My partner and I had a conversation recently about the process of learning how to make traditional food from family members. They remarked that their grandma could just touch dough and know how to alter the recipe by poking at it. Or she would say things like, “it rained yesterday” and adjust. In other words, the only way to learn how to make all this stuff was not just to follow the recipe, but to make it over and over with a master and learn the little adjustments.

Compare that to how food is mass produced. Rather than needing a master to adjust the recipe, the entire point is to use processes and ingredients which can be worked with to get consistent scalable results.

And my take is that there’s something fundamentally different between the sorts of foods that can be made through industrial processes and ones that can be iterated on and learned by humans to be made by hand.

  • crispy_lol [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I disagree, I think there’s probably a lot more science put into making food as mass scale than home cooks. Home cooks will make better tasting food once they are masters, in general, so I agree there but the efficiencies of scale are too great for them to overcome, and the process is a lot more evidence based and unbiased.

    But of course under capitalism putting in whatever toxic or semi-toxic shit in the batch doesn’t matter so long as it sells so we’re constantly going from one food crisis to the next (trans fats, preservatives, BPA, sulfites, etc etc). Also the whole aspect of marketing. People barely ever ate cheeseburgers a hundred years ago now they’re a staple.

    • DinosaurThussy [they/them]
      hexagon
      ·
      2 years ago

      People barely ever ate cheeseburgers a hundred years ago now they’re a staple.

      This is closer to my point. Food is always going to evolve and gain cultural meaning, but that food is now chosen less by what humans can master and more by what machines can reproduce consistently