Food Culture — Part 3 of 3
A historical review of how we brand, package, market, and sell a promise to make it the most appealing.
Beyond sustenance—a mini-series on the value of food to culture. Free subscribers will continue receiving post previews and trivia. Paid subscribers will receive the full articles and (re)sources. Thank you for supporting this work!
If you’re interested in the topic of culture and food, consider becoming a supporter. This 3-part mini-series will run in the next few weeks.
What we put in our mouths has grown somewhere under certain conditions. In most cases, we have no idea what those are. So we rely on organizations that regulate what growers can put on stuff.
Fungicides, herbicides and insecticides are all pesticides used in plant protection. In America, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has to approve chemicals for agricultural use. At the agency, they use what they call a ‘risk cup’ to decide whether to approve new chemistries (active ingredients.)
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National organic Program includes a list of approved organic pesticides. A board decides what goes on the list. Organic growers, handlers, retailers, environmentalists, scientists, USDA-accredited certifying agents, and consumer advocates make up that board.
Another agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)1 regulates dietary supplements, food additives, bottled water, infant formulas, and other food products. There are more agencies that regulate things that are adjacent to food. We hope they all talk to each other.
In Europe, member states handle the first part of the approval process, then the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) provides independent scientific advice and communicates on existing and emerging risks associated with the food chain.2
While America fills its risk cup, Europe pushes for more organic options to reverse declines of pollinators, and reduce risks and numbers of pesticides by 50 percent by 2030 (this is what they call the ‘Green Deal.’)
If you’ve followed the recent sunscreen debacle, you will know that America (FDA) is falling short on quality (UVA protection.) Quality is the reason I use Italian and French sunscreens, and other products.
The overall philosophy and approach of regulatory bodies and production methods makes me favor Italian products and ingredients.
Most of you are reading this from America, so I’ll stick (mostly) to marketing and brand stories that have their roots here. Starting with the slogans. See if you can guess to which foods these promotional slogans belong and their parent company (key at the end of the article):
‘Gimme a break’
‘He likes it! Hey, Mikey!’
‘M’m! M’m! Good!’
‘It’s finger lickin' good’
‘Melts in your mouth, not in your hands’
‘Sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don’t’
‘Snap, Crackle, and Pop’
‘Sorry Charlie’
‘A little every day goes a long, long way.’
‘Ho, ho, ho!’
Special mentions goes to the ‘miracle meat in a can,’ an invention of the 1930s.3 You may have noticed a trend. Indeed, you may find the cheekier slogans work harder. Fruit and vegetables don’t come with jingles.
My disclaimer—I’m not qualified for, nor providing any advice, health or otherwise, about food. But I do have strong opinions about nutrition.
Regardless of your take on food—whether you reach for prepared meals, prefer the convenience of boxes, or like to do your own cooking—‘organic’ or ‘natural’ tend to get more attention these days.
How about ‘cage-free’ or ‘free-range’? Some cartons even boast ‘certified humane.’ Those labels would not be there if they weren’t appealing. But is it a genuine representation of what’s inside, or is it just marketing?
The labels of snacks high in sugar and fats—whether or not they’re ‘good fats’ or ‘natural sugars’—now say ‘wholesome’ or ‘simple,’ and often feature warm, natural color palettes or images of whole fruits and vegetables.
You may have detected an attempt at morality, but these labels can be dangerous. They smack of propaganda to deceive buyers. For example, ‘wholesome’ is not defined (nor regulated.) Labels like ‘nutritious’ (also not defined, nor regulated) mis- and over-use terms that eventually become meaningless.
Do language, colors, and imagery put pressure on brands to actually fulfill their bold claims?
The thoughtful and conscious choice should be to question what we’re paying for.
Are we supporting the just compensation of workers directly? Organic, soil-minded farmers? Packaging that’s compostable, or just really sleek looking? These are hard questions to answer—especially as we’ve moved away from local production.
Unfortunately, there isn’t any one label we can all rely on—what we buy depends on the specific product and what matters most to us individually.
In Part 1, I included a brief review of the history of food and meals, that of the places where we eat, and the connection with culture.
Then, in Part 2, I switched more firmly onto the benefits of a balanced and nutritious diet to society, customs, and interesting experiments to test value.
Part 3 is a historical review of how we brand, package, market, and sell a promise to make it the most appealing, with selected foods from Northern Italy and Europe—including my favorites.
Bit first, let’s clear a few misconceptions.
Food marketing language is not based on science and doesn’t adhere to a certain universal code of ethics and values. ‘Artisanal’ and ‘handmade’ may be superior to processed foods, but it’s not an option for everyone.
“If we urge the Mexican to stay at her metate, the farmer to stay at his olive press, the housewife to stay at her stove instead of going to McDonald’s, all so that we may eat handmade tortillas, traditionally pressed olive oil, and home-cooked meals, we are assuming the mantle of the aristocrats of old. We are reducing the options of others as we attempt to impose our elite culinary preferences on the rest of the population.”
Rachel Laudan, culinary historian