Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

How We Lost Knowledge of Where Food Comes from and Why We Need to Get It Back

By Ann Vileisis, Island Press. Posted May 14, 2008.


A new book explores how we got into the modern situation where we know so little about what we eat and yet regard it as entirely normal.
Advertisement

The following is excerpted from /www.kitchenliteracy.com/Kitchen_Literacy/Kitchen_Literacy.html>Kitchen Literacy by Ann Vileisis, copyright 2008 by the author. Reproduced by permission of Island Press, Washington D.C.

Has it ever occurred to you just how odd it is that we know so little about what we eat? Each day we feast on cereal, bread, salad, soup, chicken, cheese, apples, ice cream, and more. Over the course of our lives, each of us has eaten thousands of different foods. We have tasted their saltiness and sweetness, crunched their crispness, chewed their fleshiness, swallowed them, and incorporated their nutriment into our bones.Yet despite this biologically intimate and everyday physical connection, most of us have little idea where our foods come from, who raised them, and what went into making them.

The absurdity of this situation struck me about ten years ago. The news was rife with stories about how large-scale food production harmed health and the environment:pathogens such as Salmonella and E. coli had become more prevalent in meat and eggs raised under crowded factory-farm conditions; pesticides used to grow foods were contaminating drinking water and harming the health of farmworkers and their children; agricultural chemicals were causing declines in amphibian and bird populations; the cod fishery was collapsing; and the fungicide methyl bromide, used in growing strawberries, was even linked to the erosion of the earth's ozone layer.

I began to wonder, were these the berries and eggs that I bought? As I pushed my shopping cart through the supermarket aisles, questions rose insistently in my mind: How were my eggs raised? Who grew my tomatoes? Where did my fish come from? What about the milk? The colorful boxes, cans, and jars that had long appeared familiar and comforting now looked cryptic.

Each product, I realized, was the culmination of some hidden story that I -- and most of my fellow shoppers -- had never bothered to consider. Everything we ate had a story ,but we didn't know any of them.

I was just starting to grasp that choices I made about what to buy in the supermarket had punch and bite -- in real places and in real people's lives.Yet when I shopped, these matters had rarely before come to mind. A much narrower set of criteria had always guided my decisions. When picking tomatoes, for example, I'd rather unconsciously considered their appearance, firmness, price, and gratifyingly low caloric content, along with the culinary possibilities of salads or sauces. I'd never considered where the tomatoes had come from, how they were grown, and who did the work of raising them.

Now I started to wonder: Why did I consider some things but not others? Why did I think the way I did about my food? I began to have vague misgivings about what might be happening beyond the scope of my awareness, yet it was difficult to take responsibility when the whole supermarket system seemed to make it almost impossible for me -- or for any of us -- to know about the origins of our foods. I was certainly curious about the stories behind my milk, eggs, and tomatoes, but even more, I was drawn to larger questions: How on earth did we get into the modern situation where we know so little about what we eat and yet regard it as entirely normal? How was it that basic ignorance about foods had become truly the norm in our culture, and what difference has it made?

That's what this book is about.

The answers to my questions, I looked to history. By keeping my bead on what America's home cooks have known and not known about their foods, I began to track the gulf in understanding that rapidly grew over time as distance between farms and kitchens widened. Two hundred years ago, most Americans knew a lot more about what they ate in a direct, firsthand, rooted-in-the-earth way because most had an actual hand in growing a sizable share of their foods.

As America went from being a nation of farmers to being one of workers and consumers, growing numbers of city dwellers had to grapple with procuring and cooking foods in new ways. Over the course of only a few generations, we went from knowing particular places and specific stories behind our foods' origins to instead knowing very little in an enormous and anonymous food system.

Those who have written about food history have dropped clues about this cognitive shift as they've chronicled how Americans adopted new products, new nutritional understanding, and new culinary practices in the dynamic social context of urbanization and ethnic diversification. And those who have written trenchant critiques of America's modern agriculture have generally regarded the separation of consumers from producers as a lamentable side effect of a much larger industrial transformation of America's economy, landscape, and culture.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: food, kitchen literacy

Ann Vileisis is a writer and historian. She is also the author of Discovering the Unknown Landscape: A History of America's Wetlands.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Although I don't think it was intentional...
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on May 14, 2008 3:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...This trend of not really knowing (or caring) where things come from, how they are made, or what's in them for that matter represents a long and sad history of America's (and now the world for the most part) move from an agricultual base to an industrial base. It was just "easier" if someone else fed the chickens, nurtured the tomatos and made the bread. Unfortunately, we as a nation have lost many of the basic skills needed to survive.

We used to take pride in small accomplishments like growing the tastyest tomato, or making a fine piece of furniture, but that wasn't "Cost Effective". As a result, we have coupled ourselves more and more to industrial machine and are now so dependent on it that we don't even know how to prepare a proper meal. Although the movie from the 70's "Solent Green" was only fictional and "could never really happen", so was Orwell's "1984" until the monster in washington took over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stop the profit principle
Posted by: richholland on May 14, 2008 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
everything wether a product or a service can be taken from us to use as aprofitmaking vehicle for corporations.
Women must work to PAY and this is called FREEDOM.

I still remember my wife baking applepie and making a dress for our little daughter.

All the present global problems arise from this GREED.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this really true of most people?
Posted by: war_on_tara on May 14, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is obviously a well-intentioned writer, but I don't see quite this extreme disconnect.

In my urban area the farmers markets are PACKED... as are the community gardens full of vegetables (well, they're on their way in May)... as is Whole Foods and Trader Joe's... as is the Home Depot vegetable & herb plant aisle (which was so ransacked by Sunday afternoon they had the vendor there restocking it)... and a lot of my neighbors are obviously growing vegetables in their postage-stamp yards. One eccentric even grows corn every year.

Is it possible this disconnect is more a feature of the prosperous outer suburbs than of us more urban folk?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, "personal choice matters" - wasn't that also the tobacco industry talking point?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 14, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"Ultimately, if our market-driven society is to build a healthier food system, we as consumers will need to recognize how our everyday choices affect the larger environment and, then, to forge a new and influential role for ourselves. In an age when farms and factories of food production seem impossibly remote from our dinner plates, history can sharpen our outlook with its perspective and its ironies, and remind us of the opportunity for change."

A perfect piece for Alternet - entirely ignores U.S. agricultural subsidies and cheap migrant labor issues in favor of the "socially responsible investing" that Alternet loves to champion. Another word for "socially responsible investing" is "greenwashing".

Why do PR people who work for corporate interests always push the "personal choice" angle? Simple - because the other option is government regulation.

For example, any effort by governments to restrict tobacco sales is portrayed by tobacco PR groups as an assault on "personal choice." The same line has been picked up and repeated by the fossil fuel lobby on global warming: use less energy - it's all about your personal choices.

A good first step for changes in U.S. government policy would be to only make subsidies available to organic farmers - not a notion that wealthy investors would like to see championed.

There are some interesting articles floating around regarding the financing of a good chunk of left wing "news sites" - try this:lefty backing

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kinda disappointing
Posted by: westomoon on May 14, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I started this article with excitement, but realized about halfway through that it was pretty much content-free.

As other commentors have noted, there is a lot of quite recent history on this topic that the article simply ignores, along with the current surreal state of COOL (Country of Origin Labeling) requirements.

I am old enough that I remember the Cesar Chavez UFW grape-and-lettuce boycott of the seventies. In those days, it was easy to tell where grocery-store produce came from. By the time of the Chilean grape scare of the nineties, it had become nearly impossible. Want to know whether your hamburger comes from China? My friend, you are SOL.

There's legislation from 2002 requiring COOL, but the requirement has been put on hold ever since it was enacted. Here's what the USDA site has to say about it:

On May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, more commonly known as the 2002 Farm Bill, became law. One of its many provisions requires country of origin labeling (COOL) for beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts. On January 27, 2004, Public Law 108-199 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006. On November 10, 2005, Public Law 109-97 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2008. As described in the legislation, program implementation is the responsibility of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service.

This is an interesting topic, all right. I'd just like to read something that really explores it, instead of taking thousands of words simply to point out that we've become alienated from our food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

some good points
Posted by: e rice on May 14, 2008 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but also a good amount of romantization.

there was a good reason a small farm was described as 'hard scrabble.' it takes an enormous amount of time, energy, knowledge, and resources (such as enough land and water) to adeqautely feed, clothe and house anyone. and not everyone has the talent to cook or farm or make clothes. for those people and their families, modern life was liberating and improved the quality of their lives.

whether a bronze age village, a medieval manor, or a shaker community, survival was dependent upon a diversity of skills and other people's work.

the farmer farmed, the smith smithed, the weaver wove. but the smith was dependent on miners digging and smelting the metals he needed and transportation from the mines. the weaver was dependent on the spinners in the community, who were dependent on their own or others' sheep. the farmer was dependent on the rest. women cooked and sewed and laundered and kept house--but not alone, because one woman could not manage a house, children and all the work without help, whether family or hired.

that modern agribusiness and stock raising have been perverted and degraded by greed and the ignorance of urban managers is a major problem, but without large farms and stock breeders, the people who have become doctors, scientists, architects and engineers would never have the time or energy to learn their professions, or practice them.

reform is needed, education is needed. but going back to the past in this country, when people slaved to survive and sacrificed their health and education and years of their lives is not the answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Whoa, there, Nellie Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Whoa, there, Nellie Posted by: e rice
Were do ar fud come frum?
Posted by: willymack on May 14, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sooprmarkit. Everboddy know thet. Stoopid lady!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Local farming may be the outcome of WWIII.
Posted by: nightgaunt on May 14, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the USA bomb Iran and starts a global war and our economy collapses here people will be forced to grow their own. Just hope MONSANTO isn't the only one offering seeds,at a tremendous discount will be the danger. Farmers in INDIA are committing suicide over what MONSANTO has done to them.

We could see our cost-of-living go way down from the dizzying heights it is right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» albert einstein Posted by: e rice