Boundaries are stretched: Changing how we produce what we eat.

“You can use your idealism to further your aims, if you realize that nothing is Nirvana, nothing is perfect.” ― Jon Stewart

It would be so pleasant to live in a world where we lived and ate without prejudice, worry, fear, or mocking. But that wouldn’t be our world, would it? Our world is messy and involves a lot of inconveniences. However, it is up to us how we choose to work through our world and how to live within it.

The in-authenticity of the global food market, and of food cultures, is glaringly apparent when we consider how we produce what we eat. Following the Columbian Exchange food production became more industrialized and commodified (Kiple, 2007, p. 215). New forms of transportation and preservation were created. A downside to the sharing and adoption of foodstuffs is that, for the most part, natural crops in the best climate conditions do not often provide a global supply. The mass consumption of so many tasty things required the change of how we grow those things. That amount of avocado toasts and quinoa salads don’t come naturally! To constantly demand new and unheard-of foods in Western regions puts immense pressure on far-away local and rural peoples and agriculture. It can make for an Instagram-worthy image, but literally take the food away from the traditions it was built on. Just look at quinoa! The surge of interest in quinoa, a seed originally from the Andean region of South America, is making it very difficult for traditional consumers to maintain their diet. Although rising prices and quantities typically offer producers financial benefits from sales, there is still the increase in price to consume quinoa themselves, mixed with the ease, cost and status of Western processed foods which are highly affecting the local and traditional health and diet systems (Blythman, 2013).

This is often considered one of the most homogenizing factors of the modern world, and really throws a wrench into my advocacy of food globalization. The largest global food production methods don’t have cultural sharing or education as their primary goal – they’re interested in those $$$. The new norm is not to produce enough for just your family or your village anymore, but to produce in surplus for preservation, export, storage, or simply demand (profit…?). So…food globalization isn’t all roses. Let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

The food industry has major global influences and is highly interdependent now (Oosterveer and Sonnenfeld, 2012, p. 16). This is not only in terms of supply and demand, but includes climate conditions, and politics. There has been an increase in the way that large corporations choose to conduct business which often leaves the “mom n’ pop” shops of the previous decades and centuries in their wake. This is not limited to food, but that’s where we’re going to focus. Ok, so you’re probably thinking, “there was the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the introduction of canned goods" but how dare we forget about the magical, mystical journey that started with those infamous golden arches? We can’t talk about food globalization without talking about McDonald’s.

Figure 1: Map showing the global reach of McDonald's

The fast food giant started in the 1950s and totally changed the process of food consumption. Additionally, some people believe that, aside from food practices, McDonald’s business model has transformed our global culture. While McDonald’s restaurants can be seen throughout the world, and sometimes a few in just one city block, we can also see that its ideologies have found their way into more than just our stomachs. American sociologist, George Ritzer, coined the term “McDonaldization” to identify this manifestation of methods. McDonaldization occurs when different parts of society align with the principles that make the fast food giant so successful: efficiency, predictability, calculability, and non-human technology/control. These practices work out pretty great for the customer, who wants the same Big Mac and McFlurry and wants it in a hurry, but they’re not the best for maintaining the human connection; this goes for food culture and other forms of management in society. Peek at this video to hear Ritzer talk about McDonaldization for yourself (Ng, 2015).

McDonald’s has forever changed the way in which consumers and businesses involve themselves in the expectations of production, manufacturing and dissemination of goods and services. In its four major practices it has instilled a form of neoliberalism into our daily lives. We are likely to be pushed to work in a certain way - in this case in the manner of fast food restaurants. The cycle of quickly moving people or goods through the system, with the least amount of overhead required, has been shaped (and is now almost expected). Really, though when McDonald’s (or the like) get our order wrong or give us a McFlurry that’s not quite mixed all the way through we seem to hold them more responsible in strange way – they have this stuff down to a science right?

With an emphasis on strategizing for optimal production, often with a lack of care for the product itself or the consumers, the disconnection from food as culture has also increased. Such production values can ruin soil conditions, rural economies, generational farmers, water contamination, globalization of pests and disease, and the most dreaded buzz-word GMOs (genetically modified organisms!) (Sumner, 2013, p. 44). Do most of us even think of food as culture anymore?

We can often take for granted the foods and culture that we are raised in. We may not even think about it until we are face to face with a violation of norms…you know the type…*ahem* sushi corndog… (But really, check out the sushi corndog. It’s a thing). McDonaldization has definitely changed the way that we do a variety of businesses, both from the production and the consumer side of things. It’s unclear whether there is a way back from this, but we can say that we still have the choice to learn where our food and our culture is coming from. We can choose if we subscribe to the big-box-bargains or seek out (something with a bit more homestyle comfort behind it)

“Foodie” culture and what works for Instagram are just some of the more recent shifts to how the production of food has changed. Food isn’t merely for sustenance anymore, or even for what tastes good, but now also must relate to a visually-pleasing social media audience. Who would’ve thought that 50 years ago?

So perhaps as a response to this there are those who cling to their traditions. The boundaries are strengthened and the arbitrary national borders are tangibly enforced. This doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing though – organic farming, reinvigoration of traditional farming methods, fair-trade and community-supported agriculture (CSA) are results and pushback to food globalization practices ((Oosterveer and Sonnenfeld, 2012, p. 19). These can be beneficial for local growth. In what appears to be a contradictory manner, the maintenance of “authenticity” is a requirement of surviving in this globalization of food culture. While this allows for practices, methods, knowledge(s), tools and technologies to be passed on to subsequent generations, the rigid boundaries may themselves be a detriment to a world that is full of non-binary spaces of identity.

_________________________________

References

Blythman, J. (2013, January 16). Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa

Kiple, K. F. (2007). A moveable feast: Ten millennia of food globalization. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ng, J. (2015). George Ritzer - McDonaldization [video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/S0BOJymU6AM.

Oosterveer, P., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2012). Food, globalization and sustainability. London: Earthscan.

Sumner, J. (2013). Eating As If It Really Matters: Teaching The Pedagogy of Food in the Age of Globalization. Brock Education: A Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 22(2), 41-55. Retrieved from https://library.macewan.ca/full-record/eric/EJ1054058. *All images taken from Creative Commons