Over fifty years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead observed that the world has the ability to feed everyone who inhabits it. She goes on to credit this capacity to increased agricultural production technology and the advancement of nutritional science, and argues that the advancements, therefore, are good for society.
Both of these scientific advancements have continued into the twenty-first century, increasing our knowledge. But it’s less clear whether advancements in those areas have actually increased the average consumer’s awareness of food. In fact, there is significant evidence that, at least in the United States, society has become the victim of its own success. Despite all of the advances in technology and information that have been gained, individual members of society are making their eating decisions on a less and less informed basis.
Most eaters, however, are no longer aware that this is true. They think of food as an agricultural product, perhaps, but they do not think of themselves as “consumers.” If they think beyond that, they recognize that they are passive consumers.
This is the crux of the problem: although most of those who eat have transitioned from producers — albeit at the small scale of family farms and backyard vegetable gardens — to consumers, they’re not aware of doing so. Those that are, and who try to research the food they eat, are confronted with such a dizzying amount of information that it’s hard to determine what is useful, what is irrelevant, and what is flat-out wrong. Thus, by becoming consumers of food only, people have transitioned to less understanding about food instead of more.
That transition has not been a net benefit to society, as the food we eat has transitioned from food to what journalist Michael Pollan derisively refers to as “foodlike substances.” He posits that the increased emphasis on nutritional content has detracted from the idea of food itself, an idea which is similar to the one Berry explores in his essay. Both of these experts’ opinions point toward the same conclusion: that advances in food and agricultural science have contributed toward a situation where the things we eat have become nothing more than another homogenized consumer product.
Eric Schlosser points out that a not-insignificant source of this homogenization has been the rise of franchises in general. While his work primarily explores the fast-food market, the sentiment also holds true for those who obtain their food from the supermarket. Changing social attitudes about food have contributed to this: Berry points out that, under the tutelage of advertisers, consumers have come to see eating as an interruption of life rather than a part of it.
There is no doubt that increases in both technology and understanding have carried some net benefits to the consumer. Scientific and technological advances are rarely either wholly positive or wholly negative. Those who do careful research and set out to take whatever time it takes to learn about the food they eat can find the information they need with relative ease. This hasn’t always been true, and as a result there have been needless deaths and injuries caused by problems such as food allergies and hidden toxins.
However, the average consumer, who doesn’t have food allergies and whose diet primarily consists of industrially-produced products, either doesn’t consider it important to take that time or, more likely, has been misled into thinking that because their food is safe, it’s also the best available. That consumer simply trusts what they have been told, eats what’s cheapest, easiest, and most attractive, and goes on with other aspects of their life.
Margaret Mead, in the same essay she began by citing advances in both agricultural technology and food science, would seem to agree. Toward the end of that essay, she notes that the same commercialization that has led to advancements in agricultural technology, has also created the idea that food is nothing more than a simple commodity. As a result, members of society no longer wonder about its source, its significance, or its effects. Because of this, she observes, “food loses [its] primary significance; the land is mined instead of replenished and conserved.”
The solution, she suggests, is a shift from scientific inquiry to ethical inquiry when it comes to food. Numerous other, more contemporary writers, clearly agree with her: that food is not at all a mere commodity and thus can’t be examined in simple economic terms. Instead, our relationship with food needs another transition, to one that is more holistic and rounded in nature. This would see to it that all of our scientific and technological progress concerning food production results in a net benefit to every member of society.
