Mass production, application of the principles of specialization, division of labour, and standardization of parts to the manufacture of goods. Such manufacturing processes attain high rates of output at low unit cost, with lower costs expected as volume rises. Mass production methods are based on two general principles: (1) the division and specialization of human labour and (2) the use of tools, machinery, and other equipment, usually automated, in the production of standard, interchangeable parts and products. The use of modern methods of mass production has brought such improvements in the cost, quality, quantity, and variety of goods available that the largest global population in history is now sustained at the highest general standard of living.
Read More on This Topic
history of the organization of work: The coming of mass production
Mass production is the name given to the method of producing goods in large quantities at relatively low cost per unit. The mass production process itself is characterized by high volume, a highly organized flow of materials through various stages of manufacturing, careful…READ MORE
The Industrial Revolution and early developments
The principle of the division of labour and the resulting specialization of skills can be found in many human activities, and there are records of its application to manufacturing in ancient Greece. The first unmistakable examples of manufacturing operations carefully designed to reduce production costs by specialized labour and the use of machines appeared in the 18th century in England. They were signaled by five important inventions in the textile industry: (1) John Kay’sflying shuttle in 1733, which permitted the weaving of larger widths of cloth and significantly increased weaving speed; (2) Edmund Cartwright’spower loom in 1785, which increased weaving speed still further; (3) James Hargreaves’spinning jenny in 1764; (4) Richard Arkwright’swater frame in 1769; and (5) Samuel Crompton’sspinning mule in 1779. The last three inventions improved the speed and quality of thread-spinning operations. A sixth invention, the steam engine, perfected by James Watt, was the key to further rapid development. After making major improvements in steam engine design in 1765, Watt continued his development and refinement of the engine until, in 1785, he successfully used one in a cotton mill. Once human, animal, and water power could be replaced with a reliable, low-cost source of motive energy, the Industrial Revolution was clearly established, and the next 200 years would witness invention and innovation the likes of which could never have been imagined.
In 1776 Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, observed the benefits of the specialization of labour in the manufacture of pins. Although earlier observers had noted this phenomenon, Smith’s writings commanded widespread attention and helped foster an awareness of industrial production and broaden its appeal.
The next major advance was made in 1797 when Eli Whitney, inventor of the cotton gin, proposed the manufacture of flintlocks with completely interchangeable parts, in contrast to the older method under which each gun was the individual product of a highly skilled gunsmith and each part was hand-fitted.
During the same period similar ideas were being tried out in Europe. In England Marc Brunel, a French-born inventor and engineer, established a production line to manufacture blocks (pulleys) for sailing ships, using the principles of division of labour and standardized parts. Brunel’s machine tools were designed and built by Henry Maudslay, who has been called the father of the machine tool industry. Maudslay recognized the importance of precision tools that could produce identical parts; he and his student, Joseph Whitworth, also manufactured interchangeable, standardized metal bolts and nuts.
By the middle of the 19th century the general concepts of division of labour, machine-assisted manufacture, and assembly of standardized parts were well established. Large factories were in operation on both sides of the Atlantic, and some industries, such as textiles and steel, were using processes, machinery, and equipment that would be recognizable even in the late 20th century. The growth of manufacturing was accelerated by the rapid expansion of rail, barge, ship, and road transportation. The new transport companies not only enabled factories to obtain raw materials and to ship finished products over increasingly large distances, but they also created a substantial demand for the output of the new industries.
At this point in the Industrial Revolution, the methods and procedures used to organize human labour, to plan and control the flow of work, and to handle the myriad details on the shop floor were largely informal and were based on historical patterns and precedents. One man changed all of that.
Pioneers of mass production methods
In 1881, at the Midvale Steel Company in the United States, Frederick W. Taylor began studies of the organization of manufacturing operations that subsequently formed the foundation of modern production planning. After carefully studying the smallest parts of simple tasks, such as the shoveling of dry materials, Taylor was able to design methods and tools that permitted workers to produce significantly more with less physical effort. Later, by making detailed stopwatch measurements of the time required to perform each step of manufacture, Taylor brought a quantitative approach to the organization of production functions.
At the same time, Frank B. Gilbreth and his wife, Lillian M. Gilbreth, U.S. industrial engineers, began their pioneering studies of the movements by which people carry out tasks. Using the then new technology of motion pictures, the Gilbreths analyzed the design of motion patterns and work areas with a view to achieving maximum economy of effort. The “time-and-motion” studies of Taylor and the Gilbreths provided important tools for the design of contemporary manufacturing systems.
In 1916 Henri Fayol, who for many years had managed a large coal mining company in France, began publishing his ideas about the organization and supervision of work, and by 1925 he had enunciated several principles and functions of management. His idea of unity of command, which stated that an employee should receive orders from only one supervisor, helped to clarify the organizational structure of many manufacturing operations.
Much of the credit for bringing these early concepts together in a coherent form, and creating the modern, integrated, mass production operation, belongs to the U.S. industrialist Henry Ford and his colleagues at the Ford Motor Company, where in 1913 a moving-belt conveyor was used in the assembly of flywheel magnetos. With it assembly time was cut from 18 minutes per magneto to five minutes. The approach was then applied to automobile body and motor assembly. The design of these production lines was highly analytical and sought the optimum division of tasks among work stations, optimum line speed, optimum work height, and careful synchronization of simultaneous operations.
The success of Ford’s operation led to the adoption of mass production principles by industry in the United States and Europe. The methods made major contributions to the large growth in manufacturing productivity that has characterized the 20th century and produced phenomenal increases in material wealth and improvements in living standards in the industrialized countries. (For a fuller survey of the development of labour and production line manufacture, see work, history of the organization of.)
A summary of mass production concepts
The efficiencies of mass production result from the careful, systematic application of the ideas and concepts outlined above. The following summary lists the basic principles of mass production:
1. The careful division of the total production operation into specialized tasks comprising relatively simple, highly repetitive motion patterns and minimal handling or positioning of the workpiece. This permits the development of human motion patterns that are easily learned and rapidly performed with a minimum of unnecessary motion or mental readjustment.
2. The simplification and standardization of component parts to permit large production runs of parts that are readily fitted to other parts without adjustment. The imposition of other standards (e.g., dimensional tolerances, parts location, material types, stock thickness, common fasteners, packaging material) on all parts of the product further increases the economies that can be achieved.
3. The development and use of specialized machines, materials, and processes. The selection of materials and development of tools and machines for each operation minimizes the amount of human effort required, maximizes the output per unit of capital investment, reduces the number of off-standard units produced, and reduces raw material costs.
4. The systematic engineering and planning of the total production process permit the best balance between human effort and machinery, the most effective division of labour and specialization of skills, and the total integration of the production system to optimize productivity and minimize costs.
Careful, skilled industrial engineering and management are required to achieve the maximum benefits that application of these principles can provide. Planning begins with the original design of the product; raw materials and component parts must be adaptable to production and handling by mass techniques. The entire production process is planned in detail, including the flows of materials and information throughout the process. Production volume must be carefully estimated because the selection of techniques depends upon the volume to be produced and anticipated short-term changes in demand. Volume must be large enough, first, to permit the task to be divided into its sub-elements and assigned to different individuals; second, to justify the substantial capital investment often required for specialized machines and processes; and third, to permit large production runs so that human effort and capital are efficiently employed.
The need for detailed advance planning extends beyond the production system itself. The large, continuous flow of product from the factory requires equally well-planned distribution and marketing operations to bring the product to the consumer. Advertising, market research, transportation problems, licensing, and tariffs must all be considered in establishing a mass production operation. Thus, mass production planning implies a complete system plan from raw material to consumer.
In addition to lowering cost, the application of the principles of mass production has led to major improvements in uniformity and quality. The large volume, standardized design, and standardized materials and processes facilitate statistical control and inspection techniques to monitor production and control quality. This leads to assurance that quality levels are achieved without incurring the large costs that would be necessary for detailed inspection of all products.
A major problem of mass production based on continuous or assembly line processes is that the resulting system is inherently inflexible. Since maximum efficiency is desired, tools, machines, and work positions are often quite precisely adapted to details of the parts produced but not necessarily to the workers involved in the process. Changes in product design may render expensive tooling and machinery obsolete and make it difficult to reorganize the tasks of workers. One answer has been to design machinery with built-in flexibility; for relatively little extra cost, tooling can be changed to adapt the machine to accommodate design changes.
Similarly, a production line is usually designed to operate most efficiently at a specified rate. If the required production levels fall below that rate, operators and machines are being inefficiently used; and if the rate goes too high, operators must work overtime, machine maintenance cannot keep up, breakdowns occur, and the costs of production rise. Thus, it is extremely important to anticipate production demands accurately. Planning, an important function of management and engineering design, can alleviate the problems of increased demand by incorporating excess capacity in the facilities that would require the longest time to procure and install. Then, if production loads increase, it is easier to bring the entire system up to the new level. Similarly, if large fluctuations in demand cannot be avoided, flexibility to accommodate these changes economically must be planned into the system.
At any given stage of technological development, the economies obtained by increasing production volume are largest in the initial stages of growth and level off as volumes are further increased. Indeed, if volumes grow too large, unavoidable breakdowns of facilities, failures of coordination, or other strategic factors may cause costs to rise. Advances in technology or changes in other factors can shift the optimum point to higher levels. For these reasons planners may limit the maximum size of a single production facility and construct an independent facility if greater production is necessary.
The mass production of automobiles
The traditional example of mass production is the automobile industry, which has continued to refine the basic principles originally laid down by Henry Ford and other pioneers of mass production techniques. Today’s automobile is the result of a large number of mass production lines established in a multitude of manufacturing and assembly facilities throughout the world. The assembly plant from which the finished automobile emerges is only the final element of a mass production operation that, for many companies, includes plants in several different countries. Into the final assembly plant flow large subassemblies such as the automobile chassis, the engine, major body components such as doors, panels, upholstered seats, and many electronic, electrical, and hydraulic systems such as brakes, lighting systems, and sound systems. Each of these, in turn, is usually the product of a mass production line in another factory. Stamping plants specialize in producing the formed metal parts that constitute the body of the automobile. Radio assembly plants, in turn, depend upon other assembly plants for components such as transistors and integrated circuits. There are glass plants for windows, transmission plants, tire plants, and many others, each specializing in the mass production of its own product, which is, in turn, fed into the final assembly plant. The control of the flow of material into and out of final assembly plants, including the scheduling of production from feeder plants and the timing of rail and truck shipments, is among the major engineering tasks that make the total mass production system for automobiles work.
In the final assembly line one can see clearly how machinery and human effort in assembly are divided into many specialized skills. The special tooling and machinery developed to handle assembly parts and to aid operators in their tasks can also be observed. At a given point on the line a robot welder—unaided by a human operator—may weld body parts together. At another position the motor is mounted on the chassis by a large machine guided by an operator. In other places body panels and doors are assembled to the chassis, and dashboard instruments and wiring are added by hand with simple tools. Each operator learns his task in detail and uses tools specialized for that task. The total operation is paced by the speed of movement of the conveyor that carries the partially assembled automobiles. The number of operators, machine stations, and flow of materials to the conveyor have all been planned so that the conveyor can maintain an essentially constant speed with each operator and machine functioning near optimum effectiveness.
In Ford’s early lines, parts and product were precisely standardized. Only one car model was manufactured, and each unit was identical to every other unit in all aspects, including colour—black. Today’s automotive manufacturing engineers have learned to mass produce a highly customized product. The same assembly line may turn out a variety of models with many colours and options. This is achieved by continued insistence on standardization of critical elements such as the methods by which parts are held together internally. Thus, the operator who specializes in assembling doors can handle a variety of models and colours equally well. In addition, the flow of materials to the various line positions is carefully scheduled and controlled so that the specific part required for a given model, colour, or option list arrives at the line at the precise moment that the partially assembled unit requiring the part has arrived along the conveyor. The exquisitely designed production-control systems operating in the automotive and other industries make it possible for the consumer to obtain a greatly enhanced variety of product without sacrificing the cost advantages of mass production techniques.
Nonmanufacturing examples of mass production
The mass production principles of the division and specialization of labour and the use of standardized parts and processes have been applied to a wide area of productive activity. In agriculture the development of specialized machines for plowing, seeding, cultivating, and harvesting followed by factories for preparing, preserving, and packaging food products has drawn heavily on mass production principles. There are specialized manual tasks supplementing the specialized machines both in the fields and in the processing plants.
In the service industries, such as air transportation, the division and specialization of skills can be observed among ticket agents, pilots, navigators, baggage handlers, flight attendants, maintenance crews, and traffic controllers. All major engineering projects in both design and manufacture generally require a complement of engineering specialties including chemical, mechanical, and electrical engineers and further subdivisions of these professions such as semiconductor engineers, circuit designers, and so forth.
Thus, as industry becomes more complex at each level, the division of labour and specialization become necessary. At the same time, the need for coordination and communication between specialized members of the team becomes greater.
Mass production and society
Both the quantity and the variety of material goods in industrialized countries have resulted directly from the application of mass production principles. At the same time the environment and circumstances of those employed by, and associated with, the production of material goods have changed. The benefits that have arisen from the greatly improved productivity made possible by mass production techniques have been shared by employees, investors, and customers. The working environment has greatly changed, however. Similarly the complexities of management have increased substantially, and the investment requirements and risks faced by owners and investors have become much greater.
Before the introduction of mass production techniques, goods were produced by highly skilled craftsmen who often prepared their basic raw materials, carried the product through each of the stages of manufacture, and ended with the finished product. Typically, the craftsman spent several years at apprenticeship learning each aspect of his trade; often he designed and made his own tools. He was identified with his product and his craft, enjoyed a close association with his customers, and had a clear understanding of his contribution and his position in society.
In contrast, the division of labour, the specialization of narrow skills, the detailed engineering specification of how each task is to be carried out, and the assemblage of large numbers of employees in great manufacturing plants have greatly diluted the identification of employees with their productive functions and with their employers. Many surveys in the United States and in the industrialized countries of Europe have shown that workers do not fully understand and appreciate their roles and positions in society. In addition, the division and specialization of labour may lead to such narrowly defined skills and highly repetitive operations, paced by the steady progression of a machine or conveyor line, that tedium and fatigue arise to reduce the sense of satisfaction inherent in productive work.
These physical and psychological factors have been the subject of numerous studies by industrial psychologists and others. Special attention has been paid to work factors which affect the psychological motivation that is a prime determinant of employee productivity. The psychological effects of the repetitive aspects of some mass production tasks have been examined in great detail. Tasks that are precisely paced by the rhythm of machine operation or conveyor-belt movement appear to be particularly fatiguing. For this reason, efforts are made to structure each job so that the operator can vary his pace by working ahead of the conveyor for a period and then slowing down, and by interspersing work breaks with productive periods. Some individuals prefer tasks that are sufficiently repetitive and narrowly skilled that they do not require any substantial amount of mental concentration once the function is mastered. Most fatiguing are those repetitive tasks whose pace is out of the operator’s control but which also require moderate mental concentration.
With this understanding in mind, work tasks can be structured to produce a minimum of mental and physical fatigue; this planning is an important part of the design of a successful production operation.
The highly repetitive, tightly paced production operations are usually the most easily automated. Thus, as technology advances, that part of the production operation that is most fatiguing, is least satisfying, and takes minimum advantage of the mental and physical flexibility of human effort is replaced by automatic machinery. Not only is productivity improved, but the remaining functions that require human effort can provide a more satisfying experience.
There is also increasing study of the interaction of workers with the tools and machines that assist their efforts. Working together, engineers and physicians are making quantitative biomechanical studies of how the human body functions in performing physical tasks. These studies, which have led to the improved design of tools and work positions, are part of the broader field of human-factors engineering, which considers the abilities and limitations of people in productive functions and seeks out ways in which machines can be designed to provide the best allocation of function between human effort and machine assistance. These studies are especially important as automated manufacture becomes more common.
The problem of the loss of employee identification with the job has been of special concern. Progressive industrial organizations work to strengthen this identification in many ways, such as by using job rotation and educational programs to diversify employees’ experience and to acquaint them with various aspects of the manufacturing process. This can give each employee a concept of the total manufacturing task and the importance of each employee’s specific function within that task. Employee suggestion systems provide further opportunity for the individual to have a direct effect on the productive process; the employee is given other opportunities to help structure the manner in which the job is performed. Thoughtful programs of this type can substantially ameliorate the feeling of anonymity that may otherwise result. Clearly employers must be willing to compromise on the division and specialization of work tasks that technical considerations alone might suggest as desirable. Job content and employee participation must be expanded so that the employee feels significant and retains motivation and identification.
In addition to this increased attention to the structure of the job itself, increases in productivity and resulting increases in wages have reduced working hours and provided employees with opportunities and resources to develop interests outside the workplace. Forward-looking employers, aware of these needs, frequently support these activities through employees’ clubs and other means.
Mass production, with its heavy dependence upon mechanized facilities and high levels of production volume, presents great challenges for industrial leadership. The importance of advanced planning and the coordinated control of the large human and capital resources associated with mass production have been described. The day-to-day problems of monitoring the status of a major manufacturing complex are also immense. Up-to-the-minute knowledge of status is essential to effective response when difficulties such as the breakdown of a machine, the shortage of required materials or components, or the absence of important employees occur. Many aids to management have been devised for collecting data, analyzing them, and presenting alternatives for management decision. The electronic computer, with its great capability for collecting, analyzing, and comparing data, is becoming especially important as a management aid, both in the initial planning and simulation of production facilities and in computer-based production and resource-control systems. In fact, the increasing use of mainframe and personal computers as business tools is rapidly making the management of mass production operations a quantitative technology in its own right.
The need for substantial investment is another result of the application of mass production principles. Much of the increase in productivity that has been achieved by mass production is a direct result of the development and use of automatic machinery and processes to supplement human effort. This, in turn, requires the support of a sizable technical staff in advance of production and later substantial capital investment for production facilities. Increased levels of capital, which must often be committed years before production begins, and before the true market for the product can be established, greatly increase the risks that investors must assume and have markedly affected the investment climate in manufacturing industries.
As capital needs have grown, the nature of ownership and investment in industry has changed dramatically. Economies of scale favour large, high-volume operations that require capital investment levels often well beyond the means of an individual owner. This has been the prime stimulant for corporate ownership of major manufacturing firms. Furthermore, the direct managers of the manufacturing enterprise seldom possess ownership control of the enterprise. This has created a new spectrum of relationships between the owners, the managers, and the employees of large manufacturing firms. Frequently the owners are principally concerned with the profits on their investments and leave the planning and managerial operations to professional managers.
At the same time the large capital needs of growing industries place special emphasis on the ability to acquire the necessary capital resources. Thus, the financial markets become extremely important in determining the general directions in which manufacturing industry will grow. This emphasizes the importance of profit incentives to encourage private investment, which is vital to achieve the productivity advances possible in mass production operations.
Similarly, industrial nations are strongly encouraged to retain and reinvest a significant fraction of their gross national product if national industries are to grow and to compete successfully in international markets. These problems of capital formation have been especially troublesome in introducing mass production in the developing nations.
Other consequences of a mass production economy have become apparent. The increased consumption associated with low-cost production has created problems of conservation of natural resources and the disposal or reconversion of the wastes of production and of goods whose utility is ended. There are technological solutions for the resulting problems of solid wastes and air and water pollution, but the political and economic problems of how the costs will be distributed are difficult to solve.Morris TanenbaumWilliam K. Holstein
Sweet and salty, meaty and mega-sized: Introducing the Western diet
If you live in a Western culture, chances are good that your food is quite different from anything your forebears put on a dinner plate. Thanks to the industrialization of food production and procurement, citizens of Western societies (and the affluent members of developing nations) are shopping for, cooking and consuming a seemingly endless supply of relatively inexpensive, high-calorie, highly processed food.
What are the staples in this stream of plenty? Westerners are eating enormous quantities of sugar, beef, chicken, wheat and dairy products, and washing it all down with an amazing array of caffeinated and alcoholic beverages. Americans in particular consume over twice the amount of solid fats and added sugars recommended for daily intake, and they consume far fewer fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains than those who lived in earlier eras — and less than experts recommend for optimal health.
Because of its ubiquity, this particular approach to eating has been dubbed the Western Diet — or, as it's known in some circles, the Standard American Diet, with its condemnatory acronym, S.A.D. And increasingly, it's coming under fire for how it's affecting human health, community life, and the environment.
Check, please: Calculating the costs of our food choices
Although the industrialized food system eliminated historical patterns of frequent food shortages, its ultimate legacy may be a toxic food environment that's degrading the health of people and the planet. Industrialized agriculture and the government policies that encouraged the mass production of food were intended to facilitate better overall nutrition and health around the globe, but they've also encouraged excess and — ironically — poor health in many societies.
We've become particularly adept at producing huge amounts of food, and those of us in Western cultures eat a lot more of it than we used to. The result: A range of troubling health concerns sweeping America and other countries that adopt the American diet. Chief among these, as chef and TED speaker Ann Cooper observes, is the startling rise in diabetes, especially among children.
Yet, as food scholars Chris Otter and Raj Patel have pointed out, a serious paradox exists in today's world: while approximately 1.6 billion people are suffering from conditions resulting from too much food (obesity, diabetes, atherosclerosis), another billion are suffering from conditions resulting from not enough food (hunger, malnutrition, vitamin deficiency diseases).(i) For these people, food is too expensive, too scarce, or the supply too erratic because of government greed or warfare which prevents equitable distribution. Most of the "stuffed" reside in Global North, while most of the "starved" dwell in the Global South. The financial crisis of the last decade, coupled with skyrocketing oil prices, created in some countries severe food shortages that led to riots.
We must reckon with the reality of finite resources, including the water, oil, and arable land that have driven the modern agricultural revolution. Paul Roberts, in his ominously titled book The End of Food, focuses on the degradation of resources and the devastating damage that results from industrialized farming, especially from livestock operations. Because meat figures so prominently in the Western diet, our "ecological footprint" exceeds by a quarter the planet's biocapacity. Additionally, as journalist Graham Hill describes in his TEDTalk, meat production is a significant driver of climate change.
On top of these thorny environmental, political, humanitarian and health-related problems, there's also evidence that our diet may be damaging the basic social fabric of our communities. The rise of fast food, combined with other social and cultural phenomena (from the rise of more single-parent and two-income families, to the creation of cars with built-in cup holders and food trays) have led to changes in how we eat as families. And many observers see this as damaging to family life and even civil society.
How did we get here, anyway? Feeding an army
In a number of important ways, the modern-day Western diet owes its existence to World War II, which changed the way we produce, prepare, and market food. Doing their part for the war effort, North American farmers delivered record-breaking crop yields, in some measure due to their liberal use of manufactured fertilizers and pesticides (including the new miracle insect killer, DDT). After the war the farmers escalated their use of these chemicals; this, combined with increasingly sophisticated farm equipment and hybrid seed engineering, led to even greater production, much of which was subsidized by long-held government parity agreements.
During the post-war era, the farmers, government officials and agricultural scientists hoped that this increased food production would help meet the needs of a rapidly growing global population. Rockefeller Foundation scientists engineered new seeds designed to produce significantly more grain in countries all over the world, and in doing so ushered in a "Green Revolution." The Green Revolution seemed to work miracles, vastly increasing the amount of food available to people in developing countries. However, it also put a severe strain on local economies, endangered subsistence farmers and indigenous cultures, and accelerated the advance toward large, corporate-type style farming in the United States and elsewhere.
Just as World War II was a watershed era in food production, it also ushered in significant changes in food processing. Military quartermaster departments pounded, dried, stretched and shrunk food in every imaginable way in order to reduce bulk and weight to ship it overseas efficiently and in large quantities. Frozen orange juice, instant coffee and potatoes, powdered eggs and milk, ready-trimmed and packaged meats, and even the ubiquitous TV dinner all either got their start or were perfected with wartime research and technology.
After the war, manufacturers quickly adapted and began producing foods for household consumers. Advertisers and enthusiastic journalists deemed the new preservation techniques "a modern miracle in the kitchen." Marketers and manufacturers were so successful in their efforts that eventually "high quality food" became synonymous with a long shelf life and low spoilage. Subtly at first, and more dramatically later, there occurred a shift in the traditional, seasonal approach to eating in developed countries.
Drive-thru dining: Fast foods and convenience marts
At the same time that home cooking was changing, a new type of restaurant revolutionized the way that Westerners dined out. New chain restaurants like McDonald's and Carl's Jr. could accomplish what locally- and individually-owned operations had difficulty doing: providing food fast and cheap. Emphasis on economies of scale — purchasing large quantities of supplies and preparing the food in a centralized kitchen to be warmed and assembled at the chain — enabled "fast food," even as such cost- and time-saving techniques lessened the food's quality and nutritional value.
The fast food pioneers standardized a "fast food taste" that endures today: soft white buns, flat hamburger patties, milkshakes made with increasingly less milk and more added preservatives, prepared in exactly the same way at every location in the chain to appeal to the broadest customer base possible. This formula proved successful, and fast food restaurants gained an enormous following, becoming to many a beloved, permanent fixture in mainstream culture. Convenience became the watchword: convenience allowed speedy delivery, which led to speedy consumption.
By the 1960s, industrially produced American "fast food" franchises appeared around the globe. While some countries, particularly in Asia, adopted and absorbed the basic concept and menu onto their gustatory landscape, others, especially in Europe, protested it as an affront to national culture and cuisine.
A healthier way: The search for alternatives
During the last few decades, we've witnessed an emerging food "revolution" that has attempted to counter, or at least moderate, the worst aspects of the industrialization of food. Those involved in the food movement aim to demonstrate the connection between good food and sustainable agricultural practices, and to create better-tasting, higher-quality food for restaurants and consumption at home.
Since the late 1990s, scholarly attention to food matters has deepened as the academic field of food studies came into its own. Public and political scrutiny of the Western diet has been fueled by popular books by Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), Marion Nestle (Food Politics and Safe Food), and Michael Pollan (The Omnivore's Dilemma), as well as films such as Supersize Me, Food, Inc, and King Corn, which have exposed the questionable practices of the food industry and the government's willingness to accommodate food-industry demands. The list is long, and the titles themselves revealing, including: Food, Inc.: Mendel to Monsanto—The Promises and Perils of the Biotech Harvest (Peter Pringle), The End of Food (Paul Roberts), and The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite (David Kessler).
Taken together, these works draw our attention to deep problems in the global food supply, problems ranging from health and nutrition, to economics and environment, to corporate control of food production and advertising, to the peril of people and the planet. What emerges is the realization that seemingly disparate and unrelated topics (obesity, environment, flavor, family meals, hunger) are indeed interconnected.
In light of these interconnections, it makes sense that food issues figure prominently in our modern public discourse, and that many are calling for a return to more humane, more harmonious methods of growing, cooking, and eating.
In some sense, this is old news: thinkers from Thomas Jefferson to Wendell Berry have been extolling a closer connection to agriculture for centuries. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many people felt alienated by modernism and the industrialization that severed the connection between producer and consumer, an alienation that is still palpable in our relationship to mass-produced, industrial food. For some people, preparing meals from scratch for one's family, using ingredients bought at a local farmer's market, signifies self-reliance, a sense of simplicity, and a voluntary disconnect from the fast pace of our postindustrial, digital era. It can also result in less wastefulness.
Many producers and sellers of food items capitalize on and cater to this alternative vision of food. Indeed, marketers have learned that while the new food culture may not appeal to everybody, it does appeal to a sizable, influential minority. Within this target audience, however, there's considerable disagreement about what exactly constitutes the healthiest, most sustainable approach to food production and consumption: Organic? Locally grown? Vegetarian? Responsibly raised? Grow-your-own? Even this terminology is hotly contested, as food writer and TED speaker Mark Bittman demonstrates:
Other critics of the Western diet like activist and TED speaker Ron Finley have little patience for what they consider 'elitist' debates about the relative merits of locally-grown or organic goods; for them, healthy food is about social justice. They point out that many people can't even access affordable, conventionally-grown fresh fruits, vegetables and proteins at food stores or markets in their communities. Those who live in these "food deserts" must rely heavily on fast food restaurants and convenience stores, and often suffer a higher rate of diabetes, obesity and other food-related health problems as a result.
The TED speakers featured in Reworking the Western Diet tackle the topic from different angles, occasionally contradictory — but all can agree with Mark Bittman when he says, "Now here is where we all meet. The locavores, the organivores, the vegetarians, the vegans, the gourmets and those of us who are just plain interested in good food. Even though we've all come to this from different points, we all have to act on our knowledge to change the way that everyone thinks about food. We need to start acting. And this is not only an issue of social justice...but it's also one of global survival."
Let's begin with Carolyn Steel, who sets the stage by demonstrating the symbiotic relationship between food procurement and the development of cities throughout history. How should we feed an increasingly urban global population? Steel argues that the answer lies not in our modern, unsustainable food system, but in reworking communities so that food can, once again, become part of the social core of a city.
Let me pose you a question. Can farm-raised salmon be organic, when its feed has nothing to do with its natural diet, even if the feed itself is supposedly organic, and the fish themselves are packed tightly in pens, swimming in their own filth? And if that salmon's from Chile, and it's killed down there and then flown 5,000 miles, whatever, dumping how much carbon into the atmosphere? I don't know. Packed in Styrofoam, of course, before landing somewhere in the United States, and then being trucked a few hundred more miles. This may be organic in letter, but it's surely not organic in spirit.