Content uploaded by Mark Anthony Arceño
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark Anthony Arceño on Apr 05, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
On Consuming and Constructing Material and Symbolic Culture:
An Anthropology of Pictorial Representations of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines (FBDGs)
THESIS
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Mark Anthony Arceño, B.A.
Graduate Program in Anthropology
The Ohio State University
2016
Thesis Committee:
Jeffrey H. Cohen, Advisor
Kristen J. Gremillion
Morgan C. Liu
Jennifer L. Syvertsen
i
Copyright by
Mark Anthony Arceño
2016
ii
Abstract
If we are what we eat, what might it mean if what we eat is not necessarily under our
control? My research—motivated by the 2015 release of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans—
presents a qualitative analysis of 33 pictorial representations of food-based dietary guidelines
(FBDGs) from around the world. FBDGs provide food intake recommendations to achieve
adequate nutrition levels. These documents are typically summarized as single images that
represent pages of dietary guidance.
I ground my work in the theories and methodologies of Victor Turner, Clifford
Geertz, Sherry Ortner, Roger Keesing, Pierre Bourdieu, Eric Wolf, Sidney Mintz, John and
Jean Comaroff, and John and Malcolm Collier. Through analyses rooted in symbolic
anthropology and political economy, I argue FBDG images convey more than just
recommendations as to what and how to eat: they reflect socioeconomic and political
realities, as well as what it means to be a healthy citizen. Furthermore, I claim the very
selection and inclusion of specific imagery suggest a problematic negotiation of power
(among branches of government, industry, and the marketplace) in the construction of
culture.
iii
Dedication
For my family, friends, and food that have helped shape who I am today
And for Feisty: I look forward to a life full of sandwiches and chocolate fondue.
iv
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Jeffrey Cohen for his advisorship on this project, which
ultimately began in the fall of 2013 in Anthropology of Food. I would also like to thank
Drs. Kristen Gremillion, Morgan Liu, and Jennifer Syvertsen for their feedback and
continued support throughout the thesis process as members of my Master’s committee. I
am additionally indebted to Drs. Douglas Crews and Mark Hubbe for reading and
commenting on various sections of my thesis over the last few years. I would like to extend
my since gratitude and appreciation to the staff at the Oldways Preservation and Exchange
Trust for continuing to grant my permissions request to include their Heritage Pyramids in
my work and to Dr. James Painter for supporting the inclusion of his team’s data as they
appear in Table 2 of Appendix A. Finally, I am grateful for the funding support I have
received to present my research during its various stages at national conferences: the
Department of Anthropology’s Daniel Hughes Memorial Fund (partial funding for the 2014
Society for Economic Anthropology annual meeting and the 2015 American Association of
Physical Anthropologists [AAPA] annual meeting) and The Ohio State University’s Food
Innovation Center (partial funding for the 2015 AAPA annual meeting).
v
Vita
2002 ........................................................................ St. Michael Catholic School
2006 ........................................................................ University of Detroit Jesuit High School
2010 ........................................................................ B.A. French and International Studies;
Ethnic Studies and Public Policy and Service,
Albion College
2010-2013 .............................................................. Program Coordinator, Office of Multi-
Cultural Student Affairs, Denison University
2013-2014 .............................................................. Graduate Enrichment Fellowship, The Ohio
State University
2014-2015 .............................................................. Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of
Anthropology, The Ohio State University
2015 to present ..................................................... Product Development Coordinator,
Bob Evans Farms, Inc.
Publication
Arceño, Mark Anthony, Brianne Herrera, and Jeffrey H. Cohen. (2015). Counting Calories,
Counting Culture: Considerations for Diversity and Food-Based Dietary Guidelines.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 156(S60):71.
Fields of Study
Major Field: Anthropology
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. ii
Dedication ............................................................................................................................................ iii
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... iv
Vita ......................................................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Background ........................................................................................................................ 9
Previous Research .......................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 3: Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 19
Symbolic Anthropology ................................................................................................................ 19
Political Economy .......................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 4: Materials and Methods ................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 5: Microanalysis ................................................................................................................... 33
Symbols as Conveying Messages: The Spinning Top of Japan ............................................... 33
Images for/of the Other: The Trompo of Venezuela and the Rainbow of Canada ............ 34
Nationhood, Nation-Building, and National Identity: The Circles of South Africa ............ 40
Influenced by the Other? .............................................................................................................. 42
The Circle of Australia and Nutrition Australia’s Healthy Eating Pyramid .................................. 42
The Staircase of France and Souccar and Houlbert’s Pyramide Alimentaire ................................ 45
The MyPlate of the United States of America and Harvard University’s Healthy Eating Plate ....... 49
Chapter 6: Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 55
Variation among and between Pictorial Representations of FBDGs .................................... 55
A Symbolic Anthropologist Take ................................................................................................ 57
The Political Economy of FBDG Pictorial Representations .................................................. 60
A Juxtaposition: The Lack of an FBDG Image in Brazil ......................................................... 67
Chapter 7: Limitations and Future Research .................................................................................. 68
Chapter 8: Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 71
References ........................................................................................................................................... 74
Appendix A: Accompanying Tables of FBDG Pictorial Representation Data ........................ 89
Appendix B: List of Acronyms Used in This Thesis ................................................................. 107
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of microanalyzed national, government-endorsed FBDG images ............ 31
Table 2. Painter et al.’s data (2002) ................................................................................................... 89
Table 3. EUFIC data (2009) ............................................................................................................. 90
Table 4. Data from analyzed FBDG pictorial representations .................................................... 94
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. The “Basic 7” (1943) ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2. Anna Britt Agnsäter beside the Swedish Food Pyramid (1974) ................................... 9
Figure 3. United States FGP (1992) ................................................................................................ 11
Figure 4. United States MyPyramid (2005) ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 5. La Marelle ("hopscotch") for children (2011) ................................................................ 14
Figure 6. Le Tableau des Repères de Consommation (“Consumption Reference Table” [2011]) .... 14
Figure 7. Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top (2005) .................................................................. 33
Figure 8. Venezuelan Trompo de los Alimentos (Food Trompo [2011]) ......................................... 35
Figure 9. Venezuelan Trompo Indígena de los Alimentos (Indigenous Food Trompo [~2011]) .. 35
Figure 10. Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide (2011) ........................................................... 37
Figure 11. Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide: First Nations, Inuit and Métis (2007) .... 37
Figure 12. Northwest Territories Food Guide (2005) .................................................................. 38
Figure 13. Nunavut Food Guide (2001) ......................................................................................... 38
Figure 14. NFG Food Ulus (2011) .................................................................................................. 39
Figure 15. South African Food Group Circles (2012) .................................................................. 41
Figure 16. Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (2013) ................................................................. 43
Figure 17. Nutrition Australia's Healthy Eating Pyramid (2015) ................................................ 43
Figure 18. France’s Escalier (Staircase) for Adults (2011) ............................................................. 45
Figure 19. Souccar and Houlbert's Pyramide Alimentaire (Food Pyramid [2015]) ....................... 48
Figure 20. The United States MyPlate (2011) ................................................................................ 49
Figure 21. Harvard University's Healthy Eating Plate (2011) ...................................................... 49
Figure 22. The African Heritage Diet Pyramid (2011) ................................................................. 52
Figure 23. The Asian Diet Pyramid (2000) ..................................................................................... 52
Figure 24. La Pirámide de La Dieta Latinoamericana (Latin American Diet Pyramid [2009]) ..... 53
Figure 25. The Mediterranean Diet Pyramid (2009) ..................................................................... 53
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
“Unless care is exercised in selecting food a diet may result which is one-sided or badly balanced—
that is, one in which either protein or fuel ingredients are provided in excess. If a person consumes large
amounts of meat and little vegetable food, the diet will be too rich in protein and may be harmful. On the
other hand, if pastry, butter, and such foods are eaten in preference to a more varied diet, the food will furnish
too much energy and too little building material.” (Atwater 1902:45)
“Through recipes or diets the aim is to reintroduce a normative logic into everyday eating, a coherent
system of reference, a rule, in short, an order. Modern French terminology states this with great clarity: one
needs a régime (diet), a regimen, a term which, in its full meaning, implies complete control” (Fischler
1988:290).
“No matter how they are designed, dietary recommendations carry little practical significance for the
promotion of health if they are not applicable in the everyday lives of the people towards who they are directed”
(Nielsen et al. 2008:178).
Food-related behaviors—ranging from what people eat to how they eat, and from
where they eat to why they eat what they eat—reflect humanity’s wide range of variation and
have long been of interest to anthropologists. So, too, should food-based dietary guidelines
(FBDGs) also be of interest, though anthropological research in this field is practically non-
existent. FBDGs, and pictorial representations thereof, are of considerable value as they are
models of (and for) healthy eating, citizenship, and culture.
2
FBDGs provide recommendations, based on current scientific research, that inform
consumers of the kinds and quantities of foods to eat in order to take in the proper amount
and variety of nutrients (Hunt et al. 1995:315; Jeppesen et al. 2011:7; Smith et al. 1999; Welsh
et al. 1992, 1993:1). I specifically adopt the European Food Information Council’s (EUFIC)
definition of FBDGs, which considers them as “simple messages on healthy eating, aimed at
the general public” (EUFIC 2009).1 Today, countries around the world also turn to FBDGs
to address, respond to, and attempt to alleviate increasing rates of non-communicable
diseases (NCDs)2 (Julia et al. 2014:1699; Keller and Lang 2007:867; Sharma et al. 2003:1195;
Vorster et al. 2013:S3). This is done by framing proper dieting as a response to health-related
concerns facing a given nation, by mitigating chronic disease through healthy food and
beverage intake (e.g., Philippi 2005:79). In theory, then, observing FBDGs should mean
lowering the risk of contracting NCDs. FBDGs thus have important implications, linking
food, nutrition, and health policy and promotion (Hyslop 2014; Schneeman 2001a:55).
Planned for the late fall of 2015, the United States Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will
release the eighth edition of their joint FBDG known as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
(DGA). Applicable to Americans over the age of two, the DGA is based on the work of the
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and serves as the foundation for the
education and initiatives of food and nutrition policy at the federal level (Davis and Saltos
1999:35; Davis et al. 2001:883; health.gov 2015; Jeppesen et al. 2011:8; Schneeman
2001b:742; USDA and HHS 2010:i). Inspired then by the upcoming DGA, this timely
1 See also section 4.4.2 of the “Preparation and Use of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines” (WHO/FAO 1996), a
landmark text which serves as the basis for FBDG development around the world, as well as Montagnese et al.
2015:913.
2 The four major NCDs include cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes
(WHO 2015).
3
release offers an opportunity to explore on national and international levels the significance
of consuming food as material and symbolic acts.
Dietary guidelines are not new phenomena, nor are they restricted to the food
system of the United States. People have long been guided as to what and how they should
eat. The Greek physician and father of Western medicine Hippocrates wrote about the
positive relationship between food as medicine and medicine as food in the late 5th century
BC, while the Greek historian Plutarch advised five centuries later on the benefits of fasting
(see Weeks 2012:119). As far as science is concerned, Barbara Schneeman chronicles (2003)
how the history of contemporary dietary guidance begins in the late 19th century with issues
of sanitation à la germ theory and the work of Louis Pasteur. In the early 20th century, dietary
guidance addressed an assured need for greater vitamin intake to combat health deficiencies,
while the 1950s saw the importance of limiting excess food consumption at the risk of
affecting diet and chronic diseases. And since the 1990s, attention has turned to the impact
of diet and lifestyle on health and well-being (Schneeman 2003).
However, FBDGs of any kind are not simply limited to concerns over health and
nutrition. Practicing Hindus, Jews, and Muslims around the world continue to adhere in
various degrees to Dharmaśāstra, kosher, and halal teachings, for reasons of social
organization and hierarchy (Appadurai 1981, 1988), physical or spiritual health (Douglas
1966), or even economics (Harris 1985). In the United States, dietary recommendations
throughout the Depression emphasized economic food selections, while food scarcity during
war times ushered the need for appropriate substitutions (Davis et al. 2001:881; Smitasiri and
Uauy 2007:S142). Multidisciplinary research over the last two decades lends further support
to the fact that food-related behaviors (inclusive of food consumption and adherence to
FBDGs) vary based on socioeconomic, demographic, and lifestyle attributes (e.g.,
4
Deshmukh-Taskar et al. 2007; Kirkpatrick et al. 2012; Park et al. 2005:848; Schoenberg 1997;
Sharma et al. 2003). Indeed, the respective ecologies3 in which food guidance operates create
tension between so-called objective, scientific progress and the lived realities of consumers.
An important component of FBDGs is the use of “language and symbols that the
public can easily understand” (FAO 2007). Both governmental and non-governmental
organizations accordingly develop various tools to distill pages upon pages of
recommendations, in an attempt to help facilitate consumers’ comprehension of and
adherence to the plethora of dietary guidelines. Advertisements, bulleted lists, and interactive
websites are common mediums for presenting more visually appealing and digestible chunks
of information. Another popular approach is a single graphic or set of graphics that
pictorially represent FBDG messages. No one image alone can capture all bites of data or
reflect the dietary patterns and needs of all individuals of a given country. Instead, each set
of guidelines depicts an average or composite set of typically “healthy” food-related
behaviors aimed at the general public (e.g., see Davis et al. 2001:882).
3 I understand individuals as operating within a system of component parts or social “ecologies,” whereby each
landscape interacts with the others rather than acting in isolation. (David Goodman and Michael Redclift
recognize, for example, that the tendency when talking about the food system is to consider it in relation to the
component parts of geography, culture, and concept, rather than to see the three as interdependent [1992:xi]).
This exists in two interacting phases. The first is the individual’s micro-ecology, whereby decision-making is
made within an environment influenced by multiple competing factors including but not limited to
socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, ethnic heritage, and/or the political climate. As such, adherence to
food-based dietary guidelines operates in nuanced ways for any given individual. Thus, variation on a macro
scale is expressed in terms of varying degrees of these agents’ adherence to national, etc. food guidance. In
other words, normalized FBDGs are not accepted equally across all individuals because their experiences and
motivations are inconsistent. Social ecologies in this context thus become cases for political economy, as
suggested by Constance deRoche in her study of voluntary organizations and the anthropology of complex
society (1987), whereby individuals must negotiate material conflicts (what to purchase and consume) that arise
from competing social environmental forces; FBDGs essentially create a formal organization comprised of
competing interests and resources. By reviewing FBDGs on a global scale, Marshall Sahlins’s discussion of
cultural praxis, as further discussed by Deroche, captures the sense of specified context in which behavior is
“guided, not scripted” (Deroche 1987:144). Ultimately, my view of ecology is intrinsic to James Greenberg and
Thomas Park’s discussion of political ecology, whereby political economy’s “insistence on the need to link the
distribution of power with productive activity” and cultural analysis “with its broader vision of bio-
environmental relationships” intertwine (Greenberg and Park 1994:1). The complexity and application of this
view are further illustrated by Gary Polis, Wendy Anderson, and Robert Holt’s (1997) understanding of the
food system that is, at least in part, defined by the integration of two ecologies: landscape and the food web.
5
There exists a relatively overwhelming number of images ripe for analysis, as FBDGs
and their pictorial representations continue to mature in response to assessments of FBDG
implementation, efficiency, and effectiveness (e.g., EFSA NDA 2010:3; EUFIC 2009;
Estaquio et al. 2009; Fogli-Cawley et al. 2006:2908; Levine et al. 2012; McNamara et al. 1999;
Montagnese 2015:913). Advances in nutritional and medical science over time (Davis and
Saltos 1999:46; Davis et al. 2001:884; Shaw et al. 2000:111), as well as technology (Neuhauser
et al. 2007), further spur regular evaluation. Many nations have developed their own FBDGs,
following the recommendations of the WHO and FAO’s joint publication Preparation and Use
of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines (1996). Others have since adopted the American pyramid
model (Painter et al. 2002:483), with as many as 100 different variations of the pyramid
having existed by 2004 (Leitzmann 2004; Oberritter et al. 2013:24). More recently, countries
like the Philippines have used the 2011 American MyPlate model as inspiration for an
updated FBDG image (Crisostomo 2013), while many Puerto Ricans have been exposed to
Spanish-adapted versions of the United States’ Food Guide Pyramid, MyPyramid, and
MyPlate (Painter et al. 2002:486; Palacios and Angleró 2013). Subsequent documents guiding
regional FBDG development have also been produced, leading to similar messages being
conveyed, NCDs being addressed, and resources being drawn upon (e.g., FAO 2007).
I have thus elected to largely focus my study on contemporary pictorial
representations, so as to update previous studies on international FBDG images (chapter 2).
I also pay closer attention to national and government-developed and/or -endorsed
representations (rather than those created by the private sector) as governments directly
shape public policy and have been identified elsewhere as an important stakeholder in
FBDG development (Keller and Lang 2007:868). Previous research has similarly focused on
government-endorsed FBDG images (e.g., EUFIC 2009; Montagnese 2015; Painter et al.
6
2002; see also Boylan 2015). I do refer in many cases to FBDG images created by
independent, non-governmental organizations, which use the same national FBDGs and
scientific research as their respective governments. Examining differences between
governmental and non-governmental FBDG images provides points of discussion that
emphasize variations in interpreting and presenting the latest scientific research and
recommendations, as well as the multiple stakeholders who influence FBDG development.
My thesis draws upon anthropological theory (chapter 3) to examine negotiations of
power (political economy) and the influence of contemporary pictorial representation of
food-based dietary guidelines on creating culture around the world. Here, I consider FBDG
imagery first and foremost as stand-alone, cultural artifacts4 comprised of public symbols
constructed by corporations and negotiated by consumers. Anthropologists have established
that food as symbols convey meaning, especially in terms of food as being communicative
(i.e., semiotic, as in the case of Appadurai 1981 and Douglas 1972), symbolic of collective
belonging (e.g., Fischler 1988 and Goode 1989), and having specific meaning for those in the
shared collective (e.g., Barthes 1975 and Shields-Argelès 2004). Other scholars have analyzed
visual components of illustrated food guides both in print and online (Hess et al. 2012;
Neuhauser et al. 2007; Noland and Meirelles 2008). I position these streams of research as a
platform for analyzing FBDG images as symbolic systems of power.
In total, I reviewed 33 different depictions of dietary guidance (chapter 4), of which
seven served as my core sample (chapter 5). The images I chose were based upon a variety
of factors including, but not limited to, presentation format (overall structure, how foods are
4 By introducing the term “cultural artifact,” I mean to consider FBDG images as human-constructed objects
which reflect the ideals and norms of those inhabiting a specific temporal and spatial context. In this way, I
argue studying FBDG images (e.g., FBDGs during wartime) informs us about the culture of those who create
and/or use them (see Habib and Wittek 2007:260-272, as well as Sterne 2006 on the mp3 as a cultural artifact).
7
arranged, etc.), geographic location, the availability of supplementary information, and my
ability to read non-English FBDGs or ascertain accurate translations.
In chapter 6, I conduct a qualitative analysis of the symbols and political economy
thereof to capture the cultural values, meaning, and use of nutritional and dietary
recommendations (Andersson and Bryngelsson 2007; Davis and Saltos 1999:35; cf. Davis et
al. 2001:881). Throughout my thesis, I pay attention to the specific selection and orientation
of FBDG-related iconography, as well as the groups—governmental and otherwise—who
decide which depictions and messages are included. This is done within the context of
situating FBDGs as powerful symbols of national identity, belonging, and meaning-making.
Studying these images builds upon our anthropological understanding of food and
healthy eating as a “cultural system,” i.e., a system of symbols, categories, and meanings used
in daily life (Appadurai 1981:494-495; cf. Schneider 1980:133; see also Sewell 2005:160). To
understand food as a cultural system, I explore symbolic meaning, considering healthy
dietary practices (e.g., choosing what foods to eat) akin to ritual and deconstructing FBDG
images into component parts (Turner 1973, 1977). I present these symbols as models of—
and for—cultural systems (Geertz 1966a), before I situate them within a framework of
political economy (Wolf 1982). My analysis considers the role of symbols and food guide
illustrations as mechanisms in which power is produced and reproduced (Mintz 1985, 1995).
I interrogate the relationship between nation and citizen (Comaroff and Comaroff 2003)
through Pierre Bourdieu’s conception of symbolic violence (Weininger 2002), whereby
FBDG imagery again produces and reproduces systems of inequality.
Ultimately, I argue the overall structures of FBDGs and their constituent parts are all
symbols, i.e., carriers of meaning (Cohen 1993:196). My aim is to account for graphic
variation and the scientific and political messages connoted by the specific selection and
8
arrangement of these symbols (see Keller and Lang 2007:868; Noland and Meirelles 2008:4;
Smith et al. 1999:188). I view FBDGs as more than dietary guidelines which reflect dietary
recommendations and the biological need to consume nutrients (Fischler 1988; Fly and
Gallahue 2002). They are vehicles of power in the negotiation of individual and cultural
identity and complicit in sociocultural processes involving national ideals and beliefs about
health and consumption (see Ortner 1984). FBDGs and their visual imagery represent both
material and symbolic realities as they relate to food choices and consumption patterns,
decision-making, health and “good eating,” the negotiation of power, the establishment of
norms, and the creation of hegemonic culture by what Claude Fischler identifies as “a
tutelary and quasi-totemic authority – Government” (Fischler 1988:290). Given the
importance placed on selecting appropriate imagery to construct visual representations of
dietary guidance, deconstructing and analyzing FBDG images for what they are (i.e., symbols
built of smaller symbols), how they have been chosen, and by whom, becomes important
tasks which are fit for qualitative, anthropological analysis.
9
Chapter 2: Background
Figure 1. The “Basic 7” (USDA 1943)
Figure 2. Anna Britt Agnsäter beside the Swedish Food
Pyramid (Coop 1974)
In the United States, FBDGs made their official appearance in the early 20th century.5
The first was developed by Caroline Hunt as a list of food groups and subsequently
published by the USDA in 1916 (Davis et al. 2001:881; Johnston 2005). The following year,
Hunt and Wilburn O. Atwater provided the general public with guidance on how to select
foods (Davis and Saltos 1999:35). In the 1940s, the USDA developed the first illustrated
5 The first set of dietary standards in the United States dates back to 1894 when chemist and human nutritionist
Wilburn O. Atwater published “Foods: Nutritive Value and Cost” in the Farmers’ Bulletin (Boylan 2015:301). In
the late 19th century, Congress had provided the USDA with funds to “‘enable the Secretary of Agriculture to
investigate and report upon the nutritive value of the various articles and commodities used for human food,’
with suggestions of less wasteful and more economical dietaries than those in common use” (Atwater 1894:2).
The concepts of variety, proportionality, and moderation were also developed by Atwater in 1902 (Davis and
Saltos 1999:34). Atwater’s dietary standards and what is considered today as dietary guidance differ in the fact
that the latter answers the question of what (and how much) food is needed to fit the nutritional needs of an
individual (Welsh et al. 1993:1).
10
guide, which accompanied the “Basic 7” (Figure 1). 6 The Basic 7 aided consumers with
wartime rationing, while establishing a foundation for achieving nutrient (but not necessarily
caloric) adequacy; it also included suggested (though not specific) daily serving sizes for each
food group (Davis and Saltos 1999:36; Hunt et al. 1995:317; USDA CNPP 2011).
The Basic 7 model had international appeal and informed the images and food
programs of other countries including Sweden. Sweden officially began using the USDA’s
1940s food circle model in the early 1960s (Bergström 1995:26). With rising food prices
challenging consumers’ earnings into the 1970s, the Swedish government charged the
Socialstyrelsen (Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare) to determine whether their
citizens could eat healthy (i.e., follow the guidelines) while on a low budget. To help
consumers in their decision-making, the Socialstyrelsen divided foods into two categories:
“basic,” defined as those essential for well-being (i.e., cheap and nutritious), and
“supplementary” or foods which provided nutrients not necessarily found in basic foods (see
Baofu 2012:149; Smallwood 2013). While the work of the Socialstyrelsen reflected the dietary
guidelines of the times, there was still room for improvement.
Anna Britt Agnsäter (pictured in Figure 2)7 built upon the Socialstyrelsen’s work and
situated basic foods such as potatoes and root vegetables at the wide base and
supplementary foods such as seasonal, non-root vegetables further up the now-familiar
triangular shape. The hierarchical organization of foods in Agnsäter’s 1970s Swedish icon
6 The Basic 7 groups included: green and yellow vegetables… [ellipses in the original]; oranges, tomatoes,
grapefruit…; potatoes and other vegetables and fruits; milk and milk products…; meat, poultry, fish, or eggs…;
bread, flour, and cereals…; and butter and fortified margarine.
7 Agnsäter worked as head of the test kitchen for the non-governmental Kooperativa Förbundet (KF), a Swedish
Cooperative Union comprised of retail and grocery outlets.
11
ushered changes in the way food could be more effectively and efficiently portrayed.8 In the
United States, the 1992 Food Guide Pyramid (FGP [Figure 3])9 developed as a response to
consumer criticisms of circular formats in that they lacked proportionality, were considered
fairly complex, and failed to denote serving sizes (Hunt et al. 1995; USDA CNPP 2011).
Figure 3. United States FGP (USDA 1992)
Figure 4. United States MyPyramid (USDA 2005)
The FGP organized food groups in the form of a pyramid and emphasized
recommended daily food (and by extension nutrition) intake and portion sizes (Gustafson
2011; Hess et al. 2012). Moreover, the FGP reflected a total diet approach to nutrient
adequacy and moderation, as well as foci on variety and proportion (Britten et al. 2006:S79;
Davis and Saltos 1999:37; Davis et al. 2001:882; Dixon et al. 2001; Fly and Gallahue 2002;
USDA CNPP 2011). Shortly after the release of the USDA’s FGP, the Oldways Preservation
and Exchange Trust (OPET) published various pyramids which pictorially represented the
8 Despite its appeal in Sweden and elsewhere, the Swedish Food Pyramid remains an unofficial model
(Bergström 1995:27). The government has previously promoted the Food Circle (Matcirkeln) model, since 1992
(van Dooren and Kramer 2012:12). Most recently, the Swedish National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket) has
developed a list-based FBDG (NFA 2015; refer to Table 4, Appendix).
9 The FGP, as is the case with other FBDGs, was based on the eating patterns of Americans broadly defined
(Davis and Saltos 1999:42; Painter et al. 2002:483; USDA CNPP 1997)
12
diets of cultures known for maintaining good health.10 Concurrently, others had also
developed pyramids reflecting Puerto Rican, vegetarian, and “soul food” dietary habits
(USDA CNPP 1997). This demonstrated such pyramids have the ability to represent pre-
existing cultural patterns. The Center for Applied Research in Anthropology (CARA) at
Georgia State University was another group that sought to make the FGP more culturally
relevant. CARA’s bilingual pyramids varied the arrangement and types of foods depending
on the cultural group, but all within the same pyramid structure (Fly and Gallahue 2002:194).
The existence of these images produced by non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
as OPET confused Americans, as recommendations for maintaining a healthy diet did not
align with the government (Davis and Saltos 1999:47; USDA CNPP 1997).11 In contrast to
the 1992 pyramid, the pyramids promoted by Oldways pictorially emphasized healthy
lifestyle factors and behaviors (e.g., physical activity and moderation of alcohol intake) which
are discussed in the DGA but did not actually appear in the FGP itself. Additionally, the
design of the Oldways pyramids emphasized proportion sizes as opposed to specific
quantities as illustrated in the FGP. Ultimately, the USDA CNPP acknowledged that no one
pyramid can convey everything individuals need to know but the FGP offers the flexibility
for individuals to choose the dietary pattern that works for them. Similarly in the case of
Sweden,12 this American example illustrates a divergence between the approaches taken by
and interests of governmental and NGOs.
10 At the time, OPET developed pyramids based on Asian, Latin American, Mediterranean, and vegetarian
diets. The first three are analyzed later in this thesis and are presented in Figures 23-25.
11 Today, the presence of differing governmental and non-governmental visual iterations of national FBDGs
remains an issue (e.g., see Downs and Willows 2008 regarding confusion among Canadians, as well as Vorster et
al. 2013:S10 regarding conflicting sources of nutrition information).
12 Despite the fact the KF worked with the Socialstyrelsen, the Socialstyrelsen wanted to maintain separation
between its FBDG and that of the KF As far as the KF was concerned, the Socilstyrelsen’s model was viewed
problematically as a “cake divided into seven slices” (Baofu 2012:149).
13
Following its initial launch, the USDA and HHS updated the FGP to the MyPyramid
(Figure 4), which was released alongside the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This new
image aimed to simplify the 1992 version and removed pictures of suggested foods (though
such images were added in subsequent revisions). Relevant information pertaining to each
food group was also moved to an online website (USDA CNPP 2011), where FBDGs could
be more closely customized to one’s caloric needs. The addition of a generic figure walking
up a set of stairs was meant to emphasize the importance of physical activity, while the
addition of “My” suggested individual personalization (Helm 2005; USDA CNPP 2011).
The new pyramid had many critics. Visual cues for proportionality and moderation
were eliminated, while the image overall became difficult for consumers to understand
(Noland and Meirelles 2008). Others argued the illustration did not help consumers make
healthier food choices (Chiuve and Willett 2007; Johnston 2005; Mitka 2005). The editors of
Environmental Nutrition went so far as to state that “[a]s a stand-alone symbol, the new graphic
falls flat. The wordless rainbow pyramid is colorful, but says little; it doesn’t even show
foods” (Helm 2005:2). Furthermore, criticism toward transferring key messages online
emphasized segments of the population have limited to no Internet access, as well as limited
degrees of Internet literacy (Chiuve and Willett 2007:612; Frenk n.d.a.; Helm 2005:2; Mitka
2005; Johnston 2005; Lichtenstein et al. 2008; cf. Freeman 2006).
Neither the circle nor the pyramid is necessarily the only structure to influence
consumers’ dietary behaviors and patterns, though it has been argued some features are
more effective or efficient than others. For example, an exploratory study by Rebecca Hess
and colleagues suggested different shapes tend to draw one’s attention to different areas of
the image and emphasized specific regulations (Hess et al. 2012). Additionally, many
countries have purposefully sought to tailor different formats to engage their citizens. The
14
Venezuelan food guide takes on the form of a trompo (Venezuela International 2011), the
country’s traditional spinning top, while the Chinese guide is set within a pagoda. In the case
of France, the nine dietary steps coming from the French National Nutritional and Health
Program (PNNS) are presented differently to various age groups. Referencing a typical
outdoor activity played in schools, the PNNS embeds the steps in a hopscotch format
(Figure 5) for children, as opposed to the tabulated list for adults (Figure 6).
Figure 5. La Marelle ("hopscotch") for children
(PNNS 2011a)
Figure 6. Le Tableau des Repères de Consommation
(“Consumption Reference Table” [PNNS 2011b])
Individually, each component represents something different: pictures of children playing
different games symbolize specific activities such as jumping rope or juggling, and images of
fish, beef, and eggs illustrate various ingredients. When considered in relation to other
15
images, they garner additional meanings, as multiple activities suggest ways to maintain an
active lifestyle and the different animals and animal products distinguish possible proteins to
consume. Set in the context of hopscotch, the recommended daily quantity of 1 or 2 is
translated as what would otherwise be the first and second steps children would take when
playing the game, while the activities themselves suggest the importance of regular activity
and movement. Taken together, this visual representation of the nine steps symbolizes what
the PNNS (as a national government agency) has determined as healthy dietary behaviors.
Previous Research
The work of food psychologist James Painter and colleagues (2002) is the only study
I know that explicitly addresses variations of food guidelines on a global scale by
systematically comparing visual differences among countries’ FBDG illustrations. Painter et
al. (2002) paid close attention to the shape, food groupings, and recommended serving sizes
of 12 countries’ FBDG illustrations. They expected global disparities in populations’ food
intake, food availability, and the nutrition status between countries to be reflected in the
various food guide graphics and differences in recommendations. Overall, they were able to
group pictorial representations into three general shapes: pyramid, circle, and unique (e.g.,
the pagoda shape shared by Korea and China at the time, as well as Canada’s rainbow, the
UK’s plate, and Mexico’s dish [Painter et al. 2002:487]). Painter et al.’s (2002) side-by-side
comparisons revealed similarities in terms of food grouping and recommendations, as do
their comparisons of quantitative recommendations (see Table 2) (Painter et al. 2002:487).
This view is consistent with findings by Hess et al. (2012), 13 who argue relatively little
differences exist when considering the effectiveness and efficiency of FBDG shape.
13 In contrast to the work of Painter et al. (2002), Hess et al. (2012) focused more generally on FBDG shape and
not a cross-country comparison of FBDG on an international scale.
16
Cultural differences aside, Painter et al. (2002) argued that grains, vegetables, fruits,
milk, and meats are fundamental ways to group food. Differences in FBDG illustrations
reflected differences in food systems and eating patterns, including the fact that certain
countries express and understand fats and sugars as individual or paired categories. Sugar
consumption is low in China, for example, so there are no actual sugar-related
recommendations at the federal level; a similar case holds true for the Philippines, where
milk and dairy do not appear as its own group on the pyramid since they are neither regularly
consumed nor traditionally part of the diet (Painter et al. 2002:487).
Painter et al. (2002) noted data collection limitations which affected the applicability
of their findings on an otherwise global scale, including the non-existence of government-
sponsored images (e.g., Japan), or the inability to obtain images from South America. Japan
has since released dietary guidelines and an accompanying pictorial representation, and the
Brazilian government has opted not to produce a formal FBDG image (Barton 2014). Other
countries have updated if not completely changed the shape and overall design of their
FBDG pictorial representations: Korea changed its pagoda to a bicycle in 2010 (Baik et al.
2013:235; Lee et al. 2013:50-51) and the United States’ longstanding pyramid was changed to
a plate in 2011, influencing others such as the Philippines to also adopt the format
(Crisostomo 2013). I have chosen to include among my data these countries’ FBDGs, so as
to update the work of Painter et al. (2002) (Table 2, Appendix A).
In 2009, the European Food Information Council (EUFIC) compiled an inventory
of all available European FBDGs (Table 3, Appendix A).14 EUFIC identified the food
pyramid as the most popular FBDG pictorial format, followed by food circles and unique
14 Again, I distinguish the work of EUFIC (2009) with that of Painter et al. (2002). EUFIC, as well as
Montagnese et al. (2015), limited their reviews to European FBDGs (as opposed to surveying FBDGs on a
global scale as I do in my thesis).
17
shapes such as the house of Hungary and steps of France (EUFIC 2009). Additionally,
EUFIC paid particular attention to FBDG format, the number of food groups, type of
supportive information, recommendations specific to fluid, salt, and specific nutrient intake,
and commentary specific to lifestyle behaviors. EUFIC noted how FBDG components were
expressed through a variety of visual cues, including carefully selected shapes, pictures, and
colors. Including the right balance of text on pictorial representations is also important:
“with a minimum amount of text, [FBDG images] are helpful but may imply that everyone
should eat exactly the same amount from each food group every day” (EUFIC 2009).
EUFIC emphasized the attention each country (or more accurately, each country’s
government) pays to steering FBDGs toward nation-specific public health issues.
Most recently, Concetta Montagnese and colleagues analyzed the FBDGs and
accompanying pictorial representations of nearly two-thirds of European countries. Their
work updated data collected for EUFIC’s 2009 review15 and added data a 2009 review
conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)16 (Montagnese et al. 2015:913).
Of the 34 analyzed images, the authors found that 22 countries utilize a pyramid model,
seven use a circle, and three take alternative forms (France’s steps, Hungary’s house, and
Turkey’s four-leaf clover), while Lithuania lacks a food guide graphic (Montagnese et al.
2015:909). Montagnese et al. (2015) concluded there is limited agreement among European
countries as to what exactly comprises a healthy diet, how foods should be grouped, and
how to incorporate ethnic food habits, despite the fact similarities exist among European
FBDG illustrations in terms of regional dietary recommendations (Montagnese et al.
15 Data from Albania, Austria, Croatia, Estonia, and Italy were updated.
16 Data were added from Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldavian Republic, Norway, the Russian
Federation, Romania, Slovenia, and Portugal. Of these, I included Portugal in my thesis as Painter et al. (2002)
had also reviewed it. Sweden was also included in my data set, as it had been changed since the publication of
Montagnese et al.’s (2015) work and was also discussed by Painter et al. (2002).
18
2015:914; cf. WHO Regional Office for Europe 2000). EUFIC had also reached a similar
conclusion in 2009, as did Charlotte Jeppesen and colleagues in 2011 upon their comparative
review of circumpolar countries’ FBDGs.
Some countries share similar agricultural, dietary, environmental, sociocultural, and
political behaviors, climates, and trends, all of which encourage the development of regional
FBDGs that transcend national borders. In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO)
Regional Office for Europe developed the CINDI (Countrywide Integrated Non-
Communicable Disease Intervention) Dietary Guide. This FBDG created a comprehensive,
adaptable framework that remained cognizant of differences in food variability across
northern, Mediterranean, and southern Europe (WHO Regional Office for Europe 2000:2).
The accompanying CINDI pyramid drew upon the relative strengths of different
components found in many European models, including the use of the familiar pyramid
shape and languages spoken in different European countries. Concurrently, countries are
advised to develop their own FBDG given variations in food availability and accessibility,
varied lifestyles, and differing health priorities (FAO 2007:3), despite shared attributes
among countries within the same region.
Studying the similarities and differences among pictorial representations of FBDGs
remains a meaningful endeavor, as countries’ FBDGs continue to be influenced by and
respond to those of other countries. My thesis contextualizes FBDGs as symbolic vehicles
for communicating education and nutrition to the general public (FAO 2007:3; Smith et al.
1999:191) and as proxies for 1) analyzing national, regional, and international conceptions of
healthy dieting, and 2) understanding how ideas of diet, health, and identity are negotiated on
these various scales.
19
Chapter 3: Literature Review
I divide my qualitative analysis into two major “readings” or interpretations of
FBDG illustrations and draw upon two branches in anthropology to do so. The first of these
is symbolic anthropology. I begin generally with Victor Turner’s work on ritual (Turner
1973) and processual symbols (Deflem 1991; Turner 1977) and end with Clifford Geertz’s
conception of cultural systems. The second major arc is political economy where I turn to
the work of Eric Wolf (1982), Sidney Mintz (1985), and Jean and John Comaroff (1999).
Symbolic Anthropology
Studying symbols within ritual context permits researchers to uncover meaning
amidst patterns of culture. Victor Turner defines ritual as “a stereotyped sequence of
activities involving gestures, words, and objects, performed in a sequestered place, and
designed to influence preternatural entities or forces on behalf of the actors’ goals and
interest” (Turner 1973:1100). Moreover, and borrowing from linguistics, Turner argues the
symbol as “the smallest unit of ritual which still retains the specific properties of ritual
behavior[, …] the ultimate unit of specific structure in a ritual context” (Turner 1967:19). It
becomes the anthropologist’s job, therefore, to first determine what the symbol is and to
then understand the meaning embedded in it.
Symbols can be divided as either “dominant” or “instrumental” (Turner 1967:30-32;
see also Deflem 1991:5-6). Dominant symbols maintain relatively high degrees of “constancy
20
and consistency throughout the total symbolic system” (Turner 1967:31). That is, their
meaning and purpose tend to remain static. Instrumental symbols, on the other hand,
require study of the entire system in order to be understood (Turner 1967:32). The
interdependency of instrumental symbols within ritual brings to mind the idea of constituent
parts representing the whole. A concurrent task, then, is to consider not only dominant and
instrumental symbols as operating within the same ritual, but also the possibility of a
dominant symbol being broken down into instrumental symbols.
The complication here is that we are also ideally looking for meanings plural.
Symbols function semantically insofar as they carry multiple, context-based, and otherwise
discordant meanings, but interrelate harmoniously within a shared ritual framework (Turner
1973:1100). The multivocality or myriad meanings inherent of ritual symbols can be divided
into three dimensions: the exegetic (how individuals explain a symbol’s meaning to the
researcher), the operational (researcher-observed use of the symbol), and the positional
(relations between and among symbols) (Turner 1973:1103). The strength in Turner’s
approach lies in its holistic framework that validates both researchers’ and informants’ points
of view. However, underlying this approach is the assumption that meaning is there to be
discovered and is shared among all individuals of a given community. There are other
meanings to consider, as gestures, words, and objects do not mean the same thing to
everyone else at the same time.
Clifford Geertz also developed a paradigm for analyzing symbols and their role. In
his conceptualization of religion as a cultural system, he defines religion as:
(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-
lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general
order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality
that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (Geertz 1966a:4).
21
Religion also maintains an “enabling circularity” (see Rennie 2009:342) built on Geertz’s
distinction of cultural systems as models of and for reality: “cultural patterns have an intrinsic
double aspect: they give meaning, that is, objective conceptual form, to social and
psychological reality both by shaping themselves to it and by shaping it to themselves
(Geertz 1966a:7). When individuals adhere to the cultural system which defines how one
should act (i.e., what reality ought to be), such routine becomes normalized as far as what
reality is (Rennie 2009:341).
Geertz argues symbols become points of negotiation for citizens who are agents and
must make choices within the scope of the system itself (Geertz 1973a:353; see also Ortner
1984:130). The concern turns then to how symbols “shape the ways social actors see, feel,
and think about the world, or in other words, how symbols operate as vehicles of ‘culture’”
(Ortner 1984:129-131; see also Deflem 1991).To put this another way, to view religion as a
cultural system is to explore the interconnected relationship among the symbol, society, and
the individual (Pals 2006:273).
We must be careful, though, with strictly symbolic analyses. Roger Keesing writes
that the meaning created by “a particular system of symbols” within ritual space, brings
about “order, coherence, and significance upon a people, their surroundings, and the
workings of their universe” (Basso and Selby 1976:3). Keesing warns of the assumption
many symbolic anthropologists make: that individuals have “access to these meanings—and
that rituals ‘work’ because they evoke and orchestrate shared understandings” (Keesing and
Haug 2012:406).17 Ortner goes so far as to argue that symbolic anthropology can have “an
underdeveloped sense of the politics of culture,” as well as a “lack of curiosity of concerning
the production and maintenance of symbolic systems” (Ortner 1984:132).
17 Geertz, for example, outright assumes individuals need symbols to understand the cultural system in which
they operate (Geertz 1966b:6).
22
Individuals, however, are involved in a political process of negotiating the system’s
very symbols. The system is more or less an actor-oriented, naturally occurring phenomenon
to be interpreted, without much (if any at all) consideration for those responsible for
orchestrating the symbols’ material creation. The move, then, that needs to be made is one
arguing for symbols as representing the construction of “culture” to symbols as representing
very real power relations, as well.
Keesing’s analysis of Kwaio ritual (2012) helps to bridge the leap from the symbolic
to the political. In his work, Keesing highlights symbolic misunderstandings of culture:
individuals do not necessarily understanding symbols the same way (Keesing and Haug
2012:407). This means there are multiple interpretations as to what symbols do and should
mean, which inevitably creates the potential for misreading and misusing them altogether.
Certain understandings or interpretations, however, are more correct than others. In
Distinctions: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Pierre Bourdieu writes that food tastes
depend on how groups view conceptions of health: taste becomes hegemonic and is defined
as naturally-embodied culture (1984:190). Oftentimes, and in consideration of French haute
cuisine, socially accepted distinctions in taste separate good food from bad food, one group
from another, and the elite from the poor. This creates a problematic hierarchy determining
who is (and who is not) important, who belongs (and who does not). But who gets to
determine such distinctions?
Political Economy
Eric Wolf claims that symbolic analyses and their emphases on signification appeal
to “the efficacy of symbols[…] as if these cognitive processes were guided by a telos all their
own” (Wolf 1990:592). Nevertheless, there exists discordance when “the mutual signaling of
23
expectations is deranged, where opposite and contradictory interests come to the fore, or
where cultural schemata come under challenge” (Wolf 1990:593). This reality becomes one
mediated by power relations, in which power “is implicated in meaning through its role in
upholding one version of significance as true, fruitful, or beautiful, against other possibilities
that may threaten truth, fruitfulness, or beauty” (Wolf 1990:593). In short, there are
competing views of meaning within the same system or of the same symbol. Studying the
power built within symbols and cultural systems can be done through the field of political
economy. Wolf identifies this as “a field of inquiry concerned with ‘the wealth of nations,’
the production and distribution of wealth within and between political entities and the
classes composing them” (1982:7-8).
Sidney Mintz, who uses a political economic framework to study sucrose, argues that
sugar has an insider (or emic) meaning, which is historically acquired, arbitrary, and culture-
specific, as well as lifeless, unless considered alongside other symbols known to those who
understand their reference (Mintz 1985:153). Moreover, sugar also has an outside (or etic)
meaning that symbolizes the complex history of power relations embedded in it.
Viewed more generally, Mintz later refined emic and etic concepts in his approach to
understanding the relationship between food and power. Given the latter form, Mintz offers
the consideration of “the wider social significance of those changes effectuated by
institutions and groups whose reach and power transcend both individuals and local
communities: those who staff and manage the larger economic and political institutions and
make them operate” (Mintz 1995:6). Mintz also turns to the concept of structural power, in
an attempt to understand “the field of action […which renders…] some kinds of behavior
possible, while making others less possible or impossible” (Wolf 1990:586-587; see Mintz
1995:11). From these perspectives, it is pertinent to consider who has the power to construct
24
symbols and establish its meaning, as well as the contexts in which symbols may or may not
be able to be adhered to.
Symbols as powerfully negotiated entities reflect and construct culture. As John
Comaroff and Jean Comaroff have claimed of (ritual) symbols à la Turner, symbols are able
to “reproduce and re-present meanings” (Elam 2001:48). Building upon Mintz, however,
cultural symbols also mask the very politics which construct them (see Comaroff and
Comaroff 1999:285). That is, there are underlying forces (economic and cultural capital)
which establish social hierarchy and classification in relation to so-called “legitimate” culture,
regardless of whether or not individuals recognize this (Weininger 2002:137). Here, this is
also observed as Bourdieu’s conception of symbolic violence (Bourdieu 1991:242), or “the
misperception of social space—which characterizes both the dominant [those who create
symbols] and the dominated [those for whom symbols are meant], albeit to the advantage of
the latter” (Weininger 2002:145). The dominated, in this view, do not necessarily realize they
are in fact being dominated.
This haves-and-have-nots dichotomy is one which categorizes individuals into at
least one of two social classes, in much the same way as Bourdieu first noted in Distinctions
(1984). Such a hierarchical arrangement creates a space for an inequality of power and
resources. For example, Jean Comaroff argues that despite proclaimed progress in post-
apartheid South Africa, the existence of increasing rates of inequality may be due in large
part to the combination of a neoliberal agenda and inherited industrial-capitalist economy
(Bangstad et al. 2012:128-130). The schema of neoliberal capitalism “appears both to include
and to marginalize in unanticipated ways[, …]above all, to offer up vast, almost
instantaneous riches to those who master its spectral technologies—and, simultaneously, to
threaten the very existence of those who do not” (Comaroff and Comaroff 2000:8).
25
Neoliberalism offers a way out, a better life as it is, to those who have the ability to afford it
at any and all cost. Those who are unable to reap the benefits of neoliberal policy are left to
the margins (the poor, i.e., the dominated). As far as John Comaroff is concerned, these
individuals are kept in a state of “structural conditions which permit the unthinkable: the
alienation of increasing numbers of humans from the very condition of their humanity –
[and] all this while the production of wealth and inequality proceeds apace” (Bangstad et al.
2012:131). What remains through constant replication in reality, then, are static (though not
necessarily unchangeable) symbolic meanings with embedded cultural norms, unequal power
relations, and by extension institutionalized inequality.
Inequality in South Africa also presents itself in the dualistic relationship of national
citizen and ethnic subject (or other, i.e., not of the norm), which “configures the practical
terms of national belonging” (Comaroff and Comaroff 2003:446-447). In the liberated
scheme, individuals are concurrently free to do as they will as citizens of South Africa but are
limited in their options before becoming ethnicized, stepping outside of the national group
label and no longer simply being South African. This reality brings to the forefront a similar
question posed in the preceding section: who gets to determine who belongs?
The confluence of symbolic anthropology and political economy permits an analysis
of models of and for reality, and why things must be and ought to be a certain way. These
models are comprised of component parts that reflect ideologies, the totality of which is
historically grounded and placed in cultural context. The selection, allocation, and eventual
organization of instrumental symbols into a core dominant symbol are inherently acts of
political negotiation. Such power is controlled and mediated by a dominant and
hierarchically superior class, which wields its power to create a hegemonic culture. The
dominated, who are of this cultural system must choose whether to take part in all, some, or
26
none of its enabling circularity. In this process of transferring decision-making power to the
individual, the veil of neoliberalism masks the economic, political, and social conditions
governed by the dominant.
27
Chapter 4: Materials and Methods
I reviewed 33 different pictorial representations of food-based dietary guidelines for
my thesis. I based my initial selection of these specific images on the countries and FBDGs
that others before me had previously reviewed (e.g., EUFIC 2009; Montagnese et al. 2015;
Painter et al. 2002), as I aimed to update their work and build upon their findings.
Current FBDGs of 16 countries comprised my sample. 11 of these are from Painter
et al.’s (2002)18 review: Australia, Canada, China, Germany (both the German Nutrition
Circle [GNC] which Painter et al. [2002] reviewed, and the 4-sided pyramid, of which the
GNC forms its base), Great Britain (presented as the United Kingdom), Korea (presented as
South Korea), Mexico, the Philippines, Portugal, Sweden, and the United States. All of these
countries have since updated or completely changed their FBDG presentations.19 For
additional historical context, I formally analyzed the original 1992 United States Food Guide
Pyramid (reviewed by USDA CNPP 1997), as well as the 2005 MyPyramid, which preceded
the current MyPlate. Moreover, the pictorial representation of Japan was added because it
had not existed in 2002.20 Additionally, the FBDGs of four other countries strengthened the
international scope of this study: France for its unique FBDG shape (i.e., the staircase);
18 I have elected to exclude Puerto Rico from my review, as it adapts its food guide models directly from the
United States of America (Palacios and Angleró 2013:214). The principal difference between the current Puerto
Rican MiPlato and the American MyPlate is the use of colloquial Spanish instead of English.
19 Sweden updated its FBDG format after the publication of Montagnese et al.’s (2015) study, which had
reviewed the same graphic as Painter et al. (2002).
20 The lack of an FBDG in Brazil was also called out; it does not have a single FBDG representation, but is
reviewed in chapter
28
Ireland as it was identified as typical of European food guide pyramids (EUFIC 2009); South
Africa for its unique visual representation and ability to be relevant within and among its
multicultural populations (Vorster et al. 2013); and Venezuela due to its status as one of the
first countries to publish FBDGs (FAO 2007:4). In addition to these 19 government-
endorsed, national FBDG representations, I analyzed four government-endorsed, indigenous
FBDG illustrations (three from Canada and one from Venezuela). Additionally, I chose to
review the WHO Regional of Office of Europe’s CINDI pyramid (2000) and the
Mediterranean Diet Foundation’s (MDF) Mediterranean Diet Pyramid (Bach-Faig et al.
2011). Both of these FBDGs reflect regional-level recommendations, the former of which
was included in EUFIC’s 2009 review. Finally, five pyramids produced by the Oldways
Heritage Pyramids. Three of these (the Asian, Latin American, and Mediterranean Diet
Pyramids) were originally discussed in USDA CNPP 1997. The Oldways’ Mediterranean
Diet Pyramid is distinct from the regionally-produced Mediterranean pyramid by the MDF.
This collection highlights global variation through the visualization of culturally-
specific ways of presenting dietary recommendations. Concurrently, these images reveal
similar patterns in terms of how guidance is displayed for general, national audiences.
Different formats (food plate, food pyramid, food pagoda, etc.) are represented in this
sample, as well as FBDG images that reflect anywhere from 4-16 different food groups,
those which do and do not label food groups, and illustrations which suggest the importance
of regular water consumption and daily exercise.
I borrowed Malcolm Collier’s analytical model to organize and examine my data. I
made an inventory of the images using categories that reflected and assisted my research
goals, engaged in a structured analysis process, and searched for meaning and drew
conclusions based on the entire visual record (Leavy 2009:217-218; see also Collier and
29
Collier 1986:179). My log appears in Table 4 (see Appendix A). The inventory categories I
used were influenced by those developed by Painter et al. (2002; see Appendix A, Table 2)
and EUFIC (2009; see Appendix A, Table 3). In total, 13 FBDGs are presented as pyramids,
11 make use of a circle, plate, or wheel format, and the remainder can be described as
“unique” (Painter et al. 2002:487).
My sample, however, reveals a different pattern when only considering national,
government-endorsed FBDGs: the data indicate countries around the world have
transitioned their FBDG formats to observe a circular or plate model. Of the 16 national,
government-endorsed FBDGs I reviewed (counting only Germany’s 4D pyramid and not its
GNC [Montagnese et al. 2015:909]), seven of the 16 use a circle, two use a pyramid, and the
rest use unique formats. This is in contrast to previous studies which note the popularity of
the traditional pyramid. For example, Montagnese et al. found that 2/3 of European
countries adopt the pyramid, compared to 24% that use a circle (2015:909). The WHO’s
CINDI FBDG is also shaped as a pyramid. Of the 12 images Painter et al. (2002), reviewed,
three countries’ triangular pyramids had changed to a circular format. The Korean pagoda
image they analyzed also changed to a bicycle format which is also known as the food
balance wheels.
I build upon John Collier and Malcolm Collier who used photography and photo
essays as an approach to anthropological description (e.g., Collier and Collier 1986:106-108).
In my approach, I concurrently conducted unstructured, open viewing analyses, structured
analyses, and detailed or microanalyses (Collier and Collier 1986:181-183) of my “photos”
(i.e., FBDG images). Using the unstructured, open viewing approach, I surveyed my data
individually, in pairs, and as a collective, breaking up the data into different configurations.
For example, I surveyed FBDGs by country and continent. This “unstructured [but not
30
casual] immersion in the visual record” allowed me to “respond to the images as they are and
not simply as [I] expect[ed] them to be” (Collier and Collier 1986:181).
I coupled my unstructured analysis with a structured one, looking for salient features
based on perceived similarities and differences, as well as attributes previous researchers had
reviewed. Examples of these included the type of format or shape a country’s FBDG uses,
the number of food groups that appear in each representation, how each group is labeled
and arranged, the types of food that exemplify a given group, and whether these are
displayed in a similar way among and between images of different countries. Focusing my
analysis on these attributes of interest helped me make the move toward a structured,
comparative approach of my data. My findings from this stage of research appear in Table 4
of Appendix A.
I then conducted microanalyses of seven of the 33 FBDG representations I
reviewed, as the questions of my structured analysis became more refined (Collier and
Collier 1986:182). I selected one national, government-endorsed pictorial representation
from each continent (except Antarctica) from the initial pool to comprise a representative
sample that accounts for equal geographic distribution and a variety of FBDG formats. I
also analyzed a second North American example (the MyPlate) given the upcoming release
of the United States’ upcoming DGA. These seven images, presented in Table 1, exemplify
worldwide variation in terms of what governments consider healthy eating, as well as what
visual cues are deemed appropriate to illustrate dietary guidance. I also drew upon
alternative, pyramid models in my analysis, as they provided further context and/or brought
about additional points of comparison. I relied on supplementary articles to instigate and
further refine insights I gleaned from each image (Collier and Collier 1986:182). I
deconstructed these composite representations into component images and interpreted them
31
to explain in turn the meaning of these symbols. In so doing, I drew upon strengths and
attributes of microanalysis, i.e., “its basis in the unique requirements of clinical research and
[…] a reductionist approach in which understanding of the whole is sought through study of
its small components” (Collier and Collier 1986:183). This is done with the understanding
that such analyses of FBDG imagery are spatial and temporal “fragments selected from the
flow of culture which we use to attempt a reconstruction of the human context” (Collier and
Collier 1986:183).
Continent
Country
First
FBDGs
FBDG
Pictorial Shape
In Use Since
Asia
Japan
2000
Spinning top
2005 (rev. 2010)
South America
Venezuela
1991
Trompo
2011
North America
Canada
1942
Rainbow
2007 (rev. 2011)
Africa
South Africa
2001
Circles
2012
Australia
Australia
1982
Circle
2013
Europe
France
2001
Staircase
2011
North America
United States of America
1916
Plate
2011
Table 1. Summary of microanalyzed national, government-endorsed FBDG images
I begin my exploration of FBDG imagery with the Japanese guide, as it is one of the
(relatively) newest images. The Japanese guide does not have a non-governmental
counterpart and is available in both Japanese and English (I reviewed the English version).
The Japanese guide provided an initial orientation to FBDG messages through constituent
and composite symbols. From there, I moved on to Venezuela and Canada, whose
governments have elected to use culturally-defined symbols relevant to the needs and ideals
of their indigenous populations. These cases exemplify ethnic diversity and the necessity for
understanding FBDG images within specific cultural and political systems. The South
African example further highlights this need for cultural sensitivity and inclusiveness and—
32
within the context of nation-building in the post-apartheid, multiethnic, and multilingual
state—presents an approach currently being used to convey FBDG recommendations within
a single image and across a larger demographic.
My analysis then switches focus from the images themselves to those who have the
capacity to sway symbolic construction and positionality. In particular, I note those
organizations that are responsible for steering government-sponsored images away from
recommendations rooted in scientific data toward industrial, political, and/or private
interests. By comparing the government-sponsored representations of Australia, France, and
the United States against available independent, non-governmental, and alternative FBDG
images, I reveal discrepancies between the two groups. I assume such differences are
motivated by competing interests. Otherwise, uniform guidelines should theoretically
produce more similar images since developers work with the same source material, i.e.,
objective, scientific findings and national FBDGs. I conclude my analysis with the food
program of Brazil, which has taken a markedly different approach by electing to focus on
meals and not nutrients (Barton 2014). Brazil also limits its use of images to examples of
composed meals and does not have a single FBDG representation. This example provides a
tangible, though perhaps problematic, alternative to the images currently being developed
throughout the world and further illustrates the need to consider geographic resources and
food diversity when creating dietary guidelines.
33
Chapter 5: Microanalysis
Symbols as Conveying Messages: The Spinning Top of Japan
Figure 7. Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2005)
Japan’s inverse, triangular cone (Figure 7) recommends consumers eat from the top-
down. Greater intake comes from the grain dishes illustrated on the widest band. Items to be
consumed in least quantities (milk and fruits) are positioned at the bottom. This suggests
these food groups are still important to maintain a balanced diet but only in moderation. The
idea of balance is further suggested by the top’s shape. The running graphic upon what
appears to be a track and the counter-clockwise arrow suggests running and motion. This
suggests physical activity is an important recommendation to observe alongside proper
34
dieting. Both are integral to a balanced lifestyle. The blue arc recognizes the importance of
moderation and signals the place of snacks, confections, and beverages, while the handle of
the top (i.e., the first image “read” from the top down) conveys the vitality of water or tea
consumption. Japan’s graphic also includes examples of composed dishes to demonstrate the
appearance of typical serving sizes.
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, and Fisheries jointly developed Japan’s spinning top food guide (Oba et al. 2009;
Yoshiike et al. 2007:149). It is based on the 2000 Dietary Guidelines for Japanese and was
released to the general public in 2005. The Ministries’ choice to format the guidelines within
a spinning top is especially meaningful because of the top’s importance within Japanese
culture (Yoshiike et al. 2007:151).
The image and its dish-based approach are comprehensible to both cooks and eaters,
as nutrients become invisible to the consumer and foods are not necessarily eaten in
isolation (Yoshiike et al. 2007:150-151).21 In other words, individuals are not always nutrient
conscious while engaging in the act of eating. Consumption tends to be viewed in terms of
mixed foods or complete meals instead of simply consuming a serving of rice or fish, for
example. Japan’s model minimizes consumers’ confusion as to how to make sense of serving
sizes when considering processed foods and dishes drawing upon multiple food groups
(Yoshiike et al. 2007:151).
Images for/of the Other: The Trompo of Venezuela and the Rainbow of Canada
Venezuela also illustrates its dietary guidelines using a traditional spinning top known
as el trompo. Trompos typically have distinctive, colored bands and are thrown from a long
21 As the WHO Regional Office of Europe wrote of the CINDI Dietary Guide, “[food-based] guidance is more
practical; people purchase and eat foods, not nutrients” (2000:2).
35
piece of cord, which is initially “whipped” instead of spun to build momentum. The result is
a distinctive lean that is mimicked in the FBDG image (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Venezuelan Trompo de los Alimentos (Food
Trompo [INN 2011:1])
Figure 9. Venezuelan Trompo Indígena de los
Alimentos (Indigenous Food Trompo [INN
2011:12])
The most updated Venezuelan food trompo includes pictures of actual foods that
exemplify specific food groups. The National Institute of Nutrition (INN) holds
responsibility for choosing those groups that should be eaten in greater or lesser abundance.
Starches appear in the upper-most band, which indicates their importance in the overall diet.
Images of fruits and vegetables grouped together in green convey the recommendation to
eat these in greater quantities than others below it. A band of blue includes animal products,
while the bottom two groups include foods to be consumed in lower quantities: honey,
sugar, and papelón (panela, or unrefined whole cane sugar) as they appear on the left; and
sources of fats and vegetable oil, inclusive of avocados on the right (INN 2011).
36
Water consumption and physical activity are important considerations for a healthy
lifestyle. Here, the cord (or guaral) has been replaced by a stream of water, suggesting the
necessity of water consumption. This is further emphasized by droplets which appear to
“sweat” off the moving top. Images of three silhouettes engaging in cardiovascular exercise
place additional emphasis on physical activity.
To the right of the Venezuelan national food guide is one that has been produced for
the country’s indigenous population (Figure 9). The Trompo Indigena replicates the same color
scheme as the former, and presents similar food groups. Notably, the animal-source group
depicted in the blue band includes alligator, capybara, and turtle. The inclusion of a hunting
spear pointed at the water and a canoe in motion suggest activities performed by indigenous
consumers, replacing those suggested in the national illustration. Both images were
developed by the National Institute of Nutrition, in collaboration with universities and
endorsements by the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education (FAO n.d.a.).
In Canada, both the federal- and territorial-level governments share responsibility for
health care and food guidance (Jeppesen et al. 2011:22). The illustrated FBDG presented in
Figure 10 is the national guide developed by the Ministry of Health in consultation with
multiple stakeholders and closely advised in 2007 by an external Food Guide Advisory
Committee, an Interdepartmental Working Group, and the Expert Advisory Committee on
Dietary Reference Intakes (FAO n.d.b.). The FBDG is laid out in a rainbow format and is
the front page of a six-page booklet. The image features four differently colored and sized
bands with graphics that represent different foods (including fresh, processed, and frozen
examples). The icon itself does not indicate names of food groups, but in their study of
circumpolar FBDGs, Charlotte Jeppesen, Peter Bjerregaard, and Kue Young identify them:
37
Figure 10. Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide
(Health Canada 2011:1)
Figure 11. Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide:
First Nations, Inuit and Métis (Health Canada 2007:1)
fruits and vegetables; starchy foods and grains; dairy products; and protein rich foods
(Jeppesen et al. 2011:23).
In addition to the national guide, three other FBDGs (also reviewed by Jeppesen et
al. 2011) highlight government-sponsored attention given to native/indigenous populations
of Canada. These versions take into account shared available resources based on geography.
Figure 11 represents the current food guide for the Aboriginal populations of First Nations,
Inuit and Métis. Published in 2007, the circle-formatted FBDG illustration uses the same
colors as the national FBDG, but divides the circle into four equal quadrants that
circumscribe a central circle. The very center of the image emphasizes such traditional food-
based practices as ice fishing and smoking meat. Additionally, many of the food images
represent other Aboriginal foods (Jeppesen et al. 2011:24-25).
38
Figure 12. Northwest Territories Food Guide
(NWT HSS 2005:1)
Figure 13. Nunavut Food Guide (Nunavut HSS 2001:1)
The Northwest Territories (NWT) Food Guide (Figure 12)—available in English,
French, and Dogrib—was revised in 2005 and is based on a 106-page collection of fact
sheets regarding traditional practices among indigenous populations of the area (Jeppesen et
al. 2011:26). The same colors are used as the other Canadian FBDG images, and the circle
image is divided equally in a similar manner to the Eat Well with Canada’s Food Guide: First
Nations, Inuit and Métis representation. Recommended serving sizes are included in the NWT
food guide and each section is labeled and accompanied by a rationale for consuming each
group: milk and milk substitutes for strong bones and teeth; meat, fish, birds and eggs and all
edible parts for strong muscles; bannock, bread and cereal for energy; and fruit and
vegetables for good eyes and skin and less infection. The center of this guide features images
of what appears to be a caribou superimposed on the sun. Clive Tesar considers the caribou
as “the iconic Canadian animal,” due to its past importance as a primary food resource, so
much so that it might well be considered a national symbol (Tesar 2007). Additionally, J.
39
Michael Miltenberger, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources for the Government
of the Northwest Territories, claims barren-ground caribou as one of the region’s “great
resources,” while the value of this resource to the social, cultural, and economic well-being
of its Aboriginal populations is “immense” (NWT Environment and Natural Resources
2011:5, 21; see also Tesar 2007:2). Considered with the sun which tends to symbolize life
and appears for large portions of the day in northwestern Canada, I argue these icons refer
to the importance of outdoor life and activity in relation to food and health, while
establishing federal and territorial endorsement for the FBDG image.
The Nunavut Food Guide (NFG) utilizes categories similar to the NWT Food
Guide, but situates them on a traditional woman’s knife known as an ulu (see Tompkins et al.
2009:106). When presented as a single image in 2001, the Government of Nunavut’s FBDG
representation (Figure 13) incorporated both “country” (or traditional) foods and store-
Figure 14. NFG Food Ulus (Nunavut HSS 2011:2-3)
40
bought foods in the same ulu. As of October 26, 2011, however, the NFG presents two
separate ulus (Figure 14) which distinguish country foods from store-bought ones (Nunavut
Department HSS 2011; see also Davison et al. 2011 and Rogers 2011). Items that typify
Nunavut diets and resources are included on the NFG, with emphasis placed on the
traditional. The country foods page emphasizes the ideology that country foods are
inherently healthy choices and traditional ways of eating are balanced. Consumption of any
of these country foods is a healthy decision. The supplementary NFG Educator’s Handbook
additionally states the concept of “country food” does not necessarily fit within the 4 food
group concept used in the healthy store-bought foods ulu. The concern the Nunavut
government raises is the fact that only certain parts of animals are purchased at the store.
Balance is attained from selecting from the 4 food groups (Nunavut HSS 2012:3-4).
Nationhood, Nation-Building, and National Identity: The Circles of South Africa
South Africa utilizes seven differently-sized circles (Figure 15) to “symbolically
reflect the proportional volume that the group should contribute to the total daily diet”
(Vorster et al. 2013:S7). Each circle represents a food group and correlated recommendations
for healthy eating. The South African model represents what should be eaten, as opposed to
what should be avoided (Vorster n.d.), in order to maintain good health.22
South Africa’s FBDG image is designed to be comprehensible and relevant to its
multicultural population. It includes traditional foods shared across generations, genders,
races, and ethnic groups, as well as affordable choices which could be made by poorer
individuals (Vorster n.d.). Where graphics are not necessarily discernible, the names are
22 Vorster’s point emphasizes the fact that other models tend to zero in on what should be limited or not eaten
at all. Sugar, sweetened foods and drinks, and salt are not embedded in the image. This graphic may be
compared to that of Australia and France, for example.
41
written in English, the lingua franca of the country (Canagarajah 2006) and one of its eleven
official languages. Additionally, South Africa’s FBDG is intended for those over the age of
five (Vorster et al. 2013:S7).23
Figure 15. South African Food Group Circles (Department of Health 2012)
Food groups are not written on the FBDG image itself, but are otherwise indicated
in the accompanying FBDG: starchy foods; vegetables and fruits; dry beans, peas, lentils and
soya; chicken, fish, meat and eggs; milk, maas and yoghurt; fat and oil; water (Vorster et al.
2013). The central group is comprised of various grains and starches, as exemplified by
ethnically-diverse staples as corn meal, rice, potatoes, and bread. The largest of the seven
circles, these starchy foods make up a relatively large part of the suggested South African
23 I consider age requirements an important metric to consider when taking into account the number of
FBDGs a nation develops to reach its population. South Africa has a separate set of pediatric guidelines, in
addition to the national framework for those aged 5+ years. Most nations’ guidelines are applicable to those
aged 2+ years, while others have a third set of guidelines specific to adolescents.
42
diet. Fresh fruits and vegetables are pictured in the next largest circle; the total consumed
volume should be somewhat equal to that of starches, as the circle is slightly smaller. By
contrast, legumes, animal proteins, and dairy products, are to be consumed in relatively
smaller quantities, as suggested by their smaller circle sizes. Socioeconomic realities and
matters of convenience also appear in this graphic, as different foods are packaged in boxes,
bags, cans, plastic jugs, and cartons. Not everyone can afford fresh ingredients. The smallest
category is made up of fats and oils. Water and tea are situated at the top and in relatively
larger proportion to other groups; the pitcher’s placement in the FBDG image as the top-
most graphic suggests the importance of regular water intake above all other guidelines.
Multiple stakeholders have contributed to the advancement of South Africa’s food
group circles. The FBDG and its accompanying image were developed by the South African
Department of Health, the Association for Dietetics in South Africa, the Potchefstroom
campus of Northwest University, and The Nutrition Society of South Africa. Distribution of
the FBDG’s launch was sponsored by UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund.
Companies including Nestlé continue to promote the dietary guidelines on their website
(http://www.nestle.co.za/nhw/nutritionbasics/sa-food-based-dietary-guidline).
Influenced by the Other?
I present in this section alternative, non-government-endorsed models produced by
NGOs. These images are examined in addition to national, government-endorsed images.
The Circle of Australia and Nutrition Australia’s Healthy Eating Pyramid
The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating’s (Figure 16) circular format is divided into
5 slices. Each slice represents one of the five core food groups (Smith et al. 1999:189):
43
Figure 16. Australian Guide to Healthy Eating
(Australian Government 2013)
Figure 17. Nutrition Australia's Healthy Eating
Pyramid (Nutrition Australia 2015)
vegetables and legumes/beans; fruit; milk, yoghurt, cheese and/or alternatives; lean meats
and poultry, fish, eggs, tofu, nuts and seeds, and legumes/beans; and grain/cereal foods.
Emphasis is placed on reduced fat foods and consumption of wholegrain and/or high cereal
fiber varieties. Varying slice sizes indicate different proportions of consumption despite the
lack of specifically recommended amounts. Each slice exemplifies a variety of food choices,
with otherwise ambiguous items labeled with text. The graphic includes an unspecified
amount of water consumption, as well as images of foods that should be consumed regularly
in small amounts. Lastly, the guide places emphasis on the conception of what it means to
eat healthy, as indicated by the font color change of the word “Healthy” in the title itself.
Australia’s national FBDG image was developed following the 2013 release of the
Australian Dietary Guidelines. It is available from the Australian government’s “Eat for Health”
44
website. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Department
of Health and Ageing jointly published the document.
However, the first pyramid in Australia came from the independent NGO Nutrition
Australia (originally the Australian Nutrition Foundation), which based its model on the
1970s Swedish pyramid (Nutrition Australia n.d.). Since its initial release in 1982, the group
continued to develop its graphic through five iterations. This included a shift from the
Healthy Eating Pyramid to the Healthy Living Pyramid following the release of the 2003
Australian Dietary Guidelines, and a return to the Healthy Eating Pyramid (Figure 17).
The Healthy Eating Pyramid sub-divides its predecessor’s three-dimensional pyramid
into four levels. The new pyramid does not include qualitative recommendations for
consumption. It also separates “Grains” from the “Fruit” and “Vegetables & Legumes”
food groups.24 Situated at the base behind the pyramid is a triangle; within each outlined
triangle are recommendations emphasizing herbs and spices, and water, in one’s diet.
Restrictions on salt and added sugars are clearly labeled in a separate box. The italicized
recommendation to enjoy dietary variation and daily activity underlines the pyramid.
A discrepancy arises between the two Australian FBDGs, in terms of attention paid
to grains. The largest wedge of the government-sponsored Australian Guide to Healthy
Eating places visual emphasis on grain and cereal food consumption. On the other hand,
fruits, vegetables, and legumes form a foundational base in Nutrition Australia’s Healthy
Eating Pyramid, with grains and cereal foods sandwiched as a thin layer.
24 The Healthy Living Pyramid grouped foods into one of three categories: “Eat in Small Amounts,” “Eat
Moderately,” and “Eat Most.” Grains, fruit, and vegetables & legumes belonged to the “Eat Most” category.
45
The Staircase of France and Souccar and Houlbert’s Pyramide Alimentaire
Figure 18. France’s Escalier (Staircase) for Adults (PNNS 2011c)
As illustrated on the French food staircase (Figure 18; see van Dooren and Kramer
2012:10-11), the first “step” of the government’s dietary recommendations instructs
consumers to eat from the “meats, eggs and fish” category once or twice per day.
Subsequent step recommendations suggest consumption from the “milk products” category
three times per day, “starches” at every meal according to one’s appetite, and at least five
“fruits and vegetables” per day. Each step explicitly suggests more or less generic foods
which typify each category (e.g., a can of sardines for “meats, eggs and fish,” or a sizeable
slice of brie or camembert for the “dairy products” group). The féculents (starch) group
includes a variety of starches which includes common staples of different ethnic traditions
one might find in France, and the fruits & legumes include frozen and canned products
46
alongside fresh produce. A magnifying glass at the bottom-right of the graphic emphasizes
the recommendation to limit consumption of sugar, fats, and salt.
Non-food-based recommendations also appear on the FBDG representation. At the
top of the staircase is a faucet with flowing water and the recommendation to drink water at-
will. Three individuals walking up the stairs carry with them the encircled instruction to
“Move at least 30 minutes every day!” They symbolize physical activity, demonstrating what
is being instructed. Finally, the phrase to the left of these walkers translates eating well and
moving as key to protecting the consumer’s health. Responsibility is transferred to the
individual in the case of this FBDG illustration to take care of his/her well-being.
Begun in 2001, le Programme National Nutrition Santé (the French National Nutrition
and Health Program, PNNS) “deals with nutrition as a determining factor in health”
(Ministère Chargé de la Santé 2012:5). Its most recent articulation coincides with the French
Ministry of Health’s Obesity Plan (http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/PO_UK_
INDD.pdf). PNNS is one of the lead organizations responsible for its production; it is also
one of the largest logos included at the base of the staircase. Other partners include le
Ministère de la Santé et des Solidarités (the Ministry of Health and Solidarity), l’Assurance Maladie
(Health Insurance), and l’Institut National de Prévention et d’Éducation (the National Institute for
Prevention and Health Education, INPES).
An interactive website, www.mangerbouger.fr, maintains the most up-to-date
nutrition information and dietary recommendations, in addition to cooking tips, grocery
guides, and exercise suggestions. The current illustrated national food guide, though, can be
found at the websites of INPES and the Ministry of Health and Solidarity. The French food
staircase also complements Le Guide Alimentaire pour Tous (‘The Food Guide for All’). This
corresponds with the 9 steps of everyday consumer guidelines, i.e., the bulleted, condensed
47
form (Figure 6) of the 130-page nutritional FBDG current as of 2002 (www.inpes.sante.fr/
CFESBases/catalogue/pdf/581.pdf).
Despite the longevity of PNNS in France, science journalist Thierry Souccar and
dietician-nutritionist Angélique Houlbert write that the PNNS has not halted the progress of
consumers’ bad food habits. Souccar and Houlbert suggest each 5-year iteration of the
National Nutrition and Health Program has been re-launched with the same goals,
leadership, and results. They further argue that national food programs do not represent a
nutritional ideal, despite the call upon governmental organizations to develop dietary
recommendations (Souccar and Houlbert 2015:11). Instead, Souccar and Houlbert claim
these resultant FBDGs offer abusive simplifications and surprising advice based on a
reliance on outdated knowledge, inequivalent metrics (e.g., one whole fruit being equal to
one glass of fruit juice), recommendations influenced by an agricultural era rooted in
objective scientific data, and recommendations linked or strongly influenced by agro-food
industries which tends to diminish any sense of objectivity (Souccar and Houlbert 2015:12).
Souccar and Houlbert present their Pyramide Alimentaire (Food Pyramid [Figure 19])25
as reflective of a more nutritionally sound set of dietary recommendations. The foundational
base is comprised of 1.5-2 liters of liquids per day. Tiers 1-4 emphasize daily consumption of
fruits and vegetables, starches, oils and fats, and dairy products. Tiers 5-7 suggest weekly
consumption of seafood, eggs, and proteins, with “occasionally-consumable” foods situated
at the top. The authors also integrated vegetarian and vegan food habits into the Pyramide
Alimentaire: tiers 4-7 are foods of animal origin and are not obligatory, as indicated by the
starting recommendation of zero for each of these food groups.
25 The Pyramide Alimentaire can be found in Souccar and Houlbert’s book La Meilleure Façon de Manger (The Best
Way to Eat. It is also published on the independent, non-governmental website www.lanutrition.fr.
48
Figure 19. Souccar and Houlbert's Pyramide Alimentaire (Food Pyramid [LaNutrition.fr 2015])
Souccar and Houlbert further suggest in the upper-left corner the consumption of
“recommended foods”: aromatics and/or spices at each meal, restricting the amount and
type of chocolate, ingesting a daily multivitamin, and also taking a vitamin D supplement
depending on altitude (see La Nutrition.fr 2015).
Discrepancies exist between the governmental and non-governmental FBDGs of
France. Portion sizes generally differ between the two. The Pyramide Alimentaire offers the
flexibility to exclude the consumption of certain food groups, including grains and starches.
Souccar and Houlbert’s wide variation in starch consumption starkly contrasts with the
national recommendation of daily intake with each meal. Interestingly, the baguette—a
strong symbol of French culinary and cultural identity—appears in near-center focus in the
Escalier, but is grouped in the occasionally-consumable category at the top of the Pyramide.
49
The MyPlate of the United States of America and Harvard University’s Healthy Eating Plate
Figure 20. The United States MyPlate (USDA
2011)
Figure 21. Harvard University's Healthy Eating Plate
(Harvard School of Public Health 2011)
The MyPlate icon (Figure 20) was built upon the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
The image sought to simplify previous dietary recommendations and create a standardized
set of base recommendations which could then be later personalized. The core component
image of the current FBDG in the United States divides a circle into four colored sections.
Each quadrant represents a different food group: fruits, grains, protein, and vegetables.
While this may seem similar to other FBDGs which use a “total diet” circle (e.g., Australia
and Sweden), the addition of the fork to the left of the circle transforms it to a plate sitting
on a placemat (Frenk n.d.b.). This arrangement suggests an emphasis on a “balanced” meal
(Layman 2014:128) and “real” and efficient eating. Michelle Obama praised the plate design
when she first unveiled it in 2011: “when it comes to eating, what’s more useful than a plate?
[…] This is a quick, simple reminder for all of us to be more mindful of the foods that we’re
eating” (Sweet 2011). A second, smaller circle labeled as “dairy” appears in the upper-right
corner of the graphic. This is presumably a reference to a glass of milk, as opposed to a
50
placeholder for water. The dairy label replaced what had been formerly known as “Milk” in
the 2005 MyPyramid (Figure 4), which had replaced “Milk, Yogurt & Cheese Group” in the
1992 FGP (Figure 3).
The MyPlate retains the same color scheme as its immediate predecessor to color
code each food group. There is also a distinctive lack of visual cues that exemplify what
constitutes a food group. Instead, relative proportion sizes convey mealtime composition, as
opposed to overall daily food and intake. Furthermore, no reference is made to healthy
activity behaviors, though this is perhaps because the MyPlate coincides with the First Lady’s
“Let’s Move” anti-childhood-obesity campaign.26
The FBDG upon which the illustration is based was published and endorsed by the
USDA and HHS. However, neither acronym nor their respective logos appear on the icon.
Instead, consumers are directed to the website ChooseMyPlate.gov, where the USDA logo
and full name are prominently displayed on the website header. Visitors are presented with
an interactive experience that personalizes dietary recommendations based on age, sex, and
activity level. Explanations of the MyPlate and the component food groups provide
quantitative and qualitative data that are not otherwise conveyed in the FBDG illustration.
While its simplicity can be commended, nutritionists have criticized the model as an
opportunity lost to actually influence changes toward healthier diets (Willett and Ludwig
2011; see Chiuve and Willett 2007 regarding the MyPyramid). Additional criticism has been
placed on American food guides as bending to the influence of outside interests, including
but not limited to various sectors of the food industry (Nestle 2013; Willett and Ludwig
2011). Though it has never been declared, skepticism over industrial influence on American
FBDGs has grown since at least the early 1990s when Marion Nestle first chronicled the
26 The Let’s Move campaign is co-sponsored by the White House, HHS, USDA, the Department of Education,
and the Department of the Interior.
51
development of the 1992 Food Guide Pyramid (see Nestle 2013). In her account, it was clear
meat and dairy producers had a hand in stalling the release of the original pyramid and
ultimately influenced its final design: this pivotal moment brought about concerns of the
political nature of FBDGs and its effect on the objective science that was supposed to
ground dietary guidance in the United States. It remains evident more than two decades later
that the USDA faces a conflict of interest between promoting agricultural products and
advising the public about making health food choices (Nestle 1993, 2013:54).
Interestingly, the “protein” category of today’s MyPlate replaces its predecessor’s
“meat & beans” label. This focus pulls attention away from the United States’ previous
emphasis on carbohydrates as derived from grains, which had formerly served as the
foundation of the American diet; macronutrients coming from dairy and vegetables garner
further attention in this model (Layman 2014:128). Lumping foods into a “protein” category
(as opposed to a “meat”) can be seen as a move to include vegetarians and other non-meat
eaters, but it could also be construed as an attempt to distance the guidelines from negative
connotations of the meat industry, without getting rid of it altogether.
More visually vocal, the dairy industry is also government-endorsed and
institutionalized in FBDGs of the United States (Wiley 2010). Dairy consumption persists as
a key dietary recommendation though consumption has decreased over time (Stewart et al.
2013). This is despite calls for its repeal from the icon and guidelines altogether given the
lack of evidence for its necessity (e.g., Willett and Ludwig 2011:1564). Though the MyPlate is
designed to be individualized, the “Dairy” segment does not appear to consider those who
are lactose intolerant. The same may be said, too, of those with gluten allergies or who
practice a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. The perceived lack of choice is interesting given the
directive to go to the ChooseMyPlate.gov website.
52
Harvard University’s School of Public Health has developed a Healthy Eating Plate
(Figure 21) to respond to the disconnect between scientific research and what is presented
on the MyPyramid. Of interest here is the pictorial replacement of the glass of milk with a
glass of water, both of which share the blue color-coding. The recommendation to limit
milk/dairy consumption is also provided in text. Otherwise, dairy recommendations are
ignored altogether. Color codes for the other food groups are consistent with the MyPlate,
except for “Whole Grains” and “Healthy Protein.” This is perhaps to emphasize differences
in Harvard’s approach to dietary guidance versus the United States government. The Healthy
Eating Plate also more clearly articulates recent advice to consume larger quantities of
vegetables. Finally, a figure in red encourages physical activity.
Figure 22. The African Heritage Diet Pyramid
(OPET 2011)
Figure 23. The Asian Diet Pyramid (OPET 2000)
53
Figure 24. La Pirámide de La Dieta Latinoamericana
(Latin American Diet Pyramid [OPET 2009a])
Figure 25. The Mediterranean Diet Pyramid (OPET
2009b)
The pyramids produced by the Oldways Preservation and Exchange Trust (OPET
[Figures 22-25]) highlight a clear lack of ethnic diversity and alternative dietary patterns that
are not present in either the national illustrated guide or its website. This is especially
exemplified by OPET’s representation of culturally-specific and regionally available foods
such as yams, sake, flan, and olives. It is clear when viewing these images side-by-side
(Collier and Collier 1986:181) that some foods and eating behaviors are “shared” across
ethnic communities. This is evidenced by similar photos exemplifying specific food groups,
as well as perceived similarities in terms of pyramid composition and hierarchical
organization of food groups. Individuals in each image are also more phenotypically
representative of the populations that might refer to these heritage pyramids. Linguistic
diversity is also portrayed through the use of both English and Spanish text in the case of
the Latin American pyramid. It is difficult to include the United States’ array of population
54
diversity in a single image. The MyPlate’s simplified, generic approach could be viewed as
inclusive by not including any such meaningful symbols as those chosen by OPET. Doing so
could be otherwise viewed as exclusionary to those who do not understand their reference.
In this chapter, I have microanalyzed seven national, government-sponsored FBDG
pictorial representations. I paid particular attention to such attributes as the format used to
organize food groups, the selection and placement of these groups, the types of food used to
exemplify these groups, and the meaning specific images as symbols convey in terms of
dietary guidance. I limited comparisons to those shared between or among FBDGs of the
same country. In this process, I have recognized trends shared between different groups of
pictorial representations. These findings are my focus in the following chapter, which I
ground in anthropological theory.
55
Chapter 6: Discussion
Each country has developed its own ways of deciding and presenting what it means
to eat and live healthy. Differences in pictorial representations among countries reveal a
range of variation that translates to varying conceptions of national identity, whereas in-
country variation suggests negotiations of power. In the first part of this discussion, I
highlight trends among the FBDG representations I reviewed. I then turn to my
interpretation of the symbols used to construct FBDG images, I now draw upon “esoteric
knowledge about [dietary recommendations], deriving insights from [governments, scientists,
and food journalists, as well as theorists], looking at the whole symbolic system in structural
terms, and drawing on western metatheories of symbolism, to construct more deep and
global interpretations” (Keesing and Haug 2012:412). I approach an understanding the
political economy of FBDG images, whereby the specific selection, presence, and/or lack of
symbols illustrates the negotiations and maintenance of power (or politics) among those who
influence their very creation (i.e., food industries, consumers, etc.).
Variation among and between Pictorial Representations of FBDGs
Recent research on FBDG formats has suggested that overall shape does not
necessarily lead to more effective or efficient means of conveying dietary guidance (Hess et
al. 2012). It is apparent upon review of the seven images I microanalyzed, though, that
certain messages have a higher degree of salience. Ultimately, shape does matter to an extent.
56
Upright, traditional pyramid or triangular shapes are used to arrange food
hierarchically and advocates the dietary concept of moderation (Oberritter et al. 2013:24).
This is especially the case for the alternative models I reviewed. Pyramids are typically read
top down, beginning with a recommendation of restriction, i.e., to limit the consumption of
certain oils, salt, and sugar. At the wider base, recommendations suggest increased
consumption of that particular food group. The hierarchy in this model places the most
important foods toward the bottom. In contrast, the inverted pyramid, spinning top images
of Japan and Venezuela reverse this approach. The widest band is read first, which I
interpret as a recommendation of encouraging consumption. At the tip of these formats are
two food groups which do not necessarily signal as restrictions, but more so as necessities
for a well-balanced diet. Movement cannot occur without their inclusion. This corroborates
both guides’ emphasis on physical activity. Here, the hierarchy places important foods first.
Circle-based shapes tend to more accurately convey the dietary concept of
proportionality, considering ideal contributions of specific food groups to one’s total diet
(Oberritter et al. 2013:24). Principal recommendations tend to reveal themselves in one of
two ways. The more common signal is the area of space taken up by the largest segment or
slice of the image. The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating, for example, shows that grains
and starches should be consumed in slightly larger amounts than vegetables. This contrasts
with Nutrition Australia’s recommendation to consume large amounts of vegetables and a
greatly reduced amount of grains and starches. The MyPlate more accurately displays
recommendations to consume more vegetables, but its position catty corner to the “Grains”
group tends to skew them as more equal than they actually are. The discrepancy is much
more obvious when this is compared to Harvard’s Healthy Eating Plate, which emphasizes
vegetable consumption by placing it side-by-side with the “Whole Grains” group and
57
elongating the amount of space it takes up on the plate. The South African guide also
conveys both moderation and proportion through its use of differently-sized circles and
side-by-side placement to one another. It further articulates a hierarchy of foods, placing
water consumption at the top. This suggests water is a primary recommendation. The
second signal of an important recommendation within the circle format is the direction
toward its center. The First Nations, Inuit, and Métis guide, for example, places traditional
outdoor activities as central to dietary guidance. Beyond the images I microanalyzed, the
German Nutrition Circle places liquids in the center of its FBDG image.
Variety, the third dietary concept (Fly and Gallahue 2002:193), is expressed in all of
the FBDGs images I reviewed. This is exemplified through the combined use of multiple
shapes, images, and/or colors. Variations in terms of both foods and formats have led to
differing conceptions of what comprises healthy dietary practice.
A Symbolic Anthropologist Take
In this thesis, FBDG images are ritual symbols that can be analyzed within the
context of healthy behaviors such as dieting and exercising. Healthy eating and daily physical
activity share many attributes with ritual. Food-based dietary guidelines, and the images and
text used to represent them, are the “gestures, words, and objects” of Turner’s ritual (Turner
1973:1100) and are all symbols that aim to motivate citizens of a given country toward group
behavior in a shared state of consciousness (i.e., eating and living healthy).
All FBDG pictorial representations are dominant, composite images composed of
instrumental, constituent or component images that can stand for something else. Turner’s
distinction between dominant and instrumental symbols is an important one, for it informs
how I have microanalyzed FBDG images. Pictorial representations of FBDGs are dominant
58
symbols because they maintain relatively high degrees of “constancy and consistency
throughout the total symbolic system” (Turner 1967:31). Composite FBDG illustrations still
represent models of healthy dietary practice, regardless of how such component parts as
colors, images, and shapes are arranged or presented. These instrumental symbols (i.e., the
component parts) require study of the entire system in order to be understood. I have paid
specific attention to the positional relationship of each FBDG image’s component parts
(instrumental symbols), as they combine to create composite, dominant symbols.
An example of a chicken illustrates the distinction between dominant and
instrumental symbols. A picture of a chicken represents a chicken. When considered among
depictions of a cow, turkey leg, or fish, they may be taken together to represent “meat.”
Consumers translate these symbols in the context of dietary guidance as material goods that
provide protein. The inclusion of these symbols and the category of protein indicate the
recommendation that eating these items or eating from this food group is important to good
health. These symbols’ relationship to other foods changes meaning depending on where
they are positioned. Situating proteins below another group in a traditional pyramid structure
conveys greater consumption due to its hierarchical arrangement. When proteins are
represented by a smaller slice of a circle, they are not as central as other groups to an
individual’s food intake. How composite images are placed and component FBDG
representations are illustrated creates relationships which translate to different
recommendations for what to consume in order to eat a healthy diet. It is important to
recognize, too, these symbols are prone to misunderstanding and misuse due to the multiple
ecologies and contexts which inform individuals’ understandings of these symbols and
recommendations.
59
My Turnerian model parallels Sherry Ortner’s discussion of symbols (1973), in which
she defines symbols as either summarizing or elaborating. Pictorial representations of dietary
guidance fulfill both categories, as these dominant symbols summarize research and dietary
recommendations and ultimately stand for the system of healthy eating. These symbols
further elaborate orientations to and strategies for healthy eating and politics and become
“root metaphors” (Ortner 1973:1344) and define how to be successful (i.e., follow the
prescriptions) within the culture (Ortner’s “key scenario” [1973:1342]).
It is important to recognize that FBDG images are not simply collections of visual
objects representing abstract or cerebral ideas (Turner 1973:1102). Rather, they are symbols
of the kind of authority bestowed upon rituals and meanings that are concerned with
“crucial values of the community” (Turner 1968:2). FBDG pictorial representations are
responses to such non-communicable diseases as the worldwide obesity epidemic and must
therefore be adhered to lest citizens want to maintain global patterns of ill health (Jeppesen et
al. 2011:10; Montagnese et al. 2015:913; Philippi 2005:79-80; see Turner 1973:1103 regarding
symbols as occupying physical and theoretical space).
To view healthy eating as a cultural system is to explore the interconnected
relationship among the symbol (the FBDG illustration), society, and the individual (Pals
2006:273). My concern focuses on how symbols “shape the ways social actors see, feel, and
think about the world, or in other words, how symbols operate as vehicles of ‘culture’”
(Ortner 1984:129-131; see also Deflem 1991). This means our discussion recognizes FBDG
illustrations as reflective of nations’ sensibilities toward good health, as well as symbols
which construct culture by way of what and how individuals eat. Pictorial representations of
FBDGs are the systems of symbols I analyze, their meaning of which emerges as symbols
operate in public space (Geertz 1973b:12). FBDG images are comprised of constituent
60
symbols that together represent a distinct “mood,” i.e., of what it means to be healthy.
Concurrently, the reality of increasing levels of NCD susceptibility motivates behavioral,
corrective change toward healthy eating and daily exercise. Individuals in that case are told
how they should behave in order to be healthy citizens.27 When following the
recommendations becomes normalized for the individual, it becomes reality once again
(Rennie 2009:341).
The separate images of FBDG representations create a series of relationships to be
interpreted and ultimately negotiated by the individual: one makes the choice to eat or not
eat what is presented. This decision may be grounded in multiple realities—political,
economic, etc.—but it is one also mediated by the rules which constitute cultural norms.
Any given country’s FBDG reflects the ideal, constructed dietary pattern presented as a
natural given. The consumer’s decision to follow the recommendations conveys a sense of
belonging. To be sure, FBDG illustrations as symbols are “involved in the development of
class or group identity, in the context of political/economic struggles of one sort of another”
(Ortner 1984:142), which in this case includes business, profit, and national identity: what
does it mean to be—or to eat—[insert national origin here]? Norms are determined by and
in relation to the state and various stakeholders. The specific selection of FBDG images
signifies varying degrees of relations to the state and the power to decide what is a core
component of the group.
The Political Economy of FBDG Pictorial Representations
The political economy of FBDG pictorial representations emphasizes the
construction of the images themselves (both composite and component) and considers each
27 Another way to view this is to consider the difference between considering FBDGs as synonymous to being
healthy (model of) and adhering to FBDGs in order to be healthy (model for).
61
as outcomes of a struggle for and negotiation of power. FBDG imagery thus embodies emic
and etic sensibilities (Mintz 1985). In my thesis, the etic meanings of pictorial representations
are analogous to their positional meaning (Turner 1973:1103).
Individuals ultimately have the agency to adhere to the FBDGs, or parts of it, but the
decision to make healthy choices according to national guidelines is restricted by the food
groups and recommendations presented on the pictorial representation, as well as the very
people making these recommendations. While more recent FBDG development has
included greater consumer input, the final illustrations are typically out of consumers’
control and are instead in the hands of the government. FBDG development is grounded in
scientific research and aims to address national health concerns such as obesity and other
non-communicative diseases (Montagnese et al. 2015). However, this is not necessarily the
case in practice.
In their earliest days, the food programs of Sweden and the United States paid
attention to eating cost-effectively, while also conveying how to make “healthier” choices.
My analysis of today’s Australian, French, and American government-endorsed and non-
government-endorsed FBDG images indicates discrepancies among the different
representations. It seems that alternative, non-government-endorsed models tend to more
closely align with science-based, nutritional data. This interpretation is furthered by the
historic trend of national FBDGs being influenced by multiple actors and influences, as in
the case of South Africa (Vorster et al. 2013:810) and Canada (Hyslop 2014). Additionally,
Victoria O’Key and Siobhan Hugh-Jones (2010) argue that healthy dietary guidance is
wrought with issues of mistrust, due to such issues as the sheer number of message and
contradictions between messages.
62
FBDGs continue to symbolically and materially reproduce the production of
culturally-dependent commodities. For example, there is a greater tendency to preference
and prominently display rice on FBDG image if a given country’s cultural heritage includes
rice consumption. By including rice on the pictorial representation, the need is created to
continue the production and consumption of rice. Whether these are grains, meats, dairy, or
sugars, the development of pictorial representations is rife with political and economic
negotiations to make content as many parties as possible. Carey Noland and M. Isabel
Meirelles affirm: “The strongest lobbies come from cattle ranchers, egg producers, sugar
producers, and the dairy industry. The result […] has left the U.S. with a food pyramid that
is the basis of a nutritional education system so politically influenced it is ineffective” (Nestle
2003). It is also important to consider the appropriateness for those with lactose intolerance
to follow the guidelines (Davis et al. 2001:884; Wiley 2010:35). While FBDGs suggest dairy
alternatives for those who cannot consume lactase, I interpret the photo of “Dairy” in the
current MyPlate to be best understood as milk. Perhaps there is truth that industrial
motivation for contributing to FBDG development is to maximize profit (Layman
2014:126).
Inequality exists within and outside of pictorial representations of FBDGs. These
images constructed of normative behaviors marginalize those who are unable to adhere to
them for dietary, financial, political, and/or social reasons. Through the constant
reproduction of FBDG illustrations which favor business, relatively little to no attention is
given to these marginalized populations; as a result, disparities rise in terms of health and
well-being. FBDGs thus reproduce profit and power relations between nation and citizen,
placing consumers in a position of symbolic violence, where they are subjected to the nation.
This raises concerns about the construction of national identity and who influences the
63
production of goods and resources. Returning to the example of milk in the United States,
what could it mean for consumers who must make the choice to forego milk due to their
lactose intolerance? This is an exaggerated example, but one that nevertheless puts into
question one’s very American-ness.
Moreover, the FBDGs speak to larger systemic issues of economics and
institutionalized inequality, raising concerns of whether individuals can even afford—
financially, politically, etc.—to adhere to the guidelines geared toward the norm. A poignant
vignette presented by John James, Julia Brown, and Margaret Douglas highlights how one
inner city mother had to continue resorting to prostitution in order to feed her children the
healthy diet that was heavily promoted to her. Indeed, the promotion of a healthy diet
“inevitably involves extra expense” (James et al. 1991:58).
Another reality expressed through FBDG images is the convenience of certain goods
over others. Prepackaged foods in frozen, canned, and boxed form appear in the Australian,
Canadian, French, and South African representations. The Nunavut Food Guide further
highlights the point by outright dividing natural, healthy foods from store-bought ones. The
question of what constitutes inherently food is not the principal subject matter of my thesis,
but it does illuminate the considerations of what counts as food and how food should be
counted. “Healthy” food choices are among the many that consumers must face every day.
Coupled with other forms of power (namely, tactical or organizational power [Wolf
1990:586]), exploring the political economy of FBDG illustrations means beginning to unveil
the conditions by which individuals maintain or change their eating habits in accordance
with the dietary recommendations illustrated by the food guides (Mintz 1995:11).
Government-sponsored FBDG images symbolize national identity and state
hegemony. Individuals become healthy and productive citizens of the state by virtue of
64
adhering to national guidelines. Endorsements are indicated by the inclusion of department
or ministry logos, as in the case of France, or through icons like Canada’s caribou or Japan’s
spinning top. Colors are also indicators of government sponsorship and national identity. It
does not seem at all coincidental that each food group of Venezuela’s trompo is color-coded
to suggest a diversification of one’s diet. I contend these color choices are important to
consider beyond symbolizing dietary diversity (Colmenares n.d.), as they all appear on the
Venezuelan flag and/or the National Coat of Arms. The Venezuelan color palette can be
viewed as a stamp of government involvement and endorsement. At the very least, these
cues make dietary guidance relevant and culturally appealing to consumers, an attribute that
is important for successful FBDG implementation (Neuhauser et al. 2007).
In building a national identity, the norms of the dominant group tend to ignore such
populations as lower income individuals, those with various dietary restrictions for religious
or health reasons, and ethnic groups. This brings to mind the dualistic conflict of
nationalism and citizenship. While governments in Canada and Venezuela have produced
FBDG images for their indigenous populations, it is worth considering what this means for
conceptions of otherness. Where is the line drawn between being “indigenous” and being
“Venezuelan”? Or what does it mean to be an indigenous individual living in contemporary
Venezuela? How “Canadian” are individuals who also identify as First Nations, Inuit, Métis,
Nunavut, or from/of the Northwest Territories? While territorially-engaged graphics
certainly make dietary guidance more culturally relevant and meaningful, it does draw a clear
line between “us” (national) and “them” (indigenous), our needs and theirs. Indigenous
consumers are situated in a space of otherness similar to what Comaroff and Comaroff
regard as the national-ethnic dualism discussed earlier, i.e., the distinction between being a
citizen versus a subject of the state. Recognizing FBDG images’—and by extension
65
governments’—neoliberal ability to grant individuals autonomy to making their own food
choices, while concurrently not claiming responsibility for the aftermath of not adhering to
the presented recommendations. It is this negotiation, in the context of citizenship and
decision-making, which undergirds my analysis of consuming and constructing material and
symbolic culture, to wit, pictorial representations of food-based dietary guidelines.
This discussion considers the role of the neoliberal state (Comaroff and Comaroff
2000), which tends to put the onus of good health and citizenship on the individual and not
the government itself. The burden, however, is upon FBDG developers to establish visually
sound recommendations; if individuals fully adhere to the guidelines and still fall ill, the
blame is not (at least entirely) on them but on the government for producing the FBDG.
Meanwhile, systemic inequalities pose serious challenges to the potential of full acceptance
and adherence. The situation then becomes even more problematic when considering the
degree to which individuals can take on the identity of national citizen if they cannot follow
(or choose not to) follow the guidelines, or are instead relegated to the title of ethnic subject
not of the norm. This brings us now to consider whether consumers are dominated citizens
caught in a web of symbolic violence constructed by the dominant (i.e., those responsible for
FBDG images).
Such distinctions return us to consider FBDGs and their representations as forms of
cultural capital, whereby power is given to those who have the capacity to develop and
construct culture. Furthermore, individuals who are able to follow national
recommendations accrue cultural capital and are symbolically recognized as much more of a
citizen abiding by these rules than those who do not and/or unable to follow them. In so
doing, the state maintains its hegemonic construction of cultural and physical health and
well-being. Consuming from the NFG’s “country foods” ulu clearly aligns with tradition and
66
ethnic heritage, but selecting foods from the “store-bought foods” ulu means eating more of
what everyone else eats. This could inherently mean that preferencing the latter ulu means
becoming more physiologically Canadian. The dichotomy is further presented by OPET’s
heritage pyramids: does choosing from the heritage pyramid strengthen one’s ethnic or racial
identity in relation to one’s national identity?
In considering the place of food industry sectors and outside influences in
developing FBDGs and accompanying images, one question in particular is worth
considering: are there too many cooks in the kitchen (see Davis et al. 2001:884)? It is well
documented from sources throughout the world that various stakeholders influence FBDG
designs and their accompanying pictorial representations (e.g., Oberritter et al. 2013:24). As
others have suggested, this results from conflicts of interest (e.g., between different
governmental departments which work together or promoters and industrial influences
[Keller and Lang 2007:872] and institutional commitments to promote commodities [Willett
and Ludwig 2011:1564). The food industry has a heavy hand in reproducing cultures of
consumption which favor them.
The proliferation of political influence and power negotiation in today’s FBDGs are
evident in the examples of Australia, France, South Africa, the United States, and New
Zealand where the food industry and other stakeholders have a good level of awareness
and/or usage (Keller and Lang 2007:870). In recognizing various co-sponsors and special
interest groups, cooperation and coordination of resources and input are necessary.
Governments should rely on objective scientific data when designing and implementing their
FBDGs and accompanying pictorial representations, but are prone to outside influences.
67
A Juxtaposition: The Lack of an FBDG Image in Brazil
I end my analysis of visual FBDGs with the case of Brazil (see Barton 2014). At the
time of Painter et al.’s review (2002), Brazil had no food-based dietary guidelines or pictorial
representation to be evaluated. Its first recommendations were published in 2006 and revised
in 2014. Today, Brazil’s government-sponsored Guia Alimentar para a População Brasileira
(2014) has no single image to illustrate its FBDG. It instead distills its recommendations into
ten “sensible, unambiguous food-based guidelines” (Nestle 2014), much like the nine steps
of France’s reference table. The 46-page guide includes photos of freshly prepared meals
corresponding with traditional recipes. Among Brazil’s recommendations are the preparation
of meals and consumption of fresh, traditional foods; moderation of oil, fat, sugar, and salt
intake; limited consumption of ready-to-consume products; eating regular meals and with
company when possible; and most importantly being critical of the commercial
advertisement of food products.
The Brazilian case offers a unique juxtaposition to the pictorial representations of
other FBDGs. In Brazil, composed meals become symbols of regional and national identity,
where nutrients disappear from the forefront of food choice (akin to the Japanese spinning
food top guide) and decision-making and industrial preferences are practically non-existent.
The use of many photos of meals clearly emphasizes and celebrates geographic and culinary
diversity. Nevertheless, it is incongruent with an analysis of stand-alone images meant to
summarize and elaborate dietary recommendations. The lack of an FBDG illustration also
means a paradoxical lack of a symbol for and of hegemonic Brazilian identity and “healthy”
behavior. But perhaps this is a good thing.
68
Chapter 7: Limitations and Future Research
My review of pictorial representations of food-based dietary guidelines is limited by
the relatively number of FBDG images I was able to analyze. As many countries around the
world have developed FBDGs, there are many more images I could have explored. Regularly
updating available data will further refine our understanding of FBDG symbology and the
role of FBDG images in illustrating good “health.” My sample was also comprised of images
and countries previously reviewed in other studies. A random sample of available FBDGs
and their representations should elucidate statistically significant conclusions.
There are many possible directions for further research. First, it is important to
better understand how individuals interact with and respond to FBDGs, i.e., to derive the
exegetical and operational meanings of their component and composite symbols.
Ethnographic interviews with consumers would certainly aid in collecting pertinent data to
derive meaning and understand symbolic analyses of power, control, and the cultural
assumptions that organize food. It would also be helpful to engage with individuals and ask
them to demonstrate their conception of dietary guidance, by drawing their own pictorial
representations of the messages and/or daily food intake behaviors they experience in their
lives. By comparing these images, and drawing upon the consensus of Collier and Collier
(1986) and other visual anthropologists, common trends should emerge from that corpus of
data. I would expect to find trends in terms of structural shapes perhaps influenced by other
FBDGs with which individuals have already been exposed, the kinds of foods individuals
69
within a given demographic typically consume, and popular ways of grouping food.
Additionally, contrasts should also materialize in terms of the culturally-specific choices
individuals might make in designing their image and defining healthy eating for themselves.
Photo essays composed via ethnographic interviews with informants should further reveal
their decision-making power (or lack thereof), in terms of what symbols they chose to use.
It would also be important to follow up on this work, as an ongoing study, as FBDG
pictorial representations change over time to reflect sociopolitical climates, demographic
shifts, and scientific advances, all of which showcase dietary diversity and human variation
(de Garine 2010; De Irala-Estévez et al. 2000; Dibsdall et al. 2003; Frazão 1999:46). In the
United States, the 2015 guidelines are informed by a wealth of data, including the DGAC’s
2015 Scientific Report (USDA and HHS 2015). Among the report’s findings are suboptimal
American dietary patterns, and relatively few improvements in consumers’ food choices,
though the guidelines recognize the variety of factors which helps shape eating behaviors,
including but not limited to individual and biological factors; household, social, and cultural
factors; community and environmental factors; systems and sectors which influence food
availability and diet, as well as physical activity behavior. Research in any and all of these
fields would certainly aid in the development of future FBDGs.
Finally, this research has practical applications for fieldwork in other areas. As
FBDGs can influence what individuals consume, it would be of interest to consider the
“healthy” choices people must make between biology and culture. What is the place of fried
food if an individual or community has high cholesterol? If society places value on drinking
milk, but an individual is lactose intolerant, what should be made of that symbol? The
intersection of biology and culture also brings to light questions of food fusion and culinary
heritage. How could foods be made healthier while retaining their cultural meaning? Is this
70
even possible? Food technology and nutritional science may pave the way for some of the
concerns, but they return us to the question of what counts as food. And with industries
having a stake in the success of advancements in food science, what does that mean in terms
of what will be presented in future FBDG representations? As climate change forges on,
what role can FBDGs and accompanying images as archival tools? What colloquial language
or foods are forever “preserved” in published FBDGs? How different will our conceptions
of health be in the future?
71
Chapter 8: Conclusion
The study of food has made the journey from that of a biological, nutritive necessity
to a cultural, symbolic one (Fischler 1988:275). Ethnographers once cataloged food as
another cultural component alongside kinship structures and spiritual practices. Today, food
is also read as a consumed symbol of biological nourishment, embodying and signifying what
it means to be what one eats (Fischler 1988:276).
I conducted a theoretically-grounded, qualitative analysis of pictorial representations
of food-based dietary guidelines to define symbols and meaning. I surveyed contemporary
national FBDG images and selected seven illustrations from that group to demonstrate the
symbolic meaning and political economy of those representations. Composite structures,
such as the trompo, staircase, and plate carry specific meanings to those who understand
their cultural reference. It becomes clear when comparing the FBDGs worldwide that each
component image, its placement relative to one another, and the overall shape within which
these pieces interact convey inherently different dietary recommendations and approaches to
responding to various health concerns. In the most ideal of circumstances, they do so in
such a way as to influence those who view, understand, and act upon them.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is being conveyed through FBDG
images, and whose voice is speaking? Questions like these motivate the analysis of pictorial
representations of food-based dietary guidelines. The exploration of FBDG images reveals
that as a collective, these key summarizing and elaborating symbols (Ortner 1973) reflect
human variation, but fail to reach consumers who might use them. They are symbols of
72
cultural hegemony and norms as defined by the state.
I understand FBDG images as constitutive of cultural systems. Each symbol is an
image that suggests more than just dietary recommendations; it correlates to economic,
political, and sociocultural realities that can come at odds with current scientific data or even
cause conflict between these realities. Each symbol is understood differently according to its
context and the needs and experiences of its viewer. FBDG images are complex and open to
myriad interpretations that can lead to misunderstanding and misuse. Consumers as citizens
are expected to follow guidance in coordination with national policy, regardless of whether
their economic, political and/or sociocultural contexts allow them to do so.
Consumers have the agency to make choices, drawing from experiences and what
they want to believe and follow rather than simply following what is suggested (Asp 1999).
Power, as it is claim here, is transferred from those who decide what is culturally appropriate
and nutritionally sound to those who adapt, buy into, or reject such schema. FBDGs
indicate, systemic inequalities and resource access influences the ability to follow dietary
recommendations (Dibsdall et al. 2003; Riches 1997). These must therefore be concurrently
addressed and mitigated if any sustainable resolutions are to be found.
FBDGs are recognized as the basis for food-related policies and behavioral
recommendations at the national level. Food guide efficacy revolves around cultural
representation and conveyance of information. Respecting and bridging cultural identities
and good nutrition are critical messages that must be directed toward consumer education
(James 2004; Tripp-Reimer et al. 2001; Villalobos et al. 2009). Accompanying pictorial
representations reflect the understanding of national averages and beliefs about health and
well-being. While it is not to be expected a single image can (nor is meant to) represent
entire populations, the symbolic representations of FBDGs reify a standard not necessarily
73
applicable to all individuals. Ultimately, pictorial representations of food-based dietary
guidelines are viewed as not only reflecting cultural, institutionalized, and normative
standards, but more so as responsible for creating them.
Situated within national FBDGs, food is a medium for exploring conceptions of
nationhood and citizenship, socioeconomic and political conditions, and reproductions of
negotiated power relations. Additionally, and while there are common perceptions of what
“health” is, what constitutes healthy eating varies within and across cultures, the norms of
which are expressed in pictorial representations of food-based dietary guidelines. Indeed,
each country’s scientifically-grounded dietary guidelines suggest how to eat “healthy,” given
available ingredients, resources, and politics. Such realities demonstrate the value of a
culturally relative approach to both the invention and interpretation of FBDG illustrations as
symbols.
74
References
Andersson, Agneta, and Susanne Bryngelsson. (2007). Towards a Healthy Diet: From
Nutrition Recommendations to Dietary Advice. Scandinavian Journal of Food and Nutrition
51(1):31-40.
Appadurai, Arjun. (1981). Gastro-Politics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist
8(3):494-511.
--. (1988). How to Make a National Cuisine: Cookbooks in Contemporary India.
Comparative Studies in Society and History 30(1):3-24.
Asp, E. (1999). Factors Affecting Food Decisions Made by Individual Consumers. Food
Policy 24(2-3):287-294.
Atwater, W.O. (1894). Foods: Nutritive Value and Cost. Farmers’ Bulletin 23:
--. (1902). Principles of Nutrition and Nutritive Value of Food. Farmers’ Bulletin 142:5-48.
Australian Government. (2013). Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.
https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55_agthe_
large.pdf, accessed December 7, 2015.
Bach-Faig, Anna, Elliot M. Berry, Denis Lairon, Joan Reguant, Antonia Trichopoulou,
Sandro Dernini, F. Xavier Medina, Maurizio Battino, Rekia Belahsen, Gemma Miranda, and
Lluís Serra-Majem. (2011). Mediterranean Diet Pyramid Today. Science and Cultural
Updates. Public Health Nutrition 14(12A):2274-2284.
Baik, Inkyung, Myoungsook Lee, Nu-Ri Jun, Jae-Yeon Lee, and Chol Shin. (2013). A
Healthy Dietary Pattern Consisting of a Variety of Food Choices Is Inversely Associated
with the Development of Metabolic Syndrome. Nutrition Research and Practice 7(3):233-
241.
Bangstad, Sindre, Thomas H. Eriksen, John L. Comaroff, and Jean Comaroff. (2012).
‘Anthropologists Are Talking’: About Anthropology and Post-Apartheid South Africa.
Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology 77(1):115-136.
Baofu, Peter. (2012). The Future of Post-Human Culinary Art: Towards a New Theory of
Ingredients and Techniques. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
75
Barthes, Roland. (1975). Toward a Psychosociology of Contemporary Food Consumption.
In European Diet from Pre-Industrial to Modern Times. Elborg Foster and Robert Foster,
eds. Pp. 47-59. New York: Harper and Row.
Barton, Adriana. (2014). Brazil Takes an Unambiguous New Approach to Fighting Fat.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/brazil-takes-an-
unambiguous-new-approach-to-fighting-fat/article17496796/, accessed September 17, 2015.
Basso, Keith, and Henry Selby, eds. (1976). Introduction. In Meaning in Anthropology. Pp.
1-9. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Bergström, Lena. (1995). The Swedish-American Influence on Food Composition
Databases. Paper presented at the National Nutrient Databank Conference, Buffalo, June
11-13.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Richard
Nice, trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
--. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. John B. Thompson, ed. Gino Raymond and
Matthews Adamson, trans. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Boylan, S. (2015). Consumer Responses to Government Dietary Guidelines in the
Management and Prevention of Obesity. In Managing and Preventing Obesity: Behavioural
Factors and Dietary Interventions. Timothy Gill, ed. Sawston: Woodhead Publishing.
Britten, Patricia, Kristin Marcoe, Sedigheh Yamini, and Carole Davis. (2006). Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior 38:S78-S92.
Canagarajah, Suresh. (2006). Negotiating the Local in English as a Lingua France. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 26:197-218.
Chiuve, Stephanie E. and Walter C. Willett. (2007). The 2005 Food Guide Pyramid: An
Opportunity Lost? Nature Clinical Practice 4(11):610-620.
Cohen, Anthony P. (1993). Culture as Identity: An Anthropologist’s View. New Literary
History 24(1):195-209.
Collier, John, and Malcolm Collier. (1986). Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research
Method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Colmenares, Fanny. (N.d.). El Trompo de los Alimentos, la Nueva Clasificación de los
Grupos Básicos. http://www.inn.gob.ve/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=81,
accessed October 19, 2015.
Comaroff, Jean, and John L. Comaroff. (1999). Occult Economies and the Violence of
Abstraction: Notes from the South African Postcolony. American Ethnologist 26(2):279-
303.
76
--. (2003). Reflections on Liberalism, Policulturalism, and ID-ology: Citizenship and
Difference in South Africa. Social Identities 9(4):445-474.
Comaroff, Jean, and John L. Comaroff, eds. (2000). Millennial Capitalism: First Thoughts on
a Second Coming. In Millennial Capitalism and the Culture of Neoliberalism. Pp. 1-56.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Coop. (1974). Ett Provkok Blev ett Provkök. https://www.coop.se/Globala-
sidor/OmKF/Kooperativ-samverkan/Var-historia1/Tidslinjen/1930-1960/1943/Ett-
provkok-blev-ett-provkok/ [image link: https://www.coop.se/Global/KF/Tidslinjen/1930-
1960/1943/matpyramiden.jpg], accessed December 7, 2015.
Crisostomo, Sheila. (2013). Phl Food Pyramid Being Revised. http://www.philstar.com/
headlines/2013/07/07/962508/phl-food-pyramid-being-revised, accessed August 30, 2015.
Davis, Carole, and Etta Saltos. (1999). Dietary Recommendations and How They Have
Changed over Time. In America’s Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Elizabeth
Frazão, ed. Pp. 33-50. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service.
Davis, Carole, Patricia Britten, and Esther F. Myers. (2001). Past, Present, and Future of the
Food Guide Pyramid. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 101(8):881-885.
Davison, Karen M., Erika Bachmann, Clifford Holloway, and Jenna Dyck. (2011). The
Nunavut Food Guide Revision Project: An Overview of Resource Development.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281940090, accessed December 7, 2015.
de Garine, Igor. (2010). The Socio-Cultural Aspects of Nutrition. Ecology of Food and
Nutrition 1(2):143-163.
De Irala-Estévez, J., M. Groth, L. Johansson, U. Oltersdorf, R. Prättälä, and M.A. Martínez-
González. (2000). A Systematic Review of Socio-Economic Differences in Food Habits in
Europe: Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
54:706-714.
Deflem, Mathieu. (1991). Ritual, Anti-Structure, and Religion: A Discussion of Victor
Turner's Processual Symbolic Analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30(1):1-
25.
Department of Health. (2012). The Food Groups in the Food Guide.
http://www.nutritionweek.co.za/NNW2012/21foodgroups.html, accessed December 7,
2015.
deRoche, Constance P. (1987). Social Ecology as Political Economy: A Case Study in the
Anthropology of Complexity. City & Society 1(2):122-147.
77
Deshmukh-Taskar, Priya, Theresa A. Nicklas, Su-Jau Yang, and Gerald S. Berenson. (2007).
Does Food Group Consumption Vary by Differences in Socioeconomic, Demographic, and
Lifestyle Factors in Young Adults? The Bogalusa Heart Study. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association 107:223-234.
Dibsdall, L., N. Lambert, R.F. Bobbin, and L.J. Frewer. (2003). Low-Income Consumers’
Attitudes and Behaviour towards Access, Availability and Motivation to Eat Fruit and
Vegetables.Public Health Nutrition 6(2):159-168.
Dixon, Lori B., Frances J. Cronin, and Susan M. Krebs-Smith. (2001). Let the Pyramid
Guide Your Food Choices: Capturing the Total Diet Concept. The Journal of Nutrition
131:461S-472S.
Douglas, Mary. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.
London: Routledge.
--. 1972 Deciphering a Meal. Daedalus 101(1):61-81.
Downs, Shauna M., and Noreen D. Willows. (2008). Should Canadians Eat According to the
Traditional Mediterranean Diet Pyramid or Canada’s Food Guide? Applied Physiology,
Nutrition, and Metabolism 33:527-535.
Elam, Harry J., Jr. (2001). Taking It to the Streets: The Social Protest Theater of Luis Valdez
& Amiri Baraka. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Estaquio, Carla, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Valerie Deschamps, Sandrine Bertrais, Luc
Dauchet, Pilar Galan, Serge Hercberg, and Katia Castetbon. (2009). Adherence to the
French Programme National Nutrition Santé Guideline Score Is Associated with Better
Nutrient Intake and Nutritional Status. Journal of the American Dietetic Association
109:1031-1041.
European Food Information Council [EUFIC]. (2009). Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in
Europe. http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/food-based-dietary-guidelines-in-europe/,
accessed August 30, 2015.
European Food Safety Authority [EFSA] Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and
Allergies [NDA]. (2010). Scientific Opinion on Establishing Food-Based Dietary Guidelines.
EFSA Journal 8(3):1460.
Faculty of Food Sciences and Nutrition at the University of Porto [FCNAUP]. (2003). A
Nova Roda dos Alimentos. http://www.fao.org/3/a-ax433o.pdf, accessed November 8,
2015.
Fischler, Claude. (1988). Food, Self and Identity. Social Science Information 27:275-292.
Fly, Alyce D., and David L. Gallahue. (2002). Keeping the Culture with Food Guide
Pyramids. Physical Educator 59(4):193-203.
78
Fogli-Cawley, Jeanene J., Johanna T. Dwyer, Edward Saltzman, Marjorie L. McCullough,
Lisa M. Troy, and Paul F. Jacques. (2006). The 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
Adherence Index: Development and Application. The Journal of Nutrition 136:2908-2915.
Food and Agricultural Organization [FAO]. (N.d.a.). Food-Based Dietary Guidelines –
Venezuela. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-
guidelines/regions/countries/venezuela/en/, accessed October 19, 2015.
--. (N.d.b.). Food-Based Dietary Guidelines – Canada. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/
education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/canada/en/, accessed October 19,
2015.
--. (N.d.c.). Food-Based Dietary Guidelines – Republic of Korea. http://www.fao.org/
nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/republic-of-korea/en/,
accessed November 8, 2015.
--. (N.d.d.). Food-Based Dietary Guidelines – Sweden. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/
education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/sweden/en/, accessed November 8,
2015.
--. (2007). A Manual from the English-Speaking Caribbean: Developing Food-Based Dietary
Guidelines. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai800e/ai800e00.pdf, accessed August 30,
2015.
Frazão, E. (1999). America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. AIB-750.
Freeman, Janine. (2006). The New Food Guide Pyramid: What’s the Message? Diabetes
Forecast 59(2):9.
Frenk, Dean J. (N.d.a.). The Problems with the Food Guide Pyramid and MyPyramid. In
The Nutrition Source. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/mypyramid-
problems/, accessed December 7, 2015.
--. (N.d.b.). Food Pyramids and Plates: What Should You Really Eat? In The Nutrition
Source. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramid-full-story/, accessed
October 22, 2015.
Gavilan, Jodesz. (2014). What a ‘Pinggang Pinoy’ Should Look Like.
http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/62419-pinggang-pinoy-filipino-food-
guide, accessed November 8, 2015.
Ge, Keyou. (2011). The Transition of Chinese Dietary Guidelines and the Food Guide
Pagoda. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 20(3):439-446.
Geertz, Clifford. (1966a). Religion as a Cultural System. In Anthropological Approaches to
the Study of Religion. Michael Banton, ed. Pp. 1-46. London: Tavistock.
79
--. (1966b). The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man. Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists 22(4):2-8).
--. (1973a). The Cerebral Savage: On the Work of Claude Lévi-Strauss. In The Interpretation
of Cultures: Selected Essays. Pp. 345-359. New York: Basic Books.
--. (1973b). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The
Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Pp. 3-30. New York: Basic Books.
Goode, Judith G. (1989). Cultural Patterning and Group-Shared Rules in the Study of Food
Intake. In Research Methods in Nutritional Anthropology. Gretel H. Pelto, Pertti J. Pelto,
and Ellen Messer, ed. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Goodman, David, and Michael Redclift. (1992). Refashioning Nature: Food, Ecology and
Culture. London: Routledge.
Greenberg, James B., and Thomas K. Park. (1994). Political Ecology. Journal of Political
Ecology (1):1-12.
Gurion, Khaila. (2015). Pinggang Pinoy: A Meal Guide for Flipino Adults. The Philippine
Star, July 31. http://www.pressreader.com/philippines/the-philippine-
star/20150731/281986081263147/TextView, accessed November 8, 2015.
Gustafson, Timi. (2011). Farewell to the Old Food Pyramid.
http://www.timigustafson.com/2011/farewell-to-the-old-food-pyramid/, accessed August
4, 2015.
Habib, Laurence, and Line Wittek. (2007). The Portfolio as Artifact and Actor. Mind,
Culture, and Activity 14(4):266-282.
Harris, Marvin. (1985). The Abominable Pig. In Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture.
Pp. 67-87. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Harvard School of Public Health. (2011). Healthy Eating Plate & Healthy Eating Pyramid.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/, accessed December 7,
2015.
Health Canada. (2007). Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide: First Nations, Inuit and
Métis. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/fnihb-dgspni/pdf/pubs/fnim-
pnim/2007_fnim-pnim_food-guide-aliment-eng.pdf, accessed December 7, 2015.
--. (2011). Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-
an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/food-guide-aliment/view_eatwell_vue_bienmang-eng.pdf,
accessed December 7, 2015.
Helm, Janet. (2005). Climbing the New Food Pyramid: EN Lends a Hand. Environmental
Nutrition 28(6):2.
80
Hess, Rebecca, Vivianne H. M. Visschers, and Michael Siegrist. (2012). Effectiveness and
Efficiency of Different Shapes of Food Guides. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior 44(5):442-447.
Hunt, P., M. Rayner, and S. Gatenby. (1995). A National Food Guide for the UK?
Background and Development. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 8:315-322.
Hyslop, Katie. (2014). Is Canada’s Food Guide Past Its Best-Before Date?
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/10/20/Canada-Food-Guide/, accessed September 18, 2015.
James, Delores C.S. (2004). Factors Influencing Food Choices, Dietary Intake, and
Nutrition-Related Attitudes among African Americans: Application of a Culturally Sensitive
Model. Ethnicity and Health 9(4):349-367.
James, John, Julia Brown, and Margaret Douglas. (1991). Promoting Healthy Nutrition in the
Inner City: The True Cost. The Lancelot 338(8758):58.
Jeppesen, Charlotte, Peter Bjerregaard, and Kue Young. (2011). Food-Based Dietary
Guidelines in Circumpolar Regions. Circumpolar Health Supplements (8).
Johnston, Carol S. (2005). Uncle Sam’s Diet Sensation: MyPyramid – An Overview and
Commentary. Medscape General Medicine 7(3):78.
Julia, Chantal, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Mathilde Touvier, Caroline Méjean, Léopold
Fezeu, and Serge Hercberg. (2014). Application of the British Food Standards Agency
Nutrient Profiling System in a French Food Composition Database. British Journal of
Nutrition 112:1699-1705.
Keesing, Roger M., and Jordan Haug. (2012). On Not Understanding Symbols: Toward an
Anthropology of Incomprehension. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2(2):406-430.
Keller, Ingrid, and Tim Lang. (2007). Food-Based Dietary Guidelines and Implementation:
Lessons from Four Countries – Chile, Germany, New Zealand and South Africa. Public
Health Nutrition 11(8):867-874.
Kirkpatrick, Sharon I., Kevin W. Dodd, Jill Reedy, and Susan M. Krebs-Smith. (2012).
Income and Race/Ethnicity Are Associated with Adherence to Food-Based Dietary
Guidance among U.S. Adults and Children. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics 112(5):624-635.
LaNutrition.fr. (2015). La Pyramide Alimentaire de LaNutrition.fr.
http://www.lanutrition.fr/bien-dans-son-assiette/bien-manger/les-recommandations-de-
lanutrition.fr/la-pyramide-alimentaire-de-lanutrition.fr.html, accessed December 7, 2015.
Layman, Donald K. (2014). Eating Patterns, Diet Quality and Energy Balance: A Perspective
about Applications and Future Directions for the Food Industry. Physiology & Behavior
134 :126-130.
81
Leavy, Patricia. (2009). Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practices. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Lee, Myoungsook, Soo Wan Chae, Youn-Soo Cha, Mi Sook Cho, Hea Young Oh, and Mi
Kyung Kim. (2013). Development of a Korean Diet Score (KDS) and Its Application
Assessing Adherence to Korean Healthy Diet Based on the Korean Food Guide Wheels.
Nutrition Research and Practice 7(1):49-58.
Leitzmann, Claus. (2004). Ernährungspyramiden unter der Lupe. UGB-Forum 3: 140–143.
Levine, Elyse, Jodie Abbatangelo-Gray, Amy R. Mobley, Grant R. McLaughlin, and Jill
Herzog. (2012). Evaluating MyPlate: An Expanded Framework Using Traditional and
Nontraditional Metrics for Assessing Health Communication Campaigns. Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior 44(4):S2-S12.
Lichtenstein, Alice H., Helen Rasmussen, Winifred W. Yu, Susanna R. Epstein, and Robert
M. Russell. (2008). Modified MyPyramid for Older Adults. The Journal of Nutrition 138:5-
11.
Livsmedelsverket (National Food Agency [NFA]). (2015). Find Your Way to Eat Greener,
Not Too Much and Be Active. http://www.fao.org/3/a-az854e.pdf, accessed November 8,
2015.
McNamara, Paul E., Christine K. Ranney, Linda S. Kantor, and Susan M. Krebs-Smith.
(1999). The Gap between Food Intakes and the Pyramid Recommendations: Measurement
and Food System Ramifications. Food Policy 24:117-133.
Ministère Chargé de la Santé (Ministry of Health). (2012). French National Nutrition and
Health Program 2011-2015. http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/PNNS_UK_INDD_
V2.pdf, accessed November 8, 2015.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
(2005). Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top. http://peacedumpling.wpengine.netdna-
cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/japanese-food-guide-nutrition-spinning-top-
700x396.jpg, accessed December 7, 2015.
Mintz, Sidney W. (1985). Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History.
--. (1995). Food and Its Relationship to Concepts of Power. In Food and Agrarian Orders in
the World-Economy. Philip McMichael, ed. Pp. 3-13. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Mitka, Mike. (2005). Government Unveils New Food Pyramid. The Journal of the American
Medical Association 293(21):2581-2582.
Montagnese, Concetta, Lidia Santarpia, Margherita Buonifacio, Arturo Nardelli, Anna R.
Caldara, Eufermia Silvestri, Franco Contaldo, and Fabrizio Pasanisi. (2015). European Food-
Based Dietary Guidelines: A Comparison and Update. Nutrition 31: 908-915.
82
National Institute of Nutrition [INN]. (2011). El Trompo de Los Alimentos:
“Democratizando la Cultura Alimentaria y Nutricional.” http://www.fao.org/3/a-
as878s.pdf, accessed December 7, 2015.
Nestle, Marion. (1993). Food Lobbies, the Food Pyramid, and U.S. Nutrition Policy.
International Journal of Health Services 23(3):483-496.
--. (2013). Politics veresus Science: Opposing the Food Pyramid, 1991-1992. In Food
Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Revised and Expanded
Tenth Anniversary Edition. Pp. 51-66. Berkeley: University of California Press.
--. (2014). Brazil’s New Dietary Guidelines: Food-Based! http://www.foodpolitics.com/
2014/02/brazils-new-dietary-guidelines-food-based/, accessed September 17, 2015.
Neuhauser, Linda, Rebeccah Rothschild, and Fátima M. Rodríguez. (2007). MyPyramid.gov:
Assessment of Literacy, Cultural and Linguistic Factors in the USDA Food Pyramid Web
Site. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 39:219-225.
Nielsen, A., S. Korzen, and L. Holm. (2008). Inverting the Food Pyramid? Social and
Cultural Acceptability of Walter Willett's Dietary Recommendations among People with
Weight Concerns. Appetite 51:178-186.
Noland, Carey, and M. Isabel Meirelles. (2008). Visual Representation of Health
Information: A Critique of the 2005 Food Pyramid. American Communication Journal
10(8).
Northwest Territories [NWT] Environment and Natural Resources. (2011). Caribou Forever
– Our Heritage, Our Responsibility: A Barren-Ground Caribou Management Strategy for the
Northwest Territories 2011-2015. http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/default/files/strategies/
2011-2015_barren-ground_caribou_management_strategy.pdf, accessed November 18,
2015.
Northwest Territories [NWT] Health and Social Services [HSS]. (2005). NWT Food Guide.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/fnihb-dgspni/pdf/pubs/fnim-pnim/2007_
fnim-pnim_food-guide-aliment-eng.pdf, accessed December 7, 2015.
Nunavut Department of Health and Social Services [HSS]. (2001). Nunavut Food Guide.
http://circhob.circumpolarhealth.org/item/nunavut-food-guide/, accessed December 7,
2015.
--. (2011). Nunavut Food Guide. http://www.livehealthy.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/
GNU_5622_FoodGuide_Eng_WR%20low%20res.pdf, accessed December 7, 2015.
--. (2012). Nunavut Food Guide: Educator’s Handbook. http://www.livehealthy.gov.nu.ca/
sites/default/files/GN_3564_Educators_Handbook_eng-small%20res.pdf, accessed
November 16, 2015.
83
Nutrition Australia. (N.d.). A Brief History of the Pyramid.
http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/national/healthy-eating-pyramid/brief-history-pyramid,
accessed September 11, 2015.
--. (2015). Healthy Eating Pyramid. http://nutritionaustralia.org/sites/default/files/
HealthyEatingPyramid.jpg, accessed December 7, 2015.
Oba, Shino, Chisato Nagata, Kozue Nakamura, Kaori Fujii, Toshiaki Kawachi, Naoyoshi
Takatsuka, and Hiroyuki Shimizu. (2009). Diet Based on the Japanese Food Guide Spinning
Top and Subsequent Mortality among Men and Women in a General Japanese Population.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association 109:1540-1547.
Oberritter, Helmut, Klaus Schäbethal, Anne von Ruesten, and Heiner Boeing. (2013). The
DGE Nutrition Circle – Presentation and Basis of the Food-Related Recommendations
from the German Nutrition Society (DGE). Er-naehrungsUmschau International 60(2):24-
29.
O’Key, Victoria, and Siobhan Hugh-Jones. (2010). I Don’t Need Anybody to Tell Me What
I Should Be Doing’. A Discursive Analysis of Maternal Accounts of (Mis)trust of Healthy
Eating Information. Appetite 54:524-532.
Oldways Preservation and Exchange Trust [OPET]. (2000). Asian Diet Pyramid.
http://oldwayspt.org/sites/default/files/images/Asian_pyramid_flyer.jpg, accessed
December 7, 2015.
--. (2009a). Latin American Diet Pyramid. http://oldwayspt.org/sites/default/files/images/
Latino_pyramid_flyer.jpg, accessed December 7, 2015.
--. (2009b). Mediterranean Diet Pyramid. http://oldwayspt.org/sites/default/files/files/
Med_pyramid_flyer.jpg, accessed December 7, 2015.
--. (2011). African Heritage Diet Pyramid. http://oldwayspt.org/sites/default/files/images/
African_pyramid_flyer.jpg, accessed December 7, 2015.
Ortner, Sherry B. (1973). On Key Symbols. American Anthropologist 75(5):1338-1346.
--. (1984). Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and
History 26(1):126-166.
Painter, James, Jee-Hyun Rah, and Yeon-Kyung. Lee. (2002). Comparison of International
Food Guide Pictorial Representations. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 102(4):483-489.
Palacios, Cristina, and Ivonne Angleró. (2013). Puerto Rico Guidelines and Diet Quality. In
Diet Quality: An Evidence-Based Approach. Volume 2. Victor R. Preedy, Lan-Anh Hunter,
and Vinood B. Patel, eds. Pp. 213-224. New York: Springer.
Pals, Daniel L. (2006). Eight Theories of Religion. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
84
Park, Song-Yi, Suzanne P. Murphy, Lynne R. Wilkens, Jennifer F. Yamamoto, Sangita
Sharma, Jean H. Hankin, Brian E. Henderson, and Laurence N. Kolonel. (2005). Dietary
Patterns Using the Food Guide Pyramid Groups Are Associated with Sociodemographic
and Lifestyle Factors: The Multiethnic Cohort Study. The Journal of Nutrition 135(4):843-
849.
Philippi, Sonia T. (2005). Brazilian Food Pyramid. Nutrition Today 40(2):79-83.
Polis, Gary A., Wendy B. Anderson, and Robert D. Holt. (1997). Toward an Integration of
Landscape and Food Web Ecology: The Dynamics of Spatially Subsidized Food Webs.
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 28:289–316.
Programme National Nutrition Santé [PNNS]. (2011a). La Santé Vient en Mangeant et en
Bougeant ! http://www.inpes.sante.fr/CFESBases/catalogue/pdf/974.pdf, accessed
December 7, 2015.
--. (2011b). La Santé Vient en Mangeant/Vos Repères de Consommation.
http://www.inpes.sante.fr/CFESBases/catalogue/pdf/593.pdf, accessed December 7, 2015.
--. (2011c). Bien Manger, Bouger, Protège Votre Santé. http://www.inpes.sante.fr/
CFESBases/catalogue/pdf/968.pdf, accessed December 7, 2015.
Rennie, Bryan. (2009). Myths, Models, and Metaphors: Religion as Model and the
Philosophy of Science. Religion 39:340-347.
Riches, G. (1997). Hunger, Food Security and Welfare Policies: Issues and Debates in First
World Societies. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 56:63-74.
Rogers, Sarah. (2011). Nunavut Food Guide Puts Spotlight on Country Foods.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674nunavut_food_guide_puts_spotlight_
on_country_foods/, accessed November 8, 2015.
Schneeman, Barbara O. (2001a). Preparation and Use of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines:
Lessons from Thailand and the Philippines. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture 28:55-64.
--. (2001b). The Dietary Guidelines for Ameriacns: A Basis for US Nutrition Policy. Journal
of the American Dietetic Association 101(7):742-743.
--. (2003). Evolution of Dietary Guidelines. Journal of the American Dietetic Association
103(2):5-9.
Schneider, David. (1980). American Kinship: A Cultural Account. 2nd edition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Schoenberg, Nancy E. (1997). A Convergence of Health Beliefs: An “Ethnography of
Adherence” of African-American Rural Elders with Hypertension. Human Organization
56(2):174-181.
85
Sewell, William H., Jr. (2005). Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sharma, Sangita, Suzanne P. Murphy, Lynne R. Wilkens, Lucy Shen, Jean H. Hankin, Brian
Henderson, and Laurence N. Kolonel. (2003). Adherence to the Food Guide Pyramid
Recommendations among Japanese Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Whites: Results from
the Multiethnic Cohort Study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103:1195-1198.
Shaw, Anne M., Alyson J. Escobar, and Carole A. Davis. (2000). Reassessing the Food
Guide Pyramid: Decision-Making Framework. Journal of Nutrition Education 32:111-118.
Shields-Argelès. (2004). Imagining the Self and the Other: Food and Identity in France and
the United States. Food, Culture & Society 7(2):13-28.
Smallwood, Karl. (2013). Who Invented the Food Pyramid?
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/09/invented-food-pyramid/, accessed
November 18, 2015.
Smitasiri, Suttilak, and Ricardo Uauy. (2007). Beyond Recommendations: Implementing
Food-Based Dietary Guidelines for Healthier Populations. Food and Nutrition Bulletin
28:S141-151.
Smith, Alison M., Elizabeth Kellett, Yvonne Schmerlaib, and Barbara Smith. (1999).
Development of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating 1: Background and Rationale.
Australian Journal of Nutrition & Dietetics 56(4):188-193.
Souccar, Thierry, and Angélique Houlbert. (2015). La Meilleur Façon de Manger : Le Guide
de l’Alimentation Saine pour Toute la Famille. Nouvelle édition. Vergèze : Thierry Souccar
Éditions.
Sterne, Jonathan. (2006). The MP3 as Cultural Artifact. New Media & Society 8(5):825-842.
Stewart, Hayden, Diansheng Dong, and Andrea Carlson. (2013). Why Are Americans
Consuming Less Fluid Milk? A Look at Generational Differences in Intake Frequency.
USDA Economic Research Report 149.
Sweet, Lynn. (2011). Michelle Obama Hypes Icon Switch: Bye Food Pyramid, Hello Food
Plate (Transcript). http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/06/michelle_obama_hypes_
icon_swit.html, accessed September 17, 2015.
Tesar, Clive. (2007). What Price the Caribou? Northern Perspectives 31(1):1-2.
Tompkins, Joanne, Alexander McAuley, and Fiona Walton. (2009). Protecting Embers to
Light the Qulliit of Inuit Learning in Nunavut Communities. Études/Inuit/Studies 33(1-
2):95-113.
Tripp-Reimer, Toni, Eunice Choi, Skemp Kelley, and Janet C. Enslein. (2001). Cultural
Barriers to Care: Inverting the Problem. Diabetes Spectrum 14(1):13-22.
86
Turner, Victor. (1967). The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithica: Cornell
University Press.
--. (1968). The Drums of Affliction: A Study of Religious Processes among the Ndembu of
Zambia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
--. (1973). Symbols in African Ritual. Science 179(4078):1100-1105.
--. (1977). Process, System, and Symbol: A New Anthropological Analysis. Daedalus
106(3):61-80.
United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]. (1943). United States Department of
Agriculture Nutrition Chart. http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-
image.html?i=/press/press-kits/whats-cooking/images/21406-l.jpg&c=/press/press-
kits/whats-cooking/images/21406.caption.html, accessed December 7, 2015.
--. (1992). USDA Food Pyramid. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pyramid.gif, accessed
December 7, 2015.
--. (2005). MyPyramid. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MyPyramid.svg#/media/
File:MyPyramid.svg, accessed December 7, 2015.
--. (2011). MyPlate. http://www.choosemyplate.gov/MyPlate, accessed December 7, 2015.
United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] and United States Department of Health
and Human Services [HSS]. (2010). Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf, accessed August
30, 2015.
--. (2015). Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/PDFs/Scientific-Report-of-the-
2015-Dietary-Guidelines-Advisory-Committee.pdf, accessed November 13, 2015.
United States Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion [USDA
CNPP]. (1997). Are All Food Pyramids Created Equal?
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/nutritioninsights/insight2.pdf, accessed March 26,
2015.
--. (2011). A Brief History of USDA Food Guides.
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/sites/default/files/printablematerials/ABriefHistoryOfUS
DAFoodGuides.pdf, accessed August 30, 2015.
van Dooren, Corné, and Gerard Kramer. (2012). Food Patterns and Dietary
Recommendations in Spain, France and Sweden. http://www.livewellforlife.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/LiveWell_A4-Food-Patterns-Report_web.pdf, accessed
September 12, 2015.
87
Venezuela International. (2011). Food in Venezuela is Now Guaranteed.
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6352, accessed October 19, 2015.
Villalobos, M., C. Merino-Sánchez, C. Hall, J. Grieshop, M.E. Gutiérrez-Ruiz, and M.A.
Handley. (2009). Lead (II) Detection and Contamination Routes in Environmental Sources,
Cookware and Home-Prepared Foods from Zimatlán, Oaxaca, Mexico. Science of the Total
Environment 407(8):2836-2844.
Vorster, HH. (N.d.). The New South African Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in Perspective.
http://www.nutritionsociety.co.za/index.php/11-useful-information/26-the-new-south-
african-food-based-dietary-guidelines-in-perspective, accessed September 15, 2015.
Vorster, HH, JB Badham, and CS Venter. (2013). An Introduction to the Revised Food-
Based Dietary Guidelines for South Africa. In Food-Based Dietary Guidelines for South
Africa. South African Journal for Clinical Nutrition 26(3):S5-S13.
Weeks, Philip. (2012). Make Yourself Better: A Practical Guide to Restoring Your Body's
Wellbeing through Ancient Medicine. London: Singing Dragon.
Weininger, Elliott B. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu on Social Class and Symbolic Violence. In
Alternative Foundations of Class Analysis. Erik O. Wright, ed. Pp.116-166.
Welsh, Susan, Carole Davis, and Anne Shaw. (1992). A Brief History of Food Guides in the
United States. Nutrition Today 27(6): 6-11.
--. (1993). USDA’s Food Guide: Background and Development. Human Nutrition
Information Service Miscellaneous Publication 1514.
Wiley, Andrea S. (2010). Re-Imagining Milk: Cultural and Biological Perspectives. London:
Routledge
Willett, Walter C., and David S. Ludwig. (2011). The 2010 Dietary Guidelines – The Best
Recipe for Health? The New England Journal of Medicine 365(17):1563-1565.
Wolf, Eric. (1982). Europe and the People without History.
--. (1990). Facing Power: Old Insights, New Questions. American Anthropologist 92(3):586-
596.
World Health Organization [WHO]. (2015). Noncommunicable Diseases.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/en/, accessed November 11, 2015.
World Health Organization [WHO] and Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] of the
United Nations. (1996). Preparation and Use of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0243E/x0243e00.htm, accessed August 30, 2015.
88
World Health Organization [WHO] Regional Office for Europe. (2000). CINDI Dietary
Guide. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/119926/E70041.pdf,
accessed November 8, 2015.
Yoshiike, Nobuo, Fumi Hayashi, Yukari Takemi, Keiko Mizoguchi, and Fukue Seino. (2007).
A New Food Guide in Japan: The Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top. Nutrition Reviews
65(4):149-154.
89
Appendix A: Accompanying Tables of FBDG Pictorial Representation Data
Table 2. Painter et al.’s data (2002)
90
Country
Graphic
format
No. of food
groups*
(graphic
models) or
food
messages
Supportive
information
Fluid, salt, specific
micro
-nutrients
Lifestyle
Albania
Pyramid
6 groups
Quantitative
information for each
group
Advice on lower salt
intake.
Advice on varied diet,
healthy BMI and
alcohol intake
Austria
Pyramid
6 groups
Qualitative and/or
quantitative
information for each
group; not part of the
model
Drinks are 6th group
at the base of the
pyramid.
Additional tips on
weight and alcohol
Belgium
Pyramid
8 groups
Quantitative
information for each
group; part of the
model
Booklet provides
further information on
healthy eating.
Drinks are 8th group
at the base of the
pyramid.
Physical activity in
base of pyramid,
below drinks
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
None
Qualitative and
quantitative
information for the
food groups.
Advice on lower salt
intake.
Advice on varied diet,
weight (BMI),
physical activity and
alcohol
Bulgaria
Pyramid
(and
leaflet)
6 groups (+
fluids and
physical
activity)
Qualitative and
quantitative
information
for each
groups
Additional leaflets
Advice on salt and
fluids.
Advice on varied diet,
weight (BMI),
physical activity and
alcohol
Croatia
Pyramid
4 groups
Qualitative and
quantitative
information for each
group
Advice on salt.
Advice on varied diet,
weight (BMI),
physical activity,
alcohol
Czech
Republic
Pyramid
6 groups
Qualitative and
quantitative
information for each
groups
Advice on salt.
Advice on varied diet,
weight (BMI),
physical activity and
alcohol
Denmark
Compass
8 diet tips
Further documentation
gives additional
information on healthy
eating
Advice on water.
Advice on varied
diet, weight and
physical activity
Estonia
Pyramid
5 groups
Separate qualitative
and quantitative
information
Advice on varied diet,
weight and alcohol
Finland
Circle,
pyramid
and plate
6 groups in
circle and
pyramid. 3
sections in
plate (meal
only)
Background document
(continued)
Table 3. EUFIC data (2009)
91
Table 3, continued
France
Tabulated
list
7 groups
Qualitative and/or
quantitative
information for each
group in table
Drinks are 7th
group. Salt is 8th
point in the table
Advice on physical
activity
Germany
Three
dimen-
sional
pyramid
4 groups
Qualitative information
for each group; not
part of the model
Drinks constitute
one group
Greece
Pyramid
12 groups
Some qualitative and
quantitative
information given as
part of graphic
Advice on water and
salt intake
Advice on alcohol
(wine in moderation)
and physical activity
Advice on regular
meals
Hungary
House
5 groups
Qualitative and
quantitative
information given in
text separate from
graphic
Salt, water
mentioned in
supportive text
Advice on alcohol,
body weight, exercise,
food safety, labelling,
regular meals and
snacks mentioned in
supportive text
Ireland
Pyramid
(for
children)
5 groups
Adult version provides
qualitative and
quantitative
information for each
group
Number of portions
Fluid and folic acid
mentioned in
supporting text
Advice on salt intake
mentioned in
additional tips
Advice on weight,
exercis
e and alcohol
Italy
None
8 guidelines
Qualitative and
quantitative
information given for
each guideline
One guideline for
fluid and one for salt
Advice on weight and
physical activity
Latvia
Food
Guide
Pyramid
4 groups (+
water at the
bottom of the
pyramid)
Qualitative and
quantitative
information for each
group; not part of the
model
Percentages on the side
of pyramid provides
information on how
large a part of your
daily intake this food
group should
constitute
Advice on salt and
fluids
Advice on varied diet,
weight (BMI), balance
food with physical
activity and alcohol
Lithuania
Food
pyramid
Advice on salt
Advice on varied diet,
weight, physical
activity (not
quantified), and
alcohol
Netherlands
Wheel
5 groups
In separate text and on
additional web pages
Mentioned in
supporting
information
Mentioned in
supportive
information
(continued)
92
Table 3, continued
Poland
Pyramid
5 groups
10 principles of healthy
nutrition in some
formats
Water represented
outside the pyramid
in some formats
Salt included in the
10 principles
Advice on weight and
alcohol mentioned in
the 10 principles
Portugal
Circle
7 groups
Water at centre of
circle
Romania
Food
Pyramid
6 food groups
(+ fluid and
physical
activity at the
bottom of the
pyramid)
Qualitative and
quantitative
information; part of
the model
Water represented in
the pyramid
Advice on varied diet
and alcohol
Serbia
No FBDG
No FBDG
No FBDG
No FBDG
No FBDG
Slovakia
Visual to
be
discussed
in the
coming
months
(first half
2009)
No
information at
this moment,
since graphic
model is not
yet decided
upon.
12 main nutrition and
lifestyle messages
Advice on salt and
fluids
Advice on varied diet
and alcohol
Slovenia
Food
Guide
Pyramid
7 groups (+
physical
activity)
Qualitative and
quantitative
information for each
group
Advice on salt
Advice on varied diet,
weight (BMI),
physical activity and
alcohol
Spain
Pyramid
7 groups
Quantitative and some
qualitative information
for each group;
additional part of the
model
Fluid additional part
of graphic
Advice on alcohol
(wine) and physical
activity in additional
part of graphic
Sweden
Circle and
plate
7 groups in
circle and 3 on
plate (meal
only)
Information in
separate text and on
additional web pages
Fluid and salt
mentioned in
supportive text
Advice on alcohol
and physical activity
in supportive text
Switzerland
Pyramid
6 groups
Qualitative and
qualitative information
for each group; part of
separate text
Fluid 6th group at
the base of the
pyramid
Advice on physical
activity is
additional
part of graphic
Turkey
Circle
4 groups
Information in
comprehensive booklet
on healthy eating
Mentioned in
booklet
Advice on physical
activity and weight
included in booklet
UK
Circle
(plate)
5 groups
Semi-quantitative
information for each
group; part of separate
text
Qualitative and
quantitative
information available
in additional web pages
Salt mentioned in
supportive
information Fluid
and salt in a separate
8 tips-list
Advice on physical
activity, body weight
and breakfast in a
separate 8
tips-list
(continued)
93
Table 3, continued
Former
Yugoslav
Republic
of
Macedonia
No FBDG
No FBDG
No FBDG
No FBDG
No FBDG
WHO,
CINDI
Pyramid
4 groups
Green, orange and red
background colour
helps to indicate
relative importance of
each group in the
model
Salt included in
separate 12 steps to
healthy eating
Advice on weight,
physical activity and
alcohol included in
the 12 steps
* Food groups include: milk and milk products; meat, fish, eggs and alternatives; fruits and vegetables; cereals,
fats and sugary foods
94
Country/
Region
(Year)
PR
FBDG
Shape
Number
of Food
Groups
Food
Groups
Labeled?
Food Groupings
Type(s) of Data
Presented on PR of
FBDG
Additional
Notes
Australia
(2013)
Circle
7 (5
within
circle, 2
“groups”
outside
circle)
Yes
Within circle: Grain
(cereal) foods; vegetables
and legumes/beans;
fruit; milk, yoghurt,
cheese and/or
alternatives; lean meats
and poultry, fish, eggs,
tofu, nuts and seeds and
legumes/beans
Outside of circle: Oils and
higher fat/sugary foods
appear as distinct groups
Qualitative: food groups
(and otherwise
indistinguishable foods)
identified with labels;
two groups labeled with
quantity and frequency
suggestions; textual
recommendation
emphasizes variety;
circle divided in
differently-sized slices
suggests each group’s
proportion of total diet
Glass of water
with running
faucet
complements
recommendation
to drink plenty of
water
Australia
(2015)1
3-D
pyramid,
sub
-
divided
into 4
levels and
overlaid
on
triangle
8 (6 on
pyramid,
1 within
triangle, 1
boxed
and
outside of
pyramid
icon)
Yes
Pyramid, level 1 (Apex):
Healthy fats
Pyramid, level 2:
Milk, yoghurt, cheese &
alternatives; lean meat,
poultry, fish, eggs, nuts,
seeds, legumes
Pyramid, level 3: Grains
Pyramid, level 4 (Base):
Vegetables & legumes;
fruit
Within triangle (below
pyramid): Herbs & spices
Boxed: Salt & added
sugar
Qualitative: food groups
(and some generic
packaging) identified
with labels; pyramid
divided into differently-
sized slices suggests
each group’s proporti
on
of total diet
Salt & added
sugar identified as
a separate group
and appear beside
a bold, red “X”
and counsel to
limit consumption
Glass of water
appears with a
bold, green
checkmark and
recommendation
to “choose water”
Suggestions for
food variety and
daily activity
underline pyramid
Canada
(2011)
Rainbow
4
No*
[Health
Canada
2011]
Vegetables and fruit
(green); grain products
(yellow); milk and
alternatives (blue); meat
and alternatives (red)
Qualitative: foods to be
consumed in greater
proportions/quantities
appear on the far right,
longer side of the
rainbow; food groups
seem to be generally
color-coded to reflect
the color of the foods
within a given
group, as
indicated in column 5
The rainbow
appearing on the
most recent
version of
Eating
Well with Canada’s
Food Guide
is
sup
erimposed
over a field of
wheat and flowing
river.
Canada:
First
Nations,
Inuit, and
Métis
(2007)
Circle
4
No*
[Health
Canada
2007]
Vegetables and fruit
(green); grain products
(yellow); milk and
alternatives (blue); meat
and alternatives (red)
Qualitative: FBDG
image is sub-divided
into four equal groups;
some groups, however,
container fewer unique
examples than others
Photos in inner
circle depict food-
related
, outdoor
activities; color
-
coding matches
Canadian food
rainbow
(continued)
Table 4. Data from analyzed FBDG pictorial representations
95
Table 4, continued
Canada:
NWT
(2005)
Circle
4
Yes
Meat, fish, birds and
eggs (red, 2-3 servings);
fruit and vegetables
(green, 5-10 servings);
bannock, bread and
cereal (yellow, 5-12
servings); milk and milk
substitutes (blue, 2-4
servings)
Qualitative: FBDG
image is sub-divided
into four equal groups,
with fairly equal
numbers of examples i
n
each groups; rationales
for consuming each
group are also included
(for strong muscles, for
good eyes and skin and
less infection, for
energy, for strong
bones and teeth)
Quantitative: The image
is presented on one side
of a two-sided food
guide, which provides
serving size amounts
Color coding is
consistent with
both the
Eating
Well with Canada’s
Food Guide
and
Eating Well with
Canada’s Food
Guide: First
Nations, Inuit, and
Métis
Canada:
Nunavut
[store-
bought
foods]
(2011)
Ulu
(woman’s
knife)
4
Yes
Meat and alternatives
(red); milk and
alternatives (blue); grain
products (yellow);
vegetables and fruit
(green)
Qualitative: Each food
group takes up a
different proportion of
the ulu, which in turn
relates to a different
contribution of the total
diet; rationales for
consuming each
respective group are
also included (for
strong muscles, for
strong bones and teeth,
for energy, for good
eyes and skin and less
illness)
Color coding and
rationales align
with the NWT
Food Guide; a
faucet with water
droplets
next to a
glass emphasizes
recommendation
to “Make water
your main drink”;
below the ulu are
Nunavut
individuals
engaged in
outdoor (grocery
shopping,
walking) and
convivial activities
(cooking, eating)
N.B.
The NFG is
presented
alongside a
country foods
-
b
ased ulu,
whereby all
natural foods are
considered
healthy choices
(Rogers 2011);
below this ulu are
examples of
traditional food
-
related practices,
including ice
fishing and
smoking fish
(continued)
96
Table 4, continued
China
(2007)
Pagoda