Appetite 45 (2005) 1–3
www.elsevier.com/locate/appet
Editorial
Eight contributions to social food studies in the Low Countries
The idea for this collection of essays emerged in October
2003 during a bus trip made by some 30 European
researchers who were attending a symposium in Prague on
the diffusion of food culture since the 18th century (revised
papers are published in Oddy & Petranova, 2005). Talk was
about the huge interest in food studies over the last decade or
so. Reference was made to a mass of books and exhibitions, at
least three specialised new journals, numerous research
centres all over the world, countless colloquia and fascinat-
ing websites, unrelenting mass media interest, university
Masters programmes, and expert summer schools. With great
satisfaction, one participant said that nowadays it has become
unnecessary to legitimate one’s interest in social food
studies, which not so long ago was inconceivable. To explain
this success, another pointed at the cultural turn that social
studies of food had taken in the early 1990s, while a third
brought up the recurrent food scares and the ensuing interest
in general food topics, which led a fourth to mention the wide
success of eating out. Finally, a fifth voice concluded that the
handy introduction to the sociology of food, that was
published not more than 10 years ago (Mennell, Murcott,
& Van Otterloo, 1992), should no doubt be rewritten.
These remarks directly prompted Anneke Van Otterloo
and Peter Scholliers to organise two events that intended to
question the nature and importance of recent changes in
social food studies. Rather than rewriting the 1992 book, the
extent to which new trends actually have invaded this field
of study needed to be assessed. Two opportunities to do so
arose, both of them in the Netherlands and within 1 week.
The first event was a workshop, ‘The Sociology of Food: A
Decade Afterwards’, organised within the programme of the
Amsterdam School for Social Science Research, 20 April
2004. This workshop addressed theoretical and methodo-
logical matters. The mere mentioning of the titles of the
lectures may disclose some new moves in the field.1
1
Introduction, Anneke van Otterloo; Food Research: Fast Theory.
McDonald’s in Social Science, Marc Jacobs; Statistics, Signs and Codes:
Twenty years of Food Historiography, Peter Scholliers; Food in the
Expanding Anthroposphere, Johan Goudsblom; The Political Uses of Food
and Cookbooks, Patricia van den Eeckhout; Sociology of Food: where we
are now, and where next?, Anne Murcott; Food and Sociological Theory,
Stephen Mennell. The lectures have not been published.
0195-6663/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.appet.2005.03.008
The second event was a session at the eleventh Sociaal-
Wetenschappelijke Studiedagen (‘Social-Scientific Study
Days’, the biennial meeting of Dutch and Flemish
sociologists), labelled ‘Eating and Drinking: Trends and
Tensions after 1945’, Amsterdam, 22–23 April 2004. The
aim was to bring together young Dutch and Flemish
researchers with diverse backgrounds in social sciences.
They were invited briefly to present their methods and
theoretical paradigms, but particularly, to stress results of
their ongoing investigations. This event was thus aimed not
so much at discussing theory and paradigms in recent
research trends, but primarily at learning about changes in
eating since about 1950 and possible future trends.
Fifteen researchers reacted enthusiastically, which made
the ‘Eating’-session one of the largest of the meeting (again,
this is quite telling for today’s concern with food studies).
Anne Murcott and Stephen Mennell provided the com-
ments, and discussions were lively, enriching and pleasant.
Papers have been rewritten thoroughly, and they are
presented in this issue of Appetite. They report present-
day social and cultural food studies in the Low Countries by
two Flemish and 13 Dutch researchers—the latter divided
between five teams. Papers are by scholars from university
departments of Environmental Studies, Sociology, Com-
munication, Health Education, History, Agriculture, and
Psychology. This list shows that social food studies in the
Low Countries are not limited to one or two disciplines.
Indeed, these papers illustrate the considerable variety of
approaches currently evident across the whole field.
Having stressed this, it goes without saying that this set
of papers is far from being representative of the whole
present state of study in this area in the Low Countries. At
present, historical attention to social food research seems
the most successful branch in these countries (Van den
Eeckhout, 2002; Van Otterloo, 2000a,b; for an earlier
survey Den Hartog, 1992; Scholliers, 1992). For a recent
appreciation of changes in international food historio-
graphy, see Jaine (2004) and Super (2000), and for a
research survey with regard to the sociology of food and the
politics of food, see, for example, respectively, Germov and
Williams (1999) and Lien and Nerlich (2004).
Since they belong to very different domains, the papers do
not have much in common in terms of theoretical approach,
bibliographic references, form or source material. A cursory
glance at their bibliographies, for instance, reveals a very rich
2 Editorial / Appetite 45 (2005) 1–3
but heterogeneous list of titles. Yet, some of the authors refer
to common literature. Dreezens et al. and Hoogland et al.
refer to the work of the psychologist S.H. Schwartz;
Dagevos, Segers, and Mestdag use the work by the
sociologist Alan Warde; Segers, and Gerbens et al. refer to
the ethnologist J. Jobse-van Putten; Dagevos, Mestdag, and
Sneijder et al. refer to the anthropologist Mary Douglas;
Sneijder et al., Hoogland et al., and Tenbult et al. refer to the
work of the psychologist P. Rozin; and Mestdag and Sneijder
et al. refer to the sociologist Claude Fischler. Clearly, Dutch
and Flemish researchers make intensive use of a wide variety
of (old and new) international work. Likewise, the method-
ology and scope used in the papers differ a great deal. Tenbult
et al., Mestdag, and Sneijder et al. rely on new empirical
investigations, while Dagevos, and Dreezens et al. present
views that are based on a survey of the literature. Gerbens
et al. and Hoogland et al. make use of official statistics, and
Segers turns to old cookery books. Moreover, the house of
empirical research has many rooms: Sneijder et al. apply
conversation analysis, Mestdag relies on quantitative data
from a time–budget investigation, and Tenbult et al. use
interviews. The fact that the authors are Dutch or Flemish
does not imply a distinct geographical limitation. Some of
them refer to Dutch or Flemish data, but others—even using
national source material—have an international scope.
Despite the differences with regard to methodology,
source material, form, bibliography, theoretical scope and
spatial coverage, the papers do share some common ground.
This appears clearly with regard to their shared concern and
even anxiety about recent developments, to which we shall
return. The papers also testify to the fact that the cultural
turn is totally accepted in social food research. By ‘cultural
turn’, we do not only mean that attention is being paid to
cultural matters (which of course is hardly new), but that
attention is devoted to methodologies, theories, and data
that permit the study of perceptions, values, concepts,
sentiments, identities, beliefs, attitudes and so on. So the
authors of the papers apply discourse analysis, envision
‘integrated’ consumer theories, or use qualitative data to
learn about past, recent and future consumers’ attitudes. Ten
years ago, this would not have been the case (save a rare
exception). Having said this, more traditional approaches
also appear in this set of papers.
The eight papers may broadly be divided according to their
historical dimension. Gerbens et al., Hoogland et al., Mestdag,
and Segers show interest in the past to various extents, while
Dagevos, Dreezens et al., Sneijder et al., and Tenbult et al.
show interest primarily in present-day developments.
Yves Segers takes a long-term view in ‘Food Recom-
mendations, Tradition and Change in a Flemish Cookbook:
Ons Kookboek, 1920–2000’. He uses Alan Warde’s (1997)
Culinary Antinomies—novelty and tradition, health and
indulgence, economy and extravagance, and convenience
and care, to analyse the cookbook’s recipes and recommen-
dations—looking particularly at attitudes to meat. It appears
that, especially since the 1960s, the recommendations
include all modern trends (international cuisine, health,
efficient cooking, and so on), although they also stand up for
a traditional, robust cuisine, which is due to the character of
the cookbook’s editor.
Inge Mestdag (‘Disappearance of the traditional meal:
temporal, social and spatial destructuration’) tackles the
recent assumption about the disappearance of the traditional
meal pattern: much more than prior to, say, 1980, people
tend to ‘graze’, ‘snack’ or ‘pick’ instead of having meals at
fixed times and in a fixed setting. She compares time
budgets for Flanders in 1988 and 1999. Perhaps surpris-
ingly, the results indicate that the Flemish are not just eating
at any time, any place or with any one. Flemish eating
practices still show a high level of structure in the temporal,
spatial and social organization of the meal.
Winnie Gerbens-Leenes and Sanderine Nonhebel (‘Food
and land use: the influence of consumption patterns on the
use of agricultural resources’) tackle the relationship
between food consumption and land use. They find that
changing consumption (for example, the emergence of
affluent diets in the West since the 1960s) have led to
changing land requirements. A hypothetical sober diet (of
wheat) requires only one-sixth of land than the present-day
diet. The trend toward affluent food consumption through-
out the West will bring with it a need for more land. The
authors stress (and warn of) the increased competition with
other claims on land, such as infrastructure developments or
ecological forms of agriculture.
The paper by Carolien Hoogland, Joop de Boer and Jan
Boersema (‘Transparency of the meat chain in the light of
food culture and history’) may serve as a bridge between the
papers with and those without a clear historical dimension.
The authors emphasise the need to put present-day
developments within a broader historical prospect (without,
however, paying much attention to it themselves). Their
starting point is the conflict between the high meat
consumption on the one hand, and its unsustainable
consumption and the concern about animal welfare on the
other hand. They investigate the solutions through which
consumers try to solve this conflict (eating less meat, more
sensible food production), to emphasise the transparency of
the food system, which would induce consumers’ trust.
Seeking inspiration from, among others, Lewis and
Bridger (2000), Hans Dagevos (‘Consumers as Four-Faced
Creatures. Looking at Food Consumption from the
Perspective of Contemporary Consumers’) detects a shift
from a product-driven to a consumer-driven economy and
society. He questions the prevalent demarcation between
materialistic and non-materialistic approaches to studying
the consumer. Hence he proposes a ‘consumer image
approach’ that combines elements of both.
Ellen Dreezens, Carolien Martijn, Petra Tenbült, Gerjo
Kok, and Nanne K. de Vries, (‘Food and the relation
between values, attitudes, information processing and
behaviour’) investigate the influence of values (beliefs,
moral considerations, power and so on) on behaviour
 Editorial / Appetite 45 (2005) 1–3
and information. They link these questions to sensitive
issues as genetically modified foods and sustainable
food production. They conclude that attitudes toward
genetically modified food have been found to be less
strong, and more ambivalent than attitudes towards
organically grown food.
In ‘Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetic
modification’ Petra Tenbült, Nanne K. de Vries, Ellen
Dreezens and Carolien Martijn further pursue the investi-
gation into values and genetic modification. The starting
point for their empirical enquiry is the finding that more and
more products are either genetically modified (GM) or
organically grown. They suggest that GMO acceptance
depends most on how natural the genetically modified
product is perceived, and not directly on how natural the
non-GM product is seen. Petra Sneijder and Hedwig te
Molder (‘Disputing taste: Food enjoyment as an achieve-
ment in interaction’) study the way people construct their
‘gourmet identity’, by reading e-mail messages on a Dutch
culinary e-forum. It appears that interaction does play a
central role, in which the notion of independent judgement
is crucial.
The papers share a concern about food culture in the
future, which most of the authors view with some anxiety.
They judge the present-day affluent food consumption in the
West as dangerous for the ecological system. They detect
diverse fears (whether about genetically modified food or
BSE) that imperil the trust people daily need to feed
themselves. In this process, the role of the consumer (with
his or her values, habits, beliefs, attitudes, expectations and
so forth) is seen as central by most of the authors. From this
stems a plea for the transparency of the food system or the
appeal to governments to inform consumers. And this adds a
political component to this set of articles.
This issue starts and finishes with a Flemish contribution
(purely by coincidence). Segers opens with his long-term
historical analysis of food recommendations, and Hoogland
et al. take up Segers’s concern about meat consumption.
Gerbens et al. widens this concern to other food items,
paying attention to consumers’ choices. Dagevos, then,
picks up this interest in the role of the consumer, which
Dreezens et al. and Tenbült et al. expand by their study of
consumers’ values. Sneijder et al. studied the interaction
with regard to taste formation. Finally, Mestdag concludes
by questioning consumers’ attitudes with regard to time
spent on eating.
References
Den Hartog, A. (1992). Modern nutritional problems and historical
nutrition research, with special reference to the Netherlands. In H.-J.
Teuteberg (Ed.), European food history: A research review (pp. 56–70).
Leicester: Leicester University Press, 56–70.
3
Germov, J., & Williams, L. (Eds.). (1999). A sociology of food and
nutrition: The social appetite. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Jaine, T. (2004). The present state of food studies. In Food and Culture:
Erasmus Prize 2003 (pp. 13–20), Amsterdam: Praemium Erasmianum
Foundation.
Lewis, D., & Bridger, D. (2000). The soul of the new consumer:
Authenticity—what we buy and why in the new economy. London:
Nicholas Brealey.
Lien, M. E., & Nerlich, B. (2004). The politics of food. Oxford: Berg.
Mennell, S., Murcott, A., & Van Otterloo, A. (1992). The sociology of food:
Eating, diet and culture. London: Sage.
Oddy, D. J., & Petranova, L. (Eds.). (2005). The diffusion of food culture in
Europe since the late eighteenth century. Prague: Academia Press.
Scholliers, P. (1992). Historical food research in Belgium: Development,
problems and results in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In H.-J.
Teuteberg (Ed.), European food history: A research review (pp. 71–89).
Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Super, J. S. (2002). Review essay: Food and history. Journal of Social
History, 36(1), 165–178.
Van den Eeckhout, P. (2002). Eten en gegeten worden. Historici en
consumptiegeschiedenis in België. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiede-
nis, 3, 373–390.
Van Otterloo, A. (2000a). The low countries. In K. Kiple, & K. C. Ornelas
(Eds.), The Cambridge world history of food (pp. 1232–1240).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Otterloo, A. (2000). Voeding. In J. Schot, et al. (Ed.), Techniek in
Nederland in de twintigste eeuw, III. Landbouw, Voeding (pp. 234–
442). Zutphen: Stichting Historie der Techniek & Walburg Pers.
Warde, A. (1997). Consumption, food & taste: Culinary antinomies and
commodity culture. London: Sage.
Stephen Mennell*
Department of Sociology, University College Dublin,
Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
E-mail address: stephen.mennell@ucd.ie
Anne Murcott
Institute for the Study of Genetics,
Biorisks and Society (IGBiS), University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK
E-mail address: anne.murcott@nottingham.ac.uk
Anneke van Otterloo
Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences,
University of Amsterdam,
Oudezijds Achterburgwal 185, 1012 DK Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
E-mail address: a.h.vanotterloo@uva.nl
Peter Scholliers
History Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium
E-mail address: pscholli@vub.ac.be
* Corresponding author..