Afters finished?

Hi Everyone

Attached is the second draft of our paper. Thanks for the comments on the blog and the new and revised bits added/moved on the Google doc. I've tried to keep everyone's comments/contributions in mind again, and what you'll notice is the following...

What's new:
1) a revised, shorter introduction based on Rachel's rewrite and bits of comments from others. It's shorter, is more food focused - e.g. some key themes are in there - plus it summarises / condenses the main contributions about blogging (now gone, but soon to surface in the 'Writing collaboration' paper) + comments on draft one that were posted on the blog.

2) a new 'endings?' section comprising fragments of people's ideas about (not) concluding, mainly from the comments on the first draft. Hope this works...

3) a shorter paper: now 7,800 words long. The long intro fragments on the blogging process have been summarised and/or edited out (to be added to the 'Writing collaboration' online-paper...) I think this is ready to submit at this length, and we'll see what Roger Lee says about this.

4) author order: previously it was alphabetical by first name, now it is in order of appearance.

Concerns?
Just one for me: two people mentioned that they thought that otherness and viscerality were a bit unbalanced. I would welcome some specific suggestions about what might be added/subtracted where. Please amend the Google doc and tell me!

[Also, there are empty spaces in the text which the copyeditor will hopefully sort out so that the columns can go over the page]

Suggestions?
Maybe we should just submit and iron out any smaller issues (that balance bit) when Roger gets back with comments. Comments and suggestions to this email list please...

Finally: thanks yet again to everyone and apologies for dragging this out so long.

Phew

Ian

new intro

hi everyone,

I tried writing an intro (Damien mentions this) using some of Ian's original call plus my own attempt to deal with the content. It's underlined to indicate new text in the google doc. The last paragraph of this intro could perhaps be moved to the end to function as a conclusion (with tense changes).

I tried to work with Jean's headings but I gave up on that. Just couldn't make them work for equal amounts of text.

I also deleted the section on blogging (in red) to try to lower the word count. Ian has another paper in which these comments on blogging can appear.

best, Rachel

Afters draft 1

Hello Ian/everyone,

First, off, sorry for my slow reply to the draft. I've been snowed under with research contracts. I've now had a chance to carefully read through the paper. I've also had a quick look at other folks responses. They, like me, seem to think that you've done a very good job assembling our conversations into a paper than reads well and, crucially, retains the mixed up nature of those conversations (something I know we were all keen to try and retain). The format did, I must admit, take me a little by surprise at first. I'm not sure quite what I was expecting, but I like the idea of using extracts from the blog in the way that you have and the coding works well.

I just have a few suggestions, some which have already been mentioned by others:

1]. I think you (Ian) should be the first author on the paper. I don't want to open a can of worms about authorship, but I'd assumed you would be the first author. You are the 'head chef' of this Cook et al gastro-production and I think it makes sense for you to go as first author on the paper. I know all the arguments about whether first authorship designates main author, etc but it's that what I think. Not sure if anyone else raised it or agrees/disagrees with me?
2]. The intro makes a good job of introducing the 'collaborative' project and explaining how the process works, but it doesn't really prepare an 'outside' reader for what is to come. I know some are reluctant for us to impose too traditional/conventional a style, but I think some sort of signposting of at least the relational nature of the material in blog extract form would help. I see others have made good suggestions about re-working the intro and the balance between collaborative writing and the food aspect (the latter is the core, I agree). The new Google doc version also seems now to have a new intro.
3]. Following this point about signposting, I think some introduction of headings in the blog extract text would again be helpful, simply as a mechanism to 'flag up' emergent themes, accepting that these themes may not always flow neatly from one to the other. Again, I see folks have made some good suggestions about headings and the Google doc version now has at least one set of headings. We don't need many.
4]. Do we need some kind of conclusion or concluding paragraph? I think so, but again I know we might not all agree. It could simply be some roundup paragraph on what this 'afters' paper/process tells us about food geographies going forward. It would, again, be helpful to outside readers, in my view.
5]. Paul, I think, raises a good point about balancing a little better the discussions about the political dimensions of food (which there is quite a bit) with some of the other lively debates on the blog. This can perhaps be done by simply trimming those elements a bit. Paul makes good suggestions about those other elements.

That's it. I hope it is of some help.

It will be interesting to see how Progress reviewers react to the paper.

Thanks Ian for all your hard work and leadership. A very interesting process.

Best wishes to all,
Damian

From Jean: 'on digestion of afters'

Thanks, Ian and thanks, everyone. It’s been a curious project to attempt in some ways, but, for me, the result is extremely satisfying. Juggling the contradictory imperatives of genres, technologies, disciplines, personal geographies, politics and so on, this draft manages to establish coherence and yet retain its beguiling sense of drift through multiple fragments and voices.

A couple of specific comments:

I’m somewhat surprised (though not really unbelieving, to be honest) by the statement (p.1) ‘only a few notable experiments in collaborative writing’. The surprise is partly due to my own disciplinary background (honed in the eighties’ days of ‘memory work’ at the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies where collective writing as a political statement was de rigeur) and partly because of felicitous connections with geographers who do write collaboratively (for example, with cultural geographers at Royal Holloway, and with Phil Crang, in particular). Perhaps I’ve just been plain lucky? Anyway, for the blog contributors’ interest (and not necessarily to add here), may I offer my own nomination for an interdisciplinary ‘notable experiment’ that has a basis in geography, and one that does involve experimenting with form, mode of representation and differential positioning of the co-writers? Jackie Huggins (indigenous Australian historian), Rita Higgins (Jackie’s mother whose family was forcibly removed from their traditional lands) and Jane M. Jacobs (white geographer) together visit Rita’s birthplace, Kooramindanjie, and each relates a story of her relationship to this profoundly haunted place. The stories are presented in fragments, distinguished by subheadings, different fonts and positioning, almost rubbing alongside each other (and alongside boxed quotations from ‘official’ documents). As Jackie and Jane say, ‘These multiple voices are not intended to reconcile differences, to settle things down; they are intended to activate difference, to ensure the dialogue continues’ (Huggins et al 1997). It seems to me our blogging and its resulting article is written in a similar sprit.

On the other hand, I don’t want to fetishise the technology itself. Obviously, the blog, together with other software, has been extremely useful for communicating across disciplines, cultures and continents and for identifying and following conceptual drifts. Nevertheless, it is only a tool. As in the Kooramindanjie example, written in the pre-blog-Facebook-twitter-etc age, it is the idea of collective writing that is important, and a ‘collective’ that doesn’t assume the ironing out of all differences, the adoption of a uniform ‘voice’ or a uniform direction of argument. Here too, perhaps it’s the continuance of ‘dialogue’ – with all its shifts, continuities, ambivalences, outright differences – that really counts?

Now to do an intellectual/stylistic about-turn … sort of. Like Heike, I love fragments – that sense of postmodern slipperiness about where arguments will take you; that sense you’re relieved of the obligation to make everything fit neatly. On the other hand, I also want a comforting sense of order – a pattern in the fragments; discernible narrative threads, however messy, tangled or loose these might seem. I think Ian has picked up on these in creating the article (in his unraveling/rejoining/repositioning chunks of conversation). After all, an article is different from a blog or potential readers simply need the appropriate link. Personally, I would like to see this shaping and polishing taken a step further with fragments of subheadings indicating where a new thread of argument gathers force (not too aggressively, mind you, just slipped in (writing together in public … borders, fragments, loose ends … things that travel …veils and fetishes … whose organic food, whose food? … victims and violent consumption … reflexively eating the ‘other’ … ‘other’ animals …‘dirty’ politics and ‘visceral imaginaries’ … writing across borders or some such). On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to be too prescriptive, and perhaps the only thing needed, after all, is my trusty highlighter?

From Julie

Hi Ian (et al.)

I apologize for the delay in responding. I'm finally giving full-on attention to a book I began 3 years ago and I'm reluctant to break momentum. I admit that I only skimmed the draft, although I like what I saw. Excellent coding and formatting. I concur with the need for a more direct and brief introduction and I'm thus going to throw my weight behind (all fat metaphors these days) the move to jettison the lengthy quotes about blogging and place them in another paper. I bet that I'm not the only person who gave much more thought to the substantive posts and would rather see them kept intact. And the work is intended, in fact, to be a review of food scholarship first and foremost.

With that in mind, it occurred to me while trying to fall asleep last night that an easy solution to the introduction is to refer back to the original invitation and paraphrase it. As Ian first characterized it he invited the particular cast of characters to participate in this third review because they a) had not really been included in the other two though have been writing on these issues; b) had been cited briefly and Ian seemed to think a response was in order; or c) had something to say about the topic even though maybe weren't "food scholars" per se. What emerged thereafter was an organic conversation, albeit sometimes a disjointed one, among those who agreed to participate. What follows in the rest of the article represents the emergent conversations.

So, I'm thinking something like this in the intro: one paragraph on food studies as an emergent field, constantly being defined and redefined through the people that participate in it and what they bring to the field from other fields (which is all true!). This paper, both reflects and extends that impulse; a second paragraph that recapitulates the original invitation and what its purpose was - who was invited and why, pretty much cribbed from the original; And then a third paragraph on the process: how it led to such an organic conversation, as it were, which did in fact bring in perspectives that the other two reviews hadn't touched as much (both the politics/positionality and the visceral) - and then some summary statement about blogging.

The conclusion can then say something about how the process of this article, which both widened and relaxed the conversation about food might be used as a model in food movements themselves. (Ok, that's where I'd go with it, so maybe that's too much me). but something that refers to how a different sort of process leads to different sorts of places intellectually and communicatively.

Hope this is helpful.

Julie

From Allison and Jessica

Our main comments are first and foremost that we like what has been done. One comment that has been written on the blog recently is to have a more defined intro and conclusion. Neither of us is sure that this is necessary. A traditional intro is perhaps not appropriate here. Maybe it is important (and enough) to say in the beginning that the blogging style (and authors' experiences) mirror the complexity, diversity, and fluidity of recent work in food. In other words, many of us are conceiving of food in these relational and negotiated ways, which makes this blogging forum not only an appropriate style for communicating about the Geographies of Food, but a way to represent food more 'faithfully' (as in Latham 2003). We found the conclusion (as in the end of the document where one might expect a conclusion) to be equally satisfying in its non-conformity and complexity (though maybe a little short; one more post with a 'wrapping up' type theme might help). Another comment from other bloggers was to take out some of the discussion on blogging in the paper to leave more room for food. This could be a good idea, yet we also liked the blending of blog discussions and food discussions in the beginning (and throughout) the paper. Instead, perhaps some sort of subheadings, and/or strategically placed and bolded words (and arrows?) might be helpful to guide our readers, or at least to signal that there are various key themes circulating throughout e.g. RELATING, RACE, OTHER, HUNGER, POOR, MIXING, VISCERAL. These are just examples - maybe we could use some of the ‘codes’ that Ian came up with when analyzing the document? (A short comment about our own continued combined participation: we started out commenting jointly because we often collaborate on our food research – in the field and in writing – and so writing as a team here has offered us a space to recognize what we like about our joint scripts and how we organize our efforts.)

Food AND blogging

I actually really like the way this paper turned out - I think it's great that it is about food AND blogging (and I like the visual aspects, the juxtaposing of contributions). In my opinion, it is the collaborative writing process that makes it so special - so I would be hesitant to remove the intro posts. Maybe some of the people who have longer posts could edit/shorten their contributions, if limited space is a concern? And thank you so much again Ian for all the work you have put into this.
Heike

edits

hey ian,
could you please add the following sentence to the end of my entry:

I also think it is important that we are able to find ways to critically map these aesthetics taking place as both part of AND separate from the social and the political (Kingsbury, 2005; forthcoming).

Kingsbury, P. (2005) Jamaican tourism and the politics of enjoyment. Geoforum 36 (1), 113-132

Kingsbury, P. (forthcoming) Unearthing Nietzsche’s Bomb: Explosiveness, Nuance, Aesthetics. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies

thanks,
paul

changing the introduction

Hi everyone

Thanks for the posts so far. I was going to hold fire here until more authors had added their feedback.

I did have an idea based on Rachel's post, though: we/I could shift most of the opening paras about the way that this was put together to the page about this paper on my online, 'et al' 'Writing collaboration' 'paper': see here. That's set up to change as things happen, so any reader interested in the 'how' of the Afters paper could go there (a simple piece of referencing). 'Writing collaboration' could also be the place to which some of the quotes about the process /experience of writing the paper could be moved, into a second differently collaborative 'publication'.

If we agree to do this, it would be nice for 2 or 3 people to volunteer to write a new 'food geographies' introduction either as named people, or more generally on behalf of the group.

Hope this sounds like a good idea...

Thanks

Ian

PS I sent an email earlier in the year about contributing to the 'Writing collaboration' paper too, and Alison and Mimi are already commentators there... I'm planning on doing a updated page on the Afters experiment when it finally gets the OK from Progress. I'm hoping others may be able to contribute to the bit of this online paper about the paper paper based on the blog about food geographies... but you may have had enough of this by then...

thoughts on draft 1

hi everyone,

I too like the way this paper has come out both in terms of its form and its loose ends. I agree with Paul's suggestions for changes (points 2, 3 and 4).

The parts more specific to blogging and the creation of this paper could be summarized (not left as intact quotes), they could comprise another publication or they could be left somewhere online and you could reference that location.

As for cutting words, perhaps those with multiple posts or very long paragraphs could condense.

I agree that it would help to have a short introduction and conclusion that is more about the aspect of food.

I tried to rewrite my comments into the paragraph (below) that I hope speaks to the issue of corporeality and retains most of what was originally in the draft.

thanks Ian et al.!
Rachel

***
I think that desire to "decolonize the self" may be a starting point for some (many?) critical people engaging with questions of race in the US. It's...encouraged by anti-racist activism and one could argue that it's a liberal, individualistic response. But one could also say that efforts at reflexivity are a pathway toward, for instance, where Cook [2008] suggests Heldke [2003] ended up. For all the criticisms we might level at people trying to change their consumption practices individually or collectively, it's important to acknowledge the fraught, fuzzy and fragile nature of these positions and the embodied connections made through food. I've been trying to do that while admiring the work of those who have been very critical of the liberal, wealthy whiteness of alternative food and of various politics of consumption. I tend to agree with these critiques but find there's more to say. That was my starting point, at least, when I suggested that the viscous spatiality of alt food's whiteness is less cohesive, more desirous of non-racist connection, more interesting in its gendered female form or less relevant than we think (see Jean's comment). And in highlighting the importance of thinking about the corporeality of race and vegetables [2008], I was proposing (with others) that opening up the concept of race (beyond static formulations like 'eating the other' and beyond its mediation solely by the social) should be useful to anti-racism and our own analyses. Seen this way, race emerges materially through corporeal relationships to food--what people gravitate toward, what they touch and taste, what they grow. If race is an event, an open-ended becoming made by ongoing connection rather than only exclusion and erasure (Saldanha 2006), it suggests the need to look at what possible worlds open up through the connections that both divide groups and draw them together.
Slocum, R. 2008: Thinking race through feminist corporeal theory: divisions and intimacies in the Minneapolis Farmers' Market. Social and Cultural Geography 9(8):849-869
Saldanha, A. 2006. Re-ontologizing race: the machinic geography of phenotype. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24:9-24

From Heather

[Heather could only post this as a comment, which you may have missed, so I'm copying it here... Ian.]

Hey all,
I really liked the format of the paper draft. Mostly because it does show lines of thought, not all of which relate one to another. I think it is important to acknowledge that all of our thinking and our research has loose ends, and usually ends in more questions! The format itself is a nod to this fact. I did make one more comment after Damien´s comment near the end, trying to relate a concern raised at the beginning of the document with the one that I and Damien were commenting on.
Heather

reflections

Hi everyone!
Thanks Ian for continuing to push us and drive the project. I gave the 'afters' paper a good read and have several comments:

1. In terms of how "these excerpts worked together", I loved the (Walter Benjaminian) montage style and effects. I like the various surprising dissonances and overlaps with the contents. I also like the appearance of the different shaped blocks of text

2. One criticism I have is that it seems a lot of the v. interesting Blog comments on "corporeality" (Rachel), "viscerality" (Charlie), as well as "Bodies, Visceral Difference, Visceral Imaginaries" (Allison and Jessica) have been dropped and eclipsed by the political (e.g. Otherings, positionalities etc.) dimensions of food. Can something be done about that?

3. Might it be a good idea (following Kersty's question: 'was this paper about blogging or about food'?) to reduce the Blogging self-reflexivity material on pages 2 and 3? At times, I felt it was indeed more about blogging than food.

4. I'd also like to see more words (difficult I know given the limit) devoted in the introduction to prepare the reader for the following material. I also think the paper could be greatly enhanced with a fairly traditional conclusion - nothing too long - that sums up what the paper did and future research directions?

5. A few typos:
P. 1 “allowed us to quickly write 43,000 about” Change to "43,000 words"
P. 9 Bell hooks should read "bell hooks"?

Paul

Kersty's comments

Thanks Ian for your work on deftly pulling this together.
Finally grabbed some time in the middle of teaching to read this. Found it a more challenging read that I anticipated...but as Shoko rightly says on page 2, I will 'force myself' to say something here and see what happens!! As one might expect, the blog format threw up all sorts of questions about expectations of a paper as being a (somewhat) singular narrative with a definite (if not happy) ending. The hope of a'concluding/summing up' remarks section was with me throughout, and I finished reading with the question in my mind 'was this paper about blogging or about food'? Of course we know it contains both in different ways, and I am not saying this as any direct criticism of anyone...I just wanted to get the conversation going about other people's reactions upon reading this. I don't mind being challenged as reader to draw my own connections, and of course the word limit disciplinarian is always with us...how did others feel about it, react?
kersty

Brief comments so far

Hi Everyone

I've had a few brief comments on the draft by email, and thought I'd anonymously quote some of what's been said so far.

'I’m still ‘digesting’ the writings you sent, but immediately want to take the “Food Afters” content into InDesign and go wild! I like the experimental format.'

'It comes off as as a really awesome discussion, which I would like to add more to'

'It's quite successful how you've done this but I wished there was something more at the beginning and end'.

'It told me I don't have access. ?'

'It came out very interesting and I am very glad that I am part of the project.'

'On a first read through this looks (surprisingly!) good. I'll think about any edits but for now have not made any.'

'this looks fabulous. thanks so much. will peruse more and be back to you'.

'Who is saying that we need to cut the document by 1,500 words? That would/may be a real shame because I think it reads really well.'

[Answer: these food reviews have ended up being a bit longer than normal, with 'Following' at 5,000 words + refs and 'Mixing' at 6,700 + refs. If there's a consensus that we should ask if an 8,000 word paper would be OK under our circumstances, then I'm happy to send an email and report back].

Also, the paragraph starting "I think you are correct to identify.." has now been correctly attributed to David.

It seems that there's been some quick skim reading, and promises to have a closer look as soon as possible. Kersty emailed today with a more detailed response and this is posted above. Other detailed responses would be good too, and it would be useful to see some comments along the lines of 'I liked the way that these excerpts worked together because...', 'I couldn't see why these worked together because...', 'Might it be a good idea to include in the introduction something like...' and 'How about a general conclusion saying something like...' We can discuss the word count later... Let's get the paper so that we're all more or less happy with it first.

I'll set the countdown 'til the end of the month.

Thanks and apologies as usual!


Ian

Archived 25 August 2009

Hi Everyone

Please accept my apologies for not keeping to my own deadlines. I've been busy and ill, with ongoing medical stuff...

Roger Lee - who commissioned the 3 food papers for Progress in human geography - has been in touch asking when he can expect our paper. We have agreed that May is good under the circumstances.

The plan (updated):
I intended to put a first wiki-draft together by 20th March, but that didn't happen (same reasons as usual). I hope we can still keep to the May deadline (i.e. completing & submitting the review in May).

Progess so far:
- All the blog postings are now in one 43,000 word document .
- A Google doc experiment has started...

Next
- I'll code the posts and work on the draft in the next couple of weeks (to, from and during a week-long fieldcourse in Cuba).
- I'll upload this draft to Google docs and invite everyone to edit, add, update, etc... right at the start of May.


Ian
13th April 2009

------------------------------------

Writing

[archived...]

There seems to an agreement that I should orchestrate the writing of the paper, but in a way that's relatively non-hierarchical, and includes different voices, fragments and the character of our discussions. If possible.

Whether this involves stages of drafting and a series of emails, attachments and tracked changes (which with so many authors, may be overly complicated), or setting up a wiki (which could be simpler and more collaboratively edited), is something to think about.

The wiki idea is new to me, as was blogging at the start of the summer. So, thanks for the suggestion Lisa. I'm happy to go with this as another experiment.

When the dust settles, I'll code, cut and paste, and top and tail a rough document for us to start with, and maybe circulate it 'normally' and try a wiki so we can get this done one way and another.

Thanks for your support with this continuing experiment!

Ian
23 January 2009

A bit of leftovers after the meal?

Hello! I am comming to the party a bit late--appologies. Thanks Ian for letting me gatecrash.


I think I would like to make just a couple of tenative comments concerning practices and materiality.


Firstly, and I am being very tentative here as one is always warry of comming into a conversation that is most of the way through and then just saying somethign that has already been said...but here are some tentative thoughts:

Following on from Rachel: I guess I would like to suggest more work that considers the idea of capacities and learning as part of food practices (see Rouse 2007 and Schatzki 2002 on practice theory) and how in creating the everyday spaces of cooking and shopping and eating, learning is a key aspect which is linked to the continuation but also innovation within food cultures. A critical mass of particular capacities also helps to shape and reshape places (I am sort of thinking Massey (2005) here but applied to foodspaces), which in turn makes it much harder for those with different capacities and different foodways to be engaged with these spaces/places and thier politics (I have a paper forcomming in the Annals that takes on board some of these ideas in relation to "local food").

Linked to this I think is the notion that time-space and space-times (see Schatzki 2005 and also Haggerstrand1982) can contribute a lot to the ways that we understand how food is imbricated in the projects of people within the context of thier lifecourse. For example, the idea that the family meal is dead in the UK because it does not seem to occure nightly. If we think carefully the meal could be instead be understood and practiced in a different form--e.g. as breakfast. So while it may look like a archetype is being lost it is often just done differently (Blake et al 2009). In research in the UK and Hungary we found that many families practice family through their foodways, but these foodways may be unique to that family and change over time as circumstances change. It is also the case that many individuals practice their foodways differently when they are eating alone because the eating or cooking or whatever is not contributing to the family project but is instead either adding to or detracting from some other aim that they have. What this way of thinking might help us with is an opportunity to move away from the notion that (usually) mothers are bad because they don't produce a roast meal every night a la June Cleaver (isn't it ironic that here name is Cleaver?). The moral outrage, at least in the UK by many ranging from those concerned with food policy to those who write and read the daily mail should I think be confronted head on rather more (although see a forthcomming book chapter by Peter Jackson in the Changing Families/Changing Food book that will come out this summer and which is the book for the CFCF research programme (www.shef.ac.uk/foodandfamilies --incidently there are a number of programme highlights on this web page as well as a really great downloadable food bibliography, also see work by Murcott 1995). While Jackson and Murcott question weather a family meal ever existed (apparently just for some and only briefly) one might ask what the effect of asking about the demise of the family meal has within society--does it, for example create more pressure on women to work a double workign day to meet some idealised notion? Does it help create a situation whereby (mostly) women feel inadequate because they find it difficult to supply and orchestrate this type of meal to their families on an everyday or even weekly basis? And what does this demonstrate to children? That they do not need to learn to cook until they are older because it is mum's job to do it? That family meals are just those that occure in the evening around a dinning table that they may or may not have (many british houses are very small and a dinning table is a luxury). That cooking needs to be complicated and for food to count as a meal it must be hot and certainly not be leftovers.

Lastly--thinking about really afters... I guess I would encourage further interrogation into what happens when things un-become food (taking off of Roe's comments about things becomming food). Food waste is a huge proportion of the UK greenhouse emmission. The UK government estimates that approximately 40% of all emissions are derived from the activities that we do every day as ordinary people going about ordinary lives. Approximately 20% of all UK emissions are associated with food production, processing, transportation, and storage (Ventour 2008). Research commissioned by WRAP, a UK government funded organisation whose aim is to help reduce carbon emissions in this country, suggests that about one third of all food purchased in the UK is thrown away. Of this discarded food, about one third is untouched and a significant proportion is still in date. Furthermore, while all types of foods are thrown away, fruit and vegetables account for the largest proportion at about 40% of all food waste, which suggests that while consumers are trying to live healthier lifestyles, much of their good intention is finding itself in the rubbish bin. Finally, the households with the greatest amount of food waste are those with children. What is the impact of food waste in other industrialised countries? Certainly people do not buy food with the intention of wasting it--so the question is what happens? WRAP argues that many consumers do not plan appropriately when they purchase food and buy too much. When this is considered against the ways that retailers market foods to consumers (e.g. buy one, get one free offers) it becomes clear why cost-conscious shoppers would end up with more food that they need , especially as care is expressed through the savings achieved when goods are purchased ( see Miller 1998). Likewise, cultural practices such as teaching children about healthy eating and entertaining of guests may contribute to this waste. For example, WRAP finds that poor storage of fruits and vegetables contributes to a shorter lifespan (e.g. non-refrigeration and high light conditions), however ongoing research suggests that parents use a fruit bowl as a way to encourage children to eat more fruits (WRAP estimates 56% of all households have a fruit bowl). Similarly, for some, certain foods are purchased for consumption by others as a treat rather than for oneself or ones family (Blake et al 2010). This treat food includes food to be given as a gift (e.g. a box of biscuits) or served to guests (e.g. cakes). Among middle class households in the UK, good manners dictate that any when guests appear special food should be made available along with a cup of tea. Given that visitors are not always planned, this also necessitates these households keep a constant supply of this type of food, which must be monitored for freshness but never eaten oneself (there is some evidence that the need to store food in case someone comes buy is also a problem for Pakistani families in the UK as well and one presumes the situation may be similar for other minority groups). Thus, when this food is no longer suitable for guests, it becomes part of the waste problem. Finally, national cuisines and food histories are likely to influence how individuals understand food as no longer being edible. For example, amongst the white population in the UK, we found food is often judged by its visual properties rather than by its smell or feel. This is likely to be partly due to an industrial history that separated food production from food consumption and necessitated a food processing and delivery system that required higher amounts of packaging than would be the case if food were produced within very short distances from where it is eaten (Calquhoun 2006, see also Atkins 2007 for a specific discussion in relation to milk). These differences in culture, history, and food provisioning and retailing practices suggest that the social and cultural practices of groups must be understood in order to tackle the problem of food waste.

Maybe a bit of a rant, hopefully something useful here. I hope I have not been too self promoting, but these are just ideas I have been thinking about lately.

I am a bit new at the blog thing and I am not certain how exactly to add my reference to the side column so here they are...

Atkins, Peter (2007) Laboratories, laws and the career of a commodity. Environment and Planning D: Society and space, 25, 967-89.
Blake, M. K. , Mellor, J. C. L. and L. Crane (2010) Buying Local Food: The rols of shopping practices, place and consumption networks in defining food as "local". Forthcomming in the
Annals of the Association of American Geographers.
Blake, M. K., Mellor, JCL and L Crane (2009) Eating up time, Eating in Time, in Jackson, P. (ed.) Changing Families/Changing Food, Palgreve-Macmillon (in press).
Calquhoun, Kate. 2007. Taste: The story of Britain Though Its Cooking. London: Bloomsbury.
Hagerstrand, Torston (1982). Diorama, path and project. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 73(6):323-399.
Jackson, P. (2009) Changing Families Chaning Food, Palgreve-Mcmillon (in press).
Massey, D. 2005. For Space. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Miller, Daniel. 1998. A theory of shopping. Cambridge: Polity Press.Murcott, A. 1995. Family Meals - a Thing of the Past. In Food, Health and Identity, ed. P. Caplan, 32-49. London: Routledge.
Rouse, J. 2007. Social Practices and Normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37:46-
56.
Schatzki, T. R. 2002. The site of the social. University Park, Pennsylvania: The
Pennsylvania State University
Schatzki, T. R. (2005). Where Times Meet. Cosmos and History: The journal of natural and social philosophy 1(2): 191-212.
The Royal Society (2008) UK and EU Climate Change Policy (available online http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278), London: The Royal Society (date last accessed 1 September 2008).
Ventour, Lorrrayne (2008) The food we waste, London: WRAP.