The Fat of the Land
The people of Iceland have the same sentiment for fat as those of the Hebrews in the Bible. Once upon a time it was rather universal with mankind in all lands and climates that fats are the best of foods. Many religions also set apart the choicest fats of animals for sacrifice and worship. We’ve already discussed that God seemed to prefer the fat sacrifice of Able over the vegetable offering of Cain. We also found that Pharaoh said to Joseph that he would give him the good of the land of Egypt and that he (Joseph) would eat from the land’s fat. Stefansson checked with Bible scholar Edgar Goodspeed regarding the Bible’s usage of the word for fat and he explained that the “fat of the land” does indeed refer to an animal fat and the fat was the greatest delicacy. The Greeks also shared the love of fat and they believed their heroes and demigods also loved fat.
Only in Iceland do we find an early proverb saying that fat meat is not the only decent food, which was undoubtedly a mother’s attempt to encourage the children to eat lean meat, porridge, and bread that did not have enough butter on it. The British liked mutton, lean or fat, according to Joseph Barnes, Foreign editor of the New York Herald Times. He wrote about Britain looking forward to mutton with mint sauce and boiled silversides with dumplings. From Dickens to Peacock, their poets wrote of the richness of fatty foods.
One longs for fat if there is too little of it and is promptly satiated when he has had enough. Intense fat-hunger only occurs when one is unable to secure fat’s approximate dietetic equivalents, the starches and sugars. Little is heard of fat hunger when people are unable to substitute these for olive oil, seal oil, cream, bacon or butter. There are few signs of fat-hunger in grain-fed Egypt, although they are not absent. The Chinese were very fond of fat meats and there is the implication that their gods and heroes had an abundance of it on their tables.
In the literature and history of Western Europe during the last few centuries, it’s easy to discover that the dominance of fat as a luxury has gradually declined with the increased use of sugar. Even today we seldom call a thing rich just because it is sweet. It has to be fat as well. In many wars, the soldiers routinely complained about the food. The Office of the Quartermaster General conducted a historical study where they concluded that pemmican was unsuitable for the Army whereas previous generations favored the fat-rich food. Stefansson approached the Department of Commerce and they along with the meat and sugar industries in New York gave him figures showing sugar consumption in the United Sates from 1791 to 1940. Our consumption went from 7.5 pounds per capita to 97.2 pounds over a 49-year period. In 1941, it went to 114.1 pounds per capita.
The table didn’t show the actual consumption and the actual data was actually worse. Another table had the figures at 129.62 because the original data did not account for candy, corn sugar, and corn syrups as sugar although they obviously would be recognized as such by the digestive system.
During the revolutionary war, there was apparently no sugar or complaints according to the Army War College. Apparently, it wasn’t until 1838 that sugar made its first appearance on the authorized rations of the soldiers and they got 1.62 ounces of sugar per man. It stayed this way until the Civil War in 1860 when it was increased to 2.4 ounces per day.
Thirty-four years later, it was increased to 3.2 ounces during the Spanish-American War and it remained so for 19 more years until 1917 and World War I brought it to 4 ounces. Of course, many other components containing sugar were added to the ration. It stayed the same during World War II.
It seemed obvious that as sugar increased, that people would eat less fat. Stefansson also speculated that the words seemed to change as well which indicated a growing prejudice for fats. Terms such as fat, grease or tallow developed a negative connotation whereas “rendered beef suet” was agreeable. If someone offered whale blubber, that term might be received with revulsion.
Those who tasted whale and seal blubber rejected the use of the term blubber because it was delicious. It appears that those who do not like something can always find reasons that make them worse than they are. They may say it smells, look, or tastes bad; whereas to others, these things are agreeable. Call it an “acquired taste.”
A report from the Department of the Commerce in 1944 stated that the use of fats had not necessarily decreased but in fact, the use of fat was rising just as in England. However, as incomes diminished, people tended to “fill-up” on the cheaper carbohydrate foods such as grain products. They were unable to correlate between fat and sugar consumption because the fats were too complicated. People might have stopped eating some types of fat yet they still consumed butter, milk, cheeses, ice cream, etc which contained fats. Such a study would have required a huge research project.
The most important aspect of the report was the sugar was 7 cents as opposed to butter that was 50 cents. Most people didn’t know (and still don’t) that fat is more nourishing than sugar so the pocketbook rules. Dr. Lund suggested that the hidden fats in primarily carbohydrate foods were cheaper on average and this explained why the use of fats rose even as sugar did.
Once a person has grown up on particular foods, they become used to them and it is very difficult to overcome this upbringing. The parent’s choices (for whatever reason) indeed affect the preferences of the offspring.
Share on TwitterOne Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on February 23, 2009 at 9:28 am
Permalink
[...] Mike’s Musings placed an observative post today on The Fat of the LandHere’s a quick excerptThe people of Iceland have the same sentiment for fat as those of the Hebrews in the BBible/B. Once upon a time it was rather universal with… [...]