth century Europe and U.S., 2:964 future of, 2:965–966 innovation and innovators, 2:964–965 rationale of, 2:963 in twentieth century, 2:965 in twenty-first century, 2:965 Milk products. See Dairy industry Millau, Christian, 3:1213 Millennium Development Goals (UN) clean drinking water, 3:1378, 3:1380 Green Revolution and future prospects, 2:737 hunger, 2:809 microloans, 2:956–957 population and food supply, 3:1145–1146 Special Programme for Food Security, 3:1291–1292, 3:1291–1294 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 1:202 Millennium Seed Bank of Kew Gardens, 3:1241 Millennium Seed Bank Project, 3:1248 Miller, Henry I., 2:551 Miller Brewing Companies, 3:1166 Miller Pesticide Amendment (1954), 2:549

Milling, 2:966–968 development of milling industry, 2:966–967 types of flour, 2:967–968 Milwaukee Journal, 3:1024 Minerals, in nutrition, 2:968–969 as antioxidants, 1:176 dairy industry and, 1:336 major minerals needed, 2:968–969 overview, 2:968 vegetarian/vegan diet and, 3:1436–1437 WHO on, 2:969 Mini-marts, 2:969–972 features and issues, 2:970–971 history of, 2:969–970 industry of, 2:970 Ministry of Fisheries (Japan), 3:1481 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Japan), 2:529 Minneapolis Tribune, 3:1024 Mintel market research group, 2:746 Miriam, Selma, 3:1205–1206 Miss Parloa’s Kitchen Companion (Parloa), 1:168 Missoula (Montana) Food Policy Council, 2:599 Mistress of Spices (film), 2:572 Mixers (appliance), for restaurants, 3:1196–1197 Mixology, 2:972–975 bartending profession, 2:972–973, 2:975 diversity of, 2:974–975 etymological origins and history of the cocktail, 2:972 Prohibition as “dark age” for cocktails, 2:973–974 resurgence of, 2:974 Thomas and, 2:972–973 Mobile markets, 2:975–978 history of, 2:976–977 impact of, 2:977–978 models of, 2:977 overview, 2:975–976 structure of, 2:976 “Mock meats,” 3:1420, 3:1423, 3:1431 Model Food Code (FDA), 2:905–906 Modelo, 3:1033 Modernist Cuisine (Myhrvold), 1:297 Molasses Act (1733), 1:35 Mold, aflatoxins and, 1:9–12 Molecular biological tracking methods, 3:1345 Molecular gastronomy, 2:978–983 from fine dining to molecular haute cuisine, 2:980–981 in media, 2:982 movement founders and followers, 2:979–980 movement of, 2:979 overview, 2:974, 2:978–979 popularity of, 2:981–982 restaurant cooking techniques, 3:1197–1198 science of, 2:979

Index “Molly Malone” (song), 2:558 Molybdenum, necessity of, 2:968 Momofuku (Meehan), 1:297 Momofuku Noodle Bar, 2:792 Monaghan, Thomas S., 2:478 “Monarch Waystations” initiative, 1:156 Mondal, N. K., 1:202 MONICA project (WHO), 2:681 Monitor Top, 3:1184 Monoculture, 2:983–987 common requirements of, 2:984–985 corn, 2:985–986 history of, 2:983–984 overview, 2:983 pervasiveness of, 2:987 potatoes, 2:986 rationale and environmental consequences, 2:986–987 rice, 2:986 shifts away from, 2:987 wheat, 2:985 Monopolies, 2:987–991 convenience stores, 1:292 food magazines, 2:588 market power versus market competition, 2:988–989 overview, 2:987–988 rise of market power, 2:989–990 See also Multinational conglomerates Monosodium glutamate (MSG), 2:991–992 “Chinese restaurant syndrome,” 2:991, 2:992 discovery and commercial production, 2:991–992 flavors and fragrances, 3:1014–1015 labeling, 2:992–993 neurotoxicity and obesity, 2:992 Monounsaturated fatty acids, 2:488 Monsanto artificial sweeteners, 1:71 dairy industry, 1:337 FDA, 2:551 food lobbying, 2:583 food sovereignty, 2:624–625 front groups, 2:686–687 FTC, 2:493 Global Food Security Act of 2009, 2:717 GMOs, 2:712–715 herbicide resistance, 2:770 media portrayal of food issues, 2:953 monopolies, 2:990 multinational conglomerates, 2:1001 NAFTA, 3:1033 seed banks, 3:1247 terminator technology, 3:1367 Monterey Bay Aquarium, 3:1331, 3:1472 Montmarquet, James, 1:13

1563

Mood Media, 3:1030 Mooney, Pat, 1:132 Moores and Ross Milk Company, 1:93 Moosewood Restaurant, 3:1206 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 3:1180 More Matters, 1:207 Morgan, Gareth, 1:401 Mormon food practices, 2:993–996 bees and significance to, 1:115 Bible-based diets and, 1:123 food customs, 2:995–996 overview of religious history, 2:993–994 religious scripture and Mormon food practices, 2:994–995 trends in Mormon cooking, 2:996 Morone, James A., 3:1275–1276 Morrill, Justin S., 2:892 Morrill Act (1862), 2:891–894 Morris, Dave, 2:478–479 Morris (food company), 2:946 Mortensen, Camilla, 3:1371 Mortensen, David A., 2:770 Morton’s, 1:182 Moshav, 1:313 Moskin, Julia, 2:716–717 Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 1:36 “Mothers and Others for Pesticide Limits,” 1:24 Mountain Dew, 3:1066 Mozafar, A., 1:202 MPG Ingredients, 1:82 Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Foods Market, 2:767 Muckraking. See Media portrayals of food issues Muhammad (prophet), 2:755, 2:758 Mui, Hoh-cheung, 3:1274–1275 Mui, Lorna, 3:1274–1275 Mullainathan, Sendhil, 1:404 Muller, Hans, 3:1089 Muller, Maria, 3:1089 Multfunctional Agriculture, Ecology and Food Security: International Perspectives (Pillarisetti, Lawrey, Ahmad), 2:1000 Multifunctional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective (Wilson), 2:1000 Multifunctionality in agriculture, 2:996–1001 conservation, agritourism, agroecology, food sovereignty, rural development, and, 2:1000–1001 controversial nature of, 2:998–1000 historical context, 2:997–998 overview, 2:996–997 Multinational conglomerates, 2:1001–1005 concentration and consolidation, 2:1002–1003 effects on farmers and livestock producers, 2:1004 effects on food supply, 2:1003–1004 history of, 2:1002

1564

Index

neoliberalization and, 2:1002 overview, 2:1001–1002 Mumm & Co., 3:1389 Municipalities, bankruptcy of, 1:101–102 Murrow, Edward R., 3:1488 Muscogee (Creek) Nation Food and Fitness Policy Council, 2:599 Museum of the American Cocktail, 2:975 Music about food, 2:1005–1009 Muslims, 3:1169 Mutton, minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 1:49 Myhrvold, Nathan, 1:297 Nabhan, Gary, 2:648, 3:1370, 3:1372 Nabisco, 2:920, 2:921 Nader, Ralph, 1:24, 1:95 Nakajima, Hirofumi, 1:275 Naked Chef, The (television program), 2:640 Naples (Italy), pizzerias and, 3:1143–1145 Napoleon Bonaparte, 1:167, 2:964 Napoleon III, 3:1171 Narayan, Uma, 1:334 Nathan’s Famous, 1:274–276 Natick Laboratories, 2:965 Nation of Islam, 2:581 National Academy of Sciences, 1:395, 3:1255–1256 National Advertising Review Council, 3:1364 National Aeronautical and Space Administration, 2:760 National Agricultural Library, 3:1472 National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), 1:472–473 National Association for Catering and Events, 1:186 National Association for the Specialty Food Trade, 1:78 National Association of College and University Food Services, 1:257 National Association of Food Chains, 1:421–422 National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA), 3:1441, 3:1442 National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, 3:1077 National Cancer Institute, 1:161, 2:887, 3:1363–1364 National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 1:454 National Center for Biomedical Research and Training, 3:1373 National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), 2:790–791 National Center for Farmworker Health, 1:473 National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, 3:1246 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 1:444–445 National Cholesterol Education Program, 2:484 National Cooperative Grocers Association, 1:314 National Corn Growers Association, 1:454

National Council of Chain Restaurants, 1:181 National Electronic Norovirus Outbreak Network (CaliciNet), 2:604 National Endowment for the Humanities, 3:1126 National Farm Laborers Union, 1:472 National Farm Workers Association, 1:476, 2:834, 3:1314 National Farmers’ Retail & Markets Association (FARMA), 1:459 National Farmers Union, 1:454 National Frozen Pizza Institute, 2:687 National Gardening Association, 1:76 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 3:1152, 3:1355 National Health Services, 2:797 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, 1:226, 2:482–484, 3:1152 National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), 2:835, 3:1413 National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2:544 National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (Ontario, Canada), 3:1487 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 1:175 National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 2:611–612 National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 2:539 National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1:226, 2:585, 2:788 National Labeling and Education Act (1990), 2:921–922 National Labor Relations Act (1935), 2:835, 2:947 National Labor Relations Act (1938), 2:834 National Labor Relations Board, 2:947 National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, 2:879, 3:1078, 3:1090 National Minimum Legal Drinking Act (MLDA) (1986), 1:36 National Organic Coalition, 3:1077 National Organic Program (NOP), 2:830, 2:879, 3:1073, 3:1075–1079, 3:1082, 3:1414 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), 2:879, 2:883, 3:1073, 3:1075–1077, 3:1090, 3:1414 National Organization for Women, 1:34 National Pesticide Information Center, 2:771 National Plant Germplasm System (USDA), 3:1241 National Pork Producers Council, 2:687 National Research Council, 1:72, 1:155 National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 1:23–24, 3:1456 National Restaurant Association (NRA), 1:181, 1:184, 1:389–390, 1:392, 2:910, 3:1191–1192, 3:1205, 3:1208 National Restaurant Awards (United Kingdom), 2:702 National Safety Council, 3:1485 National School Lunch Act (1946), 3:1229 National School Lunch Program (NSLP), 1:211–212, 2:532, 2:576–577, 2:625, 3:1225–1226, 3:1228–1235, 3:1412, 3:1441

Index National Special Programme for Food Security projects, 3:1293 National Surveillance for Enteric Disease, 2:604 National Toxicology Program, 1:175, 3:1082 National War Garden Commission, 1:264 National Weight Control Registry, 3:1476 National Wildlife Refuge System, 2:813 National Workers Organizing Committee, 1:472 Native Americans pellagra and, 3:1124 terroir and, 3:1372 Native Seed Search, 3:1370 Natural and artificial flavors and fragrances, 3:1011–1016 estrogen-mimicking compounds, 3:1015 flavor and scent, defined, 3:1012–1013 food additives, 2:525–530, 3:1012 Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) program, 3:1014 history of, 3:1012 issues for consumers, 3:1011–1012 MSG, aspartame, and excitotoxins, 3:1014–1015 natural versus artificial flavors and fragrances, 3:1013–1014 overview, 3:1011 pervasiveness of, 3:1015 Natural Hygiene, 2:789 Natural Resources Conservation Service, 3:1413 Naturally raised and fed meats, 3:1016–1021 demand and natural production, 3:1020–1021 domestication and natural husbandry, 3:1018–1019 industrial production, 3:1017–1018 overview, 3:1016–1017 swine (case study), 3:1019–1020 Naturland, 2:507 Navdanya, 1:15, 3:1249 Negativity bias, 2:954 Negligence, 2:905 Negro Motorist Green-Book, The (Green), 3:1399 Neoliberalization, multinational conglomerates and, 2:1002 Nerz, Ryan, 1:276 “Nested organizations,” circular food systems and, 1:236 Nestlé boycotts, 1:144–145 dairy industry, 1:337 exports, 1:426 food bans, 1:107 food lobbying, 2:583, 2:586 food science departments in universities, 2:616 multinational conglomerates, 2:1002 pet food, 3:1139–1140 vegetable oils, 3:1426 water products, 3:1456 Nestlé, Henri, 1:93

Nestle, Marion, 2:586, 2:650–651, 3:1142, 3:1180 Netgrocer, 3:1070 Network of European Worldshops, 1:437 Neurotoxicity, monosodium glutamate (MSG), 2:992 New Age Foods, 2:766, 2:788–790 New Deal, 1:453 New England Journal of Medicine, 2:992, 3:1395 New Harvest, 2:832 New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council, 2:599–600 New Mexico State Penitentiary, 3:1170 New Orleans (Louisiana) Food Policy Advisory Committee, 2:599 food trucks in, 2:636 New wave cooking, 3:1197–1198 New York City Board of Health, 1:208, 2:779 convenience stores in, 1:295 Department of Public Health, 2:688 food cart vendors in, 2:559 food labeling, 2:885 food trucks in, 2:634–635 oyster bars, 3:1099–1101 portion sizes, 3:1153 take-out foods, 3:1349 New York Herald Tribune, 3:1022 New York State Appeals Court, 1:107 fat tax, 3:1354 portion sizes, 3:1153 Supreme Court, 1:107 New York Times on college dining services, 1:255 cookbook ghostwriters, 2:716 front groups, 2:688 on Gourmet, 2:589 on mixology, 2:972 muckraking and, 2:950 Online, 1:431 on restaurant noise, 3:1031 restaurant reviews by, 3:1211 New York Tribune, 1:169 New York World’s Fair, 3:1360 New Yorker, 1:379, 2:588 News and Courier, 3:1022 Newspaper advertising. See Magazine and newspaper advertising Newspaper food columns, 3:1021–1025 about home cooks, 3:1023 celebrity-syndicated food columns, 3:1025 food columns in post-women’s page years, 3:1025 food columns in women’s pages, 3:1022 food contests, 3:1024 food editor personal cooking columns, 3:1023–1024

1565

1566

Index

news in, 3:1024–1025 recipe request and exchange columns, 3:1022–1023 Newsweek, 2:636 Newton, John, 1:228–229 Next, 1:349 Nicod, Micheal, 3:1278 Nidetch, Jean, 3:1474 Nidra (sleep), 1:86 Nielsen BookScan, 1:296–297 Nielsen Company, The, 3:1068, 3:1361 Nigeria hunger in, 2:808 pest control in, 3:1133 Special Programme for Food Security (United Nations) in, 3:1293–1294 street food in, 3:1311 Night of the Living Dead (film), 1:43, 2:572 Nighthawks (Hopper), 1:364 Nightingale, Florence, 2:797, 2:965 Niman, Bill, 3:1142 Nipher, Francis, 3:1208 Nishino, H., 1:163 Nitrate, nitrite, and cured versus uncured meats, 3:1025–1029 labeling and, 3:1026–1027 meat curing, 3:1026 “natural curing” issues, 3:1028 “natural curing” process, 3:1027–1028 overview, 3:1025–1026 safety of “naturally curing” meats, 3:1028–1029 See also Preservatives Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium (NPK) fertilization, 2:984 Nixon, Richard M., 1:134 Nixtamalization, 3:1124 Njaa Narufuku Kenya (Ban hunger in Kenya), 2:576 No Frills, 2:743 No Name, 2:743 Nobu, 2:500, 3:1396 Noise in restaurants, 3:1029–1031 overview, 3:1029–1030 restaurant reviews about, 3:1031 shaping perceptions, 3:1030 sound and taste, 3:1030–1031 sounds of selling, 3:1030 Nom Nom Truck, 2:636 Noma, 2:660 Noma: Time and Place in Nordic Cuisine (Redzepi), 1:299 Non-GMO Project, 3:1472 Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), food aid and, 2:533 Nontariff measures (NTMs), 3:1351 Nook (Amazon), 1:298 Nopal Festival, 2:566–567

Norgaard, Kari Marie, 2:581 Norris Cancer Research Center, 2:799 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 3:1031–1036 alternatives, 3:1035–1036 anti-globalization movements, 1:52 exports, 1:425 imported foods, 2:827–828 maize, 3:1032–1034 migrant labor, 2:960 overview, 3:1031–1032 protected designation of origin (PDO), 3:1174 tomatoes, 3:1034–1035 water in global agrifood chains, 3:1459 North American Olive Oil Association, 2:670 North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, 1:156 North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, 2:522 North Central Soil Conservation Research Lab, 3:1288 North Karelia Project, 2:926 North Pacific Sealing Convention, 2:520 North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, 2:522 Norwalk virus (norovirus), 2:607, 2:655 Norway, family meals/commensality, 1:447 Norway maple tree, 2:852 Not on the Label (Lawrence), 2:650 No-tilling method, for soil, 3:1287 Novak, Annie, 3:1406–1407 Novartis, 1:95 NSW Seedbank, 3:1248 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2:857 Nurses’ Health Study, 3:1047 Nutraceuticals, 3:1036–1038 ethical issues, 3:1037–1038 health claims and scientific evidence, 3:1037 home fermentation, 2:794 regulation and oversight, 3:1037 types and uses of, 3:1036–1037 NutraSweet, 1:71–73 Nutrient density, 3:1038–1041 challenges, 3:1040 defining, 3:1038–1039 dietary guidance about, 3:1039–1040 fats in diet and, 2:487 future research, 3:1040–1041 Westernized diets, 3:1039 Nutrient film technique (NFT), for aquaponics, 1:66 Nutrition family meals and, 1:446 fish, 3:1094–1095 food additives, 2:525–530 food deserts, 2:560–564 food lobbying and international nutrition policy, 2:586 grass-fed beef nutritional composition, 2:733

Index nutritional value or organic versus conventionally produced food, 3:1082 snack foods, 3:1277–1280 sprouts, 3:1299–1300 taste and, 1:88, 1:89 (tables) vegetarianism and veganism, 3:1434–1437 See also Labeling, nutrition Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (Price), 3:1176 Nutrition education, 3:1041–1046 about portion sizes, 3:1151 corporate food service, 1:318 food and nutrients, 3:1041–1043 food security, 3:1043–1044 overview, 3:1041 policy, 3:1045–1046 in special populations, 3:1044–1045 sustainable, resilient food and water systems, 3:1044 See also Dietary Guidelines and graphics Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 2:918 Nutrition Journal, 1:118 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) (1990) childhood obesity, 1:207 corn syrup, 2:779–780 FDA and, 2:550 fiber, 2:495 labeling, generally, 2:878, 2:882, 2:884–885 magazine and newspaper advertising, 2:938 portion sizes, 3:1152–1153 Nutrition Standards for Healthy Schools: Leading the Way Toward Healthier Youth (IOM), 1:120, 3:1441–1442 NutritionData, 3:1472 Nutritionism, 3:1046–1051 biomarker reductionism, genetic nutritionism, and functional body, 3:1048 defined, 3:1046 food writing in books about, 2:651–652 nutricentric person and nutricentric gaze, 3:1050–1051 nutriquantification and blurring of qualitative food categories and contexts, 3:1048–1050 nutritional determinism, 3:1047 nutritional facade, 3:1050 nutritional reductionism, 3:1046–1048 Nutritionism: The Science and Politics of Dietary Advice (Scrinis), 2:652 Nuts, as cancer-fighting food, 1:163 O V Europa, 3:1497 Oahu, food trucks in, 2:636–637 Oakland Tribune, 3:1023 Oat flour, milling of, 2:967 Obama, Barack, 1:328–329, 2:580, 2:627, 2:883, 3:1153, 3:1315 Obama, Michelle, 1:119, 1:207, 2:580, 2:684–685, 2:864, 3:1234, 3:1441

1567

Obesity epidemic, 3:1053–1061 Bible-based diets and, 1:121–124 genetics, 3:1054 interventions, 3:1057–1059 junk food and impact on health, 2:864 monosodium glutamate (MSG), 2:992 overview, 3:1053–1054 prevention, 3:1055–1057 secular trends in energy balance, 3:1054–1055 statistics, 2:486 See also Cardiac disease and diet; Childhood obesity Obesity Reviews, 2:861 Obesity Working Group (FDA), 2:550 Object-based disgust, 1:369 Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), 1:397, 2:948 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 1:346, 1:397, 1:475, 2:948, 3:1486–1488 Ocean Spray, 3:1363 O’Charley’s, 1:182 Ochs, Phil, 1:251 Odum, H. T., 3:1128 Off the Grid festivals, 2:633 Offal, 1:419 Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA), 2:584–585 Office of Seed and Plant Introduction (USDA), 3:1241 Office of the United States Trade Representatives, 2:827 Ogilvy and Mather, 1:73 Ogle, Maureen, 2:650 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (Ohio State University), 1:63 Ohsawa, George, 2:929–930 Ohsawa, Lima, 2:929–930 Ojas (balanced digestion and metabolism), 1:88–92 Okumura, Bob, 1:137 Oldenburg, Claes, 1:68 Oldenburg, Ray, 1:253 Older Americans Act (OAA) (1965), 1:394 Olean, 2:920 Olestra, 2:920 Olive Center (University of California at Davis), 3:1064 Olive Garden, 1:85, 1:180–182, 1:185 Olive oil, 3:1061–1064 as cancer-fighting food, 1:162 choosing, 3:1063–1064 in food traditions, 3:1426 grades of, 3:1062 myths about, 3:1064 overview, 3:1061–1062 production and distribution problems, 3:1062–1063 Oliver, Jamie, 1:195–196, 1:299, 2:640, 2:642, 2:684, 3:1282 Oliver (film), 2:570 Olivetti, Jolie, 3:1407 Olvera, Enrique, 1:84

1568

Index

Olympia Food Coop, 1:146 Olympic Games, 3:1296, 3:1362 O’Mahoney, Jerry, 1:365 Omega-3 fatty acids, in fish, 1:63–64 Omi, Michael, 2:580 Omnivore’s Dilemma, The: A Natural History in Four Meals (Pollan), 1:431, 2:648, 2:910 On Poverty and Famines (Sen), 3:1147 On the Anatomy and Diseases of the Horse (Ruini), 3:1448 Onco Mouse (Harvard University), 2:714 One Straw Revolution: An Introduction to Natural Farming (Fukuoka), 3:1128 One World Café, 3:1122 One World Everybody Eats Summit, 3:1122–1123 100-Mile Diet, The: A Year of Local Eating (Smith, MacKinnon), 2:648 Online advertising, 3:1065–1068 advertising, generally, 1:3–4, 2:937 controversies, 3:1067 economics of, 3:1065–1066 food ads, 3:1066–1067 history and key features of ads, 3:1065 Online shopping, 3:1068–1071 examples, 3:1069–1070 extent of online food shopping, 3:1068–1069 global trends and future of, 3:1070–1071 types of merchandise, 3:1068 On-site aggregation, 1:372–373 Ontario (Canada), marketing boards and, 2:941 On-the-job training, in food service industries, 1:389–390 Open dating systems, 1:422 Open kitchens, 3:1071–1073 overview, 3:1071 restaurants and homes, 3:1071–1072 Open Source Food, 1:60 OpenTable, 3:1212, 3:1470 Operation PUSH, 1:144 Optifast, 3:1475 Orange County Weekly, 1:85 Orbach, Susie, 3:1317 Oregon State University, 2:614 Organic, Humane, American Grassfed Association, 3:1017 Organic agricultural products, policies on, 3:1073–1078 debates about, 3:1077–1078 early popularity in U.S., 3:1074 federal policy on organic products, 3:1074–1076 growth and transformation in organic market, 3:1076–1077 origins of organic philosophy, 3:1073 overview, 3:1073 standards and certification, 3:1074

Organic chemical (OC) contaminants, in fish, 2:504–505 Organic chemical preservatives, 3:1105 Organic Consumers Association, 2:880, 3:1077 Organic Farming and Gardening, 3:1074 Organic foods and health implications, 3:1078–1083 definitions and history of organic food, 3:1078–1079 environmental issues, 3:1082–1083 imported, 2:829–830 labeling: organic, local, and genetically modified, 2:877–882 nutritional value or organic versus conventionally produced food, 3:1082 organic dairy farming, 1:339 safety of organic versus conventionally produced food, 3:1079–1082 Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) (1990), 2:830, 2:879, 3:1027, 3:1073, 3:1075–1078, 3:1084, 3:1090, 3:1346, 3:1414 Organic Gardening (Rodale), 1:278, 3:1074, 3:1089 Organic production, 3:1083–1087 defined, 3:1083 principles and practices, 3:1084–1086 socioeconomic aspects, 3:1086–1087 statistical overview, 3:1083–1084 Organic Production Survey (U.S. National Agricultural Statistics Service), 3:1084, 3:1087 Organic System Plan, 3:1086 Organic Trade Association, 2:746, 2:829–830, 3:1077 Organic Valley, 3:1418 Organic/biodynamic farming, 3:1087–1093 certification and regulation, 3:1090–1091 history, 3:1088–1090 issues and debates, 3:1091–1092 overview, 3:1087–1088 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1:192, 2:535, 2:624, 2:998, 2:1000, 3:1357 Original Health Food Store, 2:765 Original Pancake House, The, 3:1120 Original Unverpackt, 2:746 Orlando Sentinel, 3:1023 Ornish, Dean, 1:180 Ornish diet, 3:1475 Orphic religious movement, 3:1428 Orthodox Churches, food restrictions and, 1:227 Orthopathy, 2:789 Ortolan hunting prohibitions, 1:105 Oshawa, George, 2:766 Ostman, Eleanor, 3:1023–1024 Oswald, Robert E., 2:666 Otherness ethnic grocery stores and, 1:410 ethnic restaurants and, 1:416–417 Ottolenghi, Yotam, 3:1432 Ottomans, 1:249

Index Outback Steakhouse, 1:180, 1:182 Ovens, for restaurants, 3:1195–1196 Overfishing and fisheries depletion, 3:1093–1097 consequences of, 3:1094–1095 conservation and regulation attempts, 3:1095–1096 contributing factors, 3:1093–1094 examples of, 3:1095 Oxalic acid and oxalates, 3:1097–1099 chemical oxalic acid, 3:1097 controversies, 3:1098 health concerns, 3:1098 oxalates, 3:1097–1098 Oxbridge, 1:255 Oxfam, 1:452, 2:536 Oxford Companion to Food (Davidson), 2:914 Oxford University, 1:254, 1:256, 3:1030 OXO, 1:4 Oyster bars, 3:1099–1101 consuming oysters, 3:1099–1100 contemporary, 3:1101 origins of, 3:1100–1101 overview, 3:1099 Oysters fishing policies and, 2:519 food trends and, 2:632 oyster farming and aquaculture, 1:62–63 Ozeki, Ruth, 3:1370 Paarlberg, Robert, 3:1146 Pachirat, Timothy, 1:433 Pacific Institute, 3:1456 Pacifico, 3:1033 Packaged Facts, 2:746 Packaged food and preservatives, 3:1103–1106 dangers and side effects of preservatives, 3:1105–1106 food additives, 2:525–530 need for, 3:1104 overview, 3:1103–1104 preservation, 3:1104–1105 Packaging, 3:1106–1112 of alcohol, 1:31–32 brief history, 3:1107 economic issues for, 3:1109–1110 environmental issues, 3:1108, 3:1111–1112 ethnic grocery stores, 1:411–412 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (1966), 2:878, 2:882, 2:886–887 fast food, 2:478 features of, 3:1108–1109 food distribution centers, 1:370–373 food expiration dates, 1:421–423 front-of-package (FOP) labels, 2:883 frozen food, 2:691

1569

functions and benefits, 3:1107 health issues, 3:1111 marketing aspects of, 3:1108 materials and forms of, 3:1110–1111 overview, 3:1106–1107 portion sizes, 3:1152–1153 protection attributes of food packaging, 3:1107–1108 take-out foods, 3:1350 toxicity testing, 3:1384–1385 Packard, Vance, 3:1318 Packard-Stockyards Act (1921), 3:1265 Packer, Alferd, 1:43 Packers & Stockyards Act (1921), 1:57 Paddleford, Clementine, 3:1022 Paine, Thomas, 1:13 “Palaces” (grain mosaics), 1:70 Paleo diet, 3:1112–1116 critiques of, 3:1114–1115 defense of, 3:1115 early human diet and evolution, 3:1113–1114 history and claims of, 3:1113 overview, 3:1112–1113 paleofantasy, 3:1114–1115 Paleo Diet, The (Cordain), 2:916 Paleodietary reconstruction, modern techniques in, 3:1116–1119 biochemical and microfossil evidence, 3:1116–1117 interpretive challenges for transition to food production, 3:1118–1119 methodological challenges, 3:1117–1118 Palin, Sarah, 3:1442 Palm, Theobald Adrian, 3:1218 Palm oil, 3:1425 Palma, Pedro Morán, 2:771 Palmer, Bill, 1:182 Palmer, Ryan, 2:636 Palmer, T. J., 1:182 Paltrow, Gwyneth, 2:717 Pamplin College of Business (Virginia Tech), 3:1205 Pan African Orthodox Christian Church, 2:581 Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), 2:586 Pan-American Exposition (1901), 1:70 Pancake houses and breakfast joints, 3:1119–1121 coffee and donut shops, 3:1120–1121 history of, 3:1120 overview, 3:1119 Pandora’s Picnic Basket (McHughen), 2:651 Panera Bread, 1:181, 3:1122 Panera Cares, 3:1122 Pantaloon Retail India, 2:819 Pantry Restaurant, 2:995 Parasites food safety and, 2:607–608 foodborne illness and, 2:656

1570

Index

“Par-baked” bread, 1:100 Parenti, Christian, 3:1147–1148 Pareve, 2:871 Paris Exhibition (1900), 1:169 Park Slope Food Co-op, 1:146 Parker, Trey, 2:572 Parkinson’s, 3:1136 Parloa, Maria, 1:168 Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese, 3:1369 Parry, William E., 1:168 Participant Media, 2:954 Partnership for a Healthier America, 2:798 Passover, 2:785, 2:824, 2:872–873, 3:1188 Pasteur, Louis, 1:148, 1:168, 2:792, 3:1159 Pasteurization DIY food movement and, 1:375–376 raw milk and pasteurization, 3:1178–1181 Pastry kitchens, 3:1197 Pasture-based dairy farms, 1:338–339 Patel, Raj, 2:954 Patent law, 2:838–839 Patent Steam Ice-Cream Saloon, 2:821 Pathade, G. R., 1:202 Pathogen Reduction—Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Final Rule (USDA), 1:346 Pathogens, as invasive species, 2:853 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010), 2:551, 3:1153, 3:1442–1443 Patil, S. V., 1:202 Patil, V. S., 1:202 Paul, Alice, 3:1316 Pavlova, Anna, 1:193–194 Pawlick, T. F., 1:202 Paypal, 3:1070 Pay-what-you-can cafés, 3:1121–1123 movement, 3:1122 One World Everybody Eats Summit, 3:1122–1123 origins, 3:1121–1122 overview, 3:1121 PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), 1:116, 3:1471 Peaceful Belly Farm, 1:267 Pearl farming, aquaculture and, 1:62–63 Peek Frean’s, 3:1387 Pei Wei Asian Diner, 1:183 Peliti, 3:1253 Pellagra, 3:1123–1124 corn and, 3:1123–1124 nixtamalization as prevention of, 3:1124 symptoms and care, 3:1123 Pelton, Albert, 1:380 Pelton, Robert, 1:380 Peña, Devon, 2:581 Penicillium, 1:48

Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air, 2:665 Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 2:665 Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board, 2:943–944 Pennsylvania State University, 3:1205 Pennsylvania Turnpike, 1:184 Penny capitalism, 3:1312 Penny Lunch Movement, 3:1229 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 1:39, 1:41, 1:339, 2:831, 3:1423 People’s Grocery, 2:579–580 People’s Grocery Mobile Market, 2:976 People’s Republic of China. See China Pep, 1:6–7 Pépin, Jacques, 3:1194 PepsiCo, 2:689 beverage industry and, 1:120 casual dining chains and, 1:185 childhood obesity, 1:206 food bans and, 1:108–109 food lobbying, 2:583 online advertising, 3:1066 television advertising, 3:1361–1362 trademarks, 3:1386, 3:1388 vertical integration, 3:1445 warehouse clubs and supermarket loyalty cards, 3:1455 Perdue Chicken, 1:397, 3:1141, 3:1155 Perfectionist, The: Life and Death in Haute Cuisine (Chelminski), 3:1213 Perfecto, Ivette, 2:618 Performance art using food, 3:1125–1127 definitions and boundaries of, 3:1125 food as medium, 3:1125–1126 food as subject, 3:1126–1127 foodways as performance art, 3:1127 Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (1930), 3:1346 Perkins, Angiers March, 1:99 Perkins Family Restaurants, 3:1120 Permaculture, 3:1127–1130 intellectual foundations, 3:1128–1129 overview, 3:1127–1128 principles and practices, 3:1129 social movement, 3:1129–1130 Permaculture Design Certificate (PDC), 3:1128 Permaculture Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability (Holmgren), 3:1128 Permaculture Research Institute, 3:1129–1130 Perpich, Rudy, 3:1315 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, 2:626–627 Pest control, 3:1130–1133 background, 3:1130–1131 indigenous systems for, 3:1132–1133 integrated pest management, 3:1132 methods, 3:1132

Index pest management and organic, 3:1085–1086 types of control, 3:1131–1132 types of pests, 3:1131 Pesticide Action Network, 3:1486 Pesticide Conspiracy, The (Van Den Bosch), 3:1135 Pesticide Policy Coalition, 2:584–585 Pesticides, 3:1133–1137 alternative farming and pest control methods, 3:1137 economic impact of, 3:1135–1136 environmental impact of, 3:1136 estimated use of, in U.S., 3:1134 herbicide resistance, 2:768–772 history of, in U.S., 3:1134–1135 human health impact of, 3:1136–1137 overview, 3:1133–1134 See also Herbicide resistance; Monoculture Pet food, 3:1137–1140 development of commercial food, 3:1138 history of, 3:1138 nutrition, 3:1139 overview, 3:1137–1138 pet food industry, 3:1139–1140 toxicity testing, 3:1385 types of, 3:1138–1139 Petrini, Carlo, 3:1267–1270 Pew Charitable Trusts, The, 3:1442 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, 3:1140–1143 areas of focus, 3:1142–1143 background, 3:1141 creation of, 3:1141–1142 factory farming, 1:321 findings and recommendations, 3:1143 overview, 3:1140–1141 poultry industry, 3:1156 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2:994 P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, 1:181, 1:183 Pfeiffer, Ehrenfried, 3:1088 Phaidon Press, 1:299 Philadelphia Bulletin, 3:1023 Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), food trucks in, 2:635 Philip Morris, 2:689 Phillips Foods, Inc., 3:1388 Philosophy, food as, 2:706 Phosphorus, necessity of, 2:968 Physical activity, weight and, 3:1056, 3:1058–1059 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 3:1420 Physicians for Social Responsibility, 2:798 Physiology of Taste, The (Brillat-Savarin), 1:297, 2:822, 2:915 Phytochemicals, 1:175–176 Phytoestrogens. See Soy and phytoestrogens Phytogeographic Basis of Plant Breeding (Vavilov), 2:895

1571

Piaget, Jean, 3:1262 Piazza di Spagna (Rome), 3:1267 Pierce, Deborah, 1:122 Piggly Wiggly, 2:743, 2:818 Pike Place Market, 1:252 Pilcher, Jeffrey, 1:85 Pilgrim’s Pride, 2:949 Pillarisetti, J. R., 2:1000 Pillsbury, 1:185, 1:305, 3:1155 Pima County (Arizona) Food Alliance, 2:599 Pinterest, 1:5, 3:1281 Pioneer Woman, The, 3:1469–1470 Pirog, Rich, 3:1370 Pitt, William, 3:1275 Pitta, 1:87 Pittman-Robertson Act, 2:813 Pizza Hut, 1:60, 1:185, 1:258, 1:294, 3:1145 Pizzerias, 3:1143–1145 innovation and tradition of, 3:1144 overview, 3:1143–1144 U.S. popularity of, 3:1144–1145 Placentophagy, 1:44 Plan of Delano, 3:1314 Planet Hollywood, 1:182 Planet Taco (Pilcher), 1:85 Plants, as invasive species, 2:852 Plaque, 2:481–482 Plastic, for food packaging, 3:1111 Plats du Jour: The Girl and the Fig’s Journey Through the Seasons in Wine Country (Bernstein), 1:299 Playboy, 2:588 PlayNetwork, 3:1030 Plenty: Eating Locally on the 100 Mile Diet, 2:880 PLU. See Price look-up codes Pneumatika (Hero of Alexandria), 3:1439–1440 Point, Fernand, 2:499 Point, The, 1:320 Policy and Strategy for Cooperation With NonGovernmental and Civil Society Organizations (FAO), 2:546 Political Declaration of the High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases, 3:1357–1358 Politics, anthropophagy and, 1:44–45 Polk, James K., 1:169 Pollan, Michael agrarianism and, 1:16 Cooked, 2:648 In Defense of Food, 2:648, 2:651 Food Rules, 2:651 food tv and, 2:639 food writing and, 2:648, 2:651 media portrayals of food, 2:953–954 on molecular gastronomy, 2:980

1572

Index

nutritionism and, 3:1046 Omnivore’s Dilemma, The: A Natural History in Four Meals, 1:431, 2:648, 2:910 Slow Food and, 3:1270 terroir and, 3:1370, 3:1372 on in vitro meat, 2:832 Polo, Marco, 2:498 Polson, Dorothee, 3:1024 Polystyrene, 1:66, 1:67, 1:175, 1:257, 2:478 Polyunsaturated fatty acids, 2:488 Polyvend Company, 3:1441 Polyvinyl chloride, 1:186 Poor People’s March on Washington, D.C., 2:626 Popenoe, Wilson, 3:1241 Poppendieck, Janet, 2:555 Popper, Deborah E., 3:1346 Poppo, Ronald, 1:44 Popular Science, 1:275 Population and food supply, 3:1145–1149 aging and, 3:1148 climate change and, 3:1147–1148 food access, 3:1146–1147 food production and supply, 3:1146 food supply versus biofuel supply, 3:1148 global population, 3:1145–1146 sustainability, 3:1148–1149 vegetarianism and, 3:1148 Population Bomb, The (Ehrlich), 2:807 Pop-ups. See Supper clubs and clandestine dining Porgham. S. H., 1:223 Pork free-range, 2:675–679 minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 naturally raised and fed meats, swine (case study), 3:1019–1020 pigs and factory farming, 1:430 Pork Producers’ Federation of Quebec (Les Éleveurs de porcs du Québec), 2:942 Port, labeling of, 1:32 Portion sizes, 3:1150–1154 environmental issues, 3:1154 junk food consumption, 2:862–863 in packaged and prepared foods, 3:1152–1153 portion distortion, 3:1151–1152 public health and, 3:1154 in public health education, 3:1151 in restaurants, 3:1153 standard, 3:1150 Portland (Oregon), food trucks in, 2:637 Posilac, 2:551, 2:687 Post, C. W., 2:744 Post, John D., 1:450 Post Cereal, 1:7, 1:319

Postman Always Rings Twice, The (Cain), 1:364 Postsecondary programs, in culinary arts, 1:392–393 Postumian Laws (ancient Rome), 1:33 Pot au Feu (Polson), 3:1024 Potassium, necessity of, 2:968 Potato Patches, 1:263 Potatoes from Idaho, 3:1369 monoculture and, 2:986 Poultry industry, 3:1154–1158 animal welfare, 3:1157–1158 consumers, 3:1157 environmental issues, 3:1156 factory farming, 1:429–430 free-range, 2:675–679 frozen foods and, 2:690 globalization of industrial chicken industry, 3:1158 growers, 3:1156 hanging ducks and restaurant inspections, 3:1202 minimum cooking temperature for poultry, 1:308 origin and structure of, 3:1155 overview, 3:1154–1155 vertical integration and corporate consolidation, 3:1155 workers, 3:1156–1157 See also Halal food; Heritage breeds; Kosher food Poultry Products Inspection Act, 2:611 Poultry Science Symposium Series, 2:677 “Pouring rights,” 2:530–531 Poverty. See Domestic food insecurity; Economic cost of the Western diet; Food insecurity; International food security; Microloans; Pay-what-you-can cafés; individual names of government programs Powell, Julie, 1:139, 1:297–298, 2:571–572, 2:910 P-Patch Community Garden, 3:1405 Prakriti (natural qualities), 1:87, 1:89–90 Pray Your Weight Away (Shedd), 1:122 Pregnancy, gestational diabetes during, 1:356–357 Prescott, Samuel, 1:168 Preservatives, 3:1158–1161 chemical substances, 3:1160–1161 cold and, 3:1160 dangers and side effects of preservatives, 3:1104, 3:1105–1106 fermentation, 3:1158, 3:1160 heat and, 3:1159–1160 issues of food additives, 2:525–530 nitrate, nitrite, and cured versus uncured meats, 3:1025–1029 overview, 3:1158–1159 packaged food and preservatives, 3:1105 types of, generally, 3:1159 Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving, 1:36 Presidia-Chef Alliance, 3:1268

Index Press, The (New York City), 1:305 Preventative Veterinary Medicine, 2:677 Prevention Research Center (Yale University), 1:153 Price, Weston A., 3:1176 Price fixing. See Sherman Antitrust Act Price look-up codes, 3:1161–1164 applying for new PLU codes, 3:1163 International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), 3:1162–1163 labeling, 2:888 overview, 3:1161–1162 PLU stickers, 3:1163 restricted use and retailer-assigned PLU codes, 3:1163 as scanning tool, 3:1162 Price wars, 3:1164–1167 causes of, 3:1164–1165 impact of, 3:1165 price change strategies, 3:1165 Princeton University, 1:255 Prions, food safety and, 1:43–44, 2:608 “Prior sanctioned items” (food additives), 2:527 Prison food, 3:1167–1170 background, 3:1167–1168 food as punishment, 3:1169 food as resistance, 3:1169–1170 food culture in prisons, 3:1168 last meals, 2:897–900 special meals, 3:1168–1169 Prisoners Temporary Discharge for Ill Health Act (1913), 3:1316 Pritikin diet, 3:1475 Privacy, tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1345 Probber, Jonathan, 1:257 Probiotics, 2:889–891, 2:890 (table) Processed foods, consistency of. See Consistency of food products/ingredients Processing food sector, employment in, 1:397 Procope, Le, 2:821 Procter & Gamble, 2:920–921, 3:1139–1140, 3:1261 Produce Marketing Association (PMA), 2:888 Producer cooperatives, 1:312–314 “Producer only” designation, in farmers’ markets, 1:462 Product liability, 2:906–907 Product placement, 3:1319, 3:1362–1363 Production sector employment in, 1:397 exports, agricultural production, and structural integrity, 1:425 gender and foodways, 2:704 Professional associations, in food service industries, 1:390–391 Professional development, in food service industries, 1:390

1573

Programme on Assistance to School Milk Promotion (FAO), 2:547 Progresso, 1:408 Prohibition alcohol use and, 1:26–27, 1:29–32 artisanal spirits and, 1:80–81 ice cream parlors, 2:822 junk food and, 2:859 liquor stores, 2:901 mixology and, 2:972–974 smuggling history and, 3:1276 supper club history and, 3:1323–1324 underground economies and, 3:1398 Prohibition (political party), 1:35 Project Concern, 1:452 Project EAT, 1:444 ProStart (NRA), 1:392 Protected designation of origin (PDO), 3:1171–1174 future of, 3:1174 history of, 3:1171 overview, 3:1171 political and economic issues, 3:1172–1174 terroir, 3:1171–1172, 3:1173 (fig.), 3:1368–1373 Protein, in Paleo diet, 3:1112–1116 Protestantism, church suppers and, 1:230–231 Proximity principle, 1:234 Prudhomme, Paul, 3:1024 Public Broadcasting Service, 3:1361 Public Citizen, 2:583 Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, 3:1314 Public health issues, front groups and, 2:688 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (2002), 1:133–134, 3:1346 “Public pet,” 1:402 Publican, The, 2:702–703 Publix, 1:144, 3:1069 Puck, Wolfgang, 3:1072 Pukka foods, 2:783 Pulse-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), 1:383 Punchfork, 3:1281 Puranas, 2:781 Purcell, Mark, 2:912 Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) alcohol and, 1:31 FDA, generally, 2:549 food labeling, 2:878, 2:882–883, 2:886 food safety agencies, generally, 2:611 meat processing, 2:947 natural and artificial flavors and fragrances, 3:1014 restaurant inspections, 3:1200 worker safety, 3:1488 Pure Food Campaign, 2:551 Purina PetCare, 3:1139–1140

1574

Index

Puritans, Bible-based diets and, 1:121–122 Purk, Mary E., 3:1261 Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America (Pew Charitable Trusts, Johns Hopkins University), 3:1140–1141 Pythagoras, 3:1428 Qdoba Mexican Grill, 1:181 “Quad (Cairns) Group,” 1:244 Quaker Oats, 1:185, 3:1364, 3:1387–1388 Quality Street chocolates, 2:937 Que Crawl, 2:636 Queen’s Lane Coffeehouse, 1:249–250 Quick-serve restaurants, 1:181 Quincy, Josiah, 1:254 Quint, Doug, 2:635 Quran, 2:755–756, 2:758–759, 2:785, 3:1188 Race, underground economies and, 3:1397–1399 Radio, children’s advertising and, 1:7 Radio frequency idenfitication (RFID), 3:1344 Radiocarbon dating, 3:1118 Radura (irradiation symbol), 2:857 (fig.) “Raft” method, for aquaponics, 1:66 Railroad Trust, 3:1264 Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree, 1:134 Ralphs, 3:1166 Ralston Purina, 3:1155 Ramadan, 2:785 RAND Corporation, 2:666 Randell, A., 1:243 Random House, 1:298–299 Rare Breeds Canada, 2:775 Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand, 2:775 Rare Breeds International, 2:775 Rare Breeds Survival Trust (RBST), 2:774–775 Rare Breeds Trust of Australia, 2:775 Rashi (quantity), 1:90–91 Raw diets, 3:1175–1178 cuisine, 3:1177–1178 debates about, 3:1176–1177 history of, 3:1175–1176 types of, 3:1175 See also Raw milk and pasteurization Raw foods, New Age beliefs and, 2:789–790 Raw milk and pasteurization, 3:1178–1181 debates about, 3:1180–1181 overview, 3:1178–1179 pasteurization process, 3:1179–1180 widespread pasteurization practices, 3:1179 Raw pet food, 3:1139 Ray, Rachael, 1:194–195, 2:589, 2:716, 2:717 Raynolds, Laura, 1:261

RCA, 3:1360 Reade, John, 2:769 Reagan, Ronald, 1:36, 1:73, 2:553, 2:577, 3:1074 Real Dirt on Farmer John, The (documentary), 1:267 Reasonable person standard, 2:905 Rebuilding New Orleans, Recipe by Recipe (recipe exchange program), 3:1022 Recalled by Life: The Story of My Recovery From Cancer (Sattilaro), 2:930 Recalls. See Food safety; Food safety agencies; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Recipe requests, newspaper food columns and, 3:1022–1023 Recipe testing, 3:1181–1183 reasons for recipe development, 3:1181–1182 recipe development process, 3:1182–1183 Recipes, protecting. See Intellectual property law and recipes; Intellectual property rights Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), 1:65 Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), 3:1303 Recommended Daily Allowances (2007), 2:885 Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) (1968), 2:885 Red Fife, 3:1268 Red Guards (China), 1:45 Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN), 1:400 Red Lobster, 1:181–182, 1:185 Red Robin, 1:182, 1:183 Red Tomato, 3:1419 Reducing Emissions From Environmental Degradation, 2:662 Redzepi, Rene, 1:299 Reference Amounts Commonly Consumed per Eating Occasion (RACC), 3:1150–1153 “Reference dose,” 2:503 Reference water rights, 3:1468 Reform Club, 1:193 Refrigeration, for restaurants, 3:1198–1199 Refrigerator design and size, 3:1184–1187 future of, 3:1186–1187 “great divergence,” 3:1185–1186 history of, 3:1184–1185 Regan, Tom, 3:1422 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), 2:522 Regional Seas Programme, 2:522 Regulation employment in, 1:397–398 of farmers’ markets, 1:462–463 fishing for sport, 2:513 food advertisements in schools and proposed guidelines, 2:532–533 food fraud issues and, 2:670–671 functional foods, 2:697–698 high-fructose corn syrup, 2:779–780

Index hunting, 2:813–814 imported food, 2:826–827 organic foods, 3:1090–1091 overfishing and fisheries depletion, 3:1095–1096 sports nutrition, 3:1296–1297 street food, 3:1312–1313 television advertising, 3:1363–1364 weights and measures on food labels, 2:878–879 worker safety, 3:1487–1489 See also Federal Trade Commission; Food safety agencies Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents (2010), 3:1441 Reichl, Ruth, 2:589, 3:1211 Re-Imagining Milk (Wiley), 1:336 Reliance Mart, 2:819 Relief Gardens, 1:263–264 Religion and food practices. See Christian food restrictions; Christianity; Halal food; Hindu food restrictions; Islam; Judaism; Kosher food; Mormon food practices; Religion and foods, requirements and labeling; Seventh-day Adventist food practices; individual names of religious texts Religion and foods, requirements and labeling, 3:1187–1190 airline meals and, 1:22 alcohol and, 1:33 Buddhism, 3:1189 Christianity, 3:1187–1188 Confucianism, 3:1189–1190 fruitarianism and religious beliefs, 2:693–694 Hinduism, 3:1189 Islam, 3:1188 Judaism, 3:1188–1189 overview, 3:1187 prison food and special meals, 3:1168–1169 Shintoism, 3:1189–1190 Taoism, 3:1189–1190 Remove Intoxicated Drivers, 1:36 Renaud, Serge, 2:679 Renewable Fuel Standards, 1:129 Renewing America’s Food Traditions, 2:775 Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming, 3:1074 Reportable Food Registry, 3:1346 Reptiles, minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Research, circular food systems and, 1:236–237 Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 2:484 Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, 3:1083, 3:1088 Restaurant Associates, 1:317 Restaurant chefs, 3:1190–1195 chefs of supper clubs and clandestine dining, 3:1325 kitchen organization and history, 3:1192–1193 media and marketing, 3:1194 overview, 3:1190

1575

professionalization, 3:1193–1194 role and duties of, 3:1190–1191 training, 3:1191–1192 unique setting for, 3:1193 venues, 3:1191 Restaurant cooking technologies, 3:1195–1199 computers, 3:1199 cookers, 3:1196 future of, 3:1199 mixers and choppers, 3:1196–1197 new wave cooking, 3:1197–1198 ovens, 3:1195–1196 pastry kitchens, 3:1197 refrigeration and sanitation, 3:1198–1199 Restaurant inspections, 3:1199–1203 history and prevalence of, 3:1200 overview, 3:1199–1200 policy issues in flux, 3:1202–1203 in state of California, 3:1200–1202 Restaurant (magazine), 2:980 Restaurant management, 3:1203–1206 critiques of, 3:1205–1206 educational programs, 3:1205 history of, 3:1204–1205 practices, 3:1204 responsibilities of, 3:1203–1204 Restaurant menu design, 3:1206–1210 criteria and components of, 3:1209 evolution of, 3:1207 genre differences in, 3:1209–1210 overview, 3:1206–1207 professionalization of, 3:1207–1209 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, 1:398–399, 2:835, 3:1336 Restaurant reviews, 3:1210–1214 about noise in restaurants, 3:1031 crowdsourced reviews of restaurants, 1:326–327, 3:1212 development of, 3:1212–1213 impact of, 3:1213–1214 overview, 3:1210–1212 See also Newspaper food columns Restaurant Social Media Index (RSMI), 3:1283–1284 Restaurant waitstaff, 3:1214–1218 demography of, 3:1214 history of, 3:1214 industry labor and labor unions, 2:835–836 relationships with cooks, 3:1217 relationships with customers, 3:1216–1217 relationships with other waitstaff workers, 3:1217 relationships with public, 3:1217 rewards, 3:1215–1216 work conditions, 3:1215 Restaurants, design and decor. See Design and decor of restaurants

1576

Index

Restaurants, ethnic. See Ethnic restaurants Restaurants, noise in. See Noise in restaurants Restaurants, oyster bars and. See Oyster bars Restaurants, portion sizes in, 3:1153 Restaurants, smoking in. See Smoking regulations in restaurants Restricted Use PLUs, 3:1163 Retail Banking Research, Ltd., 3:1253 Retailer Assigned PLUs, 3:1163 Reverse discrimination, in workplace, 1:405 Review of Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents, A (FTC), 1:8 Review of Research on the Effects of Food Promotion to Children (Food Standards Agency) (U.K.), 1:8 ReVision Urban Farm, 3:1407 Reynolds, Richard, 2:752 Rhode Island College, 1:255 Rice, monoculture and, 2:986 Rice Krispies (Kellogg), 1:7, 2:882, 3:1037 Rice-A-Roni, 3:1066 RiceTec, 1:54, 1:132 Rich, Sarah, 3:1405 Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (2004), 3:1234 Rick Bayless’s Mexican Kitchen (Bayless), 1:84 Rickets, 3:1218–1219 Rico, Susana, 2:536 “Riders” (lobbying tactic), 2:585–586 Riely, Frank, 2:535 Rifkin, Jeremy, 2:551 Rig Veda, 3:1131 Riis, Jacob A., 3:1398 Rio Earth Summit, 2:997, 3:1250–1251 Riparian rights, 3:1464 Risk Management Agency (USDA), 1:323 Ritthausen, Karl, 3:1394 Ritvo, Harriet, 1:402 Ritz, 3:1319 Roadside stands, 3:1219–1221 functions of, 3:1219–1220 as points of sale, 3:1220 variety of, 3:1220 Robbins, John, 1:40, 2:935 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 3:1442 Roberts, Callum, 1:41 Rock Bottom Restaurant & Brewery, 1:182 Rock Sugar Pan-Asian Kitchen, 1:183 Rockefeller Foundation, 1:199, 2:711, 2:715, 2:736, 2:739 Rockwell, Norman, 1:68 Rocky Rococo Pizza, 1:294 Rodale, J. I., 1:278, 2:951, 3:1074, 3:1089 Rodale Press, 3:1090 Rodell, Besha, 1:85 Rohe, Fred, 2:766

Rollin, Bernard, 1:432–434, 3:1142 Rolls, Edmund, 3:1394 Roman Catholic Church church suppers and, 1:230 food restrictions and, 1:227 Romano Macaroni Grill, 1:183 Rome (ancient) agrarianism concept and, 1:12 bee keeping and, 1:116 catering history and, 1:185 fine dining in, 2:497 food allergies and, 2:539 fraud and, 2:667 military rations used by, 2:963, 2:964 Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, 2:534, 2:576 Romero, George, 1:43, 2:572 Romme, Elizabeth, 1:34–35 Ronald, Pamela C., 2:651 Ronald McDonald, 2:861 Ronald McDonald House, 1:107 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 1:328, 1:453, 1:475, 2:546, 2:549, 3:1413 Roosevelt, Theodore, 2:490, 2:878, 2:951 Rose, May Swartz, 1:256 Rosen College of Hospitality (University of Central Florida), 3:1205 Rosenberg, William, 1:380 Rosengarten, Glenn, 2:727 Rosin, Hanna, 1:149–150 Rosset, Peter, 2:809–810 Rotavirus, 2:607 Rotenberg, Robert, 3:1279–1280 Roundup Ready seeds, 2:770, 3:1247 Roundworms, 2:607 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1:13, 1:250 Rowe, William, 3:1440 Roy, Pam, 2:600 Royal Botanic Gardens, 3:1248 Royal Zoological Society of London, 1:401 Rozendaal, Andy, 3:1405 Rubin, Jordan, 1:123 Ruby, M. B., 3:1429 Rucker, Chris, 1:123 Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity (Yale University), 1:119, 1:120 Rudolph, Vernon, 1:379–380, 3:1121 Ruhlman, Michael, 2:716 Ruini, Carlo, 3:1448 Rule of Benedict, 1:227 Rumford’s Soup, 2:965 Rumsfeld, Donald, 1:72–73 Rural Advancement Foundation International, 3:1246 Rural Neighbors, Inc., 3:1335

Index Rural population, decline in. See Family farms and rural depopulation Rusch, Hans Peter, 3:1089 Russia fishing policies and, 2:520 international food security, 2:847 Russian-Iranian Fisheries Commission, 2:520 Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, 1:182 Ryder, Thomas O., 2:588–589 Rye flour, milling of, 2:967 S. E. Massengill Company, 2:670 Sabbath (Jewish), cooking forbidden on, 2:873 Saccharin, 1:71, 2:550 Saccharin Study and Labeling Act, 2:550 Sachs, Jeffrey, 2:575 Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), 2:771, 3:1455 Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety (Nestle), 2:650 Safe Water Drinking Act, 2:664 Safeguard for Agricultural Varieties in Europe, 2:775 Safeway, 1:57, 1:396 Saga Corporation, 1:317 Sagawa, Issei, 1:44 Sage College, 1:255 Sainsbury’s, 1:295 Salatin, Joel, 2:649 Salinas, Carlos, 3:1032, 3:1034 Salinity, of soil, 3:1285 Salmon, overfishing, 3:1095 Salmonella, 3:1223–1225 cattle industry and, 1:190 contracting, 3:1223 fish contaminants, 2:505 food safety, 2:605 foodborne illness, 2:653–654 free-range poultry and, 2:678 incidence of, 3:1224 litigation concerning, 2:907–908 minimum cooking temperature, 1:308 strains of, 3:1224 symptoms of, 3:1223–1224 Salone del Gusto, 3:1268, 3:1270 Salt, as preservative, 3:1159, 3:1160 Salt Institute, 2:585 Saltzman, Rachelle, 3:1370 Salvation Army, 1:379 Sambo’s, 3:1120 SAME Café (So All May Eat), 3:1122 Samford, Paula, 2:636 Sam’s Club, 3:1453–1454 Samuelson, Marcus, 3:1194 Samyoga (combination), 1:90 San Francisco (California), food trucks in, 2:636 San Francisco Cart Project, 2:636

1577

San Francisco Chronicle, 3:1031 San Pellegrino, 2:982 San Pellegrino World’s 50 Best Restaurants list, 1:195 Sanders, Harland, 2:478 S&D Coffee, Inc., 3:1445 S&H Green Stamps, 2:744 Sandoz, 1:95 Sands, Bobby, 3:1317 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), 1:244 Sanitas Nut Food Company, 2:765–766 Santa Cruz (California), food festivals as social action and, 2:566 Santini, Laura, 3:1396 Sara’s Kitchen, 1:60 Sattilaro, Anthony, 2:930 Saturated fatty acids, 2:487–488 Saunders, Clarence, 2:742–743 Sausage Shop, The, 3:1120 Savage, Kay, 3:1022 Savarin, Jean Anthelme Brillat, 1:297 Save America’s Pollinators Act (2013), 1:116 Save Our Strength, 1:198 Save the Children, 1:201, 1:452 Saveur, 1:85, 1:138, 2:590 Savory, Allan, 3:1335 Savoy, 1:169 Scappi, Bartolomeo, 1:193 Scent. See Natural and artificial flavors and fragrances Schaefer, E. J., 3:1058 Scherb, Allyson, 2:598 Schernthaner, Johann, 3:1366 Schiffer, Bettina, 3:1305 Schlosser, Eric, 1:40, 1:431, 2:859–860, 2:910, 2:935, 2:953–954 Schmidt, Michael, 3:1180 Schneider, Howard, 3:1253 Schnitzel King, 2:635–636 School food, 3:1225–1228 beverage industry and nutrition standards for schools, 1:120–121 childhood obesity programs in schools, 1:207–208 children’s foods in, 1:211–212 Chinese traditional medicine, diet, and children’s food, 1:217–218 competitive foods, 3:1226–1227 domestic food insecurity and, 1:377–378 federally reimbursable meals, 3:1225–1226 food brought from home, 3:1227–1228 food deserts and, 2:563 fresh food, 2:685 Jamie’s School Dinners (television program), 2:640 School Breakfast Program, 3:1226, 3:1229–1230, 3:1412, 3:1441

1578

Index

School Food Trust (UK), 1:108 School Gardens, 1:263 School Lunch Act (1946), 3:1412 School lunches, 3:1228–1233 administration and financing, 3:1230 evolution of National School Lunch Program, 3:1228–1230 future directions for, 3:1232 overview, 3:1228 school lunch reform, 3:1230–1232 School Meal Programs, 1:360 School Nutrition Association, 3:1442 School of Hospitality Business (Michigan State University), 3:1205 School of Hospitality Business Management (Washington State), 3:1205 School of Hospitality Management (Penn State), 3:1205 School of Hotel Administration (Cornell University), 3:1205 School of Public Health (Harvard University), 2:486, 3:1358 School wellness programs, 3:1233–1237 background, 3:1233–1234 overview, 3:1233 policy history, 3:1234 stakeholders, 3:1234–1236 success of, 3:1236–1237 Schultz, Howard, 1:253 Schutter, Oliver de, 2:556 Schwartz, Bob, 3:1476 Schwarzenegger, Arnold, 1:105 Science, 3:1395 Scombrotoxin, 2:608 Scotch whiskey, 1:32 Scott, Robert Falcon, 3:1238 Scott, Walter, 1:364 Scrinis, Gyorgy, 2:652, 3:1046 Scripps Research Institute, 2:863 Scurvy, 3:1238–1239 Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, 1:41, 3:1482 Sea vegetables, as cancer-fighting food, 1:164 Seafood Watch, 3:1472 Seagram, 1:83 Seal hunting, policies affecting, 2:520–521 Sealund, Jerry, 2:766 Searle Pharmaceuticals, 1:72–73 Sears, Barry, 3:1475 Sears, Bill, 1:151 Sears, Roebuck and Company, 1:405 Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, 3:1036 Season’s 52, 1:182 Second Morrill Act (1890), 2:894 Second Shift, The (Hochschild), 1:303 Sedentary behavior, weight and, 3:1056 Sedgwick, William, 1:168 Sedlar, John, 1:84

Seed banks, 3:1239–1245 big seed banks, 3:1241 community, 3:1243 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), 2:718, 2:736, 2:969, 3:1241, 3:1243, 3:1244, 3:1247 cultural and gastronomic role of, 3:1244 databases, 3:1242 Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT), 3:1241–1242 history of, 3:1240–1241 how seed banks work, 3:1242 intellectual property rights and, 3:1243–1244 maintenance of, 3:1242–1243 overview, 3:1239–1240 risks of, 3:1243 Seed conservation, 3:1245–1250 ex situ conservation efforts, 3:1248 genetic erosion, 3:1246–1247 history of nongovernmental conservation efforts, 3:1247–1248 in situ conservation efforts, 3:1248–1249 mechanics of, 3:1248 role of consumer in, 3:1249 seed patents and implications, 3:1247 seeds, defined, 3:1245–1246 Seed exchange networks, 3:1250–1253 agrobiodiversity and, in food system, 3:1250–1251 agrobiodiversity conservation, problems and issues, 3:1251–1252 forms of seed exchange, 3:1250 in situ conservation and seed activism, 3:1252–1253 Seed Matters, 3:1242 Seed Savers Exchange, 3:1248 Seed sterility technology. See Terminator technology Seeds, as cancer-fighting food, 1:163 Seeds, sprouts from. See Sprouts Seeger, Pete, 1:251 Seifert, Jeremy, 2:674, 2:954 Selenium, necessity of, 2:968 Self-checkout in grocery stores, 3:1253–1255 ethical concerns, 3:1254 historical context, 3:1253–1254 social and technological motivation behind, 3:1254 Selker, H. P., 3:1058 Sell-by dates. See Expiration dates Semi-Homemade (television program), 1:374 Sen, Amartya, 1:451–452, 2:848, 3:1147 Senate Criminal Justice Committee, 2:899 Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, 2:485 Senseable City Lab (MIT), 2:975

Index Senses, disgust and, 1:367 Service Employees International Union, 1:399 Serving Elders at Risk (Administration on Aging), 1:395 ServSafe Alcohol, 1:390 ServSafe food safety training program, 1:166, 1:390 Seven & I Holding Co., 1:292 Seven Countries Study, 2:483 7-Eleven, 1:107, 1:257, 1:291–294 Seventh Day Diet: A Practical Plan to Apply the Seventh Day Adventist Lifestyle to Live Longer, Healthier and Slimmer in the 21st Century (Rucker), 1:123 Seventh-day Adventist food practices, 3:1255–1256 Bible-based diets and, 1:123 health food stores and, 2:767–768 vegetarianism and, 3:1430 Sex and the City (HBO), 2:571 Sexual harassment, in workplace, 1:405 Shaich, Ron, 3:1122 Shakespeare, William, 1:277 Shakr, Makr, 2:975 Shari’ah law, halal food and, 2:755 Sharks, finning ban, 1:106 Shaw, Charles, 2:745 Shaw, D. John, 2:535 Shaw, David, 2:771 Shea, George, 1:274 Shea, Richard, 1:274 Shedd, Charlie, 1:122–123 Shelf life, 3:1256–1259 background, 3:1257 determining, 3:1259 food spoilage, 3:1257–1259 overview, 3:1256–1257 of packaged foods, 2:1004 Shell, 3:1444 Shellfish, minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Shelton, Herbert M., 3:1176 Shelving and product placement, 3:1259–1264 form and logistics, 3:1259–1262 marketing to children, 3:1262–1263 Shen Nong (Divine Farmer), 1:217 Shepherd’s Grain, 3:1419 Sherman, John, 3:1264–1265 Sherman Antitrust Act, 3:1264–1266 Antitrust Laws, overview, 1:57, 1:58 boycotts, 1:145 criticism, 3:1265 in food and agriculture, 3:1265–1266 FTC and, 2:490 history of, 3:1264 intent and language of Sections 1 and 2, 3:1264–1265 overview, 3:1264 successive legislation, 3:1265 Sherry, labeling of, 1:32

1579

Shields, Sara, 2:678 Shigella, 2:606 Shigella bacteria, 1:381 Shigihara, M., 1:164 Shimizu, Hiroko, 2:649, 2:912 Shintoism, food practices, 3:1189–1190 Shippensburg University, 3:1442 Shiva, Vandana, 1:15, 1:132, 3:1146 Shiva (Hindu god), 2:781 Shokuyôkai (Food Cure Society), 2:929 Shop Rite, 2:746 Shopped (Blythman), 2:650–651 Shostak, Marjorie, 3:1113 Should We Tax the Fat out of America? The Trouble of Selling the Fat Tax to the Public (Lynch), 3:1354 Showalter, Carol, 1:123 Shredded Wheat, 3:1255 Shrigley, Elsie, 3:1419 Shrove Tuesday, 1:228 Sikdar, M. S., 1:202 Silbergeld, Ellen, 2:676 Silent Sentinels, 3:1316 Silent Spring (Carson), 1:14–15, 1:202, 2:502, 3:1089, 3:1134–1135 Sime Darby, 3:1424 Similac, 1:93 Simmel, Georg, 2:645 Simon, Michele, 3:1050 Simon & Schuster, 1:299 Simplesse, 2:920 Simply Recipes, 3:1282, 3:1469 Sin Maiz No Hay Pais, 3:1035 Sinclair, David, 2:680 Sinclair, Upton, 1:433, 2:549, 2:882, 2:910, 2:935, 2:947, 2:951, 3:1488 Sinegal, James, 3:1453 Singer, Peter, 1:37–39, 1:431, 2:650–651, 3:1422 Sinograin, 3:1308 Sinopec, 1:294 Sister Julie’s Olive Oil, 3:1063 Sixth Extinction, 1:400 60 Minutes (CBS), 1:23–24 Sizzler, 1:185 SK Foods LP, 3:1265 SkillsUSA, 1:392 Skinny, Sexy Mind, The: Ultimate French Secret (Blackwell), 2:681–682 Skittles, 1:5 Slang, diners and, 1:365 Slayer, Frederick Scott, 3:1265 Slimfast, 3:1474 Slow Food, 3:1266–1271 anti-globalization movements and, 1:52–54 artisanal foods and, 1:76

1580

Index

convenience foods, 1:290 defined, 3:1267–1268 fast food and, 2:480 food writing in books, 2:649 heritage breeds and, 2:775 importance of, 3:1266–1267 locavorism, 2:909 media portrayals of food and, 2:952–953 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, 3:1141 problems with, 3:1269–1270 Slow Foo International, 3:1267–1268 Slow Food Editore, 3:1269 Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity, 3:1268 Slow Food International, 2:775, 3:1035, 3:1268–1269 Slow Food Manifesto, 3:1267 Slow Food Nation (Petrini), 3:1267–1268 Slow Food Presidia, 3:1268 Slow Food Youth Network, 3:1269 sustainable agrifood systems, 3:1332 Slurpee, 1:294 “Small batch” alcohol, 1:32–33, 1:76 “Small pearls,” 2:980 Smart Choice (convenience stores), 1:292 Smart Choices (program), 2:883 Smart Snacks in School (USDA), 1:108, 1:212, 3:1442 Smith, Adam, 1:250, 3:1275 Smith, Alisa Dawn, 2:648 Smith, Andrew F., 2:559 Smith, Bessie, 2:570 Smith, Dorothy Hope, 1:94 Smith, J. Russell, 3:1128 Smith, Joseph, Jr., 2:993–994 Smith, Keith, 2:534 Smith, Kim, 1:14 Smith, Sydney, 3:1274 Smith, Tyree, 1:44 Smithers, John, 1:462 Smithfield Foods, 1:183, 2:945, 3:1033, 3:1035 Smith-Lever Act (1914), 2:894, 3:1415 Smoking regulations in restaurants, 3:1271–1273 background, 3:1271–1272 speculation, fears, and effects of legislation, 3:1272–1273 Smuggling, 3:1273–1277 to avoid taxation, 3:1274–1276 crime of, 3:1274 food and drink bans, 3:1276 free trade versus regulation, 3:1273–1274 individual versus greater good, 3:1274 rationale for, 3:1274 Snack foods, 3:1277–1281 criteria for defining snack versus meal, 3:1279–1280 definitions, 3:1278

meals versus, in social science literature, 3:1278–1279 public concerns, 3:1277–1278 take-out foods, 3:1348 Snack Program, 3:1229–1230 Snackwell, 2:921 Snedeker, Suzanne, 3:1303 Śniadecki, Jędrzej, 3:1218 Snitow, Charles, 2:727 Snow, Allison A., 2:771 So All May Eat (SAME Café), 3:1122 Sobal, Jeffery, 2:643 Sobey’s, 1:295 Social Accountability International, 3:1488 Social media and food, 3:1281–1284 advertising and marketing of food (in general), 1:3 business model of social media, 3:1283–1284 controversies and ethical considerations, 3:1282–1283 notable trends, 3:1281–1282 social media as personal and public health tools, 3:1283 Social movements anti-globalization movements/World Trade Organization, 1:51–54 farmers’ markets, 1:468–469 food deserts and local food movements, 2:563 food fairs and festivals as social action, 2:566–567 food justice, 2:579–582 food sovereignty, 2:617–621 food waste, 2:645–646 freegans and dumpster diving, 2:671–674 GMO resistance, 2:714–715 Green Revolution, future prospects, 2:735–738 Green Revolution farming: unanticipated consequences, 2:739–742 guerilla gardening, 2:750–753 NAFTA and, 3:1035–1036 pay-what-you-can café movement, 3:1122 permaculture, 3:1129–1130 supper clubs as, 3:1324 Temperance movement, 1:26 whaling for food, 3:1482–1483 See also Animal rights; Ethical issues; Locavorism Social Security, 1:394 Socialism, Green Revolution and, 2:735–736 Socialnomics, 3:1283–1284 Soda food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:530–533 New York City proposed ban on, 1:107, 2:779 See also Beverage industry; Coca-Cola; PepsiCo Sodexo, 1:257–258, 1:317, 1:476 Sodium. See Low-sodium foods Sodium, necessity of, 2:968 Sodium benzoate, 2:1005

Index Sodium Reduction in Communities Program, 2:926 Soil Association, 3:1073, 3:1089–1090 Soil Conservation Act (1935), 3:1413 Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, 3:1288 Soil degradation and conservation, 3:1284–1288 compaction, 3:1285–1286 contour plowing, 3:1286 crop rotation, 3:1286 desertification, 3:1286 food conservation and food productivity, 3:1287–1288 food production and, 3:1287 hydraulic fracking, 3:1285 no-tilling method, 3:1287 overview, 3:1284–1285 soil erosion, 3:1285 soil management and organic production, 3:1085 terracing, 3:1286 waterlogging, acidification, and salinity, 3:1285 Soil Science Society of America, 1:201 Solar cookers, 3:1288–1289 advantages and disadvantages, 3:1288–1289 obstacles, 3:1289–1290 Something’s Gotta Give (film), 2:572 Sonesson, U., 2:643 Sonestedt, E., 3:1054 Soul Food (film), 2:571 Soul Kitchen Community Restaurant, 3:1122 Sound of the Sea (menu item), 3:1030 Soup kitchens. See Food banks South America, street food in, 3:1310–1311 South Beach Diet, 2:485, 2:915–918, 3:1475 South Beach Diet, The (Agatston), 2:916 South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, 2:522 Southern Agrarians, 1:13 Southern Bread Riots, 2:602 Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), 1:473–475 Southland Corporation, 1:291, 1:294 Southland Ice Company, 1:291 South–South Cooperation program, 3:1292 Soy and phytoestrogens, 3:1289–1291 controversies, 3:1290–1291 in food, 3:1290 GMO soy, 2:714–715 health and policy, 3:1290 “mock meats,” 3:1420, 3:1423, 3:1431 overview, 3:1289–1290 soy as cancer-fighting food, 1:164 soybean oil, 3:1425 Soybean oil, 3:1425 Soyer, Alexis, 1:193, 2:965 Soylent Green (film), 2:573 Spam (Hormel), 1:170, 1:171 Spar, 1:292, 1:294, 1:296

1581

Special Programme for Food Security, United Nations, 3:1291–1294 assessment of, 3:1293 future of, 3:1294 implementation phases, 3:1292 overview, 3:1291–1292 projects of, 3:1293–1294 shifts in, 3:1292–1293 Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (UN), 2:556 Special-interest front groups, generally, 2:687 Specialty Food Association, 2:729 Specialty-diet foods, in grocery stores and supermarkets, 2:746 Spectroscopic tracking techniques, 3:1345 Spence, Charles, 3:1030 Sperry & Hutchinson company, 2:744 Spira, Henry, 1:39 Spirituality, gender issues and, 2:705 Spivack, Anne Krueger, 2:716 Splenda, 1:71, 1:74 Spock, Benjamin, 1:96 Spoerri, Daniel, 1:70 Spoilage, food packaging and, 3:1104 Sport fishing. See Fishing for sport Sports nutrition, 3:1295–1299 health issues, 3:1298–1299 product types, 3:1295–1296 regulation, 3:1296–1297 user groups, 3:1296 Spotted Pig, The, 2:701–702, 2:703 Spratt, James, 3:1138 Spray Drift Task Force, 3:1136 Sprite, 3:1319 Sprouts, 3:1299–1301 nutrition and, 3:1299–1300 safety of, 3:1300–1301 Spudnut, 1:380, 3:1121 Spurlock, Morgan, 2:953 St. George Distillery, 1:81 St. Mary’s food bank, 2:553, 2:577 St. Patrick’s Day, 2:787 St. Paul Pioneer Press, 3:1023 Stable isotope ratio analysis, 3:1345 Stagg Inn, The, 2:702 Stalin, Josef, 1:451 Standard Oil, 2:490 Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911), 3:1265 Standards and measures, 3:1301–1302 on food labels, 2:878–879 history of, 3:1301–1302 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1345 Staphylococcus aureus, 1:49, 2:676

1582

Index

Staphylococcus aureus/Staphylococcal enterotoxin type B, 2:606 Starbucks, 1:60, 1:181, 1:252–253, 1:380, 1:398 StarKist, 1:169 State of Food Insecurity in the World, The, 2:805–806, 2:808 State Trading Organizations, 2:943 Statistical Sourcebook, 2:861 Status, exotic/strange foods and, 1:420 Status of Pollinators in North America (National Research Council), 1:156 Steak & Ale, 1:185 Steele, Helen, 2:478–479 Steinbeck, John, 2:952 Steiner, Rudolf, 1:124–125, 3:1073, 3:1088 Steroid hormones in food, 3:1302–1306 effects of hormones on humans, 3:1304 environmental issues, 3:1305–1306 history of, 3:1303–1304 hormones used in beef cattle, 3:1305 overview, 3:1302–1303 processes of steroid hormone actions, 3:1304 Stevenon, G. W., 2:910 Steve’s Ice Creams, 2:822 Stevia, 1:73–74 Steward & Barkeepers Manual (Harney), 2:972–973 Stewart, Martha, 1:374 Stewart, S., 3:1375–1376 Stillman, Alan, 1:184–185 Stoker, Bram, 2:572 Stone, Matt, 2:572 Stony Brook University Hospital, 2:798–799 Stonyfield Farm, 1:339 Stop Hunger Now Southern Africa, 1:201 Storage and warehousing, 3:1306–1310 contemporary warehouses, 3:1308 governance, 3:1308–1309 overview, 3:1306–1307 storage and commodity markets, 3:1309 storage development, 3:1307–1308 warehousing development, 3:1308 See also Grain elevators/hoarding and speculation Story, Mary, 3:1262 Streep, Meryl, 1:24 Street food, 3:1310–1313 economic issues, 3:1311–1312 health issues, 3:1311 nutritional quality of, 3:1310–1311 regulation, 3:1312–1313 take-out foods, 3:1348 underground economies, 3:1399–1400 See also Wet markets and hawking Streibig, J. C., 2:770, 2:771–772 Streptococcus, 1:49

Strikes, 3:1313–1318 Delano Grape Strike, 1:476, 3:1314, 3:1317 fast food restaurants, 3:1315 hunger strikes, 3:1169–1170, 3:1315–1318 labor, 3:1313–1315 meatpacking, Hormel Foods Corporation, and the Local P-9, 3:1314–1315 Stuart, Tristam, 2:954 Stuffed and Starved and Waste (Patel, Stuart), 2:954 Sturgeon, food trends and, 2:633 Sturges, Preston, 2:570 Subliminal advertising, 3:1318–1320 reports of, 3:1318–1320 techniques of, 3:1318 Subliminal Seduction (Key), 3:1319 Subsidies, 3:1320–1323 brief history of, 3:1320 contemporary programs, 3:1320–1321 criticism, 3:1322–1323 rationale for, 3:1321–1322 Subway, 1:181 Suckley, Margaret, 1:328 Sucralose, 1:73–74 Suffragettes, hunger strikes by, 3:1316 Sufis, coffee and, 1:249 Sugar as preservative, 3:1159 smuggling history and, 3:1275–1276 Sugar Act (1764-1766), 1:35 sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) (See Beverage industry; Childhood obesity; Coca-Cola; Obesity epidemic; PepsiCo) See also Artificial sweeteners Sugar Trust, 2:490, 3:1264 Sugiyama, Mao, 1:45 Suid Bokkeveld, climate change and, 1:242 Sulfites, 3:1105 Sulfur, necessity of, 2:968 Sulfur dioxide, 3:1105 Summer Feeding Program, 3:1229–1230 Summer Food Service Program, 3:1226, 3:1412 Sun, T., 1:164 Sun Simiao/mo, 1:219 Sun Tzu, 1:449, 2:963 Sundstrom, John, 1:299 Sunna, halal food and, 2:755 SunOpta, 2:494, 3:1445 Super Bowl, advertising and, 1:4 Superbugs. See Antibiotics and superbugs Supermarkets. See Grocery stores and supermarkets Supper clubs and clandestine dining, 3:1323–1326 barriers to and issues of, 3:1326 cooks, chefs, and hosts, 3:1325 diners, 3:1325–1326

Index history of, 3:1323–1324 overview, 3:1323 “pop-up” food events, 1:318 theme and variation of, 3:1324–1325 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) childhood obesity, 1:208 dietary guidelines and graphics, 1:360 domestic food insecurity, 1:377–378 elderly nutrition, 1:394 farmworkers, 1:474 food deserts, 2:562 food insecurity, 2:574, 2:576–578 food lobbying, 2:584 food sovereignty, 2:625–630 food stamps and WIC, 2:625–630 high-fructose corn syrup, 2:779 mobile markets, 2:977 school lunches, 3:1228, 3:1230 shelving and product placement, 3:1260 USDA, overview, 3:1412, 3:1415 Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 1:474 Supply and distribution networks, 3:1327–1329 consolidation of distribution, 3:1328–1329 distribution networks, 3:1327–1328 exports and global food chain, 1:425–426 farmers’ markets and distribution practices, 1:460–461 food suppliers, 3:1327 industry labor and labor unions, 2:836–837 vegetable oils, 3:1424 See also Locavorism Supply chains, 1:371–373 food miles, 2:592–596 food waste and, 2:646–647 supply and distribution networks, 3:1327–1329 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1343–1347 values-based food supply chains, 3:1417–1419 vertical integration, 3:1444–1448 See also Commodity chains; Distribution centers; Supply and distribution networks Suprevalu, 1:295, 1:396 Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health, 2:586 Sushi, 3:1329–1331 origins of, 3:1330 overview, 3:1329–1330 popularity of, in U.S., 3:1330–1331 Sushi, impact on food species’ numbers, 2:632 Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, 2:997 Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment Alliance, 2:592 Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, 3:1074–1075 Sustainable agrifood systems, 3:1331–1338 artisanal foods, 1:77–78

1583

characteristics, 3:1331–1332 coalitions, governance, policy directions, 3:1337–1338 corporate food service, 1:318 emergence of systems approach, 3:1332–1333 food safety, 1:430–431 innovative examples, 3:1333–1335 nutrition education, 3:1044 population and food supply, 3:1148–1149 processing and marketing, 3:1336–1337 social justice dimensions of, 3:1335–1336 Sustainable agrifood systems, effect on environment, 3:1338–1342 closed-loop systems, 3:1339–1340 examples of production methods, 3:1341 extensification, 3:1339 localization, 3:1340–1341 overview, 3:1338–1339 Suzuki Chemical Company, 3:1393, 3:1395 Svalbard Global Seed Vault, 3:1241–1243, 3:1247–1248 Swanson’s TV dinners, 2:691 Sweeney Todd (film), 2:572–573 Swensen’s, 2:822 Swift, 2:946, 2:947–948 Sydney Principles, 1:8 Symbolic representation of food, gender and, 2:704–705 Symon, Michael, 2:716 Syngenta, 2:585, 2:625, 2:990, 3:1367 Sysco, 2:798, 2:945 Szekely, Edmond, 3:1176 Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert, 3:1238 T. H. Buckley & Co, 1:365 T. J. Applebee’s RX for Edibles and Elixirs, 1:182 Tab, 3:1474 Tabe Trucks, 2:636 Taboo acts, exotic/strange foods and, 1:420–421 Tackle, for fishing, 2:511–512 Taco Bell, 1:83, 1:107, 1:181, 1:258, 1:294, 2:478 Taco USA: How Mexican Food Conquered America (Arellano), 1:85 Taenia spp., 2:607–608 Taft-Hartley Act., 1:145 Tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1343–1347 motivation for, 3:1343–1344 obstacles and objections to, 3:1345–1346 organic production and, 3:1086 regulations and practices, 3:1346 tools and techniques, 3:1344–1345 traceability, definitions, 3:1343 Taiwan, pest control in, 3:1133 “Takeaway” concept, 2:639–640 Take-out foods, 3:1347–1351 brief history of, 3:1348–1349

1584

Index

customers for, 3:1349 forms of, 3:1347–1348 international varieties, 3:1349 packaging and environmental issues, 3:1350 safety issues, 3:1349–1350 Talbot (ship), 1:34 Talleyrand-Perigord, Charles Maurice de, 1:193 Talmud, 2:873 Talmud, on alcohol, 1:33 Tamper-evident packaging, 3:1108 Taoism, food practices, 3:1189–1190 Tapeworms, 2:607–608 Tarbell, Ida, 2:951 Target, 1:57, 1:396, 3:1070, 3:1166 Tariffs, 3:1351–1353 effect of, 3:1351–1353 tariffs and nontariff measures (NTMs), defined, 3:1351 See also Taxation, general Taste of Chicago, 2:565–567 Taste of Home, 2:590–591 Taste-based disgust, 1:368–369 TasteBook (Random House), 1:298–299 Tastespotting, 3:1282 Tasti-Diet, 1:72, 3:1474 Taubes, Gary, 2:651–652 Tax, Sol, 3:1312 Taxation, fat tax, 3:1353–1356 arguments against, 3:1354–1355 arguments for, 3:1354 in Denmark, 3:1355 in France, 3:1355–1356 history of, in U.S., 3:1353–1354 in Hungary, 3:1356 in Japan, 3:1356 overview, 3:1353 Taxation, general, 3:1356–1360 alcohol industry regulation and, 1:30–31 charitable organizations, 1:199–200 “fat taxes” and junk food, 2:863 food riots and, 2:603 international food tax policies, 3:1357 overview, 3:1356–1357 policy acceptance, 3:1359 policy recommendations for food tax reform, 3:1357–1358 research on food taxes, 3:1358–1359 smuggling and, 3:1274–1276 tariffs, 3:1351–1353 Taylor, Charles, 1:45 Taylor Grazing Act (1934), 3:1413 Taylor Law, 3:1314 Tea trade, smuggling history and, 3:1275 Teamsters, 2:834 Teatro Campesino, El, 3:1314

Technology catering and, 1:186 corporate food service and mobile computing, 1:318 exports, agricultural production, and structural integrity, 1:424–425 family farms and mechanization and industrialization, 1:442 food tv and technology, 2:640–641 GMOs, 2:710–715 IAASTD, 2:843–846 restaurant cooking technologies, 3:1195–1199 self-checkout in grocery stores, 3:1254 tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale, 3:1343–1347 terminator technology, 3:1365–1368 in vitro meat, 2:831–833 See also Industrial Revolution; Internet Ted’s Montana Grill, 1:182 Teen Battle Chef, 1:208 Teikei, 1:267 Television cooking competitions on, 1:305 family meals and, 1:445 programming, 1:374, 2:638, 2:640–641, 2:684 See also Celebrity chefs; Food TV; Television advertising Television advertising, 3:1360–1365 advertising development, 3:1360–1361 children’s advertising and, 1:7–9 cost of commercial air time, 3:1361–1362 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:531–532 future of, 3:1364 product placement, cross-promotion, and infomercials, 3:1362–1363 regulation, 3:1363–1364 television technology development, 3:1360 Television Bureau of Advertising, 3:1360 Temperance movement, 1:26, 1:35, 2:973 Temperature control, for food preparation, 2:761–762 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, 2:628, 3:1230 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources (Anderson), 3:1148 Tennessee Whiskey, 1:32, 1:81 Tequila, labeling of, 1:32 Ter-Hovannessian, Arshavir, 3:1176 Terlingua (Texas) International Championship Chili Cookoff, 1:306 Terminator technology, 3:1365–1368 applications of seed sterility technology, 3:1365–1366 examples of published or patented systems, 3:1366–1367 genetically engineered (GE) crops, defined, 3:1365 resistance to GMO crops, 2:714 status and limitations of, 3:1367

Index Terracing, 3:1286 Terre Madre, 3:1268–1269, 3:1270 “Territorial seas,” fishing policies and, 2:520 Terroir, 3:1368–1373 early-twenty-first-century literature about, 3:1370 ethnicity of people and, 3:1371–1372 labels and place, 3:1368–1370 overview, 3:1368 place-based foods, 3:1370–1371 See also Protected designation of origin (PDO) Terrorist threats to food and water supplies, 3:1373–1378 food system attack constraints, 3:1375–1376 overview, 3:1373 threats to food supply, 3:1375 threats to water supply, 3:1374–1375 Terry’s Chocolate Orange, 2:937 Tesco, 1:292, 1:295, 2:555, 2:747, 2:819, 3:1070 Texas, last meal requests in, 2:898–899 Texas A&M University, 2:893 Texas Tech University, 2:614 TGI Friday’s, 1:183, 1:184–185 Thanksgiving (U.S.), 2:786 Thatcher, Margaret, 3:1317 They Drive By Night (film), 2:570 Thiebaud, Wayne, 1:68 Third-party technique. See Front groups Third-space epistemology, 2:705–706 This, Hervé, 2:974, 2:978–979 This Side of Paradise (Fitzgerald), 1:255 Thomas, Dave, 2:478 Thomas, Jerry, 2:972 Thomas, Sonia “the Black Widow,” 1:274–275 Thomas Adams Company, 3:1440 Thompson, Benjamin, 2:965 Thompson, Paul, 1:15 Thoreau, Henry David, 1:13 Thornton, Mark, 1:34 Thorpe, Kenneth, 1:385 Thousand Gardens in Africa, 3:1268 Threats to clean drinking water, 3:1378–1381 overview, 3:1378 protecting clean drinking water threats, 3:1380 typology of clean drinking water threats, 3:1378–1380 Thrifty Food Plan (USDA), 2:628 Thriller (Jackson), 1:43 Thun, Maria, 1:125 Thurber, James, 1:379 Tiernan, Martin F., 1:99 Tierney, Patrick, 1:365 Tim Hortons, 1:294, 1:380 Time, 1:151, 2:832, 3:1276 “Time and temperature relationships,” 3:1202 Times (London), 2:972 Times-Picayune (New Orleans), 3:1022

1585

Tips, for waitstaff, 3:1216–1217 Tito, Josip, 1:250–251 Tlaxcala Conference (Mexico), 2:622–623 TLC, 1:320 Tobacco, seed sterility system in, 3:1366 Tokay, labeling of, 1:32 Tokenism, 1:404–405 Tolman, Rick, 2:688 Tomatoes as cancer-fighting food, 1:164 NAFTA and, 3:1034–1035 sustainability and, 3:1334 Tomorrow’s Table (Ronald, Adamchack), 2:651 Tony the Tiger, 1:7 Tootsie Roll Pops, 1:7 Top Pot Donuts, 1:380 Torah, 2:869–870, 3:1188–1189 Torberg, Friedrich, 1:251 Toronto (Canada), food festivals as social action and, 2:566–567 Tort law, food issues and, 2:905–907 Tortilla Soup (film), 2:571 Tourism, food, 3:1381–1383 defined, 3:1381–1382 exotic/strange foods, 1:420 farmers’ markets, 1:469 market for, 3:1382 trends, 3:1382 Toxicity testing, 3:1383–1385 classifications, 3:1383 color additives, 3:1384 food additives, 3:1384 methods, 3:1383–1384 packaging and food contact substances, 3:1384–1385 pet food and animal feed, 3:1385 Toxins, foodborne illness and, 2:655–656 Tozzi, James, 2:585 Traceability. See Tagging and tracking foods from origin to point of retail sale TraceFish, 3:1346 TraceFood, 3:1346 Tracing Food Commodities in Europe (TRACE), 3:1346 Trade groups. See Food lobbying Trade Marks Act (1875), 3:1387 Trade Marks Journal, 3:1387 Trade Marks Registry, 3:1387 Trade secret law, 2:838–839 Trademarks, 3:1386–1390 expanding nature of, 3:1388–1389 function and history of, 3:1386–1388 trademark wars, 3:1389 Trader Joe’s, 2:710, 2:745, 2:746, 2:954 Training, in food service. See Education in food service industries

1586

Index

Trans fat and hydrogenation, 3:1390–1391 bans on trans fats, 1:107 trans-fatty acids and role of fats in diet, 2:488–489 Trappist Ales, bar food and, 1:110 Trattoria de Gli Amici restaurant, 1:314 Traveler’s diarrhea, 3:1311 Traveling C.O.W., 2:637 Treasure Karoo Action Group, 2:666 Treatise on Adulterations of Food and Culinary Poisons (Accum), 2:670 “Treatise on the Vienna Coffeehouse” (Torberg), 1:251 Treaty of Washington (1892), 2:520 Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture (Smith), 3:1128 Triangle Publications, 2:588 Triangle Trade, 1:35 Triglycerides. See Cholesterol, LDL and HDL TripAdvisor, 1:327, 2:982, 3:1212 Trix Rabbit, 1:7 Troisgros, Jean, 1:194 Troisgros, Pierre, 1:194 Trophy kitchens, 3:1391–1392 careting, 3:1392 defining, 3:1391 kitchen history, 3:1391 in popular culture, 3:1391–1392 Tropic of Chaos (Parenti), 3:1147–1148 Trotsky, Leon, 1:250–251 Trubek, Amy, 3:1370 True Levellers, 2:751 Truman, Harry, 2:521 Trussell Trust, The (TTT), 2:554–555 Tuna overfishing, 3:1095 sushi and impact on food species’ numbers, 2:632, 3:1331 Turkey, coffeehouses and coffee shops, 1:249 Turkey, minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Turner, Bryan S., 3:1148 Turner, Ted, 1:182 Tutankhamun (Egyptian pharaoh), 1:116 Twenty-First Amendment, 1:29, 1:36, 2:973 Twilley, Nicola, 3:1407 Twining, Richard, 3:1275 Twitter, 1:3, 2:633, 3:1282, 3:1284 “Two Buck Chuck” wine, 2:745 Two Fat Ladies, The (television program), 2:640 2,4-D, 2:769–772 Tympany Five, 2:570 Type 1/type 2 diabetes, 1:355–358 Tyson Foods, 1:397, 2:945, 2:948–949, 2:1001, 3:1157, 3:1444 U.K. Food Standards Agency, 1:108, 2:668, 2:683 Umami, 3:1393–1396 discovery of, 3:1394–1395 food industry and, 3:1395–1396

MSG, 2:991 overview, 3:1393–1394 Umami Burger, 3:1396 Umami Café, 3:1396 Umami Restaurant, 3:1396 Uncertain Peril (Cummings), 2:651 Underground dining. See Supper clubs and clandestine dining Underground economies, 3:1396–1401 history of, 3:1397–1399 modern-day, 3:1399–1400 overview, 3:1396–1397 Underwood, William, 1:168, 3:1387 UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage and world cuisines, 3:1401–1404 gastronomic meal of the French, 3:1401, 3:1403 intangible cultural heritage (ICH), defined, 3:1401 intangible cultural heritage (ICH), parameters, 3:1401–1402 Mediterranean Diet, 3:1401, 3:1403–1404 overview, 3:1401–1402 traditional cuisine of Mexico, 3:1401, 3:1403 “Unicorn,” canned, 1:419 Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, 1:198 Unilever, 2:586, 2:1001, 3:1426 Union of Concerned Scientists, 2:678, 3:1017 Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE), 2:835 Union Oyster House, 3:1101 Uniroyal Chemical Company, 1:22, 1:24–25 UNITE HERE, 1:399, 2:835 United Egg Producers, 3:1265–1266 United Farm Workers (UFW), 1:144, 1:399, 1:472–476, 2:834, 2:952, 3:1314, 3:1317 United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, 1:399, 2:834–835, 2:948, 3:1315 United Fresh Produce Associates, 3:1442 United Kingdom alcohol regulation and, 1:33 consumer trust, 1:283–284 convenience stores, 1:295 family meals/commensality, 1:446–447 farmers’ markets, 1:461 fishing policies, 2:521–522 food miles, 2:592–593 frozen food, 2:691–692 gastropubs, 2:701–702 hunger strikes, 3:1316 Irish Great Hunger and, 1:450–451 last meals (18th century), 2:900 mad cow disease, 2:934 smuggling history and, 3:1275

Index United Nations (UN) anti-globalization movements, 1:52 charitable organizations, 1:201 (See also Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Special Programme for Food Security, United Nations) chemical fertilizers, 1:201 Children’s Fund, 1:149, 1:452 clean drinking water, 3:1380 coffeehouses and, 1:252 Convention on the Law of the Sea, 2:522, 3:1095 dead zones in fisheries, 1:342 Development Program, 3:1405 Environmental Programme, 2:522 factory farming, 1:431 fair trade, 1:438 food banks, 2:556 food bans, 1:105 food insecurity, 2:575, 2:576 food sovereignty, 2:618, 2:623 food standards (See Codex Alimentarius Commission) Green Revolution, 2:736, 2:737 human right to adequate food, 2:800 Human Rights Council, 2:621, 3:1169 hunger, 2:809, 2:811 IAASTD, 2:843 intellectual property rights, 2:842 International Court of Justice, 1:106 Kyoto Protocol, 2:875 microloans, 2:956 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), 2:534 multifunctionality in agriculture, 2:998–999 olive oil, 3:1062 population and world food supply, 3:1145–1146 prison food, 3:1169 street food, 3:1311 taxation, 3:1357–1358 terminator technology, 3:1367 UNESCO, 3:1401–1404 worker safety, 3:1487, 3:1488 World Food Programme (WFP), 2:533–535 WTO and, 3:1489–1490 United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), 2:533–535 United States Agricultural Society, 3:1411 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN), 2:534, 2:800, 2:842 Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Malnutrition and Hunger, 2:624 Universal Life, 1:229 University College London, 1:44 University food science programs. See Food science departments/programs in universities University of Berne, 3:1287–1288 University of California, Davis, 3:1414

1587

University of California, Los Angeles, 2:860 University of Central Florida, 3:1205 University of Colorado at Boulder, 1:43 University of Gastronomic Sciences, 3:1269 University of Georgia, 1:201–202 University of Hohenheim, 1:108 University of Iowa, 2:677 University of Massachusetts, 1:257, 3:1205 University of Michigan, 2:809 University of Missouri–Columbia, 1:57 University of Nevada at Las Vegas, 3:1205 University of New Hampshire, 2:910 University of Southampton, 1:108 University of Tennessee, 1:257, 2:596 University of Texas at San Antonio, 1:73 Unnatural Harvest (Ingeborg), 2:651 Upanishads, 2:781 Upayoga Samstha (rules for intake of food), 1:91–92 Upayokta (person who is eating food), 1:92 Urban farming and rooftop gardens, 3:1404–1408 community resilience, 3:1407 environmental education, 3:1406–1407 food security, 3:1405–1406 local economic development, 3:1406 overview, 3:1404–1405 Urban Farms (Rich), 3:1405 Urban Food Revolution (Ladner), 2:649 Urban Garden Program (USDA), 1:264 “Urban Roots” (Mark), 3:1405, 3:1407 Urbanization of agricultural land, 3:1408–1411 agriculture in and around cities, 3:1409 challenges of, 3:1408–1409 future of, 3:1410–1411 urban food security, 3:1409–1410 UrbanSpoon, 1:60, 3:1471 URGENCI (International Network of Community Supported Agriculture), 1:267 Uruguay Round, 1:244, 2:547, 2:999, 3:1490–1491 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), 2:536, 2:573–575, 2:718 U.S. Air Force, 3:1374 U.S. Army, 2:634, 2:965–966 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 3:1374 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1:403, 1:475, 2:835, 2:975 U.S. Census, 1:56, 1:444, 2:960, 3:1145 U.S. Children’s Advertising Review Unit, 1:9 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 1:310 U.S. Commissioner of Patents, 3:1411 U.S. Commodity Exchange Act (1936), 2:730–731 U.S. Conference of Mayor’s Hunger and Homelessness Survey, 2:577

1588

Index

U.S. Congress alcohol regulation, 1:30 bankruptcy laws and, 1:103 beverage industry and, 1:120 bioterrorism and, 1:134 on children’s advertising, 1:8 crop insurance, 1:322–323 dietary guidelines and graphics, 1:360 farm bills, 1:453–458 FDA and, 2:549–551 fishing policies, 2:521–524 food additives, 2:527 food expiration dates, 1:422 food labeling, 2:879–880, 2:882 food lobbying, 2:583, 2:586 food safety agencies, generally, 2:611 food security, 2:718 food stamps and WIC, 2:627 FTC and, 2:490 herbicide resistance, 2:770–771 high-fructose corn syrup, 2:779 homesteading, 2:795 House Agricultural Committee, 3:1075 imported food, 2:828–829 intellectual property law, 2:837 land grant colleges, 2:892–894 last meals of prisoners, 2:899 legislation affecting bees, 1:116 litigation concerning food issues, 2:908 low-fat foods, 2:921–922 low-sodium foods, 2:926 media portrayals of food, 2:954 military rations, 2:964 portion sizes, 3:1152 school lunches, 3:1229–1230 school wellness programs, 3:1234 Senate Restaurant, 1:327 Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, 1:394–395 strikes, 3:1315 subsidies, 3:1321 urbanization of agricultural land, 3:1411–1415 vegetable oils, 3:1426 vending machines, 3:1441 water, 3:1455 weights and measures, 3:1302 U.S. Constitution contract law and, 1:285 First Amendment, 1:37, 2:532, 3:1169, 3:1364 Eighth Amendment, 3:1169 Eighteenth Amendment, 1:27, 1:31, 1:36, 2:973 Nineteenth Amendment, 3:1316 Twenty-First Amendment, 1:29, 1:36, 2:973 U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1:24

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 3:1274 U.S. Dairy Export Council, 1:346 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3:1411–1416 aflatoxins, 1:11 agricultural subsidies, overview, 3:1412–1413 Alar, 1:24 animals rights and, 1:40 antitrust laws, 1:57 artisanal foods, 1:76 beverage industry and, 1:120 botulism, 1:142 canning, 1:171–173 carcinogens and relation of cancer to diet, 1:176 casual dining chains, 1:184 childhood obesity, 1:206–208 children’s advertising, 1:9 children’s foods, 1:211–212 cholesterol, 1:226 ChooseMyPlate, 1:207, 1:226, 1:359, 1:363, 1:363 (fig.), 3:1151, 3:1152, 3:1256 climate change, 1:241 community gardens, 1:264 cooking temperature guidelines, 1:309–312, 1:311 (table) crop insurance, 1:323 dairy industry, 1:335, 1:337 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 3:1415 domestic food insecurity, 1:376–377 E. coli, 1:381 elderly nutrition, 1:395 factory farming, 1:429 fair and carnival food, 1:435 family farms, 1:441–442 FAO and, 2:548–549 farm bills, 1:454, 3:1415 farmers’ markets, 1:460, 1:464 fats and cardiovascular disease, 2:485 fats in diet, 2:489 fiber, 2:496 food additives, 2:527 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:532–533 food aid, 2:536 food bans and, 1:108 food insecurity, 2:574, 2:576, 2:577 food justice, 2:581 food labeling, 2:879, 2:882–883, 2:885, 2:887–888 food lobbying, 2:586 food safety, 2:609–612, 2:609–613 food safety inspection service, overview, 3:1413–1414 food sovereignty, 2:625–626 food stamps and WIC, 2:625–630 fraud and, 2:670 free-range meats and poultry, 2:678 fresh food, 2:683, 2:685

Index grass-fed beef, 2:732, 2:734 grocery stores, 1:346, 2:745, 2:747 growth hormones and drugs in meat products, 2:750 heritage breeds, 2:776 hunger, 2:808 IAASTD, 2:846 imported food, 2:826, 2:827, 2:829–830 invasive species, 2:853 irradiation of food, 2:857 junk food consumption, 2:860, 2:861, 2:862 land grant colleges, 2:894 locavorism, 2:910 low-fat foods, 2:922 mad cow disease, 2:935–936 migrant labor, 2:959 mobile markets, 2:976, 2:977 NAFTA, 3:1032 naturally raised and fed meats, 3:1016 nitrate, nitrite, and cured meats, 3:1026–1029 nutrition and hunger programs, overview, 3:1412 nutrition education, 3:1045 olive oil, 3:1063 organic food programs, overview, 3:1414 organic foods, 3:1073–1082, 3:1084 overview, 3:1411–1412 pesticides, 3:1134–1135 portion sizes, 3:1150–1151, 3:1153 protected designation of origin (PDO), 3:1173–1174 recipe testing, 3:1181–1182 research and education, overview, 3:1414–1415 Salmonella, 3:1224–1226 school lunches, 3:1230 school wellness programs, 3:1233–1235 seed banks, 3:1241 Seventh-day Adventist food practices, 3:1255–1256 shelving and product placement, 3:1260 Sherman Antitrust Act, 3:1266 social media and food, 3:1284 soil conservation, overview, 3:1413 sprouts, 3:1301 steroids in food, 3:1303–1304 strikes, 3:1315 taxation, 3:1358 terroir, 3:1369 trans fats and hydrogenation, 3:1390 urbanization of agricultural land, 3:1411–1415 veganism, 3:1420–1421 vegetarianism, 3:1434 vending machines, 3:1441 veterinary science, 3:1449 worker safety, 3:1488 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2:490, 3:1265–1266 U.S. Department of Defense, 2:854 U.S. Department of Education, 1:207

1589

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 2:549, 2:626 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services bioterrorism, 1:134 childhood obesity, 1:207 dietary fat, 2:489 Dietary Guidelines, 1:360 employment in U.S. food sector, 1:395 FDA and, 2:548–549 low-sodium foods, 2:925 portion sizes, 3:1151 school wellness programs, 3:1235 sports nutrition, 3:1296 standards and measures, 3:1302 television advertising, 3:1363 USDA and, 3:1415 vegetarianism, 3:1434 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:43, 1:135, 1:472, 2:611–612, 2:827, 3:1373 U.S. Department of Justice, 1:57, 3:1265–1266 U.S. Department of Labor, 1:397, 1:403, 1:472, 3:1488 U.S. Department of State, 1:328 U.S. Department of the Interior, 1:207, 2:827, 3:1413 U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1:30–32, 1:80, 1:167, 2:885, 3:1339 U.S. Department of Transportation, 2:857 U.S. District Court of Philadelphia, 3:1265 U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), 2:687–688 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1:155, 2:827, 2:851 U.S. Forest Service, 2:853 U.S. General Accounting Office, 2:573 U.S. Grade Standards, 1:281 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2:947–948 U.S. National Agricultural Statistics Service, 3:1084, 3:1087 U.S. National Guard, 3:1315 U.S. National Organic Standards, 2:883, 3:1084, 3:1090 U.S. National Research Council, 1:156 U.S. Office of Experiment Stations (USDA), 3:1414 U.S. Organic Foods Production Act (1990), 3:1090 U.S. Patent and Trade Office, 2:713–714 U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, 2:669, 3:1062 U.S. Public Health Service, 3:1123 U.S. Small Business Administration, 2:946 U.S. Supreme Court Alar, 1:24 class actions concerning food issues, 2:908 GMOs, 2:713–714 labeling, 2:878 prison food, 3:1167 seed conservation, 3:1247 Sherman Antitrust Act, 3:1265 television advertising, 3:1363 trademarks, 3:1389

1590

Index

U.S. Trade Representative, 3:1306 U.S. Transportation Security Administration, 1:151 U.S.–Canada Free Trade Agreement, 2:827–828 Use-by dates. See Expiration dates Vachule, Jo Ann, 3:1023 Valentine’s Day, 2:786 Valle, Gilberto, 1:44 Value chains, 1:260–261 Values-based food supply chains, 3:1417–1419 constructing, 3:1418–1419 opportunities for small- and medium-sized farms, 3:1417–1418 overview, 3:1417 Values-based labels, 2:883 Valverde, Bernal, 2:769 Van Den Bosch, Robert, 3:1135 Van Der Rohe, Mies, 1:349 Van Eelen, Willem, 2:832 Van En, Robyn, 1:267 Van Hengel, John, 2:553, 2:577 Van Houten, Coenraad, 1:222 Van Otterdijk, R., 2:643 Vanderbilt, William Henry, 2:950 Vanderbilt Agrarians, 1:13 Vandermeer, John, 2:618 Vandertuin, Jan, 1:267 Vantress, Cobb, 3:1444 Varona, V., 1:164 Vassallo, Rosella, 3:1262 Vata, 1:87–92 Vatican City Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 3:1457 Vavilov, Nikolay, 2:895, 3:1241 Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry, 3:1241, 3:1244, 3:1248 Veal calves, welfare of, 1:189 Vedas, 2:781 Vedic traditions, 2:781 Vegalicious, 3:1066 Vegan Society, 3:1419 Veganism, 3:1419–1424 animal rights movement, 3:1422 critiques of, 3:1423 debate within, 3:1422–1423 motivation for, 3:1420–1422 overview, 3:1419–1420 See also Vegetarianism and veganism, health implications Vegemite, 3:1395 Vegetable oils, 3:1424–1427 in food traditions, 3:1426–1427 geographies of consumption, 3:1425–1426 in global trade, 3:1424–1425 issues related to, 3:1427 palm oil and soybean oil, 3:1425

Vegetables as cancer-fighting foods, 1:161–164 labeling and branding fruits and vegetables, 2:888–889 minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 nitrate in, 3:1027 scurvy and Vitamin C, 3:1238–1239 Vegetarian Food Pyramid (WHO, NAS), 3:1256 Vegetarian Society, 3:1428 Vegetarianism, 3:1427–1432 challenges of, 3:1430–1431 cuisine, 3:1431–1432 definitions, 3:1428–1429 Hindu food restrictions, 2:783 history of, 3:1428 lapse by, 3:1431 motivation for, 3:1429–1430 overview, 3:1427–1428 population and food supply, 3:1148 prevalence of, 3:1429 Seventh-day Adventist food practices, 3:1255–1256 See also Vegetarianism and veganism, health implications Vegetarianism and veganism, health implications, 3:1432–1439 cardiovascular disease, 3:1437 disease prevention, 3:1437 health implications, overview, 3:1434–1438 motivation for vegetarianism, 3:1434 nutritional concerns, 3:1434–1437 overview, 3:1432–1433 profile of vegetarians, 3:1433–1434 types of vegetarianism, 3:1433 Vein, Jon F., 2:832 Vending machines, 3:1439–1443 childhood obesity and, 3:1441–1442 cigarette machines, 3:1441 contraceptive products in, 3:1442–1443 evolution of, 3:1439–1441 present-day, 3:1443 Vendolator Company, 3:1440 Vergé, Roger, 1:194 Vertical integration, 3:1443–1448 backward, 3:1444–1445 benefits, costs, and risks, 3:1446–1447 forward, 3:1445 issues, 3:1447 nature of integration or control, 3:1446 overview, 3:1443–1444 poultry industry, 3:1155 types of, 3:1444–1446 Veterinary science, 3:1448–1450 ethics, 3:1450 history of, 3:1448–1449 industrial agriculture trends, 3:1449 veterinary schools, 3:1449–1450

Index Vía Campesina, La, 1:53, 2:576, 2:617–621, 2:622–623, 2:802, 2:810, 3:1035 Vibrational quality of food, 2:789–790 Vibrio vulnificus, 2:505, 2:606 Vicary, James M., 3:1318–1319 Victoria (queen of England), 1:169 Victory Baking Powder, 2:937 Victory Gardens, 1:263–266, 2:878, 3:1405–1406 Vidalia onions, 3:1369 Video, factory farming information and, 1:431 Vienna, coffeehouses/coffee shops and, 1:249 Vietnam, hunger and food production, 2:809 Village Voice, 1:252 Vinson, J. A., 1:162 Virgil, 1:116 Virginia Tech, 3:1205 Virtual water concept. See Water in global agrifood chains Viruses food safety and, 2:607 foodborne illness and, 2:655 free-range meats and poultry, 2:675–679 Vishnu (Hindu god), 2:781 Vital Foods (Hills), 3:1176 Vital Force, 3:1176 Vitamins and other dietary supplements, 3:1451–1452 antioxidants, 1:176 consumer recommendations, 3:1452 dairy industry and, 1:336 fortified foods, 3:1451–1452 health food stores, 2:765–768 overview, 3:1451 scurvy and Vitamin C, 3:1238–1239 sport nutrition, 3:1295–1296 vegetarian/vegan diet and, 3:1435–1436, 3:1437 Vitamin D deficiency and rickets, 3:1218–1219 vitamin deficiency, 3:1452 xerophthalmia, 3:1499–1501 See also Minerals, in nutrition Viticulture. See Wine Vizetelly, Frank H., 2:972 Voegtlin, Walter L., 3:1113 Vogue, 1:97 Volstead Act, 1:30, 1:36, 2:901, 2:973 Voltz, Jeanne, 3:1024–1025 Von Bingen, Hildegard, 2:679 Von Leibig, Justus, 1:277–278 Von Pirquet, Clemens, 2:539 Vongerichten, Jean-Georges, 3:1470 Vons, 3:1166 Voodoo Doughnut, 1:380 W. R. Grace company, 1:54 Waffle House, 1:181, 3:1120 Wagner Act, 2:835, 2:947

1591

Wahl, Kay, 3:1023 Wake Forest, 1:258 Waksman, Selman, 1:49 Waldo, Myra, 3:1025 Walker, Charlotte, 3:1022 Walker, Judy, 3:1022 Walker, Peter, 3:1147 Wall Street Journal, 1:119, 1:276, 3:1445 Wallace, Charles F., 1:99 Wallace, Henry A., 2:893 Wallace, Henry C., 2:893 Wallace and Grommit: A Close Shave (film), 2:573 Wallerstein, Immanuel, 1:259 Walmart antitrust laws and, 1:57 convenience stores of, 1:292, 1:295 employment, 1:396 exports, 1:426 gourmet and specialty foods, 2:729 hypermarkets, 2:818 monopolies and, 2:990 as multinational conglomerate, 2:1001 NAFTA, 3:1035 online shopping, 3:1070 price wars, 3:1166 sports nutrition, 3:1296 storage and warehousing, 3:1308 warehouse clubs and supermarket loyalty cards, 3:1454 Walsh, John P., 3:1253 Walt Disney Company, 1:108, 2:570, 2:937, 3:1362 Walton, Izaak, 2:512 Walton, Sam, 2:818 Wansink, Brian, 1:153 War Food Administration, 3:1155 Warde, Alan, 1:287 Warder, Ann, 2:486 Warehouse clubs and supermarket loyalty cards, 3:1453–1454 loyalty cards, 2:744, 3:1454 overview, 3:1453–1454 Warehouse Workers for Justice, 1:397 Warehouse Workers United, 2:834 Warehousing. See Grain elevators/hoarding and speculation; Storage and warehousing Warhol, Andy, 1:68, 1:170, 2:570 Warner, Carl, 1:70 Warner, Mickey, 1:317 Washington, George, 1:31, 1:34 Washington (D.C.), food trucks in, 2:635 Washington Monthly, 2:585 Washington Post, 2:951 Washington (state) apple growers of, 1:24 Food Code of, 2:905 WWOOF and, 3:1497

1592

Index

Washington State University, 3:1205 Washington University, 2:712 Waste Products of Agriculture, The: Their Utilization as Humus (Howard), 3:1089 Waste Resource Action Program, 2:645–646 Waste systems. See Environmental issues; Food waste Water effect of climate change on crops, 2:722 monoculture, 2:984 nutrition education and, 3:1044 terrorist threats to, 3:1374–1375 threats to clean drinking water, 3:1378–1381 Water, bottled versus municipal, 3:1454–1458 economics of water supply, 3:1455 environmental issues, 3:1456–1457 local, national, and global water needs, 3:1457–1458 overview, 3:1454–1455 sources and regulation of water, 3:1455–1456 Water in global agrifood chains, 3:1458–1462 “green” (rainwater) and “blue” (irrigation) virtual water, 3:1459 virtual water, defined, 3:1458–1459 virtual water in agricultural products, 3:1459 virtual water trade, 3:1459–1461 water stewardship initiatives, 3:1461–1462 Water rights, 3:1462–1469 access and control rights, 3:1465–1466 collective and individual rights, 3:1463–1464 dynamics of, 3:1467–1468 legal complexity and water rights diversity, 3:1462–1463 mechanisms of waters rights acquisition, 3:1464–1465 overview, 3:1462 water scheduling, 3:1466–1467 Water UK, 2:666 Water Wars (Shiva), 3:1146 Waterlogging, of soil, 3:1285 Waters, Alice, 1:76, 1:195, 2:909, 2:952, 3:1270 Watson, Donald, 3:1419 Watson, John B., 1:96 Watson, Paul, 1:41 Wax paper, 1:186 Way We Eat, The (Singer, Mason), 2:651 WdD50, 2:980 Wealth of Nations, The (Smith), 3:1275 Weather. See Climate change; Global warming and future food supply Web Marketing Association, 3:1065 Websites on food, 3:1469–1472 advertising/marketing blogs, 1:3–4 chef and restaurant sites, 3:1470–1471 for coupons, 1:320 for food and equipment producers, 3:1470 food blogs, 1:136–140, 3:1283, 3:1469–1470 (See also individual names of websites)

food delivery service sites, 3:1471–1472 food publications, 3:1471 for food trucks, 2:636 informational sites, 3:1471–1472 marketing boards, 2:943 molecular gastronomy and, 2:982 recipe sites, 3:1470 review sites, 3:1471 websites about last meals of prisoners, 2:897 Weed management, organic production and, 3:1085 Weed Science Society of America, 2:768 Weedone, 2:770 Weeds. See Herbicide resistance Wei, 1:218 Weighing In (Guthman), 2:650 Weight loss diets, 3:1472–1477 Bible-based diets, 1:121–124 efficacy of, 3:1475 health issues, 3:1475–1477 history of, 3:1473–1474 overview, 3:1472–1473 types of, 3:1474–1475 weight cycling (yo-yo dieting), 3:1477 Weight Watchers, 1:60–61, 1:72, 1:183, 3:1474, 3:1475 Weizenberg, Molly, 1:139 Wekerle, Gerda R., 2:580 Weldon, G., 1:162 Wellesley College, 1:255–256 Wells, Patricia, 3:1213–1214 Welthungerhilfe (Aid for World Hunger), 2:803 Wendland, Wend, 3:1369 Wendy’s, 1:107, 1:181, 2:478 Werner and Pfleiderer, 1:99 Wesfarmers Ltd., 2:745 Wesley, John, 1:228–229 Wesleyan University, 2:894 West, Nabhan, 3:1370 West, Patti, 3:1370 Western diet, economic cost of. See Economic cost of the Western diet Western Health Reform Institute, 3:1255 Westland/Hallmark Meat Company, 3:1231 Weston A. Price Foundation, 3:1176 Wet markets and hawking, 3:1477–1480 food selling by market traders and hawkers, 3:1478–1479 health issues, 3:1479 overview, 3:1477–1478 sociocultural contributions of, 3:1480 Whaling for food, 3:1481–1483 antiwhaling campaigns, 1:105–106 fishing policies affecting whaling, 2:523, 2:524 history of, 3:1481 Japanese whaling controversy, 3:1481–1482 opposition to, 3:1482–1483

Index What to Eat (Nestle), 2:651 What Would Jesus Eat? The Ultimate Program for Eating Well, Feeling Great, and Living Longer (Colbert), 1:123 Wheat gluten and (See Gluten-free foods) monoculture, 2:985 wheat flour and milling, 2:967 Wheaties, 1:1–2 Wheaton, Dennis Ray, 3:1211 Wheeler, Peter, 3:1113 Wheeler-Lea Act (1938), 2:490–491, 2:882 Whiskey Rebellion, 1:30, 1:35 White, Ellen G., 3:1255 White, Harold F., 3:1089 White, James, 3:1255 White House Conference on Aging, 1:394 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, 1:394, 2:882, 3:1024 White House Task Force, 3:1354 “Who Consumes Fast-Food and Why?” (Bryant), 2:860 Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe? (film), 2:569 Whole Foods FTC, 2:492 generic brands, 2:710 gourmet and specialty foods, 2:729 grocery stores and supermarkets, overview, 2:745, 2:746 health food stores, 2:766–767 locavorism, 2:910 organic policies, 3:1076 price wars, 3:1166 Whole grains, as cancer-fighting food, 1:164 Wholesome Meat Act (1967), 2:611 Whopper, 2:480 WhyHunger, 1:397 Wiegleb, Johann Christian, 3:1097 Wild game, minimum cooking temperature for, 1:308 Wild Oats, 2:492, 3:1166 Wilensky, Harold L., 3:1194 Wiley, Andrea S., 1:336 Wiley, Harvey, 2:549, 2:886 Wilfie & Nell, 2:702 William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration (University of Nevada), 3:1205 William I (king of England), 3:1473 William J. Clinton Foundation, 1:120 Williams, Ian, 3:1275 Willis, Thomas, 1:355 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (film), 2:573 Wilson, 2:946–947 Wilson, Geoff A., 2:1000 Wilson, Joy, 1:139 Wilson, Mary, 3:1142 Wilson, Robert, 2:596 Wilson, Woodrow, 3:1316

1593

Winant, Howard, 2:580 Winchell, Vern, 1:380 Winchell’s Donut House, 3:1121 Wine, 3:1483–1485 in ancient Rome, 3:1484 biodynamic, 1:126 as cancer-fighting food, 1:163 health issues, 3:1484–1485 origins of wine and viticulture, 3:1483–1484 spread of viticulture in Europe and beyond, 3:1484 Wine Spectator, 1:60 Wingate, Paine, 1:254 Winn-Dixie, 1:408 Winne, Mark, 2:598, 2:652 Winne, Mike, 2:752 Winstanley, Gerrard, 2:751 Winter-Nelson, Alex, 3:1147 Wirzba, Norman, 1:13, 1:16 Wisconsin Experiment Station, 3:1414 Wisconsin State Journal, 2:584 Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). See Food stamps and WIC Women’s Health Initiative, 3:1047 Wonder Bread, 1:7, 1:99, 2:882 Wonderful Almost Human Automatic Doughnut Machine, 1:379 Wood, Morrison, 3:1023 Woodeshick, Keith, 3:1271 Woodforde, James, 3:1275 Woolworth’s Limited, 2:745 Worker cooperatives, 1:314 Worker Protection Standard, 3:1488 Worker safety, 3:1485–1489 regulating, 3:1487–1489 risks to, in farm labor, 3:1485–1486 risks to, in industrial meat production, 3:1486–1487 Working for Water Program, 2:663 Working Lands Alliance, 2:598 World Agroforestry Center’s Evergreen Agriculture campaign, 2:662 World Atlas of Hunger, The (Basset, Winter-Nelson), 3:1147 World Bank chemical fertilizers, 1:201–202 food insecurity, 2:575 food policy councils, 2:597 food sovereignty, 2:624 GMOs, 2:711 Green Revolution, 2:736 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Study, 2:843–844 labeling, 2:875

1594

Index

land grant colleges, 2:893 NAFTA, 3:1032 population and food supply, 3:1147 USDA and, 3:1415 WTO and, 3:1489 World Bank Group Agriculture Action Plan: 2013–2015, 3:1147 World Cancer Research Fund, 3:1357 World Cocoa Foundation, 1:222 World Conference on Human Rights, 2:801 World Day for Safety and Health at Work, 3:1488 World Economic Forum, 2:722, 3:1357–1358 World Fair Trade Organization, 1:437 World Food Conference, 1:426, 2:624, 2:847 World Food Crisis and World Food Conference (1974), 1:452 World Food Programme, 1:452, 2:805, 2:807, 3:1146 World Food Summit, 2:534, 2:537, 2:617, 2:802, 2:808–809, 2:850, 3:1292–1293 World Food Travel Association, 3:1381 World Gastroenterology Organization, 2:725 World Health Assembly, 2:586, 3:1357 World Health Organization (WHO) beverage industry and, 1:118 breastfeeding and, 1:149–150 carcinogens and relation of cancer to diet, 1:174, 1:177–178 cattle industry, 1:190 chemical fertilizers, 1:202–203 on children’s advertising, 1:8–9 climate change, 1:243–244 Codex Alimentarius, 1:246–248 convenience foods, 1:289 dietary guidelines and graphics, 1:361 FAO and, 2:527, 2:547 (See also Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)) FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Food and Food Trade, 1:244, 1:246 FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), 2:527, 2:547, 2:855 FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, 1:243 fat tax, 3:1353 food additives, 2:527 food bans and, 1:108 food carts, 2:559 food lobbying, 2:586 food safety, 2:604 food sovereignty, 2:622 food standards (See Codex Alimentarius Commission) French Paradox, 2:681 holistic medicine, 2:790 hunger, 2:806 IAASTD, 2:843 international food security, 2:849 irradiation of food, 2:857

low-sodium foods, 2:926 minerals for nutrition, 2:968–969 MSG, 2:992 nutrition education, 3:1044 pesticides, 3:1136 restaurant inspections, 3:1200 Salmonella, 3:1224 Seventh-day Adventist food practices, 3:1255–1256 street food, 3:1311–1312 taxation, 3:1356–1358 terrorist threats to food and water, 3:1375 World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA), 3:1240 World Intellectual Property Organization, 2:843, 3:1369 World Organization for Animal Health, 3:1346 World Resources Institute, 2:645 World Tourism Organization, 3:1382 World Trade Organization, 3:1489–1494 Agreement on Agriculture (WTO), 2:942 anti-globalization movements and, 1:51–54 climate change, 1:243 Codex Alimentarius, 1:248 criticism of, 3:1493–1494 dispute settlement mechanism (DSM), 3:1491–1492 exports, 1:424 FAO and, 2:547–548 (See also Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)) farm bills, 1:458 fishing policies, 2:524 food advertisements in school hallways and cafeterias, 2:533–534 food aid, 2:533–534 food sovereignty, 2:617, 2:620, 2:622–624 function of, 3:1490–1491 genetically modified organisms, 2:714 imported food, 2:827, 2:829 inception of, 3:1489–1490 influence on food and agricultural trade, 3:1492–1493 marketing boards, 2:942 multifunctionality in agriculture, 2:998–999 overfishing and fisheries depletion, 3:1096 protected designation of origin (PDO), 3:1173 tariffs, 3:1352 World Trade Report, 3:1352 World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF), 3:1494–1497 agrarianism and, 1:15 brief history of, 3:1494–1495 challenges of, 3:1495–1497 rewards of WWOOFing, 3:1495 World Wildlife Fund, 1:220, 2:738 World’s Columbian Exposition (1893), 1:159 World’s Fair (1851), 3:1012

Index World’s Fair (1893), 1:6, 2:821 World’s Fair (1939), 1:152, 3:1360 Worldwide Permaculture Network, 3:1130 Worshipful Company of Bakers, 1:98 Wrangham, Richard, 3:1177 Wright, Frank, 2:477 Wright, Marian, 2:626 Wrigley’s gum, 2:937 Wu wei, 1:218 Wushier bing fang, 1:217 X rays, 2:855 Xerophthalmia, 3:1499–1501 overview, 3:1499 prevention and treatment, 3:1499–1500 Yahoo, 1:145 Yale University, 1:119, 1:120, 1:153, 1:256 Yale-New Haven Hospital, 1:223 Yance, Donald, 1:162 Yellow Emperor, 1:217 Yelp, 1:326–327, 3:1202, 3:1212, 3:1283, 3:1442, 3:1471 Yelp, Inc., 1:60 Yeoman, P. A., 3:1128 Yersinia enterocolitics, 2:606–607 Yi, Zheng, 1:45

1595

Yin and yang, 1:218, 2:789–790, 2:929 Young, Brigham, 2:994 Young, Erma, 3:1023 Youth Behavioral Risk Survey, 1:204 YouTube, 1:4, 3:1067 Yum! Brands Inc., 1:294, 1:396 Yunus, Muhammad, 2:956 Zabar, Eli, 2:728 Zagat, 1:195, 1:326, 1:327, 2:634, 3:1212, 3:1471 Zapatista Army of National Liberation ( Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional), 3:1032 Zayre, 3:1454 Zedillo, Ernesto, 3:1032 Zen Macrobiotics (Ohsawa), 2:930 Zephyr Adventures, 1:139 Zero Point Zero Productions, 2:590 Zhang, S., 1:161 Zhao, C., 1:161 Zimet, Nathaniel, 2:636 Zimmerman, William, 3:1185 Zinc, necessity of, 2:968 “Zombie apocalypse,” anthropophagy and, 1:43 Zoroastrianism, 3:1088 Zuk, Marlene, 3:1114–1115 Zwarteveen, M., 3:1468

We are delighted to announce the launch of a streaming video program at SAGE! SAGE Video POMJOF DPMMFDUJPOT
BSF EFWFMPQFE JO QBSUOFSTIJQ XJUI MFBEJOH BDBEFNJDT TPDJFUJFT BOE QSBDUJUJPOFST JODMVEJOH NBOZ PG 4"(&T PXO BVUIPST BOE BDBEFNJD QBSUOFST UP EFMJWFS DVUUJOHFEHF QFEBHPHJDBM DPMMFDUJPOT NBQQFE UP DVSSJDVMBS OFFET "WBJMBCMF BMPOHTJEF PVS CPPL BOE SFGFSFODF DPMMFDUJPOT PO UIF SAGE Knowledge QMBUGPSN DPOUFOU JT EFMJWFSFE XJUI DSJUJDBM POMJOF GVODUJPOBMJUZ EFTJHOFE UP TVQQPSU TDIPMBSMZ VTF SAGE Video DPNCJOFT PSJHJOBMMZ DPNNJTTJPOFE BOE QSPEVDFE NBUFSJBM XJUI MJDFOTFE WJEFPT UP QSPWJEF B DPNQMFUF SFTPVSDF GPS TUVEFOUT GBDVMUZ BOE SFTFBSDIFST

NEW IN 2015! t
$PVOTFMJOH BOE 1TZDIPUIFSBQZ t &EVDBUJPO

sagepub.com/video #sagevideo

t .FEJB BOE $PNNVOJDBUJPO