Sociology of Food - Essay Example

? Sociology of Food Mass versus Customized Production The natural tendency is for food production to move in the direction of mass production thanmore customized production. There are economies of scale and US government subsidies to farmers producing a few commodity products such as corn, soybeans, wheat and rice to keep production costs and prices low, discouraging the production of more diversified healthier organic foods which would require larger financial investment. Until recently this mass production of basic commodity foods has also been fueled by an abundant supply of cheap energy. However, the mass production of cheap, although less nutritious food, comes with significant ecological and human cost. Because of the removal of animals from farms to feedlots resulting in the production of less available natural fertilizer, there is a greater dependency on chemical fertilizer. This artificial fertilizer, pesticides made from petroleum,. Farm machinery and modern food processing, transportation and packaging have resulted significant increases in emission of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, so that it now requires much more fossil food energy to produce a calorie of food than it did in 1940. Another significant human cost resulting from the dependency on mass produced commodity foods is an increased rate of chronic disease linked to diet such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and cancer. This has resulted in increased health care costs at least offsetting the trend toward lower food costs. Food shortages an riots in the developing world are likely to threaten free trade as developed nations seek to ensure their food supply by erecting trade barriers .Countries forced to import food also have other concerns such as its’ safety. Food, whether imported or domestic, can be deliberately contaminated. Such risks have caused the American public to have second thoughts about the consumption of mass produced commodity based foods and shown more interest in healthier organic, local pasture-based customized foods allowing for political change in government policies to encourage the production by moving away from the promotion of the mass use of oil based fertilizers to more use of natural processes such as photosynthesis. The post World War II industrialization of farming produced abundance of cheap food but at a significant economic, environmental and social cost. What is needed to improve the situation is a shift in government policy spurred on by changing public opinion. For example, while hamburgers, French fries and coke are still iconic staples of American culture, there is a growing concern in the public of the harm that over consumption of such products can cause to both individual health and society at large as well. Even though shifts to more environmentally friendly, healthier food sources will require significant public, corporate and government investment, there is a growing realization that over the long term this is likely to be offset by substantial savings in health, transportation, and absenteeism costs and improve the overall health and strength of the nation. Government resources, subsidies, and incentives required to encourage healthier, more diversified, ecologically friendly production on the supply side and on the consumption side provide programs particularly to low income groups to enable them to buy healthier foods even though they cost more than less healthy mass produced staples in order to curb the obesity explosion within this group. Even the pillars of the fast food industry such as McDonalds and Burger King are responding to the shift in American culture with people now more concerned with the quality as well as the quantity and price of what they consume, and adding healthier alternatives such as salads to their menus. They are also using less cooking oil and fat in their food preparation. With public pressure and concern about the harmful effects of heavy consumption of mass produced commodity foods, there should be a shift from government policy promoting such food sources to encouraging more customized, local, organic production especially of fruits and vegetables. Farms should be encouraged, with financial assistance if necessary, to become integrated communities for the production of a variety of organic foods and livestock. The farm livestock, composting of food waste and crop rotation can provide natural fertilizer in place of the harmful effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Animals should be kept on the farm rather than feedlots so that their waste can be recycled as natural fertilizer rather than be absorbed in the atmosphere as greenhouse gas. Briefly, while specialized production like specialized labor has enabled mass production of cheap food, the time has come to change course to integrated local farms producing a variety of products and effectively utilizing the byproducts of production such as animal waste to reduce the carbon footprint should be encouraged by government policy to produce abundant high quality food with the least detrimental effect on the environment. 3. Globalization versus Glocalization of Food Especially in the 20th century there was mass travel and emigration. America welcomed many of them, initially from Europe, but later from all parts of the world. These people brought their native foods with them and in some cases the new immigrants adapted traditional foods from home to their new environment. For example, I believe chop suey was actually invented in America by the Chinese immigrants rather than by the native Chinese. Conversely, with globalization of corporations and the expansion of trade, Americans brought with them to their new homeland their native iconic staples such as hamburgers, French fries and coke. In fact, the institution of fast food was likely invented in America in response to the needs of the fast paced American entrepreneurial frontier lifestyle and then spread to the rest of the world as globalization forced others to adopt similar lifestyles in order to compete. However, these nations wanting to maintain a sense of independence and distinctiveness, while adopting fast food style restaurants have adapted them to feature their own indigenous foods. For example, in Jamaica one will see American style Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King outlets. However, you will also see native Jamaican fast food chains such as “Juici Patties and “Mothers”. “Juici Patties” features the traditional flaky pastry filled with beef, chicken, shrimp, cheese, etc. Mothers’ menu includes “jerk” pork and chicken cooked with local jerk spice and traditional Jamaican breakfasts like curried chicken. Interestingly, while Burger King and KFC generally stick to American style fare , the Jamaican fast food chains also include on their menu 1 or 2 non-Jamaican items such as fried chicken. Thus I would argue there is both globalization and glocalization in food culture throughout the world. Only in counties where extreme nationalism prevails and governments are afraid and resentful of American economic power are you likely to see American fast food chains banned. For example, it would be interesting to see how many Burger Kings and KFCs there are in North Korea. On the other hand, many counties especially those dependent on tourism such as Jamaica, welcome American style fast food establishments catering to a more conservative tourist who likes having familiar food available and is more interested in Jamaica’s sun than Jamaica’s culture. This, of course, promotes globalization with the comfort and familiarity of food preparation similar to that of home. On the other hand, more adventurous tourists want a different culinary experience even if it is also in fast food. The indigenous chains like Juici Patties and Mothers showcase local specialties fostering glocalization. When people travel and emigrate they know they will have to adjust and comply with local laws and mores of their new homeland. However, they also want to retain a sense of their identity as people of their old homeland. They do so by retaining elements of their culture which do not conflict sharply with those of their new homeland. For example, Islamic Sharia law is not acceptable to most Americans. However, differences in food and its’ preparation are generally not regarded as threatening to Americans as the attempted imposition of Sharia law would be. Certain cultures and religions may ban specific foods, but this will not affect the majority of Americans. In American cities, especially since World War II, with the proliferation of immigration, there has been a proliferation of restaurants reflecting these immigrant groups that previously did not exist. Generally speaking, if not welcomed they are at least tolerated for the variety they bring to the American culinary experience. Thus there are trends both toward globalization and “glocalization” especially in fast food preparation. World wide chains such as KFC and Burger King will continue to provide cheap fast (if not entirely healthy) familiar fast food to Americans both at home and abroad as well as to locals who have acquired a taste for it. Meanwhile, indigenous fast food chains will adopt the fast food model as their cultures become faster paced and like the American one, but specialize in foods more familiar with the local populations, and for more adventurous tourists who want to enjoy a local experience. I think this globalization and glocalization are likely to be more common in cheap popular fast food type restaurants than in high end cuisine such as French where preparation is more complex and recipes are jealously guarded from competitors. In conclusion with expected continuing intermingling of races and cultures, I see no reason why both trends of globalization and glocalization will continue especially in the fast food industry. Economics of scale and the desire for some for a familiar experience when traveling or emigrating will foster globalization, but at the same time desire for a different travel experience and for other counties to wish to showcase their cultural independence and distinctiveness will encourage glocalization along side globalization. 4. Political Consumerism When nutritional scientists at the Department of Agriculture introduced a pyramid illustration to show the relative nutritional value of different food categories there was an outcry from the Cattleman’s Association This was because the meat and dairy products category was shown as a smaller block near the apex of the pyramid, indicating that this kind of food has less nutritional value than the larger fruit and vegetable category near the base of the pyramid. This situation illustrated the inherent conflict in having the Department of Agriculture promote the interests of farmers of various kinds at the same time be responsible for assessing the nutritional value of different kinds of food products. This of course has the potential of pitting one type of farm producer against another because lobbyists for fruit and vegetable farmers could argue that their segment should get much more government aid than say meat and dairy farmers simply on the basis of assessed higher nutritional value of their product than that of meat and dairy producers, ignoring other factors such as need, trade implications, new market development, etc. Those responsible for advising the public on the relative nutritional value of different food categories should be as free from political pressure from different constituencies as possible so that they can make their recommendations based on wherever the science takes them. The transfer of this function to the Food and Drug Administration has helped the process. Decisions regarding government intervention in the marketplace through subsidies, tax incentives, regulations, etc. are of course political and therefore should be made by the entire cabinet with recommendations of the Secretary of Agriculture. They should be policy decisions reached weighing all the pros and cons and then making a judgment as to which course of action would be best for the long term interests of the country as a whole. Notwithstanding the fact that individual decisions cannot be based solely on the promotion of products assessed by scientists to be of the highest nutritional value, the general thrust of government policy should be to promote a sustainable agriculture industry dominated by foods of high nutritional value to enhance the health of Americans. No longer can we rely on “oil” based agriculture with mass produced cheap commodity products of low nutritional value, grown with artificial fertilizers. The time of extreme specialization and wasted byproducts polluting the atmosphere is over or should be. The American public is beginning to demand a more integrated ecologically friendly agriculture system with more emphasis on nutritional quality rather than quantity even if it does initially cost more. Unfortunately, special interest groups have undue influence on government policy through their lobbying and campaign contributions. The time has come to put limits on campaign contributions and to replace them with higher taxation rates. In this way the influence of narrow interests of particular constituencies on government policy can be diminished and the broader interests of those representing the general public enhanced so that in a nutshell the government becomes more responsive to public demand. The recent reelection of President Obama shows that the public has some tolerance for higher taxes if they feel it is necessary to provide adequate social benefits, and the defeat of Romney shows that they are skeptical of Republican low tax “trickle down” theories Not only do primary producers attempt to influence government policy in their favor, but food processors and distributors such as restaurants do as well. For example, restaurants, especially pubs have tried to deter governments from banning smoking in their establishments in spite of the proven cancer related health hazards associated with even second hand smoke because they feared it would deter customers who regard smoking as an essential part of the social experience of dining out or watching sports at a pub. Americans have historically had an affinity for processed sweetened foods such as cereals, candy, cheese, condiments, etc. although this is waning as they become more health conscious. As a result governments must enact and enforce laws to ensure the safety and nutritional value of such products and that their advertisers don’t make false claims. Given that it is usually impractical for producers of primary products such as fruits and vegetables to advertise them the government has a role in doing this on their behalf, stressing both the nutritional value and taste of such products grown with the benefit of modern integrated ecological friendly methods. The post World War II food production system with mass production of a few commodity foods processed for consumption with cheap energy cannot be sustained and as obesity rates have shown is detrimental to America’s health. What is required and increasingly demanded by the public is a more integrated system, with less artificial fertilizers and more efficient use of byproducts to produce healthier product and less environmental damage. Special interest groups bent on protecting their own turf hinder such a transformation. What is needed is a lessening of the power and influence of such groups by limiting campaign contributions and increasing taxes if necessary, so that the government will have both the resources and political will to respond to public demand for a healthier food production system. Read More