A new book on food and politics

https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/proteins-pathologies-and-politics-9781350056893/

This is the link to the book

Proteins, Pathologies and Politics

Dietary Innovation and Disease from the Nineteenth Century 

 

I've contributed by writing a chapter on how Fascism and Nazism constructed a sort of 'sacred vegetarianism' in order to support and communicate their ideologies.  

The book is published by Bloomsbury and analyses how the combination of food, medicine and dietary guidelines have shaped political perspectives and communication since the Nineteenth century. 

The editors are David Gentilcore (University of Leicester, UK) and Matthew Smith (University of Strathclyde, UK).

Kinder Ferrero: Grandmothers Against Taboos, Part 1

Italian version below

Ferrero, one of the biggest Italian food companies (it also produces Nutella) has created a really original promotional campaign for the products of its Kinder snacks, mostly consumed by children and young adults.

The campaign is called Bontà a Prova di Nonna (grandmother-proof quality) and is based on four Italian grandmothers, one from the south, one from the north, and two from the central areas of the country. On the Ferrero website it is said that the four women have been chosen after a meticulous research across Italy. In the end, the 'experts' of the company have chosen the most skilled and reliable grandmothers. The elected ones have been allowed to enter the building where the snacks are made in Basilicata, a southern Italian region. Their role, according to the campaign, has consisted of checking any stage of the production process and guaranteeing the quality of the final product. They have also been allowed to ask whatever question to the people working on Kinder's products.

The videos of the grandmothers visiting the plant and talking to the workers involved in the production process have been uploaded on You Tube, the Kinder website and other new media. In the first video, the grandmothers are still at home, cook with their grandchildren, discover and are suspicious of the Ferrero products, and prepare for the adventure. In the second, they pack their stuff and start the journey. In the third one, they arrive in the plant and visit it. One of the most frequent terms they use is 'surprise'. At the beginning, they have prejudices against industrial food, but when they witness the production process, they are surprised by the fact that ingredients are genuine, that people working there are nice, and that the final product resembles the traditional, home-made one. In the fourth video, finally, the grandmothers comment on what they have seen, saying that it is important that people see what the production process consists of.

In the videos, clearly the grandmothers play the role of the link between the company and the consumer. They are consumers, but also have access to the company. The user/consumer sees what happens in the plant through their eyes. This is quite common, actually. What is more unusual, instead, is the combination between grandmothers and social media in order to unveil the technology existing behind industrial food.

In Italy, technology relating to food has always been a taboo, and many advertisements show that food is produced in countryside, among wind mills and uncontaminated valleys. The idea of sending four grandmothers to the plant is a way of bridging the gap between how people imagine the production process and what really happens in the food industry. The campaign is so interesting that I will analyse it more in depth in the next post.

La Ferrero ha creato una nuova campagna pubblicitaria per i prodotti Kinder. Si chiama Bontà a Prova di Nonna ed è interpretata da quattro nonne italiane, una del sud, una del nord e due del centro Italia. Sul sito della Ferrero si può leggere che le quattro nonne sono state scelte dopo una lunga ricerca attraverso tutta l'Italia. Alla fine, gli 'esperti' della Ferrero hanno scelto le nonne più capaci. Alle elette è stato concesso di entrare nello stabilimento dove si producono gli snack Ferrero, in Basilicata. Una volta lì, hanno potuto controllare di persona ogni stadio del processo di produzione, e garantire la qualità del prodotto finale. E' stato anche concesso loro di fare qualsiasi domanda alle persone che lavorano alla produzione degli snack.

I video delle nonne che visitano lo stabilimento e parlano con i lavoratori sono stati caricati su You Tube, sul sito della Kinder e da altre parti sul web. Nel primo video, le nonne sono ancora a casa, cucinano con i nipoti, scoprono (e guardano con un po' di sospetto) i prodotti Ferrero, e si preparano per la grande avventura che le aspetta. Nel secondo, le nonne fanno i bagagli e cominciano il viaggio. Nel terzo, entrano nello stabilimento. Qui, una delle parole che usano più di frequente è 'sorpresa'. All'inizio infatti hanno qualche pregiudizio, ma quando assistono alla produzione degli snack, si convincono che gli ingredienti sono genuini, che le persone che ci lavorano sono simpatiche, e che il prodotto finale somiglia a quello tradizionale che loro preparano a casa. Nel quarto video, le nonne commentano quello che hanno visto, dicendo che è importante che la gente veda come sono prodotti questi cibi.

E' chiaro che le nonne nel video hanno la funzione di collegare l'azienda al consumatore. Sono consumatrici, ma hanno accesso all'azienda. Il consumatore può quindi vedere quello che succede nello stabilimento attraverso i loro occhi. E' una cosa che succede spesso, in pubblicità. Quello che succede più raramente è l'utilizzo di nonne e social media per raccontare la tecnologia che c'è dietro l'industria del cibo.

In Italia, la tecnologia usata per produrre cibo è sempre stata un tabù, e molti spot pubblicitari mostrano campagne incontaminate, valli ridenti e mulini a vento come scenari della produzione. L'idea di mandare quattro nonne nello stabilimento è un modo per colmare lo spazio siderale che si è creato tra quello che la gente immagina sia il processo produttivo e quello che realmente avviene nell'industria del cibo. Come avrete capito, è una campagna molto interessante, e ne parlerò in maniera più approfondita nel prossimo post.

Beyond Factory Farming: The Problem of Eating Animals

Italian version below

A recent survey on meat consumption has confirmed that in Italy eating meat has been decreasing significantly. According to this survey, eight Italians out of 100 have banned meat from their diet. More specifically, 7 percent of the Italians define themselves as vegetarians, and 1 percent consider themselves as vegans. But also those who eat meat have reduced its consumption. For the first time, Italian families spend more money on fruit and vegetables than on any other category of food, while before 2015 this dominant position had belonged to meat. Another survey has found that from 2000 to 2014 meat consumption in Italy passed from 82.7 to 78.2 kilos per person.

What do these numbers say? How to explain them? When I saw and combined the results of these surveys, the first reason that came to my mind was the economic crisis. It's really simple, I thought. People don't have money, and meat is one of the most expensive items of food. As a result, people consume less meat and more affordable foods, such as fruit and vegetables, in order to spend less.

This explanation would be right if we didn't take into account the result of a third survey, focusing on organic food in Italy. This survey says that organic food consumption increased by 11 percent in 2014 and by 19 percent in 2015. As organic food is much more expensive than the other foods, it is evident that Italian people didn't want to save money while buying food in 2014 and 2015. Simply, they preferred fruit and vegetables to meat.

However, even if we believed that the reason for reduced meat consumption is linked to money, we must assume that, in wanting to save money, Italian people preferred to consume less meat, and to spend what they saved on organic food. Again, it is clear that meat is losing its dominant position at the Italian table. Incidentally, the crisis of meat is bitterly concrete and not painless. The first survey I mentioned above also states that in the last 5 years, 12.000 farms producing meat have closed down and that 180.000 people risk losing their jobs.

Importantly, what's happening in Italy is also happening in other European countries. Developing countries, instead, eat more meat every year, while other countries such as USA and Canada are quite stable. Meat crisis seems to me a kind of illness of old and developed communities. However, I don't see it as an economic illness. Rather, the problem is cultural.

Many experts say that factory farming is the main reason for this decrease. Animals considered as things and exploited for their entire lives as objects providing meat, and related food security issues have suggested consuming less meat, they say.

This is probably true. However, I would suggest another, broader, reason. For me, apart from factory farming, the decline of meat should also be combined with the new way we look at animals: not only the way we raise and kill them, but also the role we give them in the world, and our relationships to them.

Certainly, the way we raise and kill animals in huge farms suggests reducing meat consumption. But also the simple fact that eating meat means 'eating an animal' plays its role. My point is that meat consumption would decline even if meat was produced with more humane methods and more respectful approaches. I know many people who have banned or reduced meat independently from where meat comes from and how animals were raised and killed. For me, it's the concept of 'eating an animal' that many people feel problematic today and that will increasingly be rediscussed in the near future.

Un recente sondaggio ha confermato che il consumo di carne in Italia è in forte calo. In sostanza, 8 italiani su cento non la mangiano più. Il 7% degli italiani si definisce vegetariano, e l'1% vegano. Ma anche chi continua a mangiare carne ne mangia meno. Per la prima volta, la categoria di cibo per cui gli italiani spendono di più è frutta e verdura, mentre prima del 2015 la prima in classifica era la carne. Un altro sondaggio ha provato che dal 2000 al 2014 in Italia il consumo di carne pro capite è passato da 82.7 a 78.2 chili.

Cosa significano questi numeri? La prima cosa che ho pensato quando ho visto i risultati di entrambi i sondaggi è stato che il problema è economico. E' molto semplice, mi sono detto, la gente non ha più soldi, e la carne è il cibo più caro. Quindi, si consuma meno carne e si comprano cibi meno costosi come frutta e verdura, per risparmiare.

Questa lettura potrebbe anche essere giusta se non prendessimo in considerazione un terzo sondaggio, questa volta sul cibo biologico. Questo sondaggio ci dice che il consumo di cibo biologico è aumentato dell'11% nel 2014 e del 19% nel 2015. Visto che il cibo biologico è molto caro, questo significa che gli italiani non hanno voluto risparmiare in quanto a cibo nel 2014 e 2015. Semplicemente, hanno preferito frutta e verdura alla carne.

Ma se anche volessimo credere alla motivazione economica, dobbiamo ammettere che, volendo risparmiare, gli italiani hanno preferito sacrificare la carne e reinvestire almeno parte dei soldi risparmiati in cibo biologico. Di nuovo, questo significa che la carne sta perdendo quella posizione dominante che aveva sempre avuto in passato sulla tavola degli italiani. Tra l'altro, la crisi della carne è maledettamente concreta e per niente indolore: il primo sondaggio che ho citato ha infatti anche fatto emergere che negli ultimi 5 anni  ben 12.000 stabilimenti che producevano carne hanno chiuso e che 180.000 persone sono a rischio disoccupazione.

Questo trend sta anche caratterizzando altri paesi europei. I paesi in via di sviluppo, invece, consumano ogni anno più carne e altri paese come USA e Canada hanno un andamento stabile. Personalmente, la crisi della carne mi sembra sempre di più una specie di malattia dei popoli più antichi e sviluppati. Ma questa malattia, secondo me, non è economica, ma culturale.

Molti esperti dicono che la causa principale di questa riduzione dei consumi è l'allevamento industriale. Il fatto di considerare gli animali come oggetti e di sfruttarli per tutta la loro breve vita come macchine che forniscono carne, e i conseguenti problemi di salute, secondo loro, hanno suggerito di consumare meno carne.

Questo è vero, probabilmente. Ma, io suggerirei anche un'altra ragione più ampia. Secondo me, oltre agli allevamenti industriali, il declino della carne dovrebbe anche essere messo in relazione al modo in cui oggi consideriamo gli animali. Non solo come li alleviamo e uccidiamo, ma come concepiamo la loro presenza in questo mondo e il rapporto che noi dovremmo avere con loro. Sicuramente l'allevamento industriale suggerisce di consumare meno carne. Ma secondo me anche il fatto che mangiare carne significa 'mangiare un animale' ha il suo peso. Credo che anche se la carne fosse prodotta in maniera più umana e rispettosa degli animali, il consumo di carne diminuirebbe in ogni caso. Le persone mangerebbero meno carne indipendentemente dalla provenienza della stessa. Secondo me, infatti, è il concetto di 'mangiare un animale' che molta gente trova oggi problematico, e che sarà ridiscusso sempre di più nell'immediato futuro.

The Strange Case of the Book of the Ingredients

(Find below the Italian version)

During this week, I spent some time visiting six Italian supermarkets in Milan and Venice and trying to shed light on the strange case of the book of the ingredients. As said in a previous post, for the last few years, in many Italian (but also European) supermarkets, the ingredients have disappeared from the labels of bread, meat and other products packaged by the retailers. These labels only show the mysterious writing: “Ingredients: See the book of the ingredients”. As said in the previous post, the book of the ingredients is usually on the other side of the supermarket, in places as mysterious as the ingredients of bread and meat.

This week I have gone further, and have asked some employees why this happens. Most of them immediately showed surprise and embarrassment, and all of them called their managers. All the managers said roughly the same thing: we resort to the book of the ingredients when the ingredients and the allergens are too many. As a recent law forces us to also put allergens on the labels, it often happens that the list would be really long, and we would need a bigger label. The law allows us to turn to the book of the ingredients, and we frequently choose this option.

This is the case in which a law that is certainly right worsens things. In fact, we have the right to know both the ingredients and the allergens of the foods we buy, no doubt. However, the result is that now the great majority of people ignore both, the ingredients and the allergens. In fact, in all of the cases I was the only person who read the book, no one else was interested in it while I was in these supermarkets.

How to solve this problem? I think that bigger labels (and font sizes) would be the easiest way. However, if supermarkets didn't want to do this, allergens could remain in the books, and ingredients could appear on the labels again, as they are of interest for more people.

Actually, this is only a part of the problem. By looking at the books of the ingredients, in fact, I also noticed that sometimes ingredients and allergens are only a few, and labels could contain them. The real problem is that some of these ingredients are somehow critical, such as palm oil, lard and other elements that discourage consumers for health or calorie-related reasons. Thus, the book of the ingredients has become a precious tool to sell products that people wouldn't buy.

In conclusion, before the law people ignored the allergens, but at least they knew the ingredients of the food they bought; after the (right) law, they ignore both the allergens and the ingredients. I strongly believe that something should change.

Versione in italiano

Durante questa settimana sono andato in sei supermercati di Milano e Venezia, per cercare di capire qualcosa dello strano caso del libro degli ingredienti. Come ho già scritto in un post precedente, da qualche anno in molti supermercati italiani, ma anche europei, gli ingredienti sono scomparsi dalle etichette di pane, carne e altri prodotti confezionati dagli stessi supermercati. Le etichette di questi prodotti contengono solo una scritta misteriosa: “Ingredienti: Vedi il libro degli ingredienti”. Come detto nel post precedente, il libro di solito si trova dall'altra parte del supermercato, in posti misteriosi almeno quanto gli ingredienti di pane e carne.

Questa settimana sono andato avanti, e ho chiesto a qualche impiegato come mai i supermercati fanno questa scelta. Molti di loro hanno mostrato sorpresa e imbarazzo, e tutti loro hanno chiamato i loro capi. Tutti i manager hanno detto più o meno la stessa cosa: usiamo il libro degli ingredienti quando gli ingredienti e gli allergeni sono troppi. Poiché una legge recente ci obbliga a scrivere gli allergeni sull'etichetta, spesso accade che la lista sarebbe troppo lunga, e così avremmo bisogno di un'etichetta più grande. La legge ci consente di ricorrere al libro, e noi spesso lo facciamo.

Si tratta di un caso interessante, perché una legge giusta ha peggiorato le cose. Infatti, noi abbiamo tutto il diritto di conoscere sia gli ingredienti che gli allergeni contenuti nel cibo che compriamo, su questo non c'è dubbio. Ma il risultato è che oggi la grande maggioranza delle persone ignora sia gli ingredienti che gli allergeni. Infatti, ogni volta che ero al supermercato, sono sempre stato l'unica persona a chiedere di leggere il libro, nessun altro ne era minimamente interessato.

Come risolvere il problema? Intanto credo che etichette (e caratteri) più grandi sarebbero la soluzione più facile. Ma se i supermercati si opponessero a questa soluzione, gli allergeni potrebbero restare nel libro, mentre gli ingredienti potrebbero tornare sulle etichette, visto che interessano più persone.

Comunque, in verità, questa è solo una piccola parte del problema. Leggendo i libri degli ingredienti, infatti, ho anche notato che a volte gli ingredienti e gli allergeni erano pochi, e che le etichette sarebbero state sufficientemente grandi a contenerli. Il vero nodo è che alcuni di questi ingredienti sono, per così dire, problematici, come ad esempio l'olio di palma, lo strutto e altri nomi che di solito scoraggiano i consumatori per problemi nutrizionali o sanitari. Quindi, il libro degli ingredienti diventa uno strumento per vendere prodotti che altrimenti la gente non comprerebbe.

In definitiva, prima della legge le persone ignoravano gli allergeni ma almeno conoscevano gli ingredienti del cibo che compravano; dopo la legge (che ripetiamo, è giusta), la gente ignora sia gli allergeni che gli ingredienti. Credo davvero che qualcosa andrebbe cambiata.

Zero Food Miles: Theory and Practice

Zero miles (or zero kilometres) is a really fascinating food theory. It asserts that we should consume food grown and marketed close to the place where we live. By doing so, we avoid food that travels for many miles by flight, ship, truck and other polluting means of transport. Apart from pollution, zero miles also allows us to eat fresher food which does not contain preservatives and other ingredients that threatens health, taste and nutritional values.

As often happens, good theories fail when they are turned into practice. First of all, it has been demonstrated that the environmental relevance of zero miles does not apply to everywhere. In the northern part of Britain, for example, growing fruit and vegetables needs energy-consuming, heated-up greenhouses, as the weather does not permit the natural growing of some vegetables. A recent research has demonstrated that importing products from Spain pollutes less than growing them in the central and northern part of Britain. Thus, the first point is that zero miles does not guarantee environmental advantage on some parts of the planet.

However, the real problem with zero miles is cultural. In fact, in this era more than in any other, people travel and live for long periods far from their original places, often for their entire lives. In these new places, they build new lives, establish new relationships and do things that they would have never done at their original homes. Yet, they often feel the need not to lose their roots, and consuming foods from their birthplaces is the easiest and best way to retrieve those roots.

My Italian friends living in London theoretically support zero kilometres, but their refrigerators and kitchen shelves are full of Parmigiano Reggiano, authentic Italian pasta and mozzarella, extra-virgin olive oil authentically produced in Italy and an array of Italian foods much more various than those I have in Italy. They find them in the most popular supermarkets in London, which import all that food from Italy ignoring the zero miles theory. Questioned by me, my friends have said that they would never replace Parmigiano Reggiano with British cheese, Italian pasta with British pasta, and so on. Clearly, those products make them feel at home. Apart from their wonderful taste, those foods have the function of retrieving my friends' roots. The same happens to the other Italians who have emigrated everywhere, and to the Indians, Egyptians, Bulgarians and so on that have built new lives far from their birthplaces.

Food is a magician. It conveys memories, emotions, scents and people that have been important in our past. This is not theory, but everyday life. A useful and effective theory such as zero miles cannot keep up with the strength of the flood of emotions and nostalgia that sometimes gets into our lives without asking permission. It is probably disputable, but when at the crossroads where we will have to choose between correctness and emotions, we will more often give up our environmental awareness and take the road of the taste of our past.

Hands off Suspended Coffee!

Il caffè sospeso was an Italian philanthropic practice which was really popular in the first part of the twentieth century, especially in Naples. The practice was really simple and consisted of buying one-more coffee than the coffees people actually needed. A lone person used to ask for two coffees, a couple for three, etc., telling the barista that one coffee was sospeso, suspended. The suspended coffee was momentarily not served, but saved for a poor person who would enter the bar soon. Obviously, il caffè sospeso was really popular with the Neapolitan homeless people, who used to enter the bars asking if, by chance, there was a caffè sospeso.

In Italy, this practice is still present, but has gradually declined in popularity. However, when it was supposed that we would never buy one-more coffee for the rest of our lives, suddenly suspended coffee became popular again. Not in Italy (at least at first), and not at the old bars and cafes, but thanks to charities and big cafe chains. In many famous cafes belonging to these chains, in fact, you can buy one-more coffee. Your name will be written on a blackboard that all the customers will see and the money you have given for one-more coffee will be passed onto a charity, which will use it to buy a coffee for a needy person.

It's quite easy to understand that the name is the same, but what today is called suspended coffee is something very different from il caffè sospeso. In one word, what has become lost is spontaneity. While in the past the bar mediated between the donor and the receiver, now the company encourages giving in a commercial context. On many Facebook pages, the company praises the donors, to persuade other people to do the same. Thus, the company uses this practice to attract new customers, to whom it promises praises. Thus, today suspended coffee is only a commercial strategy.

Moreover, spontaneity is also lost from the point of view of the receiver. In fact while in the past the needy person required to play an active role, deciding to enter the bar and ask for a suspended coffee, today it is the charity (or the company) that decides who is the lucky person. Other times, even more different from the original, one suspended coffee is activated automatically, each time a coffee is sold. Again, it is only a strategy to sell more.

What to say? Certainly giving and receiving has changed over the last thirty or forty years, and today the old mechanism of il caffè sospeso would be considered paternalistic. In fact, today the sharing economy offers us more adequate ways of giving. Moreover, many people might consider upsetting to see a homeless person into the bar. But what to do with the old practices? I would like that old habits such as il caffè sospeso disappear, becoming material for historians. Seeing their name exploited, and them turned into a further mechanism to make money, instead, is quite upsetting.