Broad structure of the video essay and voiceover text

What is the takeaway?

The future will bring many problems for food, and the solution presented by tech companies is not a real solution because it does not address the real problems

Focus on first defining the problems, rather than just coming up with solutions

What is the purpose of food? Why do we eat? What does it take to be full? What do you eat when you’re at work? How often do you eat just for pleasure? Do you eat out of necessity?

   • Start with climate change – abundance all around us, we take it for granted, it could end, build up the list of problems we could be facing (what qualifies as a problem? Where do we look for solutions? What food problems can be identified today and speculate for the future?)
   • Techno-solutionism – a default way to deal with problems, starting from silicon valley, propagated around the world
   • meal replacements – a manifestation of techno-solutionism in food. what are they, what principles are associated with them, what problems do they claim to solve (cooking, time management, uncertainty, waste, access, sustainability)
   • deconstructing meal replacements – while addressing the issues identified at the beginning
   • what other alternatives do we have for the way we live today?
   • End with my own experience

INTRO

I live in the NL, in an apartment which sits 3m below sea level. I love to eat, and I’m lucky that my local supermarkets are filled to the brim with foods from all over the world. I never have to think about not being able to find the food I want, at any time of the year. Will this convenience, abundance, and the joy of year-round seasons ever end?

CLIMATE CHANGE

It might, and quite soon. By now, we should all be aware of the catastrophic effects of climate change on our planet. Food is a fragile resource. Earth overshoot day, the day of the year when we’ve used more from nature than it can replenish, moves up every year. Rising and increasingly extreme temperatures will affect not only agriculture, but also imports and exports. If food stopped coming into cities every day, those of us stuck in there would not last long. The future is grim in most aspects, but especially when it comes to food. It’s not a coincidence that most dystopian views of the future imagine a very bleak diet for most of the world’s population. (soylent green, snowpiercer)

And I am genuinely worried. I love food, and I am probably not willing to give up the convenience of constant access to delicious food. But I’m open to suggestions.

PROBLEMS

So what can we do? What are the ways in which we deal, at least in the western world, with problems? Who is in charge of defining what the problems are, and who do we turn to for solutions? For better or for worse, ideas come from many places, you just have to be open to receive them, and critical to implement them.

In the past few decades, we’ve learned to rely on technology to improve the problems we face in our daily life. And for good reason. From this came the belief that technology can make anything better. And nowhere else is this belief more prominent than in Silicon Valley, the source of most mainstream contemporary technologies we use today.

And yes, they also have food on their mind, with both problems and solution. One of the most controversial proposals to deal with these problems, and a couple other problems which I’ll get to in a while, comes from Silicon Valley. Their take on it? Give up on food, replace it with stripped-down nutrients. In this video, I want to take a closer look at this range of products, from the problems they are meant to solve, to the culture from which they developed.

For some people, eating is something they do because they have to. It doesn’t have to taste good, it just has to keep them going. Luckily for them, lots of people in Silicon Valley feel the same, and have figured out a way to make money out of it. Lots of money. Take Rob Reinhart, the founder of Soylent. (him speaking) While it is easy to mock him for his food choices, his way of dealing with what he saw as a problem is very common in Silicon Valley. It’s something called techno-solutionism, the belief that anything can be solved through technology. Why is that so bad? (Evgeni talking about it) His definition addresses the fact that techno-solutionists focus more on finding solutions, than addressing the actual problems. It’s a constant chase for solutions.

The range of problems SV is interested in fixing is a bit more focused on a specific demographic, with a specific lifestyle.

MEAL REPLACEMENTS

The products that are meant to revolutionize food for today and tomorrow are meal replacements. The concept – normal food is unsustainable, inefficient, prone to make us waste time and resources. The solution? Powdered nutrients mixed with water to produce a shake that is perfectly rationed, rational, fast. - a lot of investment from vc - a lot of media hype - scientific claims and sleek designs, marketed as hardware or software rather than food, increase distance between humans and food even more

MEAL REPLACEMENTS AS SOLUTIONS TO OTHER PROBLEMS

MR come as a solution to a very specific range of problems, designed with a very specific demographic in mind. While only marginally addressing the issues that have an impact on a larger scale, such as ‘a change in mindset in the wake of climate change disasters’ or food waste, the problems they mostly focus on are cooking, time management, nutritional intake and efficiency.

However, none of these problems are really addressed at any point, and they definitely don’t go to the root of the problem in any way. For instance, when addressing the issue of eating during work, instead of focusing on the fact that workers are pushed to constantly perform and keep their breaks at a minimum, the solution they suggest is consuming your meal at your desk, in liquid form.

   • Why is it appealing to people? - I tried it for a week - use footage I have

Why would this be appealing to anyone? These brands claim they help you get through the day with complete nutrition when you’re too busy in the morning to eat, or to take a lunch break at work. I tried to follow this diet for about a week, and see how I feel. And if you’re thinking: well, hold on, a week is not very long. Well, it was enough to push me over the edge, as I was hungry and unsatisfied all the time.

At first, I went for the classic version, as presented in their advertisements (huel guy). The classic vanilla flavour, shaken by hand, is not a good idea. If, like me, you expect the food you eat, even if in liquid form, to taste somewhat bearable, you need a lot more planning than it’s promised. As the days and meals rolled by, I started adding different combinations of fruit to the mix, in the hope of making taste better and be more filling. None of it really worked well.

   • What does it mean to feel full? 
   • Why is cooking not considered valuable time? some sort of transition to the gender issue

Some people claim that meal replacements gave them a better appreciation of food and cooking. That happens both through the sense of empowerment people get from reading the labels or creating their own concoctions with precise quantities of ingredients, as well as through deprivation of tasty food for most of the day. Some people claim they appreciate cooking more, when they only do it rarely. I suppose that makes sense, especially for those who don’t really enjoy spending time cooking in the first place.

This thought made me take a step back and have a look at the history of cooking, especially at the perceptions on cooking that we get through the way people are socialized differently depending on gender. Cooking shows have had a great impact on how people perceive cooking. In the US, Julia Child has been very influential on her American audience, who was used to eating for convenience rather than for pleasure. Her advice went towards housewifes without any help in the kitchen, trying to make cooking seem less intimidating, something which I assume resonated with many middle class women in that time. However, her cheerful portrayal of what it means to be in the kitchen also opened up space for criticism. Notably, Martha Rosler’s piece - Semiotics of the Kitchen, comes as a parody to Julia’s cheerfulness, portraying cooking as a frustrating task, embodied in the tools which allow for useless and sometimes violent moves.

   • What is the post-mom economy and how do MR fit under this umbrella
   • Case in point, these people don’t want to cook, here’s what they came up with

Cooking takes time, and for some people spending time on this task is not worth it. Even in futurist depictions of instant food preparation, the woman, or the mom, is still the one doing the work. (the jetsons). Still, we haven’t really figured out how to make instant meals that resemble real food, but Silicon Valley is sure trying. With a majority of a young, male demographic, the products and services that come out of the tech world today is a result of the issues they are facing - how to take care of themselves now that they’ve moved out of their parents’ home, and they have a huge disposable income? This has led to what has been dubbed as the ‘post-mom economy’, with a large sector of the tech products and services moving towards solving daily chores that moms used to do. (shots of various services) Cooking and cleaning is the target of these products, as well as planning a balanced diet. Gone from under mom’s protective wing, it seems like these young adults have to time or interest to plan quick, healthy meals for themselves, and would rather lay that responsibility on the shoulders of a startup.

   • Debunk claims (if I can?) and mock their branding shit

But what do they claim to do?

Replace meals with complete nutrition - unless you’re malnourished, there’s no actual need to get these quantities of nutrients for every meal. Also, the only thing getting you relatively full is the quantity. Drinking half a liter of anything with a thicker consistency is bound to make you full. Sustainable - Many meal replacement brands have in their portfolio ready to drink meals, which come in single use plastic bottles. Even if some, like Huel, started off with very minimal packaging and vowing to keep it that way, they soon realized that people were not buying their products often enough (an order comes with an obligatory 28 portion quantity), they soon went on to produce drinks in plastic bottles that only offer one portion, leading fans to question their values. (comments on instagram)

Also, taking a closer look at the origin of their various ingredients, it’s hard not to be suspicious of the places they’re buying bulk powders from, further increasing their carbon footprint and making it hard to trust them fully on their sustainability claims.

The range of problems SV is interested in fixing is a bit more focused on a specific demographic, with a specific lifestyle.