Morgan Sheridan wrote:

> <delurking>
>
> just a though in passing... under the categories of
> legal/political/globalizaton issues or ethical/moral issues, I would think
> food rationing/distribution would develop as a sub-topic.
>
> Morgan S.
>
>
> "ASmith1946" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I've ended up with the responsibility to write an article on the history
>>of counterculture food. As this is not my strength, I thought I'd ramble a
>>bit and ask for your comments-- positive and negative.
>>
>>"Counterculture food" includes a wide group of individuals and groups
>>opposed to corporate agriculture, corporate manufacturing of food, perceived
>>government protection and subsidy of corporate food producers, and the globalization
>>of food in general.

Andy, I'm afraid I can't get the 60's out of my head when considering
the whole notion of counterculture. I and many others ate a lot of
stupid food and bought a lot of stupid toys and utensils because it
was a kind of trickle-down reaction to genuine issues. We mostly
rejected the past (as does every generation in its own fashion)
because it was the past And we were so much smarter than anybody who
had ever lived before.

We cooked nasty-tasting things in primitive cooking equipment because
it was cool rather than because we were making many statements of
protest. Way up at the rarefied top of the philosophical tree there
may well have been great thinkers pondering universal questions and
conundrums. By the time it filtered down to us, we were eating things
because we had the munchies, not because we were terribly worried
about the plight of farmers in Uganda. The shock of The Great Folk
Music Catastrophe in the late 50's set the stage for everything to be
taken over by amateurs. So we wove bad cloth, threw clumsy pots,
carved embarrassing sculptures, smoked junk weed, embroidered mad LSD
dreams on our shirts and generally misbehaved thinking it was actually
a valid rebellion against, um, something.

We ate Alice B. Toklas brownies and blurted out "profound"
observations about the world and we sang folk songs we had learned in
New York where there are no folks.

I think there's a great deal of plain and simple fashion and fad in
counterculture behavior. Maybe a good and important idea way back at
the beginning, but by the time it hit the streets, it was
questionable, at best. Like Einstein strolling down Paul Robeson Place
in Princeton with his fly open.

I know. This is a good example of the logical flaw of extrapolating
from the particular to the universal.

>>Counterculture food groups have many divergent interests, but many cluster
>>around the following overlapping issue areas:
>>
>>1. environmental and sustainability issues (organic gardening; family farm
>>vs factory farm, etc.);
>>
>>2. health and nutrition issues (chemical additives, pesticides; junk food,
>>fast foods, obesity, etc.);
>>
>>3. legal/political issues (labeling, approval processes, political power
>>of food companies, etc.);
>>
>>4. ethical/moral issues (animal rights, vegetarianism, religion,
>>humanitarian matters, hunger and malnutrition, food advertising/promotion, etc.);
>>
>>5. science/technology issues (GMOs, cloning, etc.);
>>
>>6. globalization issues (NAFTA, WTO, EU, etc.).
>>
>>What obvious issue areas have I left out?

To me, this feels like the current picture rather than an overview of
the various movements that ran counter to the prevailing culture's
notions about food and health, etc. Think of the Kelloggs, Graham,
Leibig. Later, McFadden et al. And more recently Euell Gibbons and the
like. Might even tuck Robert Atkins in there. An ungenerous look calls
them faddists. But they were also countercultural and, for better or
worse, helped to shape the futures of the mainstream.

Pastorio


>>
>>Andy Smith