RE:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/39913.html
You Must Respond to the EU's Case
I don't think you are correctly addressing the European Union's
case. The EU's position is in effect that foodstuffs produced in
an industrial/deracinated context should be sold under a correct
technical description, using the kind of language that an expert,
such as a connoisseur or a chef, would use to classify many
approximately similar products. For example, "Feta," however
defined, is an instance of White Brine Goat Cheese or White
Brine Cheese, as the case may be.
http://europa.eu/bulletin/en/200512/p108038.htm
"Champagne," likewise however defined, is an instance of Sparkling
Wine. L. W. Marrison, in his _Wines and Spirits_ (1957), devotes a
chapter to "Champagne and Sparkling Wines," and another one to
"Fortified Wines" (viz., Port, Sherry, Madeira, Tokay,
etc.). My understanding is that the major English grocery
chains have had a long-running battle with the EU over
nomenclature for years.
If you want to address the EU's position, "on the
merits," by all means do so, but as it stands, you are not
addressing the merits of the case.
Knowing something about the history of food adulteration, I think
I am on the side of people who draw lines in the sand,
whether they are EU or Japanese bureaucrats, Kosher Rabbis,
Islamic Halal Butchers, or whatever, because they collectively
resist the natural tendency of the corporate food processor
to make everything out of sawdust and plastic. I am not a
drinker, and I don't know very much about wine, but I do know
something about cheese. The local mega-grocer (Krogers) tends to a
downward drift of quality. Their cheeses are inexpensive, if you
buy selectively, but even their best cheeses are only good
enough to be used in a dish overwhelmingly flavored by garlic,
paprika, etc.
====================================
Unpublished Scrap, (6/11/2007)
Wine and cheese are different from most other articles of
consumption.
They are the major packaged processed foods with any great
pretension
to quality, based on a process of microbial reaction and
aging. For
most other foodstuffs, freshness is the test.
Tomatoes, assuming them
to be both ripe and fresh, are worth more than tomato paste,
etc. The
rejects get reduced to tomato paste. The same principle
applies to
most fruits and vegetables. Most agricultural regulations can be
nonprescriptive.
The major traditional wine producing countries (France,
South Germany,
Italy, Spain, and Portugal) have built up a successful
export trade on
the basis of precisely the kinds of regulations you
deplore. The
astute English or American consumer looks for "Produit De
France" on
the label, and then decides whether to trust the rest of the
description.
http://winegeeks.com/resources/
http://winegeeks.com/resources/106
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14293/14293-h/14293-h.htm
http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/cheese/welcom.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese
=================================
Reading Note of:
John Burnett, Plenty and Want: A Social History of Diet in England
from 1815 to the Present Day, 2nd ed., Scholar Press, London, 1979
(1st ed. 1966).
This book is constructed around the convergence of
the food of the English masses, who lived hand to mouth, and the
English classes, petit bourgeoisie or better, who had sufficient
means to have the luxury of choice.
Since the nineteenth century, the food of the common
people has been becoming both purer and more nearly adequate.
Up until about 1850, adulteration was on the
increase, due to the increase in town-dwelling and the increasing
anonymity with which the Englishman's daily food was provided.
Apart from comparatively traditional, and even beneficial
additions, such as pease in bread, food began to be spiked with
things which were positively poisonous, eg. heavy metals,
dangerous drugs (French absinthe was matched by English beer, as
actually concocted), and even industrial materials such as
sulfuric acid. At that point, chemists learned to document
adulteration (especially with the aid of the microscope). Under
their prodding, law caught up with reality, and compulsory
regulation began to be introduced, generating a wave of
self-regulation in advance of itself. This self-regulation was
especially effective since it coincided with the increasing
horizontal and vertical integration of the emerging food
processing industry. Also, the fall of food prices made
adulteration less and less necessary. However, the legend of
adulteration outlived the reality, and adulteration's retreat was
and is to the present day continually harassed by reformers
complaining of more and more minor tainting factors.
In the early nineteenth century, the few well-fed
workers tended to be those in the modernizing industries, as well
as the agrarian workers in 'the dark corners of the land,' the
pastoral regions. But the overwhelming majority, either
agricultural workers in the 'improving' regions or traditional
craft workers were on the margin of subsistence in purely
calorific terms, let alone the more refined criteria which were
ultimately adopted.
The first improvements in diet were when liberal
reformers reduced taxes on food. But the single biggest factor in
nineteenth century dietary improvement was the improvement of
transportation (and refrigeration), which lowered the cost and
increased the availability of grain and meat from north America
and Argentina, fish from the North Sea and the North Atlantic
generally, and fruits from the tropics. The falling price of food
triggered a wave of mechanization and rationalization in English
agriculture, with rapid emigration of farm workers. English
farmers found niches where they could produce at North American
levels of value for money.
At the same time, the industrial revolution created
more and more well paid employment, so more and more people could
afford to buy the newly available food.
The comparatively mild stringencies of the first
world war led to a subsequent emphasis on food production at home,
using American methods, which culminated during the second world
war.
Over time, the proportion of the population in any
given degree of privation drifted downward, mostly due to the
increase of productive employment, but the prevailing standards of
nutritional adequacy were becoming more and more stringent, with
the progressive realization that there are dozens of essential
nutrients, and an increasing will to question what constituted an
adequate diet. This described a path of rising standards similar
to that through which the adulteration issue had gone. On the eve
of the Second World War, under the prevailing definitions of
nutritional adequacy, about a third of the population were still
undernourished.
At the same time that the food of the masses was
getting better, that of the upper classes was being scaled back,
by the progressive elimination of what might be described as
conspicuous waste, that is the loading of a table with far more
food than could possibly be eaten. Of course, some of the
left-overs and table scraps were consumed by the servants and
given to the poor, subject to various wastages in transit.
The dramatic achievement of the second world war was
food rationing. While limits were set on the maximum amount of
meat and similar foods which people were permitted to
consume, bread and vegetables were not only unrationed but
price-controlled. In some cases, foodstuffs were provided gratis
as well, and there was a program of subsidized feeding, especially
the 'British Restaurants' which were employed to provide lunches
for workers in establishments too small to have their own
canteens.
By the postwar period, the nutritional difference
between the classes was finally down to a maximum of 10% or so.
And there it remained until the seventies.
The second edition was put out at the time of the oil
price shocks, and Burnett was temporarily taking a dour view which
has not been borne out by events. Hence he contemplated a return
to third world (or Early Victorian) conditions.