The Social Construction of 'Good Food'

By going around Europe, I'm often struck by the differences between the shops selling 'good food' in various countries. For example, Natura Sì and Holland & Barrett. Natura Sì is one of the most popular Italian supermarket chains of good food, or at least of what good food means in Italy. Holland & Barrett is the British provider of 'good food' par excellence.

In Natura Sì, everything relates to Nature, starting from the name of the chain. Advertisements, food packaging, furniture and the names of the products continually remind the consumer of the fact that food comes from Nature, and that Culture (meant as human intervention) rarely counts. 

Holland and Barrett's idea of 'good food', instead, is quite different. Each shop sells two kinds of food: the first is similar to the food sold by Natura Sì, but it does not have the same approach to naturalness. A couple of months ago, for example, I wanted to buy some cereals (spelt, millet, etc) but I didn't find the geographic origins of those products on the label. When I asked the clerk, he answered: “... China ... India ... or something like that...”

I laughed while imagining the same scene in Italy. Probably the customer would have sent a ferocious letter to newspapers and TV programmes, and the clerk would have been fired in a couple of days. (Incidentally, not knowing where those products came from, I didn't buy them). The same approach may be found on the respective websites. For example, Natura Sì declares the geographic origins of the cereals, while Holland & Barrett does not. In short, being aware of the geographic origins of an item of food is a relevant part of the Italian notion of 'good food', while it adds little to the British meaning of the term.

However, what is really surprising is the second part of each Holland & Barrett shop, selling plastic pots of proteins, vitamins, hydrolysed collagen, and other products which underline, declare and exalt the fact that good food is made by humans, and that Nature only provides the raw ingredients. It is technology, instead, that turns natural ingredients into something good. It is in this part of the shop that the British notion of 'eating well' contrasts with the Italian one. In Italy, in fact, technology is seen as the worst food's enemy, and companies often hide the industrial process necessary to produce many items of food. In their advertisements, Italian food companies invent natural scenarios that nothing have to do with those foods, as they perfectly know that a natural frame will help to sell the picture.

In conclusion, I think that 'good food' is a concept composed of two parts. The first is scientific, as we perfectly know that some foods damage our bodies. The second part is instead a social construction, and it changes according to where we are. What is interesting, for me, is to see how one part overwhelms the other according to the social and cultural context. As is said in the title of a wonderful book by David Bell and Gill Valentine, which contributed to shaping my passion for food culture, 'We are where we eat'.