The quintessential/stereotypical Chinese menu. From MealNY.

“Let’s get Chinese food tonight.” What do you wear? Whatever you’ve got on, right? But if someone were to say “Let’s go for French food tonight?,” you would probably do a quick mental run through of your closet to figure out what to wear and oh crap, do we have a reservation? There’s an assumption upon which both answers are based. Chinese food is cheap, French food is expensive. But not all Chinese food is cheap, and not all French food is expensive.

When we make these kind of assumptions we are in essence evaluating cultures and peoples, usually unfairly and often based on a simplistic version of an entire region or country. The idea of one singular cuisine in China is pretty ridiculous. It’s a big country with lots of regions and lots of cuisines. Food in Guangdong province is different from food in Sichuan province  is different from food in Fujian province is different from food in Yunnan Province. The comparison between Chinese and French foods is a clear example of the biases we have based on oversimplifications. But just because this is the comparison I’m using doesn’t mean they are the only cuisines that this applies to. What about Polish food, or Thai? Brazilian? Mexican? Ethiopian? Indian? Italian?

The transcontinental railroad was built by immigrants from China as well as other countries. From Geisel Library.

The prices that we associate with various cuisines is a minor but impactful form of discrimination based in history. When immigrants from China moved to California in the mid-1800s, the type of work that they were allowed to do was limited to hard labor and select positions in the service industry, such as laundries and the chop suey houses that multiplied during this time. Chop suey houses in particular were a way for the Chinese immigrants to make a business niche for themselves in which they weren’t criticized for taking jobs from European-Americans. It was inexpensive, but seen as exotic. However, chop suey was an americanized version of a dish found in parts of rural China. By contrast French restaurants represented something entirely different. By going to a French restaurant you were aligning yourself with the European aristocracy, something that merited a higher price. It wasn’t just about the food and being fed, but the way that eating French food was an exercise of one’s privilege. Chinese food was cheap because few saw a value in it beyond just the food.

Apparently this is what we aspired to. From Kashmir Company.

While these roots might have made more sense at the time of the gold rush, it’s pretty absurd that we still see these price associations and all of the assumptions that they carry with them to this day. New York restaurateur and chef David Chang wrote about the price assumptions around the time Momofuku Nishi opened, saying,

I’m done with people telling me that I can’t charge what I want to charge for things.

The only difference between these dishes is price point and regionality. Most people don’t know what su jae bi is. Most people do know what chicken and dumplings is. But there’s a weird cost association that if it’s Asian, it has to be cheap. But we’re making our own chicken broth. We’re making our own noodles. It’s a labor-intensive dish.

It pisses me off that Asian food has to be cheaper. Why? Not one person has given me a reason why. All the ingredients that we’re getting are top quality, and just as expensive as any other restaurant….Don’t tell me that I can’t charge like Italian food.

From "Inside Momofuku Nishi," Lucky Peach, January 8, 2016. 

David Chang in the kitchen. From Momofuku.

When there’s an assumption that Chinese food should be cheaper than French food, or Asian food should be cheaper that European food, there’s an underlying message. While it’s subtle, the message itself is discriminatory. According to the price associations, there’s nothing that anyone wants to align themselves with in Chinese culture. It’s pretty absurd that so many assumptions can be communicated based on price, but they are. We don’t have to abandon our favorite inexpensive Chinese go to, but there is no reason why we David Chang’s 17-course tasting menu at Momofuku Ko should be met with outrage when the price is increased to $451 for two, while no one bats an eye at Thomas Keller’s 8-course tasting menu price of $583 for two at the French Laundry. Why can’t we value a chef like David Chang at the same level as we value Thomas Keller of the French Laundry?

https://momofuku.com/our-company/team/

Pork Dumplings

Pork Dumplings. Time consuming. Whole night blocked out for this. Pork Dumplings. Pork Dumplings.

• 4 cups of all purpose flour

• 1 ⅓ cup water

• 1.5 lb ground pork

• ½ cup grated ginger

• 2 cups fined chopped scallions

• ½ cup soy sauce

• 2 tbs rice wine

• 2 tps white pepper

• 1 egg

Mix the dough and water until it forms a scraggly mass. Knead the dough until it becomes a smooth ball of dough (about 7 minutes). Cut into small rounds (about a tablespoon) and roll into balls. Roll out as thin as possible but still opaque.

Mix ground pork, ginger, scallions, soy sauce, rice wine, and white pepper together (hands are easiest, but like do you). Test a small portion of the pork mixture by frying it in a small pan. Adjust soy sauce and pepper to taste. Mix egg into pork mixture.

Take one dough round in the palm of your hand and place a heaping tablespoon of the pork mixture in the center. Run a finger dipped in water around the edge of the round. Press the opposite sides of the round together, folding in one side as you go. There are lots of styles and techniques you can use, but as long as it is sealed, you’re good. Make sure the dough is completely sealed by pinching the edges.  

Bring a pot of water to a rolling boil. Gently drop several dumplings into the water, making sure that they have room to move along the bottom as they cook so as not to stick. When the dumplings float, they’re ready.

Alternately, bring an oiled pan to medium heat and place dumplings into pan. Add ½ cup water to the pan (watch out for steam) and cover for 5 minutes. Don’t touch them. They’ll do their thing and everything will be great.

Enjoy.
 

Bibliography

Gabaccia, Donna R. We are What We Eat: Ethnic Food and the Making of Americans. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998. 

Haley, Andrew P. Turning the Tables: Restaurants and the Rise of the American Middle Class, 1880-1920. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

Ji-Song Ku, Robert, Martin F. Manalasan IV, and Anita Mannur, ed. Eating Asian American: A Food Studies Reader. New York, New York: New York University Press, 2013.

Lee, Jennifer 8. The Fortune Cookie Chronicles: Adventures in the World of Chinese Food. New York, New York: Twelve, 2008.

Liu, Haiming. From Canton Restaurant to Panda Express: a History of Chinese Food in the United States. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2015.

Magnini, Vincent P., and Seontaik Kim. “The Influences of restaurant menu font style, background color, and physical weight on consumers’ perceptions.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 53 (2016): 42-28.
“On the Ubiquity of Chinese Restaurants.” The Economist. May 7, 2008. Accessed April 26, 2016. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/05/on_the_ubiquity_of_chinese_res.

American Gothic. From Art Institute of Chicago.

The food you and I eat, people grow it. People harvest it. People buy it. People prepare it. People serve it. And, sometimes, people deliver it right to your door. When we separate the people who make an object or commodity from the object and commodity itself, its social value. We can only focus on the object itself. Karl Marx calls this the fetishization of commodity. Basically, there’s a social value in a scarf that your friend made you, or that you bought from the maker, but little to no social value in the scarf that you ordered online. We’re able to divorce the maker and the process of making from the item, only assigning it value based on its practical purpose.

The same is true for food. There’s a difference in a chicken pot pie that you make yourself and the chicken pot pie you pull out of the freezer and heat up. There’s a difference between pizza you get delivered and pizza you make yourself. There’s a difference in the spinach that you buy in a bag at the grocery store, as if it had never been in the ground at all, never part of a larger plant, only individual leaves that are conjured into existence, and the spinach that you buy at a farmers market from the farmer. Modern foodways allow us to be incredibly distant from our food. The distance changes the value of food.

Spinach farmers at the Oberlin Winter Market. Talk to them about spinach! That you will eat! Delicious!  From Oberlin Winter Market.

You order food and 45 minutes later, your doorbell rings. It’s a certain kind of magic, delivery. You haven’t had to talk to anyone, just punch in your order and a certain 16 digit number, and shazaam, you have food. Amazing, really, how easily we can get what we want.

When GrubHub and Seamless merged in 2013, the company was able to corner the market of online takeout ordering systems. GrubHub, Inc., makes it possible for someone to get their food without talking to a single person. It’s convenient, but it creates even more distance from your food. The problem with it is that you get your food without talking to a single person. You also haven’t interacted with the food at all, except for consuming it. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I think food deserves a little more than that.

Yes, there are nights when no one wants to cook. That’s what makes delivery so special. What a relief! We’re so so lucky! But that doesn’t mean that anyone is above cooking. But delivery does not give anyone the right to be above cooking because someone is still cooking that food that you’re going to eat and you should be thankful that someone is willing to do that, not belittle them for their job or the service you are paying them to do.  

Additionally, GrubHub doesn’t have the greatest of track records with the restaurant owners. Any query on the site is sorted by the commission that the company receives from an order. There’s an argument here for the marketing service that GrubHub provides; the commission is simply a marketing fee. Unfortunately, just beyond the surface of that argument is where things get, well, hairy. The commission can range anywhere from 10-25%. At 10% the restaurant is unlikely to be discovered by new customers because their name won’t show up on the first several pages. At 25%, a restaurant will get new customers, but they’re also just breaking even. GrubHub tacks on other fees as well, making the marketing service that they provide incredibly expensive. Many restaurant owners explain that they barely break even on GrubHub orders. It’s a profitable service only if a customer ends up coming into the restaurant and eating there.

A sample of the ads.  I generally avoid people by spending my time cooking, but go ahead seamless, you do you. From Food52. 

The way we interact with the people who grow, prepare, and give us our food gives it social value. The way we interact with our food (whether that takes the shape of growing, preparing, or eating it) is important because it revolves around the values that we have assigned to food. Without value, food is just an object. By only consuming our food and not interacting with it or the people who prepared it makes it possible to only think of the food as an object that appears. You don’t see the work that goes into it. It’s much harder to respect the people who did make it when you can’t see any of the process.

I tend to think that food gains value the more you interact with it. There’s a difference between making a cookie for someone and buying it for them. Food is personal. I want food to stay personal. Taking time to interact with the people involved in your food, whether the farmer, or the cook, or the server, is important because it connects you to the humanity of food. More importantly, it connects you to humanity.

---

Slow Pizza

"It's not delivery, it's homemade"

Photo by Liv Anderson.

I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel. I've linked to the recipes I used below and described my assembly process. Nothing is overly fussy, it just all takes time. How much of each topping you add to your pie is up to you. I just suggest that you don't put too much on or (delicious) disaster might ensue. But I don’t know your life. You do you (but preferably with pizza in hand, no?).

• Pizza Dough by Peter Reinhar
• Ricotta  by Ina Garten
• Caramelized Onions by David Chang
• Two garlic cloves
• 34 oz can of Jersey tomatoes
• Fresh basil
• Fresh mozzarella
• Parmesan
• Cornmeal (for dusting on pan)
• Salame (or pepperoni, or soppressata)

Begin by making the dough, ricotta, and caramelized onions up to two days ahead of time.  

Preheat your oven as high as it can go (per Peter Reinhart's instructions). Mix the tomatoes with grated or finely diced garlic cloves. Stretch and shape pizza dough by picking up the individual rounds by the edges until you can just barely see light pass through the dough.  Place stretched dough onto a cookie sheet that has cornmeal dusted to prevent sticking. Spread sauce onto the dough, drop small bits of ricotta, shredded mozzarella, sausage (if you’re into that kind of thing), parmesan, and fresh basil. Place into the oven for 3-9 minutes, depending on how high your oven temperature is, until the cheese bubbles and the crust is dark golden. Eat. 

Bibliography

Beer, Jeff. “Seamless Targets All The Tiny Kitchens in the Big Apple.” Co.Create. October 13, 2015. http://www.fastcocreate.com/3052192/grubhub-seamless-knows-about-your-tiny-kitchen-in-the-big-apple.

Crowley, Chris. “How GrubHub Seamless Plans to eliminate Ghost Restaurants From its Listings.” Grub Street. November 13, 2015. http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/11/grubhub-seamless-elimante-ghost-restaurants.html.

Ellman, Ben. “Turns Out 10 Percent of the Top Restaurants on Grubhub Seamless are ‘Ghosts.’” Grub Street. November 11, 2015. http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/11/grubhub-seamless-ghost-restaurant-investigation.html.

Kosoff, Maya. “Uber Just Launched a Standalone Competitor to GrubHub and Seamless.” Slate. December 9, 2015. http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2015/12/09/watch_out_seamless_and_grubhub_ubereats_has_arrived.html.

Mulay, Vishrut. “The bits and bytes of food: study of emerging Internet-based food businesses.” S.M. in Management Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, 2014.

Richards, Katie. “This Clever Seamless Campaign Uses Witty One-liners to Tap Into How New Yorkers Eat.” Adweek. September 17, 2015. http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/clever-seamless-campaign-uses-witty-one-liners-tap-how-new-yorkers-eat-166975.

Slagle, Ali. “Seamless’s Ads are a huge step backward for the food movement-- and Seamless.” Food52. October 28, 2015. http://food52.com/blog/14545-seamless-s-ads-are-a-huge-step-backwards-for-the-food-movement-and-seamless .

“Why Restaurants Hate GrubHub Seamless.” Tribeca Citizen. March 1, 2016. http://tribecacitizen.com/2016/03/01/why-restaurants-hate-grubhub-seamless/.

An audio documentary project about the history of the Mason jar

A history of sorts.

Written, recorded, and produced by TJ Kalinosky

This is your political legacy, Bob Ney. This and a 30-month sentence for corruption charges. Nice. Photo from Take Part.

A rose by any other name is still a rose, but shouldn’t we think about why are we trying to avoid the word rose? The words we use have power. Names shape the view of  that which it refers.  A huge part of this power is in how unassuming names can be. Generally people don’t analyze the name of something to which they were just introduced. We accept names. It isn’t until much later that one might really think about the implications of names and naming and how they direct people’s thinking (including one's own) about something. Those in power often assign names, thus reflecting their perspectives. This only serves to perpetuate their own power by creating a structure wherein  they decide what has value, allowing them to retain their power. It’s basic physics, really; an object in power tends to stay in power.

There are myriad examples of these kind of situations, but a few jump out. In 2003 France believed that weapons inspectors in Iraq should be given more time, thereby disagreeing with the American and British opinions to move to war in the region. Representative Bob Ney, R-Ohio, served as chairman of the Committee on House Administration and decided that french toast and french fries should be renamed, substituting french for freedom. The change was made official in the cafeteria menus in  House office buildings in Washington. It wasn’t until three years later that the menus began listing french fries and french toast again. Ney explained that the name change was a “small, but symbolic effort” to show the anger that many felt toward France.

More recently, we see the power of names being used by agribusiness. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has a bad rap; we all know that. In 2010, the Corn Refiners Association tried to rename HFCS to “corn sugar.” It sounds a little more natural, and you know, what’s the difference between cane sugar and corn sugar? The whole point was to have a name that sounds less my-food-was-made-in-a-lab-with-vats and more my-food-was-grown-outside-and-is-completely-natural-not-processed-at-all.

The problems with the proposed renaming was 1) corn sugar already referred to corn dextrose, 2) the name implies a crystalline solid but HFCS is, you know, a syrup, and 3) HFCS is made in a lab with vats, 4) the name change could lead to reactions from anyone whose body is unable to process fructose, 5) the name “corn sugar” implies that the consumer and their body is already familiar with it and therefore can’t blame it for health problems related to its consumption. So, it turns out there’s a lot in a name. A whole lot.

Also maybe eating something that was made in a lab probably can’t help things? Also being told that it’s natural even though it is highly processed and refined, simply by a name would probably make this even harder? Photo by Corn Refiners Association.

Maftoul, pearl couscous, Israeli couscous, giant couscous, moghrabieh, or fregola; all arguably the same thing, but why so many names? According to Yotam Ottolenghi, a famed Israeli-born British chef, the names vary by region. He’s not wrong, but he doesn’t acknowledge the politics of using any of the names. By using one name, the speaker in some ways erases the existence of the other regions and their histories. Calling it pearl couscous or middle-eastern couscous, as my own local health food store labels it, depoliticizes the food, but only on the surface.

Instead of talking about the issue at hand, we’re avoiding it altogether. If a food has a history, so does the name we use to identify it. With an item like this, however, there is no one name that is attributed to it consistently and historically. Each name connotes something different, privileging different powers over one another and reinforcing different values of various cultures. However, the most familiar name may be Israeli couscous which reinforces a power dynamic in the region and repeatedly gives Israel the privilege of owning the name. The same would be true if the product was consistently called moghrabieh, the Lebanese name, but because Lebanon does not have the same resources that Israel has, the most common name  reflects that. In other words, it reflects the current power structures.

This photo, taken as part of Saveur's feature called "The Heart of Palestine", shows the process of making maftoul from scratch. The recipe I followed to make maftoul was part of this feature. Photo by Saveur. 

Every food we eat is a political choice. Sometimes the choice has to do with farmers’ rights, biodiversity and agricultural practices, or, as in this case, the historical roots of a food and the cultures steeped in controversy from which they come. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your food sends a message. Just as your food can erase, your food can create acknowledge. Just as your food can mask the almost universal presence of agribusiness, it can also expose it. Just as your food can silence a group or a people, it can also start a conversation about why they are being silenced and the power structures responsible.

Palestinian Maftoul

The recipe took about two hours for me to complete. It was well worth it. I made a conscious decision to make an unaltered version of the recipe published by Saveur, reprinted below, because who would know how to make maftoul better than the Palestinian women featured in the article? Not I, that’s for sure.

Maftoul as I prepared it. Photo by Liv Anderson.

• 8 whole allspice, plus 1⁄8 tsp. ground
• 2 cloves garlic, peeled and crushed
• 1 (3 1⁄2-4-lb.) chicken, quartered
• 2 medium yellow onions, 1 halved, 1 minced
• 1 stick cinnamon, plus 1⁄8 tsp. ground
• Kosher salt, to taste
• 3⁄4 cup olive oil
• 2 1⁄2 tsp. ground cumin
• 1 1⁄2 tsp. ground cardamom
• 1 cup maftoul (Palestinian large-grain couscous)
• Freshly ground black pepper, to taste
• 1 (15-oz.) can chickpeas, drained and rinsed
• 1 1⁄2 lemons, thinly sliced
• Greek yogurt, for serving
• Roughly chopped parsley, for garnish

Bring chicken, whole allspice, half each the garlic and lemon, the halved onion, cinnamon stick, salt, and 8 cups water to a boil in a 6-qt. saucepan. Reduce heat to medium-low; cook, covered slightly, until chicken is cooked, 15–20 minutes. Using tongs, transfer chicken to a bowl. Add 1⁄4 cup oil, half the cumin, and the cardamom to the chicken and toss to coat; set aside. Increase heat to medium; simmer until stock is reduced to 4 cups, 20–25 minutes. Strain, discarding solids, into a bowl.

Heat 1⁄4 cup oil in a 4-qt. saucepan over medium-high heat. Add remaining garlic and lemons and the minced onion; cook, stirring occasionally, until golden, 6–8 minutes. Add ground allspice and cinnamon, the remaining cumin, the maftoul, salt, and pepper; cook, stirring, until couscous is lightly toasted, about 4 minutes. Add 1 1⁄2 cups reserved stock; boil. Reduce heat to low; cook, covered, until couscous is tender and all the liquid is absorbed, 16–18 minutes. Uncover, fluff with a fork, and transfer to a serving platter; keep warm.

Heat remaining oil in a 12" skillet over medium-high heat. Add chicken, skin side down; cook, flipping once, until browned, 5–7 minutes. Transfer to platter with couscous. Add chickpeas to skillet with remaining stock; boil. Cook until liquid is reduced to about 1⁄2 cup, 8–10 minutes. Spoon chickpeas over chicken; garnish with parsley and serve with yogurt.

This recipe was first published by Saveur in December of 2013. You can find the original recipe here.

Works Cited

Ettinger, Jill. “High Fructose Corn Syrup vs. Corn Sugar.” Huffington Post, December 1, 2011. Accessed April 5, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/organic-authoritycom/hfcs-corn-sugar-rebranding_b_984092.html.

“FDA rejects industry bid to change name of high fructose corn syrup to ‘corn sugar.’” CBSNews, May 30, 2012. Accessed April 17, 2016. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-rejects-industry-bid-to-change-name-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup-to-corn-sugar/.

Jenkins, Nancy Harmon. “In the West Bank a good harvest and a shared meal are at the center of an enduring culture.” Saveur, December 10, 2013. Accessed March 30, 2016. http://www.saveur.com/article/travels/heart-of-palestine.

Loughlin, Sean. “House Cafeterias change names for ‘french’ fries and ‘french’ toast.” CNN, March 12, 2003. Accessed April 5, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/.

Ottelenghi, Yotam. “Yotam Ottelenghi’s maftoul recipes.” The Guardian. April 16, 2013. Accessed March 30, 2016.  http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/26/maftoul-couscous-recipes-yotam-ottolenghi.

Patel, Raj. Stuffed and Stavred: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System. New York: Melville House Publishing, 2007.

Shah, Riddhi. “10 tragic moments in food propaganda.” Salon, June 10, 2010. Accessed March, 30, 2016. http://www.salon.com/2010/06/11/food_propaganda/.

Silver, Alexandra. “Top 10 Dubious Name Changes.” Time, March 28, 2011. Accessed April 5, 2016. http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2061530_2061531_2061545,00.html.

“What is Israeli Couscous?.” CookThink. Accessed February 2, 2015. http://www.cookthink.com/reference/2176/What_is_Israeli_couscous.

Wilson, Bee. “The Kitchen Thinker: Renaming food.” The Telegraph, November 2, 2010. Access April 5, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8085387/The-Kitchen-Thinker-Renaming-food.html. 

There are all sorts of ways in which I could start writing about SNAP benefits, formerly food stamps. I could draw you in with a statistic. I could try to describe a situation in which someone who is on SNAP might find themself. I could horrify you with stories of need. All of that takes away from the fact that there are people who rely on SNAP benefits to feed themselves and their families. These people have different experiences, have varied situations, and are, first and foremost, people. Making the idea of hunger dramatic serves to shock. I’m not here to shock you. I’m here to talk about reality, and that is sometimes shocking.

SNAP was designed to satisfy a need within the United States. But before SNAP, there were other kinds of welfare programs. These programs have been in place since English settlers first arrived and soon after independence it was decided that the United States’ welfare programs would be locally run, just like the English poor laws. The recipients of welfare would be stripped of their right to vote and often had their children taken away to work or be put in orphanages. In the early 1800s it became clear that the poor laws were not effective because they often led to worse conditions as opposed to the recipients’ improved quality of life. The federal government remained uninvolved in welfare programs (with the exception of several natural disasters) until the Great Depression. Many farmers were still producing enough food, but the general public didn’t have the funds to buy the food. By instituting a program that bought surplus food from farmers and distributing it to low-income households, it was possible for everyone involved to benefit and there to be some stability in the economy. Before SNAP, there were food stamps. This system is very similar to SNAP, but involved physical vouchers (stamps) and was fairly inefficient. Since its institution in 1964, the food stamp program has constantly been changed to try and end recipients’ dependence on the program through limitations on how long one can receive benefits if unemployed. In 2002, each state was required to begin using EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards, making the program more efficient, less susceptible to theft, and easier to monitor. In 2008, the Food Stamp Program was renamed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to reflect the change to EBT cards.

Food coupon from 1967 that showcases the links among agricultural, families, and food stamps. From Society of Paper Money Collectors.

The creation and re-imagining of the federal food assistance programs makes it easier to see how the program was designed and how it is supposed to work. To reiterate, this program is not supposed to provide all of the food for the recipient. Additionally, the way that farmers are also protected is a key point in the program because there are overall negative economic patterns that SNAP was trying to correct with food surpluses and a lack of consumer buying power. If food benefits did not exist in these times, farmers would have faced financial issues and lead to a further depression and a harder economic recovery. In fact, SNAP is, in part, legislated by the congressional Agricultural Committees tying it into a larger political framework in which tradeoffs are necessary for committees to function. 

In addition to SNAP, there are programs run by government agency WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) focusing on low-income women who are pregnant or/and have children under the age of five years old. There are a variety of child nutrition programs both during and outside of the school year. In many places there are CSA (community supported agriculture) shares available on a sliding scale depending on the recipient’s income level. Food banks and food pantries also offer another option for food supplements. Soup kitchens offer yet another option. The caveat to all of these programs is that, for one, anyone who wants to benefit must go through (sometimes lengthy and taxing) application processes. Not everyone will be eligible for every program. Each program is designed to be supplementary; neither WIC or SNAP intend to provide all of a recipient’s food individually.

Food coupon from 1980 showcasing the signing of the Declaration of Independence. From Society of Paper Money Collectors.

In a perfect world, the program would be neutral in the minds of the retailers (incurring neither a loss or a substantial gain), allowing for the largest amount of aid to be given to the recipients and farmers it was designed to impact and benefit. But that’s not how it really works. Each state is responsible for the contracting of a bank for its EBT program. Three big companies are contracted by most states, a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase, a subsidiary of Xerox, and eFunds. While exact numbers aren’t available, it seems to be that these contracts are huge money makers. It is in the best interest of these companies for the number of recipients to increase. So, why would they do much to stop the problem in the beginning? After all, they’re just facilitating a government program, not responsible for way that the program works or doesn’t (so, why shouldn’t they outsource their call centers to other countries where they are cheaper to run, decreasing employment opportunities in the United States, potentially ones that could be filled by SNAP recipients; are we starting to see the problems?). Food manufacturers, who compete for SNAP recipients and other consumers alike, oppose any proposed restrictions on the types of food products that can be bought; soda companies want SNAP recipients to be able to buy soda. As people have noted before, the best interests of these food producers isn’t always the same as the interests of the SNAP recipients.

Unfortunately, the food manufacturers have a lot more money and power, making it easier to make themselves heard. Food retailers are in a similar position. The vast majority of SNAP benefits are redeemed at supercenters and supermarkets, like Wal-Mart or Kroger. Again, because the numbers aren’t reported, it’s impossible to know just how much profit these retailers make from SNAP transactions, but it’s likely that they make quite a bit. Wal-Mart was one of over 300 organizations that registered to lobby for the 2012 Farm Bill, which includes legislation supporting SNAP.

An example of an EBT card from California. From California EBT Client Site.

So, how does one actually redeem SNAP benefits? While some of the details vary by state, it’s pretty simple. Once a month a balance is loaded onto an EBT card. The balance on this card can be used to redeem groceries. SNAP excludes alcohol, cigarettes, any product not intended for human consumption (like dog food), hot foods intended to be eaten in the store, vitamins, medicines, and household products (paper towels, cleaners) from the items that can be bought with the benefits. While SNAP doesn’t have any nutritional restrictions, other programs do. For instance, WIC has much more strict requirements; peanut butter is allowed, but it cannot contain any additional ingredients such as honey, jelly, chocolate, or marshmallow. While the intent is understandable, it also means that certain kinds of peanut butter that are sweetened with honey instead of refined sugars cannot be bought.

Some of the problems with the programs are that they fail to give people the necessary amount of money for food. The programs are supposed to be supplementary, but people are in all sorts of situations that makes it impossible for them to use more of their money on food. Additionally, the existence of food deserts, places where there is no access to healthy and affordable food, makes it difficult to get decent food for many recipients. A lack of transportation or the cost of public transportation can also be inhibiting. The time it takes to cook food from scratch can make things even more difficult. The fact that the benefits are only given out monthly can demand recipients to buy inexpensive, self-stable, highly-processed foods that are calorie dense. The structure of the program makes it more difficult for recipients to adhere to the dietary guidelines put forth by the government.

The SNAP challenge, popularized by Mario Batali and Gwyneth Paltrow (among others in 2015), fails to capture the reality of relying on SNAP or how the program was designed. The Challenge works as follows: you get $29 per person (or $1.38 per meal per person) for 7 days. You can’t use any food you already have in your kitchen. You have to make sure you share your experience throughout the week and, at the end, challenge a friend. OR you can just donate money. What usually happens? The challenger only is able to go through a few days before going over the limit. Some politicians have explained how they have lost weight while participating in the challenge and others explain that they felt lethargic and unable to focus (which would make it pretty difficult to work hard and get yourself to a better situation, no?).

While these are valuable ways to acknowledge to problem of hunger within the United States, the SNAP Challenge does not explain the program or provide a solution. Often celebrities will participate in the challenge, make their donation, and then never come back to the issue. Been there, done that, They’ve said their piece, it’s over.

From Paltrow's twitter.

Gwyneth Paltrow is a great example of this. She was challenged by Mario Batali to take on the challenge and subsequently posted a picture of the groceries she picked out for $29 dollars. In the caption and post detailing the challenge, she does not explain how many people this $29 should feed and if she used any additional ingredients she already had in her kitchen, including spices and seasonings.

By poorly explaining the challenge, Paltrow had already failed. So maybe, as has already been suggested, Paltrow could have given her platform to the voice of someone who relies on SNAP. There aren’t a lot of interviews or accounts from SNAP recipients, i.e. not celebrities who participated in the challenge, about their experience. The point of the SNAP challenge is to educate your audience on the program and what relying on it is like in practice, is it not? Additionally, the premise of the challenge is kind of messed up. We shouldn’t talk about eating the way so many people eat as a “challenge” that you can take on. Hunger isn’t a game. You don’t get to reward yourself after eating the way some on SNAP benefits eat.

Or instead of participating in the challenge, you can buy your way out by donating to a food assistance program. Quite the privilege to be able to buy yourself out of this kind of challenge. That’s not to say that if you have money that you would like to donate to a food assistance program you shouldn’t, but using a donation in place of doing the challenge is a little bit odd. While well-intentioned, the SNAP Challenge doesn’t do anything to promote or change the problems and difficulties with SNAP benefits.

From New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Facebook. 

SNAP is a vital program to so many people in this country. It safeguards farmers and the people consuming their food. There are obviously numerous problems with the program, but just like the SNAP Challenge, it’s well-intentioned. Intent isn’t the only way to assess something, though, and it should be noted that there were 45,188,655 SNAP benefit recipients in December of 2015. SNAP helps a lot of people. It might be able to help more people, more significantly.

I could write a recipe that features inexpensive, calorie- and cost-efficient ingredients. Something that freezes well and can be reheated easily. But, when it comes down to it, who am I to tell someone how to live their life? I could explain how to make your own bread, but that assumes that whoever making it has enough time to wait while it rises but still be home. I could talk about making rice and beans that freeze well and is a cost-effective dish, but that assumes that whoever making it has an hour to spare, more if you use dried beans. I could talk about storing fresh vegetables but that assumes that the recipient has enough access to fresh vegetables. No matter what recipe I write to accompany this topic, there are assumptions implicit about the recipient which I am uncomfortable with making. I’m not in the business of assuming things about people and I don’t want to be.

If you are looking for recipes here are some resources that might prove helpful.

• http://www.whatscooking.fns.usda.gov/
• http://www.leannebrown.com

Bibliography

Alviola, Pedro A., IV   Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., Michael R. Thomsen, And Zhongyi Wang. “Determinants of Food Deserts.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2013): 1259-1265.

Bever, Lindsey. “A Hungry Gwenyth Paltrow fails the food-stamp challenge four days in.” Washington Post, April 17, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/17/a-hungry-gwyneth-paltrow-fails-the-food-stamp-challenge-four-days-in/.

D’Addario, Daniel. “Why Gwyneth Paltrow’s Food Stamp Challenge Is So Valuable.” Time, April 15, 2015. Accessed March 6, 2016. http://time.com/3822709/gwyneth-paltrow-food-stamp-challenge/.

Dorsch, Amy L. “Food Stamps in America: How an Octogenarian Program Can Still Meet the Country’s Needs.” University of Louisville Law Review 52 (2013): 199-223.

Goldstein, Jessica. “Seven Limes Was Probably Overkill, And Other Lessons From Gwyneth’s Failed Food Stamp Challenge.” Think Progress, April 17, 2015. Accessed March 6, 2016. http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/04/17/3648437/seven-limes-probably-overkill-lessons-gwyneths-failed-food-stamp-challenge/.

Gregory, Christian A. and Alisha Coleman-Jensen. “Do High Food Prices Increase Food Insecurity in the United States?” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 35 (2013): 679-707.

Paltrow, Gwyneth. “My $29 Food Stamp Challenge-- and the Recipes (& Brouhaha) That Ensued. Goop, Accessed April 1, 2016. http://goop.com/my-29-food-stamp-challenge-and-the-recipes-brouhaha-that-ensued/.

Sanders, Katie. “Fact-checking Gwyneth Paltrow’s $29 weekly food stamps budget claim.” Politifact, April 22, 2015. Accessed March 6, 2016. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/22/gwyneth-paltrow/gwyneth-paltrows-29-weekly-food-stamps-budget-flaw/.

Weatherspoon, Dave, James Oehmke, Assa Dembele, and Lorraine Weatherspoon. “Fresh Vegetable Demand Behaviour in an Urban Food Desert.” Urban Studies Journal 52 (2015): 960-979.

Zhang, Qi, Zhuo Chen, Norou Diawara, and Youfa Wang. “Prices of Unhealthy Foods, Food Stamp Program Participation, and Body Weight Status Among U.S. Low-Income Women.” Journal of Family & Economic Issues 32 (2011): 245-256.

Photo by Liv Anderson

I think food blogs are great. They highlight how food is connected to the lives of the people cooking. Food doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s easy to lose sight of the ways food is inextricably connected to the world in which we live. Food bloggers write in a format that makes the reader recognizes the connection. Deb Perelman didn’t just make a recipe for a cake, she made a lightly spiced apple cake to keep it delicious for other kids, but to make her own gingerbread-loving son happy. It can feed 40-50 people, but has directions for a single layer sheet cake, cupcakes, and an eight inch round, all of which Perelman has made for different occasions. There are reasons the food is the way it is. Food bloggers remind us that food is adaptable to our environment, wants, and needs. If those conditions exist, why not talk about them. Food bloggers, primarily, are women, many of whom have families. They pair the recipes with any tips and tricks they discover while making the dish and write about how the food factored into their life. Who ate it? What did they think? What might you do differently next time you make this?

Drummond family at thanksgiving dinner, with "Marlboro Man" at the head of the table. Photo by Peter Frank Edwards for Parade

The problems, at least in my opinion, are not food blogs, but the apologies they are all too often forced to make. Deb Perelman of Smitten Kitchen cooks incredible food. Whenever her recipes are more complicated than usual, there’s generally an excuse in the introduction. Perelman often claims insanity when she has done something extraordinary, like making seven-layer cookies, goldfish, wheat thins, or pop tarts at home; “seven-layer cookies are, in short, crying out to be made at home. If you’re marginally insane. And, well, ahem, here I am.” It’s not a humble brag so much as an apology for the skill and attention paid to the process. Perelman spent some time with these cookies and has put thought into how they could be made better next time. She explains her mistakes, which she is not scared of broadcasting, and possible solutions to them all. Her recipes are sometimes complicated, but she will give you fair warning, and usually apologize for the fussiness, too. The same can be said for Ree Drummond of Pioneer Woman. In one of her recipe posts, in which, you know, she instructs the reader on how to make something, as a recipe should, she apologizes for being bossy. Multiple times. She knows her way around the kitchen, can easily cook for a crowd, and is a master of sheet cake. Much of her food focuses on convenience and, interestingly, gender roles and norms. She takes pains to differentiate between cowgirl and cowboy food. Recipes labelled cowgirl food, as one might imagine, are filled with vegetables, kale, chicken, salads, and rice. Cowboy food, however, is marked by bacon, beef, and cheddar, often organized into burgers and rarely presented with any vegetables. Drummond makes sure to leave all grilling to her husband. Don't doubt her though; she knows how to make a mean smash burger. She recently posted a recipe for chocolate mug cake and advises that you should split it with “a friend or loved one,” justifying the consumption of rich food by making it for someone else, and then not actually eating much of it. 

Perelman of Smitten Kitchen justifies how much food she makes and where it all goes. Taken straight from her FAQ

If you look at the FAQ of most food blogs, they are often forced to include an answer to the innocent question of “god, that’s so much food!! what do you do with it all!?!!” Almost always, in the preface to the recipe the reader is informed that the food was shared with many, made for a specific person, and if it wasn’t, well Oh dear me, aren’t I bad, isn’t this indulgence a shame!
No, it’s not. No food is guilty of anything.

In which April Bloomfield shows that, indeed, women can butcher and cook meat properly. I should not that there were only men working at the butcher shop where I bought my beef. Pretty sure April would've been mad.

Excess in food can be seen in two different ways; scale and artistry. Women are generally not allowed to engage food in these ways, or at least can’t do it easily. The only time it is appropriate for a woman to create a ton of food is when a ton of people are eating it. She dare not consume more than her share. Unless, of course, she is being forced to do so. As is the case in webseries Epic Mealtime. The series asserts that men are most definitely allowed to create and consume absurd amounts of food. Hosted by several men, many of whom are bearded, the show is a profile of hyper-masculine obsession with plenty. The show represents hyper masculinity. Everything remotely feminine is removed. In an episode titled “Ice Cream Lasagna,” in which, yes, they make a layered ice cream dessert that they couldn’t bare to call cake (“Some people may call this lasagna a cake, but to them I say, ‘shut the fuck up’”) or sundae, they remove the strawberry layer from a bucket of neopolitan ice cream and let the pink abomination melt away in the sink. When women do appear on the show, they are made uncomfortable or highly sexualized. At a drive-thru window one host asks the female employee how much she can eat in one sitting. Though she is visibly uncomfortable, the host continues to ask questions, trying to define how she should act while condemning her current behavior; “you never have slumber parties with your girlfriends and see how fast you can eat a massive meat-log or something?” The employee is caught in a paradox, no matter how she acts, or eats, she will be admonished for her conduct and appetite. Additionally, by using the phrase slumber party, the hosts makes the woman childish. Most disturbingly, rape and molestation are used in everyday conversation, like talking about going out for pizza the night before, in the show, normalizing these acts and failing to recognize the trauma they cause.

These women have their hands behind their backs, unable to use them to eat. Both are not making eye contact with the camera, a right reserved only for the host to show his control of the situation. The women have their hair and makeup done, only to be forced to eat this food, showing that they are dehumanized and present solely for visual appeal, and nothing more. Still from this video

Epic Mealtime is scale pushed to its extreme. Women would never be able to make this type of web series, let alone amass the kind of notoriety and success that Epic Mealtime has seen (they have their own TV show now). It would be considered selfish and disgusting. Instead women rarely appear in the show. When they do, they do not say anything, are generally hypersexualized, and eating, or worse, forced to eat, the food. They are props used in the series, playing only passive roles in this food narrative.

As far as artistry goes, women chefs exist, many of whom are highly acclaimed (think Dorie Greenspan, April Bloomfield, Christina Tosi, Julia Child, and Vivian Howard). And yet, they’re often seen as women chefs. Rarely chefs that are women. The story is different for men. Men can cook and they do not have to be cooking for the nourishment or celebration of others. Instead, they can cook for pure artistry. This means that René Redzepi (God bless him) is allowed to cook without having to defend his food in the same way that a women would have to. He creates incredibly intricate, unique dishes that cannot be recreated en masse. It’s not even a question of practicality, but possibility; he forages for food and often doesn’t have enough ingredients to create a dish more than a handful of times. What he is doing is beautiful, no doubt, and he takes such care with his food. While he is taking care with his food that will end up being for others, it is also obvious that he is doing this, in part, for himself, for his restaurant, on his own terms.

But a woman is expected to be feeding others when she cooks. She can take care with her food, but she is taking care for the benefit of others. Food bloggers have to explain and justify why they are making a dish, especially for whom it is being made. They are allowed to enjoy the food themselves, but primarily it is made for someone else. If not, an apology is inevitable. It is labelled an indulgence or guilty pleasure, but never a mini chocolate cake. It’s a mini chocolate cake. For you. All for you. No one else. Enjoy it!

Seared Steak and Potatoes for a Single Woman

I made it because I wanted it.

Photo by Liv Anderson

• As much Skirt Steak as you want

• Drizzle Olive Oil

• Tablespoon Butter

Heat pan (preferably cast iron or stainless steel) on high. Add olive oil to coat bottom of pan. Once the oil begins to smoke turn heat down to medium-high. Add butter. Salt and pepper both sides of the steak. Place steak in pan and cook for 2 minutes on each side. Allow to rest before serving yourself.

• However Many Baby Yukon Gold Potatoes You Wish to Eat

• Fresh Italian Parsley

• Tablespoon Butter

• Salt

Boil water. Add potatoes and allow to boil for 20 minutes. Drain water. Add tablespoon of butter to pot, and return potatoes to pot. Turn heat to low and allow potatoes to become golden brown. In the last 30 seconds of cooking, add whole leaf flat parsley and a pinch of salt. Serve warm.

Enjoy. By yourself.

Bibliography

• Davidauskis, April. “How Beautiful Women Eat: Feminine Hunger in American Popular Culture.” Feminist Formations 27 (2015): 167-189.

• Gill, Rosalind. “Post Media Culture: Elements of a Sensibility.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 10 (2007): 147-166.

• Neuhaus, Jessamyn. “The Way to a Man’s Heart: Gender Roles, Domestic Ideology, and Cookbooks in the 1950s.” Journal of Social History 32 (1999): 529-

• Salvio, Paula M. “Dishing It Out: Food Blogs and Post-Feminist Domesticity.” Gastronomica 12 (2012): 31-39.

• Perelman, Deb. The Smitten Kitchen Cookbook. (New York: Knopf, 2012).

• Tosi, Christina. Momofuku Milk Bar. (New York: Potter, 2011).

• YouTube. “HARLEY’S GIRLFRIEND IS FED UP!!! - Epic House Ep. 9.” Posted December 25, 2015. Accessed February 28, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gpz6Y1OJ6k.

• YouTube. “Ice Cream Lasagna-Epic Meal Time.” Posted August 11, 2015. Accessed February 28, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ntMcSzzrPQ.

• YouTube. “The Black Legend-Epic Dessert Time.” Posted December 28, 2010. Accessed February 28, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaKcl0Qg13o.

Good Housekeeping published this article in March of 1942 which explains that "There is no need to ration your family on cake even though sugar happens to be rationed."

In January of 1942, the United States Office of Price Administration began to limit the amount of various products that any resident could buy. Tires were the first product to be rationed, but soon nylon, cars, typewriters, bicycles, and gasoline were also rationed. Most rations began sometime during 1942 and all were lifted by the close of 1945 [1]. 

It was food rationing, though, that brought the war home, affecting anyone living in America's daily life than any of the other rations [2]. Meats, canned vegetables, fats, sugar, coffee, cheese, and canned fish were among the items rationed [3]. Primarily, food rationing affected white upper-class Americans living in cities that had few or no children. These people, who used to be able to spend a higher percentage of their income on food, were now being stripped of the luxury to eat indulgently and instead had to shift their eating habits to conform to the rations [4]. These were also the families most likely to have a maid or cook. Half of the women who were in these jobs left them for higher-paying war work. So, in many cases, not only were the housewives forced to eat differently, but now they were also responsible for cooking [5]. There’s really an emphasis on habit here; people who had tighter budgets, more specifically families with more children living in rural areas and often people of color, were stretching their budgets using the same techniques that the rations mandated. Families that fell into this category had to make fewer adjustments while rations were in place and felt the effects much less than people with more money to spend on food.

A news article helped consumers understand how the ration point system would work to better prepare them for using them wisely. [image courtesy of Ames Historical Society]

The resentment that those most affected (upper-class white folks) held for the rations program was only made worse when it was suggested they eat offal, e.g. the tongue, sweetbreads, and other organ meat of animals. The problem was these were the people who could afford the pricier cuts of meat and thought of the offal as the junk only fit for the trash. The poorest populations, by contrast, were used to making use of the every part of the animal. The offal sometimes took longer to prepare than, say, a tenderloin, but it was the meat that these groups could afford. (Surprise, liverwurst is delicious. So are pig feet. Be stuck up all you want, but you're missing out.) The groups that were preparing and eating these cut of meat were primarily the working class and/or people of color who had a vastly different level of privilege than the upper-class white folks. The lower demand of the offal made it accessible to the lower class. How someone experienced rations was pretty clearly linked to the way that their race and class intersected. White, upper-class folks were really vocal about their anger towards meat rations and also had the privilege to be able to make themselves heard [6]. 

The cover of The Victory Cookbook clearly shows what is trying to be preserved. We're talking about family. The ideal American family, two kids, professional husband, a woman who does not have to work, middle class, and white.

Food writing was suddenly a defunct profession. While there were publications like The Victory Cook Book, which was published with the intent of helping women feed their families while under rations, the artistry of food writing was no longer relevant. In careful, insinuative protest of the rations, M. F. K. Fisher wrote and published her book How to Cook a Wolf in 1942. She subtly comments on the program throughout her book, stressing that eating is political and that in many ways rations are not practical because of the ways that people can still get around the system. She explains, "a nation lives on what its body assimilates," setting up eating as a political act. In the beginning of the book she also makes the point that during rations being thrifty was stylish and seen as patriotic if, and only if, you were being economical because of the war as opposed to your own budget. Many of the recipes included in the cookbook are impractical or illegal, including the recipe for steak tartare. This recipe is followed by an explanation of how people refuse to eat the dish and the ways in which roast beef provides a more economical option. She also includes a chapter entitled "How to Be Cheerful Through Starving" in which she describes a woman who forages for her food because she has little money and creates incredibly, if strange, dishes with the found ingredients [7]. Fisher uses her work as a food writer to express how the consumers’ reactions are also ridiculous (the restriction on meat shouldn’t have been that big of a deal, but people freaked out because, god forbid, we eat like the working class, the horror). She creates a careful critique of the program, specifically the way that it didn’t address underlying inequity, and also the way that people reacted to it [8].

Published in 1942, this dedication found in The Victory Cook Book reflects the stress that every citizen of the United States had a role in the war effort. Without the commitment of everyone, we were sure to lose. Eating carefully was a patriotic act.

The food rations in the U.S. seemed artificial because, unlike in Britain or other countries, their effects weren’t visible (Also, it should be noted that in Britain and Germany, rations restricted diets to unsustainably meager portions). As one might expect, a sizable black market for meat existed. Americans felt a kind of triumph in getting around the rations. (aren't systems just there for us to figure out how to get around them?) Americans cheated the system for their culinary enjoyment. In Britain, though, people were defensive of the black market because it was more of a means of survival than anything else [9]. Those who had money for luxury foods had to adjust to the rations in more dramatic ways, but they were also the people who could afford to get around the system. It seems as if it was the rations that were threatening the consumer’s freedom and way of life more than the possibility of an Axis victory. There is something counterintuitive about the notion of giving up freedom in order to protect it. But just because these efforts weren’t directly visible didn’t mean they weren’t important. Rations made it possible for American soldiers to eat heartily at around 4,300 calories a day [10].

Above is a sugar purchase certificate and some of the explanations for the sugar rations as issued by the Price Administration. [Images courtesy of the Ames Historical Society]

     In addition to meat rations, fats and sugar were restricted as well. Sugar was generally sold to commercial bakeries, making it hard to bake at home. The housewives had to rely on these bakeries and felt robbed of their freedom to put care into a baked good. Not only was it difficult to cook because of the rations themselves, but cooks had to constantly adjust to the different ingredients that were scarce or abundant. Certain staple ingredients, like eggs, wouldn’t be in stores for months and suddenly would reappear in excess [11]. The rations took away the possibility of habits. Imagine going into a grocery store not knowing what you would be able to find. That sounds like a really awful stress dream I might have; no thanks.     

In the top right you'll see the original recipe for Pan Dowdy as it appeared in The Victory Cook Book.

The following is a riff on a recipe that appears in the 1942 Victory Cook Book published by The Household Science Institute in Chicago. The booklet is littered with pictures of a happy housewife feeding her happy family (husband, daughter, and son) at a happy table in the happy year of 1942. The cookbook makes a lot of references to nutrition as well, which was a burgeoning field at the time, creeping its way into the homes of Americans [12]. Suddenly, there was a whole new way to obsess over food that wasn’t about flavor! The Victory Cook Book stresses maintaining normalcy while being flexible. How can we make cakes that still taste like cakes but don’t have all the ingredients cake have? How can we contribute to the war effort without feeling deprived of anything?

While more traditional recipes for apple pan dowdy have something more like a pie crust on top, this recipe makes for a cakier, more biscuit-like crust that soaks up some of the juices from the apples and molasses. Pan dowdy makes sense as a wartime dessert. Instead of sugar, the filling features molasses and I chose to lightly sweeten the crust with honey. Instead of butter, margarine is used. Chicken fat was a pretty common substitute as well [13]. In the case of the pan dowdy, the original recipe does not specify which spices you might add to the apples, but instead it just gives the general direction of “spice lightly” which lets the cook use some creative freedom and ingredients they have on hand. The same is true with the fat in the topping. I used margarine because that wasn’t rationed, but if someone wanted to use butter and had an extra ration stamp, by all means, go for it. Flexibility was really important during this time, which might be part of the reason the recipe is written in such a sparse way; it does not condemn if a substitution has to be made.

Making this recipe was a little weird, to be completely honest. Both in the sparse style that it was written and in the ingredients, it felt super dated. Margarine?! The only person I know who buys that is my grandmother! Wild! But, it worked. The people who tried it liked it. There were happy contented smiles all around. It felt simple, but homey. Which is exactly the way it should.

Apple Pan Dowdy

modified from The Victory Cook Book (1942)

Photo by Liv Anderson

Apple Filling

• 5 Apples
• Pinch of salt
• ⅔ cup molasses
• ⅛ tsp apple cider vinegar
• ½ tsp cinnamon

Preheat oven to 450 degrees fahrenheit. Peel, core, and quarter apples. Mix with remaining ingredients. Pour apple mixture into an 8-inch cast iron pan. Place in oven for 15 minutes.

Biscuit Topping

• 1 ½ cups all purpose flour
• ¼ tsp salt
• 3 ½ tsp baking powder
• 4 tbs shortening (cold)
• ⅔ cup milk
• 1 tbs honey

Mix together dry ingredients. Cut in shortening until it is in pea-sized chunks. Slowly add milk to make a wet dough. Mix until just combined. Place mixture on top of the apple-molasses mixture (no need to be too neat here) and return to oven for 20 minutes or until the biscuit dough is golden brown on top. Serve warm with heavy cream, if available.

Works Cited

1. "Rationed Items," Ames Historical Society, accessed February 15, 2015.  http://www.ameshistory.org/exhibits/ration_items.htm.  

2. Warren C. Waite, “The Pressure of Red Point Rationing,” The Journal of Marketing 8 (1944): 422-424.

3. "Rationed Items," Ames Historical Society.

4. Warren C. Waite, 423.

5. Lizzie Collingham, The Taste of War: World War II and the Battle for Food (New York: Penguin, 2012), 432.

6. Lizzie Collingham, 431-432.

7. M.F.K. Fisher, How to Cook a Wolf (New York: North Point Press, 1942).

8. Allison Carruth, “War Rations and the Food Politics of Late Modernism,” Modernism/Modernist 16 (2009), 767-783.

9. Lizzie Collingham, 431.

10. Lizzie Collingham, 433.

11. Lizzie Collingham, 430-434.

12. Joseph S. Davis, “The World’s Food Position and Outlook,” Harvard Business Review 21 (1942): 43.

13. McCray, Doris, The Victory Cook Book, (Chicago: The Household Science Institute, 1942).