Rozin, P. (1990) Development in the food domain. Developmental Psychology, 26,555–562.
TASK 1. I confess: the text was a good hors d’oevre. My first approach to the reading of Rozin’s article swings between a couple of reactions: never ever read something similar (my taste for reading goes to some other flavours) and the deep interest in the content of the text.
The structure of my review will be sui generis as I had no precise clue what such a thing had to be. To retain some of the spirit of the article I will quote some reading of my own.
I packaged my text in a three-folded piece. First, I made comments on the article’s structure; then I delved into the writer himself; finally the commentary will follow the content of the article where I will summarise the main ideas.
The article is structured in eight parts with a brief introduction. The body thus opens exploring ‘Biological determinants’; followed by a brief ‘Innate and acquired; universal and variable’; then a three-folded theme on ‘Food intake: biology, psychology and culture’; a small part on ‘the paradox of regulation‘ that leads to ‘The biological mismatch: intake and choice’; a mere page on ‘Humans in the developed world are unprepared to deal with low risks’ and not all parts receive the same attention in the text, with the lion’s share being The synergism and antagonism of biology and culture in the food world (4 pages). The text ends with a double page on ‘The effects of abundance and variety of food on two cultures’.
The writer’s identikit:
Post: Edmund J. and Louise W. Kahn Professor at Department of Psychology in University of Pennsylvania (since 1997).
Research Interests: Cultural Psychology. Interaction of moral and health factors in concerns about risks, acquisition of culture, nature of cuisine, cultural evolution. Research carried out in USA, France, Japan and India.
A Google framework. We entered the food world through Google <1>.
Commentary. Reading the text we learnt that there are some universal aspects: meals and a liking for sweet taste. Biology determines a regulation system of energy intakes: adult weight remains constant over years, so that some energy deficit has to be satisfied from the environment.
For the matter of choice, we –like rats or cockroaches- are generalist feeders. Food selection becomes a trial and error game. In that way we try different small amounts in order to predict if the small bite is harmful. We learn to associate which foods have which consequences. We accept sweet tastes and fatty textures and somehow –still unexplained- avoid bitter or sour tastes. To cater for our need of sodium we have appropriate salt receptors.
For food intake the two main variables are food availability and its palatability; the first one depending as well on social constraints such as portion served. We accept the amount received and feel satisfied. Likewise, the right time for the meal and if we remembered having already eaten.
Of special interest were the comparison between the ancestral environment and modern life in affluent societies, mainly the part related to fatty food and sweetness, with the caseshow of chocolate as a prime example. In those times people periled from infectious diseases, now form degenerative ones.
As for the biases of education upon health we have not kept up. The nutritionists have developed isolated theories from cultural, social variables; and the information available is oft a over/under reaction to reported food risks which produce a removal of pleasing foods that we need in its right amount.
The core of the text goes to the contrast between Biology and Culture. The systems of selecting and preparing foods are called cuisines –not surprisingly a French spelling word. In the case of sugar, we have dissociated its taste from its caloric associations. The chocolate story is an example sui generis: we created a superfood in an elaborate process of roasting, stirring and heating with such distinctive smooth fatty texture and an appealing aroma that melts in the mouth. We delve now with the case of chili pepper where billions have accepted an unpalatable substance due to social, cultural reasons working against a biological predisposition.
The case of milk is a good example of the intertwined culture and biology. Milk was only available through our mothers to infant mammals. The Neolithic revolutions allowed the resource of milking the animals and a painful process to digest this high energetical food. Culture compromised the digesting of the lactose by means of its transformation in fermented products (cheese, yoghurt). Nowadays we can obtain lactose-free milk. Biology accommodates as well in northern Europe peoples where the high consumption of milk provoked high frequencies of an allele to tolerate lactose.
Meat was a great advance in our diet at the old years. The plant diet was safer but the nutritional advantage of meat made it an ideal food always appealing and tasty. As a hindrance, we fear microbial contamination and need more energy to grab it (until domestication occurred). Most of the food taboos are related to meat. And nowadays there is the culture-based concern to provide the right energy to humans and our worrying about degenerative diseases.
When we study to modem societies like US and France we see a different approach to increasing intake and changes in the nutritional profile of what we eat. The cultural value of thinness and the worrying about long-term risks in diets have had a negative effect on American women. The French take a relaxed approach to food and with lower cardiovascular diseases where the pleasure of the meal –and having time for eating it- overcomes the concerns and consequences of eating of their American counterparts. The size of portion must be taken into account <2>.
To match the last sentence in the article: ‘liberté, fraternité manger’ i offer what Rozin wrote in another article <3> “eating is essential, elating, emotional, and expansive.
<1>.. There are now 10,700 web pages by <rozin food> keywords. Later I decided to narrow the search to <rozin “food intake”> keywords with 459. The language option in to specific languages <rozin comer> gave these results: 166.
<2> For a more narrative account of the French paradox we read ‘Smaller food portions may explain the 'French paradox' of rich foods and a svelte population’.
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ 2003-08/uop-sfp082003.php -
<3> For more information, the eloquent Rozin at ‘Food is fundamental, fun, frightening, and far-reaching’ Social Research, 66, 9-30) psych.upenn.edu/~rozin/foodfrig.rtf
No comments:
Post a Comment