Comfort Food: Meanings and Memories

Introduction

Michael Owen Jones and Lucy M. Long

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, comfort food is food that comforts or affords solace; hence, any food (freq. with a high sugar or carbohydrate content) that is associated with childhood or with home cooking. orig. N. Amer. Merriam-Webster’s 10th edition Collegiate Dictionary defines comfort food as fare prepared in a traditional style having a usually nostalgic or sentimental appeal, while in the Encyclopedia of Food and Culture (2002), Julie Locher notes that it is any food consumed by individuals, often during periods of stress, that evokes positive emotions and is associated with significant social relationships.

Typically linked with home, tradition, nostalgia, and positive feelings, the phrase comfort food appears to be an American invention that has begun to reach beyond US borders. Its first appearance in print may have been on Sunday, November 6, 1966, in a column by psychologist Dr. Joyce Brothers titled Psychological Problems Play a Part in Obesity. Published in the Des Moines Register and many other newspapers, the essay states: Studies indicate that most adults, when under severe emotional stress, turn to what could be called ‘comfort food’—food associated with the security of childhood, like mother’s poached egg or famous chicken soup. The OED, however, dates the expression’s earliest use to an article in the Washington Post on December 25, 1977, in which restaurant critic Phyllis Richman describes a Southern dish. In 2013, Richman revisited the term, observing that she doubted that she created it, contending that the phenomenon likely exists worldwide and implying that although the specific foods might differ for us individually, we seem to understand the phrase.

The term has become widely adopted into everyday speech, restaurant menus, cooking shows, recipe books, magazines, and advertising. Recent years have seen a rapid increase in popular interest in comfort food. Numerous cooking magazines have devoted major sections and even entire issues to the subject. A number of recipe books have been published, some of which provide lower calorie and more healthful versions of comfort foods, from snacks to entrees and desserts. Restaurants attach the phrase to their menus, and the food industry exploits it in marketing. Meanwhile, individuals seem to use the notion as a way to both celebrate and justify eating certain foods that do not fit current concepts of healthful or nutritious eating.

Surprisingly little research has been done on comfort food from a cultural perspective. Medical sociologist Julie L. Locher may have first introduced it into food studies scholarship in 2002 through her essay, Comfort Food, in the Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, edited by Solomon Katz. She went on to publish a foundational article in 2005 in the journal Food & Foodways, in which she and co-researchers drew from a survey among students to identify four categories of comfort foods based on the needs they fulfill: nostalgia, indulgence, convenience, and physical satisfaction. Other scholarship has come primarily from the fields of psychology, public health, and nutrition, focusing on the motivations for partaking of comfort foods as well as the impact of that consumption on the bodies of the consumers. As early as 1998, Paulette Wood and Barbra D. Vogen published Feeding the Anorectic Client: Comfort Foods and Happy Hour in Geriatric Nursing. Brian Wansink, Matthew Cheney, and Nina Chan later wrote about comfort food preferences across age and gender in Physiology & Behavior, concluding that comfort foods are foods whose consumption evokes a psychologically comfortable and pleasurable state for a person (2003). Carl T. Hall demonstrated that comfort food helped to relieve stress, at least in rats that were given high-fat foods (2003). Mary Dallman, Norman Pecoraro, and Susanne la Fleur, as well as other scholars, have examined the relationship between chronic stress, comfort food, and obesity, which, not surprisingly is a circular one, since most comfort foods tend to be high in fat, carbohydrates, and sugar (2003, 2005). Obesity resulting from consuming comfort food has continued to be a major concern among researchers. Robert D. Levitan and Caroline Davis, for example, examine the issue in their article on Emotions and Eating Behavior (2010).

The emphasis on gender differences has been a major thread in much of this research. Dubé Jordan, L. LeBel, and Ji Lu found that negative emotions tended to trigger comfort food consumption for women, but positive ones triggered it for men (2005). Other researchers also focused on the motivations for consuming comfort foods. For example, nutritionists Jayanthi Kandiah, Melissa Yake, James Jones, and Michaela Meyer stated the conclusion of their research in the title of their article: Stress Influences Appetite and Comfort Food Preferences in College Women (2006). Similarly, Janet A. Tomiyama, Mary F. Dallman, and Elissa S. Epel claimed in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology that Comfort Food Is Comforting to Those Most Stressed: Evidence of the Chronic Stress Response Network in High Stress Women (2011). Other researchers have expanded the scholarship to examine additional functions of comfort food. For instance, in an essay concerning the consumption of chicken soup in Psychological Science (2011), Jordan Troisi and Shira Gabriel observed that comfort food serves as a social surrogate, fulfilling a need to belong.

Speculations about comfort food have also been aired in news media and in professional arenas related to the food industry. As early as 2001, food writer Bret Thorn published Seeking Comfort, Diners Indulge in Feel-Good Fare in Nation’s Restaurant News. A 2009 essay in a marketing internet forum summarizes findings from the Center for Culinary Development on differences in comfort food preferences by age (Lukovitz 2009). In the May 25, 2012, edition of the New York Times, journalist Daniel E. Slotkin asked What’s Your Comfort Food? pointing out that personal preferences and definitions vary. Other popular writers and journalists have embraced the idea of comfort foods as individualistic and culture-specific, seeing the psychological value of them but also challenging the use of the concept as an excuse to indulge in foods deemed guilty pleasures. For example, an essay in Health Psychology concerning the myth of comfort food (December 2014) elicited much discussion and debate. Nora Gomez Torres wrote of Cubans Finding Comfort, Nostalgia in Russian Products in the November 14, 2014, Miami Herald, and in The Atlantic (April 3, 2015), Cari Romm summarizes research on the efficacy of comfort food with Why Comfort Food Comforts: A New Study Looks at the Intersection of Taste, Nostalgia, and Loneliness.

While this research offers a foundation for studying comfort food, it does not fully explore the implications of this category of food experience. The idea initially appears to be straightforward and self-explanatory—it is food that comforts. A closer examination, however, raises numerous questions about the concept, the specific foods belonging to this category, and the nature of food itself. After all, should not all food comfort in some way? As is commonly recognized by scholars and the general public, food fulfills multiple needs and functions beyond its most basic one of sustaining life. Not all of those functions are identified as their own category of food, so why does a genre such as comfort food exist? Does it reflect concerns related to contemporary life in the Western world, characterized by its industrial food system, an ethos that attaches specific moralities to eating, and a tendency towards nostalgia and romanticization of family, childhood, and the past? What foods fit into the category and why, and what is the role of commercialization and marketing in the rising popularity of the genre?

It is unclear whether comfort food is a universal concept or is particular to modern, Western societies. Food in general seems to act as a symbolic system in every cultural group,¹ but we do not have the data to know whether the idea of a separate category of foods that specifically and primarily offer comfort exists throughout the world. The very idea of food comforting may reflect the distance modernity has created between us and our food as well as between individuals. The modern world in general is one in which industrialization and capitalist economic philosophy have created a very real physical as well as emotional distance between our work and the things we use.² We rarely see an entire process of creating something from start to finish, causing, according to some scholars, a feeling of alienation. Similarly, modernity means that our lives are frequently fragmented into disparate social spheres, while the mobility associated with the freedom to explore new paths and new selves oftentimes cuts us off from our roots and dilutes a sense of continuity with places or people.³ Modernity in this critique creates a need for comfort, and food because of its close association with personal relationships and identity, easily fulfills that function; hence, a category of foods that comfort. Modernity, however, can also erase those associations or enable them to be invented and manipulated for commercial or political gain.

Furthermore, the contemporary industrial food system contains numerous links in the chain between producers and consumers. Food in this system becomes a product that is initially grown or raised, but then processed, packaged, marketed, distributed, and sold. The producer rarely knows the consumer and vice versa, and food is transported from place to place without recognition of its origins or the people who have handled it along the way.⁴ That many individuals find this system discomforting is evident in the diversity of current social movements surrounding the reconnection of consumer and producer and the reinvestment of meaning to activities around food as well as to food itself. Cultivating and cooking one’s own food are presented now as means to emotional and psychological wholeness, for society as well as for individuals.⁵ Food that comforts in this way can be seen as crucial to survival. Globalization, in spreading Western products and perspectives throughout the world, may also have spread these conditions for needing comfort.⁶

The industrial food system also turns food into a commodity rather than a cultural item recognized as having meaning and value outside its monetary worth. As such, it then becomes an item to be manipulated for optimal sales. Identities and meanings may be attached to it that are thought to appeal to customers, but are adapted to the whims of the marketplace.⁷ Comfort food as a category seems to be undergoing such commodification, and specific dishes are being highlighted and turned into icons of the genre. Macaroni and cheese, for example, is now presented by restaurants, cookbooks, and cooking shows as the quintessential American comfort food. While it does historically have a significant place in the memories of many American childhoods, it is not universal among Americans. Its reputation for giving comfort, however, has become a large part of the marketing surrounding it, so that even those who do not have personal associations with it now also identify it as a comfort food. The processes of commodification and iconification manipulate the meanings of food, but also raise issues about who gets to select what foods mean and what they represent. Such cultural politics can frequently be seen in the foods that have been promoted as symbols of regions or ethnicities, such as lobster for Maine, crawfish for Cajuns, grits and barbecue for the South, and so on.⁸

Another aspect of modernity is nostalgia, a looking back on the past with wistfulness and affection. It is a longing for happier times, which might not actually have been as happy as remembered.⁹ Food oftentimes plays a role in nostalgia, carrying or evoking specific memories, not only of the food itself but also of the relationships and contexts associated with it. French novelist Marcel Proust wrote eloquently of how the taste of a madeleine cookie evoked vivid memories of his childhood.¹⁰ Grandmothers’ and mothers’ cooking is not so much about the taste of the food as the feelings of security and safety represented by it. Family tends to be idealized and romanticized through nostalgia, rendering pleasant and warm memories. The reality, of course, can be very different, and the idea of comfort food may demonstrate that.¹¹ Individuals differ in the dishes they consider comforting, and those differences reflect, in part, different family experiences as well as different personalities.

Comfort food also seems to be complicated by morality. Saying that an item is comfort food relieves the eater of being concerned with its nutritional or caloric qualities, suggesting that those foods in other contexts should not be eaten. This implies a moral system of good and bad foods or food experiences. How does morality get attached to certain foods? Sidney Mintz points out that morality is sometimes tied to the self, to one’s relationship to a religious system (purity) or ethical system or even sense of self,¹² but at other times to the impact of one’s actions on the larger society (1996). These moralities are culturally specific, not universal. In his groundbreaking study of the place of sugar in Western Europe at the end of the 1600s, he traced the movement of sugar from an exotic luxury to being considered a necessary part of everyone’s diet. He demonstrated that sugar was invested with both types of morality by Europeans. It was tied directly to slavery by abolitionists who recognized the connection of slavery to sugar production in the Caribbean and called for boycotting sugar, saying that consuming it was essentially murder. Sugar itself also had morality attached to it. It was considered unhealthful for the body in large quantities and corrosive of the will (1996: 71). However, it was also used as a medicine; it was allowed by the church during fasting if it was taken to aid digestion rather than for nourishment.

Mintz brings up another perspective on comfort food when he refers to the asceticism and puritanism foundational to American culture that has long viewed pleasure, especially physical and sensual pleasures, as immoral. Comfort food is frequently perceived as dishes that give us pleasure. They tend to satisfy our appetites and our taste buds, both of which are suspect in the Western moral universe. Comfort food, however, is understood to satisfy deeper psychological and emotional needs, therefore relieving consumers of the moral judgment assigned to eating purely for the pleasure of it.

The anthology Comfort Food: Meanings and Memories explores the concept of comfort food primarily within a Western context. Examples are taken from Atlantic Canadians, Indonesians, the English in Britain, and various ethnic, regional, and religious populations, as well as rural and urban residents in the US. It includes studies of particular foods, ways in which they comfort or in some instances cause discomfort, and how these foods produce such an effect. The foods they focus on range widely from bologna to chocolate, sweet and savory puddings, fried bread with an egg in the center, dairy products, fried rice, cafeteria fare, sugary fried dough, soul food, and others. Some essays analyze the phenomenon in daily life; others consider comfort food in the context of cookbooks, films, internet blogs, literature, marketing, and tourism. Recognizing that what heartens one person might discomfort another, the collection includes essays on comfort foods that are problematic in some way and is organized accordingly, from pleasant to unpleasant or discomforting food experiences. These foods are then related to concepts and issues such as identity, family, community, nationality, ethnicity, class, sense of place, tradition, stress, health, discomfort, guilt, betrayal, and loss, contributing to a deeper understanding of comfort food as a significant social category of human behavior around food.

Contributors to the anthology come primarily from the field of folklore studies and apply this perspective to their essays. They attend to food as an aesthetic experience through which individuals and groups construct and perform their identities, relationships, values, and understandings of the universe.¹³ This approach emphasizes personal agency in creating meaning, but also recognizes the role of power structures and systems in shaping the possibilities for each individual. It also tends to highlight the overlooked and mundane, the foods or individuals not usually thought of as significant. Comfort food, for example, is often associated with home and family—the feminine, domestic sphere—and with unrefined cooking that warrants little attention from those trained in the culinary arts or of more gourmand tastes. At the same time, a folkloristic approach sees all cultural products as potential sources for the expression of creativity and the construction of meaning, so that mass-produced commercial foods can become integral traditions just as much as those foods that have been handed down over generations within a family by imitation or word-of-mouth. From this perspective, comfort food is an ideal subject for examining the interplay of marketing, commodification, iconization, and other such processes in which individuals find and attach personal meaningfulness to their food.

The authors draw upon a diversity of ethnographic and archival sources for data to analyze, ranging from personal interviews and observations to auto-ethnography. The last refers to ethnography of one’s self or one’s group,¹⁴ and lends itself also to reflexive analysis of the impact of the ethnographer on the people being studied and the information gleaned from them. Comfort food is a rather elastic category, representing different foods to different people; therefore, it is highly subjective. It also seems to be particularly subject to current trends in the marketplace and in attitudes towards food and health. Discussing it tends to open the proverbial can of worms, so that individuals being interviewed or observed begin questioning it and their own responses to it.

Scholarship in the ethnography of the senses is also relevant to comfort food and is implicit in much of the research in this volume. As Paul Stoller points out in his groundbreaking book, The Taste of Ethnographic Things: The Senses in Anthropology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989), academia in the West has privileged sight over other senses, leading to an emphasis in scholarship on intellectual and cognitive understanding over more sensory ways of experiencing the world. Food offers full use of all the senses, and some aspects of it can be perceived only at a sensual level rather than a verbal (oral or written) one. The researcher therefore should attend to a range of possible ways in which individuals may perceive the world. Also, memory is literally embodied in the senses. The taste of food conjures images of the past or particular people; its aromas remind one of places; its texture can take one back to a previous experience, sometimes literally.¹⁵ Comfort food seems to function as a category partly because of its appeal to the senses. It frequently gives literal comfort by warming the body or filling the stomach, but it also evokes memories of pleasant sensory experiences. Recognition of the significance of the senses in people’s relationships to comfort food runs throughout the essays in this volume.

Chapter 1 concentrates on the emotional and physiological satisfaction afforded by comfort food that is usually emphasized in conceptualizations, along with the relationship between stress and consumption. Among the hypotheses for craving and partaking of comfort food that Michael Jones explores are the role of emotional relief, physical sensations and satiety, pharmacological components of the item, and associations with people, places, and events. In particular, he considers chocolate, the food of the gods, which for many American women is the quintessential comfort food, a conception reinforced by folklore, the mass media, and popular culture objects.

Rachelle Saltzman, in the second chapter, examines pudding as an integral part of English national identity. Through historical research supplemented with observations and interviews, she explores the development of whim whams, spotted dick, jam roly-poly, and other savory and sweet puddings and the processes by which they became so associated with the English that they were referred to in the nineteenth century as the Pudding Eaters. More recently, the National Trust’s pudding campaign encouraged pudding consumption, and the environment secretary urged citizens to eat more sweet puddings made with local ingredients rather than unpatriotically consuming foreign products. Although many immigrants reside in the country, and their non-pudding fare is impacting the culinary culture, a taxi driver told Saltzman, They may be British but they’ll never be English. Pudding as comfort food, then, is intimately tied to national identity.

In Chapter 3, Susan Eleuterio, with the assistance of three longtime Chicago residents, focuses on the ways in which a sense of community and feelings of belonging are generated in commercial contexts, such as in local cafeterias. Focusing on Valois, a favorite breakfast spot of former Senator and then President Barack Obama, in Chicago, Eleuterio explores how a place of business can not only offer comfort food, but also become a place of comfort. Although it is also a tourist destination, Valois is known among certain community members as a place where you can see your food, interact easily with others over a leisurely meal, feel at home, enjoy familiar fare, and experience a haven of comfort and normality; in sum, an opportunity for commensality. Sharing the political values associated with its most famous fan contributes to the sense of community.

Authored by Alicia Kristen, the fourth chapter concerns the summer custom of going for doughboys (sugary fried dough) at clam shacks in seaside Rhode Island. A tradition among the working class from mill cities nearby, both the practice and the food itself are markers of class distinctions, insider identity, and cultural pride. Crafted on the coast, doughboys acquire the scent of Oakland Beach and, cooked in the same oil as the clam cakes, they have a hint of the flavor of locally harvested clams; as such, they exhibit terroir, a sense of place, which comforts many of the diners.

Chapter 5, by Jillian Gould, examines the intergenerational connections of a single, simply prepared item. Called egg-in-the-hole, man on the raft, Popeyes, one-eyed Jacks, and other names, the food consists of a piece of bread in which the center is torn out and an egg is fried in the hole. Utilizing auto-ethnography and historical analysis of the tradition, the author reveals how this source of comfort and memories, through its preparation rather than taste, unites three generations of women, two of whom are now deceased, connecting the survivor with the past and, in the present, with her daughter. The dish, then, exemplifies comfort food grounded in home and the family.

In the sixth chapter, Yvonne and William Lockwood consider the concepts of heritage and nostalgia as significant, perhaps even primary, motivations for some Finnish Americans in the upper Midwest to perpetuate or revitalize the tradition of preparing and eating Finnish fare, including poverty food. A favorite item is viili, a fermented milk product, despite the fact that those of Finnish descent have an astonishingly high rate of lactose intolerance. Lovers of viili enjoy the stringy, slippery texture that frequently repulses most non-Finnish Americans to the extent that children compare it with snot. For many Finnish Americans, the nostalgia satisfied through this dish is for a childhood, family, or experiences not from the home country but from the strong ethnic community as it existed through the 1940s; thus, the comfort offered by this food represents an idealized past.

In Chapter 7, Lucy Long investigates the emergence of culinary tourism featuring comfort food. The opposite of the more usual exotic, fine dining, and unique foods found in such tourism, comfort food would not seem to be of interest to tourists; however, it appears to be growing in popularity. Based on her own experiences and observations, as well as an examination of advertisements for tours in the Midwest and other locations throughout the world, she identifies the qualities of comfort food that are highlighted in culinary tourism and examines the ways in which comfort food might function for tourists. A major theme in both categories of experience is home, either as a physical space or a metaphor for security and familiarity; its role in tourism suggests that home itself may now be considered exotic.

The chapters to this point consider the positive associations of comfort food, such as combatting stress and feelings of loneliness, identification with home, intergenerational connections and other social linkages, commensality and community, memories of joyful events and cordial relations, and nostalgia about the past. These characteristics are implied or stated in dictionary definitions and they are apparent from survey research conducted by Locher et al., Wansink et al., and Troisi and Gabriel; they are developed and discussed more fully in Comfort Food: Meanings and Memories. Subsequent chapters in this anthology, however, address negative aspects of comfort food by exploring health concerns, feelings of discomfort, and the subversion of taken-for-granted assumptions about family, tradition, and history.

In her essay on bologna in Chapter 8, Diane Tye raises the specter of unhealthful qualities in what has become a pervasive comfort food in the Canadian Atlantic region. Although it is loaded with high amounts of sodium, saturated and trans fat, and cholesterol (along with sodium nitrate, which has been linked to the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines), people nevertheless persist in avidly consuming bologna. In a diet historically low in protein, fruits, and vegetables, this processed meat product remains relatively inexpensive, requires little preparation, is convenient, and lends itself to creative dishes. Turning a blind eye to nutritional deficiencies and high rates of chronic disease, residents tout Newfoundland steak as traditional, a regional food commemorating earlier times and common in the ritual of homecoming and family visits.

Chapter 9, by Sheila Bock, focuses on soul food, which has become a contested cuisine providing, on the one hand, comfort through racial pride and cultural achievement, and on the other, discomfort owing to the health crisis that has arisen among African Americans because of the high fat and sodium content of some dishes and their preparations. Through an examination of recent cookbooks, the author delineates ways in which some African Americans are re-conceptualizing and re-presenting tradition as a tool of intervention.

In Chapter 10, LuAnne Roth turns her attention to concepts of memory and discomfort as she explores food-centric films, both ethnographic and fictional. While in daily life memories are recalled through smell, taste, and mouthfeel, in film they are generated and conveyed through sound and visuals. Her explorations reveal how key cinematic scenes regarding food depict otherwise unexpressed emotions, conflict, chronic binging, efforts at controlling others, trauma, and the combatting of loneliness stemming from childhood neglect.

Annie Tucker, in the last chapter, examines three short stories by Puthut EA, a young writer from Yogyakarta, Central Java, whose works have frequently appeared in major national publications and numerous anthologies. He establishes familiar associations of comfort food, such as family, identity, belonging, and pleasure, but then subverts them to address instances of overbearing parental authority, ruthless exploitation of the environment, and brutal political violence. He imbues foods with a culinary conscience, asking readers to ponder what happens when comforting foods of identity become haunted by aching memories.

The essays in Comfort Food: Meanings and Memories offer a foundation for further exploration of comfort food. As a subject of study, the category is relevant to a number of scholarly disciplines, most obviously food studies, folkloristics, and anthropology, but also American culture studies, cultural studies, global and international studies, tourism, marketing, and public health. It also represents a category of eating experiences that resonates with most of us and that can be easily understood in one’s own life, enabling us as scholars to better understand the significance of emotions and memories in human behavior. It therefore offers a window for exploring the relationships among our foodways patterns, our own past experiences, and larger forces in society that shape those relationships. Whether such foods generate feelings of comfort or cause distress, unite families or produce conflict, celebrate tradition or challenge it, remind individuals of pleasant experiences or force them to confront painful memories, they warrant close examination for what they reveal about the human condition and people’s relationship to the fare that they consume.

Notes

1. The recognition that food carries meaning is standard in scholarship today. Anthropologist Sidney Mintz explains: For us humans … eating is never a ‘purely biological’ activity … The foods eaten have histories associated with the pasts of those who eat them; the techniques employed to find, process, prepare, serve, and consume the foods are all culturally variable, with histories of their own. Nor is the food ever simply eaten; its consumption is always conditioned by meaning. These meanings are symbolic, and communicated symbolically; they also have histories (1996: 7).

2. The idea of modernity creating a sense of distance comes originally from critiques of industrialization that tended to somewhat romanticize the pastoral and the past. For an overview of Romantic Nationalism’s influence on the discipline of folkloristics, see William A. Wilson, Herder, Folklore and Romantic Nationalism, in Folk Groups and Folklore Genres: A Reader, ed. Elliot Oring (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1989), 21–37. Marxist critiques tie modernity to capitalism and probably are most famous for promoting the idea of distance as a result of the two forces.

3. One of the most influential writings on the isolation created by modern life is sociologist Robert D. Putnam’s Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). His powerful application of the French culture theorist Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of social capital (The Forms of Capital, in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J. Richardson [New York: Greenwood, 1986], 241–58) introduced the concept to the larger public.

4. There are numerous excellent critiques of the industrial food system. One that combines ethnography with insightful explorations into the mindset and ethos behind Western agriculture is Deborah Barndt’s Tangled Routes: Women, Work, and Globalization on the Tomato Trail (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), in which she clearly articulates the foundation laid by Rene Descartes’s dualism between man and nature. Other scholarly critiques include Deborah Kay Fitzgerald, Every Farm a Factory: The Industrial Ideal in American Agriculture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003); Julie Guthman, Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California (Berkeley: University of California, 2004); Damian Maye, Lewis Holloway, and Moya Kneafsey, eds., Alternative Food Geographies: Representation and Practice (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007); and Moya Kneafsey, Rosie Cox, Lewis Holloway, Elizabeth Dowler, Laura Venn, and Helena Tuomainen, Consumers, Producers and Food: Exploring Alternatives (New York: Berg, 2008). Journalist Michael Pollan brought these issues to the attention of the general public in his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (New York: Penguin, 2006).

5. For example, the concept of mindfulness is currently being applied to eating, with classes, online instructions, and the media popularizing the notion of finding wholeness in this way. Numerous how-to books are available on the subject.

6. For insightful treatments of the issues surrounding food and globalization, see Alexander Nützenadel and Frank Trentmann, eds., Food and Globalization (Oxford: Berg, 2008); James L. Watson and Melissa L. Caldwell, eds., The Cultural Politics of Food and Eating (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005);