Non-Timber Forest Products and Bioeconomy 28–30 November 2017, Rovaniemi, Finland

1. Food in modern everyday life: meanings,
practices and concerns
Lotte Holm
Sociology of Food
Section for Consumption, Bioethics and Governance
Department of Food and Ressource Economics
Department of Food and Resource Economics
NTFPs and bioeconomy, Rovaniemi, 28-30.11.2017

2. .. In the following..
• The meanings of food in daily life: what do we do with food?
• Meal patterns and social structures
• Eating in modernity: Eating habits in four Nordic countries
1997 and 2012
• Food and societal agendas: The New Nordic Diet and
consumers’ agendas
Department of Food and Resource Economics

3. The meanings of food in daily life
Energy and nourishment
Bodily wellbeing
Ordinary daily health practice
Meals are media for building social groups /family
Important signals of identity
Sensual pleasure – open forum for desire
Daily work
Routinized service work?
Work of love?
Creative self fullfillment
Social and cultural norms for
appropriate behaviour
Department of Food and Resource Economics

4. Mealpatterns and societal structure
Commercial pre-industrial cities
5-meal pattern: home-work-home-cafè-home
Hot three course lunch
Work in family owned business – also women
Work and household shared location
Industrialism:
3-meal pattern: home-work-home
Convenience lunch – less social in-betweens
Distance between household and workplace
Collectively negotiated working hours and breaks for eating
Post-industrialism?
Flexible work life
De-structuring and disruption of traditional culture
Individualization
Globalisation – homogenization
(Rotenberg 1981; Burnett 1989; Grignon 1996;Falk 1994, Mintz 1996; Ritzer 1993)
Department of Food and Resource Economics

5. Eating in post-industrial late modernity: some hypotheses
• Eating patterns: De-structuration, individualisation,
disruption (Falk 1994; Mintz 1996; Whit 1995).
• The grazing hypothesis – more nibbling, fewer meals (Senaur
et al 1991)
• Marketization of eating: More eating out, cooking
increasingly moving out of households and into commercial
settings (Dinkins 1992, Dumangang & Hackett 1995, Mogelonsky 1998)
• Disruption of culinary tradition and normativity: gastro-
anomie (Fischler, 1988)
• Informalization– relaxation of table manners (Wouters 2007,
Bugge & Døving 2000, Senaur et al 1991)
Department of Food and Resource Economics

6. Everyday Eating in four Nordic Countries
Two almost identical studies* conducted in Denmark, Finland, Norway
and Sweden
1997: Cati interviews, N= 4823, randomly selected
2012: Cawi interviews, N= 8248, Countrywise stratified random samples
(Gender, age, region)
Focus: Eating patterns. When, what, where, with whom?
Yesterday’s eating in detail
Funding: Joint Committees for Nordic Research Councils for /the humanities and
/the Social Sciences (NOS-S/HS) 1997, 2012.
*1997: A Day of Food in Nordic Countries, A comparative investigation of eating habits in modern
everyday life,
2012: Food in Nordic Everyday Life: A comparative survey of change and stability in eating
patterns,
Department of Food and Resource Economics

7. The questionnaire: Records of eating events (x 10)
Department of Food and Resource Economics
Hour
Hot food Cold food
What
(list)
Main course
Center: meat, fish, veg. Other
Supplements: Potatoes, veg. Other
Name of dish
First course
Dessert
Who prepared
Beverages
Where – with whom
Everybody the same food
TV-radio-reading
Duration

8. The eating system
Department of Food and Resource Economics
The eating pattern:
Time – rhythm of eating events
Number of eating events
Alternations of hot and cold eating events
Social context:
Where – with whom?
Duration? Other activities?
Who did the cooking?
Meal formats:
Composition of main course
Sequence of whole meals
Types of meals – simple - elaborate
Disruption of
mealpatterns?
Individualisation?
Delocalisation -
commercialisation?
Flexibilisation?

9. The Grazing-hypothesis
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Hot eating event
Cold eating event
1st eating event
Department of Food and Resource Economics

10. Denmark, eating patterns
2012
Danmark
1997
Danmark Norge
Sverige
FinlandFinland
Mealpatterns weekdays
Breakf.
Hot
Cold
NorgeNorge
Department of Food and Resource Economics

11. Denmark, eating patterns
2012
Danmark
2012
Danmark
Finland
Norge
Sverige
2012
Danmark Norge
Finland Sverige
Mealpatterns weekdays
Finland
Breakf.
Hot
Cold
Norge
Department of Food and Resource Economics

12. Denmark, eating patterns 1997 and 2012
Breakfast
Hot
Cold
20121997
Department of Food and Resource Economics

13. First: The overall rhythm of eating – no substantial
changes
Very clear national-specific collective rhythms in 1997 and 2012
Very small changes from 1997 to 2012
Department of Food and Resource Economics
Lund T, Gronow J (2014) Appetite.
Av. no
meals
1997
2012
3.94
4.04
3.74
3.91
Av. no
meals
1997
2012
3.93
3.96
3.93
3.85

14. A pattern which deviates from culturally shared
eating rhythms in the countries:
• An unsynchronized pattern was identified which was the
same in all four countries
Department of Food and Resource Economics
Un-
synchronized
Synchronized
(pattern, cluster 2-5)
Ate before 10 am
Ate Breakfast
Ate Lunch
Ate Dinner
Ate snack
24%
64%
58%
88%
29%
95-99%
95-99%
76-90%
89-95%
34-61%
1997 2012
Weekdays 17% 23%
Weekends 33% 41%
Unemployed 43%; Off work
40%; student 28%; Pensioner
24%; working day 21%.Linked
to life-phase: young, single

15. What do we eat in Nordic countries
Stability:
Core traditional elements in national food cultures persist
Two marked lunch cultures (hot/cold)
Dominant position of meat in dinners
Simple meal formats for lunch and dinner
Changes:
Harmonization between food cultures
Water most popular drink for lunch and dinners
Radical decline in cake
Increase in vegetarian hot lunches and dinners
Introduction of fruit and vegetables at ‘new’ meals
(breakfast and cold lunches)
Rise in cereals and youghurts for breakfast
Simplification: one-course dinners, no-preparation foods
Department of Food and Resource Economics

16. Eating out frequencies: How many times would you say you
have eaten at a restaurant, café or the like during the last year?
Department of Food and Resource Economics
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Denmark (1997) Denmark (2012) Finland (1997) Finland (2012) Norway (1997) Norway (2012) Sweden (1997) Sweden (2012)
Weekly Monthly 1-11 times per year Never
More eating in commercial settings?

17. Location of eating
Department of Food and Resource Economics
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1997 2012 1997 2012 1997 2012
Denmark Norway Sweden
Home Work/school Someone elses Cafe/restaurant Other
N (1997 / 2012): Denmark 1183 / 2042; Norway 1170 / 2061; Sweden 1243 / 2052)
Less home-based eating?
Holm et al 2016 Appetite

18. Social company
Department of Food and Resource Economics
Holm et al 2016 Appetite
N (1997 / 2012): Denmark 1183 / 2042; Norway 1170 / 2061; Sweden 1243 / 2052)
More individual eating?

19. Duration of eating
Department of Food and Resource Economics
N (1997 / 2012): Denmark 1183 / 2042; Norway 1170 / 2061; Sweden 1243 / 2052)
Less formality – shorter meals?
Holm et al 2016 Appetite

20. Where to sit? (When eating at home)
Department of Food and Resource Economics
N (1997 / 2012): Denmark 1131 / 1924; Norway 1126 / 1957; Sweden 1194 / 1961)
Less formality –more meals
away from dinner table?
Holm et al 2016 Appetite

21. What goes on while eating? (When eating at home)
Department of Food and Resource Economics
N (1997 / 2012): Denmark 1131 / 1924; Norway 1126 / 1957; Sweden 1194 / 1961)
Less formality – more often
other activities while eating?
Holm et al 2016 Appetite

22. Department of Food and Resource Economics
Figure 1. Meal characteristics by meal events. Propensity (in %) to use pc/tablet/smart phone, watch
TV, not eat at kitchen/dinner table, eat short meals, and eat alone by meal event.
Denmark
Meal eaten alonea
Meal with short durationa Did not eat at kitchen or
dinner table (at home) b
Watched TV (at home)b Used pc, tablet or
smartphonea
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner
Eveningmeal
In-between
Other
Total
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner
Eveningmeal
In-between
Other
Total
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner
Eveningmeal
In-between
Other
Total
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner
Eveningmeal
In-between
Other
Total
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner
Eveningmeal
In-between
Other
Total
Calculated predicted probabilities from
Logistic GEE results. In addition to the
main explanatory variable of interest
here (meal event type), age and
living alone and their interaction
(age*living alone) were included as
control variables; a N= 5761;
Disruption?
Individualization
Informalization
Gastro-anomie?
Holm et al 2016 Appetite

23. The gendering of cooking – change 1997-2012
20
69
6 5
29
52
12
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Only a man made
food
Only a woman made
food
A man and a woman
made food
Others made food
1997
2012
Percentage of hot dinners eaten at home, between 16-22, in the company of
others in multi-person households. (N= 1997: 1734 meals, 2012: 3703 meals,
chi2=149,117, sig<0,001).
Who cooked yesterday?
(Holm et al,2015 Food, cult soc)
Department of Food and Resource Economics

24. Which men cook? 1997 and 2012
24
46
31
20
35
29
30
33
36
31
40
16
25
29
29
37
39
26
46
61
53
42
54
45
45
50
54
48
57
36
52
46
44
56
53
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
15-29 years
30-44 years
45-59 years
60 years+
In job
Not in job
Low level
Medium level
High level
2 adults
2 adults with child(ren)
Other
1. quintile
2. quintile
3. quintile
4. quintile
5. quintile
Would/could not answer
AgeJobEducationHouseholdIncome
Men - part of cooking 1997 Men - part of cooking 2012
(Holm et al, 2015)
Department of Food and Resource Economics

25. Men’s cooking and social class
Department of Food and Resource Economics

26. Concerns about food: societal agendas
Department of Food and Resource Economics
Population health
Environmental
sustainability
Climate change

27. Denmark Finland Norway Sweden
N=2060 N=2044 N=2079 N=2065
Buy regional (local food)
Already doing so 38 38 35 46
Would like to do so 37 48 43 41
Not willing to 25 14 22 13
Eat only seasonal F&V
Already doing so 26 26 18 22
Would like to do so 32 39 32 44
Not willing to 42 35 50 34
Eat meat <3/week
Alread doing so 15 21 29 25
Would like to do so 16 21 21 22
Not willing to 69 58 50 54
Sustainable food consumption in Nordic countries (N=8248)
Are you doing or do you have plans of doing any of the following things with a
specific view to decrease the environmental impact?
Niva et al, 2014, J Cons Policy
Department of Food and Resource Economics

28. Health
Nordicproduce
Economy
New
Nordic
Diet
Department of Food and Resource Economics

29. Department of Food and Resource Economics

30. Clinical trial testing effects of New Nordic Diet (NND)
Design: 181 centrally obese men and women were
randomly assigned to receive either the NND (high in fruit,
vegetables, whole grains, and fish) or an average Danish diet (ADD)
for 26 weeks.
Participants received cookbooks and all foods ad libitum and free
of charge by using a shop model. The primary endpoint was the
weight change.
Conclusion: An ad libitum NND produces weight loss and blood
pressure reduction in centrally obese individuals.
Department of Food and Resource Economics
Paulsen et al 2013 Am J Clin Nut

31. The New Nordic Diet: acceptance by trial participants
Eating acceptance – practical acceptance (N=147)
Eating acceptance NND mean 81,0 (SD 16.2)ADD mean 51,6 (SD 18.3).
Practical acceptance NND mean 42,8 (SD 16.0) ADD mean 77,5 (SD 12,4)
Micheelsen et al 2014 Food qual & pref
Department of Food and Resource Economics

32. Some rough conclusions about modern eating
Department of Food and Resource Economics
Hypotheses Conclusions
Disruption of mealpatterns? No - small increase in
unsynchronized eating
Delocalisation - commercialization? No – in other forms?
Individualization A little
Flexibilization? Yes
Remarkably stability in Nordic eating
patterns
Appears to be different from trends in UK
and other countries
Re- or De-gendering of cooking
The Golden path to sustainable, climate
friendly food consumption has not been
found yet
Thank you for listening

33. Department of Food and Resource Economics