Alimentos Locales

AN48CH05_Beriss ARjats.
cls October 10, 2019 13:38
Annual Review of Anthropology

Food: Location, Location,
Location
David Beriss
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2019.48:61-75. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of New Orleans, New Orleans,

Access provided by Universidad Veracruzana on 02/27/20. For personal use only.
Louisiana 70115, USA; email: dberiss@uno.edu
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2019. 48:61–75 Keywords

First published as a Review in Advance on
local food, terroir, globalization, markets, identity, place
June 10, 2019
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

anthro.annualreviews.org
This article examines the question of why local food has become, for many
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-
activists and scholars, a core concept for understanding food systems and
050249
globalization and for challenging systems of injustice and inequality. I begin
Copyright © 2019 by Annual Reviews.
with the French concept of terroir, which is often translated as the “taste of
All rights reserved
place,” and examine why this term, part of France’s cultural common sense,
is difficult to implement in other places. I then consider efforts to use local
foods to grapple with the forces of globalization and efforts to use ideas about
local food to moralize capitalism and humanize food distribution systems. I
examine the relationship between movements for food sovereignty and food
justice with local foods. Finally, I explore the uses of local foods as part of
efforts to develop, assert, and sometimes market local, regional, or national
identities.
61
AN48CH05_Beriss ARjats.cls October 10, 2019 13:38
INTRODUCTION
For the last decade or so, the popular food intelligentsia has been telling Americans to eat local.
The implication has been that doing so will have positive environmental, social, economic, and
health outcomes. One might, like Nabhan (2002) or Kingsolver (2007), resolve to eat foods grown
or made within a limited distance of home: Shop at your farmers market; buy fish from your
local fisher. Since 2010, the month of June has been designated for the “Eat Local Challenge” in
New Orleans, in which participants agree to eat foods from within 200 miles of the city. Aspiring
locavores can choose the degree of localness they want to achieve by allowing a certain number
of “vices” (items not from the prescribed area) and “anything goes” meals each week. In 2018, the
event’s home page challenged potential participants with the question “How local are you?” to
entice them to sign up, adding a significant cultural dimension to the event in a city where tensions
between natives and newcomers have long been fraught (https://www.nolalocavore.org/). This
challenge seems especially interesting in a port city that has, for the last 300 years, developed a
cuisine that depends heavily on imported foodstuffs. Does proximity trump culture in defining the
localness of food? Are natives betraying their city by eating red beans grown in Michigan? What
is at stake in these choices? Is it about eating local food or about being a local person? Who is in
a position to determine the answers to these questions?
This article examines the ways in which anthropologists have approached the growing inter-
est in linking food to place. Difficulties in defining what makes a location culturally meaningful
have been explored by anthropologists for quite some time (Appadurai 1996, Gupta & Ferguson
1992, Low & Lawrence-Zúñiga 2003). Rather than take place as a given, anthropologists have
been interested in how and why particular spaces become meaningful places. The places that be-
come meaningful can be broad, like the imagined community of the nation (Anderson 1983), or
much smaller, like a city, neighborhood, or park (Newman 2015, Zukin 2010). Food provides an
especially useful perspective with which to understand the making of place. Indeed, concepts such
as terroir, deployed initially in France, explicitly associate geology and climate with culture and
craft in the making of food. In an increasingly globalized food world, where commodity grains
circulate without any attachment to place, claims about foods identified with specific locations of-
ten resonate with a wide range of causes, including environmentalism, nationalism, and, of course,
resistance to globalization itself. In what follows I review recent anthropology (and related work)
examining food and location, focusing broadly on five themes: (a) the making of the taste of place,
or terroir; (b) resistance to and new ways of thinking about globalization; (c) local food in the de-
velopment of alternatives to neoliberal or capitalist economic systems; (d) local food systems as
part of efforts to develop or assert food sovereignty and food justice; and (e) the uses of local foods
to develop, assert, and sometimes market local, regional, or national identities. There is, of course,
often overlap in research on these themes. As with the New Orleans “Eat Local” movement, food
seems to be a key symbol used to define places and to anchor people to them.
THE TASTE OF PLACE

Any discussion of the links between food and place must begin with the French concept of ter-
roir. France is well known for its national cuisine, for the invention of the modern restaurant, and,
perhaps more broadly, for the invention of many of the concepts central to broader discussions of
cuisine (Ferguson 2004, Spang 2000). The idea of a French national cuisine was developed along-
side the other symbols that have come to define French national identity, including ideas about
how such diverse regions were molded into a coherent national culture (Weber 1976). Part of
this ongoing process includes the celebration of the peasant, the territory, regional climates, and
the products of each region, including, of course, food (Rogers 1987, 2000). While Paris has long
62 Beriss
been held up as the pinnacle of French civilization, efforts to catalog regional agricultural prod-
ucts, crafts, and foods have played a significant role in defining national identity as well (Poulain
2017, Trubek 2008). Terroir was ostensibly developed to call attention to the geology and climate
of particular regions and to the putative way in which they combine to help produce agricultural
products. Terroir was first used to classify wine, a product that in France has historically been la-
beled by location (rather than, for instance, by grape varietal). Beginning with champagne, the link
between location and wine production was codified into law, in the form of the appellation d’origine
contrôlée system, which provided rules that defined the making of specific wines and, eventually,
other products, notably cheese (Trubek et al. 2010). At the center of these rules is location and the
assertion that place is essential in the making of the foods protected by geographic indication laws.
The success of these laws is linked to efforts to naturalize the very idea of France in the creation of
French national identity. The idea of terroir connecting the regional landscapes, with the craft and
culture of French peasants, and the history of the nation became, over the course of the twentieth
century, part of a kind of national common sense.
This commonsense relationship between product and place in France often renders invisible a
variety of conflicts. Claims made about the terroir of grapes or other products naturalize struggles
over the marketing of those products. This concept is true of wine, of course, but also of cheese and
other products (Bowen 2011, Daynes 2013, Farmer 2013). The history of efforts to frame the links
between food (and wine) and place is often forgotten, in favor of the idea that the products reflect
a timeless relationship with the land (Demossier 2011). The workers who grow and harvest grapes
and make wine are often hidden behind the genteel image of the land owners, who are represented
as the real wine makers (Guy 2011; Ulin 1996, 2013). Similarly, processes that involve both gender
and kinship are hidden by references to terroir (Lem 2013).
The idea of terroir as well as the development of laws designed to promote and protect the
geographic identity of foods have also been adopted by other European countries and by the
European Union itself. As in the French case, this notion has allowed the ties between food prod-
ucts and place to be naturalized and has often worked to protect the producers from having their
products copied and exploited by national or international corporations. However, the develop-
ment of rules that limit the geographic range within which a product may be developed, along with
other rules that limit the types of animals involved, the usage of particular ingredients, and other
limits on how a product may be produced, has also led to conflicts. For example, disputes over the
definition and marketing of lardo from Colonnata or salami from Bergamo involve both efforts to
provide geographical protection for local products as well as resistance from local producers who
wish to avoid being too limited by regulations (Cavanaugh 2007, Leitch 2003; see also DeSoucey
2010, Roseman 2004). In addition, the cultural and linguistic contexts that frame discussions of
food, local identity, and their connection vary from country to country, as Black (2012) points out
in her analysis of the Porta Palazzo market.
Efforts have also been made to develop geographic indication systems to protect products
outside of Europe. Perhaps because they have not had a century or more in which to embed
these efforts in national or regional stories, or perhaps because they do not have the requisite
legal framework, their success has been mixed. Developing the idea of a terroir for Darjeeling
tea, for instance, requires an extensive campaign to shape how people think about the colonial
heritage and labor conditions on tea plantations (Besky 2014). Olive oil, associated broadly with
the Mediterranean region, is often portrayed as a product that can be linked to contemporary ideas
about healthy diets (Meneley 2007, 2008). But when it is specifically Palestinian olive oil, it carries
with it a sort of terroir of conflict (Meneley 2011). Associating coffee with particular locations
has played a significant role in the development of the latest trends in coffee consumption, but it
has not necessarily served to protect local producers (Reichman 2014). Conflicts surrounding the
www.annualreviews.org • Food: Location, Location, Location 63

production and marketing of tequila and mezcal, both from Mexico, demonstrate that efforts to
define a geographical indicator in a way that protects small producers require activism and state
intervention, as well as a market for the products (Bowen 2010, Bowen & Hamrick 2014).
Translating French ideas about terroir has proven especially complicated in the United States.
Perhaps because the making of American national identity has not historically been linked to a
regional catalog of identities and products, convincing Americans to associate taste and place in the
French manner has proven difficult (Trubek 2008). Indeed, efforts by American cheese makers to
“reverse engineer terroir” have met with mixed success at best, in part because of a lack of sense of
place among consumers, but also because of health regulations around milk and, perhaps, too great
of a sense of individualism among producers (Paxson 2010, p. 446; 2013). There are also concerns
about public policy and environmentalism connected with assertions of terroir (Yelvington et al.
2012). Connecting food with location would seem to require a concerted effort, as Weiss (2011,
2016) shows in the case of craft pork production in North Carolina, linking pigs with a particular
story and training chefs and consumers in the taste of pork products. The ethnography of these
efforts suggests that in the United States, at least, there is a long way to go before people share in
the French common sense about the taste of place.
RESISTING AND RETHINKING GLOBALIZATION

If terroir is ultimately about the territorialization of food and culture, then globalization serves as
its opposite. Globalization processes are at the core of what local food proponents oppose: The
deterritorialization of goods, services, and ideas, and their spread around the world, leads to a kind
of cultural homogenization of everything. The oft-cited destruction, in 1999, of a McDonald’s
in France by the peasant activist José Bové is the act that symbolizes resistance to globalization
processes, even if Bové was mostly protesting tariffs that the American government had placed on
French export products (Gaytán 2004, Rogers 2000). American fast food, especially McDonald’s,
has come to symbolize globalization in general, but especially the globalization of food, in the form
of “McDonaldization,” a term coined by Ritzer (1993). In this context, the reterritorialization of
food takes on a wide range of forms.
Perhaps the most well known of these is the Slow Food movement, founded by Italian food
writer and activist Carlo Petrini in the 1980s. One of Slow Food’s early objectives was to preserve
artisanal foodways, linked to particular places and traditions. This emphasis on food localization
included, as Leitch (2003) notes, resistance to both multinational corporations such as McDonald’s
as well as to European food regulators, whose rule making might limit the ability of local foods
to survive. The slowness of Slow Food, according to Leitch (2003), “becomes a metaphor for a
politics of place: a philosophy complexly concerned with the defense of local cultural heritage,
regional landscapes and idiosyncratic material cultures of production” (p. 454). The movement
opposes the corporate-driven homogenization of certain forms of globalization, while promoting
a sort of cosmopolitan appreciation of local tastes and traditions (p. 455). As Siniscalchi (2014)
shows, Slow Food has become an international (or global) organization devoted to the promotion
and preservation of local foodways. The organization’s motto, which focuses on the promotion
of foods that are “good, clean, and fair,” does not directly mention the value of local foodways;
however, the manner in which each of these concepts is developed in Slow Food’s ideology points
to aspects of food quality—respect for the environment, attention to processes of production, and
the rights and wages of workers—that are often linked to the idea of local food (Siniscalchi 2014,
p. 229). Slow Food regularly organizes events, such as Terra Madre, that are designed to promote
the links between producers and place and to promote a kind of alternative globalization, a network
of small producers devoted to the localization of food (Siniscalchi 2014, p. 230). These events can
64 Beriss
have significant impacts on the success of local producers if they are able to use the networks they
build to find ways to distribute their products (Atalan-Helicke 2018). At the same time, Siniscalchi
(2014, p. 234) argues that other Slow Food events, such as the Salone del Gusto, promote a kind of
elite consumerism and seem to contradict the movement’s efforts to moralize markets (cf. Gaytán
2004).
Slow Food is hardly alone in its struggle to find ways to reconcile an ideology that promotes
more fairness in local food with global markets and trends. Resisting globalization, it turns out,
is not an all-or-nothing proposition. In various contexts, activists, chefs, and others have found
ways to draw on global products, trends, or corporations, while simultaneously preserving and
promoting local foodways. In Mumbai, the classic street food vada pav, associated with the city
and with the surrounding region of Maharashtra, has been used by local politicians to promote
a nationalist platform, while, at the same time, drawing on sponsorships from McDonald’s and
Coca-Cola (Solomon 2015). This relationship helps advance the nationalist political agenda and
promotes ideas about hygiene and cleanliness (invoked, in part, through references to the global
food corporations) as well as the putative authenticity of street food. Working with chefs and other
food activists in Kyoto, de St. Maurice (2014, 2017) shows a wide range of ways in which locally
grown foods and local food styles are combined with imported ingredients and techniques, all in
the service of maintaining a relatively distinct sense of the local. Nelson and colleagues’ (2017)
analysis of “locavore” chefs in Alberta provides similar insights into the complexities of drawing
on local foods in a globalizing context. Another example of the intersection of global and local can
be found among anti-GMO activists in Colombia and Mexico. Fitting (2014, p. 187) argues that
these activists form a kind of “globalization from below,” by networking and sharing information
with each other, yet at the same time, they localize their cause by insisting on “maize as a powerful
symbol of their region, its peoples, and its cultures.” This view parallels Lii’s (2017) account of
efforts to overcome American and other global influences in Taiwan’s cuisine by promoting locally
grown rice.
One of the more famous responses to Ritzer’s ideas about McDonaldization was Watson’s
(1997) edited collection Golden Arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia. The collection examined the
reception of McDonald’s in a variety of countries, noting, in particular, the ways in which peo-
ple in each society localized the fast-food chain through how they think about and consume the
food, as well as through their behavior in the restaurant. The model of the fast-food restaurant
has gained popularity in many parts of the world in the last few decades. At the same time, how-
ever, fast food has been localized in many places. Caldwell (2004), for instance, writes about how
Russians have fit McDonald’s fries into nationalist ideas about local foods. Fast-food chain restau-
rants are very popular in the Philippines, as Matejowsky (2006, 2018) shows. However, he argues
that the development of local chains and the development of restaurants devoted to foods such as
Spam demonstrates “glocalization,” effectively making these things into local foods (Matejowsky
2018). In a move that in some ways mirrors McDonaldization, fast-food chains from Asia, Central
America, and elsewhere are now increasingly present in the US market, the home of McDonald’s
itself. This approach is probably not what Slow Food has in mind when it tries to establish new
kinds of networks that support the local.
REMAKING COMMUNITY AND CAPITALISM WITH LOCAL FOOD

Is the global circulation of food-as-commodity, with little or no attachment to place, a metaphor
for the dissolution of community in urbanized postindustrial societies? Concerns over the qual-
ity of human relations in urbanized societies are an old problem in the social sciences, famously
explored by Georg Simmel, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Ferdinand Tönnies, and many others.

Nearly all of these early sociologists agreed that urbanization would be accompanied by weakened
community relations. The idea that modern people are alienated from the origins of the products
they use clearly transcends sociological analysis and has entered into popular culture. This no-
tion is particularly evident with food. In a modern supermarket, consumers are confronted with
thousands of products with mysterious origins. Even produce, the thing in the supermarket that
perhaps most closely resembles an agricultural product, is identified, at best, only by country of ori-
gin. Whether one is purchasing apples or soda, grocery shopping is unlikely to bring the consumer
into a relationship with a farmer or other food producer. Farmers markets, community-supported
agriculture (CSA) and fisheries (CSFs), and alternative food systems have all been proposed as ways
to address both kinds of alienation through the distribution of local food (Bielo 2013, Robinson
& Farmer 2017).
People who shop at farmers markets can purchase directly from farmers, fishers, or other pro-
ducers of food (cheese makers, bakers, and others). For the food producers, this form of sales
provides direct access to consumers and can be a sometimes-reliable source of revenue (McKee
2018). In addition, defining the localness of the sellers at a farmers market depends on many fac-
tors, which can vary by region (Wilson 2018). More than profits seem to be at stake in farmers
markets. For farmers and other food producers, participation in a farmers market is perceived
to provide more control over what they produce, as well as better relations with their customers
(O’Kane & Wijaya 2015). These direct relations with consumers are often a way for small-scale
food producers to assert that their products are of high quality (Griffith et al. 2013).
More than just providing the opportunity to buy directly from producers, farmers markets
also seem to be a way for consumers to create social ties. Farmers markets become a “third place,”
where a form of community distinct from work or family is found (Gagné 2011). Although the food
purchased at these markets is local, the very existence of farmers markets provides an opportunity
to build (or rebuild) local social relations and community (Bubinas 2011, Garner 2017). Indeed,
shopping at a farmers market is more than just shopping; it can also be a form of recreation that
contributes to the sustainability of a community (Farmer et al. 2011).
Farmers markets are not the only strategies for both humanizing and localizing food distribu-
tion networks. These two objectives—humanizing producers and getting local food—can some-
times work in opposite directions. Grasseni (2014) compares two different ways of distributing
raw milk to local communities in Italy: One involves a kind of automated milk ATM, and the
other, a collective purchasing group. Both provide ways for consumers to have access to quality
local food, but one is relatively anonymous while the other involves face-to-face relations. Fonte
(2008) compares a variety of cases in Europe to develop an understanding of the different kinds of
knowledge and social relations involved in reconnecting producers and consumers. One of the key
points here is that alternative distribution networks may provide markets for producers and help
consumers build trust in the origins of their food, even if these networks do not actually establish
social ties between them. Similarly, distribution networks such as CSA or CSFs, which usually
involve consumers subscribing to regularly distributed products from farmers and fishers, may
help humanize producers or may increase trust in the local food system (Andreatta 2011, Gross
2011, Tookes et al. 2018). However, as Janssen (2010, 2013) shows for farmers in Iowa, success
requires infrastructure and access to labor, as well as a core group of activists whose involvement
goes beyond being subscribers to the CSA or CSF. Farmers and fishers face a wide range of chal-
lenges to successfully participating in the local food movement, ranging from production issues
to marketing (Thompson & Gaskin 2018).
Is it possible for local food to play a key role in rebuilding trust in food systems and rehuman-
izing the social relations involved in the distribution of food? And if so, can this be done while
providing food producers with the ability to make a living and providing consumers affordable
66 Beriss
and healthy food? Colloredo-Mansfeld et al. (2014) pursued research into how consumers and
retailers understand the concept of local food and examined different ways that stores, including
those that are part of larger chains, can try to meet the objectives of the local food movement.
Finding ways to scale up local food networks so that they can reach more people, through food
hubs, cooperative distribution networks, or other strategies, has proven to be one of the more
difficult challenges faced by the local food movement, precisely because it raises questions about
both the authenticity of the foods being distributed and the social relations embedded in them
(Furman & Papavasiliou 2018, Tewari et al. 2018, Wittman et al. 2012). In fact, efforts to expand
the local food movement to be able to reach more people and compete more effectively with in-
dustrial foods raise questions about what constitutes “local” and about the politics of the local food
movement itself (DeLind & Bingen 2008, DuPuis & Goodman 2005).
FOOD JUSTICE, FOOD SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE LOCALIZATION

OF FOOD
Localizing food has proven to be a key element in movements for food justice and food sovereignty.
Food justice usually refers to questions of access to healthy and fresh food, along with an under-
standing of race and class issues that can impact this access, whereas food sovereignty is a concept
developed to focus attention on the work of small-scale food producers in a world dominated by
large-scale agribusiness (Mares 2014, p. 35). The former is often used to discuss access to food in
cities, especially in North America and Europe, whereas the latter was initially deployed in anal-
yses of food movements among peasants in Latin America and elsewhere (Ritchie 2016, Thivet
2014). Both concepts are invoked by analysts looking into alternative food systems, which may in-
clude localization of food. Yet, as Hinrichs (2016) argues, efforts to fix food in place are not always
compatible with the objectives of food justice or food sovereignty.
Although localization of food has proven to be a powerful and popular symbol for activists in-
terested in food justice, it is not always clear if making food local is a relevant objective. Cleveland
et al. (2015) argue that localization of food is just one of many possible indicators that can be
used to measure whether questions of food justice are being addressed. The authors point out
that measuring the distance food takes to get from grower to plate may be used to hide prob-
lems with labor or growing conditions. Industrial food producers can engage in what they call
“localwashing,” which makes it seem as if they are addressing food justice issues when they are
not (Cleveland et al. 2015, p. 289; cf. Dutkiewicz 2018). Ways to avoid such complications in de-
veloping an alternative food system are addressed by Gross (2011, 2014), whose work with food
activists in western Oregon focuses on questions of food sovereignty and on ways to integrate
local food into a regional food system. Mares (2014) examines food justice issues in urban agri-
culture in Seattle, looking at the ways in which race and class limit access to healthy or affordable
food. She raises comparable issues about how class, ethnicity, and gender shape access to food in
Vermont (Mares 2017). Race and food justice also provide the framework for an analysis of the
parallel worlds of Chinese-Canadian farmers and white local food advocates in Vancouver, British
Columbia (Gibb & Wittman 2013). In all these analyses, food justice and food sovereignty, fo-
cusing on race, gender, and class conflicts, serve to undermine any simple understanding of the
meaning of food localization.
Schools and universities provide settings where efforts to change the food system are often
explicitly linked to the localization of food and to food sovereignty. Colleges and universities usu-
ally have relatively large food service operations, and their purchasing choices can have a signifi-
cant impact in their communities. As Barlett (2011) notes, a growing number of institutions have
chosen to make their food services more sustainable by focusing on a range of criteria in food

acquisition, including sourcing foods that are organic, that meet certain standards in the way an-
imals are raised, that engage in fair trade practices, or that are local to the institution. Efforts to
improve the sustainability of university food services, as Barlett (2011) notes, can meet demands
from student activists, but they also provide a sort of pedagogy in food innovation for users of
the dining services while also linking the schools more closely to their local communities. Pub-
lic school systems have also been active in promoting local foods, as Lakind et al. (2016) show
with an example from Wisconsin. In this instance, the school system has partnered with farmers,
processors, and distributors to build a “multistakeholder cooperative supply chain” (Lakind et al.
2016, p. 64) that can help develop regional resources for their food services. The objectives include
contributing to the local economy but also helping students learn about the food system (p. 64).
Similar initiatives are being pursued around the United States, but, as Thompson et al. (2017)
indicate, there are some surprising barriers to the growth of the farm-to-school food movement.
Local foods, especially those grown by small farms, may be perceived to be less safe, in terms of
the risk of foodborne illness, compared with food purchased through industrial supply channels.
This perception is, of course, ironic because purchasing local foods is meant to provide a way
for schools to make better—more nutritious, more sustainable—foods available to their students
(Thompson et al. 2017, p. 696). They argue for more effective regulation, more transparent supply
chains, and education efforts as solutions to convince skeptical school food managers (p. 696).
Activism around schools can be part of broader efforts to rebuild local food systems and, with
that, help local communities thrive. This approach would seem like the core of what is most often
meant by proponents of food sovereignty and food justice. Yet determining how to evaluate the
different ideas that people have about just what defines a successful movement toward these objec-
tives is often unclear. In contrast with the school food managers who are skeptical of local foods,
Nonini (2013) describes food activists in North Carolina as being engaged in building a local food
system as an alternative to a food system driven by industrial capitalism in which people have lost
trust. The division between an alternative local system and the broader industrial system is often
unclear, as the case of Hardwick, Vermont, illustrates. Olson (2019) examines Hardwick to see
what impact a concerted effort to develop local food businesses can have on the social, cultural,
and economic life of a town that has lost its industrial base. Her evaluation is generally positive,
with a variety of social indicators pointing toward success (Olson 2019, p. 32). It is worth noting,
however, that at least some of the local food businesses are thriving precisely because they export
their products outside the local food system. Gupta (2016) calls attention to a range of “agrarian
imaginaries” regarding ways to rebuild the local food system in Hawaii. Differences in defining
“local” are related, in this instance, to differences about what a local food system should mean
for the communities involved. As with the school systems discussed earlier, the success of local
efforts to establish alternative and sustainable food systems also requires engaged and cooperative
political leadership. When this leadership fails, efforts to establish a more just or localized food
system can also fail, as Orlando (2011) shows for Palermo.
Food justice is often associated with more general questions of justice, especially in urban areas.
Sbicca & Myers (2016) draw on racial formation theory to critique neoliberal aspects of the food
movement, comparing organizations in Oakland and New York that try to build racial and class
solidarities through urban agriculture while addressing issues of incarceration, migration, and land
access. Kulick (2019) evaluates the intersection of juvenile justice, a youth job readiness program,
and networks with local food producers in a northeast US city. Poulsen et al. (2014) argue that
urban gardening in Baltimore can increase food security (and, by extension, food sovereignty) but
that the primary benefits tend to be more social and environmental. These analyses point toward
organizations focused on rebuilding urban communities and mobilizing young people as part of
the local food movement in ways that can challenge racism and its impact on society.
68 Beriss
MAKING AND MARKETING LOCAL IDENTITY WITH FOOD

Mintz (1996) famously asserted that there was no such thing as American cuisine. He was skeptical
of the idea that national cuisines exist at all and preferred to think in terms of regional cuisines
(p. 95). For a cuisine to exist, he claimed, it needed to be made up of foods and techniques shared
by a population that cared enough about those foods to develop a kind of critical discourse around
them. He writes that “cuisines, when seen from the perspective of people who care about the foods,
are never the foods of a country, but the foods of a place” (p. 96, emphasis in the original). This
claim was controversial when he made it, as he noted himself (p. 107). It seems even more likely
to be controversial now. Along with borders, languages, national anthems, and flags, it seems like
no nation, region, or ethnic group can legitimately exist without being able to claim its cuisine.
Yet Mintz was clearly right to call attention to cuisines being the food of place. Localizing foods
seems, in the United States and elsewhere, to play an important role in the making and marketing
of nations and other groups and in helping people sort out a wide range of difficult issues.
Efforts to link the idea of nation with a cuisine grounded in a particular territory are relatively
common, although they are also often fraught with conflicts and exclusions. Appadurai (1988),
drawing on an analysis of cookbooks in India, was one of the first to point to processes that com-
bined foods identified with particular regions and the interests of a growing middle class in the
making of a national cuisine. Similarly, Neuberger (2017) examines the building of a communist-
era Bulgarian national cuisine rooted in local foods in the service of Black Sea coast tourism in
the 1960s and 1970s. Postcommunist efforts to create locally defined brands for foods also seem
related to ideas about national identity, as Manning & Uplisashvili (2007) show for the creation
of Georgian “ethnographic” beer brands. Rosenberger (2007) analyzes the tensions inherent in
efforts to create a locally based national cuisine in post-Soviet Uzbekistan in a context of an in-
creasingly authoritarian government and relative deprivation. Raviv (2015) describes the making
of Israeli national cuisine, built on ideas about Jewish labor and agriculture while often hiding the
role of Arab agricultural and culinary labor, culture, and practices (see also Avieli 2018, Hirsch
2011, Ranta 2015). Conflicts over the making of national cuisines often take the form of debates
around questions of “cultural appropriation” of local foods and foodways, as Sugimoto (2018) has
described in Taiwan and Doonan (2018) in Canada. It is probably not surprising that one con-
sequence of the development of national cuisines and culinary nationalisms is the development
of “gastronomic racism,” as Cavanaugh (2013, p. 193) shows in an analysis of conflicts around
kebab stands in Bergamo, Italy. Fouts (2018) provides similar insights with her analysis of food
truck regulation and Latinx mobile food vendors in New Orleans. The relationship between local
cuisines and cultures and the regional or national cuisines canonized in cookbooks remains, at the
very least, an area of considerable friction.
Deploying local food as a way to demonstrate the legitimacy of a national culture has be-
come an especially important postcolonial strategy for many nation-states. As Wilk (2006) points
out, prior to independence, ideas about what constituted good food in Belize were determined
by British prestige foods. Knowledge of those foods was precisely what people needed in order
to demonstrate their status in colonial society. With Belizean national independence, however,
at least in the realm of food, knowledge of local foods became a key to higher status in society,
precisely because national identity required a national cuisine. In Costa Rica, rice and beans serve
as a national symbol to distinguish the country from neighboring Nicaragua, which does the same
with its dish of rice and beans (Preston-Werner 2012). In fact, the mundane versions of rice and
beans dishes throughout Central and South America often seem to carry the weight of being pow-
erful local culinary symbols of identity (Wilk & Barbosa 2012). Avieli (2005) makes a similar case
for Vietnamese rice cakes as a multivocal symbol of national identity consumed at New Years.

As noted above, attempts to anchor Israeli identity in the Middle East have drawn on local in-
gredients and foods as key elements in making a national identity as well (Avieli 2018, Hirsch &
Tene 2013). Counter claims have been made by various other nations in the region, perhaps most
notably Palestine (Avieli 2018, Gvion 2012).
Having a national or local identity can prove useful for generating income as well. Promoting
local foods, as previously noted, has also started to play a role in many ideas about how to improve
life in poor communities. This approach can include efforts to get local people to grow and eat lo-
cal foods, as alternatives to highly processed and imported foods, as Hardin & Kwauk (2015) show
for Samoa. Local foods also play an increasingly important role in defining authentic experiences
for tourists. Cheng (2016) notes that food scares involving adulterated foods have led people in
Taiwan to seek out safer and more easily identifiable (by source) local foods, which coincides with
a back-to-the-land movement and an increase in rural tourism by city dwellers. The combination
has contributed to improvements in the food supply and to a renewed sense of engagement with
the territory and history of the country, if not as clearly to a better standard of living for farmers
(Cheng 2016, p. 342). Encouraging the production of local foods can both improve local diets and
create something of interest for tourists, as Giampiccoli & Kalis (2012) argue for South Africa.
The assertion of distinctive local cuisines and foods also serves as a way of working out a wide
range of issues. In his history of the US South in the latter half of the twentieth century, Edge
(2017) points to the uses of local food in discussions of race and in shaping the symbols that are
used in discussions about how the region is changing (cf. Kelting 2016). Similarly, Beriss (2012)
discusses how people in New Orleans use the local consumption of red beans and rice as a vehicle
for sorting out ideas about the city’s relationship to the rest of the United States, its cultural ties
to the Caribbean and Africa, and the place of black identity in the city’s culture. The interplay
of local foods, memory, and food practices are all part of Sutton’s (2001) exploration of the re-
lationship between food and place on the island of Kalymnos. Heath & Meneley (2010) explore
different perspectives on the making of foie gras, which is either a deep local cultural tradition
of collaboration between human and animal or an example of inhumane farming conditions and
uncivilized exploitation. Holtzman (2017) takes on the even more controversial issues involved in
the interplay between claims about what constitutes local food and legitimate culture and ideas
about modern ethics in Japanese whaling. Costa & Besio (2011) try to sort out the different ways
of making Hawaii regional cuisine, which draws on local ingredients and techniques in order to
assert a variety of ideas about both culture and regional food networks. In all these cases, the mak-
ing of local identities is tied to ideas about local foods but is also tied up in controversies that
extend to questions far beyond food.
CONCLUSION
In much of the world, food is mostly produced and distributed by global corporations. Most of us
know little about who grows this food or where it comes from. This practice is often seen as a sign
of deep alienation, not only from the sources of food but also from each other. It may indicate
weakening senses of community, fragmented societies, and other social ills. In that context, the
recent interest in local food, both in popular culture and among scholars, is tied up in ideas about
community, local culture, and regional and national identity and in efforts to challenge the forces
of globalization and to remake capitalism. Farmers markets, CSA and CSFs, and other alternative
food systems are offered as ways to overcome alienation and promote renewed relations among
people who live near each other. Food justice efforts that draw on local foods in cities promise to
address differences of class, race, and gender, whereas food sovereignty activists work to provide
small-scale food producers with more control over the foods they produce. Local foods are invoked
70 Beriss
in efforts to resolve ideas about changing communities, to build tourism and local identities, and
to resolve many of the world’s ecological issues.
The New Orleans Eat Local Challenge cited in the introduction of this article asks participants
“How local are you?” as a kind of challenge to provoke them into committing to a month of local
eating. The question clearly transcends food. It is, after all, hard to know exactly what makes foods
and people belong to a place. What is more important: who grows the food, where it grows, who
distributes it, or who prepares it for the table? What or who ties a food to a place? The research
reviewed here provides several ways that anthropologists and other social scientists have chosen
to try to sort out the answers to these and other questions. In New Orleans, as in many other
places, the answers are tied up in complex ideas about history, about who speaks for the city, and
about what defines the region. Our red beans and rice may be made mostly of ingredients grown
elsewhere. But the dish itself defines, for many people, local food and stands, in many ways, for the
city itself. Exploring local foods, at least within anthropology, is precisely about uncovering how
and why something becomes “local” and about what that can reveal about the meaning of place
and why, for many people, it matters.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso
Andreatta S, Nash B, Martin GB. 2011. Carteret CatchTM : raising awareness of local seafood through com-
munity and business partnerships. Hum. Organ. 70(3):279–88
Appadurai A. 1988. How to make a national cuisine: cookbooks in contemporary India. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist.
30(1):3–24
Appadurai A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Atalan-Helicke N. 2018. “You can never give up siyez if you taste it once”: local taste, global markets, and the
conservation of Einkorn, an ancient wheat. Gastronomica 18(2):33–45
Avieli N. 2005. Vietnamese New Year rice cakes: iconic festive dishes and contested national identity. Ethnology
44(2):167–87
Avieli N. 2018. Food and Power: A Culinary Ethnography of Israel. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Barlett PF. 2011. Campus sustainable food projects: critique and engagement. Am. Anthropol. 113:101–15
Beriss D. 2012. Red beans and rebuilding: an iconic dish, memory, and culture in New Orleans. See Wilk &
Barbosa 2012, pp. 241–63
Besky S. 2014. The Darjeeling Distinction: Labor and Justice on Fair-Trade Tea Plantations in India. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Bielo JS. 2013. Promises of place: a future of comparative US ethnography. N. Am. Dialogue 16:1–11
Black RE. 2012. Porta Palazzo: The Anthropology of an Italian Market. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
Black RE, Ulin RC, eds. 2013. Wine and Culture: Vineyard to Glass. London: Bloomsbury
Bowen S. 2010. Embedding local places in global spaces: geographical indications as a territorial development
strategy. Rural Sociol. 75(2):209–43
Bowen S. 2011. The importance of place: re-territorialising embeddedness. Sociol. Rural. 51(4):325–48
Bowen S, Hamrick D. 2014. Defining Mexico’s spirit. Gastronomica 14(4):26–33
Bubinas K. 2011. Farmers markets in the post-industrial city. City Soc. 23(2):154–72
Caldwell ML. 2004. Domesticating the French fry: McDonald’s and consumerism in Moscow. J. Consum. Cult.
4(1):5–26
Cavanaugh J. 2013. Il y a kébab et kébab: conflit local et alimentation globale en Italie du nord. Anthropol. Soc.
37(2):193–212

Cavanaugh JR. 2007. Making salami, producing Bergamo: the transformation of value. Ethnos 72(2):149–72
Cheng ES. 2016. Return migrants, mini-tours and rural regeneration: a study of local food movement in
Taiwan. Asia Pac. Viewp. 57(3):338–50
Cleveland DA, Carruth A, Mazaroli DN. 2015. Operationalizing local food: goals, actions, and indicators for
alternative food systems. Agric. Hum. Values 32:281–97
Colloredo-Mansfeld R, Tewari M, Williams J, Holland D, Steen A, Wilson A-B. 2014. Communities, super-
markets, and local food: mapping connections and obstacles in food system work in North Carolina.
Hum. Organ. 73(3):247–57
Costa L, Besio K. 2011. Eating Hawai’i: local foods and place-making in Hawai’i regional cuisine. Soc. Cult.
Geogr. 12(8):839–54
Counihan C, Siniscalchi V, eds. 2014. Food Activism: Agency, Democracy, and Economy. London: Berg
Daynes S. 2013. The social life of terroir among Bordeaux winemakers. See Black & Ulin 2013, pp. 15–32
De St. Maurice G. 2014. The movement to reinvigorate local food in Kyoto, Japan. See Counihan &
Siniscalchi 2014, pp. 77–94
De St. Maurice G. 2017. Kyoto cuisine gone global. Gastronomica 17(3):36–48
Delind LB, Bingen J. 2008. Place and civic culture: re-thinking the context for local agriculture. J. Agric.
Environ. Ethics 21(2):127–51
Demossier M. 2011. Beyond terroir: territorial construction, hegemonic discourses, and French wine culture.
J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 17:685–705
DeSoucey M. 2010. Gastronationalism: food traditions and authenticity politics in the European Union. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 75(3):432–55
Doonan N. 2018. Wild cuisine and Canadianness: creeping rootstalks and subterranean struggle. Gastronomica
18(3):14–27
DuPuis EM, Goodman D. 2005. Should we go “home” to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism. J. Rural
Stud. 21:359–71
Dutkiewicz J. 2018. Transparency and the factory farm: agritourism and counter-activism at Fair Oaks Farms.
Gastronomica 18(2):19–32
Edge JT. 2017. The Potlikker Papers: A Food History of the Modern South. New York: Penguin Press
Farmer EA. 2013. “Local, loyal, and constant”: the legal construction of wine in Bordeaux. See Black & Ulin
2013, pp. 145–59
Farmer JR, Chancellor C, Gooding A, Shubowitz D, Bryant A. 2011. A tale of four farmers markets: recreation
and leisure as a catalyst for sustainability. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 29(3):11–23
Ferguson PP. 2004. Accounting for Taste: The Triumph of French Cuisine. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Fitting E. 2014. Cultures of corn and anti-GMO activism in Mexico and Colombia. See Counihan &
Siniscalchi 2014, pp. 175–92
Fonte M. 2008. Knowledge, food and place. A way of producing, a way of knowing. Sociol. Rural. 48(3):200–
22
Fouts S. 2018. Re-regulating loncheras, food trucks, and their clientele: navigating bureaucracy and enforcement
in New Orleans. Gastronomica 18(3):1–13
Furman CA, Papavasiliou F. 2018. Scale and affect in the local food movement. Food Cult. Soc. 21(2):180–95
Gagné NO. 2011. Eating local in a U.S. city: reconstructing “community”—a third place—in a global neolib-
eral economy. Am. Ethnol. 38(2):281–93
Garner B. 2017. Communicating social support during crises at the farmers’ market: a social exchange ap-
proach to understanding customer-farmer communal relationships. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 41:422–30
Gaytán MS. 2004. Globalizing resistance: slow food and new local imaginaries. Food Cult. Soc. 7(2):97–116
Giampiccoli A, Kalis JH. 2012. Tourism, food, and culture: community-based tourism, local food, and com-
munity development in Mpondoland. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 34(2):101–23
Gibb N, Wittman H. 2013. Parallel alternatives: Chinese-Canadian farmers and the Metro Vancouver local
food movement. Local Environ. 18(1):1–19
Grasseni C. 2014. Re-localizing milk and cheese. Gastronomica 14(4):34–43
Griffith D, García-Quijano C, Pizzini MV. 2013. A fresh defense: a cultural biography of quality in Puerto
Rican fishing. Am. Anthropol. 115(1):17–28
72 Beriss
Gross J. 2011. Constructing a community food economy. Food Foodways 19(3):181–200

Gross J. 2014. Food activism in western Oregon. See Counihan & Siniscalchi 2014, pp. 15–30
Gupta A, Ferguson J. 1992. Beyond “culture”: space, identity, and the politics of difference. Cult. Anthropol.
7(1):6–23
Gupta C. 2016. Dairy’s decline and the politics of “local” milk in Hawai‘i. Food Cult. Soc. 19(3):485–516
Guy KM. 2011. Silence and savoir-faire in the marketing of products of the terroir. Mod. Contemp. France
19(4):459–75
Gvion L. 2012. Beyond Hummus and Falafel: Social and Political Aspects of Palestinian Food in Israel. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Hardin J, Kwauk CT. 2015. Producing markets, producing people. Food Cult. Soc. 18(3):519–39
Heath D, Meneley A. 2010. The naturecultures of foie gras. Food Cult. Soc. 13(3):421–52
Hinrichs C. 2016. Fixing food with ideas of “local” and “place.” J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 6:759–64
Hirsch D. 2011. “Hummus is best when it is fresh and made by Arabs”: the gourmetization of hummus in
Israel and the return of the repressed Arab. Am. Ethnol. 38(4):617–30
Hirsch D, Tene O. 2013. Hummus: the making of an Israeli culinary cult. J. Consum. Cult. 13(1):25–45
Holtzman J. 2017. On whale: conundrums of culture and cetaceans as local meat. Ethnos 82(2):277–97
Janssen B. 2010. Local food, local engagement: community-supported agriculture in eastern Iowa. Cult. Agric.
32(1):4–16
Janssen B. 2013. Herd management: labor strategies in local food production. Anthropol. Work Rev. 34(2):68–79
Kelting L. 2016. The entanglement of nostalgia and utopia in contemporary southern food cookbooks. Food
Cult. Soc. 19(2):361–87
Kingsolver B. 2007. Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life. New York: Harper Collins
Kulick R. 2019. More time in the kitchen, less time on the streets: the micropolitics of cultivating an ethic of
care in alternative food networks. Local Environ. 24(1):37–51
Lakind A, Skipper L, Morales A. 2016. Fostering multiple goals in farm to school. Gastronomica 16(4):58–65
Leitch A. 2003. Slow food and the politics of pork fat: Italian food and European identity. Ethnos 68(4):437–
62
Lem W. 2013. Regimes of regulation, gender, and divisions of labor in Languedoc viticulture. See Black &
Ulin 2013, pp. 221–40
Lii D. 2017. The cultural politics of food: rice as an anti-globalization project. Gastronomica 17(3):24–35
Low SM, Lawrence-Zúñiga D, eds. 2003. The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture. Malden, MA:
Blackwell
Manning P, Uplisashvili A. 2007. “Our beer”: ethnographic brands in postsocialist Georgia. Am. Anthropol.
109(4):626–41
Mares TM. 2014. Engaging Latino immigrants in Seattle food activism through urban agriculture. See
Counihan & Siniscalchi 2014, pp. 31–46
Mares TM. 2017. Navigating gendered labor and local food: a tale of working mothers in Vermont. Food
Foodways 25(3):177–92
Matejowsky T. 2018. Fast Food Globalization in the Provincial Philippines. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books
Matejowsky TY. 2006. Global tastes, local contexts: an ethnographic account of fast food expansion in San
Fernando City, the Philippines. In Fast Food/Slow Food: The Cultural Economy of the Global Food System, ed.
R Wilk, pp. 145–59. Lanham, MD: AltaMira
McKee E. 2018. “It’s the Amazon world”: small-scale farmers on an entrepreneurial treadmill. Cult. Agric. Food
Environ. 40(1):65–69
Meneley A. 2007. Like an extra virgin. Am. Anthropol. 109(4):678–87
Meneley A. 2008. Oleo-signs and quali-signs: the qualities of olive oil. Ethnos 73(3):303–26
Meneley A. 2011. Blood, sweat and tears in a bottle of Palestinian extra-virgin olive oil. Food Cult. Soc.
14(2):275–92
Mintz SW. 1996. Tasting Food, Tasting Freedom: Excursions into Eating, Culture, and the Past. Boston: Beacon
Nabhan G. 2002. Coming Home to Eat: The Pleasures and Politics of Local Foods. New York: Norton
Nelson P, Beckie MA, Krogman NT. 2017. The “locavore” chef in Alberta: a situated social practice analysis.
Food Cult. Soc. 20(3):503–24

Neuberger M. 2017. Dining in utopia: a taste of the Bulgarian Black Sea coast under socialism. Gastronomica
17(4):48–60
Newman A. 2015. Landscape of Discontent: Urban Sustainability in Immigrant Paris. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
Press
Nonini DM. 2013. The local-food movement and the anthropology of global systems. Am. Ethnol. 40(2):267–
75
O’Kane G, Wijaya SY. 2015. Contribution of farmers’ markets to more socially sustainable food systems: a
pilot study of a farmers’ market in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Australia. Agroecol. Sustain.
Food Syst. 39(10):1124–53
Olson KA. 2019. The town that food saved? Investigating the promise of a local food economy in Vermont.
Local Environ. 24(1):18–36
Orlando G. 2011. Sustainable food versus unsustainable politics in the city of Palermo: the case of an organic
farmers’ market. City Soc. 23(2):173–91
Paxson H. 2010. Locating value in artisan cheese: reverse engineering terroir for new-world landscapes. Am.
Anthropol. 112(3):444–57
Paxson H. 2013. The Life of Cheese: Crafting Food and Value in America. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Poulain J-P. 2017. The Sociology of Food: Eating and the Place of Food in Society, transl. A Dörr. London: Blooms-
bury
Poulsen MN, Hulland KR, Gulas CA, Pham H, Dalglish SL, et al. 2014. Growing an urban oasis: a qualitative
study of the perceived benefits of community gardening in Baltimore, Maryland. Cult. Agric. Food Environ.
36:69–82
Preston-Werner T. 2012. Defending national foodways: laying claim to tradition in Costa Rica. See Wilk &
Barbosa 2012, pp. 181–201
Ranta R. 2015. Re-Arabizing Israeli food culture. Food Cult. Soc. 18(4):611–27
Raviv Y. 2015. Falafel Nation: Cuisine and the Making of National Identity in Israel. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
Reichman D. 2014. Information and democracy in the global coffee trade. See Counihan & Siniscalchi 2014,
pp. 159–74
Ritchie I. 2016. Food sovereignty in Whaingaroa: perspectives of food providers in a small, coastal New
Zealand township. Anthropol. Forum 26(3):289–300
Ritzer G. 1993. The McDonaldization of Society. Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge
Robinson JM, Farmer JR. 2017. Selling Local: Why Local Food Movements Matter. Bloomington: Indiana Univ.
Press
Rogers SC. 1987. Good to think: the ‘peasant’ in contemporary France. Anthropol. Q. 60:56–63
Rogers SC. 2000. Farming visions: agriculture in French culture. French Politics Cult. Soc. 18(1):50–70
Roseman S. 2004. Bioregulation and Comida Caseira in rural Galicia, Spain. Identities: Glob. Stud. Cult. Power
11:9–37
Rosenberger N. 2007. Patriotic appetites and gnawing hungers: food and the paradox of nation-building in
Uzbekistan. Ethnos 72(3):339–60
Sbicca J, Myers JS. 2016. Food justice racial projects: fighting racial neoliberalism from the Bay to the Big
Apple. Environ. Sociol. 3(1):30–41
Siniscalchi V. 2014. Slow food activism between politics and economy. See Counihan & Siniscalchi 2014,
pp. 225–42
Solomon H. 2015. “The taste no chef can give”: processing street food in Mumbai. Cult. Anthropol. 30(1):65–90
Spang RL. 2000. The Invention of the Restaurant: Paris and Modern Gastronomic Culture. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
Sugimoto T. 2018. “Someone else’s land is our garden!”: risky labor in Taipei’s indigenous food boom.
Gastronomica 18(2):46–58
Sutton DE. 2001. Remembrance of Repasts: An Anthropology of Food and Memory. London: Berg
Tewari M, Kelmenson S, Guinn A, Cumming G, Colloredo-Mansfeld R. 2018. Mission-driven intermediaries
as anchors of the middle ground in the American food system: evidence from Warrenton, NC. Cult.
Agric. Food Environ. 40(2):114–23
74 Beriss
Thivet D. 2014. Peasants’ transnational mobilization for food sovereignty in La Via Campesina. See Counihan
& Siniscalchi 2014, pp. 193–210
Thompson JJ, Brawner JJ, Kaila U. 2017. “You can’t manage with your heart”: risk and responsibility in farm
to school food safety. Agric. Hum. Values 34:683–99
Thompson JJ, Gaskin J. 2018. An extension specialist’s reflections from the field: discovering ag of the middle
in the shift from direct sale to wholesale vegetable production. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 40(2):124–29
Tookes JS, Barlett P, Yandle T. 2018. The case for local and sustainable seafood: a Georgia example. Cult.
Agric. Food Environ. 40(1):55–64
Trubek A, Guy KM, Bowen S. 2010. Terroir: a French conversation with a transnational future. Contemp.
French Francoph. Stud. 14(2):139–48
Trubek AB. 2008. The Taste of Place: A Cultural Journey into Terroir. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Ulin RC. 1996. Vintages and Traditions: An Ethnohistory of Southwest French Wine Cooperatives. Washington, DC:
Smithson. Inst. Press
Ulin RC. 2013. Terroir and locality: an anthropological perspective. See Black & Ulin 2013, pp. 67–84
Watson JL, ed. 1997. Golden Arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Weber E. 1976. Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Univ. Press
Weiss B. 2011. Making pigs local: discerning the sensory character of place. Cult. Anthropol. 26(3):438–61
Weiss B. 2016. Real Pigs: Shifting Values in the Field of Local Pork. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Wilk R. 2006. Home Cooking in the Global Village: Caribbean Food from Buccaneers to Ecotourists. London: Berg
Wilk R, Barbosa L, eds. 2012. Rice and Beans: A Unique Dish in a Hundred Places. London: Berg
Wilson TM. 2018. Alongside the grain: conceptualizing scale and the upper threshold of local in the agro-
industrial Palouse. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 40(2):85–95
Wittman H, Beckie M, Hergesheimer C. 2012. Linking local food systems and the social economy? Future
roles for farmers’ markets in Alberta and British Columbia. Rural Sociol. 77(1):36–61
Yelvington KA, Simms JL, Murray E. 2012. Wine tourism in the Temecula Valley: neoliberal development
policies and their contradictions. Anthropol. Action 19(3):49–65
Zukin S. 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

AN48_FrontMatter ARI 16 September 2019 14:27
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Volume 48, 2019
Contents
Perspectives
How Maya Archaeologists Discovered the 99% Through the Study of

Settlement Patterns
Jeremy A. Sabloff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
Archaeology and Social Memory

Ruth M. Van Dyke p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 207
Arctic Archaeology and Climate Change
Sean P.A. Desjardins and Peter D. Jordan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 279
Itinerant Objects
Alexander A. Bauer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 335
The Call of the Wild: Rethinking Food Production in Ancient
Amazonia
Eduardo G. Neves and Michael J. Heckenberger p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Biological Anthropology
Adolescence as a Biocultural Life History Transition

Meredith W. Reiches p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
Soylent Is People, and WEIRD Is White: Biological Anthropology,
Whiteness, and the Limits of the WEIRD
Kathryn B.H. Clancy and Jenny L. Davis p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 169
Population Demography, Ancestry, and the Biological Concept of Race
Adam P. Van Arsdale p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227
The Embodiment of War: Growth, Development, and Armed Conflict
Patrick F. Clarkin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 423
vii
Anthropology of Language and Communicative Practices
Communicating Citizenship
Alejandro I. Paz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p77
Language Endangerment in Childhood
Barbra A. Meek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p95
Governmentality and Language
Jacqueline Urla p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 261
Poverty and Children’s Language in Anthropolitical Perspective
Amy L. Paugh and Kathleen C. Riley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 297
Evidentiality
Lila San Roque p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 353

From Literacy/Literacies to Graphic Pluralism and Inscriptive
Practices
Erin Debenport and Anthony K. Webster p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 389
Sociocultural Anthropology
Multisensory Anthropology
David Howes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17
The Anthropology of Death Revisited
Matthew Engelke p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p29
The Anthropology of Populism: Beyond the Liberal Settlement
William Mazzarella p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p45
Food: Location, Location, Location
David Beriss p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p61
The Anthropology of Islam in Europe: A Double Epistemological
Impasse
Nadia Fadil p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 117
Environmental Politics of Reproduction
Martine Lappé, Robbin Jeffries Hein, and Hannah Landecker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 133
Physician Anthropologists
Claire L. Wendland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 187
Uncommon Futures
David Valentine and Amelia Hassoun p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 243
The Anthropology of Art, After the End of Art:
Contesting the Art-Culture System
Eugenia Kisin and Fred R. Myers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317
viii Contents
The Anthropology of Water

Andrea Ballestero p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 405
Theme I: Mobilities
The Anthropology of Islam in Europe: A Double Epistemological
Impasse
Nadia Fadil p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 117
Adolescence as a Biocultural Life History Transition
Meredith W. Reiches p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
Population Demography, Ancestry, and the Biological Concept of Race

Adam P. Van Arsdale p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227
Uncommon Futures
David Valentine and Amelia Hassoun p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 243
Itinerant Objects
Alexander A. Bauer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 335
The Call of the Wild: Rethinking Food Production
in Ancient Amazonia
Eduardo G. Neves and Michael J. Heckenberger p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Theme II: Social In/justice
The Anthropology of Populism: Beyond the Liberal Settlement

William Mazzarella p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p45
Environmental Politics of Reproduction
Martine Lappé, Robbin Jeffries Hein, and Hannah Landecker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 133
Soylent Is People, and WEIRD Is White: Biological Anthropology,
Whiteness, and the Limits of the WEIRD
Kathryn B.H. Clancy and Jenny L. Davis p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 169
Poverty and Children’s Language in Anthropolitical Perspective
Amy L. Paugh and Kathleen C. Riley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 297
Contents ix
The Anthropology of Water

Andrea Ballestero p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 405
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 39–48 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 443

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 39–48 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 447
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/anthro
x Contents

Alimentos Locales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Alimentos Locales

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alimentos Locales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN48CH05_Beriss ARjats.

cls October 10, 2019 13:38

Annual Review of Anthropology

Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of New Orleans, New Orleans,

Louisiana 70115, USA; email: dberiss@uno.edu

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2019. 48:61–75 Keywords

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

THE TASTE OF PLACE

www.annualreviews.org • Food: Location, Location, Location 63

RESISTING AND RETHINKING GLOBALIZATION

REMAKING COMMUNITY AND CAPITALISM WITH LOCAL FOOD

www.annualreviews.org • Food: Location, Location, Location 65

FOOD JUSTICE, FOOD SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE LOCALIZATION

www.annualreviews.org • Food: Location, Location, Location 67

MAKING AND MARKETING LOCAL IDENTITY WITH FOOD

www.annualreviews.org • Food: Location, Location, Location 69

and why, for many people, it matters.

www.annualreviews.org • Food: Location, Location, Location 71

Gross J. 2011. Constructing a community food economy. Food Foodways 19(3):181–200

www.annualreviews.org • Food: Location, Location, Location 73

www.annualreviews.org • Food: Location, Location, Location 75

Volume 48, 2019

How Maya Archaeologists Discovered the 99% Through the Study of

Archaeology and Social Memory

Adolescence as a Biocultural Life History Transition

Anthropology of Language and Communicative Practices

Lila San Roque p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 353

The Anthropology of Water

Population Demography, Ancestry, and the Biological Concept of Race

Theme II: Social In/justice

The Anthropology of Populism: Beyond the Liberal Settlement

The Anthropology of Water

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 39–48 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 443

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

You might also like