Thomas Foster’s comedic yet exquisitely insightful “How to Read Literature Like a Professor” devotes an entire chapter to the meaning of eating in writing. He points out that meals are acts of communion; the dinner table is a place of sharing and literal nurturing. Meals are symbolic, and can carry both positive and negative connotations. Foster dissects the literary luncheon because in literature, as in life, meals are a place where we are expose ourselves. Meals involve a careful power play between the eater, the host or the chef, and a cast of characters on either side. There are many activities in life that are requisite for survival, yet food is the only daily ritual to which we attach such meaning; this is the origin of food culture.

It’s impossible to talk about food culture without talking about mothers. For most people, mothers are the original source of food. Even beyond the literal, mothers provide the majority of meals from infancy into adolescence. Eating habits are a reflection of a mother’s eating habits. I didn’t know that I liked bananas until I was almost twenty, because I’d never eaten one before. My mother doesn’t like bananas, and I assumed that I was the same. It wasn’t that we never had bananas in the house, my father eats them, but I never even noticed they existed because I mirrored my mother’s eating habits, unconsciously.

Eating meals outside of the house has significantly increased in volume and percentage of total eating. Earlier this year, for the first time in U.S. history, dining out sales were greater than grocery store sales. This shift in spending speaks to modern American culture and values. I think our food culture has shifted because parenting and lifestyles have changed. It’s clear that our society has become more fast-paced. More parents, particularly mothers, are opting to work full-time, fewer couples are getting married and having children young, and increasing amounts of higher education have become a career necessity. All of these habit shifts change the way children are being brought up to eat. The bottom line is that more people are dining out more often and cooking at home less often. Which ultimately means that there is an increasing disconnect between where our food comes from and what we eat. Understanding what we eat has a lot of meanings, ranging from nutrition, to cooking style, to flavors, to cultural tradition, to history.

Food and religion are inextricably linked. As a mode of comparison, Eric Schlosser points to McDonald’s penetration of global culture by noting that its signature golden arches are more widely recognized than the Christian cross. The Last Supper is likely the most famous meal, “breaking bread” is a common expression used to denote connection through eating, Jews and Christians alike share an affinity for sacred wines and breads, Buddhists tout mindful eating, and most religious holidays center around traditional recipes. Is it any surprise that as religions have faded into the background, eating too has secularized?

Fast food itself is not the problem; in fact, fast food is the solution to a problem. It is the result of demand for a product that is efficient in every way. It is cheap, appetizing, and fast. Fast food is the solution to the problem that time, energy, and money are finite resources and many Americans are in short supply of all three. I find it difficult to condemn the fast food nation as Schlosser does, when fast food is so clearly the superior food choice for many people. Schlosser condescendingly chastises fast food consumers as ignorant recipients at the end of a complex industrial process. I doubt that consumers are such passive players with a complete lack of understanding of the fast food system. Many must understand that fast food is devoid of nutritional density and other redeeming qualities but choose fast food because they don’t have other options. Fast food is the solution to a problem for many people, and eliminating fast food doesn’t eliminate the problem. We need to find a better solution.