To be separated into 5-page lots.
CHAPTER 2
FOOD PREFERENCE AND CHOICE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1
One of the main reasons health education has a fair way to go in terms of
improving the health of the nation is that it takes time for its effects to work through.
It is, however, easier to say that the dietary dimensions, of health education are less
difficult to assess in terms of what is consumed today and from this we ought to be
able to make predictions about future dietary induced health. We may one day achieve
goals involving the correct choice of foods but this will come to nothing if there is
always after-meal inactivity accompanied by smoking, drinking, and while 'correct
food choice’ can ultimately embrace the alcoholic drink issue and future consumers
are educated to reflect upon the totality of food and drink intake this study will
consider food preference and choice as a separate aspect before going on to look at
drink as a separate issue.
2.1.2
Taking the individual first we can attempt to distinguish between mind and
body. If he has a 'lean and hungry look' then why? How far has the physical
appearance been dictated by attitudes to food and, thereby, the range of preferences
Cassius enjoys (and does he enjoy them, anyway?). How many of the attitudes have
been influenced by his parents, brothers and sisters, other relatives, friends, school
teachers, others with whom he has been in contact?
2.1.3
As the net widens we move into the social considerations and there are as many
difficulties attached to deciding the extent of influences so far identified as there are in
distinguishing the demarcation between 'mind and body' issues and social issues.
2.1.4
The social issues involve cultural considerations which are complex enough in
themselves. Then we start to move into the sociological dimensions such as the social
class of the individual, itself a minefield of problems of defining and qualifying the
extent of a specific issue on food preferences.
2.1.5
The street in which a person lives may well say something about his social class
but it also raises questions concerning geography. While few places in any
industrialized country are inaccessible to all but the most obscure foodstuff it will be a
long time before the effects of traditional or historical availability can be discounted.
Such traditions are part of the culture (of the sociology?) and the difficulty of
separating out the issues or determinants is emphasized again.
2.1.6
Perhaps there are fewer problems when economic issues are appraised. The physical market, or what is in it, is as much a factor of geography as of the culture (ie,
what will be bought). In economic terms, factors such as supply and demand have a
bearing on the contents of today's table but so do the 'contents of the contents'.
Manufacturers will make most of the decisions (within a legal framework) as to how
many E type preservatives a product will contain and that issue moves the debate
forward to consider the numerous technical issues relating to supply and, eventually,
to food choice.
2.107
The individual can be studied as a consumer of the products generally and of
specific foods at today's table. furthermore, he can be looked at in relation to the
person who has put those foods on his table – the provider.
7
2.108
(We will also consider the case of those who cook for themselves.) The provider, however, has had more to do
than just cook the food. It had to be thought about, bought, stored and prepared and all
this probably in competition with numerous other household tasks.
2.109
When the provider is operating on a commercial basis decisions have to be made
as to what to offer, production methods, marketing, and so on. Such decisions are
made in response to sales histories and projections of future demand. The study will
need to take into account the various modes of food provision and differences
concerning individual food preferences.
2.110
By now you may have got over my jibe on page 3 at your individual preferences
("your own ghastly diet"). Do I really mean your diet, that of those overweight etc., or
whose? This is the problem faced by those in health and food education. Every one
sees himself as no one else can or wants to see him. There is no treatise here relating
to 'better/worse than' in any other sense beyond optimum health. If 'ghastly' extends to
too much smoking and drinking and too little exercise the individual may be operating
on the basis of 'it is my life and body and who do these people in health education
think they are?' They try hard to resist the obvious.
Later, we deal with social issues and look at 'hospitality'. Anyone can try even
harder and invite in any guest and once new 'others' within a social set enter a person's
dietary space the pressures to resist can form a vortex of apathy down which the
health education effort disappears.
2.111
We also look at commercialism and its vested interests. These can be harnessed,
however, to good use. Perhaps less surely than slowly the changes are taking effect.
Mennell (1985: 307) notes that "... the health food shop has become a familiar feature
of the High Street patronised by many who do not themselves adopt a vegetarian
diet." If business interests can increasingly solve half the problem it leaves health
education only the remaining half. Let us now start looking at the detail leading up to
achieving that kind of objective.
2.2 NOT SO INDIVIDUAL FOOD PREFERENCES
2.21
Look at the menu, order the third of the four dishes available and eat it with the
thought that your food preferences are your own and that you have autonomy in
deciding what to eat. If you had to buy the food for those at home you would find
yourself saying "they won't eat this, they won't eat that" and then ask yourself about
their autonomy – it is even less than that of the 'provider'.
2.22
In the first case the restricted choice has been determined on the basis of
probability of individual items being selected by those in the substitute domestic
feeding situation. In the second, Hobson's Choice has been determined from a perhaps
rather small range of foodstuffs that are known to be liked by the family.
2.23
We either eat at home or away. The home matches can be played in the house or
garden (and on the picnic which only relocates the geographical position on a
temporary basis). So far, though, we have only mentioned the family eating together
at home. The home or away match metaphor may need to be extended to entertaining
other relatives and still further when friends, even business associates are entertained
at home. At a later stage reciprocal hospitality is involved and the away-match is
'fought' in order to keep the score even. It will be shown that food choice in such
situations, is not undertaken lightly.
8
The complications of society in relation to food are only hinted at in what has
been outlined so far. The main decision-maker in the situation is interpreted as being
the wife—mother and whether the decisions relate to feeding of the nuclear family,
the extended family (whether permanent or temporary when the sisters and thecousins and the aunts require to be fed) or the 'family-on-display' entertaining non-
relatives.
2.24
While some consideration will be given later as to whether the wife-mother is
really making the food decisions for the immediate family we can leave it at that for
the present even if she does consult others in alternative situations proposed, she
generally makes the decisions.
2.25
The main implication of eating 'away' of course, centres upon consulting food
which has not been prepared at home, by the wife-mother, and where, mainly, there is
a cash transaction. The substitute domestic feeding situation has many alternatives
which include:
- • the cafeteria or restaurant in the work situation
- • the commercial cafeteria or restaurant with numerous variations
- (speciality, ethnics, etc)
- • the hotel, restaurant or coffee house
- • the train, plane or ship meal
- • the public house meal
- • the mobile snack bar (for consumption in the office or workshop, the
- take-away meal)
- • the hospital meal (in-patients, out-patients)
2.26
All of these would go out of business if they had to accommodate the total range
of food preferences of any one likely to walk in and, even with the specialization
evident from the list, it would be impossible to cater for every possible request. At the extreme end of the consumer request scale is found the à la carte menu where choice-
cost is high. But this will be limited to a certain range of foods, probably described in French, and where there is no intention of catering for well-to-do consumers of soya-
steaks. At the other end is the no-choice meal provided, perhaps, in the small works canteen.
2.27
We may have thought that there is extensive freedom of choice in the market
place of public food but the economic factor determines that this element is restricted
to what the consumer will buy, which is itself restricted by what the supplier will sell
and so on until the circle is clearly discernable. In terms of influence, in the circle we
can identify the consumer, the trader and various other factors such as competition,
the Government with laws and taxes, and health education.
2.28
Consumer and trader dimensions are reflected in the conventional rules of
supply and demand. It may take only a short time to influence consumer decisions if
there are significant price fluctuations and the consumer may well have less effect in
the situation relating to essentials amongst which is included food. The Government
will influence food decisions if, for example, it introduces subsidies or otherwise
intervenes to cut the cost of butter by half. In that situation how far can the individual
go in asserting that a change from margarine to butter that week was entirely her own
choice?
2.29
But it is restricting to consider the activities and decisions of only the decision-
maker in the household. The sum of the millions of decisions to purchase food
provides information upon the food habits of the nation and the supporting theory
relating to food habits will need to be discussed.
If it can be argued that individual food preferences are not so individual there
still has to be a basis for an attack on the task of finding out the various influences on
the dietary health of such a large unit as a nation. A start has to be made somewhere.
FOOD HABIT RESEARCH
It is important to have an idea as to the ways in which people select and utilize
their foods and these are, in total, their food habits. There has been much research
done in this area and it is useful to be able to draw upon a work which draws it
together. Grivetti and Pangborn are prominent in this respect.
Grivetti and Pangborn
In 1973 these two writers reviewed the various approaches and methods
previously employed within food habit research. Their interest was centred upon
nutrition education and their findings are useful to the present study. The seven
distinct approaches are looked at now and the order in which Grivetti and Pangborn
dealt with them has been changed to suit the present discussion:
a) Clinical Approaches
"Some medical nutritional scientists have recognised the importance of culture
and the close relationship between food availability, familiarity with indigenous
products, and nutritional quality" (page 205). We have an interest in culture in the
present study and it may be worthwhile to investigate the worth of such approaches to
explaining the relationship between food and culture in the wider sense. However, it is
apparent that the clinical approaches are also 'help' approaches towards apparently
disadvantaged cultures which are, in reality, coping quite well in the nutritional sense.
b) Environmentalism
"The environmentalist approach seeks causal relationships between culture,
health, and the environment. Those supporting this view claim that dietary patterns are
determined by environmental factors" (page 204). Our own discussion relating to food
preferences and choice shows the complications arising from trying to separate out the
'causes' of dietary preferences.
Later on page 205, Grivetti and Pangborn continue their discussion: "Although
environmentalism has attracted many physicians and nutritionists in recent years, it
ignores the importance of man: almost all anthropologists and geographers have
rejected the environmental approach since the early 1900s". Perhaps such people as
mentioned here were aware of the problems as have already been identified.
11
c) Cultural Ecology
"Cultural ecologists recognise that man and the environment exert pressures on
each other and seek to identify the balanced relationship between man and his
environment" (page 204). While it is appropriate, perhaps, to reject any one-factor
theories such as environmentalism it is wise to recognise that man cannot be
considered apart from his surroundings.
In the evaluation stage of their discussion (p 205), the authors reflect:
"Cultural ecologists,..., recognize the interactions between
man and nature. Accordingly, cultural ecology is less
deterministic than environmentalism and presents a more
realistic, balanced approach. However, most cultural ecologists
have focused on food habits in limited areas and tend to ignore
the historical factors that contribute to dietary traditions.
Furthermore, cultural ecologists rarely consider the range of
available consumables in a region or ask why specific products
–some with high nutritional potential – have not been utilized".
This last point amounting to 'starvation in the midst of plenty', will be discussed
later.
d) Culture-History
"When more complete information on food habits is desired, the culture-history
approach has been used, intercomparing date from archaeology, linguistics, history,
and oral tradition". (p 204, where the authors quote P L Wagner and M W Mikesell,
(Eds) Readings on Cultural Geography, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962,
pp 13-16).
There may be little point, when analysing the modern diet in digging up the
archaeological evidence of former diets. While archaeology and linguistics do not
feature at all in our analysis here, history and oral tradition do.
"The approach of culture-history offers a different
spectrum of data and is used to best advantage when documents
or artifacts associated with food production, are available for
study. Such data permit the reconstruction of dietary patterns at
different periods of history and provide clues to the origins of
contemporary food habits. In many instances, however, culture
historians must rely on oral tradition, mythology, and linguistic
evidence. As a result, some research by culture historians is
speculative, and sweeping conclusions have been drawn when
more limited hypotheses were warranted". (205/206).
e) Quantitative Approach
"Critical of descriptive methodologies used by some field researchers, others
have stressed the importance of quantitative methods". When these extend to 'game
theory' they also extend beyond the interests of the present study. However, the
12
authors raise an interesting point: "The current trend towards quantification may be
viewed as a logical extension of research on cultural behaviour and food habits
conducted by Maslow". I have discussed (1982: 66,67) Maslow's 'orders of need' in
terms of dietary evolution which may be dependent upon levels of safety, security,
etc. There is no indication there and I have had no thoughts since which could lend
support to stochastic approaches being applied to cultural behaviour in the food
context.
But quantitative approaches do not seem to find favour elsewhere:
"Some of the modern writers have recognised that changes
in diet may be the best indication of changes in the standards of
living, and have attempted to trace from the available statistics
the course of per capita consumption in a number of basic foods.
Unfortunately, these statistics are highly speculative... This line
of inquiry seems to be unrewarding since it can only inform us
about consumption per head and not about the actual diet of real
people, who rarely, if ever, conform to the average". (Burnett,
1966: 216).
The critical issue identified by Burnett is distribution. Nowhere in the numerous
data sources relating to food consumption published by HMSO is there any indication
that a specific socio-economic group consumes its due proportion of a foodstuff. This
is not to say that such data have no place in a study of this sort – far from it. What is
implied is that it is easy to draw spurious conclusions from apparently 'solid'
information.
e) Functionalism
"Functionalism attempts to explain food habits as satisfying social needs".
(Which is why we need to leave such considerations to a later stage). "In the
functional view, food is symbolic of human relationships, and the daily production,
processing, and exchange of consumables reinforces and stabilizes society". (page
204).
An alternative contribution makes a similar comment on the functional approach
within anthropology. "Stress is placed on the social function of food in bringing out
sentiments that help to socialize an individual as a member of his community".
(Goody, 1982: 13).
Grivetti and Pangborn come hack to their explanation of functionalism on page
205: "The functional approach may reveal the logic behind dietary traditions which
outsiders may view as wasteful". The dietary traditions are part of the "institution of
meals" which "not only serves to satisfy hunger but to give pleasure; and it constantly
reinforces the common bond and mutual dependence and loyalty between the
members of the family or a group and reaffirms the status and role within the society
of the various people sharing the food". (Ritchie, 1950).
"With the functional approach, it is possible to understand
the nuances of food uses within the cultural setting. Yet
functionalism tends to ignore valuable data from cultural
ecology and culture-history and focuses on contemporary
13
patterns. A major drawback to the functional approach stems
from the field method. The resident participant or observer
usually spends six months to two years in the society and only
with the greatest effort is able to divorce his own ethnocentric
biases and correctly interpret the functions attached to food and
describe the associated cultural behaviour". (Grivetti and
Pangborn: 206).
The "major drawback" is identified as the "field method". But Goody can go
further than this and identifies three serious criticisms of functional explanations
which involve: (a) validation and acceptability, (b) "the ease with which relations and
sentiments are posited" and (c) "the absence both of a historical dimension and of a
non-functional (or dysfunctional) component".
In 'explaining' the last point, Goody states that "Function is seen as giving
meaning to the ‘meaningless'. (Goody, 1982: 14).
f) Regionalism
"In contrast to the environmental and ecological themes that focus on societies in
limited areas, some researchers have taken a regional approach to culture and food".
(Grivetti and Pangborn, 1973: 204). The main study relevant to this appraisal of food
habits was undertaken by Hughes (1976) since the work done by Grivetti and
Pangborn who continue: "... a regional overview may be useful during the initial
stages of a study where general patterns emerge that permit broad hypotheses to be
formulated. But when specific data are needed at the village, household, or individual
level, the regional approach is incomplete". (Page 205) Hughes did not set out to
produce information at these levels and successfully achieved a wider aim of
describing the national situation prevailing in Great Britain in 1976 (page 205).
Bearing in mind that Grivetti and Pangborn set out to review the major
approaches to food habit research it is necessary to point out at least one major
emission and some which have been glossed over. On page 205 they comment:
"Echoing the cautious approach to dietary change, some clinicians and nutritionists
have sought a better understanding of the total culture and dietary needs of individuals
before outlining specific programs". They then cite eight major works. We will be
using two of these – Yudkin and McKenzie (1964) and Burgess and Dean (1962), the
latter work immediately. One major emission (from ninety six works quoted) is
Selling and Ferraro (1947) and we will include comment from this source from time
to time.
Burgess and Dean
Burgess and Dean (1962: 32) report a conference on 'Malnutrition and Food
Habits' held in Mexico in 1960. Chapter 10 is entitled "Methods of Studying Food
Habits" and it has relevance to the present debate. The discussion is mainly about
"Market Research" and "Field Research".
"There are various methods by which the whole subject of
the social significance of food habits might be studied. One
14
involves... the products of market research". (Burgess and Dean:
132).
The editors show that in addition to explaining how people are fed it is possible
to gain other types of information concerning sources of nutrition education. It is by
no means clear how "the social significance of food habits might be studied",
however, it seems, too, that "people" and "men" have "food habits” but women have
"eating habits". There is no apparent reason for the distinction which is presumed to
be a fault in style, eg:
"A study of the eating habits of women whose social status
approaches that of men might show that changes in food habits
are limited, as cause or effect, with changes in social function
and position".
As there is no further elaboration of this statement we will need to attempt our
own. The first point is to query whether women's 'eating habits' refers to, say, sitting
down before, with or after the family has eaten. The second is to ponder why it is
relevant to study women’s eating habits as opposed to the men's whose social status is
their own and not reflected status.
Burgess and Dean will make further contributions to the present study. There is
one factor emerging from their book and the work of Grivetti and Pangborn which
relates to terminology. We will explore such a consideration in the next part of the
discussion on 'food choice' and discern that ambiguity is not restricted to the writers
mentioned.
Other Views of Food Habits
If we temporarily ignore the difference between eating habits and food habits we
may progress to consider further views. Brown reviewed the views of foreign students
at Queen Elizabeth College, London. One of them considered that:
"The way people eat in Britain denotes their class or rank.
High class people start the day by taking 'tea in bed'. Then they
have breakfast, then tea and coffee many times before lunch.
Lunch is generally eaten out and consists of three or four items
on a plate. Dinner is generally set with many courses. The less
privileged ... make do with just half a boiled egg, tea or coffee
and one slice of bread in the morning. Dinner could be fish and
chips along the street or just anything". (Brown, 1977: 43).
Another contribution mentioned a view of "the average-income working class
British person of today" who was said "to subsist on a diet containing toast and
marmalade or cornflakes, lunch of sandwiches and dinner of meat, generally in the
form of a stew with mashed potatoes, vegetables and dessert usually covered with a
custard sauce". The view of breakfast was supported by a fellow student whose
comment "(it is) rather repetitious – ie the same food is served every day" leads one to
consider the probably quite different life style of the commentator where he could
afford not only a different content but the time to enjoy it in a different social setting
from most in this country.
15
In concluding her article Brown notes that "our customs and meal patterns were
described, and the importance of meals as family occasions was mentioned, as was
our inhospitability to uninvited guests. It is indeed instructive to see ourselves as
others see us”. (page 44). While hospitability may not appear to offer much scope in
terms of individual food preferences it should be said that the sociology of food
involves the status accorded to certain items. If someone is received into the
household for a short while we do not require the support of academic references to
allege that canned baked beans are unacceptable as the luncheon dish. As will be
explicitly considered under Economic Influences, if fillet steak is the same price as
Irish stew it is not only the utilitarian better value factor which aids our choice, there
are other factors at work.
The purpose of considering food habits is concerned with influencing them in
the best interest of the consumer. A look at terminology is warranted in order to
reduce ambiguity and this is done very soon.
The principal limitation of Grivetti and Pangborn's paper is that it offers less
than its title suggests to the present study. The gastronomic life of Navajo indians has
little relevance to the Western consumer and their research, by its omissions,
highlights the need for a study of this kind. Their discussion does help to eliminate
some approaches (eg environmentalism) and helps to emphasise a broad attack on
such a wide subject.
The point made in discussing functionalism regarding the "resident participant or
observer" and his "ethnocentric biases" probably applies to the present researcher who
has spent a lifetime in the society under observation. It is important to appreciate the
emphasis placed on the finding of other people's research and try to assess the bias or
objectivity of any models and conclusions reached within this study. The report of
Burgess and Dean, by its account of the limitations of an important nutrition
conference, highlights the need for a close appraisal of terminology while Brown
points the need for attention to be paid to cultural perspectives.
Comment
There has been considerable concern for the concept of culture but it should not
be seen as being in conflict with or competitive with environmental factors. It is not
the intention to announce a winner as there is no race. There is no hierarchy involved
and each aspect can throw light on why individuals choose particular foods and one or
two aspects can indicate the extent of such preferences on an empirical basis.
The tendency as the study progresses is to view social considerations as being of
more relevance than cultural and the latter term is subsumed within the former.
Another important consideration is the market place and supply and demand might
pursue a different relationship from the normal. Food manufacturers/distributors seem
to call various tunes and government as well as consumers dance accordingly.
16
SOME FACTORS AFFECTING FOOD CHOICE
Terminology
It will be shown that there is considerable confusion in the use of terminology
within similar debates. The following discussion will distinguish between food habits,
food choice, food preferences, etc., where writers have often used such terms as being
interchangeable.
Food Habits
Perhaps we need to go back to food habits as there still remains some ambiguity.
"British food habits, to a Britisher, are so much part of the cultural heritage that they
are taken for granted". (Brown, 1977: 41). Attention is given elsewhere to "cultural
heritage" and we can confine our attention for the time being to identifying the nature
of a 'food habit'. As has already been identified, Hughes has made an investigation
into food preferences and related issues. She quotes (1976: 52)from the work of two
respected writers .
"Food habits can be defined as culturally standardised sets
of behaviour in regard to food, manifested by individuals who
have been reared within a given cultural tradition. The ways in
which individuals or groups select, consume and utilize their
foods (Stewart & Amerine, 1973)."
Here we begin to see some of the problems as there is no simple explanation for
many of the concepts used in discussing matters gastronomical. We can have a
separate discussion later of 'culture', 'preference', etc. We can, meanwhile, set out
some of the views as previously given and attempt to make some sense of them.
Renner (1944: 126) put it rather simply: "We like what we like, be the taste inherited
or acquired". Another writer has discussed the ways in which habits spread.
"It is, or ought to be, a sociological commonplace that,
under free market conditions, changes in food habits, and
probably many other habits too, spread downwards and
outwards. They spread from the capital to the provinces, and
from town to country. They usually start well up the income
range, moving down the scale as real incomes increase (and
often more rapidly than this). As time passes, they move up the
age scale, younger couples being more adventurous in their diet
while older adults retain the tastes of their youth. (Baines, 1967:
68).
Food Preference and Food Choice
While some writers treat the two terms synonymously, Yudkin and McKenzie
(1964: 135) illustrate the matter as follows: "Food preferences: the particular foods an
individual likes or dislikes. Food choice: the foods selected by an individual at a given
time".
17
It is clear from their later comments that there are other issues involved.
"Food choice is, amongst other things, affected by food
preference, and so by changes and fluctuations in food
preferences. Other factors also play a part. One is ease of
preparation, which may determine whether a young man living
on his own, or an old age pensioner, will eat potatoes or bread.
Availability of fuel may also determine food choice. Another
determinant may perhaps be nutritional value". (op cit: 136)
Others have made statements relating to the present discussion. Hughes (1976: 42)
states that "A food preference is demonstrated when one particular food, or
combination of foods is chosen, rather than another, by an individual or a group; on
one or a number of occasions". This definition is somewhat circular and within the
discussion so far what she sees as a 'preference' may well rank as a food choice since
foods are chosen. I chose the term "dietary preference" and recommended that "...any
discussion upon the dietary preferences of an individual cannot be stated only in terms
of the individual". My treatment of the matter suggests that "individual taste" has to be
explained within the context of the group. (1982: 120,128).
Clusters of Determinants
Turning the attention now to the matter of 'food choice' Larsen asked "...what
determines a peoples' choice of food"?
"First, of course, there are the geographical factors – the
climate, the kind of soil in which certain foodstuffs grow best,
the seasons when they become available to the population.
Regional and cultural traditions come next. The whole social
structure of a people is another factor which not only influences
its food habits but is also influenced by them. The development
of transport and other technical facilities – for instance, fishing
boats or salt-trade routes – affects the choice of food to a great
extent. And there may also be some as yet little explored
hereditary factors,..." (Larsen, 1977: 80).
As can be seen, there is no distinction in Larsen's mind between 'food choice'
and 'food preference'. The quotations serve to show that writers do not aim to
distinguish between the two terms, neither do they extract the various contributory
factors for full and separate discussion.
"In a Symposium in 1966 (Faber, Wilson and Wilson,
1966) Stare discussed the implantation of preferences and
question 'Why do people eat what they eat and when they eat'?
He concluded that food habits are influenced by economic
considerations as well as by other practical matters such as food
processing, transportation and storage facilities. He felt that
many social factors, for example regional mythology, social
imitation and tradition, are culturally rooted and influence the
effect of education. The most important personal factors in his
18
opinion are health, work and play habits and experience”.
(Hughes, 1976: 44).
Hughes does not go on to discuss such matters as "mythology" or "social
imitation" and we will not pursue the former: 'social imitation', however, is worthy of
discussion later. Writers tend to cluster numerous factors and make sweeping
statements whereby unexplained concepts are related to every day words. Each will
have his own view of the most important factors and, we can filter out the various
statements for discussion under separate headings. These headings have a relationship
which can be shown in a model. The next section deals with it.
TOWARDS A MODEL OF FOOD CHOICE
This part of the discussion is the most important and most extensive and the
reader would benefit from a look at the contents page to recap on the topics to be
covered.
The Foundation of the Model
It would be perhaps unwise to continue with sundry quotations without
beginning to lay down some kind of template for the categorization of the terminology
used within them. Figure 2.1 'Influences on The Food Consumed' sets out a possible
framework. We will accept Yudkin and McKenzie's distinction but central to the
debate is the 'food consumed'. Immediately surrounding the 'food consumed' can be
seen 'the consumer', and various related issues set in a framework of social, economic,
psychological and geographical influence.
Figure 2.1 Influences on Food Consumed
19
If we return to the quotation from Yudkin and McKenzie we can immediately
categorize "other factors". Thus "ease of preparation” can be categorized as a
'Technical Influence'. Turning attention to Figure 2.2 "ease of preparation" is
subsumed in the term 'convenience'. Other factors given on page 136 in Yudkin and
McKenzie's treatment of food choice are:
Culture Availability of fuel
Prestige value of the food Nutritional value
Religious injunction Economic availability
Palatability
These and other factors mentioned so far have been entered on Figure 2.2. "It is
suggested that most 'influences' as suggested by writers, can be accommodated within
the framework given. Hughes (page 45) suggests that "... it is essential to appreciate a
collective and integrated view of their effect".
Figure 2.2 Influences on Food Consumed:
The Simple Model: first extension
The configuration of the simple model will become apparent as the discussion
develops. All it sets out to do is to provide a set of pigeon-holes into which factors
influencing the food consumed can be placed. When they contain numerous items we
can then evaluate their relevance and appraise the relationships between them.
20
Hughes does not, however, offer much assistance in this respect. When we have
categorized several more writers' contributions we can consider them alongside one
another and previous contributions. The case for singling out each factor could not be
made more forceably than:
"It is the form in which essential nutrients are ingested
which involves preference. The factors governing food
preferences need to be considered individually and bearing in
mind that all their influences interrelate, it is essential to
appreciate a collective and integrated view of their effect. Social
influences have an effect on which of the available foods are
chosen: physiology and psychology can influence choice and
even the food itself plays a part in affecting preferences. Most of
the factors pre-suppose the existence of other influences: all are
inter-dependent. Inherited features are inter-woven with cultural
influences: the whole mass of experience of a lifetime can
mould a preference which may be local, regional or national,
religious or ethnic:..." (Hughes, 1976: 45).
Developing the Model
It is evident that social factors are important in considering influences on food
preferences, food consumed. Each of the headings will be considered commencing
with the sociological. 'Developing the Model' will occupy a considerable amount of
time but as a task it is long overdue.
Social Influences
Harper was fully aware of the intricacy of food choice. He was aware that social
influences are not easily separated from other factors.
"By social influences we obviously mean the effect of one
person upon another and the results of belonging to different
groups, both regional and national. No matter how independent-
minded we may be we cannot entirely escape these social
pressures. They are inevitably linked with other aspects
including the effects of long-established traditions as well as
economic factors", (Harper, 1966: 27).
The matter of regional and national groups is discussed elsewhere and we have
already accommodated ideas such as "social pressures", "economic factors" and
"long-established traditions”. We will endeavour to extend some of these here and
economic factors are the topic of separate debate later.
If it was a matter of growing the foods which do not suffer too much from the
force of wind and weather and then eating them there would be little need to discuss
social influences. In primitive societies there are "long-established traditions", taboos,
aversions etc., which affect food preferences. Starving Indians regard the cow as being
excluded from the range of food-options available to them. We regard the horse in the
21
same way. In most parts of the world there are anomalies which occur when viewed
by neighbouring communities. Fried caterpillars do not appeal to many of them.
"I think that one could safely say that there is no human society that deals
rationally with food in its environment, that eats according to the availability, edibility
and nutritional value of the possible food materials within its reach. (Bates, 1958:
451). That there is nothing logical to some dimensions of the social influences upon
food preferences is illustrated by 'fashion'. Renner wrote about "Fashion in Food":
"Habits, which may be called fashions, stick far more
persistently in matters of food than in matters of dress. Where
food is concerned, most people behave like old gentlemen with
their fixed ideas of suits and collars. In general, a fashion is
given up by the upper classes as soon as the lower classes get
hold of it. This is not so with food. ... If we consider slimming
as a fashion – though it fits in perfectly with the whole
revolution in living habits – we are also entitled to speak of a
fashion in foods selected from that point of view". (Renner,
1944: 143).
Before going on to discuss slimming, Renner suggests that the upper classes are
consistent and gives the example of white bread which "... was not abandoned by
them when the supply became general". Assuming that the upper classes in more
recent years (than 1944) were the first to return to a preference for brown bread we
can also presume that they have maintained their consistency in that respect. As
Dichter has more recently remarked. "It is interesting that bread... is very definitely
associated with changing taste and with social status. ...To this day white bread is still
consumed by people in the lower and lower-middle social group and minority
groups". (Dichter, 1964: 24).
When a group starts a fashion they may be termed today 'trend setters': when
other groups follow them the more old-fashioned term 'social imitation' applies and it
seems to apply in relation to food. "Spontaneous changes in food habits do occur, and
are often based upon an individual's desire for foods with more social prestige: white
bread instead of tortillas, coffee instead of atole, tea instead of buttermilk". (Burgess
and Dean, 1962:54). This remark seems to apply to a peasant society and, as Dichter
has said, the lower social groups have not followed those higher in the social scale in
respect to a taste for brown bread.
Braudel surveyed European "material life" over the period 1400-1800 and while
not given to revealing many of his sources noted that "...not long ago a medical
historian wrote: When a food that has been rare and long desired finally arrives within
reach of the masses, consumption rises sharply, as if a long-repressed appetite had
exploded. Once popularised the food quickly loses its attraction". (Braudel, 1973:
122).
In general, then, it is reasonable to assume that social imitation is a contributory
factor in determining individual food preferences but it is not one of great
significance.
22
Social or Cultural: Is There A Difference?
There is no simplicity about the words 'social' or 'cultural' and it would be
appropriate to consider social influences as those which have more relevance to up to
date consideration and cultural influences as those with a much longer history. If there
are cultural traditions which dictate that women shall do the cooking and look after
the house, when men recently made redundant take up this role while their wives earn
the family bread the reasons can be said to be social ones. If steaks are the food of
men (by cultural tradition – we would not say social tradition) it will be social
influences which make steaks more acceptable to women.
But distinguishing social from cultural influences does not move us much further
forward in understanding either of them. Perhaps we have made little progress in this
respect since 1950. "What people are willing to eat is determined by a complex
system of attitudes, ideas and as assumptions that form the local cultural patterns.
These include religious beliefs, taboos and ideas pertaining to the merits or demerits
of a food, or other attitudes which are as yet little understood". (Ritchie, 1950: 67).
The question of "local cultural patterns" reminds us to come back to "cultural
heritage" which is probably the sum of varying local cultural patterns. If these
included "religious beliefs" in the past they are part of this cultural heritage but social
factors (ie more up to date considerations) have virtually eliminated religious
influence upon food preferences. Putting fish on the Friday menu, as a rule, went out
in the mid-fifties. The availability of hot cross buns may have a religious tradition but
few would make the food choice saying 'today I will eat a hot cross bun due to my
strong religious convictions'. The religious would probably never eat another one if
they knew that "The custom goes back to pre-Christian times, when pagans offered
their God, Zeus, a cake... with a cross upon it to represent its horns." (Harroven, 1980:
34).
Ritchie mentioned taboo and it may be useful to state briefly a continuum
whereby "Europeans do not eat dogs" appears at one end and 'Britons still avoid
oysters when there is no 'r' in the month' is situated at the other. The item 'x do not eat
horsemeat' may vary according to which side of the Channel one is on.
If horsemeat were to appear on the menu in Great Britain there my be a few,
probably Continentals, who would take it amidst the hue and cry which would be that
more extensive if dog flesh or cat flesh were featured.
Thus the two elements of taboo are evident in the two extremes. The restriction
upon 'dog flesh' is not founded in logic but in culture. The 'r months for oysters' rule
stems from the fact that they may be poisonous except in those months. Society
dictates mores relating to food consumption whereby food preferences become in-
built in relation to certain foods. But as soon as we say 'in-built' we are beginning to
cross over to the psychology of food. Taboo and aversion are closely linked but one is
cultural while the other is part of the language of psychology. The difficulty in a
discussion of this sort is determining factors which affect food preferences: Perhaps
consideration of the 'food way' will help us:
"A food-way is a tradition, be it a taboo, a fad or a fashion.
A food-way is in operation when a decision is made as to
whether a certain substance is a food or not, or whether it is
23
considered a food fit for the elderly, for the sick or for children:
this is the cognitive aspect of how people of a specific
community think and talk about food. Food-ways also include
what clothes are worn for meals, whether conversation is
permitted during a meal and also the individuals with whom one
eats. A community's normal pattern of life includes the food-
ways: for example the use of a knife and fork..." (Hughes, 1976:
53,54).
Thus, food-ways are unwritten social rules which allow certain foods to be eaten
in a specific community and disallow other foods acceptable within alternative
societies. We ought to leave the other dimensions of the food-way with Bates:
"And then there is the endlessly complicated matter of the
etiquette of eating; what is eaten, how it is eaten, when it is
eaten, what clothes are worn for the eating, whether talk is
prohibited or required while eating. When one looks at all the
complications, it is a wonder that man has been able to feed
himself at all;..." (Bates, 1958: 458).
Elsewhere Hughes goes on to discuss "state-ways": "Food habits and choice are
usually established in childhood and attitudes determined at this stage may govern
adult food preferences. State control over school meals therefore has great influence
over food selection and consumption... ." (op cit). With declining governmental
interest in controlling the standard of British school meals this alleged 'great influence'
will be less in future.
Coombes has also reflected upon the role of school meals in the formation of
food preferences:
"Eating a school dinner has, since the last war, established
an entirely different attitude to mealtime and especially to eating
out, for a significant element of the UK population. The original
impetus to school meals was as much a nutritional one as
anything else. But it rapidly became clear to the more discerning
administrators that a major sociological influence could be at
work. Even if this was simply expressed by some educational
and school meal organisers as 'teaching them some good
manners' it was establishing sometimes different standards from
those to which the children had been accustomed at home".
(Coombes, 1967: 75,76).
If the school meal is part of the 'state-way' and was set up through the legal
system then other legal aspects ought to receive attention here. The ways in which
individual food preferences are affected by it involve the availability of certain foods
(eg dog-flesh is available in China, poisonous fish is available in Japan, horseflesh is
only available for animal consumption in the UK). There are legal dimensions relating
to what can be done to food and/or added to it. Without dealing with the detail it
would be sufficient to say that the various laws relating to food and drink have been
derived from representatives of society for its own protection.
24
Mind and Body
Whether any real distinction exists between mind and body when certain facets
are discussed will remain to be seen. Allergies may have a physical outcome but are
not devoid of psychology. However, we cannot indulge in discussion concerning
psycho-somatic food allergies. We are more concerned here with other matters which,
although perhaps as complicated, have more relevance to food preferences.
Economic factors are not expected to be closely related to the body-mind
equation as much as the Maslovian but one helps to introduce a basic distinction.
"According to the psychological theory of consumer behaviour, a consumer purchases
a commodity because he expects it to satisfy one or more of his basic 'needs' or
’drives". (Currie, 1972: 21).
The distinction is made between "'biogenic'" needs (the needs for food, drink,
sleep and alleviation of pain) and those which are "'psychogenic'" (relating to "the
need for affiliation, the need for achievement and the need for power)". The response
to such needs is determined by a "cue" which in the case of a product "may be seeing
an advertisement, seeing the product on display or seeing someone else consume it".
To pursue all of the ideas here may be to pre-empt the debate of economic
influences on food preferences. While the 'need for affiliation' and the 'need for
achievement' have been covered (not necessarily using these terms) under 'social
influences' earlier, this writer is unable to identify 'need for power' influences on food
preferences beyond any social imitation involved in following the preferences of those
who are perceived as having power (Managing Directors eating large steaks?).
However, "biogenic" and "psychogenic" comprise useful terms which, while not
totally interchangeable with 'biological' and 'psychological' do reflect the distinction
drawn between mind and body. Thus, in the discussion of 'biological considerations'
the 'biogenic' dimensions appear when attending to 'hunger'. The 'psychogenic' factors
are subsumed in 'personality'.
Biological Considerations
These include:
Bodily health Hunger (and appetite)
Hereditary factors Food and Sex
But within each of these headings there is much that is psychological, even
socio-cultural. (We said earlier that 'social' refers to the present and 'cultural' refers to
the past. 'Socio-cultural' refers to a mixture where to enter into a distinction between
the two would only elongate the discussion and where precision might be achieved
only at the expense of clarity of the main debate.)
Bodily Health
'Bodily health' is part of "consumer culture" as dealt with by Featherstone:
"The emphasis upon body maintenance and appearance
within consumer culture suggests two basic categories: the inner
and outer body. The inner body refers to the concern with the
health and optimum functioning of the body which demands
25
maintenance and repair in the face of disease, abuse and the
deterioration accompanying the ageing process. The outer body
refers to appearance as well as the movement and control of the
body within social space". (Featherstone, 1982: 18).
The slimmer's prime interest is the outer body, the health food addict's prime
interest seems to be the inner body. The slimmer may well go farther than the halfway
point separating slimmers/health food addicts: the health food addict may prefer to
remain firmly at that end of the continum focusing upon health and freedom from
disease. The slimmer is one who has great interest in the short-term effect of food
while the person who consumes 'health food' may have a mind for a moment well into
the future where 'well' is the key word. Both will have an unusually high awareness of
their food preferences with some rationale as to which and why specific foods do to
and for the body. Whether it is entirely justified to be discussing what the consumer
THINKS about a food under the heading 'biological' could occupy further discussion
but it is reasonably empirical (for the slimmer, anyway, who 'sees' an almost
immediate correlation between type of food eaten and increase/decrease in weight
and/or inches).
Booth, Fuller and Lewis (1981: 305) say that there are "... many different
physiological and cognitive processes ... in the causal nexus behind a person's bodily
weight and shape." and "... the first step in dealing with a weight problem is to
recognise that one has it." (p309). The "consumer culture" will tell you if that is the
case and the current one will say that you have if there is anything surplus to
requirement. If you act in recognition of the problem there may well be "cognitive
dissonance" (Festinger, 1957) between food preference and choice. You knew what
you like but choose according to the diet sheet. If the dissonance is resolved in favour
of 'like' you stay fat.
The way some can eat without any concern for being overweight may be a
combination of metabolic rate, life style and factors defying medical science.
Those who identify a tendency within their family to obesity may use it as a
crutch to take their weight but we have some way to go to prove that side of the
'nature-nurture' equation where nurture = everything which happens since you are
born..
Hereditary Factors
Two dimensions of these are allergies and the tendency identified immediately
above. If it can be shown that the tendency towards being fat or thin is hereditary it
will not be shown here for it says little about food preferences beyond the notion that
the child is sharing those of its fat or thin parents. This is not the same as saying that
being fat 'causes' a preference for fat-inducing foods. Fatness is the result of the
preference for such foods in combination with a lower level of burning up of these
foods through inactivity. Sheldon, Stevens and "Dicker, (1940); and Sheldon and
Stevens, (1942) distinguish between the obese "endomorph" and the scrawny
"ectomorph" and place the more athletic-looking "mesomorph" in between. To
produce such categories is not to explain anything relating to food preferences but it
can help in categorizing people who have a tendency towards eating particular types
26
of food. As their metabolic rates are 'inherited' it follows that there is a certain amount
of destiny in terms of height-weight ratio.
The extent of hereditary food allergies will not be appraised here. Auty (1982:
7ff) looked at "Diet and Hyperactivity" and ranged over hereditary to dietary causes
for childhood behaviour disorders. Wilson et al (1980: 617ff) have seen "... migraine
as a manifestation of allergic disease." "Wine, cheese, chocolate and spirits were the
commonest foods precipating a migraine attack." (p619) These may be in one's
preferences but are unlikely to be in the final choice. The philosophical question
might be framed around the notion that you are the foods you like as opposed to those
you can eat.
Wilson's paper on "Allergic Factors Affecting the Family" (1983: 195ff) is a
serious treatment of interesting ideas but after reading it one may shy away from
holding hands with anyone especially at the table!
Equally absorbing is the well-known "Not all in the Mind” by Robert
MacKarness where certain allegedly hereditary illnesses are treated utilizing different
diets. There are numerous papers and books dealing with allergy and plenty linking
food additives. It is not the intention here to look at too many and the reader has an
appreciation as to what is involved.
Hunger (and Appetite)
Now good digestion wait on appetite
And health on both
Macbeth
In the division made by using the heading 'Body and Mind' there is an implicit
objective of distinguishing between the two components as if they were separate
entities. The whole of the present discussion concerns trying to isolate various factors
in order to determine their bearing on food preferences: it is evidently not easy.
'Hunger' we will take to mean the messages to the brain, hunger pangs, which are
correlational to the quantity of and time food was last consumed. 'Appetite' has
different connotations. "Appetite is a distinctly different sensation from that of
hunger, even though it usually is present when physiological hunger manifests itself.
For instance, a civilized white person might be feeling extremely hungry; yet, if he
were offered the Zula epicure's dish of fried caterpillars, he almost certainly would
find he had no appetite for them". (Selling and Ferraro, 1947: 19). This is the example
of 'starvation in the midst of plenty’ implicitly referred to earlier by Grivetti and
Pangborn (see page 11).
"On the other hand, appetite may be present even when
there is a complete absence of physiological hunger. Thus a man
may have eaten a large eight-course meal and his stomach may
even be uncomfortably distended, yet he may accept a second or
a third helping of biscuit tortoni or strawberry shortcake because
his palate anticipates its consumption wnth pleasure", (ibid)
This is what food-educators are up against and is an important component of the
reasons for obesity in the Western World. Putting it in Maslovian terms it may be that
27
some people are only able to achieve any form of "self actualization" through the
medium of self-indulgence in eating. (Maslow, 1962) But to start on that track is to
pre-empt the section dealing with psychological issues.
While Selling and Ferraro distinguish between hunger ("a physiologically
induced indiscriminate craving for food") and appetite ("sensation, due largely to
mental association, which causes as individual to select the foods that he prefers to
eat") they confuse the distinction by producing a list of "seven probable factors
involved in hunger and appetite".
“ 1. The immediate stimulation of organs of taste, smell, touch
and sight by odors, taste, and appearance of the foods...
Temperature is also a factor, as evidenced by the
popularity of hot food on cold days and vice versa,...
2. Stimulation of the appetite by memory association with
the pleasure previously derived from the eating of certain
foods. ...
3. A special craving for some food may upon occasion be
exhibited by normal persons. The reason may be purely
psychological; for instance a person may hear so much
praise of the gustatory appeal of a certain dish that he
develops an intense yearning to partake of it.
These special cravings, however, undoubtedly are
motivated by a true physiological hunger in many
instances. ...
4. Habit is important for its psychological conditioning
of a person to eat certain foods at certain times, whether
he needs the food at these times or not. ...
5. Good general physical condition of an individual is
accompanied by an adequate appetite...
6. Increased activity or an increase of energy also
stimulates hunger and the appetite. ...
7. Certain environmental conditions also are conducive
to a keen appetite. For instance, a guest who is anxious to
please his host often will be able to develop an appetite
even though, left to himself, he would have no desire for
food." (Selling and Ferraro, 1947: 24,25)
In appraising the 'seven probable factors' we can isolate words under two
headings:
Psychological
odours, taste, appearance
memory association
craving
habit
appetite
desire to please
Biological
organs of taste, smell, touch
(temperature) good condition
increased activity stimulates
hunger...
28
In terms of the Selling and Ferraro discussion of biological factors it is
reasonable to conclude that none of the items listed has much influence on food
preferences. The 'psychological factors' obviously do but factors such as taste,
appearance and habit are socio-culturally determined. Nothing there assists in the
process of determining the extent that any single factor has on food choice.
If we accept that hunger is physiologically induced and after having had a brief
look at the difference between it and appetite it would be as well to leave the latter to
be covered in the section on psychological dimensions of food choice.
"It is hardly extraordinary that there should be parallels between food and sex –
nutrition and reproduction – are two basic needs or drives of all organisms. In the
special case of human behaviour, these biological needs have come under strong
cultural control, and the cultural control has often modified them, restricted them,
twisted them, in comparable ways." (Bates, 1958: 449)
Thus any hopes for a clear-cut distinction between body and mind will not be
easily fulfilled. As a bridge between the two we may find food and sex serves the
purpose. The subject seems to involve 'sexual performance', 'gender differences', and
'food-sex roles'.
Sexual Performance
Aphrodisiacs are discussed quite adequately in, amongst other writings. Brillat
Savarin (1825), Dichter (1964), Pullar (1970), and, of course, Genesis, 30: 14. They
are not the sort of thing to engage in conversation with waiters negotiating your food
order.
One approach to establishing the way food and sex might influence food choice
is to think of it in relations to the health of the individual interested in the optimum
performance of all the bodily components. Perhaps within 'consumer culture' it is
recognised that diet and sex are linked. "Within consumer culture ... sexual experts
proclaim that dietary control and exercise will enhance sexual prowess: exercise and
sex are blurred together through neologisms such as 'exersex' and 'eversex'"
(Featherstone, 1982: 24) (The French are much more romantic with 'le vert galant'
(ever- fresh lover) (Canning, 1973).)
There is further blurring or confusion this time in the mind of the person who
eats too much or is pre-occupied with food. "The appetite for food leads itself to use
as a substitute for other appetites. The gratification of other appetites, sex or love, for
example, requires the willingness and cooperation of someone else ... Thus lack of
gratification ... can lead to a seeking of substitute satisfaction in eating." (Dichter,
1964: 17)
Gender Differences
At times it is appropriate for some to promote the blurring of ideas about food in
order to promote their own food products. Advertisers were among the first to see the
possibilities.
"... there are supposed to be masculine and feminine kinds
of food. Furthermore, visual advertising makes it possible to
29
associate certain kinds of foods with images connoting a
sublimated sexuality. In a certain sense, advertising eroticizes
food and thereby transforms our conscienciousness of it,
bringing into a new sphere of situations by means of a pseudo-
causal relationship". (Barthes, 1979: 171).
Perhaps only a small proportion of food advertising includes this approach
which leaves it to the imagination of the television viewer to see "a blue movie in a
thirty second chocolate spot". (Fernyhough, 1975: 48).
Taking up Barthes' idea of masculine and feminine kinds of food we need to
return to Dichter for the details who described:
“an experiment conducted by a famous surgeon (who)
discovered that food has sex. While adminstering barium (he)
found that when he mentioned the word “salad’ to his female
patients, their esophagi dilated, permitting the passage of the
chalky compound. When the word ‘steak’ was suggested to his
male patients, their esophagi reacted similarly. But when the
words were reversed, the esophagi of both sexes remained
unchanged. (Dichter, 1964: 66, 67).
Several foods received sexual categorisation by Dichter and, with further
interpretation, we can devise a scale:
The food-sex continuum
But we have to be clear as to the meaning of such a scale: in most of the items
mentioned it is because they are eaten but with cake it is not the woman who eats it in
any quantity – it is for the family.
Food-sex Roles
Long before Janet and John were shown as the teaching sex-stereotyped children
males and females have performed different roles around the house (and these are part
of “the reciprocity of specialisation” (Harrison, 1982: 42)). From this is derived the
specific role of the woman at home about whom more can be said in the discussion of
‘the provider of food’. We know that the wife-mother is the main provider of food in
30
the home: when the occasion demands it, however, some men will carve the joint or
grill the (barbecue) steaks. If this stems from the varying social important of food
according to the occasion it has a long history. “Right back to the early Egyptian
period, the great courts of Europe and the Mediterranean employed men as cooks. It
was men who took over the female recipes of daily cooking and transferred them into
the haute cuisine of the court.” (Goody, 1982: 193). (One reason, of course, for men to
undertake cooking on the grand scale is that there were (and are) heavy containers,
humid conditions, etc).
Perhaps the best method to illustrate the way in which the food-sex role affects
food choice is to look at the abnormal situation. When the wife-mother is temporarily
unavailable and excluding neighbourly surrogates it falls upon the husband-father to
harness his limited culinary skills to whatever the family would be prepared to let him
practise on. The corporate food preference of the family will be manifested in the
contents of the food-cupboard, deep-freeze and the choice may incorporate notions
such as simplicity, time available etc. For a not entirely unrelated discussion of “Men
in the Kitchen” see Coxon (1983: 172ff)
'Man is what he eats'
Another bridge between 'mind and body' is to consider the notion that what a
person thinks of himself can be influenced by his perceptions of the food consumed
and its effect upon him. The idea stems from the hunter who hoped to acquire the
courage, ferociousness of his animal prey and was extended in those primitive
societies where cannibalism was practised. As such societies 'developed' it became
unnecessary to consume the person and the blood and heart became the symbolic
feature. Twigg takes such a thought much further with:
"...blood is traditionally seen as the seat of the passions.
The blood of the young and vigorous is conceived to be thick,
hot and red, in comparison to the thin watery blood of old age.
Hot blooded is angry and impulsive: cold blooded is cruel,
lacking in emotions and passions.
These sets of meanings concerning blood generally, contribute to the perception
of the blood in meat. This view is thus associated with ideas of the living force,
carrying aspects of energy and violence, of the arousal and stimulation of the passions
and of the distilation of the particular essence of the animal and thus of animality
itself." (Twigg, 1983: 23)
She continues with views on the encouragement of such ideas by the meat
industry, the nutritional incorrectness, and "feeding the passions." In "The Vegetable
Passion" Barkas (1975: 185ff) discusses the transition from "early cannibalistic
habits” and the book is useful to our main purpose of improving food decisions.
Writing about "the blood soul" Wimberly (1928: 72-82) discussed the practice of
blood-drinking where "it is a means, perhaps, of effecting communion with the dead,
and is in accord,..., with the widespread primitive belief that one may acquire
another's qualities by, for instance, drinking his blood or eating his heart". (page 74).
Frazer, in Volume VIII of The Golden Bough (1890: 148, 150ff) gives a similar
viewpoint and adds (page 156) the notion of swallowing the ashes of the dead.
31
Concerning more recent times Brillat-Savarin (1825, Aphorism IV – page 13 of
Drayton translation) offered the challenge "Tell me what you eat: I will tell you what
you are...". (Hampson, (1944: 8) suggests that this phrase "is a dictum which would
flatter few of us as individuals. Our climate has provided us with excellent appetites,
our great plenty has made us extravagant; our fine quality has made us careless".
A similar theme was pursued by Feuerbach (1850) using the words "der mensch
ist was er isst" which was, even then, a well established (in Germany) popularly
philosophical play on words. The essence of 'man is what he eats', to Feuerbach, is
"Being is the same as eating. Being means eating. What ever is eats and is eaten (the
pun on ist and isst). Eating is the subjective, active form of Being, being eaten is
objective, passive form; but the two are inseparable".
Feuerbach was not only talking about food and self in terms of the pyschological
response to the ingestion of food. He was following the social control theme.
"Food becomes blood; blood becomes heart and brain,
food for thoughts and feelings. Human food is the foundation of
human development and feeling. If you want to improve the
people, give them better food instead of declamation against sin.
Man is what he eats. A man who enjoys only a vegetable diet is
only a vegetating being, is incapable of action..." (Feuerbach,
(op cit) reprinted in Grun, 1874: 90).
The context of this extract is the political subjugation of the population and he
proposes that although they are expected to maintain what we would call today 'good
productivity rates' in the work situation the contemporary political milieu "condemns
countless people" (ibid, p89) to a subsistence diet where such objectives become
unreal and nothing will be achieved by "spiritual nutrition"!
While the phrase may have some bearing upon individual food preferences we
should not run away with the idea that it is a crucial factor. Cherno (1963, page 402)
dismisses it with "'Man is what he eats', after all, is a pun in an essay filled with
unsubtle invective and burdened with odd references to, for example, 'material and
spiritual nutrition'" as we have seen, "the author... is trying to get us to assent to the
absurdity of the status quo" (loc cit) which we have touched upon in terms of social
control. Thus, if the phrase appears in the final model it will be put in parentheses.
There does not appear to be a strong following for the idea today but Dichter is
obviously hanging on to it and has suggested that "if you like rare steak, the reason
could very well be that it is the strength of the bull that you are trying to incorporate".
He goes on to show that there are different responses from different sources over the
same food where lamb will bestow "'sheeplike' qualities" on the consumer in the
United States but in Australia that it is "manly and virile" (Dichter, 1964: 8).
"Human beings have an appetite for the foods that symbolize the type of person
they want to be " (and vice versa) (pp 16, 17). One of the examples given relates to the
"nouveaux riches" who "have acquired appetites for 'new foods' which symbolise the
new picture of themselves which they wish to show their world" (p 17) (where they
eat "caviar, pâté de foie gras, French onion soup etc" and "lose their appetite for low
status foods, such as pea soup, peanut butter and fried cod fish)". Within the debate
here we have to distinguish between 'man is what he eats' and 'man eats what he is'. In
32
one case the food gives strength where the implication is that the food is selected for a
specific purpose and in the other the low status foods are chosen in confirmation of
the person's low status before the means were acquired to move up in the social scale.
If such a person is of low status perhaps there is compensation in terms of 'personality'
which will be discussed in the section on psychological dimensions of food
preferences.
But to have such a section is not to separate the mind-body aspects and de la
Mere is quite clear as to the distinction:
It's a very odd thing,
As odd as can be,
That whatever Miss T eats
Turns into Miss T
Porridge and apples,
Mince, muffins and mutton,
Jam, junket, jumbles -
Not a rap, not a button
It matters; the moment
They're out of her plate,
Though shared by Miss Butcher
And sour Mr Bate,
Tiny and cheerful,
And neat as can be.
Whatever Miss T eats
Turns into Miss T
Had she been aware of the BBC TV series "You are What You Eat” with
accompanying same name booklet (1986) Miss T would have been none the wiser in
the philosophical sense as it was "A practical guide to healthy eating." vive such
programmes. There will certainly be dry philosophy if we are to be what some have
warned we may have to eat in the future. Miller and Marsh suggest it will be "A pill a
minute throughout the twenty four hours." (1966, 15)
We soon got on to the passions in this discussion and it might be best to be less
carnivorous. It is Bunthorne in the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta 'Patience' who sings:
Then a sentimental passion of a vegetable fashion
must excite your languid spleen
An attachment à la Plato for a bashful young potato,
or a not-too-French French bean...
And everyone will say
As you walk your flowery way
"If he's content with a vegetable love
which would certainly not suit me
Why, what a most particularly pure young man
this pure young man must be! "
Psychological Influences
We may have spoken of 'bridges between body and mind’ as a way of gradually
moving from the biological to the psychological influences affecting food preferences
but not necessarily with real hopes of finding firm ground as we travel. Now that we
have arrived at this heading it does not imply that we can leave 'the body' behind and
focus exclusively upon the psychology of food. If 'man is what he eats' it is because he
thinks he is what he eats (if he thinks about it at all). If there were conclusive reasons
for the postulate it would be best discussed in this part of the debate. We were,
33
however, able to explore some of the tenuous links between body and mind in this
respect by way, almost, of an intermezzo.
The 'psychology of food' would necessitate an extremely long treatment and it
will be difficult enough to minimise the topic in relation to food preferences. The
present discussion will involve some concepts mentioned previously as well as
striking new ground, perhaps with plenty of acreage. Without extending too much the
caveats upon the complications and conflations of disciplines it will be shown that
personality, at least in relation to food preferences, has to be interpreted in the social
context. There are social connotations to appetite and these will be explored. Earlier,
we dealt with 'biogenic' dimensions and its partner 'psychogenic' can now be attended
to. There are various new items brought in but we need to conclude debate on the
previously discussed 'appetite'.
Appetite
"...we ate when we were not hungry, and drank without the provocation of
thirst." So said Jonathan Swift (A Voyage to the Houyhnhnms) and many since have
eaten sans appetite and many more have drunk beyond what they both needed and
would have liked to. When hunger has been satisfied and thirst slaked what induces us
to take in more?
There have been numerous dimensions of the 'biological' consideration which
have been dependent upon the use of terms found within psychology or which have
used some of its arguments. Many of them might be taken up again for further
discussion at this stage but limitations must be placed on this approach. The one
immediate exception is appetite and terms such as "mental association", "stimulation",
"craving" and "habit" have been associated with the task of attending to any
distinction between hunger and appetite and it would be as well to conclude that
debate before proceeding to other psychological influences.
"Hunger is the sensation of emptiness resulting from
abstinence from food. Appetite has two inter-related parts: the
desire for food (and often a specific kind of food), and the sheer
pleasure of the process of eating itself. Hunger is inborn,
appetite is not; it is what the psychologists term a 'conditioned
response', something that is learned." Breckon, 1977: 31).
And it is learned on the lap, at the table and in numerous social situations as we
grow up. Dichter (1954: 14) remarks that: "Appetite flourishes in an atmosphere of
love, warmth, trust and security. Most of us (however) have at least some painful,
even if 'forgotten' childhood memories of being forced to eat foods we did not like or
did not want at the moment". So not only is the appetite habit learned but also 'anti-
appetite' in relation to aversion situations.
Nicholson (1977: 35) has pointed out that "You eat because it is one o’clock,
regardless of whether or not you actually feel hungry)". If appetite is a 'state of mind'
it has to be switched on according to the social timetable! More particularly, we eat to
avoid hunger by having our meals at set times. Clearly, few organizations like schools
and factories can run on the basis of eat when you like and if you are not hungry at the
first sitting you may cope on the basis of appetite.
34
From Dichter's narrative on his pages 17 and 18 we can both summarise and
synthesize by way of a provisional model. This is Figure 2.4 Appetite (a model based
on Dichter).
When we review what was said under the previous heading "Hunger (and
Appetite)" and what was said in the general introduction to "Psychological Influences"
there are other factors which can be built into the model. This is Figure 2.5 Appetite –
an extended model.
Figure 2.4 Appetite (a model based on Dichter)
Figure 2.5 Appetite – and extended model
35
If the psychology of hunger reduces to the stimulus-response sequence derived
from 'hunger-pangs – eat food – no hunger-pangs,’ it will be seen that the psychology
of appetite merges with the sociology of food. 'Hunger' will appear on the much larger
general model under the heading 'biological' but 'appetite' will appear in
'psychological' and 'social' areas. In that respect they are a matter of degree:
presumably being in a state of extreme hunger would lead a person to eat anything,
even fried caterpillars. With degrees of freedom appetite will enable a person to
distinguish the food he would most prefer to eat at a particular moment and from a
specific range of alternatives. The coincidence between his range of food preferences
and the range of alternatives available will affect his opinion of the quantity of the
choice. If the menu offers a, b, d, e, f but he only likes a and d he will consider it a
poor choice. His appetite today dictates d will be selected while on another occasion
he may choose p from the range a, d and p. Such ceteris parabus considerations are
justified and other conditions might include health, weather, cash in pocket, cash at
bank, time available, company, output this morning, the long agenda this afternoon,
civility of service staff etc, ad nauseum!
Those who would claim that appetite is a psychological consideration only
should now see that it is also socially determined. The implications of this for any
study of food preferences and choice, particularly if there is a need or desire to change
them, is that the totality of the situation must be appraised and those items which are
required to be included in food choice need to be made more appetising. While this
may be acceptable with the ideal of the optimum health of the consumer inevitably
there will be those who will exploit such psychological factors to the benefit of profit
levels on specific dishes.
The preface to this book mentioned the journal Appetite "involving rats and
nasty experiments" which might get its readers and writers to salivate. It is worthwhile
to give an outline of the type of article of use to this book and those who read it. We
shall keep clear of descriptions of animals connected to the water system.
Weingarten (1985: 387) investigated "... a Two-factor Theory of Hunger" and
opened with "In many animals including man, feeding is periodic and organized as
discrete meals. ...meal initiation and termination reflect the motivational states of
'hunger' and 'satiety'..." His "... central thesis presented is that learning and external
stimuli play a role in the determination of meal initiation and meal size, a view that
contrasts with the more widely held and thoroughly researched idea that meals are
controlled by internal stimuli associated with states of energy depletion." While he is
virtually bound to bring in Pavlov he rightly (in a journal of the type it is) leaves out
some of the factors included in this book like the influence of government and
commercialism. Weingarten is well worth reading.
Another such paper is by Bobroff and Kissileff (1986: 85-96). They looked at
palatability and perceptions of nutrient content amongst other things. The June and
December 1984 issues of Appetite are particularly useful to the serious investigator of
food choice and he has to look at the whole range of publications in the field to satisfy
his own appetite (or is it hunger?).
With a title like his "You are what you eat" it is useful to put Breckon's (1977: 8)
view that "... no matter what exotic foods we ingest they are quickly broken down into
the same chemical nutrients. But major differences in dietary habits in general can
36
have a considerable effect on life styles. (And vice-versa, for what we are, as far as
ethnic group and social status is concerned, largely influences what we eat.)" That
feeds back somewhat to the 'Man is what he eats' section. If Breckon can assert that
"You are what you eat" in his title and settle on social reasons for food choice then I
can reassert that you are. I pose the question "Are you really what you eat?" in the
hope you will attempt to find the answer. If you have come this far the indication is
that that hope may be fulfilled.
Personality
Although the concept of personality is fraught with problems of definition by
psychologists (Hilgard and Atkinson, 1967: 462 ff) we will interpret it as "... the sum
of a person's enduring characteristics" (Cashdan, 1976: 10). It ought to feature early in
the psychological considerations even if only to help eliminate ambiguity from later
discussion and help round off any previous remarks. Thus, we need to return to
Currie's "psychogenic" dimension concerning the 'need for affiliation, the need for
achievement and the need for power' (see the introduction to 'Mind and Body' – we
discussed the 'power' aspect then). The needs for affiliation, achievement and power
(as well as numerous other needs) were identified by Murray (1938). We have decided
earlier not to pursue "power" (need for dominance – "n Dom" in Murrays's
terminology) and perhaps one of the other two needs can be quickly judged in
considering his "n Ach". From a range of needs for achievement we can only select "n
Ach (Caste)", "the desire for social prestige" as having any bearing upon food
preferences. If we link this idea with Veblen's (1899) "conspicuous consumption" we
can imagine Dichter's nouveaux riches almost standing up and pointing to themselves
when eating "caviar (and) pâté de foie gras". (Veblen's concept has been the topic of
many books and for a more up to date account Mason (1981) is thoroughly
recommended.)
In this interpretation of "the need for achievement" and its effect it can be
concluded that it is not a major determinant of food preference. Any further support,
perhaps for food choice, could only draw upon the hypothetical 'when he is in a cafe
on his own he would choose x but if eating with others he could well choose y'. The
debate upon the "need for affiliation" follows a similar pattern and will not be
attempted here. The discussion of personality will continue, however, and if nothing
else, the immediately foregoing coverage has again highlighted the social
considerations. A further contribution in this respect has been made by Burgess and
Dean.
Burgess and Dean
Burgess and Dean (1959: 80-84) have noted that "Attempts have been made to
relate opinions to personality traits. An analogous study of food habits... might
produce a number of new criteria, useful in clarifying the relationship between a
person and the food he eats". However, they do not elaborate. Perhaps the limited
potential of this sort of approach has been exposed in discussing 'man is what he eats'.
While their debate is headed "Personality and Food Habits" it is noticeable that there
37
is little on 'personality' and much which relates to the social situation around the
person. Their sub-headings are:
The Taste of Food
The Image of Food
The Cosmic
Ideology
and Food
Ethical Concepts and Food
Cultural and Personal Variations
The Taste of Food
"A person eats a certain food because he likes the taste." If it could be shown
that specific personality-types eat specific foods there would be some point to the
main heading "Personality and food" but the editors move on with "The limited
facilities for cooking or serving food in many communities have a strong influence on
the kinds of food people learn to like". (page 81).
The Image of Food
"A food may be thought of as 'heavy' or 'light', or 'hot' or 'cold'. The 'goodness' or
'badness' of a food in our cultures may be its 'healthiness' or 'unhealthiness',... ."
Again, in order to justify their main heading there ought to be some mention of
different cognitions of food and preferences in terms of different personality types.
Thus 'stable introverts' might see stews as 'heavy, hot and good' and until there is
evidence that such a personality-type prefers specific foods in this way we ought to
continue with the postulate that food preferences are largely socio-culturally
determined. On page 82 we note that there are differences in terms of "... week day,
Sunday or holiday foods, foods for the healthy or sick person...". It is said that "All
these characteristics of foods are taken into account by the person in a certain situation
in life."
This actually helps the opposition in the motion that food choices are
personality-determined for the actor locating his likes and dislikes in relation to
himself. The next heading is even more helpful to those arguing against individual
food preferences.
The Cosmic Ideology and Food
"Overshadowing food images, some form of cosmic ideology shapes popular
food theories and food practices" (page 82). Hippocrates is used as the originator of
the general view of other philosophers that "malnutrition in man is exactly the same as
disorder in the world" and that this approach has somehow helped derive the food
classifications in use today. These, of course, are not taken to be 'protein', 'vitamins'
etc, but "good-to-eat, taboo, and Levi-Strauss' the raw, cooked and the rotten." If these
are the over-arching concepts influencing food-choices on a cultural basis, so much
for individual likes and dislikes. (For a more detailed look at Levi-Straus and the way
I see his work relating to cooking see my 1983b paper. Its relevance to this section
concerns nomenclature of dishes.)
The case against individual food preferences might end there but Burgess and
Dean relate that there is another area beyond the cosmic ideology.
38
Ethical Concepts and Food
"The ideas that a person or group has about the whole environment are important
as far as food habits are concerned because the cosmic ideology extends also to the
ethical field...Preoccupation with food may be regarded as serious or futile, natural or
unnatural... good or bad by the individual or the group". The individual, of course,
derives most of his ethical feelings in these respects from the group. "For instance,
greediness or frugality are socially defined traits of personality in our society and in
others", (page 83). When you need help to move from the table to the arm chair for
the Queen's Speech after Christmas lunch you are less aware of ethical feelings than
what Ken Dodd has been heard to call "plumptiousness". That will earn more laughter
than 'greediness' and Green sees it as a human failing. "We are all born to be greedy
about food and most of us die in the same condition. Gluttony is almost the only vice
that all sexes and all ages can indulge in at all times. It is the first and last vice they
experience in life. It will not be given up, however much they may be lectured at by
commissars and economists." (Green, 1975: 17) (Or health educationalists for that
matter – a point to which we will need to return in Chapter 4.)
While society defines "greediness or frugality" the idea of personality stems
from the characteristics of the individual. If it has defined 'frugal' a person with such a
tendency is said to have a miserly personality. If a person has a 'pre-occupation with
food' 'Bunter' may appear in his description. Beyond assumptions that fat people will
be drawn to confectionery there seems to be some mileage in the notion that
'personality' per se has a strong influence upon food preferences. A topic for research.
Father to the man
The childhood shows the man
As morning shows the day
Paradise Regained
"In an evaluation of the psychological principles generally
applicable to the process of eating, two main aspects of the
individual's personality must be studied: first – how and why he
reacts to any given situation, what his basic mental endowment
is, and whence spring the roots of this thinking; second, how his
environment (physical, economic, and social) affects him. An
individual acquires his attitudes toward food from his basic
bodily structures, from his childhood experiences and from his
environment and associates". (Selling and Ferraro, 1947: 17).
Thus the "bodily structure" reminds us of the biological (hereditary) factors discussed
earlier and mention can be made here of hereditary food allergies. There is no
evidence to suggest that any significant proportion of the population is thus afflicted
and there will be no inclusion in the later model of food preferences. "Bodily
structure” has also been discussed in terms of Sheldon et al and "basic mental
endowment" is included in a moment in terms of the nature-nurture controversy. The
'social environment' has had a good airing which leave us "childhood experiences".
39
Coombes considered "The Psychology Behind Menus" where "...in all
psychology it is a basic tenet that the child is father to the man. Food habits and
choice are usually established in childhood and attitudes to and influences determined
at this stage may govern for the rest of one's life." (Coombes, 1967: 759)
The brief consideration of hereditary food allergies does not altogether allow the
child as a dietary tabula rasa: the social issues stand out in Coombes' view as well as
that articulated by Selling and Ferraro. The long standing debate within psychology of
whether heredity or environment (nature v nurture) is more important in determining
intelligence carries over to personality. This has implications for food preferences but
only at the margins. If food habits are established within childhood then they are
established as the personality develops and the considerations relating to food
preferences are akin to determining why the adult likes colourful clothes or why he
has a particular taste in music. To adopt this approach is not to dismiss Coombes'
"basic tenet of psychology" but to ensure that it is not divorced from social and other
factors or treated as a separate entity.
Economic Influences
"The rich man consumes no more food than his poor
neighbour. In quality it may be very different, and to select and
prepare it may require more labour and art; but in quantity it is
very nearly the same. But compare the spacious palace and great
wardrobe of the one with the hovel and the few rags of the other,
and you will be sensible that the difference between their
clothing, lodging, and household furniture, is almost as great in
quantity as it is in quality". (Adam Smith, 1776: 69).
While Adam Smith wrote these words in 1776 and relevant to the "Rent of Land" they
serve to illustrate the point. That which applies to "spacious palaces" and "hovels"
also applies to the food served within them. The difference in quantity, however, if we
believe Adam Smith, is negligible. The basic fact that, however rich one is, one can
only eat a certain quantity of food each day, was clearly appreciated in 1776 and has
been developed since. One well known development was initiated by Ernst Engel and
was based on the idea that the poorer a family the greated proportion of its income is
spent on its food. "It has been verified many times since it was first formulated in
1857”. (Currie, 1972: 25)
Some economic dimensions have already been attended to and newly acquired
wealth may lead some to eat more exotic foods to gain social prestige. It does not
occur to them before their resources were increased that there is a vast range of
appetising, health promoting foods which are not over-demanding of a restricted
purse. When the purse strings are tightened food is the first to receive attention in the
general format of shifts from butter-class commodities to margarine. Some foods will
remain on the shopping list when things get really desperate and bread is the obvious
item. Perhaps less obvious is tea which affords virtually no nutrients beyond those in
the milk which is taken with it. Rayner, et al (1972: 79) working on the basis that ”...
we might expect social class to be an important determinant for tea..." found (by
analysing survey results) that "... the demand for tea by the average household is
40
completely unresponsive to the changes in the level of household income." Alcoholic
drink, in low-income households, has assumed more importance than nutritious foods
and is the continual concern of health educationalists and social workers. (More about
that in Chapter 3.)
We have looked at social and psychological factors which support the notion that
the individual at the early part of life will accept the family food preferences. These
have been influenced by the previous generations of family preferences and are a
compromise between:
the
the
the
Husband’s preferences
wife’s preferences
children’s developing preferences influenced by:
food eaten at home
food eaten at school
food eaten with friends etc
These factors influencing corporate food preferences are mainly social but there
are economically based supplementary factors which will have an effect. If an
advertisement suggests that the Joneses are way ahead (social influence) it may supply
an inducement (price reduction) in order to keep up with them. Another advertisement
may launch a new product on the basis of its convenience (more time to be with the
family) and less time (and fuel) in the kitchen.
The economics of individual food preferences is closely linked with supply and
demand factors and the economics of individual food choice is the decision made at
the point of sale or point of supply. The foundation of the economist's traditional
utility theory is that the consumer will choose the combination of goods providing
highest utility.
Probably the main reason for not pursuing a detailed economic analysis in
relation to choice is that utility is difficult to assess in terms of the consumer faced
with a choice of four dishes on the table d'hôte menu (same price). He may judge that
beef is dearer than chicken but it is braised while the roast chicken is his preferred
cooking method. Thus the economic utility has to be traded for taste utility. If there is
a social utility it may relate to previously mentioned items such as caviar.
The consumer looking at the individually priced dishes is probably making
decisions of utility in the context of cash in hand but, as has already been identified,
there are numerous other factors to assess at the same time. Neither the consumer with
the table d'hôte menu or the consumer faced with individually priced alternatives (on
the à la carte menu or at the cafeteria counter) has the extent or difficulty of decision
which the housewife has to make.
The housewife is making economic decisions (while shopping) for herself and
on behalf of the rest of her family in terms of meals to be consumed in the future.
(These 'decisions' will be the topic of further debate under the heading 'the provider').
The concept of utility is probably paramount to the average housewife where, with
perhaps a limited outlook on nutritional utility, a reasonable knowledge of satiety-
values (stomach-filling quality of foods) and probably comprehensive knowledge of
what they will eat, she is trying to fulfil several objectives. Some of these objectives
may actually clash as in the case of the general liking of certain foods which even she
41
knows they should not eat. Perhaps, too, the housekeeping money has to cover clothes
as well as food in which case differing 'care' objectives may compete with each other
from time to time in the context of cash availability.
The family will accept a range of constraints of which one is financial resources.
These in turn affect the type of foods accepted into the corporate food preferences.
The individual has grown up in the situation and towards adulthood has settled upon a
personal set of food preferences. When he is in a position to exercise freedom of
choice in the restaurant economic factors play an important but not crucial part in the
decision. When she is in a position to decide upon meals for firstly a husband and later
a family economic factors help determine what will become the corporate food
preferences of the family as a unit. "Within the universe of foods available to them,
people can only choose what they can afford – or what they could afford if they
changed the distribution of their income." (Lennon and Fieldhouse, 1982: 60)
Geographical Influences
Perhaps the reason for considering geographical influences last is that it gives
the reader 'space’ to ponder upon conjunctions of the headings used so far.
Thus we might have considered socio-economic, socio-psychological and why
not psycho-economic influences? For that matter what about socio-geographical? The
main reason for refusing these morsels of bait is that this exercise is concerned with
treating factors in isolation as opposed to following the approach of numerous writers
or producing grandiose statements 'identifying' a string of factors.
"Regional Food Preferences" appraised many such contributions where "The
most commonly mentioned factors thought to influence food preference tends to be
culture, religion, geography and climate" (Hughes, 1976: 42). We have considered
culture, more or less dismissed religion and climate is subsumed in geography which
is the topic of the present debate.
Allen suggests that "... regional differences have been played down just because
they make little sense when seen in isolation. To be properly evaluated they need to be
viewed en masse. (Allen, 1968: 3). This is precisely what Hughes did; "A regional
food preference is demonstrated when a particular food or combination of foods is
chosen, rather than another, by the majority of a regional community over an
appreciable length of time". (page 66). Several pages further on, she remarks
"Regional predilections can often be traced back to sound economic reason which
prevailed years ago, which have by now disappeared. However, response
reinforcement and the need for affiliation explain why such habits persist." (page 73).
It will be noted, then, that we have accommodated "economic reason", "response
reinforcement" and "need for affiliation" under their appropriate headings in previous
discussion, (cf Murray, earlier on page 34)
If we go back to the relevant places and add Hughes' comment it reduces the
impact of the general argument that a specific factor cannot be totally isolated from all
others and its effect evaluated as an entity. However, by using the headings which we
have adopted one can at least appraise the links between the concepts. (That is the
purpose of the Final Model.) If the geography of the situation encourages the growth
of a particular commodity and there are no taboos, religious or other cultural
restraints, it will be adopted and certain psychological factors will play their part. If
42
the geography of the situation held back dietary innovation due to transport problems
the range of foods in the local diet may have remained fairly constant. Such factors as
these require to be reappraised in terms of society today. This will be done after
looking at the geography of food habits.
Selling and Ferraro go as far as saying that geographical considerations
predominate:
"Many conditions determine the nature of the food habits
of adults. The most important is probably the geographical
nature of the place in which they have been reared. Not only in
each country in the world but often also in each province, state,
or other subdivision, there are differences in the choices of food
and in the way that the food is prepared. These differences may
eventually be ironed out globally, as they have been in the
United States, to a large extent, by an improvement in
transportation and in methods of preserving the foods to be
transferred". (Selling and Ferraro, 1947: 35, 36).
On page 39 these authors comment that "The dietary habits of national origin are
to some extent predicated upon geographical and transportation considerations, but are
responsive also to traditional influences". But, before transport became widely
available the national and traditional influences were so intertwined that they would
be virtually indistinguishable. One has formed the other. As Green has remarked:
"Food customs do, of course, reflect geography even today. What men eat is
determined by what they grow and what they grow is controlled by where they live".
(Green, 1975: 14).
But transport together with deep-freeze and other advanced forms of food
preservation are widely available now and it is not as if these advances had been made
yesterday. However, it seems that it will be some time before regional differences are
eliminated. Thus, since the 1850s, Scotch salmon has been widely available in the
south of England. Supply (quantity, not transport) factors relating to this commodity
are one consideration mitigating against its wide availability in the south of France.
But because 'saumon d'Ecosse' has not been included in the range of foodstuffs
available in southern France it would perhaps require extensive marketing before it
became widely accepted in the face of competition with local salmon. Snails,
however, seem to be in abundant supply but are not part of the culturally acceptable
foods within the average British home.
It is factors such as these which make it difficult to filter out the effects of a
particular dimension of influence on food preferences and food choice. If geography
determined food customs before the availability of transport it would be reasonable to
think that its availability has eliminated geographical considerations. That it is a slow
process is illustrated by Baines: "Regional differences in food consumption are based
partly on socio-economic determinants which gradually change in a way which can be
measured and to some extent foreseen, and partly on traditional habits which are being
modified much more slowly by the change of generation and by movements of
population". (Baines, 1967: 67).
43
If Baines knew how to measure and foresee changes in "socio-economic
determinants" he does not elaborate. The slower modification "by change of
generation" is a social consideration and "in the movements of population" there does
not seem to be much effect in terms of, say extensive demand for Scottish bridies in
Cornwall. Even if a local commodity is nominally available elsewhere it will be
adapted to the local situation. For example, many of the Cornish pasties available in
Scotland bear little resemblance and content in relation to the 'genuine article'. We
have heard earlier that what we eat comprises chemicals and other constituents and
these do not vary that much from country to country. People in France, Italy, Germany
and the UK eat many of the same foodstuffs. Can it be that the way they code them
produces different national characteristics? Does the same apply to regional
differences in a country. Surely Yorkshire pud eaten in the specific way it 'should'
doesn't engender differences between its local yokels and those on the Isle of Wight.
"A Frenchman won't eat dog, as the Polynesians do, but
seems happy enough with horse. We may shudder as he dangles
a snail on his forchette but wonder why our Jewish orthodox
cousins abhor the flesh of the pig.
And what is intrinsically the matter with deep-fried
termite, roast grasshopper in soy sauce or canned wasp maggot,
those sought-after Eastern delicacies?" (Breckon, 1977: 44)
There will be less the matter with them as international travel increases and there
is a corresponding decrease in fish and chip shops on the Costa Lota Lira. That is a
matter of demand which could have been brought in under 'economic influences' but
nearer to home and wider than chip shops are the considerations of supply and the
creation of demand to increase profits. It is easier to look at the problems on the basis
of commercialism rather than complicated economic analysis.
Technical and Commercial Influences
In considering what can be done to food one would need to consult the various
Acts of Parliament, and Codes of Practice relating to food manufacturing and
transportation. The history of food manufacturing would be a good source of material
also but we are not so much concerned as to what has gone before but what influences
technology has today on individual food preferences. These still require to be assessed
through the family and food approach although much of what is available is very
suitable for solo food preparation. The advent of microwave cookers heralded scope
for increased variety at home whereby the individual member of the family might
choose his own menu. For the housewife it represents a change in role which might be
more fully explored under the heading of 'The Provider'.
With regard for the present we can conclude that one outcome of recent
technology has been the growth in the use of convenience food.
"Surveys of household food consumption have regularly
been carried out by the Government since the early years of the
Second World War, and have shown that since 1955, the first
full year after the end of rationing, there has been little change
of nutritional significance in the average household diet. Despite
44
this, however, there have been other marked changes. For
example, the striking increase in consumption of so-called
'convenience' foods, in which the manufacture has relieved the
housewife of much of the labour of preparation, is what one
would expect with an increasing proportion of married women
working outside the home". (Greaves, 1966: 66).
Newby and Utting put the increase in convenience food consumption at a high
level "The food processing industry has promoted, and prospered on the demand for,
'convenience' food – especially frozen food which increased by 250 per cent between
1968 and 1975. (Newby and Utting, 1980: 15). Although modern legislation demands
that packaged foods (counting as convenience foods within our discussion here) carry
details of the foods contained within the packages, the consumer is less concerned
about any nutritional benefits.
"The food industry has responded to demand for luxury foods, novelty foods,
special children's foods, cheap massed-produced foods, long-lasting foods, and foods
which are convenient and quick to prepare." (Slattery, 1986: 6) It is not just a matter
of responding to demand. We have mentioned the market forces at work on the
consumer – Heinrichs has summarised the position: "Through the establishment of
brand names and intensive marketing campaigns a demand is created for standardised
items irrespective of the nutritious value.
Baby food, canned or frozen meat, fish and fruits, ice cream, soft drinks and beer
are examples". (Heinrichs, 1978: 393). Heller has clearly pointed out that the
convenience consideration has spread to industry. "Today automatic vending grosses
some £450 million annually, and about 3,000 million cupped beverages each year are
sold from drinks machines alone;...". (Heller, 1981: 18). Perhaps we ought to add to
the views passed by foreign students on British food habits whereby the endless cups
of tea and coffee are often consumed from plastic cups. Numerous trade publications
with names like 'Fast Food' extol the virtues of convenience foods and their use in all
aspects of public food. The economics of the situation, however, is far more likely to
dictate their use. Thus the element of choice for the individual may ostensibly be
enhanced; today, steamed apricot sponge, tomorrow, lemon pancakes but they all
come from the same bulk package. Today, minestrone soup, tomorrow some other
appetising alternative where the consumer is almost conditioned into believing that
'appetising' equates with the 'standard' flavour provided by such ingredients as
monogludium sotomate.
The main effect of technological innovation is that it is harnessed to economic
forces to change individual food preferences. Probably each decade and more
probably as each generation comes into being, the threshold of change starts from a
different level. "Fish on Friday" went out in the fifties and frozen foods became
generally available. Regarded by many as innovation then, today they are part of the
repertoire of foods available. Little more than a hundred years ago the can was
completely new to the purchasing public. Only a few years ago we were led to believe
that "A million housewives every day pick up a tin ..." and the success of the food
manufacturers is dependent upon the continued use and further demand for such
commodities.
45
'Convenience', then, will receive due prominence in the final model of influences
upon individual food preferences. It is a 'technical' influence and it is part of the
economic utility consideration.
The Provider
To enter into all the alternative forms of 'the provider' would be to commence an
extremely lengthy debate of the various professionals involved in producing public
food and numerous surrogates for the wife/mother whose role includes the provision
of private food for the family. We will not carry out an analysis of the conjunction
'provider-consumer' in the form of those who cook for themselves. Far better to keep
the 'normal' provider firmly in mind as she is found in almost all domestic situations
providing most, if not all, of the meals. In anticipation of future meals she will shop
(or delegate provision-acquisition per specified list to others in the family). She may
have a hand in, or say in, the running of any kitchen garden, the contents of which are
based upon the corporate food preferences of the family. These 'future meals' are
virtually over the horizon: also, there are others concerned with this activity. In that
respect it warrants little concern in terms of the provider.
This concern has been partially covered elsewhere when social, psychological
and economic influences received attention. It will round off some of the
considerations which were not actually centred upon the provider. Economy and
convenience were considered more recently under 'technical influences: there are
other ways of looking at the relationship – through the eyes of the provider.
"Food and food habits begin with shopping. It makes a vast difference to the
housewife whether she has simply to walk downstairs to get all she wants for cooking
or preparing meals, or whether there is a five, ten or twenty minutes' walk to the
shopping centre. ... To counteract the long distances between seller and buyer of
foodstuffs, the habit of house to house deliveries has developed in the British Isles".
(Renner, 1944: 221).
Now that house to house deliveries are accepted as everyday fact and automatic
reordering of food supplies foreshadowed in computer magazines, we can note that
not only can the housewife just wait for the doorbell to ring for her food to arrive but
she can take delivery of the whole gamut of food paraphernalia by mail order. This
extends from small kitchen equipment through food hampers to cooking equipment
and deep-freezes. The form of availability is itself an influence on what the family
will eat. Prominent among the reasons for the success of the supermarket is that the
immediate availability of the food is the confirmation it will be bought. Obtain it now,
for tomorrow it will have either increased in price or it will not be available. 'Never
put off till tomorrow what you can buy today' is the marketing approach of the
supermarket and it is bound to have an effect on the shopper. It is at the point of
purchase that several levels of choice can be discerned: if what was said earlier about
nutritional interests being low is taken into account those who seek to improve these
interests have a lot to contend with:
"When we refer to food choice we must appreciate that
choice can be at different levels ... At one level it may be
between one brand of frozen peas or another, or between frozen
46
peas and tinned peas: a choice which would have little or no
significant nutritional implications. At another level it may be
between peas and beans, or between beef and mutton;... at the
next level one might be choosing between maize and rice, or
between meat and eggs: ... Nutritional value is more commonly
used as a rationalisation for a choice which has already been
made;...". (Yudkin and McKenzie, 1964: 136).
It may well be that the levels of food choice identified in terms of the provider,
in our discussion here, apply to the consumer. Obviously there is no distinction in the
minds of Yudkin and McKenzie between provider and consumer. The relationship
between food chosen and nutritional value identified by Yudkin and McKenzie is an
interesting one, which, if proven has significance for health educationalists. We will,
however, assign it a low level of importance in the final model of influences upon
food preferences as it only 'confirms choice'.
But it is appropriate to take up a more relevant implication of the last quotation.
Having arrived at a place where peas are stacked or kept frozen in the supermarket,
the housewife may remark (a) peas are on my list, (b) it would be a good idea to have
some anyway (c) we have enough, or (d) we do not eat peas. From previous
discussion involving concepts such as utility and bringing in a new one – 'brand
loyalty' the decision may still not be plainly explicable. Perhaps in the end those
which happen to be there in front of the housewife are selected in the context of time
running out, fractious children etc. The decision relating to beef versus mutton sounds
as if it deserves an economic explanation. According to Renner (1944: 49): "The
British housewife is said to go shopping with a fixed intention of what to buy for a
meal planned beforehand in every detail." Probably not any more! If two of three well
loaded supermarket trollies are anything to go by, menu planning has not preceded the
purchasing activity. It is more likely that a stock is laid in from which the meal of the
moment is taken, as previously identified. We can only guess the extent which
nutrition features in the visit to the supermarket.
Another area delayed for further attention in this part of the discussion was the
provider as final arbiter on what wall be provided in the way of meals and in terms of
the role. This has been raised within social considerations and again within the topic
of food and sex. The consideration here oscillates between the sex-role and other
factors. In considering 'the provider' and the sex-role relating to the provision of food
in the home we can draw upon Murcott: "Cooking is firmly seen as part of the
feminine role. What is more, it is also seen as part of the work women are to do as
wives... The question of who does the cooking is clearly a matter of justice and her ...
side of the bargain." (Murcott, 1982b: 9)
The 'justice' relating to the marriage partnership is provided by the husbands
who "take responsibility for the family income" and where the activity of cooking "is
done for love, as it were, rather than for money." (op cit) The authority of the wife
starts on her wedding day and, more particularly, when the reception takes place in an
hotel. Delamont, under her heading of "Menus as message systems" considers that
"Receptions show the groom, his kin and guests what life style the bride has ... the
bride is about to become responsible for feeding the groom so it is important to show
what kinds of food her upbringing has led her to treat as proper. ... The hotel-based
47
'proper' dinner conveys ... messages ... the bride’s family know what a proper meal
looks like, therefore the bride does, and therefore she can and will provide proper
dinners for her new husband ..." (Delamont, 1983: 148,149) This persists despite a
merging of roles. According to Dichter: "Differences in activities between men and
women grow less and less. Those activities that do remain different are highly valued
as a means for each sex to strengthen basic sex differences. Baking and cooking have
remained essentially feminine pursuits". (Dichter, 1964: 21). What is being affirmed is
the clear cut idea of woman as provider, decider, baker and bottle-washer where the
provision of meals is part of the female side of the marriage contract. Commenting
upon another side of the contract Goody noted: "It follows that the two activities
central to the domestic domain, cooking and copulation, should be closely entwined,
each one subject to specific prohibitions and preferences that in turn define those
important aspects of the socio-cultural system, marriage and eating". (Goody, 1982:
192).
Considering the subject of cooking these "specific prohibitions" ostensibly relate
to the exclusion of the husband from the decision making activity relating to the
provision of meals. The mutually accepted preferences suggest that the wife churns
out an endless succession of meals as an expression of her love for all in the family
which gives her the right to decide what will be eaten. Murcott queries this type of
assumption, however, and asks whether it is the husband or the wife who decides.
"... is it the husband by answering his wife's question about
what he wants, or is it the wife by choosing something she
already knows he likes? Either way the answer has to take
account of the family context in which these events take place –
context in which responsibility for the cooking ... is firmly
anchored to the marital obligation of the wife". (Murcott, 1982b:
10).
Such questions as these probably have more relevance in the early years of
marriage when the husband-wife relationship dominates. When this changes to the
father-mother relationship decisions are not so much geared to distinctions between
mutton or beef if both are within the set of family food preferences: both will take
their turn in the virtually cyclic nature of meal provision. This set of food preferences
becomes virtually sui generis and decisions are taken by the housewife relating to
something new perhaps after provisional discussion with the family. "I thought I'd try
x next Sunday, it has y and z in it as well". It is the extent of innovation in available
food forms, however, which has the most potential for the traditional role of the
housewife to change.
The discussion of "technical influences" pointed towards a change in role for the
provider which can now be explored. The potential of equipment such as the
microwave to change that role has only been identified and may be developed more in
social terms. If the deep-freeze is full of 'dinners for one, two or x' of an almost
infinite variety, all that has to be done is to heat them in whatever device is available
in the future. If the provider has prepared those dinners the role may not change too
drastically. On the other hand if they are mass-produced it alters the role of provider
to ordinary member of the family where anyone can process the meal, where no
48
planning is required and where replenishment is the result of an order being placed for
more 'dinner y' by the act of reheating the existing one (i.e. by computer). Even the
husband will be able to achieve success at this game and, ideally, all in the family will
compete to provide different adjuncts to the meal to provide some element of
individuality to their personal meal.
"The purchase of ready-cooked food became much more
common with the growth of industrial food in those societies
where husband and wife are both working (partly because of
their high potentialities to consume) and where collective action
(in the sense of getting together, either for consuming food or
for entertainment) is minimal. When leisure activities are carried
out within the domestic group itself, there is a trend towards
convenience foods. Typical of this is the TV dinner, pioneered
in the United States, ... except on festival occasions 'home
cooking' becomes mainly a question of heating up." (Goody,
188)
By the time such meals as this are the norm the question of sound nutrition will
become irrelevant as the meals will be labelled 'dinner y, variety p' for growing
adolescents where 'variety q' is for the elderly with different nutritional needs. In the
transition to the 'brave new domestic kitchen' the mother will still have to look after
the overall food-strategy.
It has been argued that the provider, the housewife, has a major influence upon
the individual food preferences of those in her family and has staked out a contractual
claim to do so. It has been suggested that this role may change in the future.
The Consumer
The conclusion that the consumer has little real choice is well grounded if all
that has been discussed is taken into account. We quoted Hughes earlier who advised
"... a collective and integrated view” of the effect of the various influences without
actually undertaking it. Now that we have numerous ideas, items, factors and concepts
entered on the 'model' it is appropriate to begin to take stock. This stocktaking leads
on to the final model.
Accepting that not very much of the previous discussion has been concluded in
terms of the range of foods an individual might prefer, it is appropriate to reflect upon
choices made at any one moment. The situation will have many variations and in
some cases decisions are being made for more than one person. The housewife may
'decide' what meals to prepare for the weekend but, as we have seen, there are issues
clouding the conclusion that she is making the decisions. Anyone looking at a menu
'decides' within a range of alternatives decided by the person compiling the menu.
This consumer decision is based upon the best alternative which fits his food
preference, his financial resources, the occasion, the venue and the time available.
Thus having narrowed down the range to two or three items cost may decide for
him. Alternatively he may decide, after hearing from the waiter that filet de plie a
l'Orly comes nearest to his predilection for fish and chips, he ought to consider that
the others have decided upon items more appropriate to the occasion and venue. In
49
this event he joins some of them in an entrecote bordelaise. In the cafeteria situation
he may feel like exploring a salad but, knowing the reception this might obtain he
sticks to the more socially acceptable 'chips with everything' approach.
In the substitute domestic feeding situation where choice and cash are
characteristics of the transaction it is the best choice in the situation, The concept of
premeditation would not normally enter into it. (One exception might be in a hospital
where patients decide in the evening the dishes they want the next day). Premeditation
ought to be the predominant feature of household meal planning where the housewife
plans the meals for the next few days. Perhaps in practice the weekly/fortnightly visit
to the supermarket fills the deep-freeze and larder shelves (but houses no longer have
larders) with a range of foods drawn from the corporate food preferences of the family
and later decisions concerning 'what shall I give them tomorrow?' involve the
programme for the day. If it is to be a 'kitchen-day' then meals at later stages might be
partially prepared and cakes baked along with that day's main meal. It might be an
"eat and run" day (Watson, 1971, used the term "eat and run" in the context of animals
at the waterhole).
'Premeditation', then seems to be lacking in food choice. The economic
consideration mitigates against the thought at 1150 "Today I would like x for lunch: if
the cafeteria does not have it available I will go to an à la carte restaurant". As we
have seen in the substitute domestic feeding situation, it is x, or x and y – if these do
not suit, go elsewhere. In the domestic situation the decision has been made relevant
to the known likes and dislikes of the family in the same way that 'x and y' were
chosen on the (statistically assessed?) likes and dislikes of the estimated clientele of
the commercial situation.
If the fully extended model later helps us to understand the ways in which food
preferences are mainly formulated it would be asking too much of it to also fully
illuminate food choice. We have accepted that food choice is a match between food
preferences and food availability at a specific moment. If an individual's food
preferences range from h to r and the availability is b ... g, p, s ... z ostensibly the
range is very wide but actually it is near Hobson's choice for the consumer. If p is
withdrawn b... g and s ... z will be scrutinized in order to see which comes nearest to h
... r. He may decide to go without and that will depend upon a host of factors
including hunger, appetite, proximity of alternative venues immediately available; or
he may put off eating altogether until he arrives home.
Returning to the menu which is now improved in terms of his h ... r preferences we
see that j,k,n and p are available today. If n is chosen was it because he had j and p
recently and they are not much good at cooking k here? Perhaps it was because,
although he has had n recently, they make and give a good dish of it here. There is a
myriad of alternatives, including cost, resources, company, time availability, reason
for the meal (refuel or entertainment), attractiveness of the venue, even attractiveness
of the menu for that matter. We cannot explore all the permutations.
We can, however, attempt a separate and basic model relevant to the individual.
The consumer considers the family, its food preferences in the context of foods
generally available. Figure 2.6 sets out the main considerations.
50
Figure 2.6 The Consumer (i) – Average Family Food
Preferences
In this model the father and mother are shown as having different food
preferences but, in the main, they are in line with the family food preferences. The
elder child has some individual food preferences and the younger child has less. A
baby if required to be shown, would be located well inside the circle and close to the
mother. 'Senior' adolescents have individual food preference areas as large as the
adults. Some aspects of the forces at work can be depicted by arrows as in Figure 2.7
The Consumer (ii).
Figure 2.7 The Consumer (ii) Forces of Influence upon Average
Family Food Preferences
51
The factors represented in this model can only be a small sample of numerous
influences upon family food preferences which will be identified in the final model.
Taking the general factors on the left affecting the parents 'social class' is at the top.
This has been implicit within the social influences debated much earlier. 'Resources'
reflects the discussion of economic issues and 'attitudes' is added to reflect that there
are differing general viewpoints, probably based upon social class where food is or is
not important within the household general enjoyment of life.
Further down on the left land side we note that the school meal has some influence
upon the preferences of the children. Taken along with resources (pocket money for
crisps, sweets etc) and attitudes, these preferences influence the mother (mainly) and
the father (minimally). Similar considerations stemming from earlier discussion are
depicted as influencing the totality of the family in the form of social, geographical
and economic considerations. Some hesitation occurs, however, in showing arrows
labelled 'psychology'.
The double arrows from the mother to the children reflect the greatest influence
but it has to be remembered that children will derive some food preferences from
outside the family which results in requests made upon the mother to cook this or
obtain that food product. The father is shown as having little influence upon family
food preferences although the double-headed arrow represents an almost two-way
dialogue between husband and wife as to what to eat. The total effect of all this upon
the wife is that she makes the decisions, obtains and cooks the food.
Obviously, a hundred and one models could be devised and many would be as
superficial as some of the situations one could depict. Perhaps the main ones would
be:
1. the housewife (+ family) chooses from the supermarket shelf
2. the individual chooses from a cafeteria menu
3. the family chooses from a restaurant/cafe menu
4. the individual chooses from the bar-snacks menu surrounded by drinking
friends
The last item reminds us that we have not discussed the drink situation in terms of
models of influence. It is only necessary to go so far as to enable the reader to reflect
upon the possibilities and inadequacies portrayed and to adapt them to specific
circumstances according to requirement and interest.
THE FINAL MODEL
It would be wrong to conclude that all that has to be done is to locate each item
which has been discussed on the matrix or set of pigeon holes as we referred to it
earlier. It would be equally wrong to conclude that having done so proves anything or
includes everything. It is not the intention to evidence relationships with the use of
arrows or symbols. It is certainly not assumed that every factor, every item which has
a bearing on food preferences and choice is included either in the discussion or in the
final model. Every reader will place different interpretations on what has been stated
or shown and therefore will be able to adapt or improve upon it according to his
specific circumstances.
52
Figure 2.8 'The Final Model: Some Influences on Food Choice' represents the
totality of the previous discussion and a word or phrase listed serves as a reminder for,
in some cases, a detailed consideration of that topic. Considering that food choice is
made on the basis of food preferences and matching these with the specific
availability at a particular moment the model represents influences upon food
preferences as well as food choice.
Comparing the final model with the initial or foundation model we find that the
space afforded to the considerations on the edges of the square have changed. In the
first model there were no preconceived ideas as to the relative importance of any of
these spatial aspects. In the final model social aspects require more space and the area
for Mind and Body has been made the same size even if only to provide the
appropriate geometric balance. It will be seen, however, that the
psychological/physiological factors are not as numerous as the social factors. A
cursory glance at the other considerations reveals that geographical factors might have
consumed less space and those relating to the provider could have had a lot more
elbow room. Area, taken generally, however, does imply relative importance but of
equal importance to that is the broken line. The main broken lines fall between:
Social and Consumer
Consumer and 'Mind and Body'
Provider and 'Mind and Body'
Food Habits and Consumer
A subsidiary broken line is observed suggesting that there is a strong link
between 'diet, environment and pressures' and geographical factors. Turning attention
to arrows/lines there is a danger of the model being superimposed with numerous
double-headed arrows showing that an item in one area is represented in another, or
that a relationship occurs between this item and another, or two, or three. Such
relationships are indicated by the initial letter of the other area. There could well be
arrows from all areas to 'food preferences' but the main indication is that food
preferences lead ultimately to 'food choice' in the context of availability within a
specific situation.
That the 'provider' and 'consumer' overlap is shown in (a) the person cooking and
eating alone assumes both roles, and (b) the housewife sits down with the family as
consumer when all the decisions and provision have ended.
The items in the pigeon holes are, of course, not meant to be isolated but related
to other items near them. We have considered each item separately, shown in
discussion the way it may relate to other items and separate models have been
produced appropriate to some of the relationships.
If you have not had a look at Figure 2.8 do so now. Some aspects of it have
already been identified. Taken in the large it is meant to stimulate thought as opposed
to saying 'Well, that's it – nothing further need be done about trying to find out about
influences on food choice.' It is not meant to be an improvement on Figures 2.9 and
2.10 which are respectively by Watson (1985: 12) and Shepherd (1985: 11). The
monthly journals like Nutrition and Food Science are for a fairly wide audience and
their authors are restricted to a few pages. Figure 2.11 is from Lennon and Fieldhouse
(1982: 52) and they devote a useful chapter of six or so pages to discussing it. Figure
53
2.8 is, however, meant to be an improvement on my own Figure 2.12 (1982: 171)
which attempts to summarise in the macro. Some of the considerations affecting the
individual which I identified in 1982 are given in Appendix A as the book is out of
print. The book was written for the Hotel and Catering Industry and students intending
to go into it. The interest that industry has in dietary induced health can be looked at
in the final chapter. We can also consider the implications of the main points of the
final model (Figure 2.8) as they affect health education. Figure 2.8 is at the end of the
book.
Figure 2.9 "Individual Choice"
54
Figure 2.10 “Some factors affecting food choice and intake”
Figure 2.11 “Heirarchy of determinants”
55
Figure 2.12 “Gastronomy of a Nation”
"Gastronomy" is something that has not been developed in this book because it
tends to deal with the much wider issues. What I try to do here is to keep to a straight
and narrow coverage of why we eat what we eat but excursions have been necessary.
The above figure demonstrates that many factors make it a "confluent subject" (1982:
164). The best source of information and opinion relating to gastronomy is Stephen
Mennell's "All Manners of Food" published in 1985. His Chapter Two deals with
"Hunger and Appetite" and "Gastronomy and Moderation." Elsewhere there are
sections on "Catering, English Style", "The Decapitation of English Cookery", "The
Critique of Consumer Society", and the "Trained Incapacity to Enjoy Food." All these
and more besides are of immediate interest to those who would like to know more
about food in society.
Mennell's book is not, however, on gastronomy and it deals with numerous
topics of relevance to factors affecting food preference and choice. For example, on
page 21 he refers to the "appestat" as something akin to a 'thermostat' applicable to
appetite. "Too high a setting, too much food intake ... ." All this is useful to our
discussion on page 24 and, later, on pages 30 to 34.
On page 23 we were looking at slim bodies and Mennell does the same on his
page 39 whereby "the prevailing body image" is attended to.
56
On page 65 I talk about another book in rather less detail as, before long, the
discussion becomes a review. "All Manners of Food" receives no further mention
beyond the recommendation that any 'food-thinker' will
No comments:
Post a Comment