Post 17: Teaching Critical Food Literacy

We live in a food environment where we are overexposed to information about food, nutrition, culinary entertainment, and new scientific discoveries. Making sense of this complexity requires a wide range of abilities, competencies, and specialized professional knowledge. At the same time, most of us have been losing basic skills in growing and preparing our food, and we know little about where our food comes from, which crops are grown in which season, how it is produced, and who procured it. This confusing environment of overexposure, complex information, and personal deskilling leads us to rely on experts, professional advisers, actors in the food chain, and public agencies that monitor the process. For individuals and social collectivities, a lack of literacy means a lack of agency.

We discussed the importance of critical inquiry in detail within Critical Perspectives in Food Studies. Emerging as an interdisciplinary field informed by critical insights from social sciences and humanities, food studies enable us to study a complex web of relations, processes, structures, and institutional arrangements that involve human interaction with nature and other humans in the production, distribution, preparation, consumption, and disposal of food. Classens and Sytsma define critical food literacy as a set of skills, knowledge, and understandings that (1) equip individuals to plan, manage, prepare, and eat food that is healthy, culturally appropriate, and sustainable while (2) enabling them to comprehend the broader sociopolitical and ecological dynamics of the food system, and (3) empowering them to incite socioecological change within the food system (2020:10).

Sumner and Desjardin (2021) identify four core components of food literacy: (1) knowledge of food and food systems; (2) food procurement with mindfulness of food justice, environmental sustainability, and optimum health; (3) food preparation skills and experience; and 4) social networks, a core social component that ties these individual level competencies to enable collective action for change. According to Ramos-Gerena, CFP will be crucial for “making food policy processes, information, and training accessible to community actors, can better prepare them to participate in, interpret, and control food system policies” (2023: 321). Following Freire and Giroux’s critical pedagogy Ramos-Gerena defends that “efforts to promote critical [food policy literature] must facilitate communities to (a) “read the world,” (b) “read the word,” (c) be critically aware of food policy processes and systems, (d) learn contextually and through authentic practice, and (e) enable them to negotiate and transform their community collectively”(2023: 332).

What Does Being Critical Mean in Food Studies?

In everyday language, "critical" carries multiple meanings. The first step for those who teach food studies is to explain the essential importance of food for life. Although we have removed or minimized home economics courses and provide only a basic level of nutrition education in our primary and secondary schools, most students understand and appreciate food's critical (as vital) importance for their well-being. They have been exposed to this knowledge throughout their socialization process, and it is not necessarily challenging for them. Even though this may not count much regarding food literacy, it can still serve as a good starting point. Providing figures about food insecurity or food bank use in our communities and asking them why the poor, racialized minorities, and newcomers suffer food insecurity the most will help them gain insights into structured social inequalities and entitlements in terms of class, gender, and race. Critical food studies provide insights into why hundreds of millions lack access to the healthy and safe foods they need in the global South.

A second point that is more challenging to grasp is that the future of our food system is at a critical juncture (as at a point of crisis), and there are serious concerns about its sustainability. This aspect of food literacy pushes individuals out of their comfort zones and self-interests, as they need to acquire new knowledge, form new associations, and gain critical insights into how the food system operates and how different steps are interconnected. While teaching about systemic problems, we face two challenges as educators. First, most tend to dismiss negative, threatening information that makes them uncomfortable. The simplest way to handle critical information is to dismiss it as negative or radical. Campaigns by large corporations, politicians, and mainstream media that overlook the threats of climate change, declining biodiversity, deforestation, desertification, and pollution of air, water, and soil, as well as the health impacts of agrochemicals, GMOs, and microplastics, contribute to this issue. Discussing how the dominant corporate food system often transmits the hidden costs of the capitalist food system, such as environmental problems and public health crises, onto the public or future generations while sharing profits solely with their shareholders is likely to promote productive classroom discussions.

Many individuals who understand and experience environmental or health threats tend to be critical of those who dismiss their concerns: big oil, big pharma, big corporations, and politicians who serve the powerful. However, without critical thinking skills, they may fall into the trap of conspiracy theories, believing that a cabal of evil individuals is responsible for all their problems, without recognizing the structural and systemic interconnections. Role-playing, by allowing students to represent different interest groups, may also encourage them to develop critical thinking skills regarding the structural boundaries of the decision-making process. Even worse, they may target the scapegoats that the powerful want them to believe are the source of their problems: migrant workers, refugees escaping from wars and poverty, racialized individuals, and the poor.

For educators who believe that the role of universities is not simply to train highly skilled workers and managers for corporations and the bureaucracy, but to motivate our students to think critically, become curious problem solvers, and study for understanding—not just to get a good grade—teaching about food provides a powerful tool for making all the necessary connections. “Food is connected to every major problem we face as a society – rising medical costs, poverty and hunger, declining farm incomes, the paving-over of farmland, wildlife protection, urban sprawl, youth unemployment, and communities at risk. These problems will only be solved when we connect the dots.” (Metcalf Foundation, 2008).

The primary purpose of liberal arts education is to develop critical thinking skills, asking targeted questions and carefully assessing evidence, the capacity to analyze interconnections, and intellectual inquisitiveness and skepticism. Scriven and Paul (1996) defined critical thinking as “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” Critical food studies combine critical thinking skills with systems thinking, providing a historical and structural perspective to examine the big picture, interconnections among parts, and how existing structures shape or restrict human agency to bring change.

Obstacles to critical thinking:

Critical thinking is not easy. There are several reasons for this when it comes to food. First of all, most people want to trust the food system and the foods they eat. John Locke called trust the “bond of society.” Most of our everyday actions rely on a feeling of trust that our leaders are working for the good of society and that we can trust our legal system and public institutions. Trust is essential for any complex social system to function. However, for people to trust the institutions in a system, sets of norms must be established, and individual and social actors are expected to follow these norms, respect societal values, and adhere to the laws of society. Formal and informal codes dictate how violations of these norms will be sanctioned.

We want to believe that it is safe to eat what we consume, that producers do not deliberately try to poison us, that various mechanisms protect consumers, that those who violate the rules will face punishment, and that these punishments will deter others from attempting similar offences. Trust and control exist as a contradictory unity. We trust the system because we want to believe that protective mechanisms are in place for the public good. Our trust in the system stems from knowing that the individuals and corporations we engage with are familiar with society's norms and values, adhere to the laws, and have control mechanisms to safeguard society from violators. Even though we occasionally hear that not all food producers are well-educated about the hazards of agrochemicals, that some businesses engage in unethical practices, that farm animals suffer in industrial farms, or that workers in processing plants endure horrible conditions, we still hope these are merely exceptions. Most people trust their food and do not question the food system.

A second reason many struggle with critical thinking significantly relates to how knowledge is generated and shared in a market economy. We believe we control what, when, and how we eat. However, the corporations dominating the food system aim to maintain their power and secure their privileged position and influence over consumers. This is achievable through their control and influence on institutions that produce and disseminate knowledge, including schools, universities, public agencies, and the media. Canada’s Food Guide reminds us that food marketing—through branding, event sponsorship, celebrity endorsements, contests and sales promotions, and platforms like Instagram, Meta, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, and X; commercials on TV, radio, and the internet; and product placement in TV shows, films, magazines, music videos, and games—competes with few public programs focused on healthy eating. Many consumers may not even realize that commercial interests shape their food choices.

A third factor that hinders our critical thinking about the food system is our belief that state regulations protect the public interest. We often use terms like government, bureaucracy, and the state interchangeably. By "the state," I refer to the political entity with a legitimate monopoly over using force within its territory to achieve its goals. The state's influence over the food system encompasses regulating the conditions of food production, processing, handling, and distribution; establishing food safety and consumer protection policies; and formulating regulations governing exports, imports, and taxation. Although large corporations wield significant power and influence in the food system, the state remains the only institution with legitimate power. This is why various interest groups compete to affect state policies and actions. However, not all have equal resources, voice, and influence in this process. Critical thinking is viewed as a threat to the stability of the political order. For instance, food libel laws in several provinces of Canada permit food manufacturers to sue a person or group that makes disparaging comments about their food products (Reid, 2011).

Finally, we need to highlight the conflicting messages from various sources, which create confusion and distrust among consumers. In our universities, while some of us teach about the problems with the food system, others encourage students to learn how to be successful marketers, advertisers, and policymakers working for corporations and governments that may be responsible for these problems. Teaching critical food studies can pose an even greater challenge in specific programs, such as food science, agronomy, nutrition, and marketing, where students are expected to work as professionals in the food system.

Freire (2005) was critical of what he named a banking model of teaching, a teacher-centric approach where the teacher transmits and deposits knowledge in students' minds. This approach treats students as passive absorbers of education. Over the years, I have learned a few things that motivated my students the most. Instead of covering many subjects I believed they should be exposed to, I focused on encouraging them to learn. It was a form of Easter egg hunt; each finding would surprise them, encouraging them to learn more. Preparing good questions for class discussion can sometimes be more difficult than preparing lecture notes, but it is worth it.

Problem-based learning serves as an effective pedagogical model for critical food studies educators. For example, by presenting a food systems problem and showcasing various solutions adopted by different jurisdictions, we can encourage our students to discuss the pros and cons of these solutions. This approach may inspire them to think creatively, learn collectively, and understand how they can leverage their knowledge, creativity, and collaborative efforts to provide critical evaluations of specific solutions and develop improved ones.