Edo Ergo Sum

Lamb's lettuce, Spinach and Nasturtium flower  salad

I eat therefore I am. I am what I eat. And what I drink. Commentators often refer to the culture of the grape versus the culture of the barley; or  potato v pasta or rice v the rest of the world. Rice wine against whisk(e)y. We seem to like to define ourselves by what we eat; we set ourselves apart and commune with each other in partaking of the food of our country or culture. Terms of abuse often make reference to food allegedly consumed by those we dislike - the Frogs, Cabbage eaters, spud lovers etc. How would one define me, an eater of rabbit food as shown above ? Some sort of food snob or sandal wearing hippy (all above grown by your servant in his garden) ? And what was drunk with this: a Pouilly-sur-Loire 2009 made of grapes from century-old Chasselas vines (Serge Dagueneau et Filles) ? Now that really is foody.

I think I am trying to say that few relationships are more intimate than those we maintain with food. It shapes us both physically and culturally, and to obtain it we have shaped the Earth to to get her to produce what we want, be it in a small garden or in a vast monoculture of wheat, or endless grassland for our domestic animals. Our so called civilisations have always depended on a ready supply of food and have withered and died when it ran out, usually because of some natural 'pest', or exhaustion of the soil.

It has been said that excessive talk of food is the sign of a decadent society destined to be consumed by some impending disaster, that lunch is for wimps. Those who have no choice, eat to sustain themselves, and are not fussy about what is eaten.  My ancestors lived on potatoes but never eulogised about them. But many of them starved when the crop failed. They could have turned to the sea or the hedgerows for nourishment but failed to do this. I could be accused here of making the let them eat cake comment attributed to Marie-Antoinette. I simply make the point that diversity of supply is important. I am not certain that a willingness to talk of food is decadent or frivolous.

Is it not showing respect for food and how it is come by to talk of it ? It is not showing respect for Nature to celebrate her diversity and the multifarious way in which she nourishes us, and also to be realistic about where our food should come from in the future ? It can no longer be considered in terms of vast quantities of 'staples' which nourish humanity. In the future we will be grateful for extremely diverse foods from all available sources, in our fields, gardens, hedgerows and forests. We may not be able to get our fix of fat and sugar as readily as in the past but we will be healthier and put less pressure on the land and on the creatures we must share it with. We will I suspect much happier for it.