"Hash browns speak louder than words" has not yet entered the canon of clichés, but considering food's ability to make political statements, I think the aphorism merits at least casual consideration. By what they eat, what they drink and the times when they choose to do neither, people can do a good deal of talking with their silverware.
Fasting is the most jarring way of communicating a political message through food choices. This week, 11 students and faculty members at the University of Minnesota are taking advantage of this powerful medium by fasting in support of the striking university employees who are members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union. The hunger strike is part of a week of events organized by the university's student-run Labor and Community Strike Support Committee. Also on the docket for the student group was a "teach-in" held Tuesday to detail the philosophical underpinnings of hunger strikes. By temporarily putting food below a political cause on their hierarchy of needs, the students have made a profound statement about their values.
The hunger strikers at Minnesota certainly used food to effectively advertise their views, but opportunities to voice one's opinion with food do not begin and end with fasting. Luckily, as prolonged fasting obviously results in death, there are many more opportunities to speak with what one eats rather than by not eating.
The Dane County Farmers' Market is an excellent example of communicating with what one eats. Hundreds of Madison area residents make a statement every Saturday morning by buying locally produced food on Capitol Square. By choosing to spend at the Farmers' Market instead of at national supermarket chains that get their products from all over the world, shoppers send a multitude of messages. They communicate a desire to have a more personal connection with what they eat, a consciousness that shipping food over long distances is a non-sustainable practice, and a concern for promoting the local economy. Some people think these messages are counterproductive and economically questionable, but by and large, environmentalists and the public accept them as positive.
It may seem that voicing one's opinion through the food one buys ends with shopping for raw ingredients; dining out does not seem like a great way to make a statement about sustainability. Many college students associate dining out with greasy hamburgers and reheated food from a "Mexican" restaurant that shall remain nameless (hint: the adjacent restaurant serves fried chicken). However, Madison residents will get an opportunity to speak with their forks while eating out next Thursday. Madison restaurants are putting together menus filled with locally grown food as part of Local Night Out, an event sponsored by the restaurants as well as the local organization Research, Education, Action and Policy (REAP) Food Group. By dining out at one of these establishments Thursday, Madison residents have a chance to show their support of local food. To find out more about the event, visit the "Buy Fresh, Buy Local" section of REAP's website at www.reapfoodgroup.org/BFBL.
Another way people communicate values is in their choice of drink. UW's release of a study this week that shows Wisconsinites drink more alcohol than residents of any other state is an excellent example of such a nonverbal statement. Wisconsinites who partook in the drinking which fueled the results of the study probably did not intend to communicate any particular message about their home state. In fact, at the risk of speculation, I would say their intended message was, "Woo!" However, their drinking did speak to UW researchers and readers of newspapers across the country, and its message was much less convivial than "Woo!" As in the case of the farmers' market, the study is an example of substance consumption leading to a possibly unintentional message. Unlike the messages of sustainability and support of local agriculture, however, the message that the study sent was clearly negative.
All of these recent events beg the question, "Do hash browns really speak louder than words?" Regardless of my proposed cliché's status in the pantheon of platitudes, I believe it is true. For example, processed, microwave-warmed frozen hash browns washed down with an ice-cold Pabst Blue Ribbon sing an off-key power ballad to industrial farming. By contrast, locally grown shredded potatoes gently sautéed in Wisconsin creamery butter sing a tender, heartfelt love song to the soil and the good people that work it. The only thing that can bring these two plates of food into harmony is a hunger strike. During such a protest, both dishes sing the same politically charged tune as they slowly descend into tepidity.
Eating, or not eating, in order to make a political statement can seem a bit far-fetched to some. Most people do not shop at the Farmers' Market or eat at restaurants placing an emphasis on sustainable food in order to advertise their views. By the same token, people do not go into a grocery store or eat at McDonald's while holding signs outlining their love of big business and industrial farming. Nevertheless, whether they realize it or not, consumers do communicate a specific set of values with every bite of their food.
Jason Engelhart is a senior majoring in history and economics. Got protests? Send them to [email protected].
