CHAPTER TWELVE Rethinking Food and its Eaters: 6 Opening the Black Boxes 1 0 of Safety and Nutrition 2 c HEATHER PAXSON l P n o g i t n u You are what you eat. This familiar aphorism – a paraphrase of Brillat-Savarin ’ s i b 1825 challenge, ‘ Tell me what you eat; I will tell hyou what you are’ (1970: 13) – calls our attention to eating as an act of incosrporation, of rtiaking into the body elements of the surrounding world. Food siubstance is widtely understood to carry l s in it not only material and sensory prboperties – nutrients, fl uid, fats, fl avours, i properties of cooling or heat – but aulso symbolic, adssociative properties that may build up or deplete desired characteristics of an eater ’ s mind, body and character (to P take a North American example, consider red mfeat ’ s association with masculinity). o Anthropologists have often pr esumed that what ‘ food ’ is , culturally speaking, has y to do with how people perceive and comeprehend its intrinsic qualities – whether r reductively, in terms ofu material complonents such as nutrients (cf. Harris 1985), or syntagmatically within classifi catory asystems of edibility (cf. Douglas 1966) – which b qualities are then ‘ incorporated’ isnto bodies. Either way, when food makes the eater, s eating becomes a consequent ial act. After all, eating well is widely associated both m r with being well (health) and also with d oing good (ethics). o In ‘ Food as a Cultural Construction’ , however, Anna Meigs (1987) challenges us o f to rethink ‘ food ’ by looking beyond eating as an act of incorporation. We should not, oshe argues, pretsume that what food is boils down to intrinsic qualities, culturally o Bplerceived. For the Hua of Papua New Guinea, she explains, food does not materially N exist in and of itself. Instead, what food is – what qualifi es edibility, sustenance, even © taste – is to them inseparable from who tended the yam or raised the pig and what that person’ s relationship is to a potential eater. For the Hua, Meigs (1987: 104) writes: Foods are not inert objects, ‘ things ’ to be bought and sold. Rather, they possess the vitality and dynamism of living beings . . . They are alive; alive not only with their own contagious qualities (their rates of growth, textures, smells, and so forth) but also with the transmittable vitality, essence, nu of their human producers. Last but not least, foods are alive with the feelings, the emotional intents, of their producers (and to a lesser extent their preparers). TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 226688 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433 RETHINKING FOOD AND ITS EATERS 269 Taking up Meigs’ s challenge, in this chapter I want to rethink the relationship between food and eating as a straightforward one of incorporation; not only is incorporation anything but straightforward, food and eating can be otherwise conceptualized. Rather than presume an ontology of food and an agency of eating, I want to explore recent ethnographic work, my own and others’ , which pushes us to 6 view food and eating as mutually constituted within particular cultural and political 1 economic settings (cf. Mol 2008; Abbots and Lavis 2013; Guthman et al. 2014). In calling into question both the ontological stability of what ‘ food ’ is an0d the biological singularity of ‘ the eating body ’ , I highlight areas where the anth2ropology of food can benefi t from insights drawn from Science and Technology S tudies (STS), particularly in questioning the sociopolitical constitution of scienticfi c objects and knowledge, such as nutrients, pasteurization, hygiene and standarlds. After all, nutri- P n tion science and public health initiatives have colluded in naturalizing the aphorism, o ‘ We are what we eat, ’ through what Gyorgy Scrinis (2008, 2 013) calls the ideology g i of ‘ nutritionism’ and Jessica Mudry (2009) analyses as ‘ a discourse of qutantifi cation ’ n u through which people are taught that amino acids are our bodies ’ ‘ building blocks’ and that Calcium and Vitamin D ‘ build strong bohnies ’ , while calobries are necessary ‘ fuel ’ burned by metabolism to ‘ run ’ bodies. While science situdies shows us how s r ‘ nature ’ is often what science (a cultural practice) tells us it is, anthropology is well i t poised to track the movement of scientifi cl objects and knoswledges across social con- b texts, whether cross-culturally or transhistorically. i u d In this chapter, I explore how technoscientifi c means of food preservation – P pasteurization, canning, aseptic packaging – andf the nutritional tenets of biomedical o dietary advice function as ‘ bl ack boxes ’ . The term ‘ black box ’ , defi ned in the mid- twentieth century by cyberyneticians, has been adopted as a term of art by science e studies scholars to referr to instruments or techniques that turn inputs into outputs u l through sets of processes whose alogic and workings may be obscure to users b (Latour 1987). Black boxes ‘ work ’ in so far as they are held together by contingent s ‘ assemblages ’ osf institutions, rules, social hierarchies and tacit understandings. Because of tmhis, black boxers do not always travel smoothly from place to place or o from one historical moment to another. Cracks may appear under the strain of new externoalities, calling finto question what is inside. Examination of how and why blacok boxes may bte coming apart, or were put together in the fi rst place, is useful o lfor investigating the politics of food safety because it illuminates how ‘ packaged B food producNts condense ideas of quality and safety through material and semiotic connections and exist as a kind of shorthand reference to assemblages of persons, © places, and production’ (Tracy 2013: 440). Investigation of food-related black boxes illuminates why the pervasive understanding of ‘ food ’ in terms of ‘ nutrients ’ has not actually translated into a healthier eating public, in the United States (Mudry 2009) or elsewhere (Yates-Doerr 2011, 2012). Indeed, insofar as the black boxes of pasteurization and other technoscientifi c ‘ fi xes’ have been presented as authoritative indicators, even guarantors, of ‘ good ’ (safe, healthy) foods, this itself has led to unintended, sometimes deleterious, consequences, including the production and consumption of unsafe food and seemingly poor nutritional choices. TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 226699 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433 270 THE HANDBOOK OF FOOD AND ANTHROPOLOGY While drawing throughout on other scholars ’ work on food safety and nutrition, this chapter is centred on my own ethnographic research into American artisanal cheese (cf. Paxson 2013). After undergoing a relentless process of industrialization and automation throughout most of the twentieth century, cheesemaking was returned to American farms in the 1970s by a handful of ‘ back-to-the-landers’ 6 who regarded handcrafted cheese as a quintessential ‘ natural’ food, valued for its 1 symbolic opposition to the bland homogenization and over-processing of industrial foods epitomized by plastic-wrapped, orange slices of processed ‘ American Ch0eese ’ . Since 2000, the number of artisan cheesemakers in the United States ha2s grown exponentially. Moreover, more than half of the country ’ s approximately 750 cheese making artisans today work with unpasteurized (raw) milk. The vercy quality that gives food safety offi cials pause about raw-milk cheese – that itl is alive with an P n uncharacterized diversity of microbial life – makes handcrafting it a rewarding o challenge for artisan producers, and consuming it particularly desirable for epicurean g i and health-conscious eaters drawn to its complex fl avours and purpotrtedly ‘ pro- n u biotic ’ aspect (Paxson 2008). Nutritionism, after all, has led to a dominant view of food as ‘ simultaneously alimentary and therahpieutic – increasbingly a tool for intervention in the health and character ’ of bodies (Landecker i2011: 168). s r Given this context, it becomes especially important to understand how consti- i t tutionally unstable foods such as handmadle cheeses – or sthe botulism-prone home b canning that Elizabeth Dunn (2008) brilliantly analysies as refl ective of the decay- u d ing post-Soviet Georgian state – are material embodiments of ecosocial worlds P that are far from uniform, and are riddled wifth politics. By including benefi cial o microbes such as lactic acid b acteria, as well as the harmful E. coli , Listeria mono- cytogenes, C. botulinum andy the like, in o ur accounts of food politics, exploration e of m icrobiopolitics extenrds the scaling of agro-food studies into the body, into the u l gastrointestinal – and out into broadaer political ecologies and environments (Paxson b 2008). How might regulation, not to mention everyday eaters, take account of such s contingent matesriality? In addressming this questiorn, here I examine the construction and fate of a number o of black boxes embedded in contemporary foods and food supply chains having to do woith efforts to efnsure the health and safety of eaters. By no means is my aim to boe comprehensitve. Rather, I mean to offer emblematic cases concerning food o plroduction as well as consumption. I begin with cheese. B N © WHAT IS CHEESE? Cheesemaking is an ancient means of preserving milk. Cheese is a good source of protein and calcium. Cheese is dangerously full of fat and cholesterol. Cheese is an animal product. Cheese is a dairy product. Cheese is comfort food. Cheese is an ingredient. Cheese is an industrially fabricated commodity good. Cheese is an artisanally crafted luxury. Cheese is alive with a diversity of microorganisms. Cheese is delicious. Cheese causes indigestion. That these claims may simultaneously all be true calls into question what it is that we are talking about when we talk about ‘ cheese ’ . As a category of foodstuff, TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 227700 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433 RETHINKING FOOD AND ITS EATERS 271 cheese names an interplay of substance and form: cheese results from acidifying and curdling milk and removing much of the watery whey; the remaining solids, rich with the substance of protein casein (whence the German word K ä se and the English cheese ) can be formed (whence the French f romage and Italian formaggio ) into an infi nite variety of shapes, sizes and types. Many of us ‘ know ’ cheese by specifi c types: 6 Cheddar, Brie, mozzarella, etc., even if not all of us eat it. Abstention from a Brie- 1 type cheese, for example, could be motivated on a number of grounds. The edibility of such a food may be called into question by a dairy allergy or lactase impersis0tence, or by commitment to an ethical stance such as veganism, or to a medicalize2d sense of well-being, as with cholesterol-free or low-fat diets. 1 Culinary context may matter: if the cheese is sliced and served atop a hamburger, an otherwise ecdible food can be made inedible for those following Kosher diets. Moreover, chleese ’ s palatability P n may be compromised by an eater ’ s particular sensitivity to odour, texture or fl avour, o as informed by prior exposure and association. ‘ Brie ’ che ese may be both edible g i and palatable for a particular person today but not in the future; edibtility may be n u compromised by pregnancy (a discussion of cheese and pregnant eaters will be presented below), while palatability may vary frohmi one cheese tob another, or even from one day to the next with the very same wheel of cheesei. After all, a cheese ’ s s r ‘ becoming’ is never completed. Teeming with bacteria, yeasts and moulds, cheese i t continues to ripen (or, from another plerspective, decsompose) until it is eaten, b ingested, incorporated – or tossed out fully to rot. i u d Cheese ’ s inherent instability, then, its resistance to standardization – particularly P when made artisanally, without the standardifzation of ingredients and manufac- o turing process that character izes industrial production (Paxson 2013) – draws our attention to its unfolding anyd contingent c haracter and to the fact that edibility and e palatability are r elationsr . Those relations are not merely the outcome of cheese’ s u l place in various classifi catory calculauses (as Mary Douglas might suggest: either pure b or dangerous), but are instead entangled with broader social, agricultural and bio- s cultural dynamsics. The living substance of cheese continuously oozes through its discursive anmd technoscientrifi c packaging. Cheese helps us to see how the ‘ goodness ’ o of foodstuffs resists black boxing, whether it is the guarantee of safety (which I will addresos in the next sefction), or the rational promise of nutritional reductionism to maxoimize well-beting (the focus of the subsequent section). o l B N PROCESSING BLACK BOXES: THE HAZARDS © OF ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL REGULATION In the United States, cheese safety is promoted through pasteurization. Since pasteurization kills virtually all naturally occurring microorganisms in milk, in order to make cheese, pasteurized milk must be reseeded with commercially available strains of lactic acid bacteria, called ‘ starter cultures ’ , to set in motion the acidifi cation and curding that leads to cheese. Pasteurization, introduced to American cheese factories beginning in the late 1920s, enabled larger quantities of milk to be pooled from more numerous and bigger dairy farms; the cheese industry adopted TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 227711 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433 272 THE HANDBOOK OF FOOD AND ANTHROPOLOGY routine pasteurization in order to extend the shelf life of a perishable product and to expand its market reach – that is, more for economic than for strictly health and safety reasons. In the United States, public health concern over cheese made from unpasteurized milk dates to the Second World War, when an outbreak of typhoid among overseas 6 service people was traced to heat-treated (but unpasteurized) Cheddar contaminated 1 with Salmonella typhimurium . After a subsequent laboratory study found that a sixty- day ageing period for Cheddar cheese made from unpasteurized milk is suffi cie0nt to knock out Salmonella , in 1949 a mandatory ageing period for cheese ma2de from unpasteurized milk was written into the US legal Standard of Defi nition for ‘ cheese ’ . The safety regulation of cheese, essentially unchanged since 1949c, continues to rely on routine pasteurization; mandatory ageing – for a minimuml of sixty days at P n a temperature of no less than 1.7° C – is a regulatory exception to accommodate o cheese made from raw (unpasteurized) milk. The idea is that pathogenic control in g i cheese will be accomplished in one of two ways: by pasteurizing milk tot knock out n u any pathogens before cheesemaking begins – the industry standard – or through ageing, the idea here being that as cheese (such ash Ciheddar) ages,b it loses moisture and gains acidity, thus becoming increasingly inhospitable to paithogenic germs. s r As a technoscientifi c approach to food safety, pasteurization is a key symbol of i t modernity ’ s ability to dominate nature folr human ends.s In T he Pasteurization of b France , Bruno Latour (1988) argues that once Louis iPasteur revealed microbes in u d the laboratory, scientists believed their control would revolutionize social relations. P Hygienists, government offi cials and economistsf laid the groundwork for what they o believed to be ‘ pure ’ social rela tions, free of microbial interference and so amenable to rational order. By the endy of the ninetee nth century, markets and medicine were e to be modernized througrh Pasteurian hygiene. Biopolitics, then, is joined by what u l I have called microbiopolitics : sociaal regulation that is carried out through the b control of microbial life (Paxson 2008, 2013). Microbiopolitics entails creating and s popularizing catsegories of microscopic biological agents ( Penicillium , E . coli, L isteria monocytogenmes, HIV , etc.);r evaluating such agents through an anthropocentric o lens; and promulgating appropriate human behaviours and practices in view of our interrelaotionships withf microbes that enable (or derail) human infection, inoculation and odigestion. t o l For dairy scientists trained to optimize the safety and market standardization B of industriallyN made cheese, the benefi ts of pasteurization have been and continue to be obvious and incontrovertible. Drawing on Bruno Latour ’ s work, Colin Sage © argues that, ‘ pasteurization has taken on the characteristics of a “ black box ” for many scientists for which it is simply unimaginable that it would be circumvented ’ (2007: 210). Latour has called our attention to the power of ‘ black boxes’ to obscure the presumptions and operations of technoscientifi c knowledge. A black box encases ‘ a piece of machinery or a set of commands ’ deemed ‘ too complex’ to grapple with, once effi cacy has been established; ‘ In its place they draw a little box about which they need to know nothing but its input and output ’ (Latour 1987: 2 – 3). Heating milk at 72°C for 15 seconds or at 63°C for 30 minutes kills pathogens that may be present; that is what pasteurization is , say scientists. So thoroughly has this process TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 227722 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433 RETHINKING FOOD AND ITS EATERS 273 been black boxed that pasteurization is legally confi rmed in the United States by recording time/temperature treatments; it is not deemed necessary to test milk for residual microbial vitality (in order to be up to code, vat pasteurizers used by small- scale cheesemakers must be equipped with automated time/temperature recording devices; this piece of audit technology pushes the price tag for a small vat pasteurizer 6 up to around US$28,000). 1 In practice, however, the outputs of black boxes, even when they would seem to ‘ work ’ , exceed intended outcomes. In her study of China ’ s modernizing dairy in0dustry, Megan Tracy (2013) interprets ultra-high temperature (UHT) sterilization a2nd aseptic packaging, when applied to milk produced in the remote ‘ g rasslands’ re gion of Inner Mongolia, not only as a technoscientifi c means of ‘ sealing out the bacd ’ – microbes, air, light – but as doing double duty in ‘ sealing in ’ desired qualities ilncluding nutrients P n and fl avour, but also what she names the ‘ terroir ’ qualities of ‘ purity ’ associated with o the verdant grasslands on which the milk originated. In Tracy ’ s analysis, control over g i the ‘ nature ’ of food substance is as discursive as it is technoscientifi c.t Similarly in n u the United States, pasteurization of the milk used to make cheese not only ‘ seals out ’ unwanted, untrusted microbes, it also ‘ seals hini’ the symbolicb virtue of modern progress. Untreated, ‘ naturally ’ unruly ruminant milk goes intio the pasteurizer and s r comes out ‘ pasteurized ’: clean, pure and pathogen free – not only safe but also newly i t appropriate for human consumption. Witlhin their blacks boxes, pasteurization and b sterilization operate ideologically as well as microbioloigically. u d The black boxing of pasteurization in American cheesemaking does more than P create confi dence about the safety of pasteurizefd foods; it sheds doubt on the safety o of foods whose manufacture employed any alternative to pasteurization. I once toured the research lab of ay state universit y food sciences department that produces e dairy products served orn campus. Standing before a glass wall overlooking the u l automated processing plant gleamiang with high-tech equipment, the lab manager b responded to a question about raw milk ’ s edibility with what seemed like genuine s puzzlement thast anyone in her right mind would want to risk drinking the stuff. ‘ We ’ ve donem all this sciencre over the last century,’ he said. ‘ Why would you want o to take a step backwards into the past? You take antibiotics, you get better. That ’ s scienceo. ’ Refusal to acfcept this black box, on his view, amounted to a repudiation of scieonce itself. t o l But what the dairy scientist failed to recognize is that the black boxing of B pasteurizatioNn not only refl ects and reproduces faith in the progress of modern science, in this context it also fully presumes and works to legitimate an industrial © food system. For food scientists to turn milk ’ s pasteurization into a black box in the fi rst place, Sage points out, milk must fi rst be defi ned as essentially i n need of technoscientifi c purifi cation. Sage quotes a US food safety scientist as saying, ‘ There is no mystery about why raw milk is a common vehicle for salmonellosis and other enteric infections; after all, dairy milk is essentially a suspension of fecal and other microorganisms in a nutrient broth ’ (Sage 2007: 210, quoting Nestle 2003: 127). Industrial dairying practices – large-scale, automated, with technology separating farmers from the milking animals – are part of the constitutive assem- blage of pasteurization’ s black boxing. On this view, which I have characterized TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 227733 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433 274 THE HANDBOOK OF FOOD AND ANTHROPOLOGY elsewhere as a Pasteurian microbiopolitics (Paxson 2008, 2013), contamination is unavoidable, but eradicable through pasteurization. Pasteurians take the position that raw milk is by its very nature hazardous to human health. On drinking the stuff, the FDA is unequivocal: ‘ Raw milk is inherently dangerous and it should not be consumed by anyone at any time for any purpose.’ 2 As the technoscientifi c 6 backbone of the food industry ’ s industrialization, pasteurization became a potent 1 symbol of modern progress and invented ‘ raw-milk cheese ’ – like ‘ home-baked bread’ (Bobrow-Strain 2013), an unmarked category prior to widespread ind0ustri- alization of the food supply – as its devalued Other: backwards, obsolete, 2unneces- sarily risky, even foolish. To appreciate the symbolic implications of pasteurization in the Acmerican food system, it is useful to consider Elizabeth Dunn’ s (2008) analysis of lcanning in Soviet P n and postsocialist Georgia. During the Soviet era, a Ministry of Food Processing built o numerous industrial canning operations outfi tted with compr ehensive technological g i standards to rationalize trade across the Soviet Union. The Soviet indutstrialization n u of the food system, Dunn argues, ‘ worked ’ not only to feed citizens and alter their tastes and culinary practices, but also to demonstrathei the effi cacy, anbd thus existence, of the Soviet state itself. Soviet eaters presumed the safety of ifood provisioned by s r a paternalistic state, which in turn reinforced their sense that the state in fact cared i t for them. Central to Dunn ’ s argument ils an understansding that Soviet effi cacy b relied, in part, on ‘ black-boxing’ canning as an effectivei method of producing ‘ good ’ u d food. When the ‘ network of actors, objects, standards, and documents’ whose P orchestration constituted the practice of cannfing ‘ were confi ned to the factory o and hidden away from the en d users of the product ’ , consumers simply learned to trust that ‘ canned food ’ wasy safe and good , without any real understanding of how e canning occurs and whatr measures must, in fact, be taken to ensure safety (Dunn u l 2008: 247). All of this was made claear following the collapse of the Soviet system b as Georgians began canning foods at home, seeking to sustain the tastes they had s enjoyed under tshe relative economic and political certainty of Soviet rule. Notable outbreaks of mbotulism owinrg to improperly sterilized and sealed food jars revealed o that, ‘ knowledge about safe canning had not traveled along with the canned food itself oro with the taste ffor the food the state once made ’ (2008: 250). Once canning was oremoved fromt the assemblage of the state-run industrial factory, it failed to o olperate as people imagined it would. The black box did not transfer intact from B factory to homNe. Black boxes often do not travel well, either temporally or spatially, precisely because their closures are held together by beliefs, institutions and practices © that are embedded in wider social and political contexts. While in the Soviet case, canning did not transfer as a black box from industrial to domestic spaces of production, in the United States the industrial black boxing of pasteurization – which lead the FDA to treat raw-milk cheese as inherently and fundamentally different from pasteurized-milk cheese – has blinded many food safety regulators to non-industrial possibilities of safe cheese production. In 2004, I spent ten days on a sheep dairy farm in Vermont, participating in nearly all aspects of farmstead cheese production, including milking sheep (see Paxson 2013, C hapter 2 ). I would not characterize the milk produced at this dairy and TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 227744 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433 RETHINKING FOOD AND ITS EATERS 275 other cheesemaking farms I have visited as ‘ a suspension of fecal and other microorganisms in a nutrient broth.’ Artisan cheesemakers who make cheese from unpasteurized milk, often on the dairy farms that supply the milk, challenge the founding assumption of Pasteurism by arguing that faecal matter is not naturally present in milk; it only gets in if humans are less than scrupulous in their dairying 6 practices. 1 In contrast to the hyper-hygienic ethos that brought us the limitless shelf life of Velveeta, what I have called a p ost-Pasteurian approach to microbiop0olitics embraces the idea that ‘ real ’ cheese, as a fermented food, is (rightly) teem2ing with living bacteria and moulds: that ’ s what cheese i s . In moving cheesemak ing from the laboratory-like conditions of industrial factories, artisan cheesemakcers have found that the black boxes of food science can produce unintended outlputs. In Vermont, P n David and Cindy Major started the nation ’ s fi rst cheesemaking sheep dairy in the o 1980s. In their early years of cheesemaking, after encounte ring problems trying to g i develop a protective natural rind on a cheese they were ageing, the Mtajors sought n u the advice of University of Wisconsin dairy consultants, who knew only industrial production: working with milk pooled from multhipile farms, in aubtomated factories, fabricating plastic-encased blocks of cheese that would maiture, unattended, in s r refrigerated warehouses. Although the so-called natural rind on a cheese is the i t outcome of successive waves of bacteria anld fungi coloniszing its surface, the experts b suggested that the Majors dip their cheeses in an anitiseptic mould inhibitor. On u d their advice, David let off chlorine bombs in the ageing room to keep it sanitized! P Not surprisingly, the hyper-hygienic strategy dfid not help the Majors solve their o rind problem. Eventually, Da vid drew an analogy between the cheeses and his sheep pastures, which suggested tyo him: ‘ Rather than sanitize, maybe we need to cultivate e in the cave.’ David came rto perceive the cheese as a microbial ecosystem that requires u l him to cultivate and nurture a hosapitable environment for the fl ourishing of those b ‘ good ’ microbes that co-produce cheese with humans. s To be successsful, post-Pasteurian food makers do not let microbes run wild. Repeatedly min my intervierws with artisan cheesemakers, I heard that 80– 90 per o cent of cheesemaking is cleaning and sanitizing. Indeed, that is why I describe the artisanoal microbiopolfitical stance as post -Pasteurian rather than anti -Pasteurian: it takoes after Pasteurtism in acknowledging the importance of hygiene and sanitation, o lwhile moving beyond an antiseptic attitude to manage the microbial environment as B a means of cNultivating and enlisting ‘ good ’ microbes as allies that can outcompete ‘ bad ’ ones. In practice, this means monitoring and controlling the temperature © and humidity of the rooms in which cheese is made and allowed to ripen, whether through automated sensors and computerized controls, or by opening and closing a window, hanging plastic sheeting in front of a wall of cheese racks, or throwing a bucket of water on the fl oor (see also West and Domingos 2012; West 2013). In regulating cheese production to promote safety, the US Food and Drug Administration relies on a binary distinction, requiring one set of requirements for cheese – any cheese, regardless of type and method of fabrication – made from pasteurized milk, and another set of requirements for cheese – again, any cheese – made from unpasteurized milk. A number of problems follow from this. First, TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 227755 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433 276 THE HANDBOOK OF FOOD AND ANTHROPOLOGY although US food safety offi cials never set out to establish the ‘ sixty-day rule ’ as an equivalent standard to pasteurization, many producers and consumers have come to view it as such. The black boxing of pasteurization, I suggest, has had the unintended output of creating a sort of shadow box around its constitutive outside, namely, the legal alternative of ageing cheese for a minimum of sixty days. Producers 6 and consumers often approach the sixty-day rule as if it, like pasteurization, were 1 supposed to be a black box. For example, one popular book showcasing Vermont cheeses declares, ‘ Cheesemakers need to choose between making raw-milk ch0eese, which must be aged for a minimum of sixty days to destroy the bacteria2 in it, or pasteurized cheese, which requires heating the milk to destroy bacteria beforehand ’ (Ogden 2007: 11). This statement is dangerously misleading on twoc counts. First, varieties of cheese do not fall into discrete, essential categoriesl of being either P n ‘ raw-milk’ or ‘ requiring’ pasteurization – technically speaking, any cheese can be o made from either raw or pasteurized milk. Second, ageing cheeses for sixty days g i does not ‘ destroy the bacteria in it ’ in any absolute sense; it merely conttributes to a n u relatively inhospitable environment for microbes such as Salmonella , in cheeses such as Cheddar. hi b The problem with the sixty-day rule is that, microbiologicailly speaking, not all s r cheeses behave like Cheddar and not all pathogens behave like Salmonella . Because i t hard, dry, sharp Cheddar constitutes a funldamentally difsferent microbial ecology, b when it comes to pathogenic vulnerability, than soft, mioist, low-acidity bloomy rind u d cheeses such as Brie, the sixty-day ageing period does not produce the same outputs P when applied to each cheese; it does not travel afs a black box between Cheddar and o Brie. And consider Listeria m onocytogenes, a bacterium that can cause listeriosis, an infection that may manifyest as septicaem ia, meningitis, or, in pregnant women, e may result in spontaneorus abortion or stillbirth. Although rare, listeriosis has a u l 20 per cent fatality rate and accounats for roughly one-fourth of deaths attributed b to foodborne illness in the United States. Cheeses with a pH above 5.5 (meaning s low acidity) ares more likely to harbour L isteria than cheeses with higher acidity. Contradictinmg the premise orf the sixty-day rule, ageing bloomy rind cheese such as o Brie or a Camembert for sixty days turns out to increase its susceptibility to L isteria becauseo, unlike Cheddfar, as it ages its acidity actually declines (D’ Amico, Druart and Dononelly 2008). Ctatherine Donnelly, a microbiologist at the University of Vermont o wlhose lab pioneered methods of detecting L isteria in foods, said to me of the sixty- B day rule, ‘ WhNat ’ s sad is, there are cheesemakers who read the letter of the law [and think] “ Great! For a bloomy rind cheese [from raw milk], I’ ll just hold it for sixty © days. ” And it’ s like, oh my G od ! We ’ ve got an accident waiting to happen. And they ’ re perfectly within legal bounds to do that. ’ In fact, it is what the law currently requires of them. Further complicating the microbiopolitical fi eld, unlike the tubercular bacillus that can be carried from sickened cow to human through milk, or E. coli, which originates in manure and can enter the milk supply through insanitary milking conditions, Listeria is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant – you may have it on your shoes – and thus it is most likely to infect a cheese during manufacture, ageing or packaging. Pasteurizing milk prior to cheesemaking is no barrier to this sort of TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 227766 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433 RETHINKING FOOD AND ITS EATERS 277 environmental contamination. In fact, Catherine Donnelly suggests that cheese made from pasteurized milk may be more susceptible to Listeria growth because it lacks the microbial diversity of raw-milk cheese – more diversity pits more of those ‘ good ’ microbes against possible baddies. On 21 October 2010 federal agents locked the doors of the Estrella Family 6 Creamery in Washington state, carrying out a court-ordered seizure in light of 1 evidence presented by the US Food and Drug Administration of the ‘ persisting presence ’ of the potentially pathogenic bacterium L isteria monocytogenes i0n one of the ageing rooms where the family ripened cheese made from the 2raw milk of their own cows. In December of that same year, federal regulato rs demanded that pioneering cheesemaker Sally Jackson upgrade the jury-riggedc cheesemaking equipment she had used for thirty years. Unable to afford the requilred modifi cations, P n Jackson retired after the Centers for Disease Control demonstrated a link between o her raw-milk cheese and eight cases of illness due to ent erohemorrhagic E. coli g i infection. Such cases have provided a warrant for the FDA to revisitt the effi cacy n u of the sixty-day rule (the regulation of raw-milk cheese is currently under review with government safety offi cials). At the same thimie, if outbreabks of botulism in Georgia bring to light a taste for socialist nostalgia and pariallel suspicion of the s r postsocialist state’ s commitment to care for its citizens, the increasing appearance of i t E. coli O157:H7 and L . mono in raw-millk cheese and csheesemaking in the United b States points to a counter-industrial taste for artisanially made foods as well as a u d distrust of one-size-fi ts-all federal oversight. When current regulations would seem P irrational or, worse, ill-advised – and as there isf clearly a consumer market for raw- o milk products – some cheese makers may be tempted to operate at the edges of the law, for example, selling uynder-aged raw -milk cheese at farmers ’ markets as ‘ pet e food ’ or ‘ fi sh bait ’ ratherr than (wink-wink) for human consumption. u l The sixty-day rule, put in palace at the height of the cheese industry’ s b industrialization, is becoming obsolete as a means of promoting public health. s Obsolescence sstems, fi rst, from growing interest in producing and consuming raw- milk producmts. While in thre 1950s, raw-milk cheeses were viewed as a holdover o from the pre-industrial era, today they have new, positive value – still in opposition to induostrial foods –f as ‘ natural’ , ‘ authentic’ or ‘ gourmet’ . At the same time, the micorobial fi eld hats transformed as pathogens of concern evolve apace with, and in o lopposition to, industrial agricultural practices. The Shiga toxin-producing O157:H7 B mutation of N E. coli, an intestinal bacterium included on the Centers for Disease Control list of bioterrorism agents, was fi rst characterized in 1982 and may not have © existed when the sixty-day rule was introduced. In 1949, Listeria monocytogenes had not yet been identifi ed as a cause of foodborne illness. Scrutiny of the sixty-day rule, through the work of Catherine Donnelly and others, is also, inadvertently, revealing the limitations of pasteurization in ensuring food safety. Both approaches to safety regulation, pasteurization as well as ageing, have been applied equally to processes of industrial and artisanal manufacture, and to a diversity of microbial ecologies we know as varieties of cheese. Such ‘ one-size- fi ts-all ’ regulation is being called into question by recognition that ‘ cheese ’ is not, in fact, reducible to a binary standard: pasteurization and its absence are insuffi cient TThhee HHaannddbbooookk ooff FFoooodd aanndd AAnntthhrrooppoollooggyy..iinnddbb 227777 0033--0055--22001166 1199::3377::4433