My father, to whom I make reference in my little autobiographical sketch elsewhere on this blog, allowed only about a dozen – all right, maybe two dozen - food items to pass down his gullet, and he steadfastly refused to expand his culinary repertoire throughout his eighty-seven years of life. He contended that he “simply wasn’t brought up to eat a lot of foods.” He didn’t take an explicit position on the long-standing nature versus nurture argument, but he was, in effect, claiming that the influence of his own “nurture”, his own personal upbringing, was so strong as to counteract any “natural” inclination of animals, including humans, to be omnivores and consume pretty much anything.
The nature versus nurture arguments and how one counteracts the effects of nurture would take me too far afield for this venue. What I do know, however, is that I’ve encountered many people who have overcome a childhood bereft of anything much beyond canned vegetables, ground beef, Campbell’s “salt in liquid form masquerading as soup”, and Wonder bread. My wife, who in our thirty years of marriage has happily – well, sometimes “willingly” would be more accurate - consumed almost all my sometimes bizarre creations, is a fine example. She was raised in a Norwegian-American family of very modest means who thought that if the food isn’t white, it probably isn’t edible. Of course, since I’m the cook in the family (the last time she made a real dinner was 1985), she’s had little choice. Eat skordalia or starve! Still, although she retains some aversions – forget serving spicy, as in picante, food to her – she’s gone far beyond that kind of early life “nurture”.
So I acknowledge that many people with very limited food preferences simply will not or cannot expand their repertoire, perhaps because of their upbringing or at least the excuse of their upbringing. Perhaps some day the research will demonstrate that it isn’t their “fault”; it’s in the genes. Perhaps some day the research will demonstrate that nothing is our “fault”; it’s all in the genes. Later in this post, I’ll take a look at some of the interesting research into the role of genetics and nurture, as it pertains to tastes in food.
Now here’s the second reason picky people annoy me. There are still people who have such utterly bizarre and irrational food aversions that I’m going to continue to criticize them, at least behind their backs. I know someone who won’t eat fin fish because they’re “squiggly”. But I tell her, “Not on the damned plate, they aren’t!” She will eat shellfish, though, because they aren’t squiggly. I should tell her that shrimp are, indeed, squiggly inasmuch as they swim about, thus giving the unmistakable appearance of squigglyness. It would be a test. Would she then give up shrimp? Maybe they squiggle in an entirely different and inoffensive manner, compared to, say, a salmon or a trout. Maybe she really means “flopping helplessly about” when she uses the word “squiggly”. Maybe it has to do with size: The larger the piscatorial creature, the closer it comes to people. You’ve seen the pictures of primordial krill or some such very small living thing, with succeeding pictures of larger and larger living things, as millennia pass, crawling up from the ocean to the shore, eventually culminating in homo sapiens. Trout are closer to humans along this evolutionary scale than are shrimp and much, much closer than krill or protozoa. Maybe that’s what she’s imagining. Who knows? (This sentence about evolution won’t register with those horribly deluded people who think it all started a mere 7000 years ago.)
I’ve known many people who regard anchovies as unfit for human consumption. Why? Because of the “little bones”. Little is exactly right. Miniscule is a more accurate description. As far as those out of the flat can are concerned, these micro-skeletons are not discernible in the mouth. Many recipes, such as the famous Caesar salad, usually require mashing the anchovies, thus obliterating the micro-bones. No matter. They still won’t eat them. I’d have no argument with them if they’ve tasted them in a couple of preparations and simply not liked the taste. I can’t very well say to them that their taste is “wrong”, can I? Another acquaintance doesn’t like and won’t eat – get this – rice! Rice! How is that possible? Yet another dislikes potatoes! This is the food equivalent of disliking oxygen in the atmosphere, except one can’t avoid oxygen. I sat next to someone one time who picked out the following from a seafood pasta preparation: shrimp, carrots, snow peas, and onions. So what was left? Only the pasta!
And, of course, there are all those poor bastards who say they don’t like vegetables. All vegetables?? Jesus H. Christ! There must be hundreds, and they don’t eat any of them? What terrible thing happened to these people? Did their parents lock them in a cage in the basement for months when they were little and do unspeakable things to them with canned spinach and forks? Others won’t eat green peas, perhaps because they were fed canned peas when they were growing up. For decades, jokes have been made about mothers pleading with their children to eat their peas or their spinach. I suspect these jokes have their origin in much earlier times (ergo, for rather older people today) when the canned variety was pretty much the only type served in the home. All right, granted, canned peas and spinach were and and are pale imitations of their fresh and even frozen forms, but did they leave an ineradicable emotional scar on their childhood consumers – so much so that such people refuse even now to try fresh peas? What’s so difficult to understand about the concept that canned peas resemble fresh peas only in that they’re both spherical and some shade of green? And these people are allowed to vote!
And, of course, there are people who refuse to eat certain animals because they’re “cute”. Rabbit (bunnie wabbits) and lamb (cute widdle lambs) are two such examples. This type of food aversion is maddening. (I won’t address the veal issue, as that involves a number of complicating factors.*) I say to these people, these animals aren’t cute on the plate! If cuteness is a justification for special, favorable treatment, then it occurs to me that this might be at work in a larger context as well: Research has shown that more attractive people get the better jobs and end up with higher salaries. Attractive people attract attractive people as mates and spouses. Maybe there’s something buried deep in the human cortex that ineluctably transfers this preference to edible animals. This gets way beyond any areas of expertise I have, but it isn’t implausible, is it? What about the rationalization that bunnies and lambs are so young when they’re, let’s say, “prepared” for human consumption? They weren’t allowed to live a full life, experience things, travel, be all they could be. No, their innocent lives were snuffed out in their virtual adolescence or earlier. Oh, Mr Bunny, we hardly knew ye. This is anthropomorphism at its worst: The attribution of human qualities and behaviors to animals. Consider: the fryer and roaster chickens in the market were slaughtered by the time they turned seven weeks. Weeks, not years. And what is a chicken’s normal life span if not converted to human food? At least twelve years. Madre de Dios, we’re talking infanticide here! Why doesn’t that bother those who won’t eat lamb because they’re “too young” when they’re killed? What about hamburger animals – cattle? As a general rule of thumb, they’re slaughtered at two years of age or younger. And how long might this species live if it avoids slaughterhouses? As much as twenty or more years. So how many of those people will now vow never to consume a hamburger or steak? None , of course. Irrationality and ignorance reign supreme.
Now, after my strenuous criticisms of picky people, I should call attention to what recent, as in the past ten years or so, research has revealed about food aversions and the nature versus nurture issue in this context. I’ll provide only the briefest summary here.
Evolution plays a possible role in food preferences and aversions. “Given that poisonous plants are often bitter, scientists believe that humans who avoided bitter tastes were more likely to survive, and therefore humans evolved to have an innate aversion to bitter tastes.” (http://www.answers.com/topic/aversion-to-food) So this might explain many people’s dislike of radicchio or vinegar, for example.
“Food preferences develop from genetically determined predispositions to like sweet and salty flavours and to dislike bitter and sour tastes. Particularly towards the second year of life, there is a tendency to avoid novel foods (neophobia). However, from birth, genetic predispositions are modified by experience, and in this context during the early years parents play a particularly important role. Parental style is a critical factor in the development of food preferences. Children are more likely to eat in emotionally positive atmospheres. Siblings, peers, and parents an act as role models to encourage the tasting of novel foods. Repeated exposure to initially disliked foods can break down resistance.” (D. Benton, “The role of parents in the determination of the food preferences of children and the development of obesity” International Journal of Obesity, vol 24, no 7, 2004)
Some research has concluded that “infants learn about the types of foods eaten by their mothers during pregnancy and lactation. Such experiences bias acceptance of particular flavors and may ‘program’ later food preferences.” (Julie Manella, Development of food preferences: Lessons learned from longitudinal and experimental studies http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716720/
It’s even possible that genetics plays a greater role in food preferences than previously thought. Genetics affects brain chemistry, which, in turn, affects the individual’s response to sensory cues including taste. There was a recent article in the The New York Times which addressed this possibility. (Harold McGee, “Cilantro Haters, it’s Not Your Fault”, 14 April 2010) It seems one of the things Julia Child couldn’t bear to eat is cilantro (arugula, too). Many people find the taste of cilantro repellent, yet millions consume it with great relish. The article cites research by Charles Wysocki at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. Wysocki finds that quite a few people have a genetic predisposition against cilantro. Researchers have identified molecules in cilantro called aldehydes, a substance also found in some soaps and certain insects. (Are you salivating yet?) Jay Gottfried, a neuroscientist at Northwestern University points to humans’ evolutionary biology to answer the question, why do some people have a strong aversion to cilantro and others love it. He says some humans’ “senses of smell and taste evolved to evoke strong emotions . . . because they were critical to finding food and mates and avoiding poisons and predators.” Different taste and olfactory experiences result in different “learning lessons”.
It’s a rather complex subject, then, isn’t it? So, genetics, prenatal factors, early family environment, individual experiences could all exercise varying influences. One thing missing from my brief survey of this subject is: People can get into habits that are difficult to break, such as consuming hamburgers many times in a given month. Why? Besides the fact that they taste good to such people, perhaps it’s because it’s simply easier than learning how to prepare other things. Perhaps a lack in interest in the first place in food diversity contributes. Not everyone is particularly interested in cooking, but that doesn’t excuse eating virtually the same things on a regular basis. So such an individual stays in this rut until death, the common and unavoidable experience which ends all ruts.
To conclude, as far as I’m concerned, there are three categories of picky people: 1. Those who have been raised on an extremely limited diet (nurture) and who simply refuse to branch out. We will never know if this individual could’ve broken free of his/her childhood food shackles, but, in my judgment, it’s legitimate to criticize such people as being culinarily dead because they never make the effort. 2. Those who don’t eat many things because of their personal genetic composition, lactation experiences, the evolutionary avoidance of bitter poisonous plants, or any other causative factor which has the effect of exonerating the picky eater. In other words, they may have tried cilantro and found it similar to soap or gasoline. This person is excused . . . and one should offer sympathy. 3. People who refuse to eat certain things because of utterly irrational “reasons”. These are people who won’t eat fish because they’re squiggly and the people who won’t even try lamb because they’re perceived as cute and pre-pubescent. Such people are richly deserving of ridicule – not that it should be meted out publicly and on a personal basis. As I noted above, they may be nice people whose only significant failing is this one.
Only the second category will be free of my annoyance and puzzlement.
* The well-known problems with veal are being addressed and resolved by many producers. Take a look at the February 2010 issue of Bon Appetit (“A Better Veal”) and at http://www.straussbrands.com/, the web site of a Wisconsin veal and lamb producer.
No comments:
Post a Comment