The Decline of Home Cooking?
Home cooking and family meals are in decline in the US. Time for a rescue mission.
That’s the message from a slew of recent editorials and blog posts. Food writers such as Sam Sifton and Mark Bittman of the New York Times,the latter reflecting on Michael Pollan, Michael Ruhlman, author of The Making of a Chef and others all offer “manifestos for home cooking” (to borrow a phrase from Sam Sifton).
Home Cooking: A 1950s Poster
So what’s the truth of the matter?
*There’s been no decline in home meals in the last twenty years
*Two thirds of all calories are consumed at home
*Each day, more than one in two Americans between 19 and 65 cooks (or so they report)
*The poorer the people, the more they eat at home
In all fairness, it’s not quite that simple. It turns out that most of our information is indirect. I chose to look at an article co-authored by Barry Popkin, Carla Chamblee Smith Distinguished Professor of Nutrition and an acclaimed expert on obesity at the University of North Carolina and a couple of his students.
The authors analyzed six surveys carried out between 1965 and 2008 of the nation’s nutrition and another six of how American’s spent their time.
They use calories as a way of measuring the quantities of food eaten at home and away (obviously it would be nice to know what those calories consist of but that data is not available).
And they use terms like “home supply” because they have no way of knowing either whether the foods are home cooked or whether they are eaten as a family. Home supply foods might include raw fruits and vegetables, jarred pasta sauce, frozen pizza, or even takeout. But given the 50% of American adults reporting some cooking every day, it suggests that a good bit of cooking is going on (even though the time spent on it has dropped).
This is the summary in their words.
Across socioeconomic groups [in the US], people consume the majority of daily energy from the home food supply . . . [Although] US adults have decreased consumption of foods from the home supply and reduced time spent cooking since 1965 . . . this trend appears to have leveled off, with no substantial decrease occurring after the mid-1990’s.
So eating out increased between 1965 and 1992 but for the last quarter century it’s stayed steady.
In 1950 34% of American women were in the workforce, in 2000 the number was 60%.
Yes, yes, I’m quite aware that coincidence is not causality, but the simultaneous rise of women working away from home and meals taken away from home does seem suggestive, as does the leveling off of both.
So I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t sound to me like home meals are about to go the way of the dodo. It might even be thought that the declinists are crying wolf. Or perhaps reflecting on their own gastronomic existence in New York City.
But we might ask: What’s so great about home meals? Subject for more posts.
One does wonder where this idea that eating at home was always the case comes from. I know your farming family took meals at home but your mother was very much attuned to getting your father back out the door to continue his work. He was on the go with no time to make his own meal and little time to eat it.
Since ancient times, people have been on the go with little time available to make their own meals. Before the era of Christ, the people of Pompeii stopped at cauponae, sort of an early version of a McDonald’s restaurant that was loved by the ancient Romans. Caupone were frequented by the lower and middle classes for grabbing a bite before hurrying off to work elsewhere. They paid others to make their meals so that they didn’t have to worry about shopping, storing, cooking, and cleaning. The upper classes had their meals prepared at their homes. (I wonder if this sounds familiar to Mssrs Bittman or Pollan?)
As our societies get richer, we may begin to see more home cooked meals.
By the way, a friend of my wife runs a day care (federally supported, I think) and the children are from poorer families. This woman has to teach the children not to throw away the silverware (they are used to take out or as others call it “take-away”). When the children play house (mimicking their parents, no doubt), they will ask “Would you like another beer, dear?” or “Can I get you some coffee, hon?” My guess is that kitchen utensils and cooking pots and pans are expensive, and the poor may not have a kitchen.
Even with data pointing to “The poorer the people, the more they eat at home.” it may be too much a leap to say the poorer people cook their meals.
Hi Norm, Thanks for the long and thoughtful post.
I couldn’t agree more that fast food and take out food goes back to the earliest cities (harder in rural settings such as the one I grew up in because of distance). And I have no quarrel with fast food and take out. In fact I think they are great and essential and are not necessarily unhealthy.
So I’m with you in thinking that it’s a myth that home cooked meals are the historical norm. Or that they should be the norm now.
Interesting comments on the children’s play in child care. I wonder if one day we will think washing and reusing silverware is a disgusting habit?
And, no, I’m sure lots of poor families don’t cook at home but have take out of some kind. Obviously taking kids out to eat is more trouble and work than bringing the food home to them (at least if you live in a city). And I don’t think that all the education in the world is going to change that.
I still go back and refer to your awesome Utne article, In Praise of Fast Food. http://www.utne.com/environment/fast-food-culinary-ethos.aspx
Thanks for that, Norm. It’s actually an abstract of a somewhat longer earlier paper, A plea for Culinary Modernism. http://www.rachellaudan.com/?page_id=2840
Rachel,
Here’s a report of a recent sociological survey that aimed to understand home-cooking among low- and middle-income families – a 18 month study following around 200 people:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/26/6849169/the-problem-with-home-cooked-meals
The study finds that although more people seem to be cooking at home – consistent with the paper you refer to – they don’t cook the “good” home-cooked meals due to difficulties such as finding the right amount of time; stress associated with satisfying everyone in the family; and, the cost of procuring what is perceived as healthy ingredients. In some cases even though people seem to like to cook and know what a good meal is they don’t cook it due to the difficulties mentioned above.
I think, while one should discuss the importance of home-cooked food, identifying practical ways to make good home cooked meals consistently might be of more help.
To increase public awareness to the importance of good home-cooked meals in overcoming health problems like obesity that are directly linked to cardiovascular health, might help. To understand and discuss world cultures where the system of home-cooked meals work well might be another topic to consider.
I think when one believes in the importance of something one tries to makes time and other adjustments for it.
Thanks so much, Bala, for sending along that recent study. It was in fact the response to that study that inclined me to look further into the home-cooked business.
I agree with you that probably many families don’t eat “good” home-cooked meals. And I also think that looking at other cultures where families even with working women do raise their families on home-cooked food could be very useful. In fact, I feel a blog post brewing on that.
I enjoyed looking at your blog, by the way.
Hi Rachel,
Altho’ I haven’t read all the comments yet, I’m quite surprised that no one has mentioned the connection between home eating/supply and urban food deserts. IIRC, one of the main reasons that folks in poorer urban communities frequently eat fast-food take-away is that equally cheap ‘real’ food simply isn’t available in food deserts. One of my colleagues on Chicago’s LTH food board started an effort to develop recipes for reasonably healthy food desert food. It’s an interesting attempt: http://www.lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=17001
Hi George, great to be in touch. Two points. First, I am trying to suggest here that home cooking has not in fact declined in the past quarter of a century despite all the panicky editorials. And second, my suspicion that the earlier equivalents of those who like in food deserts didn’t do a whole bunch of home cooking either for lack of time/money/equipment/etc etc. Once I’m out of this airport and back at my desk I look forward to consulting the link you sent.
How’s wine history?
Thank you for your kind comments about my blog.
In terms of looking at home-cooked meals as family meals (and family time) and the benefits therein, here’s a report by a clinical psychologist that you might find relevant:
http://www.pbs.org/parents/experts/archive/2012/01/reaping-the-many-benefits-of-f.html
Thanks for that, Bala. The question is do meals as opposed to other kinds of family time (on outings, in sports, at museums, even driving to school, or visiting shopping malls) have a special value.
This article is three years old .. however, the mention of food being an ’emotional link’ is probably what makes the whole idea of home food ‘special’ in the first place.
Oooops sorry … I pressed the button before typing in the link: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704520504576162382890059622
Thanks for the link, Josephine. There are similar stories about mothers sending Mexican food by courier from Mexico to the United States. No doubt whatever that food, including food cooked at home, can evoke very strong emotional reactions.
I’ve been thinking about this post all day and here’s my question, “Is this an either/or situation?”
Let’s say you are affluent enough that you don’t seriously worry about where your next meal will come from, you can afford to go out to a restaurant and your pantry is stocked. Then you have choices regarding where and what you will eat. Most of the time I cook because a) I’m a good cook & it’s easy for me b) I have access to good ingredients c) I enjoy it and enjoy have a table full of friends & family to share a meal. BUT I also love to go out to restaurants, and have no guilt when I don’t cook. The first thing we do when we get back to NYC is order up Indian food…just because we can.
Let’s say you’re working LONG hours for no pay. Then I bet you lean on prepared fast food to fill your belly because it’s cheap and fast. Maybe you have guilt, but no time. Maybe you make a nice meal on Sunday once awhile.
Let’s say you have no job and live in a project where its forbidden to even have a hot plate. And even if you did have a hot plate, what the hell would you do with a large head of raw cauliflower?
These conversations about home cooking should be more nuanced, more forgiving and more aware of our cultural differences.
My view is that this a matter of personal choice, Judith, as you suggest. But for many food writers it’s a moral crusade, more’s the pity.
Rachel,
I tried sending you an email at rachel@rachellaudan.com and using the contact form on your website, but am unsure if you received it, and so I thought I’d let you know through this comment section.
Thanks,
Bala.
Yes, Bala, I received it but I was on deadline yesterday and did not have time to compose the thoughtful reply your letter merited. I will write today.
My darling husband, who was the cook in our home, died three years ago. He had accustomed me to eating well, and after his death I began to teach myself to cook. I could not have succeeded as well as I have were it not for all of the online food and cooking sites. What has struck me is how many there are and how diverse they are. They include many women in “traditional” families as well as single working women. I don’t encounter so many by men, but clearly cooking has not gone out of style.
I am currently writing a book that is concerned with the social transformation of the U.S. from 1950 to 1970. Cooking plays a role in this transformation, and I have some thoughts about why some people are at a disadvantage, but I will save them for my book.
I couldn’t agree more that cooking has not gone out of style whatever the righteous foodie movement (the nice phrase of a friend of mine) says. I very much look forward to your book.
In terms of money, cooking at home is cheaper. But in terms of time, not so much. I’m talking about going to the grocery store to purchase the ingredients; and then coming home, prepping the ingredients and then the subsequent cleaning up of dishes, utensils, cooking implements.
Inverse of above, going out to a restaurant is cheaper in terms of time and convenience. No cutting, dicing, prepping, and definitely no clean up! However, I do wonder about the time spent having to drive to said restaurant, and then vulching (being like a vulture looking for parking because gosh darnit, I’ll be a fool to pay for parking! Harrumph! :)) Time, money, and frustration, right there.
In the end, though, cooking at home wins out every time for my family and me because 1) I like to cook; and 2) I know what goes into my cooking. And now that our daughter is old enough to help with washing up the dishes, the clean-up ain’t so bad anymore.
All these arguments put forth by these self-appointed arbiters of the “righteous foodie movement”–while they sound “nice”–well, these are first-world problems. I take a lot of what they write with a grain of salt, pun intended.
My ruminations exactly, Jasmin. Pity these people have such influence.
Indeed, Rachel. I read your contribution to the Utne reader, and dare I say that the comments were mostly from just such sanctimonious arbiters! I find myself fighting such a fight as yours sometimes within my own family. Natural doesn’t always mean wholesome or healthy or salubrious. After all, arsenic is natural, but would one really want to eat it? But sometimes I must cede ground. No, not in eating arsenic, but in buying foodstuffs labelled “natural”.
Jasmin, always good to hear of someone reading my work. And eating is such a complicated business, it’s understandable that people want some simple guide such as “fresh,” “natural” or “organic”
Pingback: Is Home Cooking on the Decline? | Edible Arts