School Lunch Politics Read Free

an arena in which to practice science” (p. 129).
    25. Nancy K. Berlage, “The Establishment of an Applied Social Science: Home Economists, Science, and Reform at Cornell University, 1870–1930,” in Helene Silverberg, ed., Gender and American Social Science, the Formative Years (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989). She argues that historians have put too much emphasis on the dichotomy between “technocratic” (or male) versus advocacy (or female) interests and credits home economists with both a reform tradition and a commitment to objectivity and science (184–87, 198).
    26. Ellen H. Richards, The Cost of Food: A Study in Dietaries (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1917), 7.
    27. See Shapiro, Perfection Salad, 127–31.
    28. Journal ofHome Economics (hereafter JHE), April 1932, editorial.
    29. Quoted in Shapiro, Perfection Salad, 129. Also see Levenstein, Revolution at the Table.
    30. Hunt, Ellen Richards, 103. Abel won the first prize ever offered in Home Economics for her essay. The prize money was donated by Henry Lomb, founder of the Bausch and Lomb Company.
    31. Shapiro, Perfection Salad, 144–45. For a brief biography of Mary Hinman Abel, see her entry in Feeding America: The Historic American Cookbook Project, MSU Libraries, http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/cookbooks/html/authors/author_abel.html .
    32. Hunt, Ellen Richards, 105–6. Also see Shapiro, Perfection Salad, and Apple, “Science Gendered.” On the standardization of recipes, see Anne Mendelson, Stand Facing the Stove: The Story of the Women Who Gave Us the Joy of Cooking (New York: Henry Holt, 1996).
    33. Hunt, Ellen Richards, 105; and Richards, The Cost ofFood.
    34. Hunt, Ellen Richards, 107–8. The model kitchen was named after Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford of Bavaria, who was reputed to have coined the term “nutrition science.” He pioneered in institutional feeding of the poor and was also credited with introducing the potato to the poverty diet in Europe. See C. M. McCay, “Four Pioneers in the Science of Nutrition—Lind, Rumford, Chadwick, and Graham,” in Adelia M. Beeuwkes, E. Neige Todhunter, and Emma Seifrit Weigley, eds., Essays on History of Nutrition and Dietetics (Chicago: American Dietetics Association, 1967), 263–68.
    35. Also see Hayden, The Grand Domestic Revolution.
    36. Levinstein, Revolution at the Table, discusses this transition.
    37. Richards, The Cost ofFood, 2–3.
    38. Hunt, Ellen Richards, 109.
    39. Margaret Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), 66. A similar dynamic operated in England as reformers attempted to teach working-class housewives scientific nutrition. See, e.g., Ross, Love and Toil. She observes that reformers believed they could rescue children from their “slum tastes,” 36; and see Walton, Fish and Chips.
    40. Lucy H. Gillett, “How Can Our Work in Foods Be Made More Vital to the Health of the Child?” JHE, September 1920, p. 391. On religious teaching and food, also see John Burnett, “The Rise and Decline of School Meals in Britain,” in John Burnett and Derek J. Oddy, eds., The Origins and Development of Food Policy in Europe (London: Leicester University Press, 1994). Little information is available on Lucy Gillett. She was probably a student of Mary Swartz Rose at Columbia.
    41. Richards, The Cost ofFood, 27; and Hunt, Ellen Richards. She calls Richards a “missionary of science” (103).
    42. Hunt, Ellen Richards, 112.
    43. Tomes, The Gospel of Germs, has a good discussion of the missionary zeal with which scientists and reformers (not to mention entrepreneurs) promoted theories of germs and disease. The nutrition advocates exhibited a similar zeal in their efforts to convince Americans to alter their eating habits.
    44. The figure of 29% appears in many sources. See Bernadette M. Marriott and Judith