1

-1-

INTRODUCTION Food Production in New York City: Past to Present

What did you have for breakfast this morning? What are you going to eat for dinner tonight? Food may be important to everyone, but it takes on a whole new dynamic in the lives of New Yorkers. It is essential to the city’s identity. Nowhere else could you find a Halal stand in front of a Thai restaurant across the street from an Armenian cuisine on the outskirts of Chinatown. But what is the history behind New York’s food? Food has always been critical to New Yorkers, but nearly every aspect regarding what we eat has changed over time, from where our food is obtained to the types of food offered. This book offers a brief overview of food provisioning in New York City throughout time.

One of the main focuses of this book is production and its role in New York City. Production over this extensive time period saw a great number of changes. As time marched on, production moved farther and farther away from New York City, the main area of consumption. Over the time period considered, local water supplies, such as the collect pond, became less important as new feats of engineering, such as the Croton Aqueduct, paved the way for New York to grow exponentially. Grains also moved in a similar fashion, going from the fields of Manhattan to the surrounding region and ultimately, with the wide development of railroads in the Eastern United States by the middle of the 19th century, to the heartland of the country. Similar trends can be observed for the production of meat, fish, and shellfish. Even early in New York City’s history a wealth of foods were produced. Local oyster beds provided seemingly limitless shellfish supplies until overfishing and pollution drove the beds into terminal decline by the early 20th century. With the improvement of both rail technology and shipping vessels, the importation of endless varieties of fish put nutrient rich food on the table of those too poor to afford meat. The establishment of the Meatpacking District and the High Line in lower Manhattan helped consolidate the production of meat for the entire region. Great varieties of grain and vegetables and corn became an important part of nearly every New Yorkers’ diet. Lastly, one cannot discuss New York food production without mentioning beverages. From the earliest settlers of New Amsterdam, alcohol played an important role. Beverage production would also see great changes over this time period as prohibition helped reformulate the now global beverage that is Coca-Cola.

Another main focus is the evolution of New York City's marketplaces over the course of history. What were markets like? Where were they physically located? How many points of exchange were there? These questions give a general framework to determine how food and beverages made their way from the producers to the consumers. The actual exchange is an intriguing idea to explore as well. What role did middle men play in getting food from the producer to the consumer? At what points did the number of middlemen increase or decrease, and how did these changes affect the economics of food production? These questions are vital to examining the changes of New York City's food system. Perhaps the most dynamic aspect of the food system, though, is technology. Innovation is the one factor of production whose growth is seemingly random, yet whose effects are massive. This book will seek to examine these effects on the food supply and demand. How did advanced

 

2

transportation change the way materials got to the producers, and how food got to the market? How did the location of production change because of new methods of transportation? What technological changes made food production more efficient or more effective? Did advanced technology change the setting of the marketplace? These questions are not only pertinent to the past, but also the present and the future. Technology is forever changing, and thus the implications stand to affect the dynamics of New York City's food system for years to come.

A third focus of this book is to look at how food production can effect how we live and the way we think about what we eat. Studying the agricultural system in our nation can help change the way we look at farming and food in the future. Although agricultural policy has become more efficient and healthy, there are still many things that need to be fixed and changed regarding the food we eat and the industry that produces it. For starters, farming subsidies must be managed better, and the government must ensure that farmers are not receiving subsidies when they are making more than the cutoff point required for the government to step in. We need to focus on giving support to local communities, and represent the actual consumers in all communities, rather than just a focus on farmers and the agricultural business. Studying past laws and policies allows us to figure out what needs to change and how we can begin to go about managing our food system. We also need to focus on a decentralized food system and a revival of local agriculture, which can be easier with support from the government for more organic food markets. Agriculture is currently the largest contributor to greenhouse gases, and the reason we as Americans suffer from obesity, heart disease, and other major health problems. Ultimately, when environmental factors and increasing health care costs are considered, cheap fast food markets are more expensive for our country. The main focus of this research is to learn about our past and therefore see how we can make our country healthier in the future by being more conscious of the effects of our food production and consumption.

The history of food and nutrition in New York City is an extensive one, and to truly understand its evolution we must consider a number of sources for research. If this text were focused on one specific time period, then the range in types of information presented would be rather small. For example, the earlier decades of New York City would most likely be explored using primarily historical texts or even archaeological evidence, depending on how far back one looks. On the other hand, food culture is becoming an increasingly popular subject of research; as a result, there is a much wider selection of research to explore.

Many texts have been written pertaining to the general diets of the native people of the United States. The books that attempt to describe the lives of the natives pre-contact consist largely of archaeological evidence; for example, the locations of various sites and the items found in those locations, or photos of tools and items found at dig sites. Though these texts provide some of the only information we might find about this time period, as secondary sources a researcher must analyze them carefully; as objective as a scientist might try to be, it is impossible to truly eliminate one’s voice from a text. As time has progressed, attempts have been made to analyze the developing food culture of New York City using more convincing data and statistics. These studies and research, however, are also secondary sources and often seek to make connections and correlations, which may or may not have existed. Because of these stipulations, authors have tried to distinguish between fact and opinion to form their own observations about the topic in question. From these early time periods, some primary sources do exist in the form of archived newspaper articles and

 

3

preserved journals of some unknown Dutch colonists. While these sources can give us a glimpse into the past, they are not abundunt enough to form an entire history.

One idea which seems to prevail throughout this history of food in New York City is that as time has passed, things have grown more complex—market locations, regulations, and even the diversity of the foods themselves. With this increasing complexity there has also been a surge in the amount of information available to the people. For example, records concerning the consumption of various goods exist from as early as the colonial era. With this information, one could attempt to find trends in the consumption of foods or beverages, such as the huge intake of alcohol by the people of 18th century New York City. As markets developed, they made a name for themselves and found their way onto maps which still persist today, thus allowing students to learn about the movement and distribution of these markets. Government interference into the food culture of New York City created additional records in the form of official rules and regulations which can be found today by anyone with internet access.

The history of food production, consumption and distribution in New York have revealed compelling repeating patterns that have been grouped into themes for the purpose of this book. The overarching themes include complexity, geographic spreading, diversification and technological advances.

From the early colonial era to the present day world, the production, distribution and consumption of food has become highly complex in an attempt to meet the needs and demands of a growing and diverse population. From the mere process of growing crops to the methods of distribution and marketing, the New York City food system has developed intricate rules and regulations to comply with the growth in size of the city. Historically, New Yorkers have purchased food that was grown on a farm near the city, transported in caravans to the local open-air markets and sold straight to the customers. As New York City transformed into a melting pot of millions of different people, however, this simple process grew in complexity as food began to go through multi-processing steps before being transported through complex transportation arrangements to get to large distributors before they reached the consumers. The food process also went through a pattern of geographic spread. With the convenience of quick transportation, New York began to import food from other states that was not grown and processed in the city due to climate issues and lack of land. The production of wheat, for instance, shifted away from New York into the Midwest because of better agricultural conditions for growing the wheat. In general, the city was capable of importing food from various areas around the globe. As food processing increased in complexity and moved further away from New York, food types and sources also diversified. The open-air markets and specialized food stalls were replaced by large supermarkets that carried meats, produce, sea food and dry good all in one place. The food types also increased as complexity in processing allowed for a greater variety of the same product. Beverages, for instance, began to be offered in a variety of favors. The irony of diversity was that as food types diversified, the markets for these foods became increasingly conglomerated into single supermarkets. Lastly, all of the themes discussed above cannot be qualified without considering the role of technological advancements in food production, distribution and consumption. Compared to the simpler technology of the past, today almost 80 to 90% of all food produced in America goes through some sort of processing. Technology has allowed food to be processed to increase the diversity of flavors; it has also allowed the food system to

 

4

spread geographically through advancements in transportation and made the production of food more complex through mechanization.

This book will cover food production and trade within New York City from the pre-colonial era to present day. It is divided into 14 chapters, each covering a different aspect of food consumption during the city’s history. The chapters are then divided into categories that cover more specific features of this topic.

Chapters two and three are grouped together under the time period of the pre-colonial era until the American Revolution, or from 1500 to 1790. Chapter two discusses how and where native New Yorkers used technology to produce food, and what foods they frequently ate. Chapter three explores the colonial era, and how new food technologies affected the foods that were consumed. It also examines where markets were located in New York City at that time. Chapters four and five cover the time period from 1790 to 1860. Chapter four discusses the changes in technology that subsequently led to changes in food production and consumption. Chapter five explores where different markets opened up in the city as the population grew. The years of 1860 to 1940 are grouped together in chapters six, seven, eight, and nine. Chapter six examines the different agricultural policies that were put in place during this time. Chapter seven covers the changes in food distribution as technology advanced. The production of various foods during the early industrial era is discussed in chapter eight. Chapter nine focuses on urban food markets during the Industrial Era. This book’s last time period focuses on the year 1940 until present day, and is grouped together by chapters ten, eleven, twelve, and thirteen. Chapter ten covers the development of agricultural and food safety policies in New York City during this time. Chapter eleven discusses the changes that occurred in distribution technologies, such as those seen in freights and trucks. Chapters twelve and thirteen explore the evolution of food production and food markets and how they have changed during the global era.

This book will focus mainly on how patterns of food consumption, production, and technology have changed throughout the history of New York City and how these past events will effect how we approach the city’s future.

 

5

-2-

BEFORE AND AFTER CONTACT The shift from the hunting and gathering to more sedentary life in the New World

by Shadi Ali & Michael Behan

INTRODUCTION

Since its birth, America has often been referred to as the “melting-pot” of the world. Indeed, the United States that we see today is a melting pot of different ethnicities, cultures and religions from all over the world, and the city of New York is a rather unique example of this. The use of the term “melting-pot” to describe America, and especially New York City, is particularly adequate because when it comes to food, and the allusion can be taken in a literal context. With people from all over the world moving into New York City, and blending their various food traditions and customs with those of the previous inhabitants, this city has been, for centuries, an actual melting pot of nutrition from all around the world.

The first true inhabitants in the area now occupied by New York City were a group of Native Americans known as the Lenape. Now, when one considers the Indians of the United States, certain names and images come to mind: the Sioux Indians traversing the Central United States on horse, living in tee-pees and also the Pueblo Indians of the Southwest, surviving the desert heat in their adobe structures. It is safe to say that the extent of our knowledge about the Native Americans who lived in the New York region is limited to the anecdotal claim that “the island Manhattes from the Indians for the value of 60 guilders,” (Grumet 2009, p. 11). It is tempting to clump this group of people with the other Native Americans of the Northeast such as the Iroquois or the Algonquin. However, due to the rather unique ecology of the region surrounding New York City and the culture of the Lenape, a distinction must be made between these Woodland Indians and their northern neighbors. For all these native peoples, however, food was an item of vast importance and took precedence before all else. The environment around them largely determined the dietary culture of each group.

Just as with the Native Americans, food was also a key issue for the European settlers arriving in the 17th century, the “native New Yorkers.” Once the explorers decided where to build their homes, shelter was no longer a problem. Furthermore, as the first outsiders to settle in New York City and with fur trading as their main source of income, clothing was also not a problem. Food, however, was not something that could be shipped from their home countries on a daily basis. Once the colonists had run out of their stock of food they had brought with them to the New World, it became imperative that they adapt and learn how to acquire resources from the land around them.

As the first outside settlers in the New World, the Europeans brought with them their recipes, cooking methods and even supplies with them; what these outsiders brought with them depended primarily upon which part of the world they had come from. During this period, explorers from not just the Netherlands but also France, Spain and England were claiming territory in the New World causing an influx of different cultures in different parts of America. Thus, the Dutch settling in New York ate differently from the Spaniards claiming St. Augustine, the English colonists in Jamestown, and also the French who had migrated to Canada. Although the difference in the diet of each colonial group is fascinating

 

6

to compare, our main focus will be how the Dutch learned to obtain food in the New World by implementing methods brought from their homeland with newly adapted methods they needed to learn in order to survive.

There are many archaeological findings that support that changes occurred in food production and production technology used by the Lenape Indians, perhaps introduced by the arriving Dutch settlers in the 17th century. Despite significant evidence that in later years the Lenape had established some form of agriculture, some argue that this was merely the result of European contact. Prior to this contact, the natives made extensive use of the only resources already present around them. Similarly, the Dutch who arrived sustained themselves with a combination of learned techniques from the Motherland, and the resources introduced to them in the New World, by the Lenape. The exchange of resources and technology between the Europeans and the people of the New World had significant effects on their respective forms of nourishment, though ultimately leading to a modified form of the European diet; specifically, the exchange between the Dutch and the Lenape was crucial in shaping the food culture of New York City.

Figure 2.1. Lenape men preparing soil for cultivation. Reprinted from The Lenapes by

R. S. Grumet and F. W. Porter, 1989, New York, Chelsea House.

 

7

LITERATURE REVIEW The Native Americans of the Northeastern United States, pre-contact History of the natives of the Northeast

Though more specific groups exist in the Northeast, with rather distinct cultures, the Native Americans throughout the northeastern part of the United States can be described in a few general terms. Arriving in this area during The Woodland Period, from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1600, these Pre-Columbian natives can be characterized by several key traits: they began the practical use of pottery making, domesticated various plants, and had a progressively more settled village life (Kraft 1986, p. 89). The Archaic Period before it ranged from 8000 B.C. to 1000 B.C., and during this time life in North America consisted largely of hunting and gathering for survival. With each stage in the subsequent Woodland Period, the Native Americans slowly developed the more sedentary lifestyle that the Europeans would encounter upon their arrival in the 17th century. While the Early Woodland Period (ca. 1000-1 B.C.) was nothing more than a continuation of the previous Archaic Period except for the introduction of pottery, the Late Woodland Period is seen as the era when large-scale farming became much more widespread, in particular the “three sister” crops of corn, beans, and squash (Kraft 1986, p. 115).

Before the arrival of the Dutch in the area, the group of Native American peoples called the Lenni Lenape settled much of the area that is occupied today by the city of New York. These people occupied lands from as far south as the state of Delaware and as far north as Connecticut. The two main bands of Lenape in this region can be identified by the dialect they spoke: either Unami or Munsee, both derived from the Eastern Algonquian language called Delaware. The Munsee primarily occupied the area of New York City and areas further north, bordering with the Five Nations of the Iroquois (Grumet 2009, p. 11). These were the natives of what would become Manhattan.

The Woodland Indians, including the Lenape, lived a seasonal life, characterized by regular mass movements from the south to the north and back. During the winter, when wild plants and animals became unavailable to the natives, “large groups of people were unable to survive in areas with such diminished capacity for producing food…Under such stressful circumstances, it was in everyone’s best interest to fragment into smaller bands or family units and scatter across the landscape….” (Grumet 2009, p. 111). When spring came about and life returned to the land, “families reunited and cooperated in sharing nature’s bounty,” (Grumet 2009, p. 112).

Food production in the Northeast

“The food quest of the Woodland Indians was based primarily on hunting, fishing, and gathering wild crops. They practiced some agriculture [or horticulture, according to Kraft, which consisted more of gardening than what is considered to be larger scale farming and agriculture], but it was definitely of secondary importance and consisted mostly of the Indian staples—corn, beans, and squash” (Ritzenthaler 1983, p. 19). Among the things collected by the Woodland Indians were maple sugar, various berries (cranberries, gooseberries, June berries, blueberries, raspberries), fruit (grapes, cherries), nuts (acorns, hickory nuts, hazelnuts), and vegetables (wild potatoes and onions, milkweed, water lily root).

“To the Woodland Indians, fishing was a year-round occupation,” (Ritzenthaler 1983, p. 21). Fish were caught in a variety of ways, including the use of fishhooks, nets, spears, traps, lures, bait. They also hunted and trapped the animals in the forest, such as deer, moose, fox, otter, beaver, and mink. In addition, some groups (such as the Chippewa and Menomini) took advantage of wild rice, which grew in shallow lakes and streams.

 

8

As we’ve seen throughout the Eastern United States, hunting and foraging seemed to be the primary means of finding subsistence, while agriculture played a secondary role. With regard to maize, the following claim can be made:

As explorers pushed out into the New World…they found maize in cultivation in almost all places where the climate and soil permitted the growth of any of its numerous varieties…This area included the greater part of both continents from about the northern limits of what is now the United States to within a thousand miles of the southern tip of South America…In most parts of this area it had been the stable crop for so great a time that the Indians had no record of where it came from or how long their ancestors had it” (Weatherwax 1954, p. 48).

Considering the Northeastern seaboard, history shows that, “some of these plantings

covered hundreds of acres and were well cultivated” (Weatherwax 1954, p. 50). Thus, we see that while the Woodland Indians largely sought nutrition through hunting, fishing, and gathering from the environment around them, the Late Woodland Period saw much development in terms of agriculture.

History of Food Production for the Lenape

For the Lenape, New York City (and more specifically, Manhattan) was not a permanent home; “rather, it was more of a three-season ‘resort.’ The Lenape moved to Manhattan for fishing in spring; stayed over to plant some crops, hunt, gather, and fish in the summer; then pulled together their things in a furious fit of activity in fall, bringing in the crops and smoking and drying the meat before the retreat to winter quarters” (Sanderson 2009, p. 112). During their time in Manhattan, the Lenape made extensive use of the animal and plant resources all around the island. Among the animals that were hunted were the various fish and shellfish of the waterways and larger animals such as bears, deer, and fowl. The list of plants that they managed to use was even greater, and illustrated an extremely efficient use of what the environment provided them. They made nets out of hemp and milkweed fiber, as well as the inner bark of American basswood. They gathered all types of berries, and made flour out of acorns, goosefoot seeds, and artichoke tubers (Sanderson 2009, p. 108-9).

Importance of Maize to the Lenape

It is without a doubt that corn, or maize, would eventually be the most important crop of the Lenape Indians. First hand accounts by Dutch settlers described the use of it as one of the “three sister” crops, for example, “The food supplies are various. The principal one is maize, which is their corn…When the maize…is grown two or three feet high, they stick the beans in the ground alongside the maize-stalks…” (Jameson 1909, p. 219). Corn was eaten in numerous ways: from the cob, boiled in water, with beans vegetables, meat or fish, made into hominy (corn kernels soaked in lye and then dried), dried and pulverized to make flour used to make bread and corn meal. (Kraft, 1986, p. 141).

 

9

Figure 2.2. Maize plants. Reprinted from Mannahatta: a natural history of New York City (p. 121), by E.W. Sanderson, 2009, New York, Abrams.

Food culture of the Dutch, arriving in the 17th Century Introduction to the Dutch

Unlike other colonizing groups who settled in the New World and learned to farm the land for food, the Dutch in New York were at first primarily concerned with fur trading. Despite the income that the fur trade yielded, the Dutch had no direct source of nutrition. Eventually, “as the number of settlers who brought livestock and farm implements increased, farming became a full-time livelihood” (Walsh 2000). Bringing over many of their own methods of agriculture from their homeland, the “most important contribution [they] made to the New World was the introduction of grain.” (Lee 1992, p. 51-53) As the first settlers in New York, the Dutch set the foundation of how the first New Yorkers would find sustenance. Their principal crops included wheat, raised barley, rye and buckwheat, which they learned to grow on their new land to make cakes, pastries and breads. Among other foods, dumplings, pancakes and waffles were also prominent in their daily diet.

The Diet of the Early Colonists

The Dutch is credited for many of the recipes and the diet that the first New Yorkers depended on. Their predominance in the field of baking, would eventually lead to the establishment of America’s first bakeries in 1656 in New York. Bringing cooking utensils from their homeland such as long-handled waffle irons, the Dutch heavily impacted the diet of later generations who would grow up as “native New Yorkers”. As the original settlers of the New York region, the Dutch established the basic style of nutrition with the recipes and menus they brought over.

Other foods, such as dairy products were also popular with the Dutch; by bringing over cattle from Holland with them, the Dutch were able to procure milk, butter and cheese. Some of the favorite dishes of the Dutch settlers included hodgepodge (cornmeal porridge cooked with chunks of corned beef and vegetables), roast duck with dumplings, pork with cabbage, and roast goose (served on holidays). Dessert was also enjoyed by the early settlers, the most popular being, “Oliekocken…pastries made with a raised yeast dough, shaped into small balls, and fried in hot lard until golden brown” (Lee 1992, p. 51-53) which today we widely recognize as doughnuts. Also included in their diet were, “Tea, sugar, spices,

 

10

chocolate, wines and brandies [which] were all readily available in the Dutch colony” (Lee 1992, p. 51-53).

Factors Involved in Determining Early New Yorker’s Diet

Delving deeper into the study of what foods native New Yorkers ate, statistical data of the time period involving food provides interesting information regarding the eating habits of the native New Yorkers. For example, “…for English yeomen [small landowners] of the seventeenth century, their own pigs were the principal source of the meat in their diet. Cattle were kept primarily for dairy production and were slaughtered and eaten only when they could no longer be maintained through the winter” (Stavely 2004, p. 178-180). This excerpt makes it clear that native New Yorkers did not choose to eat more pork than beef merely because of preference, but that there were more intricate details behind why they ate what they ate. This idea that the native New Yorkers diet was largely determined by need rather than want can be further confirmed by the following claim,

“Americans have no doubt always preferred beef, but what they actually ate was necessarily that which was available, and for the first three centuries of white history in America, what was most readily available was pork” (Root 1981, p. 192-195).

Availability of land and the impracticality of using such land for grazing when it

could be used for other purposes were two of the main factors that made New Yorkers depend on swine for their meat intake, regardless of their preference of beef over pork. In fact, during the beginning period of America’s growth as a nation, it was actually reported that Americans ate twice as much beef as Englishmen. As a whole, the New World was plentiful of land and space available for grazing which allowed, “Each settlement [to be] capable of raising for itself as much beef as it needed…But [with] the population of the East Coast [increasing] rapidly; its inhabitants discovered they were not quite as rich in space as they had thought; and much of the land could be better employed for other purposes than grazing” (Root 1981, p. 192-195). Although the space required for grazing large quantities of cattle was eventually found in the Far West, New York with its increasing population and lack of available land was required to continue relying on pork as its main source of meat until much later when beef could be transported across the nation with the use of railroads.

Early Menus for New Yorkers

Near the end of the Revolutionary War, New York once again saw an increase in the diversity of foods consumed by the people. Also, with the end of the war, more and more immigrants from other countries began to flock to New York bringing with them more new recipes and methods of cooking distinct to their culture. Ultimately, in post-revolution New York the daily intake of food by a native New Yorker could be described as depicted below: Breakfast (Break of dawn/Early morning)

• Porridge • Cornmeal Mush and molasses • Cider/Beer • Breads • Cold meats

 

11

• Fruit pies and pastries • Scrapple (cornmeal and headcheese) • Dutch sweetcakes (fried in deep fat)

Dinner (Early afternoon)

• Several meats plus meat puddings and/or deep meat pies containing fruits and spices • Pancakes and fritters • Sauces, pickles and catsups • Soup (cornmeal, porridge, meat broth etc.)

Dinner/Dessert (Afternoon)

• Fresh, cooked or dried fruits • Custards • Tarts and sweetmeats • “Salads” (salads) • Cakes (Any of the following: pound, gingerbread, spice and cheese)

Supper (More like a bedtime snack)

• Generally consisted of leftovers from dinner • Gruel (a mixture made from boiling water with oats, “Indian” [corn] meal) • Roast potatoes prepared with salt • Ale, cider or some variety of beer

As seen in the above menu, fruits were popular for after a meal and were enjoyed

raw with no need for preparation, and were often a poor man’s dessert. Those who were wealthier could enjoy baked goods could choose among a variety of pies such as raisin pie, apple pie or pecan pie just to name a few. Other baked goods such as wheat bread, which had been first introduced by the Dutch colonists remained popular throughout the revolutionary era and even into the post-revolutionary time period.

The congregation of settlers in New York arriving after the Dutch played an important role in providing diversity in the diet of native New Yorkers. What played an even more important role in creating this diversity of food, however, is attributed to New York’s involvement in the Triangular Trade during the 18th century that allowed molasses and rum to become a staple part of the average New Yorker’s diet. After the initial colonial period but prior to the revolutionary era, it was this Triangular Trade that allowed for an even larger diversity of food consumed by native New Yorkers to develop.

RESULTS/FINDINGS Evidence of European influence on the Lenape lifestyle Introduction of fertilizer by the Europeans

Conflicting with the idea that maize was the most important crop to the Lenape is the argument that, until the arrival of the Europeans, it was nothing more than a secondary crop to the natives, and of much less value. In her article, Lynn Ceci proposes, “in Coastal New York, native cultivation of maize began, with questionable success, only after European trade and colonization provided the stimulus (and economic basis) for sedentary life,” (Ceci

 

12

1990, p. 148). The article describes numerous factors which may have led to the ineffectiveness of corn as a plentiful crop, as has been presented by other researchers. For example, soil quality in the area around New York City and climate both would not have allowed growth as successful as that of southern Algonquians. In addition there is the issue of fertilizer simply being unavailable to the Lenape, “There is…no evidence to support the indigenous development of this advanced technology anywhere in North America, and even the traditionally accepted use of fish as fertilizer by New England’s Algonquians is seriously in doubt.” A resident of New Netherland claims to have never seen the native people of the area use any manure or properly till their land; at most, the burning of forests and brush produced ashes, which served as light fertilizer (Ceci 1990, p. 162). Herbert C. Kraft, archaeologist and a specialist on the Lenape of New Jersey, is in agreement when he states, “Although it is sometimes written that Indians placed fish in the earth as fertilizer where corn, beans, and squash were to be grown, there is no evidence for this practice. Using fish as fertilizer was almost certainly introduced by Europeans in the historic period,” (Kraft 1986, p. 117).

In a different section of the same text, the relationship between the Native Americans and the colonists is described as one in which the Europeans assisted the native agriculture:

At the end of March they begin to break up the earth with mattocks, which they buy from us for the skins of beavers or otters…They make heaps like molehills, each about two and a half feet from the others, which they sow or plant in April with maize, in each heap five or six grains; in the middle of May, when the maize is the height of a finger or more, they plant in each heap three or four Turkish beans, which then grow up against the maize…” (Kraft 1986, p. 107).

Thus, we see that although corn may have been a major crop to the Woodland Indians of the Northeast, there is reason to believe that this was not the case for the Lenape. Evidence seems to suggest that the Dutch arrival was crucial to the establishment of maize cultivation or any other form of true agriculture in New York City (and thus more sedentary living). Native American contributions, and other New World influences on the colonial lifestyle Introduction of maize and other plants to the Dutch

As a result of encounters with the Native Americans the Dutch, “quickly adopted Indian corn, which they called ‘Turkey wheat’ “ (Lee 1992, p. 51-53) and learned to make it into porridge that became a central food in their diet as native New Yorkers. Another vegetable that was introduced to native New Yorkers by Lenape Indians (that proved to be as useful as corn) was the potato tuber, which became an important part of native New Yorkers’ diet during the revolutionary era. The many different ways that potato was able to be prepared, combined with its high nutritional value made it not only popular, but also a dietary necessity at meals. Served in various forms including mashed, boiled, stewed, baked and scalloped, potatoes proved to be an important source of sustenance during times when food was scarce. Aside from corn and potatoes, there were also vegetables unknown in Europe that became a regular part of colonial diets. These included a variety of beans and legumes and some peppers, which were popularly grown in vegetable and herb gardens cultivated by the colonists around their homes (Strelch 2009).

 

13

Beginnings of a fishing culture

With the increasing development of New York after the initial colonists had settled down, the diet of native New Yorkers evolved from one purely supported by agriculture, to include fishing. The level of fishing increased so drastically later in 1868 that measures were taken to maintain the fish population with the use of fish cultures, artificially depositing ova from fish into streams and allowing them to mature before further heavy fishing was allowed (Times 1868). The addition of fish into the diet of native New Yorkers brought in a plethora of new recipes and dishes that assimilated themselves into the pre-existing diet of New Yorkers. DISCUSSION

Despite evidence that both the Native Americans and the arriving Europeans (who would eventually displace them) contributed significantly to each other’s development, it is possible the interactions between them merely accelerated a process that would have occurred regardless.

Was fertilization necessary for the production of corn?

Narrative and archaeological evidence seem to be at odds with regard to the Lenape use of corn. Some research indicates that corn was the most important of the Lenape resources, and that it was more or less a ubiquitous part of their diet. However, this theory requires larger scale agriculture, which in turn requires some form of land renewal (i.e. fertilization). Was it possible for the Lenape to settle down and cultivate corn on a large scale, and if so, did they?

To efficiently grow the maize crop, particularly in a region such as New York, the natives needed to have some knowledge of the benefits of fertilizers. Further south, one “Captain John Smith…note[d] that the Indians of Virginia used no fertilizer for their corn” (Weatherwax 1954, p. 124). Apparently in New England, the natives recognized the importance of fertilizers, and taught the English colonists how this could be achieved by placing a fish in each hill of corn. In addition, he mentions that there is some information regarding the Iroquois in New York pre-contact that suggests that they also knew about the value of fertilizers. As a result, they repeatedly planted corn in the same fields and continually produced “some of the heaviest crops known in the eastern United States at that time” (Weatherwax 1954, p. 124). Between the colonists who repeatedly describe the abundance of maize among the natives, and the scientists who provide archaeological research proving its importance, one might have trouble disputing the value of this crop to the Lenape and related Native Americans in this area.

The central issue that is most often contested is whether fertilizer was used or not. The Lenape were a mobile people, and “could only plant in one place for about twenty years before the soil was depleted and a new field was needed,” (Sanderson 2009, p. 123). This suggests that the Lenape did not understand that the resources in the soil could be renewed through the use of fertilizer. However, twenty years is still a fairly long time for the soil to remain fertile enough for growth. The inconsistency can be accounted for by the oft-mentioned fact that when the corn crop was grown, it was not solitary but one of three sister crops: corn, beans, and squash. “…The beans, which have nitrogen fixing nodules on their roots, transformed nitrogen from the atmosphere into a natural fertilizer, which fed the maize and the beans. The squash, growing its large green leaves between the mounds, kept

 

14

the weeds down and held in soil moisture between rain showers,” (Sanderson 2009, p. 120). The following diagram shows the effects of different levels of bean-facilitated nitrogen on corn production over time:

Figure 2.3. Model of effects of different levels of bean-facilitated nitrogen on corn production over time. Reprinted from Mannahatta: a natural history of New York City (p. 121),

by E.W. Sanderson, 2009, New York, Abrams.

In this manner it seems that it may have been possible for the corn crop to grow in an environment as unsuitable for it as New York, even without the contributions of the Dutch. Eventual Displacement of the Lenape Indians

With the arrival of the Dutch in New York City came the eventual demise of the Lenape people and culture. While for the most part many American Indian groups were eliminated through direct conflict with the Europeans who settled in the New World, their displacement was facilitated by the exchange of culture between the two groups. As detailed above, at the time of the Dutch’s arrival, the Lenape were nearing the end of the Late Woodland Period, when the hunter-gatherer culture was beginning to die out. Their stays in Manhattan involved some regular growth of crops and new means storing food (which usually indicated long-term settling as opposed to nomadic movement). By introducing the use of fertilizer and certain agricultural tools to the Lenape, the Dutch only furthered the Lenape transition away from their previous migratory lifestyle. Despite this, the Lenape did not develop their own sedentary, agricultural societies alongside the Dutch, and few members of that tribe exist today.

On the other hand, the Lenape provided the newcomers with trade and introduced them to many new resources that would become central to a colonial diet. This allowed the Dutch to easily adapt to this new land; for the most part it was not the techniques they used to sustain themselves which they were forced to change, but rather the actual food supplies that they could use. With the aid of the Lenape, the native New Yorkers were given a leg up in the New World, and as a result they continued to grow and expand. The Lenape, who were still adjusting to settled civilization, were no match for the quickly growing colonial

 

15

societies that were formed, and consequently the Lenape were pushed further west. Today, small groups of Lenape remain in parts of Oklahoma and Wisconsin.

CONCLUSION For most societies, food is by and large one of biggest components of each

respective “culture.” Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the various native peoples of North America made efficient use of the plants, animals, and other natural resources around them; in this way, their environment largely determined their diets. In the case of the Lenape Indians during the 17th century, this meant that they were still a predominantly hunter-gatherer society, only just discovering agriculture. Europeans, like the Dutch, had dietary traditions which had been developed centuries before, and they had thus long passed the hunter-gatherer stage and were well versed in trade and agriculture. As a result, their diets suited their more sedentary lifestyles. Upon arriving in would-be New York, however, they needed to adapt to a new set of resources which they could make use of. It was at this stage that the Dutch and the Lenape cultures would meet, and an interchange of ideas and customs would take place. This blending of culture was so extensive that, coupled with a lack of historical evidence, it is truly difficult to determine who contributed what technology, or what resources. The conflicting stories of maize cultivation by the Lenape in the New York area are one example of this rather ambiguous subject. What is clear, however, is that contributions were made from both groups, despite the eventual dominant influence of the Dutch, who gave rise to the native New Yorkers. Nevertheless, the blending of food traditions has allowed otherwise lost cultures like that of the Lenape to be persevered to this very day.

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1868. Fish Culture. The New York Times Oct 24, 1868.

(1984). The Lenape Indian: a Symposium. South Orange, NJ Seton Hall University Museum.

Beauchamp, W. M. (1978). Aboriginal occupation of New York. New York, AMS Press. Becker, M. J. (1999). "Cash cropping by Lenape foragers: preliminary notes on native maize

sales to Swedish colonists and cultural stability during the early colonial period." Bulletin 54(1999): 45-68.

Bolton, R. P. (1972). Indian life of long ago in the city of New York. New York], Harmony

Books. Ceci, L. (1990). "Maize cultivation in coastal New York: the archaeological, agronomical, and

documentary evidence." North American Archaeologist 11(2): 147-176. Danckaerts, J., P. Sluyter, et al. (1913). Journal of Jasper Danckaerts, 1679-1680. New York,

C. Scribner's sons.

 

16

Dimmick, F. R. (1994). "Creative farmers of the Northeast: a new view of Indian maize horticulture." North American Archaeologist 15(3): 235-252.

Grumet, R. S. (1995). Historic contact: Indian people and colonists in today's northeastern United States in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.

Grumet, R. S. (2009). The Munsee Indians: a History. Norman, University of Oklahoma

Press. Grumet, R. S. and F. W. Porter (1989). The Lenapes. New York, Chelsea House. Hart, J. P. (2000). "New dates from old collections: the Roundtop site and maize-beans-

squash agriculture in the Northeast." North American Archaeologist 21(1): 7-17. Jameson, J. F. (1909). Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664. New York, Charles

Scribner's. Janowitz, M. F. (1993). "Indian Corn and Dutch Pots: Seventeenth-Century Foodways in

New Amsterdam/New York." Historical Archaeology 27(2): 6-24. Kraft, H. C. (1986). The Lenape: archaeology, history, and ethnography. Newark, New

Jersey Historical Society. Lee, H. G. (1992). Taste of the states: a food history of america. Charlottesville, VA: Howell Press. McLanahan Elverson, M.A., & T. Elverson, V. (1975). A cooking legacy. New York : Walker

and Company. Olver, L. (2010, November 24). The food timeline. Retrieved from

http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodmeats.html Ritzenthaler, R. E. (1983). The Woodland Indians of the western Great Lakes. Milwaukee,

Milwaukee Public Museum. Root, W, & De Rochemont, R. (1981). Eating in America: a history. New York: Ecco. Rose, P. G. 1989. The Sensible Cook. Syracuse University Press: Syracuse NY. Sanderson, E. W. (2009). Mannahatta: a natural history of New York City. New York,

Abrams. Skinner, A. (1909). Lenape Indians of Staten Island. New York, American Museum of

Natural History. Stavely, K.W.F. (2004). America's founding food: the story of new england cooking . Chapel Hill, NC:

University of North Carolina Press.

 

17

Strelch, M. (2009, September 5). Colonial american foods and diets: meat, fish, and a variety of vegatables & fruits in the 13 colonies. Retrieved from http://www.suite101.com/content/colonial-american-foods-and-diets-a145814

Walsh, L.S. (2000). Feeding the eighteenth-century town folk. Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter, 21.

Weatherwax , P. (1954). Indian corn in old America. New York, Macmillan Weslager, C. A. (1953). A Brief Account of the Indians of Delaware. U. o. Delaware.

Newark, Delaware. 1. Weslager, C. A. (1978). The Delawares: a critical bibliography / C. A. Weslager.

Bloomington:, Published for the Newberry Library [by] Indiana University Press.

 

18

-3-

POPULATION GROWTH AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT IN COLONIAL NEW YORK CITY

by Ana Billingsley, Tamara Del Rosario, Maria Dimitropolous & Shekeima Dockery

INTRODUCTION

When we think of colonial New York City from 1500-1790, how do we figure food markets developed? Did they exist? We imagine the colonists living on farms in which they grew their own vegetables, and practiced simple agricultural techniques. We see them raising chickens, harvesting their eggs, and killing them to make their meals. Our minds would also lead us to believe that the markets in existence then were elementary. We would think there were probably three or four of these markets in existence and families had to travel far to reach them and receive the goods they needed. Before beginning our research, we speculated that there were no marketplaces in existence before the eighteenth century. We assumed that settlers traded with the Native Americans instead of forming legitimate stores, and if there was an established food trading system, the methods and means of selling food would have been considerably less structured. Our ideas about food markets were incorrect. Although informal trading with Native Americans was quite common, market places did exist; our chapter reinforces this finding and explicates specifically what these markets consisted of.

The first informal markets occurred amongst the first human inhabitants of New York City: the Native Americans known as the Lenape. They were one of the oldest cultures of Algonquin civilization in northeastern America (Sanderson 2009). The Lenape lived in Manhattan and other surrounding areas dating back to 1000 B.C.E (Pritchard 2002). They had a distinct food culture, cultivating corn, squash, and other crops using technologies made from plant and animal materials (Pritchard 2002). However, with the arrival of Dutch colonists in 1609, a whole new variety of animals, traditions, tools, and foods were introduced. This marked a cultural transformation of New York City as Dutch cooking methods, technologies, and trading processes predominated with the growth of the colony. This culture shift also brought about few gradual changes in the crops produced in New York City because of the lack of commercial farming and trade during this period. This demonstrates how the evolution of food production in the early colonial era set up the roots of modern farming, as well as changes in types of food consumed in New York City. Our claim is that colonial New Yorkers used complex food markets similar to the markets of today. New York became urbanized early in its colonial existence, and this allowed the development of complex markets to be in important part of the culture of New York (Voe 1862). Food markets during the early colonial period were highly organized; they developed in a way that would allow for great economic expansion. Though early New Yorkers did practice some simple agricultural techniques, these techniques were mostly used for producing staple crops for simple production and trade (Cochrane 1993). The use of agriculture for sustenance was more characteristic of the Native American Indians (Duffy 1968, Cochrane 1993). We compiled research on the history of food trade in America, specifically looking at data pertaining to the Northeast and the colonial era. This data was

 

19

useful in examining what foods, methods, and technologies were native to New York City, and which arrived with the colonists themselves. We included an extensive account of the early history of New York and the colonists’ forms of settlement and survival. After concluding this background research, we were left with three interrelated questions: How were food markets structured? How did they develop? How did this process relate to population growth in colonial New York City? In order to better organize the information gathered, we have chosen to divide this chapter into several sections. In our literature review, we describe the history of New York City from as early as the Dutch rule during the seventeenth century to the English capture of New Amsterdam in the eighteenth century. This background information is essential in understanding the development of markets and trading. We then identify food production and trading specific to the Lenape and the Dutch, and describe any changes that occur during the colonial period. Our literature review also includes an overview of urbanization and the significance of marketplaces. The findings use case studies to recount several marketplaces that formed along the East River, including their structure, location, and development. Our discussion addresses the uncertainties and biases in our research, as well as the implications that our findings have. Finally, our conclusion is a very brief summary of our research and results. LITERATURE REVIEW Lenape Culture The Lenape were the primary inhabitants of New York for thousands of years. They witnessed the arrival and eventual settlement of Europeans from the appearance of Giovanni da Verrazano in 1524, to the arrival of Henry Hudson in 1609 (Wallace 1999). Their lifestyle was well adapted to the natural terrain of pre-settled New York City. They were avid users of the many New York City waterways, whether for fishing, hunting trips or wars amongst themselves and nearby tribes. The Lenape also developed many techniques for hunting and fishing, as it was a main source of trade as well as food a source for them. To support their growing population, the Lenape planted beans and maize, and harvested large quantities of shellfish and regular fish from the bay. Unlike later European settlers, the Lenape lived in temporary campsites across the city, migrating with the seasons. As Burrow and Wallace (1999) write:

In the spring or early summer, a band could be found near the shore, fishing and clamming; as autumn approached, it moved inland to harvest crops and hunt deer; when winter set in, it might move again to be nearer to reliable sources of fire-wood and sources of smaller game (1999, p.5).

Though the Lenape were the main inhabitants of New York City, they did not lay claim to any one piece of land, but rather occupied various areas based on their seasonal needs (Wallace 1999). This constant movement impacted what the Lenape carried with them. As Pursell (1995, 2007) writes, "The mobility of tribes--their adaptation to the change of seasons and resources of the land--helped keep material culture to a minimum, and notions of property were based on contingent use rather than exclusive inherited property rights." (1995, 2007 p.12). The nomadic nature of the Lenape people thus impacted their cultural lifestyle.

 

20

Because of the Lenape lifestyle, sixteenth century New York would have been considered a non-urbanized region. Urbanization requires the existence of a factor that would allow for economic growth and complex production methods, cause many individuals to gravitate toward one particular area, and increase capital interest. The conditions under which the Lenape existed would have prevented a phenomenon like urbanization because there was not any capital interest or economic growth present. Also, the population density of the Lenape people remained relatively low; the Lenape did not gravitate towards one particular area. Keeping the lives of the Lenape in mind, we can see a change in climate occur when the colonists begin to occupy and alter the land. European Settlers It is estimated that by the time the Dutch began the first European settlement of New York City there were approximately 15,000 Lenape in the region. However, European settlement became a long and complicated process that resulted in a European population that far outnumbered the Lenape. In 1609, the Dutch East India Company hired a seaman named Henry Hudson to sail in the name of Amsterdam to the East. Hudson chose to navigate to the West, despite the orders he was given. He arrived in New York and obtained several animal furs to return to Europe. The Dutch Republic quickly recognized the possibilities that the New World had to offer (Brown 1934). By 1610, there were already various fur trade stations established from Maine to New Jersey. Four years later, Captain Hendrick Christiansen raised a fort in what is now Albany. The territory between the Delaware and Connecticut Rivers became known as New Netherland.

The traders sent to New Netherland upon Hudson’s return to Holland in 1609 had no intention of remaining in America beyond the time that they could secure fur trade. The States General in Holland granted a three-year trade monopoly to Dutch Merchants who formed the New Netherland Company in 1614. Therefore, Fort Manhattan was built as a temporary shelter and trading post until the Dutch West India Company became officially organized. Their charter expired, yet no other merchants were excited about establishing a colony in this uncharted continent. The Dutch agreed that in order to remain successful, a permanent residence must be formed. As a result, New Amsterdam became the seat of a colonial government that controlled the possessions of Holland in America (Janvier 1894). Thus, the monopoly known as the Dutch West India Company was created. The Dutch sought to base the Dutch West India Company on the original East India Company. The corporation was given a twenty-four year contract on June 3, 1621. The rules for the Dutch West India Company were formed in 1623; they were called an Artiklebrief. One year later, the first few families set out and colonized the area from Fort Orange (present day Albany) to Fort Nassau (now Gloucester, New Jersey). As more settlers arrived, the New York Bay became filled with people all the way down to its Brooklyn shore. Manhattan Island was becoming New Amsterdam; ships filled with cattle, settlers, and goods were sent across the Atlantic Ocean to help support the new colony (Wallace 1999).

Commerce was the very heart of New York City, even at its beginnings. In 1625 the Dutch founded New Amsterdam in search of fortunes and within a few years traders became successful merchants. Many new colonists were arriving to New Amsterdam because commerce was opened to all residents of Dutch Providences due to the Proclamation of Free Trade. The Dutch learned that New Netherland would not be a success unless a more liberal policy was used, so they removed trade barriers in 1640. The monopoly was destroyed and trade developed (Rankin 1948). Article six of this document proposed that, “Amsterdam shall provide a suitable piece of land on the banks of a river for a proper dwelling-place for

 

21

the colonists. The place shall be provided with a trench and wall on the outer side, and the inner ground be laid out with streets, a market, and in lots, for the advantage of merchants, mechanics, and those who will pursue agriculture-the whole to be done at the cost of said city.” After article 6 was passed, many Englishmen took advantage of mercantile opportunities and in due time outnumbered the Dutch, according to customhouse records (Archdeacon 1976). Eventually, every inhabitant of New Amsterdam had shares in shipments. In 1650, a resident claimed, “Everyone here is a trader” (Shorto 2004). Although the original inhabitants did not mind new settlers, they strongly petitioned against itinerant traders. Around this time, piracy became frequent in New York City and the first crimes of fraud and smuggling appeared. In fact, by 1657, even the most honest of traders were in some way involved with piracy. The pirates were chiefly Englishmen and once the city fell to the English corruption became widespread; even the most prominent of merchants acquired their fame through illegal terms. Finally, the Earl of Bellomont, Sir Coote, who was the governor of New York in 1698, removed the officers at the customs and buffered the amount of trading crimes in the colony (Singleton 1930). In 1647, Peter Stuyvesant replaced Kieft as governor of New York, hoping to make trading regulations even more effective. He designed rules to end smuggling in an attempt to correct Kieft’s mistake of overlooking this crime. He also created a much more efficient system in his seventeen years in position. He passed laws that restricted trading because he required all merchants to obtain “burgher’s rights,” the rights of official residents. His attempts helped create a more sophisticated society. Meanwhile in England, the Duke of York had plans to expand British control in the New World. By the 1660s there were thirteen English towns in Long Island and five Dutch towns. The Duke of York continued to persuade the king to allow him to rule the land from the Delaware to the Connecticut River-which was, in essence, New Netherland. He sent two thousand men under the order of Colonel Richard Nicolls to New Amsterdam. Although Stuyvesant was prepared to fight, the other settlers were not willing to risk their lives, especially because Nicolls guaranteed them their freedoms and their estates. Therefore, on September 8, 1664, the English seized New Netherland from the Dutch (Rensselaer 2007). With the takeover of the British in 1664, New Netherlands was renamed New York and many of the Dutch were pushed out. The settlers continued with their subsidence agriculture, while other farmers created trade-centered communities. The biggest change in the region during this period was the building of plantation-like farms, which would lease land to the more ambitious farmer. Yet, during this time, there was a very important expansion happening in New York City that once again had much to do with the Dutch (Linder 1999).

Before 1790, following the British invasion, Brooklyn had become a Dutch community of farmers. The Dutch were booted off Manhattan and moved to Brooklyn. They created six townships of farming communities: Bushwick, Brooklyn, Flatbush, Flatlands, New Utrecht, and Gravesend. By 1790, “Kings County had long been an agricultural producer for the rest of New York City” (Linder 1999). These Dutch “ Farmers there... were among the first to develop intensive agriculture in the United States and use fertilizer” (Linder 1999) as well as produce enough to feed the entirety of the New York population which even in the late eighteenth century was a large one with a huge prospects of becoming larger. It is important to note that “[f]arming in the New York City Area... had been devoted largely to grains and livestock [before 1790]” (Linder 1999), but by this time in the late eighteenth century, many new types of crops had been introduced in Brooklyn. Brooklyn produced mostly grains because chief amongst the crops of colonial New York

 

22

were wheat, corn, oats, and beer. However, “In [the] 1790s , a British visitor remarked [that] the chief occupation [of Kings County was] raising vegetables for the supply of the market of New York” (Linder 1999). Brooklyn was able to produce cabbage, beans, pumpkins, leeks, gourds, squash, sage, onions, rosemary, and mint. By the 1790’s, Brooklyn was producing it for all of New York City.

Lenape-Colonist Interaction Increasing interaction between the Lenape and the European colonists made food trade especially important. Food technology, which is the science of food engineering, management, production, and nutrition, deals with many of the farming and trading activities that both groups engaged in during this era. Burns (2005) writes:

Despite the spectacular advantages European technology gave in some areas, early European settlers depended for day-to-day survival on technical procedures already developed by Native Americans. Many aspects of growing and preparing New World Crops such as corn and tobacco were obviously dependent on Native American knowledge, although colonists often operated on a far more vast scale than did the indigenous habitants (2005 p.xiii).

The lives of early New York colonists were very much intertwined with the lives of the Lenape. Thus, the settlers were prevented from completely dominating the land, at first. Though there was some European-American Indian trading practices before the official establishment of any European colonies on the island of Manhattan, it was not enough trade to change the environment of Manhattan at that time. During the early seventeenth century, New York could not be completely urbanized because the Indians still occupied a large part of the land (Kammen 1996). In fact, Manhattan's environment didn’t change until a while after the colonists had settled. One of the earlier settlers even describes his surroundings as wilderness and acknowledges the presence of many Lenape around him. Europeans would spend most of the first half of the seventeenth century buying land from the Lenape (Rodgers and Rankin 1948, Shorto 2005). Europeans had complete domination of the land after a few European-Indian wars. Later in the seventeenth century, things in New York changed dramatically. The economic climate changed, and markets were introduced (Duffy 1968). It happened slowly, at first, but Manhattan soon became highly urbanized and super developed. The history of the Lenape and the Europeans in New York City reveals a steady emphasis on food production and trade that laid the foundation for the later development of markets. Markets and Urbanization What exactly is a market? For the purposes of this chapter, markets can be described as systems in which goods are bought and traded (Stigler and Sherwin 1985, Gehlhar and Regmi 2005). Many factors can contribute to the facilitation of goods sold or traded in a market: the region in which the market exists, the people that the market serves, and the economic climate in the environment (Gehlhar and Regmi 2005). Markets in colonial America have a history of being complex and numerous (Breen 2004). Early complications of New York markets could be a response to many factors, one of which is urbanization (Stigler and Sherwin 1985, Gehlhar and Regmi 2005). Urbanization is often seen as a factor that creates impersonal relationships between people, ruins the environment, and causes the economy to soar. These depictions of

 

23

urbanization are true to a certain extent, but urbanization is actually a more fluid phenomenon that varies over time and depends on location. Therefore it is not necessarily related to the negative connotations mentioned above (Anderson 1959). We also often mistake population growth as a product of urbanization, but urbanization can also be a product of population growth. This growth in a particular region encourages its inhabitants to introduce more creative and complicated means of delivering goods. It often creates growth of the economy and population concentration (Black and Henderson1999). When speaking specifically about this process in reference to the economy as opposed to population distribution and peopling, urbanization has two components. These two components are the organization of production and capital investment (Black and Henderson 1999). Thus, urbanization in colonial New York City can be measured and tracked by following population growth, organization, and capital investment. Throughout this chapter, the word “urbanization” pertains to these three factors and as a product and cause of increased colonization and markets in early New York City. FINDINGS

Food markets in New York City increased in complexity from 1500 to 1790. By about 1628, the population of Manhattan was at 270. At this time, Dutch colonists had finally settled onto New York. The population continued to grow. They occupied most of the land, but there were still a few remaining Lenape. Between the 1640s and 1650s, the population size of New York increased exponentially. The population grew from about 400 or 500 people to approximately 1,000 people. By the year 1664, the population was at about 1,500 people (Cantwell and Wall 2001, Duffy 1968).

There were few but gradual changes in the types of food produced from 1500 to 1790. The only types of crops that were introduced in this three-century period were cabbage, beans, pumpkins, leeks, gourds, squash, sage, onions, rosemary, mint, as well as barley, buckwheat and oats. Although these crops may seem numerous, it must be noted that there were 300 years between the time at which these crops were introduced and the time at which they became fruitful. As mentioned, the significant changes illustrated in these findings were not in the variety of crops but in quantity and in the type of farming that begot them. Furthermore, the six towns of Brooklyn, which did so much for the feeding of the city, have been virtually erased. These factors set up the stage for the beginning of a great boom in commercial farming and production in general. Figure 2.1 Main Crops Produced 1500-1790:

Before and During 1500

After 1614 (Settlement of the Dutch)

After 1624-1790

• Corn • Beans

• Oats • Corn • Beans • Barley • Buckwheat

• Corn • Beans • Cabbage • Leeks • Gourds • Pumpkins • Squash • Rosemary

 

24

• Mint • Sage

The new and expanding population of Dutch colonists focused on agriculture. They cultivated the land and produced many species of grains and vegetables. They had clothing and food from the various species of wild animals, fowl, fish, fruit, nuts, roots, and oysters. However, many of the products they desired came from overseas, and as they adjusted to American terrain, more tools were sent for from abroad. In 1660, the Secretary of the Dutch India Company issued a leaflet with a list of needed tools:

Tools needed: 12 plough shares with coulters, 1 first class wheel plow with pulleys, 12

two-prong hay and grain forks, 13 three-prong hay and grain forks, 100 iron teeth to make harrows, 24 best scythes, 24 good reaping hooks, 50 steeled axes, 20 winnowing fans, 30 spades, 30 shovels, 30 hoes, 20 iron rakes, 12 hay knives (Oliver 1956, p.7)

Ploughshares, coulters, and harrows are also tools involved in the plowing process. In 1625, a Dutch ship arrived in the colonies bearing European livestock - wagons, plows, tools, clothing, food seeds, firearms, and cheap goods for trade (Wallace 1999). As the above lists demonstrate, these technologies were made of heavy materials, and involved numerous parts and appliances to make them work. Dutch colonists also introduced more developed food storage and cooking technologies. Many settlers built large farmhouses with food storage cellars with small windows that could be kept cool in the summer and insulated with hay in the winter (Earle 1896, 1968). They also used Dutch ovens, Earle writes:

This was made of metal, usually tin, cylindrical in form, and open on one side, which was placed next the fire. Through this ran a spit by which meat could be turned when roasting. A bake-kettle, or bake-pan, was a metal pan, which stood up on stumpy legs and was fitted with a tightly fitting, slightly convex over cover on which hot coals were placed. (1896, 1968 p.122).

In addition to these larger technologies, the Dutch used silverware made in Holland, including items such as silver tankards, spoons, coffee-pots, teakettles, cups, salt-cellars and pepper-pots (Earle 1896, 1968).

This new variety of products led to the creation of markets. The number of marketplaces at such an early time is surprising, there was many as forty. Although several market places have been discovered on or around the same locations, these markets were presumably erected after the prior marketplaces had ceased to exist. Governor Kieft issued many series of regulations that would control trade. Outside of the markets, no shops were allowed to sell meat, fish, or fruit. Authorities required that food be sold strictly in designated markets. There were also several regulations created to protect the public; there were penalties for expired meat or stale bread, and many items had stamps that displayed their weight before they were sold. Every day was a “market-day” except Sunday, which was the day of rest. The markets were at several appointed locations. Over time the market places began to have structure and organization. Eventually, market places were so well supplied that the tables of New York were set with an abundance of the finest delicacies in every season (Singleton 1930). Map 2.1

 

25

Markets in 1695

(Rothschild, p. 60: Markets in 1695)

By 1661, according to Rothchild’s map, there was at least one market located very

close to the fort. New Amsterdam was still a small community, however, by 1695, three more markets appeared at the fort, at Broad Street, at Old Slip, and at Coenties Slip. The Old Slip market specialized in meats, while the Coenties market specialized in fish. Specialization of products indicates a development in market structure. However, these marketplaces differed in location than the primary market because they were concentrated along the East River. The placement of markets at the edge of Manhattan Island infer that they were constructed to serve the needs of the merchants and the people who worked on the docks; they were not at the center of the town, catering directly to the residents. They were more efficient for the merchants rather than the consumers. These early marketplaces were outdoor stores; they eventually moved indoors in the eighteenth century (Rothschild 1990).

There were a few food shortages following the population boom. Because of the food shortage, attention was drawn toward bakers. The production of breaded materials was beginning to be heavily regulated; it was used as a staple food to avoid starvation in times of bad crops. Soon after the regulation of bread, other food markets were further developed, and regulated. In October of 1656, a meat market was officially established. Butchers were sworn in, and certified. Because specialization was required to slaughter meat, butchers charged for meat to make a living. Thus, organized markets came to exist. In 1659, a baker and a butcher opened a shop in which they sold their specialized goods. There were three reasons why regulations of food became important in New York after the population exploded: there were several food shortages, there were plagues of diseases, and a more efficient way to feed a population was needed. Not only was food regulated, but the government also began to develop laws for sanitation. The biggest factor affecting the attention paid to sanitation was the Bubonic Plague in London in 1665. After this plague, people around the world began to notice the connection between dirt and disease, and disease and close contact (Duffy 1968). New York was turning into a highly organized place because of sanitation control and population growth. The regulations implemented created

 

26

room for an internal food market to occur (keep in mind that at this time, the colonists were still receiving goods from Europe). The food market in New York developed from the organization of food products. The development of these markets was caused by the same factors contributing to the urbanization in New York: population growth. Among the many marketplaces of Dutch New York, the three earliest ones have been documented in The Market Book (Voe 1970). The following case studies are devoted to exploring their framework. West India Company’s Store

This stone warehouse was located on Winkle Street (which was also known as Market Street), facing Fort Amsterdam. It consisted of five stone buildings, and was the first regularly appointed marketplace. Before its construction, the Lenape mainly supplied the inhabitants of New Amsterdam. At its beginnings, the store was not maintained well and many complained that the goods were overvalued and unfairly priced. The storekeeper, Ullrick Lupold was found corrupt, in fact. There was also much strife in the community because of daily complaints made about the theft of livestock.

When Peter Stuyvesant was appointed governor, he made many changes regarding these complaints. He put up proclamations in the public marketplaces that established several rules:

1. All inhabitants of New Netherland were required to fence their plantations, (which would control the problem of theft and robberies).

2. No person could keep a retail business unless they had taken an oath of allegiance to New Netherland and planned to reside in the area for at least four years.

3. Mondays were the official market days for all traders, which included the Lenape. Goods could be taken to the company store where they were sold or traded.

Stuyvesant helped the city become prosperous to the point where the influx of immigrants was so great, that the food supply was threatened. By 1653, there was a shortage of food. In order to control this situation, Stuyvesant enforced new regulations. The consumption of grain by brewers was forbidden and exporting grain became prohibited. Although the city felt drawbacks, Stuyvesant led New Amsterdam in as organized a fashion as he could (Voe 1970). Market-Place at the Strand

During the two-year period when the residents of New Amsterdam were faced with the food shortage, a new market place began to form. Instead of going to the Company’s store, the traders chose to go to the shore of the East River to meet the market boats. Eventually, the East River shore meeting place (the “strand”) became a popular location to trade, and a market was erected from Whitehall Street to the “Graft” canal at the bottom of Broad Street.

Market rules and regulations were soon required to keep up with an increasing population. Monday became the declared official market day because it came after the Sabbath on Sunday. However, people were not especially thrilled with this proposition because it meant that the goods had to be prepared on Sunday so they could sell them on Monday. Therefore, on September 12, 1656, Stuyvesant declared Saturday as the new market day. Markets would be held at the strand, where everyone was permitted to enter and buy or sell, but this soon changes.

By 1657, certificates of delivery were required for selling meat products that had to pass a farmer’s inspection and required an accounted precise weight. Later, in 1658, a cattle

 

27

market was erected near the strand - the specialization of this market allowed cattle trade with New England to increase to the point where there was a demand for a ferry to run across Harlem River by 1667. The strand was successful until 1675, it was then replaced by another goods shelter that dominated for the next twenty years (Voe 1970). Custom-House Bridge Market

In 1675, Governor Andross proclaimed that a weekly market be erected at Pearl and Moore Street; this location was on the waterfront where the strand used to stand. The market would be open for business every Saturday for three years. The Custom-House Bridge Market was so successful that when it expired, there was a high demand to renew it with innovative regulations. Since the city had increased so much, more than one market day was designated. Fish, eggs, butter, fruits, and other goods could be sold on any day of the week. However, the merchants were obligated to account for an exact weight, the prices were strictly set, and punishment was enforced for the retail of stale food. There was also a person appointed to observe the marketplace and implement these regulations. Until 1703, the market house had been used as a store-house and center for trade but as more markets were erected, the custom-house became oudated and trade became less frequent until finally, in 1720, the Common Council of New York disposed of the house (Voe 1970). These case studies reveal the increasing complexity of market organization that occurred during a time of population growth. Because of population growth, organized and regulated markets were necessary to avoid food shortages. The colonists were not hunter-gatherers and needed to be sure food was always available. Individuals began to invest in the market. Official “markets” and “market days” were established, and the rules for buying and selling food became organized and complicated. By the late 1600s, New York City had developed complex markets not unlike the markets that exist today. DISCUSSION

Part of our results revealed an increase in the complexity of food technologies used during the colonial era. It appears that the Lenape and Dutch colonists' technologies were suited to their respective lifestyles, but there were shared technologies between the Dutch and the Lenape. One implication of these findings is that the more developed Dutch colonial food technology replaced many of the natural methods used by the Lenape. The data suggests that as trade increased between the two populations, it became more difficult for the Lenape to maintain their simpler way of life. Certainly, looking back at the evolution of New York City, we see the use of Dutch food technology such as plows and ovens more so than the use of bows, arrows, and shells. Therefore, the changes in food technology during the colonial era could be attributed to the population increase with the influx of settlers. It could also be attributed to the fusion of different cultures. However, the data does not account for the possibility of other social changes occurring within the Lenape and Dutch populations at the time. Increased tensions and rivalry between the Lenape and neighboring cultures such as the Mohawks and the Iroquian confederacy certainly could have altered their use of technologies. In addition, the transformation of New Netherland from a primarily trading company to an agricultural colony could also have impacted their use of technologies during this period.

Despite the change in food technology, food production in the New Netherland area did not change very significantly between 1500-1790. Before the settlement of the Dutch, there was little European influence in the region; thus, corn was the main crop. One can

 

28

infer that the first century after the settlement of the Dutch, in 1614, was relatively monothematic in terms of farming. The Dutch frequently grew oats and corn, and continued to grow these things in their long inhabiting of the New Amsterdam area. Brooklyn became a major supplier of vegetables for the area, since grain was no longer a great profit producer. For some time, farming brought a great deal of revenue for the city. Additionally, there was a great boom of production some time after the creation of the Erie Canal because there was a larger trade market open for the little business savvy farmers of the New York City area to take advantage of.

Our results revealed that the marketplaces that formed in New Netherland did so in a very specific way. Other colonies came into existence for a multitude of reasons, but New York was founded on trade and commerce, thus, the markets that formed are distinct to the city. The findings suggest that that the food markets in New York City were fairly developed. The condition of the economy in New York City was complex as well. The settlers that colonized America were from fairly developed nations, and New York appeared to be fresh land in which they could implement new economic goals for success. New York seemed like a promising place in terms of economic capacity. The rate at which individuals were moving into and investing in the city allowed for New York to advance its food market system. The population growth and urbanization that occurred in this period called for a more complex means of trade.

Several concerns arose during the research for this chapter, but the greatest concern was the uncertainty of the accuracy of the research conducted during 1500 to 1790. Many of the researchers translated important documents from Dutch to English and as a result some information might have been misinterpreted. In addition, statistics from that time period may not have been as trustworthy as they are today. For example, we now use a more precise method of gathering and collecting information to be analyzed by computers. Now there are also censuses that record trends and changes in our population. Seventeenth century New York did not have such organized ways of storing data, so much of the information we have today may have been determined based on less reliable methods.

There is also a very limited amount of information on the Lenape that lived in New York before it was colonized. The relatively small amount of information we have about the way the American Indians lived before contact with European explorers does not explore every detail of their lives. The Lenape very well could have had complex markets; they could have had an advanced sanitation system and have been experiencing a period of economic growth and expansion. However, because we do not have detailed records of their culture before European contact, it is difficult to determine how they lived. Finally, the one flaw that may exist in the characterization of New York City is that there is not a detailed account of the trading system that existed before the Dutch settlement. The city may have already been prepared for an inevitable economic explosion and elaboration of markets upon the arrival of colonists, and one cannot be sure how economically advanced the region was before it experienced a population increase. CONCLUSION

This chapter assessed the changes in agriculture, food technology, and markets in New York City from 1500 to 1790. The history of New York City's agriculture, inhabitants, population changes, colonization, and economic activity provided specific information about changes over the colonial era. This information contributed insight on the contrast between Lenape and Dutch cultures as well as the impact of interaction on their lifestyles. Looking at

 

29

this history, it is apparent that market development occurred at the same time as population growth because as more European settlers arrived, more formal markets were created. Both the Lenape and the Dutch focused on agriculture as a means of food production. There were few but gradual changes in the variety of crop that was cultivated in New York City from 1500-1790, however, there was great change in the scale of production and the locations in which agriculture was practiced. These changes are also attributed to the growth of the New York City population in correlation to the amount of food the citizens needed. As the population increased, a more elaborate method of food supply had to be constructed. Therefore, trade became a prominent part of pre-colonial life in New York, and the Dutch settlers strove to perfect their businesses by regulating the markets scattered along the perimeter of Manhattan Island. The English who took over New Amsterdam in the eighteenth century further developed the markets into fully functioning and well-established centers of commerce. Markets from 1500-1790 started out as elementary and became increasingly complex as time progressed.

Our findings demonstrated the simultaneous changes that occurred in population growth and market development during colonial New York City. In the early 1600s, when Europeans settled and began to urbanize the lands, food markets were created; as the population of Europeans in New York increased, these food markets became more developed and regulated. Colonial New York City used more complex methods of food trade and regulation in order to properly accommodate its increasing number of residents. REFERENCES

Anderson, N. (1959) Urbanism and Urbanization. The American Journal of Sociology, 65, 7.

Archdeacon, T. A. (1976). New York City, 1664-1710: Conquest and Change. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Black, D. & V. Henderson (1999) A Theory of Urban Growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 107, 34.

Breen, T. H. (2004). The Marketplace of Revolution: How consumer politics shaped American independence. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Brown, H. C. (1934). The Story of Old New York. New York, E. P. Dutton Co.

Burns, W. E. (2005). Science and Technology in Colonial America. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Cantwell, A.-M. & D. d. Wall. (2001). Unearthing Gotham: The Archaeology of New York City. New Haven: Yale University.

Cochrane, W. W. (1993). The development of American Agriculture: a historical analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

30

Duffy, J. (1968). A History of Public Health in New York City 1625-1866. Hartford: Connecticut Printers, Inc.

Earle, A. M. (1896,1968). Colonial Days in Old New York. Detroit, Michigan: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Gehlhar, M. & A. Regmi. (2005). Factors Shaping Global Food Markets. In New Directions in Global Food Markets, eds. A. Regmi & M. Gehlhar. United States Department of Agriculutre.

Jackson, Kenneth T. (1995). The Encyclopedia of New York City. New Haven, Conn. Yale University Press.

Kammen, M. (1996). Colonial New York : A History New York. Oxford University Press.

Janvier, T. (1894). In Old New York. New York, Harper and Brothers.

Linder, M. (1999). Of Cabbages and Kings County : Agriculture and the Formation of Modern Brooklyn. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Press.

Oliver, J. (1956). History of American Technology. New York: Ronald Press Co.

Perkins, E. J. (1988). The economy of colonial America. New York: Columbia University Press.

Pritchard, E. T. (2002). Native New Yorkers: The Legacy of the Algonquin People of New York. San Francisco: Council Oak Books.

Pursell, C. (1995, 2007). The Machine in America; A Social History of Technology Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Rankin, C. R. a. R. B. (1948). New York: The World's Capital City. New York, Harper and Brothers.

Rensselaer, M. G. V. History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth Century. New York, Cosmo Classics.

Rodgers, C. & R. B. Rankin. (1948). New York: The World's Capital City. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Rothschild, N. A. (1990). New York City Neighborhoods: The 18th Century. New York, Academic Press INC.

Sanderson, E. W. (2009). Mannahatta: a natural history of New York City. New York: Abrams.

Shorto, R. (2004). The island at the Center of the World. New York, Random House.

 

31

Singleton, E. (1930). Social New York Under the Georges. New York, D. Appleton and Company.

Singleton, E. (1968). Dutch New York. New York, Benjamin Blom.

Stigler, G. J. & R. A. Sherwin (1985) The Extent of the Market. Journal of Law and Economics, 28, 32.

Tomes, R. R. (2006). New York City: a brief history. New York: Pearson Custom Publishers.

Voe, T. F. D. (1970 ). Market Book. New York, A. M. Kelley.Wallace, E. G. B. M. (1999). Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

32

-4-

FOOD PRODUCTION IN NEW YORK CITY FROM 1790-1860

by Eli Bierman, Christina Borovilas, Melanie Boyce, Lucia Cappuccio, Khatiya Chelidze & Stephanie Cherestal

INTRODUCTION

New York City today teems with life and boasts one of the most compelling reasons to visit any location: incredible food. Thousands of restaurants, street vendors, and small shops crowd the streets, offering the inhabitants a large variety of culinary delights. Poised on the Hudson River, New York City benefited from the temperate climate and its bay, which made foodstuffs plentiful and readily available. In today’s world, a rich assortment of food is available for consumption, affected largely by the global market and cultural diversity of Gotham. Centuries ago, however, it was more common to eat what was locally produced.

Local markets were accessible in many points throughout the city, particularly on the island of Manhattan; New York City’s proximity to farmland and major waterways allowed these markets to flourish. An increase in immigration to the city and population led to a demand in agricultural goods, meats, fish, shellfish, and alcoholic beverages. The accessibility of these products, especially fish and shellfish, was an important factor in the availability and variety of goods found in the city’s markets, frequented by people of all socio-economic backgrounds.

Consumption of these products increased over the time period of 1790 to 1860, and was fueled by an ever- growing population. Agriculture provided the primary source of income for many of the colonists who, especially during the earlier years, were self-sufficient because of New York’s fertile and plentiful land. Technological advancements aided in the production of foodstuffs, strongly affecting grain productions and the brewing process. Advancements in transportation later became vital in supplying the city; as the value of land increased, farming was pushed further away from the inner boroughs. Developments in technology led to canals, steamboats, and railroads, all of which transported more products eastward as less land became available for agricultural use.

New York City in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century was a center for trade and contained active markets thanks to high availability of goods supplied local land. During the years 1790 to 1860, consumption of agricultural goods, meats, seafood, and alcoholic beverages increased tremendously. Demand grew and New Yorkers expected to obtain a wide assortment of food products to suit their needs. Although consumption grew, production gradually moved away from New York City as population increased, and the metropolis came to rely heavily on outer portions of New York and neighboring states to supply its ravenous inhabitants.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The area we call New York City today was mostly farmland in 1790. Throughout the period, the production of various agricultural goods, meats, seafood, and alcoholic beverages

 

33

peaked and then moved further away from the city. In order to fully explain this phenomenon, it is necessary to describe the context of these industries’ growth.

Consumption During the 1790s, New Yorkers expected to obtain foods from their neighborhood

marketplaces; various items, such as produce, meat, seafood, and alcohol, were available for sale and included in meals for people of all socio-economic backgrounds. Produce was grown, meat was butchered, and seafood was caught locally. All collected, they were brought to and sold in local markets. An area where businesses offered goods, services, and labor for sale, markets flourished within New York City due to the close proximity to farmland and waterways. A variety of trade professions were represented, including carpenters, grocers, coach makers, and stonecutters (Burrows and Wallace 1999). Fly Market, Fulton Street Market, and Harlem Market were popular places for shopping during this time.

During the 1820s, immigrants began to add to New York’s population in large numbers. As the urban population in New York City grew, a large market for fruits and vegetables arose. This demand was soon filled as farmers in nearby areas like Brooklyn and Queens began to focus on growing fruits and vegetables to sell to New Yorkers. The types of meat available for sale were influenced by local tastes; beef was especially high in demand. In 1760, the consumption of fish per year rose by 23 percent (Hauck-Lawson & Deutsch 2009). This change was brought on by the flourishing fishing industry; new cultures added to the demand of fish, making the industry more productive. Oystering also saw a major increase in production as its popularity increased both domestically and internationally.

New York and Philadelphia had established themselves as prime centers for trade, especially in the alcoholic beverage industry. Downard writes that more than twenty brewers were working in the city from the years 1695 to 1786 (by comparison, there were no working breweries in the city by the 1970s) (132). Despite these isolated industry centers, the colonists soon realized that the ingredients conducive to good beer were simply not available to them in their new land. Their British inclinations would soon be forced to change not only in the vote, but also in the glass. Production

In the British colonies of the United States, the primary source of income was agriculture; 85% of colonists farmed for a living. They grew crops to sell and make a profit rather than to merely feed their family. Farmers in New York typically grew corn, wheat, barley, oats, and rye for profit. Each individual household commonly grew fruits and vegetables in small kitchen gardens, so there was not much demand for large-scale production of these items until later.

Important meats consumed included beef (cattle), pork (pig), and mutton (sheep). Originally, these animals were raised and slaughtered within New York City. Afterwards, the meat was brought over to local markets for sale and consumption. Beef was the most profitable and popular of the meats due to its taste and texture. Wild game was also popular, but once the first era of settlement passed, beef took prominence over other meats in New York.

Many different kinds of seafood were found in New York’s surrounding waters, including striped bass, cod, oysters, and clams. This gave consumers a wide variety of seafood to choose from in markets. Fisherman and oyster merchants were able to make a good living because of the dependability of their product. Fish and oyster demand during

 

34

this time were incredibly high because of their easy accessibility, almost effortless production, and cheap price. Fishermen native to the Atlantic Ocean traded along foodways to a variety of different ports and markets. Fisheries began humbly, slowly developing to propel community interest in the fishing economy of local waterways like the Long Island Sound and Hudson River. Oysters were cultivated by thousands of sea farmers, and merchants sold millions of oysters every year.

During the early 1800s, the search for the new national American drink was underway. Researchers have found countless recipes for beers in the records from this time. These include instructions on how to make beer from the local crop, maize, ingredients like grains and fruits, and even more unorthodox beers crafted from items such as “essence of spruce” (Baron 1962), as well as traditional recipes based on barley and hops. This suggests that there was a brewery in every home during the colonial period; this implies that much of the brewing and distilling ‘industry’ was in fact a loose network of private home brewing at this time. Some historians are now dubbing one of America’s greatest folk legends, Johnny Appleseed, the “American Dionysus” because he “brought alcohol to the frontier” (Pollan 2001). Alcoholic beverages were deeply ingrained in the American daily way of life during the colonial era, and this continued into the days of the early republic. Technology

Progression in the creation of new technologies was relatively new during the first half of the 19th century. Later developments, however, especially in the steel industry, sparked a wave of advancements that would lead to less local trade and a greater dependence on national markets.

In the early stage of American colonies, farming was done largely by hand. Technology was not highly developed, nor was it readily available. Plows, now considered a vital tool in agriculture production, were hard to come by. Technology improvement during this time mainly affected grain production, which was no longer taking place in New York City when significant advancements began to happen. Advances in fishing technologies, based on what kind of fish fishermen were trying to seize, were relatively stagnant as well. Hooks and nets were the preferred gear of choice. Instruments used for shellfish include nets and cages (usually used for lobsters and crabs). Concerned more about the size of their daily catches, fishermen left the expensive developments of safer gear for a later era. Contrastingly, the brewing industry invented three items that would hold great importance: the hydrometer, the thermometer, and the steam engine. Both the hydrometer (along with its offshoot, the saccharometer) and the thermometer gave the brewer instruments to measure and monitor processes more exactly, and the steam engine—which replaced horses—opened possibilities of working with greater volumes in the brewery (Olsson 2010).

Advancements in transportation came to impact the exchange of various food products, such as grains, wheat, corn, seafood, alcohol, sugar and meat. This trade of food in turn had an enormous impact on the country’s economy. New York offered a multitude of transportation options that allowed for trade over long distances. Canals were frequently used in the early nineteenth century. One example is the Erie Canal, which shuttled agricultural commodities. The steamboat, invented by Robert Fulton, was used in conjunction with canals to provide a faster way to transport both people and goods than horse ferries (Burrows and Wallace 1999). The steamboats ensured that New York remained economically linked to the mid-west.

Railroads, adapted from the developed railways in England, were an important technology as well. After the Reconstruction era, it was clear that railroads were needed to

 

35

shuttle settlers west and agricultural products east. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Companies were licensed in 1827 to build a steam railroad to the west. A number of shorter lines were additionally built to provide connections to river systems, such as the Pontchartrain railroad, which connected the Mississippi to Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans (Burrows and Wallace 1999). Beginning in 1840, refrigerated cars, patented by J.B. Sutherland, were used to transport milk and butter. By 1860, refrigerated transportation was limited to seafood and dairy products; later, there were various car designs based upon the type of cargo, such as meat and fruit (Krasner-Khait 2010). RESULTS While compiling the research for this chapter, various trends in food consumption, production, and trade became apparent from 1790 to 1860. Production and consumption of meat, primarily beef, increased. This increase was also seen with fish and shellfish. Consumption and demand for various alcoholic beverages rose dramatically, reached its peak in 1830, and then later saw a steady decline. Agriculture and trade saw a subtle decline. Meat Types of meats Common types of meats eaten in New York City between 1790 and 1860 included beef, pork, mutton, veal, lamb, and poultry (Jackson 1995). These meats were consumed because major ethnic groups in New York City retained their eating habits when they settled in the New World; often they brought a taste for domestic animals with them. Occasionally, wild meats such as venison, turkey, wildfowl, and small animals like rabbits were consumed on special occasions (Oliver 2005). Domestic animals were found primarily on family farms in the Colonial era into the late eighteenth century, but in the nineteenth century, an increase in population and land value spurred an increasing arrival from areas outside New York City (Well 2004). Markets and population

Several markets were established or in use in New York City between 1790 and 1860. A few well-known markets contained butcher stalls; meats sold included beef and pork, along with meats from smaller animals such as mutton and veal (Voe 1862). The Spring Street Market was erected in 1800 on the corner of Hudson and Spring Street. Meats such as roast beef, pork, veal, mutton, turkey, and geese provisions were sold at this location. Franklin market was built in 1821 between Water and Front Streets, Tompkins market in 1826 on Bowery and 3rd avenue, Clinton market in 1827 (erected near the north river), and Jefferson market in 1832 on the corner of Greenwich Lane and 7th Avenue. Weehawken Market or the "Greenwich Market" was established in 1834; this market was not as successful as some others and supported about five butchers. In 1835, Union Market was established and bordered by Houston and Second Street; six butchers purchased stalls as soon as the market house was finished. The Monroe Market followed this in 1836 (built on Monroe Street), as well as the Harlem Market in 1840, which was situated west of Third Avenue near 120th street (Voe 1862). A detailed map of Manhattan market locations in the year 1808 is seen in Figure 4.1 on the following page.

The population of New York State and New York City

 

36

Although it lagged behind Philadelphia in terms of population until the 1790s, New York City experienced a constant rate of growth in the late eighteenth century. From the mid eighteenth century to 1780, the city grew from 49,000 to 211,000 people. It was affected significantly by the waves of British immigrants; a large number of these immigrants were Scottish. Speculators at this time began to negotiate with Iroquois for land around the Hudson Valley. The Iroquois ceded most of their land to New York State after the War of Independence since they had sided with the British, who lost the war. This allowed for extensive colonization as well as land speculation. The population of New York State increased from 340,000 inhabitants in 1790 to 1.4 million in 1820 (Well 2004).

Figure 4.1 is a map of market locations within Manhattan in 1808 (Rothschild 1990)

 

37

Figure 4.2 Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages and Absolute Alcohol

(Rorabaugh 1976) The New York brewing and distilling industry, having had its peak during the

eighteenth century, reached a plateau of strength. Before the introduction of lager beer in the 1840s, many breweries produced beer, ale, and porter in a small, twelve-square block area of Brooklyn known as “Brewer’s Row” (Downard 1980). Elsewhere in the state, the Albany Brewing Company, founded in 1796, was being heralded as one of the finest centers of ale production in the country (5). Although there is evidence that the brewing industry was

 

38

gradually moving west, “by 1860, the nation's 1,269 breweries produced more than one million barrels of beer, [and] 85 percent of it [was] still brewed in New York and Pennsylvania” (Boyer 2001). This information supports the statement that the “primacy of cider” is a scholastic misconception, at least in regards to New York City. Beer was New York’s most popular drink, while cider and whiskey were frontier beverages, centered around the areas of Kentucky and southern Indiana (Downard 1980). Worth mentioning is the fact that drinking spaces shifted significantly over the focus period. Spirits were considered good for beginning a day’s worth of hard labor, and this is evident by the fact that the prominent area of drink consumption changed from the home to the tavern (i.e., a place closer to the area of labor). Additionally, an influx of Irish immigrants in the 1810s and German immigrants in the 1840s facilitated the opening of porter-houses and beer gardens, respectively. The collective existences of these establishments allowed for a more widespread popularity of a variegated smorgasbord of drinks that now included ale, brandy, cider, gin, ginger-beer, mead, mint julep, porter, and punches (Hauck-Lawson 2009). Fish and Shellfish

The Hudson River, Raritan Bay, and Long Island Sound can all be found within the confines of New York. The Hudson is located to the west of the Manhattan Island. Flowing for over three hundred miles, the river serves as a boundary between New York and New Jersey (Jackson 1995). It is home to hundreds of species of fish and shellfish (Levington & Waldman 2006). Raritan Bay is located in the southern-most tip of New York. Throughout the 1800s the bay was a vital area for fishing as well as clamming and oystering (Jackson 1995). Over-extraction of these resources led to the bay’s downfall; productivity peaked around the late 1880s (USGS). The Sound can be found between Connecticut and Long Island, New York. With about 1310 square miles of water stretching 110 miles long, the Sound was home to a bevy of saltwater fish (Andersen 2004). Great prosperity came to the sound for its whaling and sealing industry, but only for a limited time.

Colonists developed the Port of New York from the Upper New York Bay. Its size and proximity to the open sea made it an ideal location for trading (Jackson 1995). So many fishing vessels and merchants passed through the port to trade fish and other seafood that by around 1850 it became one of the world’s most important ports (1995).

Deerfield, a town located in the upper mid-west of Massachusetts, provided a great deal of fish to New York. Sold by the quintel, the most popular fish brought from Deerfield to New York were salmon and shad. Fish in barrels were preserved by pickling; in the late 1700s, salt would become the main method of preservation (Benes 1984). Gloucester, also a Massachusetts town, is located in the upper east tip of the state. Winter fishing was a very popular occurrence in Gloucester for it brought year-round employment for fishermen (Kurlansky 2008).

 

39

Figure 4.3 Fish commonly found in New York Markets c. 1804 (De Voe 1867)

The most popular types of fish provided for New York City included cod, mackerel, bluefish, striped bass, salmon, shad, and sturgeon. Eels and some species of sting ray (Clear-nosed, Spotted, and Whip-Sting to name a few) were also sold in markets (De Voe 1867). Fish were reared and locally brought to markets, or they were preserved and shipped to trading ports to be sold. Menhaden, a miniature fish used mainly for oil and bait, was caught around the metropolitan area.

Fishhooks, nets, and the occasional spear were most commonly used in procuring fish. Passive gear, such as gill nets (nets attached to poles that could tangle a fish’s gills), fyke nets (nets that trapped fish into pockets), and the classic hook-and-line fishing poles, relied heavily on the movement patterns of the fish. The gear was kept still on the waterway’s floor, then reeled up and brought to the surface once full of fish (Hubert 1996). Active gear, such as dredges (half-oval shaped nets) and trawls (funnel-shaped nets), is attached to moving vessels to capture fish as it moves along (Hayes, Ferreri, and Taylor 1996). Both passive and active gears were used primarily during deep-sea fishing and could rear a great amount of fish; fishing poles and spears were usually utilized in freshwater fisheries and could only capture 1-2 fish at a time.

An assortment of fishing boats were used during the first half of the 19th century. Schooners, a boat created in 1713, were “sleek, two-masted vessel[s] with fore–and-aft rigging and the ability to put a tremendous amount of canvas in topsails” (Kurlansky 1997). Their speed reduced sailing time between ports. Dories were smaller than schooners and less heavy, making them easier to paddle until the boat was full of fish (Kurlansky 2008). Some fishermen would unload their catches from the nets into cars. “Cars” (large covered boxes floating in the water with cracks to keep water flowing in an out) would travel alongside boats and were equipped to carry up to 4,000 pounds (McKay 1969).

In regards to the shellfish industry, the Hudson River was one of the most important oyster areas not only because of its closeness to the heart of Manhattan and the seaport, but also because of its prime conditions for oysters. Staten Island’s Raritan Bay, the Great South Bay, Jamaica Bay, and the Long Island Sound were also home to many of the oysters that were traded and sold in the city. Staten Island’s waters produced the greatest amount of oysters in the city and were eventually some of the first to be depleted.

The demand for oysters in New York led to a depletion of oyster beds throughout the city and forced farmers to find innovative ways to revive these habitats. Farmers began

 

40

to import oysters from out of state to replace the native oysters. The locations of these oyster beds changed because of depletion and polluted waters. New transportation methods, such as steamboats, canals, and railroads, increased the shellfish trade in and out of New York and allowed oysters to be exported and imported more easily. Agriculture and trade Grain production During the years between 1790 and 1860, grain production moved increasingly further away from the city. When the Erie Canal opened, grains could be imported from interior states at a lower price than it would cost to produce them closer to New York City. Many farms around New York City that once produced grains, especially in Kings and Queens County, began to focus more on fruit and vegetable production instead (Linder and Zacharias 1999). Technology and farming As this machine-focused farming began to emerge, the shift of focus of agriculture in New York from grains to fruits and vegetables also began to occur more rapidly. While corn shelling was one of the most time consuming chores of farm life, this practice stayed relatively constant until shelling machines were introduced in the early 1800s. A-shaped drags were commonly used to break up soil. Hoes were used to plant corn, and small grains such as wheat, oats, and rye were seeded by hand. Sickles were the main tools used to reap the grain harvest until 1750 when the cradle scythe became popular. This simple tool increased efficiency threefold. Small weeds were fought off with hoes, and flails were used to thresh the grain. In New York, however, where a greater volume of grains were produced, this method was not efficient enough. Farmers instead used horses and oxen to tread on the grain to thresh it. Although this method was crude and not much faster, it required less labor, and therefore kept costs down. Winnowing, or removing the chaff from the grain, was done by hand by farmers until well into the nineteenth century. Generally, the grain would be put in a basket and repeatedly thrown into the air so that the chaff could fly away in the wind. This chaff blew into the fields, which helped to fertilize them. Harvesting corn, also known as shelling, was also done by hand and was very time consuming and labor intensive. This practice stayed relatively constant until shelling machines were introduced in the early 1800s, but the chore was still labor intensive (Hurt 2002). Food consumption The diet of New Yorkers did not change dramatically between 1790 and 1860, but one significant change was the popularity of potatoes. The potato had been seen as a food fit for hogs rather than people ever since it had been brought to America. Its production remained low, and it would mainly be found growing in people’s home gardens. Around the year 1850, however, the potato began to assert itself as a major starch in Americans’ and especially New Yorkers’ diets (Hedrick 1933). Agricultural trade In different regions of the United States, certain agricultural products were better suited to be cultivated, so oftentimes regions would specialize in producing and exporting different foods. For instance, the New England region, while able to produce a variety of agricultural goods, was never able to produce export goods comparable to those of the middle or

 

41

southern colonies. New England colonies frequently grew and traded corn, root crops, fruits, and vegetables in abundance, as well as raised a considerable amount of livestock (Hilliard 1972). On the other hand, corn was the main trading crop in the more southern regions of the Northwest and was often shipped in great quantities to the South (Clark 1966). The South also cultivated a specific variety of crops, mainly including cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco. These crops were popularly grown in Southern regions due to the fact that they were well suited to slave labor (Benedict 1953). Figure 4.4 below, provided by Robert E. Gallman in his article “Changes in Total U.S. Agricultural Factor Productivity in the Nineteenth Century,” provides data documenting the amounts of different food products that were cultivated in various regions in the United States in the year 1791.

Figure 4.4 American crop yields in bushels per acre (Gallman 1791) Some food products that were vital to international trade were various grains and

sugar. Exports of bread products to England averaged at $738,000 annually, and had not surpassed $1.2 million since 1820. Data shows, however, that between 1846 and 1850 the figure increased to 13.9 million. During this time, approximately 10 percent of America’s total domestic exports were composed of grain exports to England. In 1847, it is documented that 40 percent of England’s imports of wheat and flour originated in the United States (Clark 1966). The public consumption and trade of sugar in the United States increased rapidly during the nineteenth century. This occurred primarily in richer, more industrialized cities. At this time, however, those who cultivated sugar cane in America did so more often for their own use or for domestic sale than for international export (Galloway 1972). Some domestic centers of sugar production were located in Hawaii and Louisiana (1972). Because of the high demand, and the fact that sugar cane was cultivated best in humid, tropical areas, various outside groups competed to supply the United States with its sugar needs. One important country to do so was Cuba, which was located close by and therefore a convenient source of supply (1972). As different regions in the United States specialized in the production of various agricultural products, it was initially difficult to transport these products across the nation

 

42

due to a lack of effective methods of transportation. This all changed, however, with the construction of the Erie Canal in 1825. This waterway became financially beneficial to the United States, especially to New York City and the regions through which the canal passed (Clark 1966). This is illuminated by looking at the Erie Canal’s effect on one neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York: “King’s County’s transition from grain to vegetable production from about the 1850s was driven by advances in transportation, especially the opening of the Erie Canal, which shifted regional cost advantages and thus made commercially possible the importation to the growing urban population of the New York City area of cheaper grains grown in upstate New York and the upper Mississippi Valley. In neighboring Queens County, too, wheat and flour had been the staples until the canal was built “ (Linder & Zacharias 1999). It is clear that advances in technology affected the possible exchange of goods, and therefore changed the patterns of domestic trade within the United States. DISCUSSION Consumption Meat

The region of New York was settled by an ethnic mix, and the meats eaten reflected characteristics of the people who settled there. (Oliver 2005) The Dutch brought cattle and hogs to America and bought hardy beef cattle from New Englanders. The Dutch also ate thick, Holland hogs and made certain to have a variety of domestic fowl, including chickens, turkeys, and geese. Among affluent Dutch, meals consisted of mutton, beef, veal, and poultry with seasoned vegetables (2005). It is interesting to note that a much greater amount of meat was consumed in the New World than in Europe (2005).

The English took advantage of the New World’s climate because it was similar to the country they had left behind. Pigs and cattle were raised on family farms and slaughtered in the fall or winter to take advantage of the natural preservation that would occur in the cold (Smith 2006). Beef was salted and smoked and sausage was occasionally produced. Mutton was also consumed, but the consumption and use of the sheep itself depended on the value of wool. Breakfasts for the wealthy usually consisted of chicken, ham, veal cutlet, beef, and pork, along with various fruits and breads (Oliver 2005). English style boarding houses, taverns, and chophouses were scattered throughout the city offering beefsteaks, muttonchops, and broiled chicken (Grimes 2009).

The Germans were known for cooking salty meat and sweet fruit. They thus made plenty of use of smoked ham and pork sausage. The Germans continued their meat-eating habits from the old world, displaying a preference for pork, lamb, venison, turkey, chicken; pork was consumed most widely (Oliver 2005). Alcohol In this age of extreme drinking in American history, it becomes of interest to address the question of why people drank so much during the early nineteenth century, as the reasons for consumption will have profoundly affected its rate. One frequently cited reason for the circumstance of drinking is that of medicinal health. There is a perception among scholars that alcohol was prescribed left and right.

One historian writes, “Doctors …suggested consumption of alcoholic beverages for a wide variety of ailments” (Williams 1980). Not only was alcohol considered healthy, but water was considered unhealthy. As a beverage, beer “was still required in New York during the eighteenth century because the public water supply continued to be unsafe…people would go on drinking manufactured beverages, preferably those with some alcoholic

 

43

content” (Baron 1962). The fact of alcohol’s prevalence as a medicine is reflected in the positive attitude the general public had toward this beverage. “Most people thought whiskey was as essential as bread” (Lender 1982). This also gave rise to a change in the way drinking was displayed and perceived. Within the home, the religiously inclined society of the nineteenth century northeast curbed any deviant and disturbing acts one may associate with drunkenness. However, “The explosive growth in the number of taverns [in New York City] between 1830 and 1860, [and] their roles as centers of working-class recreation and social life” promoted an amazing surge in tavern violence and social conflict (Kaplan 1995).

It is in such behavioral issues that the origins of the Temperance Movement found themselves. A desire to curb drinking existed even in colonial times, but gained speed during the second quarter of the nineteenth century as the loss of certain religious, social, familial, and institutional mores that controlled behavior became more and more apparent. Temperance was a way to “re-establish control over the increasingly popular middle classes making up the American ‘modern man’ (Grusfield 1986). This movement began in an organized way with the establishment of the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance in 1826, and continued until the prohibition of alcohol in 1920. Fish and shellfish

Deep-sea fishing was the most popular form of fishing. The amount of fish brought to markets from the sea spurred an increase in demand. Farmers living on New York City and Long Island shores would also contribute to fishing production. Seen as a means to supplement their income, farmers would often fish in their local fisheries. Afterwards, they would either personally bring their catches to markets or load them onto boats that operated between their towns and Manhattan (Jackson 1995).

In addition to deep-sea fish, oysters, which were native to New York City harbors, were also very popular. Oyster consumption in New York City was so high that by the 1820s, most beds in New York had been overharvested and were nearly barren (Kurlansky 2008). With depleted beds, farmers had to come up with a way to keep oyster production strong. They did this through a process called cultivation. Artificial beds would be created where natural beds once stood and oysters from other locations would be brought in to grow in the water. This oyster farming including planting seed, cultivating the bottom, putting down shell material called cultch, and then transplanting and harvesting outside oysters (Timmons et al 2004). By 1830, many of New York’s oysters were no longer natives from the city’s waters. Cultivation allowed the city to continue to produce oysters even if they were not naturally from New York. Agricultural Products The ethnic mix of people in New York City created a demand for a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. Grain consumption generally consisted of wheat, barley, rice, and oats from the Europeans with corn from the Native Americans, but fruit and vegetable consumption was much more diverse. The influx of German and Irish immigrants changed the market and created a demand for products like cabbage and potatoes. The market responded to this demand by growing more potatoes and cabbages commercially, mostly in Queens and Brooklyn. Racist attitudes towards the Irish, who were often thought of as inferior to other white Europeans at the time, kept the “Irish potato” in America limited to being merely a small garden crop for home use until around 1850, when potatoes began to be more widely accepted in the American diet (Hedrick 1933).

 

44

Technology Meat As the United States entered the nineteenth century, the northeastern states were becoming industrialized and rapidly growing in population, and therefore, increasing amounts of foods were needed to sustain these regions. The development of steamboats and the construction of the Erie Canal created a new passageway to ship from the interior of the country to New York City in order to supply the ever-increasing demand for food. The Erie Canal grew in significance and had considerable influence in shipping meat products from the Midwest to New York City. Pork and beef packed in Chicago were regularly shipped to the city through the water routes. The opening of the canal pushed horse, cattle, and sheep production further from New York City. The Erie Canal remained economically competitive until the development of road and refrigerated train cars, which led to a decline in bacon and pork trade on the river (Clemen 1926). Agriculture The growing urban market in New York City created a demand for grains that could not be met by local farms, which were now focusing more on fruits and vegetables. The importation of grains was made possible due to the technological advances mentioned previously, specifically the Erie Canal and steamboats. An illustration of this situation can be seen in the New England area: “New England, an importer of certain kinds of food even during the colonial period, became increasingly important as a food deficit area throughout the 19th century…Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York actively imported western foodstuffs as early as 1820 (Hilliard 1972).” Through this data, it is clear that, when certain regions in the United States lacked the ability to cultivate certain food products, they developed the ability to import what they needed from distant regions with the help of new technologies. This is never clearer than when one looks at the effect of trade in New York City: “Farming in the New York City area, which had been devoted largely to grains and livestock, was transformed by the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. On the one hand, the canal made it possible to transport grain cheaply from the Ohio Valley, where the cost of production was lower, to the city…On the other hand, the canal helped spur the transformation of New York into the country’s leading port and most populous city” (Linder & Zacharias 1999). We can see here that the evolution of technology in New York not only helped to feed the city, but it helped it to grow, both financially and in population. Fish & Shellfish Most advances in fishing technology during this time were made solely for the reaping of more fish, not for safety precautions; fishermen didn’t see fish “as a finite resource until the twentieth century” (Kurlansky 2008). Big catches equaled more money, and fishermen were more interested in reaping a profit than taking cautionary actions. Small-to-medium sized boats were ideal in the fishing industry for fish capture because fish tended to steer clear of the larger ships, like steamboats. Because of this, boats were subjected to dangers like capsizing or sinking under heavy loads. Though these dangers were present, fishermen continued to overfill their boats for chances of more profit. Several advancements in technology benefitted the oyster trade. The introduction of the steamboat and steam technology increased trading between New York and other locations, particularly Connecticut and Philadelphia. New York was also now able to ship enormous quantities of fresh oysters upstate to Albany and to Europe as well as import

 

45

oysters from Long Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Steam powered dredges were introduced to collect more oysters from the water. This new method increased the number of oysters brought to the market dramatically. Because of the havoc it wrecked on beds, however, the use of steam-powered dredges was soon banned in New York (Kurlansky 2008). The finished construction of the Eerie Canal in 1825 also brought more efficient and profitable trade to the city. Connecting New York Harbor to the Great Lakes and Midwest, the canal opened the oyster trade up to the western region of the United States, and helped put more money in the hands of merchants. The rise of railroads had similar positive effects on trade. Railroads to Boston, Washington, the Great Lakes, and the West allowed New York oysters to be shipped out to these places on beds of ice (2008). Production Meat After the Revolutionary War, thousands of settlers began to pour into the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. Thus, the heartland of agricultural production in America was pushed father west, away from Manhattan (Benes 1984). New York compensated by ensuring that connections to the west were still established through the development of the Eerie Canal (Burrows and Wallace 1999). As farmland disappeared from Manhattan, meats were acquired from further locations, such as Westchester and Duchess counties, New Jersey, and New England (Horowitz, Pilcher et al. 2004). The products of the farms of more northerly states such as Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois could travel to Manhattan on the Eerie Canal (Danhof 1969).

Although most meat was imported, early New Yorkers were able to provide some of their own food by keeping domestic animals; Manhattan was full of English Cattle, hogs, sheep, and goats. As population increased, however, land became too valuable to use for food production. Inhabitants of the city came to rely almost entirely on food through the market. The practice of keeping domestic animals, particularly pigs, continued into the next century, however, as signified by a succession of laws that kept them from running free (Rothschild 1990). By the eighteenth century, most food came from the markets. The first markets arose in the late seventeenth century, and slowly became more abundant; the marketing system existed without any intermediaries. Legislation prevented middlemen from buying cheap and hiking prices, and protected the quality of food. Meat, poultry, fish, and produces were acquired on a daily basis (Rothschild 1990). It took a small amount of time for a cattle market to develop in New York, although pigs were driven to market as well as some wild game. Meat and poultry, though widely available in city markets, were often expensive, even at a reduced price at the end of the market day. Thus many working class wives kept their own animals, mainly pigs (Burrows and Wallace 1999). Beef was a highly cherished domestic meat among European settlers. Within a decade or two of colonization, raising cattle became an economically significant activity. After the era of first settlement, wild food decreased in importance and beef predominated over other meats. Most people preferred to eat beef fresh, but the fatty portions were corned or salted; later, some of the corned or slated meat were smoked. Making sausage was another way to preserve beef: Beef was produced on farms for family use, usually slaughtering in the fall or winter to take advantage of natural cold for preservation, so that most was available for use fresh. (Oliver 2005)

 

46

Fish & Shellfish Fisheries played a vital role in the economy of this time period. With an influx of immigrants coming from overseas during this time, specifically during the 1820s, the fishing industry helped to provide jobs as well as a source of food for new families (USGS). The developments of man-made waterways, such as the Erie Canal in 1825, also brought a flood of trade from other fisheries in the northeast (Burrows 1999). The whaling industry was probably the most prosperous (and hazardous) sublet of the fishing industry. Whales were once bountiful in the Long Island Sound, and the Port of New York held at least forty-nine whaling vessels in its base (1995). Though rearing a whale could potentially destroy a ship or drown an entire crew, it proved to be highly profitable: over 100 barrels of oil could be extracted from a full-grown whale (Andersen 2004). One sperm whale could be worth over to $3,000; the worth of a bowheads whale could reach over $5,000 (Moment 1957). Soon, however, whales were hunted to such an extent that they were almost brought to the brink of extinction; this, in addition to the surplus of whale oils in the markets, brought the whaling industry’s prosperity to a close during the 1860s (Davis, Gallman, & Hutchins 1988). In regards to sealing, the New Haven South Street Fleet was a leader in the industry. Based in Long Island, the fleet hunted seals in the St. Felix Islands of the Pacific west, dried the seals’ skins on the way to Canton, and traded the skins for goods such as tea and spices (Andersen 2004). Due to sealing competition from other ports and a drastic decline in the seal population, the industry came to a halt around 1806 (2004). With the second wave of the Industrial Revolution, new industries started to take up residence in New York. Shipbuilding, ceramics, chemicals and paint manufacturing, electrolytic copper refining, petroleum refining, and other industries brought more prospective employment to New Yorkers (USGS), and the arrival of the gold rush during the end of the 1850s drove some fishermen away from their boats and westward (McFarland 1911). The opportunity for new jobs in new environments showed to bring a slight decline in fishing careers. The shellfish industry also became a great economic asset for New York. The hunting and gathering of shellfish, particularly oysters, is a relatively simple process. Oysters lend themselves to cultivation because of three prime reasons: they are unable to move from their beds on their own accord, they can withstand rough handling and long periods of exposure to air, and they have a unique life history which allows farmers to create new methods to control and increase their population. The most popular method for taking oysters from their beds involved the use of a dredge to drag along the bottom of the water and collect the shellfish. Boats would normally have two to four dredges that would scrape the bottom of the ocean and bring up shellfish. These boats were capable of gathering from one to five thousand bushels of oysters per day. Because companies dumped their waste into New York’s waters without consequence, many of the city’s waters were polluted by 1860. Although many bodies of water, such as the Harbor and Hudson River, were still used for oyster cultivation, it was evident that the pollution would hamper oyster production in the near future. By 1850 both the Gowanus Bay and Jamaica Bay’s Rockaway beds were closed to oystering because of raw sewage in the waters. Agriculture During the years between 1790 and 1860, grain production moved increasingly further away from the city. As described above in the meat section, the location of major farms began to shift west, and grains began to be imported along with meats. Although

 

47

grains were being shipped in, fruits and vegetables were far more perishable and would not have survived the long journey. For this reason, farms around New York City, especially in Kings and Queens County, began to focus more on fruit and vegetable production. These farmers generally practiced “truck farming” and took their perishable produce to sell at nearby urban markets. The term truck farming, coming from a Middle English meaning of “truck,” simply implies that the crops were produced for local markets. The portion of the population that kept kitchen gardens to supply their fruit and vegetable needs decreased, although Brooklyn and Queens were still predominately farm land until the middle of the nineteenth century. As the population grew and people crowded into the dense urban area of the city, many people no longer had room for kitchen gardens. This opened up a new market for perishable goods that had never before been significant enough to cause mass commercialization. Farms in Brooklyn and Queens began to focus on growing fruits and vegetables to provide for the growing urban market. This urban area centered around the tip of Manhattan began to expand into Brooklyn and Queens more than ever before, and by the middle of the nineteenth century Brooklyn was no longer dominated by farms (Tanner 1835). CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were exciting moments in the history of New York City’s food and beverage production and consumption. The onerous demand for goods that arose from the bustling city’s rapidly growing population fostered an enormous boost in New York’s reputation as a center for trade. Marketplaces expanded and popped up all over the city, and many different kinds of meat, seafood, and produce were sold there. Alcohol likewise was produced heavily in New York, and consumed both privately and publicly. The technological advancements that came about in virtually every city food industry allowed for the movement of production from the inner city center to the rest of the state, the rest of the region, and eventually, the rest of the country. This chapter has outlined the boom in trade that occurred in the early nineteenth century, its subsequent tapering, and eventual decline. This drama of trade is part of the never-ending one that defines our city. REFERENCES Andersen, T. 2004. This Fine Piece of Water: An Environmental History of Long Island Sound. Yale

University Press. Baron, S. (1962). Brewed in America: A History of Beer and Ale in the United States. Boston, Little, Brown and Company. Benes, P. & J. M. Benes. 1984. Foodways in the Northeast. Boston University. Boyer, Paul S. "Brewing and Distilling." The Oxford Companion to United States History. 2001. Encyclopedia.com. (October 24, 2010). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-BrewingandDistilling.html

 

48

Burrows, E. 1999. Gotham : A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press. Clark, John G. 1966. The Grain Trade in the Old Northwest. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Clemen, R. A. (1926). "Waterways in Livestock and Meat Trade." The American Economic Review 16(4). Danhof, C. H. (1969). Change in Agriculture : The Northern United Satets, 1820-1870. London, Oxford University Press. Davis, L. E., R. E. Gallman & T. D. Hutchins (1988) The Decline of U.S. Whaling: Was the Stock

of Whales Running Out? The Business History Review, 62, 569-595 %U http://www.jstor.org/stable/3115618.

Downard, W. L. (1980). Dictionary of the History of the American Brewing and Distilling Industries. Westport, Greenwood Press. Galloway, J. H. 1989. The Sugar Cane Industry. Cambridge University Press. Gallman, Robert E. "Changes in Total U.S. Agricultural Factor Productivity in the Nineteenth

Century." Agricultural History 46.1 (1972): 191-210. Print. Grimes, W. 2009. Appetite City: A Culinary History of New York. New York: North Point Press 1st ed. Grusfield, J. R. (1986). Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Chicago, University of Illinois Press. Hauck-Lawson, A., Deutsch, J. 2009. Gastropolis: Food and New York City. New York: Columbia

University Press. Hedrick, U. P. (1933). A History of Agriculture in the State of New York. New York, Hill and Wang. Hewitt, J. H. 1993. Mr. Downing and His Oyster House: The Life and Works of an African

American Entrepreneur. In New York History, 228-252. Hillard, Sam Bowers. 1972. Hog Meat and Hoecake: Food Supply in the Old South, 1840-1860. Southern

Illinois University Press. Horowitz, R., J. M. Pilcher, et al. (2004). "Meat for the Multitudes: Market Culture in Paris, New York City, and Mexico City over the Long Nineteenth Century." The American Historical Review. Hubert, W. A. (1996) Passive capture techniques. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 157–192. Hurt, R. D. (2002). American Agriculture: A Brief History. West Lafayette, Purdue University Press.

 

49

Jackson, K. T. (1995). The Encyclopedia of New York City. New York, Yale University Press. Jones, K. A. (1851). Map of That Part of the City and County of New York North of 50th St. . New York, M. Dripps. Kaplan, M. (1995). "New York City Tavern Violence and the Creation of a Working-Class Male Identity." Journal of the Early Republic 15(4): 591-617. Krasner-Khait, B. "The Impact of Refrigeration." Retrieved October 5, 2010, from http://www.history-magazine.com/refrig.html. Kurlansky, M. 1997. Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. New York: Walker and Co. Kulansky, M. 2007. The Big Oyster: History of the Half Shell. New York, New York: Random

House Trade Paperbacks. Kurlansky, M. 2008. The Last Fish Tale: The Fate of the Atlantic and Survival in Gloucester, America's Oldest

Fishing Port and Most Original Town. Random House, Inc. Lender, M. E. L. J. K. (1982). Drinking in America: A History. New York, The Free Press. Levinton, J. S. & J. R. Waldman. 2006. The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press. Linder, M. and L. S. Zacharias (1999). Of Cabbages and Kings County: Agriculture and the Formation of Modern Brooklyn. Iowa City, University of Iowa Press. McFarland, R. 1911. A History of the New England Fisheries: With Maps. University of Pennsylvania. Moment, D. (1957) The Business of Whaling in America in the 1850's. The Business History Review, 31,

261-291 %U http://www.jstor.org/stable/3111833. Olsson, S.-O. R. (2010). "Beer: From Late Egyptian Times to the Nineteenth Century." from http://www.answers.com/topic/beer-from-late-egyptian-times-to-the-nineteenth- century.

Oliver, S. L. (2005). Food in Colonial and Federal America. Westport, Greenwood Press. Pollan, Michael. (2001). The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World. New York, Random House.  

Rothschild, N. A. (1990). New York City Neighborhoods; The 18th Century. London, Academic Press, Inc. Rorabaugh, W. J. (1976). "Estimated U.S. Alcoholic Beverage Consumption, 1790-1860." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 37(3): 357-364. Smith, D. V. (2006). Staten Island: Gateway to New York. Chicago, Arcadia Publishing.

 

50

Tanner, H. S. (1835). City of New York. Philadelphia, H. S. Tanner. Timmons, M., G. Rivara, D. Baker, D. Barnes & K. Rivara. 2004. New York Aquaculture

Industry: Status, Constraints and Opportunities. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

Voe, T. F. D. 1867. The Market Assistant: containing a brief description of every article of human food sold in the

public markets of the cities of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Brooklyn; including the various domestic and wild animals, poultry, game, fish, vegetables, fruits &c., &c. with many curious incidents and anecdotes. Hurd and Houghton.

Well, F. (2004). A History of New York. New York, Columbia University Press.

 

51

-5-

Feeding the Hand that Bites Metropolis Market Madness in New York from 1790-1860

by Ralph Dweck, Maria Enache, Kimberly Fung, Eon Goldson, Rachel Ilg

INTRODUCTION Patience. It is something not many New Yorkers have, especially when it comes to food. Today we expect to be able to have whatever we want to eat, whenever we want, in the vast city of New York. Diners serve almost any meal imaginable, bodegas are open 24/7, food is served rapidly on the street, and we almost never cook at home. The food industry has catered to our every want, need, and convenience. You may think that in the 18th and 19th Century, getting food was not as convenient as it is today. However, street vendors could be found on almost every block, peddling their oysters, fruits, vegetables and even meat. Because only lower Manhattan was developed during this time, all markets around 1830 were found below present-day Fourteenth Street. One might ask how this came to be. How did the locations of these markets change from 1790 to 1860? What were these markets like, anyways? How was food processed and delivered to the market? A general pattern seems to appear as far as the locations of these marketplaces and how that changed. In actuality, the markets themselves generally did not relocate. In the earliest portion of this time there were five main marketplaces approved by the Committee on Markets. By 1832 there were twelve, and this number grew to forty by 1861 (Jackson 1995). As more of Manhattan was developed, newer markets were built further and further North. Of these markets almost none relocated. To better understand the research findings summarized previously, a clear and organized structure is to follow. The pertinent fields of interest will be elaborated upon in the “Literature Review” section. The results themselves are stated under “Results and Findings” and then briefly analyzed in the “Discussion” section. Finally, a short summary may be found in the “Conclusion.” LITERATURE REVIEW To better understand what exactly these markets were like, the field of literature reviewed was primarily non-fiction narrative. One main question was, “what is a market?” The first example of a market was simply the area of land dedicated to trading between the Native Americans and the early settlers of New York. As it is used in this paper, a market is referring to the official establishments that were approved by the law. In fact, there were many laws regulating these early markets. One law banned any residents from transacting in sales outside the official markets (Jackson 1995). This rule remained until 1841. Additionally, trade with slaves and Indians in the market was outlawed for “promoting disease” (Jackson 1995). Early markets even sold slaves along with food. Subsequently, mostly white men and women were found shopping in the early market. Among the most highly esteemed individuals at the market, and in the entire city, were the butchers who, “…usually wore high hats and long-tailed coats” (Jackson 1995).

 

52

The clerk, who often lived in a residence within the market, was also greatly appreciated (Ground Plan of the 12 Markets of New York, 1832). One way in which we know what the markets of New York were like is by studying their problems, which arose within and around them. Space was one major issue. Many farmers ended up desperate when they could not find or afford a stall to sell their goods in any markets. This made them vulnerable to exploit by “forestallers” who would buy their products for low value. Disease also interrupted the functioning of markets, specifically yellow fever epidemics in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. All the certified butchers abandoned the markets in areas with the fever due to a lack of business and sanitation. Subsequently, the residents in these areas were forced to buy from “shark” butchers who were not necessarily trained to prepare meat. In the typical market, one could walk in and buy grains, fruits, vegetables, seafood, and meat. The architecture had a square shape, most commonly, with stands separated by large circumferential aisles. The butchers’ stands occupied most of the space in all markets. In order to enjoy beverages such as alcohol, however, locals could venture to taverns and bars. Grains The early 1800s saw many improvements in transportation, especially beneficial to the east coast. Several canals were opened in the 1820s such as the Champlain Canal and the Delaware and Raritan Canal. After the War of 1812, Dewitt Clinton proposed the grand idea of constructing the Erie Canal from Lake Erie to Albany. Railroad construction also developed by 1860. In 1853, Erastus Corning, a merchant, linked several small lines and created the New York Central railway network. By 1860, New York had effectively adapted to the railroad phenomenon and established its hold on the continent (Well 2004). There were different advantages and disadvantages to railroads and canals. Railroads required less initial investment, had more direct routes, and worked during winters unlike canals, which froze during cold times. However, there was no unity between the many railroads, so costs were higher and efficiency was lower in the beginning. In the late 1840s, however, railroads worked towards fixing these issues, and surpassed the canals. Transportation proved to be a main aspect of the grain industry in New York in the early 1800s, and its changes therefore coincided with new grain processing and production developments (Well 2004). Fruits and Vegetables Production on market gardens, or fruit and vegetable farms, developed strongly during the nineteenth century in Kings County (Linder and Zacharias 1999). Queens County farmers experienced similar developments and engaged with farmers in Kings County (Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 53). Both of these counties underwent a systematic suburbanization, losing their rural identity, and in turn began producing food for overcrowded markets. Changes in transportation were pertinent to the changes in the production of fruits and vegetables as well. The growth of shipping outlets, in general, opened New York State farmers to move from subsistence farming to focus on selling their product for profit (Parkerson 1995). For the most part, though, the changes in transportation did not bring fruit and vegetable production away from New York City. This is because fruits and

 

53

vegetables were too perishable and too heavy to allow for cheap, long distance shipping (Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 24). Meat New York’s markets were composed of stalls allotted to butchers, fish stalls, and separate areas for farmers to sell their produce. All the city’s markets were constructed following a similar design: The meat stalls were located in the covered “upper market”, which was set aside for the licensed butchers by city officials, while farmers’ stalls were placed in the open-air “country” or “lower” market (Lee 2008 p. 195). “The [meat] stalls were simple affairs, with a wooden table upon which to cut meat and a few hooks on upright posts to hang the joints and other large pieces. Often the butcher’s wife handled the transactions while the butcher did the cutting, with the apprentice then conveying the meat to the customer’s residence” (Lee 2008 p. 169). The meat stalls throughout the public market system were operated in a similar manner. "However in 1841, they began to sell meat from shops…The public preferred the shops, and thus shops came to eclipse the public markets” (Hauck-Lawson 2010 p. 154-5). These meat shops were not owned nor regulated by city officials, but instead by butchers. Therefore, the primary food distribution mechanism changed from public markets to privately-owned shops by the middle of the nineteenth century. However before the meat could be sold to the city’s residents for consumption, it was a live animal transported from the stockyard to the slaughterhouse and lastly to the market. A stockyard was where the live animals were kept before they were transported into the city for slaughter. A slaughterhouse, often called an abattoir, is a facility where the animal is killed for food. The public slaughterhouse, which was regulated by municipal officials and the slaughterhouse owner, was abolished in 1790. As a result in 1806, the Common Council appointed butchers as inspectors to regulate the slaughterhouses, enforce the laws, and punish those who disobeyed the law. When the city officials started to lose their regulating powers, the slaughterhouses became largely independent (Lee 2008). The last stop for the butchered animal, after additional processing, would be the market where it is sold as meat to consumers. Seafood Fish and shellfish thrived in the markets from 1790 to 1860 because they were affordable and considered to be delicious by many. Some poor families lived only on oysters and bread (Hauck-Lawson and Deutsch 2009). Some farmers supplemented their income by fishing, if they lived close enough to shore. “The tremendous variety of fish in the harbor and [New York’s] rivers, like oysters, provided the livelihood of many New Yorkers. By tradition, a poor family, short of money, could always gather oysters or catch a fish for dinner” (Kurlansky 2006). Oyster markets in Manhattan were actually barges, not buildings, lined up in groups along the waterfront. They were two stories high with packaging and distribution located on the first floor and offices on the second (De Voe 1866). These oyster markets sold wholesale to street vendors as well as those who owned oyster bars. The oyster markets themselves received the oysters straight from the schooners and skiffs that caught them (Kurlansky 2006). “From the 1830s to 1870s oyster bars enjoyed great popularity in New York City, which was surrounded by waters containing enormously rich oyster beds” (Jackson p. 870). An oyster bar was a restaurant in the cellar of a building that served mainly oysters, and beer

 

54

or champagne. There were two types of oyster bars; those uptown that catered more to the roughhousing, working-class men, and the classier downtown bars. A red and white balloon made up of muslin cloth, which covered a wire globe, marked both expensive and cheap oyster bars outside. When the candle inside was lit, the bar was open (Kurlansky 2006). A deal known as the “Canal Street Plan” allowed customers to enjoy as many oysters as they wished, for only six cents (Jackson 1995)! Studying the problems that arose within oyster markets is helpful. It is important to understand that most oyster beds off of Long Island and New Jersey were completely dredged by 1870. Even newly found beds at that point were quickly emptied with the rapid harvesting that took place (Jackson 1995).

Figure 5.1 Street Vendor Peddling Oysters, 1890 (Jackson 1995)

The problem of over harvesting was also seen in commercial fishing. By the early 19th century some bays, such as the Upper New York Bay and Raritan Bay, were completely depleted of stocks of fish. Around this same time, however, the Fulton Fish Market was becoming the regional distribution center for seafood because there were still many other bays to fish from. Also, steamboats from Long Island and even North Carolina would deliver fish, on ice, to the Fulton Fish Market.

 

55

Map 5.1 Raritan Bay and the East River, Manhattan Beverages The agricultural economy greatly helped Americans become alcoholics in the sense that, grains and corn, which were in abundance at the time, could be used to make whiskey. However, America’s first alcoholic drink was beer, which came with the settlers from Europe. Distilled spirits came after beer. Rum and molasses reigned together and then eventually led to whiskey, which was key in the development of alcohol becoming a central part of the American society. Rum was very popular for awhile but as settlements moved further west and more inland, it became a strain because rum was too bulky and too expensive to ship very far inland. The Scotch-Irish immigrants helped moved whiskey to the forefront of favored alcohol in America. From the early 1700s they brought their “distilling skills across the Atlantic with them” (Lender and Martin p. 30) and by the late 1700s they had given “American grain spirits a new quality in taste” (p. 30). Needless to say, before the Industrial Revolution, America faced an epidemic of alcoholism. Prior to the Industrial Revolution and the American Revolution, heavy drinking was so prevalent throughout society, that it was considered normal. “Distilled and fermented liquors were considered important and invigorating foods, whose restorative powers were a natural blessing.”(Olsen p. 4) People viewed alcohol with a high regard because of this normality and unity of view on its effects. It was considered so normal that “by 1770 Americans consumed alcohol routinely with every meal. Many people began the day with an ‘eye opener’ and closed it with a nightcap” (Rorabaugh p. 17). It was because of this unified view that the sale of alcohol was substantial during this time. In fact, the taxes on alcohol were an important “source of revenue for the fledgling colonial governments” (Olsen p. 5). Whiskey could have been considered America’s national beverage during the 1800s.

 

56

RESULTS AND FINDINGS From 1790 to 1860, location of each market did not change, but rather rearrangements within markets took place, as well as new markets being built. Rules and regulations seemed to keep markets within certain limits allowing only price and presentation to change, and only slightly. Grains During our researched time period, markets were always located along the edges of Manhattan, with the exception of one on Broadway. During the beginning of the research period, transporting food was difficult and expensive, therefore most production and marketing was local (Rothschild 1990). According to Figure 2.26 in Rothschild’s New York City Neighborhoods, in 1797 there were six markets in New York City, five by the East River and one on Broadway, four blocks up from Wall Street. Map 5.2 below has the markets marked with triangles.

Map 5.2 Markets in 1797 (Rothschild 1990)

By 1808, there were eight markets, all much more spread out than even a decade earlier. Three of the markets are now on the Hudson River, which is a new location for the city markets. One is still on Broadway, and four are spread out along the East River. Map 5.3 illustrates this.

 

57

Map 5.3 Markets in 1808 (Rothschild 1990)

By 1860, markets described in detail by Thomas De Voe, flourished on South Street.

Fly Market was in existence from 1699 until 1800 by this name (De Voe 1862). It was located around the intersection of Wall Street and Pearl Street. In 1807, a Philadelphian visitor commented on The Fly Market, claiming, “the fruits and vegetables, with the owners, are exposed to all the injuries of the weather, they are ranged on the side of the market-house in the street, on the pavement, so that there is no more empty space then is barely sufficient to accommodate the foot-passengers. Everything, which is exposed for sale, may be bought without walking half the distance, which it is necessary to do in Philadelphia” (De Voe 1862). Melish remarked in his book, Travels, that the market was supplied with ample provisions and that their prices were reasonable. The Exchange Market was situated in Broad Street in 1788, but soon after, it was hit by the fever. In 1804, petitioners requested that the Exchange Market be moved and not completely removed. The Market was soon moved between Water and Front Streets. In May of 1814, the market closed due to scarce supplies and its location being so far on the southeast end of New York. Spring Street Market, which went by many names, was located on Brannon (later called Spring) Street and it was established in 1800. It led from Broadway, down to Spring Street, between Greene and Wooster Streets to about Sullivan Street (De Voe 1862). De Voe describes countless markets, but that is mostly because they would develop in the same exact place as previous ones. According to De Voe’s accounts, there was competition between the markets even in the early 1800s. At times, there was competition between the different market places because they were all packed into the same area by the

 

58

water. For example, in 1804 Spring Street market unsuccessfully attempted to close down State Prison Market on Greenwich Road, below Christopher Street. Farmers often brought their produce to these markets and then complained that the regular sellers would not permit them to conduct their business since the regulars paid for their space. The farmers were then in a predicament because if they went across the street from the markets, the local shops would be angered, and it’s not as if they could just settle in the middle of the road. This often happened in Washington Market, which was located on the west side of Washington Street, extending on Fulton and Vessey Streets (De Voe 1862). Case studies on processing and transportation improvements revealed the path of grains from their origins to the market place and any changes these pathways underwent. When the Eerie Canal was finished in 1825, the course of grains to New York City was forever modified.

Map 5.4 The Eerie Canal (Abbott 1852) The Canal started in Lake Eerie in Buffalo, where the Niagara River flows out of

Lake Eerie into Lake Ontario. The route is traced in the map above. Therefore, grains could now move directly from the Great Lakes to Buffalo and then to Albany via the canal. Then the grains were taken to New York City down the Hudson River. The Eerie Canal cut what was once a 3000-mile journey to barely 450 miles. The amount of wheat transported from the west via the canal gradually increased after its opening. Just the following year, Eerie boatmen were transporting 221,000 barrels of flour and 562,000 bushels of wheat eastward. The goods that came along the canal originated in nearby farms along its interstate route. Prior to the Eerie Canal, much of the produce came from Long Island and New England (De Voe 1862, Burrows and Wallace 1999).

 

59

The foundation of grain processing was milling. Mills had existed prior to the time period focused on. However, the 1790s were the beginning of a new era for the milling industry. In 1795, Oliver Evans published “The Young Mill-Wright and Miller’s Guide” as the first technical manual in the industry. He enforced the idea of a mechanized mill, where the ingredients would be moved through by machinery, not people, as had been the custom until then. Evans described a system of automatic devices all connected by chutes and bins. Soon after, mills along the Eerie Canal were created and they adopted his technology. The improvements and addition of machinery to mills allowed for finer and more consistent grains (Howell and Keller 1977). Mills, during this time period, existed everywhere, including New York City and regions like New England. Grain mills were powered by water and contained wheels made of wood. Therefore, mills were either built on natural waterfalls or the construction of dams was required. Basically, the water would be directed to the water wheel along a channel and it would then put the wheel into motion. The wheel, in turn, drives the motion of a central pin that then activates the machinery. This activated one of the two burr stones and then the kernels of the respective grain were ground between the stones (Howell and Keller 1977). In “The Mill at Philipsburg Manor: Upper Mills and A Brief History of Milling”, the three types of breastshot wheels are described: the low, middle and high wheel, along with the undershot and pitchback wheel. The breastshot wheels only differ in the fact that water passes under for the low and middle wheel, while it passes over for the high wheel. The overshot wheel has the head of water that powers it directly above, causing the water to strike the wheel at its highest point. The water strikes the pitchback wheel just at the back of the highest point. There was much debate and discussion over which style was actually the most effective, but usually, it was said that the overshot and pitchback methods were most efficient (Howell and Keller 1977). By the mid-nineteenth century, millers were able to process wheat so that the bran surrounding the grain came off in big flakes, better separating the white section of the wheat. Due to these capabilities, white bread became popular by 1860. (Frisch 2008) Fruits and Vegetables As cities grew and industrialization began, including the milling advancements previously mentioned, there was a shift in the desires of farmers. Those who owned farms in the Northeast noticed the shift in prices of everyday items that were originally expensive, and sometimes considered luxuries. A grandfather clock would cost around $60 in the early nineteenth century, which was more than the value of all household goods combined in farmhouses; however, several decades later, simpler wall clocks could be had for just $3 (Parkerson 1995 p. 11). Even necessary household items grew drastically cheaper in just a short period of time; a wool mattress cost $50 in 1811, but was replaced by a cotton mattress that cost $35 within ten years. This price fell to $12.50 in the 1830s, and eventually became just $5 by the 1850s. The work related expenditures of farmers also changed during this time period. Hired labor toward the end of this time period had become scarce and more expensive (Parkerson 1995 p. 13). Potential farm workers instead pursued income elsewhere, as in the gold mines of California, or cheaper land in the West that was often subsidized by the government. Furthermore, with the growth of cities many bright, young, spry workers were leaving farms for jobs in manufacturing and trade. In addition to bearing down and paying the higher wages for labor, the farmers also invested in new equipment. Most of the equipment did not consist of any drastic innovation, rather each piece was a mild

 

60

improvement that helped improve overall yield. Such pieces included new seed sowers, mowers, plows, and farm wagons. This change in expenditure is particularly emphasized in Kings County. By the 1870s, Kings County farms averaged $549 of investment on equipment per farm (Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 39). This was 40 percent higher than the next leading capital-intensive county, Philadelphia, and 170 percent higher than the other eleven leading counties. Kings County farmers were also heavily invested in fertilizer. For instance, these farmers used 130 times more fertilizer per acre than farmers in Hamilton County, which was the seventh largest vegetable producer (Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 41). Much of this manure came from New York City. In fact, due to such large numbers of horses and carriages passing through the city, manure was cheaper and more readily available for purchase in Manhattan after being scraped off the ground (Bidwell and Falconer 1941 p. 242). Other investments particular to Kings County revolve around the fact that market gardening was far more difficult and more esoteric of a skill than conventional subsistence farming and/or marketing of grain. In fact, a wheat farmer would have needed an extensive period of apprenticeship and instruction before being able to manage his own fruit and vegetable farm. This is reflected by a quote in which a contemporary periodical noted, “The spread of fruit farming has notably advanced farmer training” (Schafer 1970 p. 142). Part of the training was for the farmers to learn to maximize output, particularly because most farmers were used to growing only enough fruits and vegetables to adequately supply their own homes. When market gardening began, farmers learned to plant shorter cycled crops such as lettuce between widely spread plants like cabbages, which take much longer to grow (Shannon 1945 p. 259). The advantages afforded to Kings County farmers were also due to circumstance. The real estate value of the properties in Kings County were much greater than that of Philadelphia or northern New Jersey farmlands (Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 52). On the other hand, land rarely changed hands or was sold in Kings County around this time. Most of the Dutch farmers owned property that had been in their family’s possession for several generations, and few had moved to Kings County for the prospect of farming. Additionally, many of the farmers had family traditions that included ideas of market gardening. In the Netherlands, the large scale growth of vegetables had been popular by the late 1600s, thus late comers to New York might have had a larger understanding of those practices (Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 54). Other beneficial circumstances were geographical; with the increasing efficiency of railroads, the New York markets had greater access to Southern fruits and vegetables. Due to a different climate, though, this did not affect Kings County farmers, as the growing seasons and cycles in New York largely differed from other sources of perishable fruits and vegetables (Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 66). Additionally, these Kings County farmers grew crops that were otherwise rare. Kings County was the chief exporter of crops like beets and onions to the West Indies and to the South (Bidwell and Falconer 1941 p. 242). This shift in production location of both vegetables and grains is noted in the primary sources of this period. Statistics show that the price of northern corn and northern rye each dropped by 50 cents per unit for the twenty years starting in 1840 (Juergens 1911 p. 545). On the other hand, a firsthand account from New York City in 1851 noted that fifteen years earlier, tomatoes in general were hard to come by, yet at that point hundreds of acres were being cultivated locally (Spann 1981 p. 122). Examining Kings County over time, we see that in 1840, 8,537 bushels of rye were produced (United States 1841). In 1860, however, only 4,493 bushels were produced (United States 1864). Additionally in that time frame, the

 

61

value of market garden products produced in Kings County rose from about 24,000 to approximately 319,000. The proliferation of production was not without the proliferation of buyers. In fact, most markets were so densely filled with those in demand that some sellers would cart in their product and sell out before daybreak (Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 53). Buyers were so abundant that no regular relationships were formed between growers and grocers, and cash was always exchanged in lieu of keeping accounts. Meat Just as grains, fruits, and vegetables were grown outside the market, meat's processing began at the slaughterhouses. It was there that live animals were early on, transformed into meat for consumption. In 1790, the public slaughterhouse located at Corlear’s Hook near Jackson and Water Streets was abolished. Butchers had wanted to remove the restrictions on slaughtering because it prohibited the killing of livestock on private property (Burrows 1999 p. 355). Meanwhile, “the city’s meat-processing industry expanded outward from the Bull’s Head Tavern, abattoir, and stockyards. In the early 1800s, as additional butchers herded into the area, slaughterhouses multiplied along Chrystie and Elizabeth Streets” (Burrows 1999 p. 389).

Figure 5.2 The Bull’s Head Tavern, 1783 (Reese 2010)

We see the effects of regulation magnified when it came to meat. In 1806, the Common Council responded to abolishment of slaughtering restrictions by appointing prominent butchers to inspect the slaughterhouses. However, this butchers’ regulation committee did not last long because more unlicensed butchers began slaughtering on their own premises. As more time passed, it also became evident that the city’s meat-processing industry was expanding. The area that encompassed the Bull’s Head Tavern was transformed into a cattle market, and in 1825, the Bull’s Head Market was moved to a larger site near East 24th Street and 3rd Avenue. In 1822, “Thomas De Voe [a butcher], who lived at the intersection of Spring and Mulberry Streets, recalled that there were 25 or 30 slaughterhouses within two hundred yards of his home. By 1850 the city housed 206 slaughterhouses” (Lee 2008 p. 169), “which butchered 375,000 animals annually” (Burrows 1999 p. 786). Throughout the expansion, “butchers increasingly challenged the longstanding controls that municipal authorities had exercised over the city’s slaughterhouses and markets

 

62

and crafted an alternative retail outlet – largely unregulated, independent slaughterhouses” (Lee 2008 p. 191). As the control of municipal authorities was broken down, the number of independent slaughterhouses increased. Thus “by the early 1860s, there were over two hundred largely independent slaughterhouses located mostly in the Lower East Side” (Lee 2008 p. 193). The great increase in the number of slaughterhouses in the city indicated the success of the meat industry’s development and attributed to New York City’s growing significance in America’s meat-processing industry. After the animal was slaughtered, the butcher had to prepare the meat for sale in the market. Butchers adjusted their preparation methods and cuts in order to meet the preferences of consumers. In New York City, “fresh beef was clearly the most desirable meat” (Horowitz 2006 p. 20). However, beef was an inconvenient meat to preserve because beef became tough and unpalatable with the severe salting method used on pork. Also, refrigeration was not yet available. Refrigeration was not adopted into production and distribution until 1856. Thus, the cattle had to be slaughtered close to the time of sale and in small amounts to prevent the beef from putrefying. During the summertime, slaughtering occurred at night, so the meat would not spoil before coming to the market. “Butcher Thomas De Voe decried the preferences of New York shoppers who “would rather pay their last dollar for half as much meat in an expensive steak or chop, than purchase inexpensive cuts” (Horowitz 2006 p. 20).

After the meat was prepared for consumption, it had to be transported to the markets. Many butchers relied on licensed cartmen and wagon drivers to transport their meat to the market. Cartmen often traveled on Mulberry Street, sometimes called “Slaughterhouse Street” at the end of the 18th century, to get to the city’s markets. In Map 5.4, cattle are driven to the slaughterhouses north of Division Street. Once the animals are slaughtered, the hides and byproducts are sold to their respective trades people for transportation to their own premises. Lastly, the butchers would transport the meat to the market (Lee 2008).

 

63

Map 5.5 General movement of cattle through the city in the early nineteenth century (Lee 2008)

Once the meat reached the market, the butchers would sell their day’s supply to the

purchasers. Butchers were typically at their market stalls at five o’clock in the morning because upper New Yorkers wanted to obtain the freshest meats possible, and price was not an object. “Through the course of the day, the meat hanging in the open stalls gradually putrefied and became the resting place of flies and similar pests, leaving later waves of customers with less desirable cuts – but with lower prices as well…By midafternoon butchers rushed to sell what remained of the morning’s slaughter” (Lee 2008 p. 187). At that point the butcher’s workday was concluded and the entire process from slaughter to sale would begin again.

 

64

Figure 5.3 Catharine Street Market, 1850 (Horowitz 2006)

The public markets of the late 18th century and early 19th century did not look as organized and sanitary as the picture of Catharine Street Market shown above. “The market was usually noisy, dirty, and overcrowded” (Grimes 2009 p. 23). Carts and wagons, carrying food products to the market, “clogged the streets and jammed the entrances to the ferries [as most markets were located by the waterside]” (Grimes 2009 p. 24). Most of the municipal markets, when opened, presented a “handsome appearance”, but conditions began to deteriorate over the years. For instance, Fulton Market had stalls arranged in three two-story brick buildings when it opened in 1821, but as years passed, “wooden sheds filled the open spaces between the buildings and makeshift stalls crowded the sidewalks outside. It became an ordeal for pedestrians to pass by, and the market took on a ramshackle aspect of “an aggravated shanty,” the Times complained” (Grimes 2009 p. 26). The markets were so crowded and narrow that shoppers were often unable to pass through the market a second time. In addition, “many of the most frequented markets, most notable the Fly Market, Washington Market, Duane Street Market, and later Fulton Market, had cellars, usually a series of small rooms designed for market officials and large-scale butchers to use for storage. By the 1820s, however, these rooms were increasingly being rented out to hucksters, particularly food vendors and poor women and African Americans. These dank, unheated rooms were not designed for residential purposes, and they quickly became scenes of squalid overcrowding as families tried to improvise stoves, leaving smoke to spew out of the market’s various crevices and ad hoc chimneys” (Lee 2008 p. 193). The cellars under the markets were intended for storage purposes, so it was not properly equipped for people to live in and the smoke only added more problems to the already deteriorating conditions of the markets. The marketplace floors often had cracks in them, so “water offal, meat trimmings, and pickle brine” would slip through the cracks and end up in the cellars. The conditions of the municipal markets worsened and the markets required significant clean-ups and repairs. These markets are best described by the following statement: “The market buildings, the Times explained in 1858, “are rickety, rotten, tumble-down rat-holes” (Grimes 2009 p. 24).

 

65

In both 1797 and 1808, there were 6 public markets in New York City. However in 1797, 5 of those markets were located along the East River. In 1808, the 6 markets were distributed more evenly, being aligned along both the Hudson and the East Rivers and one market located in between (Refer to Map 5.2 and 5.3). In general, the markets were located along the waterside. In 1810, the number of markets increased to eight.

Map 5.6 Markets in 1824 and the location of animal processors and city markets in 1825 (Lee 2008)

In 1824, 4 of the markets (1, 4, 6, 7) were located along the East River with 2 (5, 9)

by the Hudson River and the other 4 spread out through the city. A mega-market was located at the side of each river. The Fulton Street Market could be considered the “city’s first “mega”-market” because when other markets typically contained 10 or 20 butcher stalls, the Fulton Market accommodated around 89 stalls (Lee 2008 p. 193). The Washington Market was even larger and after several expansions, it became the “largest municipal market in the industrialized world” (Lee p. 193). A mass of butchers lived nearly Bowery Street, which was where the slaughterhouses of the city were located (Refer to Map 5.6).

 

66

Map 5.7 Ground Plan of the 13 Markets in New York City (Imbert 1833) From 1800 to 1835, the city constructed the most public markets because the

number doubled. Figure 5.4 displays a ground plan for the 13 markets to be constructed during the 19th century. However in 1843, “the city council legalized meat sales in private stores. By 1850 there were 531 butcher shops scattered through the city in addition to the 11 public markets” (Horowitz 2006 p. 25) Thus, there was a shift from public markets to privately-owned stores with a greater distribution throughout the city. The following statement summarizes it all: “it has become fashionable to have a meat shop on almost every corner” (Horowitz 2006 p. 25). Thus, the number of markets including the butcher shops increased from 1790 to 1860. Seafood Both the Fulton and Catharine Fish Markets received many types of fish and shellfish. Generally they carried fresh-water, salt-water, and fish that lived in both environments such as salmon, shad, and smelt. Oyster, mussels, and lobsters could also be found in shellfish stands. Oysters, in particular, were more popularly eaten in oyster bars or on the street from vendors. The Catharine Market, which thrived throughout the early and middle nineteenth century, eventually became known as the “great fish market” (De Voe 1866). In comparison to earlier markets, some located on top of the sewer system, the Catherine Market truly was great for fish. It held a prime location on the East River between the water itself and Catharine Street. Initially this market-house was “nearly filled with butchers, leaving but a

 

67

small space remaining for country people and a few fishermen” (De Voe 1866). In fact, around 1801, the practice of bringing only fish to market, as fishermen and some country people did, was still a new exercise. People generally called these countrymen “strangers” as they were accustomed to a market of meat and produce only (Jackson 1995). Fishermen had to fight a long battle over space in the Catherine Market. Initially, butchers were set to take over the small amount of space that was dedicated to seafood in 1801. Eventually, by May of 1805, the Catharine Market built a separate market-house, used solely for fishing sales. It had an extremely convenient location with “18 feet over the slip, that the market-boats might lie under the market, and stairs to accommodate the fishermen” (De Voe 1866). Because of its prime location, it became “the wholesale as well as the best retail fish market…one of the best ‘Sunday morning fish markets’.” An old saying goes, “To get a bunch of fresh fish, you must go to the Catharine Market” (De Voe 1866). As can be seen below in “The Ground Plan of the Thirteen Markets in the City of New York” map, the Catharine Fish Market was one market that dedicated much space to fish. Most markets reserved between 1/14th and 1/6th of their stands for the sale of seafood. Many did not include shellfish at all. However, the Catharine Fish Market provided 14 stands for fishing sales (Ground Plan of the Thirteen Markets of New York, 1833).

Map 5.8 Catharine Fish Market with 14 Stands (Imbert 1833) Nearby the Catharine Fish Market, on Fulton Street and the East River, two blocks south of the Brooklyn Bridge, was the Fulton Market. In 1822, fish and shellfish were only granted a few old butcher stalls in the corner of the market. In 1831, the fishers moved across South Street to a shed along the river and continued their sales with more space. Then in 1869, a permanent building was erected there specifically for the sale of seafood and became known as the Fulton Fish Market (Collaborative October 2, 2010).

 

68

Figure 5.4 A corner with fish stands in the Fulton Fish Market, 1869 (Images 1869)

The Fulton Fish Market became the largest fish market in the United States at this time. Its skiff was so busy that people actually began complaining. “For many years this [Fulton] market had been constantly increasing in the sale of fish, principally at wholesale, which led to the gathering of great numbers of fishing smacks in the slip at certain seasons; these, with other market craft, occasionally crowded so much as to be the cause of great complaint” (De Voe p. 511). Because it was close to the ferry, the price of cartage from Long Island went down and that trickled down to customers. Also, the Fulton Fish Market had a “basin for smacks and fish carts, unequaled in its purity, from its depth of water and the rapidity of its current, being decidedly in its favor for keeping and having good fresh fish” (De Voe p. 488). One of the most prominent oyster bars that served the wealthy was Thomas Downing’s on Broad Street in Manhattan. Downing’s bar was very lavishly decorated, making it highly contrastable with the uptown roughhouse bars. While he had the standard red balloon outside, the inside was ornate with “mirrored arcades, damask curtains, gilded carvings, sparkling chandeliers, and plush carpeting” (Kurlansky p. 167).

 

69

Figure 5.5 Thomas Downing (Kurlansky 2006)

The inside of Downing’s oyster bar was perfectly suited for its customers. The clientele included important politicians, businessmen, and oyster captains. Also women, not prostitutes as in the less expensive oyster bars, were allowed to accompany their husbands to the bar. Because he owned an oyster bar, and knew every wealthy, respectable individual in New York, Downing was considered one of the most respected black men in pre-Civil War New York (Kurlansky 2006). Thomas Downing’s oyster bar was not just a place for eating oysters and drinking champagne. Many men, including the businessmen and politicians, would meet at Downing’s to do business. It was there that deals were made, checks were signed, and oysters were eaten. Beverages Early American settlers made different beverages including cider, brandy, and rum. The government tried to control consumption, but distilled spirits were still fully enjoyed. At the time distillation was decentralized, meaning it moved from being controlled by the central government to the local government. This decentralization meant that there was no mass production of the spirits. In the American Revolution, the British wound up cutting Americans off from molasses and rum imports so Americans turned to whiskey, which the government began to tax starting in 1790. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution happened to come at a time when Americans relied heavily on alcohol. Throughout the Revolution we see a huge peak and also fall-off of alcohol use. Whiskey was cheaper and easier to make a profit off of for western farmers than corn. Since the west did not have as much access to the waterways as the east, they needed a way to avoid loss of profit and goods. Consequently, the western farmers distilled corn into whiskey, which enabled a safer, more economical travel to the east. Whiskey, the specialty of the Scotch-Irish immigrants was produced in Kentucky because that was where these immigrants settled (Pennock p. 504). According to Rorabaugh, “by the 1790’s an average American over fifteen years old

 

70

drank just under six gallons of absolute alcohol” (p. 17). This surprisingly was not a strong concern for everyone at the time. By the 1820’s whiskey sold for “twenty-five cents a gallon, making it cheaper than beer, wine, coffee, tea, or milk. In many places whiskey was also less dangerous than water which was frequently contaminated” (Rorabaugh p. 17). Less dangerous than water and the cheapest drink on the market, alcohol catered to Americans, resulting in many alcoholics. Following the peak of alcohol consumption, came the temperance movement led by religious heads and doctors. Doctors claimed that the overuse of alcohol was very unhealthy and the ministers attacked the use of alcohol by calling it a sin (Rorabaugh p. 17). “Both the Quakers and Methodists had urged their members to abstain from hard liquor and its manufacture and sale” (Lender and Martin p. 34). The main problem with alcohol consumption during the Industrial Revolution was the effect it had on the workers and their work. The factory owners could not deal with drunkenness on the job, for a plethora of reasons. The main reason being that the alcohol made the workers careless and inefficient. “As new machines and technologies were developed, more specialization, precision and speed were required from the workers, and those who drank became a risk to employers and their fellow workers” (Engelmann p. 12). The abuse of alcohol was thereby working adversely against the Industrial Revolution, affecting it in horrible ways. Without responsible workers to deal with the technology of the revolution, the work that America needed to do in order to become an independent nation would never have been done. DISCUSSION It is noticeable that the location of the markets changed greatly over the time period from 1790 to 1860. Markets were originally placed on slips at the foot of major streets. The waterside location was more convenient for the butchers to transport their meat, and for farmers who brought their produce into the city, as well as for the transportation of fish and other food. However over the years, “markets were located along the waterfront on both rivers, and they were spaced at rather uniform intervals” (Rothschild 1990 p. 57). Since the population of the city had increased, the market locations were shifted more towards consumer demand as opposed to the seller. The consumers were the ones purchasing the food products, and increased population meant a greater amount of food needed to be distributed to a greater mass of people. Thus, the locations of the markets had to be spread out more to allow greater access to the food. Consumers were also petitioning the Common Council to open markets in their neighborhoods because it became very inconvenient for consumers living away from the waterfront to obtain their food supplies. Thus, the basis of market location was shifted to consumer demand which led to a more even spread of food distribution venues. Also due to the lack of commercial and home refrigeration, meat was obtained from cattle slaughtered at the source and close to the time of sale. Refrigeration was not used in transportation until the invention of refrigerated freight trains, so locations closer to the municipal markets were used by butchers transporting their meat from the slaughterhouse to keep their meat from putrefying before arrival. It is possible that this lack of refrigeration was the cause of diseased meat and oysters. Other successes were purely the result of circumstance. The wide availability of manure, for example, cannot be understated in the success of market gardening. Intensive farming, which is specialization in a specific crop and the backbone of fruit and vegetable

 

71

production, often robs land of its fertility after long periods of time. The general availability of manure from carriage and wagon pulling animals was one of the strongest tools available to these farmers. A much more efficient use of waste is the epitome of how the city and the farms held a mutually beneficial relationship. More importantly, though, this is directly related to growth in New York City as a metropolis. Effectively, the model exemplified by nineteenth century New York City may still apply to other countries where development is beginning to accelerate. In all phases of a city’s development, constructing an efficient supply system is integral to continued growth. All the more so, in a developing city, efficiency is crucial to maximizing the city’s potential. Part of the reason New York City was able to grow tremendously during this period was the way that its supply system was shaped, particularly being replenished with an abundance of freshly grown fruits and vegetables, grains, seafood, meat, and beverages. CONCLUSION The food-lifestyle in the city of New York from 1790 to 1860 may not be so different from that of today. The technology and the new forms of transportation helped to increase the sale of goods because production could be changed in order to suit different purposes. Food could be found on every block either in a market, being sold by a street vender, or for alcohol and oysters, at a bar. While markets did not often relocate, the number and location of stands dedicated to the sale of certain foods within them did. Additionally, new markets were built so that by 1861, New York housed 40 officially recognized markets. As the efficiency of food distribution increased, it became more convenient for New York residents to purchase food for consumption. As this research ultimately shows, some of the success of the supply system in New York City can be linked to unique circumstances and luck. The geographical and infrastructural elements cannot necessarily be replicated in other situations. Still, an analysis of what led to the success of these New Yorkers can lead to critical analyses of other systems at various points. In all scenarios, relevant questions will always exist pertaining to the incentive of certain producers to actually produce. What they will create and how they do it is something that depends on what is the highest incentive to them. Furthermore, eliminating waste of resources is vital to creating the greatest benefit to producers and consumers. Waste is not only limited to physical capital being unused; avoiding waste means using human capital for the labor that it is best equipped to undertake. Together, circumstance and efficiency brought the markets of nineteenth century New York great success, which in turn helped the city grow. REFERENCES (1832). "The ground plan of the twelve markets in the City of New York: approved by the

Market Committee." (1833). "The ground plan of the thirteen markets in the City of New York: Market Committee." (1995). The Encyclopedia of New York City. In The Encyclopedia of New York City, ed. K. T.

Jackson. New York: New York Historical Society.

 

72

Abbott, J. 1852. Map of the Canal and Profile of the Canal. In Marco Paul's Voyages & Travels. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Bidwell, P. W. & J. I. Falconer. 1941. History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620-

1860. New York: P. Smith. Burrows, E. G. a. W., Mike. 1999. Gotham : a history of New York City to 1898. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Collaborative (October 2, 2010). Fulton Fish Market, Wikipedia. De Voe, T. F. 1862. The market book : containing a historical account of the public markets of the cities

of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Brooklyn, with a brief description of every article of human food sold therein, the introduction of cattle in America, and notices of many remarkable specimens. New York.

De Voe, T. F. 1867. The market assistant, containing a brief description of every article of human food

sold in the public markets of the cities of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Brooklyn; including the various domestic and wild animals, poultry, game, fish, vegetables, fruits &c., &c. with many curious incidents and anecdotes. Riverside Press.

De Voe, T. F. 1970. The market book; a history of the public markets of the city of New York. New York: A.M. Kelley.

Engelmann, L. 1979. Intemperance - The lost war against liquor. New York: Free Press. Frisch, T. 2008. A Short History of Wheat. In The Valley Table Grimes, W. 2009. Appetite City: A Culinary History of New York. New York: North Point Press.

Hauck-Lawson, A. and J. Deutsch (2009). Gastropolis : food and New York City. New York, Columbia University Press.

Horowitz, R. 2006. Putting Meat on the American Table (Taste, Technology, Transformation).

Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Howell, C. & A. Keller. 1977. The Mill at Philipsburg Manor Upper Mills and A Brief History of Milling New York: Sleepy Hollow Restorations, Inc.

Images, C. (1869). "1869-New York, NY: Fish stand in Fulton Market, N.Y. 1869.

Illustration.". from http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/B97FF619-77E2-49BB-85AB-D83E1CA745E2/BE047938.jpg.

Imbert, A. (1833). “Ground Plan of the Thirteen Markets in the City of New York”.

Juergens, C. H. (1911). Movement of wholesale prices in New York City, 1825-1863.

Publications of the American Statistical Association, 12, 544-557.

 

73

Kurlansky, M. (2006). The Big Oyster : history on the half shell. New York, Ballantine Books.

Lee, P. Y. 2008. Meat, modernity, and the rise of the slaughterhouse. Hanover: University

Press of New England.

Linder, M. & L. Zacharias. 1999. Of cabbages and Kings County : agriculture and the formation of modern Brooklyn. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Press.

Martin, M. E. L. J. K. 1982. Drinking in America: A History. New York: The Free Press. New York Times, The. September 20, 1860. Live Stock Markets. In The New York Times.

Olson, S. 1985. Alcohol in America: Taking Action to Prevent Abuse. Washington D.C.: National Academy press.

Parkerson, D. H. 1995. The agricultural transition in New York State : markets and migration in mid-

nineteenth-century America. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Pennock, P. E. 2003. Spirits Industry. In Dictionary of American History, 504-505. Reese, J. 2010. Bull's Head Tavern: Then. In Knickerbocker Village. New York.

Rorabaugh, W. J. (1976). Estimated U.S Alcoholic Beverage Consumption, 1790-1860. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 37.

Rothschild, N. A. 1990. New York City Neighborhoods: The 18th Century New York: Academic

Press, Inc.

Schafer, J. 1970. The social history of American agriculture. New York,: Da Capo Press.

Shannon, F. A. 1945. The farmer's last frontier, agriculture, 1860-1897. New York, Toronto,: Farrar & Rinehart.

Spann, E. K. 1981. The new metropolis : New York City, 1840-1857. New York: Columbia

University Press. United States. 1841. Compendium of the Sixth Census. ed. Department of Agriculture.

Washington. United States. 1864. Agriculture of the United States in 1860. ed. Department of Agriculture.

Washington. Well, F. 2004. A History of New York. Columbia University Press.

 

74

-6-

EARLY NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY

by Kristin Jones and Polina Katkovskaya

ABSTRACT

This chapter focuses on the legislation passed concerning agricultural policy. This policy extended not only to education and research but also to land grants, farm credit and parity. The purpose of the establishment of educational institutions involved in agricultural research and development was to increase the efficiency of agricultural practice and quality of the product, while the land grants, farm credit and parity were designed to incorporate the needs of those working the farms and the new agricultural improvements. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify how early national agricultural policy reflected and catered to the needs of the country at the time. The laws passed clearly evince the scientific, academic, and economic situations taking place in the United States in the period from 1860-1940. This period is historically one in which many changes took place in the farming community, and the legislations clearly illustrate this fact. INTRODUCTION The period from 1860-1940 encompassed numerous changes within American society, government, and economy. To accommodate these changes, the government passed several laws ensuring that the needs of society, and in the case of agricultural legislation, the needs of the farmer were met. These government efforts can be seen in many aspects of society beginning with the establishment of higher educational institutions which focus on agricultural education, and extending to laws such as parity which focus on ensuring that the farmers earn enough money for the crops which they produce, even in times of economic hardship.

Extremely large sums of money were spent between 1860 and 1940 in America to promote research and education in the agricultural field. The total annual appropriation for Agricultural Education and Research was approximately $18,231,942.51. The breakdown of how these funds were distributed can be seen in figure 1.(Richardson 1918) Such an unprecedented distribution of both Federal and state funds for education caused great concern in America and in my research. As a result, an additional focus of the research in this chapter serves to investigate the extent to which America’s vast financial investment in Agricultural education and research was financially rewarding. Based on data collected from educational institutions of the time, not only was it rewarding and beneficial for the economy, but also for the quality of life of Americans during and following this time period. The policies which the government instituted towards education in this era were beneficial to agricultural advancement in terms of technology and crop production. The financial investment made by the Federal government and the states allowed for agricultural experiments that lead to the discovery of new techniques that increased the efficiency with which farming is performed in America. Simultaneously, a wider range of American citizens

 

75

were granted access to higher education; thus, increasing the quality of life of Americans as a whole.

In terms of the financial needs of the farmers outside of education, at the start of the 1860’s, one finds that the government was especially attentive in a time as turbulent as the reconstruction era, when the old concepts of farming were completely overthrown, most noticeably in the south. With the coming of the Progressive and Depression eras, new laws concerned not as much the ownership of land, but the welfare of the farmers, and the value of their crops. The concept of parity did not change drastically since its establishment in the 1920’s, but it grew in importance during the Depression Era and was established as an official legal concept at that time. The establishment and evolution of farm credit, as well as the establishment of parity, were widely a product of national events that were happening at the time of their establishment. The passage of certain laws was clearly a reflection of the needs of the time period during which they were passed. Overall, the legislation passed during this time period, both concerning the education of future farmers and agricultural workers, as well as that which directly impacted the crops which farmers produced, the production process, and the buyers of these products reflected the needs of the people and of the society. These needs were in large part due to the economic turmoil taking place at the time. LITERATURE REVIEW On July 2, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln signed the College Land Grant Act also known as the Morrill Act. This act permitted the states to select 30,000 acres of public land for each member of Congress, where they would provide colleges for, but not limited to, the study of agricultural sciences. These colleges were called Land- Grant Colleges because they were founded on land granted by the Federal Government.(Nevins 1962) The aim of the Morrill Act was summarized by Dr. Davenport, one of Americas leading educationists: “ The fundamental purpose of agricultural education is the development of agriculture as a productive occupation, and of the agricultural people as an important part of the social and political fabric.”(Richardson 1918).

AEV Richardson justifies the Land-Grant Act by summarizing the attitudes of Americans towards financial support of education. The money put into agricultural education in America was thought to be well worth it, as the reward would ideally be much greater than the initial investment. However, what exactly falls under the heading of agricultural education? It is defined as “all the activities undertaken for the promotion of sound and profitable agriculture in a country. The activities may be classified functionally under four distinct heads – (1) Instructional work: all formal teaching of agricultural principles and practice to students from the primary school to the college or university, (2) investigational or research work: the experimental and research work undertaken for the purpose of discovering new facts and principles pertaining to agriculture, (3) extension or publicity work : activities concerned wit the dissemination of information to those who are unable to take advantage of the formal teaching of the schools and colleges, and (4) regulatory, inspectional, or control work: functions for the purpose of protecting or regulating certain industries.”(Richardson 1918) These activities were supported under the Morrill Act of 1862. Legislation in support of agricultural education and research did not stop at the Morrill Act; it continued to increase funding for land-grant colleges and encourage more

 

76

extensive research. In 1887, the Hatch Act was passed, and it established agricultural experiment stations in each state that were responsible for researching, investigating, and experimenting with the manufacturing process to improve rural life.(Conkin 2008) This act added $15,000 per year to each state college’s budget for the maintenance of experiment stations and experiments conducted within them.(Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station 1887) The Adams Act of 1906 extended the benefits of the Hatch Act to $30,000 per year on the premise that funds be used for original research specifically. This standard encouraged more ground-breaking research.(Rosenberg 1964) On March 4, 1907, The Nelson Amendment allowed for Federal funds to be used for the training of teachers of agriculture, and in 1908 an additional $25,000 was appropriated for this training.(Herren 1996) Again in 1914, legislation increased funding for agriculture, but in vocational and secondary schools. This was called the Smith-Lever Act, and it set up two funds. One fund paid teachers and their supervisors in vocational education, and another funded instruction in trade, home economics, and industrial subjects. Each of these amounted to $500,000 in1918 and by 1926 they increased to $3,000,000.(Conkin 2008) As can be clearly seen by the efforts of the Federal Government to ascertain that colleges and experiment stations had the financial means to accomplish their goals, the Federal Government believed that the results of these colleges would be extremely beneficial to America. Now that the nature and purpose of Land-Grant Colleges is clear, an exploration of the extent to which they were rewarding to Federal investors and to America is possible.

The concepts of farm credit and parity might as well be in a foreign language to most, but in theory, their meaning is not as complicated as one may assume. Farm credit, is the same form of credit one uses to purchase goods on their credit card, or to take a mortgage on their house, except it is used to purchase farm land and all items that a farmer would need to ensure a harvest.

Parity is the method by which the government determines the price of goods based on a base period(Teigen 1987). For example, the buying power of a bushel of wheat should remain constant, which means its price at a market may increase or decrease depending on inflation and other economic factors, but its worth remains the same. By selling a product, the farmer must be able to make the same value of profit taking into account the rates of inflation.

Inflation is “an upward movement in the average level of prices”(Robin Bade 2006). An increase in inflation is representative of the worth of money being less, meaning that the economy of the federal organization producing the money is growing weaker. Therefore, in times of economic crisis, inflation tends to go up, as do prices. It would appear that such laws and regulations, as farm laws and parity laws have remained stable over time, and that these concepts have remained unchanged since the time of the Jefferson-Hamilton debates about the fate of the American nation as an agricultural vs. and industrial society, but in truth, these laws change with the times. RESULTS AND FINDINGS Through research it was found that the legislation regarding the financial contribution towards Land-Grant Colleges and the research that they performed were worth the money invested, and that further legislation passed concerning agricultural policy benefitted the society, both the producers (the farmers) and the consumers (the non-farmers who purchased farm products). The images and charts in this section reflect the findings of

 

77

the government’s actions towards the different aspects of agricultural policy- both educational and economic.

Figure 6.1 Educational Policies

Iowa State College is a prime example of just one of the 53 institutions named agricultural colleges in 1862. The Iowa State experiment station made great advancements in corn and livestock husbandry, as these were the two most important commodities of the state. Iowa State’s Experiment Station discovered that self-fed hogs sell at a profit of one dollar higher than hand-fed hogs. Iowa marketed 10,000,000 hogs annually, resulting in a gain of at least ten million dollars a year. This self-fed feeding style was also proven to save labor and economize feeding, which also saved farmers money and energy. This practice spread to every state of the Union(Richardson 1918). In addition to discoveries concerning livestock, Iowa University contributed to the field of farming technology with the invention of a new machine which scratched the hard shell of the clover seed so that it could absorb moisture better. This machine was called the Ames scarifying machine, and it decreased the average percentage of unscarified seed from 20 lbs per acre to a mere 5 lbs per acre. This machine increased the process of germination and, consequently, more clover seed was grown which indubitably lead to greater profit.

Land-Grant Colleges provided both male and female students with an access to education. Iowa State College, in particular, reflects this in the variety of courses that were

 

78

offered. “Besides the regular four years’ courses in agriculture, the college gives non-collegiate or secondary courses, as well as graduate courses in agriculture. Some 300 students take the three-year non-collegiate, or secondary course, which is given for the benefit of those who cannot reach the standard necessary for admission to the regular college course. The Secondary course may be regarded as a Model Agricultural High School course. The students have the benefit of the very complete equipment provided for the four-year course. A separate staff is provided for the secondary courses.”(Richardson 1918) Iowa State also offered two-year courses and short courses. While the two-year courses were similar in purpose to the three-year courses, the short courses, which lasted from six to twelve weeks, were aimed at educating “farmers and young men who desire[d] to increase their knowledge of agricultural science and practice” (Richardson 1918). Agricultural Legislature Act Year Definition Homestead Act 1862 Any adult citizen, or intended citizen, who had

never borne arms against the U.S. government, could claim 160 acres of surveyed government land.

Federal Farm Loan Act 1916 Established 12 Federal Land Banks (FLBs) in 12 districts across the country, along with hundreds of National Farm Loan Associations that were agents for the land banks, to provide long-term credit to farmers to develop and expand farms(FCA) (www.FCA.gov).

Agricultural Credits Act 1923 created 12 Federal Intermediate Credit Banks (FICBs), one in each of the 12 districts established under the 1916 Act (www.FCA.gov).(FCA)

Emergency Farm Mortgage Act

1933 Extended repayment schedules and offered emergency financing (www.FCA.gov)

Farm Credit Act 1933 Established the Farm Credit System (FCS) as a group of cooperative lending institutions to provide short-, intermediate-, and long-term loans for agricultural purposes (www.FCA.gov)

Agricultural Adjustment Act 1933 Introduced the price support programs, including production adjustments, and incorporated the Commodity Credit Corporation under the laws of the State of Delaware. This law also put the concept of parity into written law (Ganzel 2003)

Agricultural Adjustment Act 1938 The first to make price supports mandatory for corn, cotton, and wheat to help maintain a sufficient supply in low production periods along with marketing quotas to keep supply in line with market demand. It also established permissive supports for butter, dates, figs, hops, turpentine, rosin, pecans, prunes, raisins, barley, rye, grain sorghum, wool, winter cover crop seeds, mohair,

 

79

peanuts, and tobacco for the 1938 40 period. The 1938 Act is considered part of permanent legislation (1938).

Figure 6.2

This table illustrates the laws passed, the year in which they were passed and how they affected the United States. As one can see, most of the laws were passed directly during or after a large crisis, for example the Homestead Act, which was passed upon the end of the Civil War, or the Acts passed in response to the Great Depression (1928-1940).

Figure 6.3 (Ganzel 2003) This graph demonstrates the concept of parity. The lighter areas represent the amount of money the farmers made by selling their crops, while the darker sections represent the amount of money the government subsidized, or paid the farmers back in the case that they were unable to make as much as the base amount, which is represented by the first column marked by the year 1909-1914. Although it is clear that the government could not completely subsidize the full amount to reach the base parity level (as represented by the horizontal line entitled 1909-1914 Parity Level), it can be noted that the government did subsidize the farmers somewhat, and that these subsidies increased as the economy of the United States stabilized.

 

80

DISCUSSION

As can be seen from the impact and achievements of Iowa State University, the single discovery of a more efficient feeding style at one of 53 stations resulted in a profit of over ten million dollars. From one accomplishment it becomes immediately evident that initial financial investments were returned exponentially, and that they proved beneficial to American agriculture. Iowa’s experiment station also determined that pure bread cows produced 75% more milk fat and 50% more butter fat than scrub cows. This distinction between quality of livestock helped to increase the value of certain livestock at markets. At the Iowa Experiment Station, two oats named Iowa 103 and Iowa 105 were distributed to local farmers, and these increased production by 5 bushels per acre.

By influencing not only students, but also farmers and children already active in agriculture, the benefits of Iowa State’s research was far-reaching. This spread of information made advancements in the field of agriculture known to a large number of people, and it increased the efficiency with which farming was performed.

Women were also beneficiaries of the Land-Grant Colleges. Iowa State College of Agriculture offered a Home Economics Course with 987 female attendees, 675 of whom were taking the regular four years’ course.(Richardson 1918) Since 95% of women became homemakers at some point in their careers during this time, typical four-year studies for women at the agricultural college included the following: General Subjects – English, History, Civics, and Physical Culture; Science Subjects – Chemistry, Zoology, Physiology, and Economics; and Technical Subjects – Study of foods, hygiene, nutrition and dietetics, household management, and textiles. While these might not be considered particularly egalitarian courses by today’s standards, they were very practical. Women were taught how to manage their homes, care for ailments and physical wounds, to manage money since they dealt with most of the finances of the home, and to speak publicly. The time of study was equally distributed between general, science, and technical subjects; so, the traditional areas of English literature, History, Civics, and Culture were not undermined in female education.(Richardson 1918) The access to a general education, somewhat similar to what males were able to learn, promoted the idea of Democracy in education. The quality of life for women was enriched as a result of the Land-Grant Colleges, and with formally trained women, family life was also improved in America.

The access to formal education that has been previously discussed did require some financial contribution from students. Although this might lead one to doubt the true ease with which higher education could be accessed, the vocational education and spread of information to local, uneducated farmers does address this concern. While it did not become magically possible for anyone who desired to attend college to do so, it was possible for everyone to benefit from the discoveries of these colleges. The effects of the Land-Grant Colleges and experiment stations were felt nationwide. Additionally, the degree to which each experiment station was productive differed. Every experiment station did not make agricultural discoveries that earned millions of dollars; however, all of the experiment stations shared their findings, which meant that every experiment station was privy to the discoveries of its sister stations. Consequently, even those stations that were not as productive as others did reap the benefits of agricultural advances made throughout the country, and they did share this information with agriculturalists of the state.

The establishment of parity laws and the evolution of farm credit was based largely on domestic affairs which impacted the American economy. The most influential, however, was the state of the American economy.

 

81

The first two events that revolutionized American agricultural policy were the Homestead Act of 1862, the end of the Civil War, which brought with it the abolition of slavery, the policy commonly known as “40 Acres and a Mule” (Sherman 1865) , and a new system of farming in the South called sharecropping. These events were later followed by a depression in 1870 which resulted in the new movement termed the “Granger” and “Free Silver” movements which called for a government break down of farming monopolies and other industrial monopolies which affected farming such as the railroad(University of Northern Iowa 1875), and increase in the production of silver coins for farmers to use to pay off farm loans, respectively. Policies changed again with the closing of the frontier in 1890, as Fredrick Jackson Turner describes in his thesis, The Significance of the Frontier in American History, written in 1893. At the turn of the 20th century the Grange Movement came to a halt and new policies were instituted by Theodore Roosevelt which focused on problems facings rural communities, which made up the majority of the American households at the times. The credit system evolved to include more cooperatives, and a cooperative credit system for farmers (FCA). Several acts were enacted during and after WWI. These acts included the Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916 and Agricultural Credit Act of 1923. While the Farm Loan Act of 1916 was based on the German system of agricultural credit, the Agricultural Credit Act was a result of competition with Europe which resulted in the requirement for American farmers to have provisions for short-term farm credit (FCA). Economic fluctuations, such as the crash of the stock market in 1929, which lead to the onset of the Great Depression, also had an affect on the way that farm credit was distributed and the development of new government institutions which dealt with its distribution. This institution was in fact the FCA , the Farm Credit Administration, which remained independent until it was incorporated into the USDA in 1939 (FCA). The Great Depression was also the time period during which the concept of parity was officially established. In the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, parity was officially defines as an agricultural program which included both a parity price concept and a parity income measure. The concept of parity is supposed to make sure that the price of a farm product maintains the same purchasing power as it did at the base period, which at the time of the passing of the act was the period between 1910 and 1914, prior to the onset of the first world war, (Teigen 1987), since prices fell after the war. The main idea behind officially outlining parity was to avoid further crises resulting from the fall of crop prices both after WWI and the Great Depression. The establishment and evolution of farm credit, as well as the establishment of parity, were widely a product of national and international events that were happening at the time. The passage of certain laws was clearly a reflection of the needs of the time period during which they were passed. As one can see from the graph, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 established the base line for parity to be the price of wheat from 1909-1914. This means that farmers producing wheat after this period-- the graph shows 1933-1941—had to receive the same revenue worth as during the 1909-1914 period. Because of the economic situation however, the government (shown in the darker color) had to subsidize the farmers. In fact, the government had to pay the farmers to produce smaller harvests since they were over producing. The overproduction was not only bad for the land, but also drove down the prices of the fruits and vegetable harvested for the year(Rucker 1990). Basically, the government paid the farmers to produce less.

 

82

However, according to James H. Shideler, the idea of instilling an actual parity price formula as law came about during the economic depression of the early 1920’s(Shideler 1953). Many of the farmers argued that they are entitles to fair and equal pricing that should be uniform throughout the country. These protests and demonstrations were fueled by the economic issues prevalent at the time. However, such demonstrations caught the attention of the government, and therefore, in the 1930’s action was taken to officially establish the laws on parity in legislature. CONCLUSION From the period of 1860-1940 government played a major role in determining how to respond to the changes within the country. To improve the agricultural process, and to make advancements in the agricultural field, the government found it necessary to create education state institutions, and to ensure that the farmers were relieved somewhat from financial crises, since those such as the Great Depression impacted the farmers the most, the government passed legislations protecting the farmers. Although the needs of the farmers were not always met, and not all farmers received a degree in higher education, the progressive nature of the government is clearly evident from the establishment of these institutions and from the passage of the laws discussed in the paper. One important aspect to consider is that these laws, and these institutions did not simply disappear after this era. In fact, this time period held the foundation for later agricultural legislature, for laws concerning food itself, for example safety and the rights of food workers, and some of the colleges are still in existence today. Even the very prestigious such as Cornell University have majors in the agricultural sciences. It also must be kept in mind that as America grows as a nation, the subject of food production will become more and more central since the human race cannot survive without food. Soon, it will become evident what changes the government needs to make to ensure the standard of the quality of life here in the United States. REFERENCES 1938. Agricultural Adjustment Act 1938. ed. U. S. D. o. Agriculture. Conkin, P. K. 2008. A Revolution Down On The Farm: The Transformation of Agriculture Since

1929. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. FCA. History of the FCA and the FCS. Ganzel, B. 2003. Farming in the 1930's.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_24.htmls. Herren, R. (1996) Agricultural Education and the 1862 Land Grant Institutions: The Rest of

the Story. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. 1887. Hatch Act of 1887.

Mississippi State, Mississippi: Mississippi State University Extension Service.

 

83

Nevins, A. 1962. The Origins of the Land- Grant Colleges and State Universities: A Brief Account of the Morrill Act of 1862 and Its Results. Washington, DC: University of Illinois Press.

Richardson, A. 1918. Agricultural Education and Agricultural Development in America. Melbourne:

H.J. Green, Acting Government Printer. Robin Bade, M. P. 2006. Foundations of Economics. Adison Wesley. Rosenberg, C. E. (1964) The Adams Act: Politics and the Cause of Scientific Research.

JSTOR, 38, 3-12. Rucker, R. R. (1990) The Effects of State Farm Relief Legislation on Private Lenders and

Borrowers: The Experience of the 1930's. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, 24-34.

Sherman, W. T. 1865. Special Field Orders, No.15. ed. U. Army. Shideler, J. H. (1953) The Development of the Parity Price Formula for Agriculture, 1919-

1923. Agricultural History, 27, 77-84. Teigen, L. D. 1987. Agricultural Parity: Historical Review and Alternative Calculations. 1-86.

United States Department of Agriculture. University of Northern Iowa (1875) The Granger Movement. The North American Review, 120,

394-424.

 

84

-7-

THE IMPROVEMENTS OF TECHNOLOGIES OF FOOD TRANSPORT, 1830-1940

by Maria Mannarino and Anita Lin

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the industrial revolution, many new modes of transportation arose. These innovations contributed to the distribution of food, changing the geography of food production of New York City, and the nation forever. During 1860, vehicles pulled by animals (like wagons) and canals were in popular use. However, due to the demand of faster and farther transportation of food, the construction of railroads and the use of trucks appeared. With the invention of the railroad, for the first time man could travel over land faster than a galloping horse. Railways in the United States allowed for the quick transport of products of farmers, lumbermen, miners, and artisans. Such transported goods and products are known as freight. The introduction of the railroad changed the face of this nation. The United States saw the potential of this transportation method and quickly built up their rail systems. Soon railways became the dominant form of transportation. The railroads changed the United States immensely, their impact being in almost all areas of society and the economy.

The overarching research question is what impacts the increased efficiency in modes of transportation during the Industrial Era had, and if any of these modes changed the geography of food production in New York City. The main developments that occurred during the American industrial revolution were that transportation expanded, and industrial processes were improved, which accelerated production.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The industrial era was a time of innovative revolution. It is characterized by major changes in transport, manufacturing, and technology that had a great effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions starting in the United Kingdom during the late eighteenth century, and then spreading to the United States (Depew). The industrial revolution transformed the United States into a modern urban-industrial nation.

During 1860 to 1940, New York evolved from using less advanced technologies, such as animal-powered vehicles (wagons and boats), to more sophisticated modes of transportation like railroads. Canals and trucks were also used during this time period. The most popular canal used to transport food in and out of New York was the Erie Canal. The construction of the Erie Canal was proposed in 1808 but the actual making of it did not start until July 4, 1817. The Erie Canal was finally completed on October 26, 1825. The canal stretches from the waters of Lake Erie in the west to the Hudson River in the east (Sadowski Jr. 2000-2010). The Erie Canal was four feet deep and forty feet wide. The boats that travelled along the Erie Canal carried around thirty tons of freight. Along the bank of the Erie Canal, a ten-foot wide towpath was built for animals such as horses, mules, and oxen (led by a “hoggee” or a boy boat driver) to walk on. The Erie Canal quickly became a

 

85

popular source of transportation. Because of the increased demands of transportation on the Erie Canal, it was enlarged between the years of 1836 and 1862. The “Enlarged Erie” became seventy feet wide and seven feet deep. This canal can handle boats that carried two hundred and forty tons of goods. The common use of waterway transportation paved the road for another expansion of the Erie Canal. In 1903, New York State decided to enlarge the Erie Canal again by constructing a “Barge Canal” that consists of the Erie Canal and the three chief branches of the State system – the Champlain, Oswego, and Cayuga-Seneca Canals. This “Barge Canal” was completed in 1918; it is 12 to 14 feet deep, 120 to 200 feet wide, and 363 miles long from Albany to Buffalo. This new canal can handle barges that carried 3,000 tons of cargo (Sadowski Jr. 2000-2010). The use of canals decreased when railroads began transporting food to farther places in a shorter amount of time but nevertheless, even with the rise of using railroads as a new mode of food transportation, canals never lost their importance as water transport was still eminent during the early 1900s.

Rail transport dates back about 500 years, in which man or horse power moved goods along wooden or stone rails. The first railroads of Great Britain were built in the early 1600’s. They consisted of lines of wooden tracks along which ponies pulled wagons of coal from pit-head to port or river. As England prospered during the Eighteenth Century, the demand for coal increased. Mines were worked over a wider area, and therefore a longer and more complex rail system was needed to connect them with water transport (Tames 1970). Starting in 1776, the wooden rails were replaced by iron rails since they lasted longer, and were stronger and smoother.

In February 1804, Richard Trevithick’s first steam engine tramway locomotive made a nine-mile trip, taking about two hours (Tames 1970). George Stephenson contributed to the invention of the train by taking Trevithick’s design and adapting it to rails, whereas Trevithick’s was meant for roads. In 1814, Stephenson built the first locomotive for the Stockton and Darlington Railway Line. Soon after, the horse-drawn carts were being replaced with steam engine locomotives.

Figure 7.1 Drawing of Trevithick’s Locomotive produced by E.W. Twining. (Green)

Figure 7.2 The replica of Trevithick’s Locomotive at Railfest 2004 (Green)

 

86

A reliable, faster and less expensive system of transportation was needed in the

United States. The first major railway in the United States was the Baltimore and Ohio (B&O), which ran for 14 miles and opened in 1830. That same year, the construction of the South Carolina Railway began, and was completed in 1833. At the time, this was the longest railway in the world, stretching 136 miles. The Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad was completed in 1834, and the Boston and Albany railroad in 1841 (Depew). The railroad named the New York Central joined New York and Chicago in 1867 (Anonymous 1999-09). These new railways changed the face of interstate commerce. By 1900, the United States had about one half of the railway mileage of the world. At this time, railroads were the most important factor in economic affairs. During 1893 about 745,000,000 tons of freight was transported by rail, compared to 182,448,402 tons transported by steam and sailing vessels of waterways (Depew). This shows how wrong the widely accepted belief was that railroads could not successfully compete with canals and waterways. With the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, it dramatically symbolized the nation’s unification after the Civil War, and therefore such railroads got much attention in the media. But most construction took place in the industrial Northeast and agricultural Midwest, and was created with the intent of minimizing shipping times and costs. It is often hard to grasp how strong of an impact the railways had on transport. In an article entitled “Nineteenth Century U.S. Economic Growth: How Important Was the Transportation Revolution?” the author, James Schmitz, states, “A fun way to glimpse these improvements is to consider how freight was shipped between two points, like Pittsburgh and New York City (NYC), over the course of the nineteenth century. For the first third of the century, goods were often shipped from Pittsburgh to NYC by way of New Orleans. Riverboats carried freight down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to New Orleans. Ocean-going vessels then moved it through the Gulf of Mexico, around Florida, and finally up the Atlantic coast to NYC. If the riverboats used on the first leg of the journey were not steamboats, they were often destroyed since pulling the boats back up the rivers was not economical. With the development of the Pennsylvania Mainline canal in the 1840s, freight

 

87

could now be forwarded from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia by water and then by railroad to NYC. But freight on the Mainline canal was portaged over mountains and hence its days were numbered. It quickly gave way to direct train service between Pittsburgh and NYC” (Schmitz 2003) p. 1. Before the introduction of the railroad, freight was transported mainly by waterways, and, as evident from this quote, took a very long time.

The establishment of the refrigerated cars gained more popularity for the use of railroads in transporting food in and out of New York. However, waterways were still important to food transportation. Animal-powered vehicles used in the late 1800s and motor trucks were also significant technologies for food transportation. As time passed by, one mode of transportation might gain more popularity over the others but in some point of time between 1860 and 1940, all of the mentioned technologies contributed greatly to distributing food in and out of New York.

Before railways became the dominant mode of food transport, agricultural production was heavy in what today is known as the four outer-boroughs, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island. At the time, Brooklyn was known as Kings County. Throughout the seventeenth century, the Dutch settled this area. Dating back before the revolution, farmers there were among the first “in the United States to develop intensive agriculture and to use fertilizer” (Linder 1999) p. 19. In 1880, it was observed that, “The head of every family in Flatbush, with few exceptions, was a farmer, until within the last thirty years. They cultivated their land in the most careful manner, and were among the best farmers in the state” (Linder 1999) p. 19. By the 1800’s, market garden production was the main component of Kings County agriculture.

Figure 7.3 Towns in Kings County (Linder 1999)

 

88

DATA Modes of Transport: Animal Powered Vehicles:

During the Civil War, wagons were mainly used to deliver food to soldiers. 200 wagons pulled by cattle were used to transport between 75 and 100 tons of food per day. In order to feed an advancing army, wagon transport was insufficient (Aronson). The three main types of transportation used during the Civil War were waterways, railroads, and animal-pulled wagons. The main method of travel was transporting goods on waterways. Waterways had an advantage over the use of railroads because there were numerous channels that could be used to get to locations that were inaccessible by railroads. The supply trains of railroads transported goods to soldiers. It was very important to control the waterways and railroads during the Civil War because these were the only two methods to haul large amounts of goods over long distances (Kelley 1999-2010). After the use of wagons in the American Civil War, they were used by many manufactures to transport their products. Wagons were utilized to transport goods for both short and long distances. Wagons were found on most farms. “The typical farmer’s wagon consisted of three sections up to 14 inches (36 cm) deep – deep enough to carry a large load.” Wagons were animal-powered. Horses were not the only types of animals used to haul wagons, mules and oxen also contributed (Anonymous 2009). “As one critic noted in 1866: “Nearly all the fat and offal obtained in the eastern portions of the City are conveyed to the extreme western, a distance from two to three miles, thus passing over all the best and most frequented avenues of our City. This offal and fat are not infrequently retained for two and even for three days in the slaughterhouse, and when so retained its transit across our City is most offensive”. For butchers, time was of the essence; thus arose the need for the licensed cartmen and wagon drivers who transported beef to market” (Lee 2008) p. 187. Figure 7.1 Horse-Drawn Wagon (Anonymous May 17, 2008 – January 4, 2009 p.1)

“ Hard-working horse teams were the lifeblood of the city. They kept urban markets stocked with food and other supplies. Goods that arrived by steamship or rail were heaped onto carts at the loading dock. It took horses to wheel these goods through crowded streets to warehouses, markets and homes. By the 1870s, more than 300 U.S. patents were issued for horse-powered machinery. In 1900, around 130,000 horses worked in Manhattan—more than 10 times the number of taxicabs on the streets of New York City today” (Anonymous May 17, 2008 - January 4, 2009) p. 1.

 

89

Figure 7.2 Erie Canal Circa 1908

This is a postcard image of horses walking on the towpath along the Erie Canal. Horses hauled the boats along the Erie (Anonymous circa 1908). Canals: Table 7.1 Tonnage moved on New York Canals (1860 – 1940)

1940 4,768,160 1919 1,238,844 1898 3,360,063 1877 4,955,963 1939 4,689,037 1918 1,159,270 1897 3,617,804 1876 4,172,129 1938 4,709,488 1917 1,297,225 1896 3,714,894 1875 4,859,858 1937 5,010,464 1916 1,625,050 1895 3,500,314 1874 5,804,588 1936 5,014,206 1915 1,858,114 1894 3,882,560 1873 6,364,782 1935 4,489,172 1914 2,080,850 1893 4,331,963 1872 6,673,370 1934 4,143,728 1913 2,602,035 1892 4,281,995 1871 6,467,888 1933 4,074,002 1912 2,606,116 1891 4,563,472 1870 6,173,769 1932 3,643,433 1911 3,097,068 1890 5,246,102 1869 5,859,080 1931 3,722,012 1910 3,073,412 1889 5,370,369 1868 6,442,225 1930 3,605,457 1909 3,116,536 1888 4,942,948 1867 5,688,325 1929 2,876,160 1908 3,051,877 1887 5,553,805 1866 5,775,220 1928 3,089,998 1907 3,407,914 1886 5,293,982 1865 4,729,654 1927 2,581, 892 1906 3,540,907 1885 4,731,784 1864 4,852,941 1926 2,369,367 1905 3,226,896 1884 5,009,488 1863 5,557,692 1925 2,344,013 1904 3,138,547 1883 5,664,056 1862 5,598,785 1924 2,032,317 1903 3,615,385 1882 5,467,423 1861 4,507,635 1923 2,006,284 1902 3,274,610 1881 5,179,192 1860 4,650,214 1922 1,873,434 1901 3,420,613 1880 6,457,656 1921 1,270,407 1900 3,345,941 1879 5,362,372 1920 1,421,434 1899 3,686,051 1878 5,171,320

(Bureau of the Census 1949)

 

90

Table 7.2 Tonnage Carried by New York Canals (McAlpine 1873)

1872 1871 Erie 3,562,560 3,580,922 Champlain 1,449,528 1,099,995 Oswego 832,490 941,858 The laterals 828,792 845,113 Total 6,673,370 6,467,888

Railways:

After Reconstruction was over, railroad construction exploded. “The need for iron horses to shuttle settlers west, and wheat and ore east, seemed limitless. Total U.S. trackage spun up from 2,665 miles in 1878 to a staggering 11,569 by 1882, inducing tremendous output from steel mills, iron mines, the entire industrial sector” (Burrows and Wallace 1999, 1041).

Table 7.3 Miles of Railroad in Operation From 1830 to 1894 (Depew p. 105)

Year Miles in Operation 1830 23 1835 1,098 1840 2,818 1845 4,633 1850 9,021 1855 18,374 1860 30,626 1865 35,085 1870 52,922 1875 74,096 1880 93,296 1885 128,361 1890 166,706 1891 170,795 1892 174,750 1893 170,607 1894 175,441

 

91

Table 7.4 Railroad mileage increase by groups of states: 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 New England 2,507 3,660 4,494 5,982 6,831 Middle States 3,202 6,705 10,964 15,872 21,536 Southern States 2,036 8,838 11,192 14,778 29,209 Western States and Territories 1,276 11,400 24,587 52,589 62,394 Pacific States and Territories 23 1,677 4,080 9,804 Totals 9,021 30,626 52,914 93,301 129,774 (Depew) p. 108 Table 7.5 Growth of Selected Systems

Name of Road Mileage, 1869 Mileage, 1879 Pennsylvania R.R. 538 4,000 N.Y. Central and Hudson R.R. 593 2,500 Chicago and Northwestern 1,150 2,158 Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul 839 2,250

(Depew) p. 110 Table 7.6 Growth of Selected Systems, 1883-1894

Name of Railroad Mileage 1883 Mileage 1894 Atchinson, Topeka, and Santa Fe 2,510 9,345 Baltimore and Ohio 1,554 2,907 Central Pacific 1,213 1,428 Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy 3,322 5,730 Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific 1,381 3,572 Illinois Central 1,927 4,296 Lake Shore and Michigan Southern 1,339 1,476 New York, Lake Erie, and Western 1,025 2,061 Northern Pacific 2,546 4,457 Southern Pacific 990 6,651 Union Pacific 1,820 4,469

(Schmitz 2003) Table 7.7 Railroad Output (millions of miles and dollars)

Year Freight Receipts Ton-Miles 1839 2.5 32.8 1849 14.1 347.0 1859 66.5 2577.7

(Fishlow 1966) p 611.

 

92

Table 7.8: Gross Investment in Construction and Equipment (millions of dollars) Period Track Equipment Total 1828-1838 85.3 4.0 89.3 1839-1848 158.5 13.7 172.2 1849-1858 854.3 72.6 926.9 1859-1869 793.1 126.8 919.9 1870-1879 1677.7 332.7 2010.4 1880-1889 3413.4 681.1 4094.6 1890-1899 1755.8 742.8 2498.6 1900-1909 3023.4 1922.4 4945.8 (Fishlow 1966) Appendix A. The funding for the railroads increased until the 1890’s, where it slipped back a bit for unknown reasons, but then continued to increase (Linder 1999). Map 7.1 United States Railroads, 1835 (railroads are indicated by blue lines)

(Anonymous) “Old Rail History.”

 

93

Map 7.2 The Railroads, 1850 and 1860

(Anonymous) “Land in Agriculture from 1850 to 1997.” Maps 7.1 and 7.2 show the expansion of railways throughout the nation from 1835 to 1860. As time progressed, the rails expanded towards the west and towards the south.

“The Erie and Hudson lines sustained New York’s overwhelming advantage in movement of western produce to the East Coast. By the late fifties, the city was handling half again as much rail tonnage as Philadelphia and Baltimore combined. In 1860, counting the still-heavy volume of traffic on the Erie Canal, it received $161 million worth of goods from the West, just about the value of that year’s cotton crop” (Burrows 2000).

 

94

Map 7.3: Railroads in New York City, 1885

(G.W. & C.B. Colton & Co.) Map 7.3 is an original map that shows the railways in NYC and the suburban lines of Long Island Railroad and its connections in 1885.

Soon after railroads became a primary means of transport, the addition of the refrigerated car contributed to their efficiency. “Primitive refrigerator cars, merely ordinary boxcars insulated with sawdust and packed with block ice, had first appeared in New York in 1851 to carry dairy products. In 1861, a similar “sweat box” hauled fresh meat between

 

95

Chicago and New York. The first American refrigerator-car patent was awarded in 1867, but the design was inefficient because the vehicle could be iced only when it was empty, and it provided no internal air circulation” (Skaggs 1986) p. 91. Better versions of the refrigerated railroad cars emerged as people continued to work on developing an improved design that may accomplish their goal of transporting perishable food to farther locations quickly.

The invention was improved within the next few years. “No single event in the last century had more significance to the perishable food industry than the successful shipment under ice of a car load of strawberries from Anna, Illinois, to Chicago in 1872. Parker Earle built a precooling plant at Anna, Illinois, secured a well-insulated car capable of carrying five tons of ice in its bunkers, and in 1872 sent his epoch-making shipment of strawberries to Chicago. The berries, which had been precooled to 50° Fahrenheit, reached the trade in excellent condition. From that time the commercial success of the “icebox on wheels” was assured” (Hedden 1929) p. 37-38. The success of the invention of an “icebox on wheels” provided a novel mode of transportation for distributing perishable food. This invention gave way to creating refrigerated railroad cars. “Under the impetus of the new device, a long-haul railroad traffic in fruits and vegetables began. In May 1885, 435 packages of berries and vegetables from Norfolk, Virginia, moved via Cape Charles to New York City. By April, 1888, all-rail shipments from Charleston, South Carolina, to New York had begun. By October of the same year Florida oranges were moving, and in 1889 Georgia peaches and New Orleans vegetables. The transcontinental traffic was not far behind. In June, 1889, the first car load of California deciduous fruits was received in New York City. Since then the growth has been phenomenal. The entire transcontinental fruit movement from the west coast to New York amounted to four thousand cars in 1900. In 1927, sixty-five thousand cars were hauled from California, Washington, and Oregon to the New York district” (Hedden 1929) p. 39.

Figure 7.3 Plan of a Refrigerator Car

This is a plan of how a refrigerated car would look like. This was drawn in the late 1800s when people were attempting to design a refrigerated car to successfully ship produce (Hedden 1929).

 

96

Figure 7.4 Refrigerated Railroad Car

This is an image of how the refrigerated railroad car really looked like (Krasner-Khait). Table 7.9 Number of refrigerated cars used for shipping by year, 1919-1927

Year Refrigerator Cars Index Car Loads Shipped Index 1919 90,383 100 591,003 100 1920 90,978 101 663,447 112 1921 95,100 105 751,699 125 1922 104,276 115 854,081 144 1923 121,964 134 878,502 148 1924 132,585 146 923,549 156 1925 133,485 147 963,442 163 1926 144,975 160 1,023,274 173 1927 152,726 169 1,060,529 179

(Hedden 1929) From 1919 to 1927, the number of refrigerator cars in service increased by 69% and the shipments of fresh fruits and vegetables rose up by 79% (Hedden 1929). Motor Trucks:

So far, animal-powered vehicles (wagons and boats), waterways, and railroads were mentioned to be the methods of food transportation during 1860 to 1940. There is one more technology that became popular in transporting food during the early 1900s. Motor trucks were often used to transport perishables and other products within a radius of 100 miles. Beyond the 100-mile zone, railroads and steamships (use of the waterways) took over the role of transporting food. Steamboats that carried freight ran on the Hudson River. Motor trucks handled the short-haul traffic. They were often used to transport milk. According to a newspaper article written on August 23, 1868, titled “The City Milk Trade”, the annual supply of milk for New York City is around 25,000,000 gallons. 15,000,000 of these gallons came in as freight upon railroads like the Erie, the Harlem, and the Hudson River. The remaining 10,000,000 gallons were brought into the city in wagons from

 

97

neighboring counties (Anonymous 1868). However, motor trucks were used within the city to deliver milk to various stores and households.

The use of motor trucks was advantageous over railroad freight within 100 miles because motor trucks save in handling and “convenience to the farmer of a single direct movement from field to the commission merchant’s store door.” The disadvantages of using motor trucks instead of transporting food on railroads were: “lesser dependability of schedule, increased street congestion and delay in wholesale store district, and inability to hold temporary oversupplies in refrigerator cars” (Hedden 1929) p. 7. Figure 7.5 Motor Truck for Hauling Milk

(Hedden 1929) p. 8. Advantages of using a motor truck:

1. It passes the producer’s gate and the truck driver acts as the producer’s personal agent in the city.

2. Shipments reduce the number of handlings from at least 6 to only 2. 3. Trucks lose fewer cans. 4. “Elimination of haul from railroad milk platform to the city milk dealer results in an

estimated saving of five cents a hundredweight” (Hedden 1929) p. 8.

 

98

Figure 7.6 Trucking to the Livestock Market

(Hedden 1929) p. 8.

Motor trucks were not only utilized to transport milk. During the early 1900s, shipments of poultry by motor trucks increased. The reasons behind the rising number of cases in the shipment of livestock for short distances by motor trucks were: “a minimum of shrinkage, quick delivery, ability to take advantage of favorable market prices, less cost for food and watering stock, and ability to make shipments of a few animals at a time” (Hedden 1929) p. 8. Comparison Between Modes of Transport: Table 7.10Tonnage Carried by Waterways and Railway Lines between the Food-producing West and the Consuming and Importing East, for One Year, 1871

Eastward Westward In both directions Erie Canal 2,637,212 450,000 3,087,212 Welland Canal - - 1,250,000 New York Central Railway - - 2,250,000 Erie Railway 893,685 369,196 1,262,881 Pennsylvania Railway 879,461 412,385 1,292,846

(McAlpine 1873)

“[1873]… the days of canals and water transportation are concluded, and that the great traffic of the country is to be performed hereafter by the railways. Nothing can be further from the truth. Water lines do actually transport the great mass of the internal commerce of the country. There is transported by water between New York and Albany or Troy, fifteen times as many tons of freight in the nine months of river navigation, as the railways carry in twelve months” (McAlpine 1873) p. 20.

 

99

Table 7.11 Amount of grain and grain products that were received at the New York Port District by Rail and Waterways in 1920 Flour (Barrels) Wheat (Bushels) Barley (Bushels) Rye (Bushels) Rail 1,334,460,512 3,624,762,000 173,383,200 1,314,566,400 Water 19,058,844 129,638,100 86,263,536 69,709,584 (Port of New York Authority 1922) Table 7.12 Percentages of food received in New York by Rail, Water, and Truck, 1927 Rail Water Truck Fruits and Vegetables 70 20 10 Milk 99 0 1 Dairy and poultry products (other than milk) 92 6 2 (Hedden 1929)

“In the three months of the local fruit-shipping season between July 20 and October 22, 1927, 70 per cent of the peaches from New Jersey moved to New York by truck as against 30 per cent by rail. During the latter half of 1928 shipments of fruits and vegetables from New Jersey to the New York market were equally divided between rail and motor truck” (Hedden 1929) p. 11. Figure 7.7: Men loading Brewery Wagon March 25, 1933

(Bettmann 1933) p. 1

“When it becomes legal for New Yorkers to again drink real beer, they will again become accustomed to seeing horse-drawn brewery trucks rolling through the streets of New York City.” This is in the Ruppert Brewery in Manhattan. Even with the inventions of steam and rail, horses were still used for transportation during the early 1900s (Bettmann 1933).

“In the years immediately preceding World War II, the proportion of total receipts or unloads of farm products handled by rail (and water carriers) generally declined. Motor

 

100

truck transport was gaining correspondingly. For example, unloads of apples in principal markets arrived 50 percent by rail and boat and 50 percent by motor truck in 1939. During the World War II, because of shortages of motor carrier equipment, parts, fuel, etc.,, the above trends were reversed, and the proportion of receipts by rail (plus water) rose markedly whereas that by motor truck fell” (United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics 1951) p. 5. Table 7.13 Shipments made by Rail and Truck, 1939 and 1940

1939 NY Rail 1939 NY Truck 1940 NY Rail 1940 NY Truck

Apples (cars) 3443 5298 3006 5283

Oranges (cars) 17,535 5 15,376 10

Grapefruit (cars) 6041 6 4879 6

Potatoes (cars) 10,126 10,724 9524 11,086

Lettuce (cars) 6520 2818 5822 2951

Tomatoes (cars) 5363 3810 5280 4292

Milk (1000- 40 qt. units) 14,857 22,755 13,950 23,475

Cream (1000- 40 qt. units) 1,065 518 906 582

Butter (1000 pounds) 226,568 38,378 217,717 40,017

Cheese (1000 pounds) 65,013 3,485 71,472 3,411

Live poultry (1000 pounds) 42,432 79,936 39,600 86,960

Dressed poultry (1000 pounds) 156,148 76,771 148,138 100,034

Shell Eggs (1000 cases) 4,821 1,542 4,552 1,937

(United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics 1951)

 

101

New York City Agriculture and the Expansion of Agricultural land use of the United States: Map 7.4 Agricultural Land Use from 1850 to 1997 (darker green indicates that a higher proportion of the land is used for agriculture)

(Anonymous) “Land in Agriculture from 1850 to 1997.”

 

102

Map 7.5 Average Size of Farms, 1890 (Darker grey indicates that larger sized farms occupy the given region)

(U.S. Census Bureau 1890) Table 7.14 Farms in Kings County, Selected Indicators, 1820-1929

Year Number of Farms

Acres of Farmland Average Number of Acres

1820 22,530 1825 24,426 1835 22,535 1845 20,720 1850 363 17,419 48 1855 398 15,874 40 1860 436 16,006 37 1865 433 14,297 33 1870 298 10,031 34 1875 282 9,110 32 1879 409 11,199 27 1890 307 10,320 34 1899 360 5,989 17 1909 110 1,259 11

 

103

1919 54 1,006 19 1924 40 275 7 1929 11 79 7

(Linder 1999) Table 7.15 Farms in Kings County, Selected Outputs and Livestock, 1820-1934 Year Corn (bu.) Potatoes

(bu.) Wheat (bu.)

Milk (gal.) Milch Cows

Oats (bu.)

Hay (tons)

Horses

1820 1,814 1825 2,291 1835 3,355 1840 81,824 95,805 24,964 72,460 5,437 3,019 1845 124,688 178,434 26,992 64,786 4,360 1850 91,949 208,452 29,926 2,794 29,538 6,804 3,034 1855 54,179 368,243 18,086 3,033,291 16,701 6,314 1860 84,782 607,182 21,927 1,411 9,835 7,086 1,543 1865 56,351 464,887 15,803 444,530 4,023 13,657 8,463 1870 44,600 547,403 5,355 492,040 1,148 3,375 2,057 1,941 1875 35,010 420,060 2,604 25,970 315 1,580 1,068 1879 52,990 772,246 3,240 554,951 1,254 3,158 1,493 1,623 1890 29,389 611,272 925 377,514 587 1,705 1,902 1,275 1899 6,020 197,216 0 1,007,450 2,439 310 332 1,150 1909 1,682 57,728 0 78,130 113 0 90 221 1919 540 35,421 0 353,400 590 0 0 133 1924 154 11,870 0 81,700 149 0 23 32 1929 0 0 0 269,200 209 0 0 7 1934 0 0 0 475,842 426 0 0 16 (Linder 1999) Table 7.16 Farms in Kings County, Selected Outputs, 1845-1924, Bushels produced, Acres of land, and Bushels per Acre Potatoes Corn Wheat Year Bushels Acres B/A Bushels Acres B/A Bushels Acres B/A 1845 178,434 1,630 109 124,688 3,242 38 26,992 1,420 19 1855 368,243 3,089 119 54,179 1,948 28 18,086 887 20 1864 464,887 3,500 133 56,351 1,636 34 15,803 819 19 1874 420,060 2,734 154 35,010 756 46 2,604 108 24 1879 772,246 4,172 185 52,900 1,256 42 3,240 139 23 1890 611,272 3,926 156 29,389 370 79 925 54 17 1899 197,216 2,285 86 6,020 178 34 0 0 0 1909 57,728 591 98 1,682 35 48 0 0 0 1919 35,421 418 85 540 13 42 0 0 0 1924 11,870 80 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Linder 1999)

 

104

Table 7.17Acres of Farmland in Kings County, by Town, 1845 Town Number of Acres Percentage of Total Acres Brooklyn 3,066.25 15 Williamsburgh 88.5 1 Bushwick 2,112.5 10 Flatbush 5,682.5 27 Flatlands 3,167.5 15 Gravesend 2,516 12 New Utrecht 4,086.75 20 Total 20,720 100

(Linder 1999) Table 7.18 Number of Farms and Farm Size in Kings County, by Town, 1880 Town Number of Farms Total Acreage Average Acreage per farm Brooklyn 18 440 24 Flatbush 47 1,672 36 Flatlands 97 3,229 33 Gravesend 64 2,038 32 New lots 80 1,563 20 New Utrecht 103 3,403 33 Total 312 12,345 --- (Linder 1999) Summary of Findings

During the late nineteenth century, animal-powered vehicles were popular. There was also a trend of an increased use of canals. However, there was a decrease in the tonnage moved on New York Canals during the 1870s. Then, the numbers fluctuated from the 1870s to1890. After 1890, the amount of food transported on canals sharply declined. It was not until the early 1920s when the tonnage gradually increased (See Table 7.1). As the tonnage of food moved on water fluctuated, the numbers for the amount of food transported by railroads remained high. In 1920, the tons of grain and grain products transported by railroads were far greater than the tons of products received by water (See Table 7.11). In 1830 there was only 23 miles of railroad track in the United States. Within a decade, the railways had expanded to over 2,818 miles. By 1860, there was over 30,000 miles of railroad track laid, and by 1880 the number had tripled to over 90,000 miles (Depew). By 1894, this number grew to 175,441 miles. This data is supported by table 7.3, which is shown in results. Table 7.4 depicts how the mileage of rail increased within different regions each decade from 1850 to 1890. Tables 7.5 and 7.6 show how selected railways expanded substantially from 1869 to 1894. Within a 20 year period, 1839-1859, the amount of freight transported by rail increased dramatically, from 32.8 to 2,577.7. This is nearly 80 times greater. Table 7.8 shows the amount of money that went towards the construction of the railroads during each decade from 1828 to 1909. The funding for the railroads increased until the 1890’s, where it slipped back a bit for unknown reasons, but then continued to increase (Linder 1999).

 

105

The percentages of food received in New York by rail, water, and truck reveal the great use of railroads during the early 1900s (See Table 7.12). As more and more railroad cars were built from 1919 to 1927, the number of car loads shipped to New York increased (See Table 7.9). The number of railroad cars declined from 1939 to 1940 while the amount of motor trucks increased (See Table 7.13). The technologies used to transport food between 1860 to 1940 evolved from first pulling animal-powered wagons and boats to carrying cargo in steamboats and steamships on New York waterways to transporting freight on railroads to driving motor trucks directly to the front doors of stores and homes. Although one mode of transportation was more popular than another, nevertheless, they all contributed a great deal in transporting food in and out of New York.

As agriculture began to spread west from the east coast, it gradually moved out of New York, and much of the North East region. This is shown in Map 7.4. By 1890, most of the land from the east coast through the Midwest was used for agricultural purposes. This can be seen through Map 7.5, which depicts the average size of farms in 1890.

From the early 19th century to the early 20th century, there was a substantial decrease in agricultural output of Kings County farms. Table 7.14 shows the amount of land in Kings County that was farmland from 1820 to 1929. Over this period, there is no distinct pattern, since numbers fluctuate, but the farmland eventually diminishes by 1929. Table 7.15 consists of Selected outputs and livestock of farms in Kings County from 1820 to 1934. The data shows no distinct trends, but outputs and livestock start to decrease, and eventually there are 0 outputs for corn, potatoes, wheat, oats, and hay. Figure Table 7.16 shows the acres and the output of potatoes, corn and wheat from 1845 to 1924. The production of wheat and corn declines steadily during this period. Production of potatoes increases, and starts to decline during the 1880's.

Table 7.17 shows the acres of farmland within each town of Kings County in 1845. Table 7.18 shows the acres of farmland within each town of Kings County in 1880. The two tables can be compared to show that the total farmland from 1845 to 1880 decreased from 20,720 to 12,345. This is a 40.42% decrease. DISCUSSION

Animal pulled wagons and boats were popular during the late 1800s. This was probably because it was relatively cheap to purchase animals that hauled heavy loads of food. Also, the animals could directly carry food through the crowded city streets into markets and homes. Animals may transport food for both short and long distances but they were less efficient when food needs to be transported to a very far location.

Waterways (canals and rivers) became popular, as boats and steamships were able to carry food over longer distances. Especially during war times, food and supplies were in great demand; hence, the mode of transportation used must possess the ability to transport food to far destinations in a short amount of time. The use of water transport slowly declined as the invention of refrigerated railroad cars appeared. In general, there were fluctuations between using canals and railroads revolved around the times of war, the Civil War, and World Wars I and II. The greatest numbers of tonnage carried on water and by rail appeared around the years of conflict. This is most likely due to the fact that wars require more supplies of food and weapons, and therefore railroads and waterways were both necessary for trade between distant locations. The first increase in the use of canals occurred during the Civil War. The first decrease was after the Civil War. The

 

106

next decrease in tonnage moved on canals was during the 1870s when the successful refrigerator car appeared. With the rise of a new transportation method, water transport declined. The tonnage then varies due to the existence of other modes of transportation.

Through the invention of railroads there seems to be two major factors that drove out agriculture. The transport of rail freight was significant in that food for New Yorkers could be produced outside of the city. In addition, the use of passenger railroads made it possible for people to travel from the outside boroughs into Manhattan. This led to the suburbanization of the outer boroughs, because people would be able to commute to their jobs on Manhattan (Linder 1999). Around the same time that rails expanded West, so did agriculture. This is shown through Maps 7.1, 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5. During the Nineteenth Century, food production and the amount of farmland in New York City were decreasing. This is shown in tables 7.14 through 7.18. It seems from this that there is a correlation between the expansion of railways and the geography of food production, and therefore that the expansion of railways played a large part in shaping the New York City we know today. It was not until the use of railways that the geography of food production started to change significantly. “The processing of foodstuffs, the demand for agricultural machinery, and the capital equipment required to transport agricultural commodities to market are all intimately tied to farm output and the relative price of agricultural goods, even though agricultural production is often characterized as acyclical” (Davis 2004). Advances in Railroad transport and mechanical refrigeration made southern truck farmers competitors of market gardeners in and around the cities of the northeast, including New York. Southern supplies became commercially significant after the civil war, and increasingly so during the second half of the nineteenth century (Linder 1999). But the north still had advantages. At this time, the freight rates were discriminatory, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognized that the advantages of southern agricultural growth had been counterbalanced by the higher transport cost (Burrows 2000).

During the 1870’s, the demand for produce was an important factor. Although the west may have better soil, and cheaper land, New Yorkers wanted the home grown freshness of their own produce (Linder 1999). But soon the pressure from southern production would be too great. After slavery ended, the south experienced a huge labor surplus, therefore “southern planters began dedicating thousands of acres to vegetables and fruits for northern markets” (Linder 1999) p. 68. When it came to New York City during the early 1800’s, “the majority of its population [was] living close to their food sources and personally involved in the production and processing of foods. By 1920, the population had shifted into urban areas and Americans were increasingly distanced from knowledge of their food's origins" (Elias 2009) p. 2.

When it comes to agricultural production and agricultural markets, the numbers are hard to obtain. Only samples of The U.S. Censuses from 1850, 1860, and 1870 are available, and the agricultural section is not among these samples. In addition, truck farmers of this time kept little or no record of their businesses.

A large amount of data from the industrial era on freight transport by rail is difficult to acquire. The U.S. Department of Transportation did not start keeping records on railroad transport until 1993, so data on tonnage transported annually is difficult to attain since it is dispersed throughout various sources, and many of these sources contradict each other, or do not match up.

 

107

CONCLUSION The technologies that were used during 1860 to 1940 were based on increasing

demands of efficiency. Since animal-powered vehicles did not satisfy the desire to transport food over long distances in a short amount of time, the waterways became a more popular mode of food transportation. Railways started to become popular once it’s greater potential in quick transport compared to the waterways was realized. In addition, the development of the refrigerator car earned a greater popularity than the waterways because it had the advantage of keeping food refrigerated. The railroads connected New York City with the other regions of the United States, allowing for the transport of food from the South and Midwest to the city. This gave New York City the ability to stop using land for agricultural use, changing the geography of food production significantly. Because of the decrease of agricultural land use, the city became a center of industrialization, and the outer boroughs started to increasingly become suburbs. The rise of the motor trucks took place due to the convenience of transporting food directly to the front doors of stores and homes, something that railroads would never accomplish. This data may not be generalized to the United States or world because the geography of different locations inhibits the use of certain technologies. In addition, the different levels of advanced technology for different cities determine the modes of transportation used. The data provided solely refers to the technologies that were used to transport food in New York. REFERENCES

Anonymous. "Land in Agriculture from 1850 to1997." <http://www.hawthornevalleyfarm.org/fep/Index%20of%20maps%20and%20graphics/PAN%2052,%20land%20in%20agriculture%20in%20US.jpg>

Anonymous. "Old Rail History." <http://oldrailhistory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=190&Itemid=222>

Anonymous (1868) The City Milk Trade. The New York Times. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A1EFD38541B7493C1AB1783D85F4C8684F9&scp=40&sq=food%20supply%20new%20york%201860&st=cse>

Anonymous. 1999-09. New York Railway Map. San Jose. <http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/states/new-york/new-york-railway-map.html>

Anonymous. 2009. Agricultural Carts, Wagons, and Trailers. <http://www.ritchiewiki.com/wiki/index.php/Carts#Grain_Carts>

Anonymous. circa 1908. Erie Canal.

<http://www.eriecanal.org/images/west-1/Buffalo-1908.jpg>

 

108

Anonymous. May 17, 2008 - January 4, 2009. How We Shaped Horses, How Horses Shaped Us. In The Horse. New York: American Museum of Natural History. <http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/horse/?section=howshaped&page=howshaped_ciii>

Aronson, A. Strategic Supply of Civil War Armies. <http://members.cox.net/rb2307/content/STRATEGIC_SUPPLY_OF_CIVIL_WAR_ARMIES.htm>

Bettmann. 1933. Men Loading Brewery Wagon. In Corbis Images. New York. <http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/U219043ACME.html>

Bureau of the Census. 1879. Statistical Abstract of the United States ed. T. D. o. t. B. o. Statistics, 140+. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Bureau of the Census. 1949. Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945. ed. U. S. D. O. Commerce, 210, 217-218, 228-229, 233, 344.

Burrows, E. G. & M. Wallace. 1999. Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press.

Davis, J. H. (2004). "An Annual Index of U. S. Industrial Production, 1790-1915." The

Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(4): 1177-1215.

Depew, C. "1795-1895. One hundred years of American commerce."

Elias, M. J. (2009). Food in the United States, 1890-1945, Greenwood.

Fishlow, A. (1966). "Productivity and Technological Change in the Railroad Sector,

1840-1910." Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States after

1800 of The National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc: 583-646.

G.W. & C.B. Colton & Co. "Railroad Maps."

<http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?gmd:18:./temp/~ammem_0aha::.>

Green, R. "Pre-1825 Locomotives."

< http://www.locos-in-profile.co.uk/Articles/Early_Locos/early1.html#startanchor>

Hedden, W. P. 1929. How Great Cities are Fed. Boston, New York [etc.]: D.C. Health and Company.

Kelley, L. 1999-2010. About Civil War Transportation. <http://www.ehow.com/about_4565239_civil-war-transportation.html>

 

109

Krasner-Khait, B. The Impact of Refrigeration. <http://www.history-magazine.com/refrig.html>

Lee, P. Y. 2008. Meat, modernity, and the rise of the slaughterhouse. Durham, NH: University Press of New England.

Licht, W. (1995). Industrializing America: The Nineteenth Century (The American

Moment), The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Linder, M. (1999). Of Cabbages and Kings County: Agriculture and the Formation of

Modern Brooklyn, University Of Iowa Press.

McAlpine, W. J. 1873. Address by Hon. Wm. J. McAlpine before the Chamber of Commerce, at the Cooper union, on the extent of the products of the food-producing interior of the United States. The channels of transport to market: their relative capacity and economy: what improvements or new routes may be made to increase and cheapen transport, and how these may be made conducive to the interests of the merchants and citizens of New York City, May 8th, 1873. New York: J.W. Amerman.

Meyer, D. R. (2003). The Roots of American Industrialization (Creating the North

American Landscape), The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Port of New York Authority, E. H. O. 1922. Report on the food supply of the Port of New York district J.B. Lyon Company, Printers. <http://books.google.com/books?id=jVRDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+food+supply+of+the+port+of+new+york,+1922+the+port+of+New+York+authority&source=bl&ots=nKPeZI4vi7&sig=ufZpJYosB6G4GkdQWu65ZtPoA28&hl=en&ei=98ezTNzHNIL-8Abl-MmYCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=transport&f=false>

Sadowski Jr., F. E. 2000-2010. "Clinton's Big Ditch". <http://www.eriecanal.org/>

Samuels, J. (2008). "The Freight Railroad Renaissance." The Bridge: Transportation

Infrastructure 38(2).

Schmitz, J. A. (2003). Nineteenth Century U.S. Economic Growth: How Important Was

the Transportation Revolution? F. R. B. o. M.-R. D. S. Report.

Skaggs, J. M. 1986. Prime cut: livestock raising and meatpacking in the United States, 1607-1983. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Tames, R. (1970). Transport Revolution in the 19th Century, Oxford University Press.

 

110

U.S. Census Bureau (1890). 1890 Census of Agriculture. U. S. D. o. Agriculture.

United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1951. Transportation of selected agricultural commodities to leading markets by rail and motortruck, 1939-59. Washington.

 

111

-8-

Feeding a Growing City Changes in New York food production and consumption, 1860 to 1940

by Ann Paul, Daniel Salgado, Michael Sanduski, Krishan Sharma,

Joe Tesoro and Sean Winker

INTRODUCTION

From 1860 to 1940, New York City’s population increased over nine fold, rising from 813,669 persons in 1860 to 3,437,202 persons in 1900, to 7,454,995 persons in 1940 (Gibson). This was primarily due to immigration. Between 1892 and 1954, Ellis Island saw over twelve million immigrants enter New York City. In 1900 an astounding 37% of the City was foreign born, 36.1% in 1920 and 28.7% in 1940 (Gibson). This era served as a period of profound change for the city, as New York underwent great changes to accommodate the great increase in diversified population.

The population surge experienced in New York during this time caused profound change towards nearly every aspect of the city. This increase in population required an increase in the city’s food supply. This massive increase in demand for food products affected nearly every aspect of New York’s food industry. This paper intends to document the changes that occurred in the oyster, fish, meat, grain, beverage, and transportation industries in New York City from 1860 to 1940.

This study will first begin with a literature review focused on the oyster, fish, meat, grain, and beverage industries in New York City during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, along with a discussion on how these goods were transported. The focal points of the literature review will be how these industries changed during this time to meet the growing demand for food. This will be followed by a presentation of the main results and findings with regards to each food industry. A discussion of the results will follow, highlighting how each food industry changed in response to New York’s population surge. A brief concluding statement will then follow.

LITERATURE REVIEW Oysters Oyster Production

Oysters eaten by New Yorkers were originally collected only along the East River. By 1850, however, to meet growing demand, oyster beds were scattered throughout New York City, Long Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The oysters enjoyed by New Yorkers throughout the 19th century came from these areas. At the time, Upper New York Bay contained some of the largest oyster beds in the world (Ingersoll, 2010). The Dutch referred to Ellis Island and Liberty Island as Oyster Island and Greater Oyster Isand, respectively. Staten Island served as a major contributor for oysters, with Prince’s Bay providing a substantial portion of New York oysters. The roads of Tottenville in Staten Island were originally created using oyster shells (Jacobsen, 2008). Arthur Kill, a strait separating Staten Island from mainland New Jersey, was once home to thousands of oysters. Both Jamaica Bay, bordering Brooklyn and Queens, and the waters surrounding City Island in the Bronx

 

112

also housed thousands of oysters that supplied New York. Greenpoint, Brookyln was home to many oystermen because of its convenient location bordering the East River. Between Long Island and Fire Island, the Great South Bay provided fat, succulent oysters known as Bluepoints. Other areas in Long Island, including Port Jefferson, Huntington Bay and Oyster Bay, were also popular harvesting sites throughout the 19th century. Raritan Bay was one of the largest oyster beds in the greater New York area (Ingersoll, 2010). Oysters were also collected near several areas in New Jersey, including Perth Amboy, Shrewsbury, Absecon, and Cape May. New Haven, Connecticut was also once known for its oysters. In New York, oysters were often referred to by specific names according to where they were harvested: New Havens, Saddle-rocks, Raritan Bays, etc. (Jacobsen, 2008)

As early as 1820, several oyster beds throughout New York began to show signs of exhaustion. Demand for oysters, however, continued to increase throughout the 1800’s. To keep up with this demand, New York oystermen began planting beds all around New York with oysters from other areas. By this time it was known that if young oysters, known as spats, were taken from a source and planted in other waters, those oysters would grow and proliferate, assuming the new habitat is suitable (Ingersoll, 2010). Small, young oysters from Arthur Kill and the Raritan River were first planted by City Island during the 1830’s. When these beds began to show exhaustion, oystermen turned to other sources. 1825 marked the first time that Chesapeake spats were brought up by a sailboat and planted in Prince’s Bay, Staten Island. By 1850, Chesapeake Bay offered a large portion of spats that were planted in New York Waters. (MacKenzie 1996) Oysters fully grown in Chesapeake Bay were shipped throughout the country and also were available to in New York City to purchase. (Kurlansky 2006) Throughout the late 1800’s, oystermen collected spats to be planted in New York waters from areas including Rhode Island, New Haven, Wellfleet, Long Island, Maine, and Perth Amboy and Keyport in New Jersey. It was impossible to tell whether a given oyster in New York City was born in foreign waters because the aquatic environments of New York controlled their growth and development once the oysters had been planted here (Jacobsen, 2008).

As the population of both New York and the United States increased during the second half of the 1800’s, so did the demand for oysters. Besides an increase in population, the surge in oyster demand can also be attributed to the development of major railroads from 1840 to 1860, with the Transcontinental Railroad being developed in 1869 (Kochiss 1974). This development made oysters available to cities other than those along the Atlantic Coast. Fueled by an increase in profits due to the demand by western cities, New York oystermen began to greatly increase their efforts in seeding and planting beds (Kochiss 1974). The development of the ice industry throughout the second half of the 1800’s also led to increased oyster demand. Ice prevented spoilage over long distances. Ice also allowed oysters to be enjoyed at more times throughout the year, as opposed to “months that only end in R.” (Ingersoll, 2010)

Throughout this time, oyster popularity boomed in New York City. Oysters were a universal food and enjoyed by both the rich and the poor. Oysters would be sold by street peddlers as well as severed throughout restaurants (Grimes 2009). Oyster plates, with specific sites for holding oyster shells, were sold throughout the city. Oyster houses throughout the city offered the Canal Street Plan, which consisted on unlimited raw oysters on the half-shell for six cents (Grimes 2009). Cookbooks in New York and the Eastern Coast often contained recipes involving oysters. Most recipes during the mid-1800’s often called for using massive amounts of oysters. Eliza Leslie’s Directions for Cookery in 1870, for example, started its recipe for pickled oysters with “Take a hundred and fifty fine large

 

113

oysters…” (MacKenzie 1996 p.14) By 1874, New York City contained over 850 oyster saloons, cellars, houses, and lunchrooms. Ingersoll describes that in New York City, oysters were pickled, baked, roasted, stewed, fried, and scalloped (Ingersoll, 2010). They were eaten during breakfast, lunch, supper, and dinner, and were made into puddings, soups, patties, and desserts (Jacobsen, 2008). In 1906, an estimated annual per capita consumption was 660 in New York, 60 in London, and 26 in Paris. London served as New York’s primary foreign market for oyster exports during the late 1800’s. (Kurlansky 2006)

By the end of the 19th century, the oyster industry seemed as if it would continue its growth well into the 1900’s. Oyster beds in New York, however, began to close during this time due to increased effluent, or water pollution. By 1884, Jamaica Bay’s famous Rockaway beds were closed due to the massive amounts of raw sewage and waste dumped there by nearby Long Island towns. Such contaminations prevented proper growth of planted oysters. Coming into the 1900’s, the oyster industry faced a drastically reduced demand due to sanitation issues. The United States as a whole began to develop a great concern for good sanitation towards the food industry; some referred to this as “pure-food hysteria.” (MacKenzie 1996) Throughout the 1800’s, oyster packing had been carried out under widely ranging sanitation conditions. New Yorkers knew very little about sanitation, and no one suspected that oysters could pick up diseases due to unsanitary practices (Jacobsen, 2008). During the 1880’s, several outbreaks of Salmonella typhosa, also known as typhoid, occurred in New York City. Outbreaks of other gastrointestinal diseases also occurred. Several scientists linked these diseases to the consumption of oysters. At the time, however, most New Yorkers were skeptical due to the lack of knowledge towards disease. The role of bacteria in diseases at the time was not fully understood. Medical schools in New York did not adopt the “germ theory” of diseases until the late 1880’s and 1890’s. (MacKenzie 1996)

Knowledge towards bacteria became widespread during the 1890’s. Outbreaks of gastrointestinal disorders continued in New York and other areas, and newspapers would often contain articles linking these outbreaks to oyster consumption. Most people began to realize that oysters could easily pick up the typhoid organism from beds polluted with domestic sewage (Jacobsen, 2008). At this time, a “typhoid scare” began to sweep across New York. Soon after, New Yorkers linked every case of typhoid to oyster consumption if the patient had admitted eating them. (MacKenzie, 1996)

Pollution was primarily responsible for both decreased demand and reduced production during the turn of the 19th century. In 1880, oysters from York Bay, known as Yorks, were no longer available because the bay was so polluted with sewage and discharges from factories that oysters could no longer safely grow there (MacKenzie, 1996). The Passaic River, once known as the best fishing river in New Jersey, was polluted to the point where it emitted fumes that would blister the paint off of nearby houses. Sewage was dumped into all of New York’s surrounding waters throughout the 19th century (Blackford, 1988). By 1900, sewage often washed up on beaches and caused the waters to change colors. By 1914, the city began closing most of its public beaches in all five boroughs. Newton Creek, which is along the border between Queens and Brooklyn, was reported to give off a smell so foul that nearby residents had to close their windows in the summer. In 1872, John D. Rockefeller chose the creek to be an oil-refining site. By 1900, enough petroleum had been dumped that the creek was effectively cleared of any aquatic life. Food Inspection Decision No. 110, passed in 1909, prohibited the growing of oysters in polluted waters (Blackford, 1988). “Polluted” in this sense referred to sewage and other impurities openly seen throughout a given body of water. This decision closed many oyster beds throughout New York and New Jersey, especially those related by the East River (Blackford, 1988).

 

114

Oysters from Staten Island’s beds were deemed unsanitary. By 1915, the city closed down majority of the oyster beds of Jamaica Bay due to contamination from sewage. In 1924, an outbreak of typhoid occurred in Chicago. The disease was linked to oysters harvested from Raritan Bay, NY. The story was highly publicized and oyster demand fell an estimated 50%-80% throughout the entire country (MacKenzie, 1996). Although water pollution did not dramatically increase during this time, the methods of detection had greatly increased. Technological improvements in water purity tests led to findings that claimed all of New York’s waters were heavily polluted. In 1927, the last of the Raritan Bay beds were closed, officially marking the end of oystering in New York City. The oyster industry began to produce fewer profits and was soon abandoned by many for other lucrative growing industries such as beef (MacKenzie, 1996). Afterward, several oystermen would often collect spats in New York beds and ship them to other waters, such as those in California, to be planted. This practice was soon extinguished, however, because New York’s waters were so polluted, that even the spats carried a foul taste with them when they grew into oysters in foreign waters (Blackford, 1988). During this time, both oyster demand and production continued to drastically decline.

Other local harvesters would often illegally catch oysters and either sell them or consume them. This practice was not widespread, however, due to the obvious health risks. Oysters shipped from other areas, such as Chesapeake Bay and California, were still available in New York (MacKenzie, 1996). Oyster consumption, however, was nowhere near what it had been during the 19th century. Oyster bars still remained somewhat popular in the early 1900’s. The Oyster Bar in Grand Central Terminal debuted in 1913 (Blackford, 1988). The oysters used by the bar, however, were not from New York City. In 1934, the city, losing a Supreme Court case, agreed to stop dumping its garbage into the sea because too much had been washing up on beaches. Reform to improve the city’s waters continued throughout the 20th century. (Ingersoll 2010) Oyster Technology

Skyrocketing oyster demand led to significant improvement in oyster-harvesting technology. One of the oldest known instruments for oyster harvesting in North America are tongs, with their use dating as far back as the early 1700’s. (Ingersoll, 2010) Used for collecting oysters in shallow waters, tongs consist of two long rakes attached at some point along their handles. An oyster harvester would dip the tongs into shallow waters until the rakes touched the floor. In a scissor-like motion, the two rakes would be drawn together and everything in-between them, including oysters, would be collected. (MacKenzie, 1996) Although this instrument of oyster harvesting was eventually replaced by more sophisticated ones, tongs were still employed by several local oyster harvesters in New York area up until the early 1920’s. The oysters collected by these harvesters were mostly consumed by either themselves or their families and not used for commercial purposes. (Ingersoll, 2010)

The oyster dredge was one of the most significant improvements in technology during the 19th century to meet up with oyster demand. The first use of dredges in New York was recorded in 1820. A dredge consisted of a heavy steel bar attached to a chain mesh. The mesh would act as a netting basket, and in a scooping motion, a fisherman would drag the dredge along a bed and oysters would be collected onto the mesh (Carriker 2004). From 1860 to 1940, the strong use of dredges led to several improvements in their design. The production of smaller and lighter dredges was most significant improvement. The use of heavy dredges could be destructive to certain bottoms, making them too soft and unfit for

 

115

planting oysters. Heavy dredges also had a greater risk of breaking the shell edges of oysters, making them lose their liquor and drying up when packaged (Kurlansky 2006).

Tongs and dredges were consistently used in New York for oyster harvesting, and are still used widely today. The most profound changes in harvesting technology in New York during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were towards the naval vessels from which these instruments were used. The dugout canoe was the first known boat from which American fisherman used tongs for oyster collection (Brennessel 2008). Although the use of dugout canoes greatly diminished over time, local harvesters in New York still occasionally used them up until the mid 19th century. Sharpies are narrow, long, flat-bottomed sailboats that were first observed in New York during the 1860’s (Ingersoll, 2010). Sloops, single-massed sailing vessels using fore and aft rigs, and schooners, multiple-massed sailing vessels also having fore and aft sails, were widely used in New York from 1850 to the early 1900’s. The size of both sloops and schooners greatly increased during the late 19th century in order to increase their efficiency and holding capacity for oysters (Kurlansky 2006). Although tongs were used on all of these ships, sloops and schooners were very popular amongst dredgers. During the 1880’s Chesapeake Bay harvesters developed the skipjack specifically for oyster dredging. Resembling a sloop, a skipjack had an extremely long broom and a sharply raked mast. Skipjacks offered harvesters greater maneuverability and an increased capacity for oysters. They soon spread to New York and became the most popular oyster dredging ship in the greater NY area during the 1880’s and 1890’s (Brennessel 2008).

Although dredging was first done under sail, its efficiency was greatly increased by the introduction of the steam engine. The first steam dredger was created in 1804 (Ingersoll, 2010). As steam dredgers were adapted to oyster harvesting, they became dangerously efficient. Several months of dredging could easily clear out a large portion of the oysters in a given body of water. The French referred to the oyster dredge as the “oyster guillotine.” (Carriker 2004) New York and New Jersey both viewed oyster dredging, now fueled by steam power, with great suspicion. In 1820, the oyster dredge was banned from New Jersey, but planted beds were exempted from the ban in 1846. Only sail-powered dredging was allowed in Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay until the 1960’s (Ingersoll, 2010). In Long Island’s Great South Bay, a law banning dredging was passed in 1870, but it was later repealed in 1893. Dredging was favored in the East River because it broke up oyster-shell mounds and clusters and cleaned out the area, making it easier to plant clean shells (Brennessel 2008).

Technological improvements towards oyster aquaculture during the 19th century were also necessary to meet up with growing oyster demand. According to Kurlansky, the oyster beds of Staten Island began showing signs of exhaustion as early as 1810. By the 1820’s, most New York beds had been overharvested and could no longer keep up with the growing demand for oysters (Kurlansky 2006). Because of this, harvesters began to apply a wide spectrum of techniques to maximize oyster production. Most of these aquaculture techniques were greatly developed during the second half of the 19th century. (Ingersoll, 2010)

Oyster harvesters of the 1800’s knew that not all waters were optimal for oyster growth and development. For example, Long Island’s Great South Bay usually contained an abundant number of small oysters on its east bay and a small number of large, plump oysters on its west bay (Carriker 2004). The low salinity of the east bay prevented oysters from growing into a large size, but oyster drills on the west bay killed many of the immature oysters. Harvesters also noticed that oysters would often attach themselves to debris, especially if the debris is smooth. New York harvesters began to throw bundles of smooth

 

116

sticks and broken pottery into the east bay and wait for oysters to attach to them. Once the oysters were mature enough to survive in the west bay, these harvesters collected the bundles and transported them, producing numerous plump, full-grown oysters (Carriker 2004).

This was the first time oyster planting, also known as seeding, was performed in New York (Brennessel 2008). Eventually this method was perfected and widely used all throughout New York’s oyster beds. For cultivation to have the large-scale efficiency needed to satisfy growing demand, the oysters needed to be collected and moved at a far earlier stage in their development: when they were tiny swimming creatures. Many harvesters began to collect these “spats” and move them to more favorable waters. New York oystermen referred to these creatures as spats because the process of oyster spawning was known as spitting, and that these small animals had been “spat.” (Kurlansky 2006) When cultivating spats, oystermen often collected them in mesh cages until they developed thick, hard shells, until they were eventually planted in beds to grown and fatten. (MacKenzie, 1996)

During the 1800’s, New York City oystermen began to replant their beds with young oysters from Arthur Kill and the Raritan River. By 1865, planting oysters from Chesapeake Bay was common (Carriker 2004). Before this time, New York law prohibited private ownership of oyster beds; any fisherman was welcome to harvest in any NY bed. When fisherman began planting oyster beds, however, complications resulted from other fisherman collecting oysters from planted beds. During the 1860’s and 1870’s, New York and New Jersey passed several laws that allowed the states to lease underwater property to oystermen for the sake of planting. (Kurlansky 2006) Fish Production Fish production over this period underwent a series of vast changes as a result of not only the growing demands from city natives but also to satiate the appetites of fish hungry immigrants. According to a New York Times article, in 1884 approximately 60,000,000 pounds of fish were brought to the Fulton Market with over sixty fishing vessels actively bringing their catches to the Fulton slip alone (Anonymous 1884). In fact, the Fulton Fish Market accounted for ninety percent of all wholesale fish sales in the entire city. Despite being partially burned down several times, the market endured the entire period, from 1860 to 1940, and beyond, at its original location by the Brooklyn Bridge above Fulton Street (Anonymous 1879). Dealers during this period had customers as far away as Nevada, and as far south as Baltimore. The article also depicts the wide variety of ships docked at the market, each with different purpose. It describes many of the small fishing sloops, used primarily in local tidal and coastal waterways, as “almost as broad as she is long, and equally round at both bow and stern.” (Anonymous 1884) In terms of more specialized vessels, the article notes the presence of small “punts” with large numbers of live eels writhing about the deck. Punts are small flat-bottomed boats with square bows that are propelled in rivers and streams by pushing a pole against the riverbed. The article describes the surface of the water as being covered with eighty fish cars, twelve-foot latticework squares submerged in the water, each holding about two hundred fish, used to keep the fish alive until they are ready to be brought into the open air of the dock and then to market (Anonymous 1884). The reporter asks for the location of the catch, to which the fisherman replies that the fish were all were caught within 100 miles of Sandy Hook, a barrier split off of New Jersey that guards the entrance to lower New York Bay, which is known for its rich fishing grounds.

 

117

Additionally, the above article describes limitless varieties of fish to be had, from cod and halibut, to haddock and salmon, to even huge green sea turtles from Key West. A different source from this same time period even documents a record 500 pound Horse Mackerel being brought in, sold entirely for ten dollars (Anonymous 1897). Clearly one could not hope to find the same variety of fish at the market today, for both legal and especially environmental reasons. Even more interesting, however, are the presence of three pans with 12,000,000 codfish eggs taken from the bottom of fish cars and then combined with milt, or fish seminal fluid, in order to prepare them to be turned over to state hatcheries at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island before being reintroduced to the Long Island Sound (Anonymous 1884). What this tells us is that even in 1884, the state was actively interested in maintaining local fish populations and ensuring the stable livelihood of New York area fisherman. A later Times article from 1907 titled “How New York City Gets It’s Fish Supply” gives an even more detailed account of the fish brought to market daily. The article notes the presence of hundreds of varieties of fish from Alaska and Oregon to Labrador and Florida. As the article states, these millions of fish mean millions of dollars that must recouped before the fish spoil and all profit is lost (Anonymous 1907). From the article one can also spot an interesting trend: Boston was, at the time, the undisputed cod capital of the world (Kurlansky). The article states how Boston was commonly supplied with cod brought to market in New York, much “like bringing coal to Newcastle,” a practice that follows for a number of inland cities as far as Chicago and St Louis. In this regard, New York acts as a gateway for fish to eastern inland markets. When it comes to such fish as Alaskan halibut and Oregon salmon, however, many of the buyers are local suppliers to New York’s hotel and restaurant industry. Even more interesting is the article’s claim that halibut used to be found off Labrador but have their populations have declined so much that halibut are now brought in from Alaska. Although halibut are still found in Hudson’s Bay in Northeastern Canada, the large ice sheets prevent ships, generally wooden smacks, from fishing in those waters. This speaks to the technology of available vessels and the lack of ice-breaking ships, as well as the build of most vessels, which were still nearly exclusively wooden. While the article states that the reason for the disappearance of the halibut is unclear, overfishing is probably the culprit, owing in large part to the lack of attention paid to the numbers of fish. As later articles mention, there was often a prevailing belief, or, better yet, ignorance, during this era that the sea would always continue to replenish itself (Anonymous 1924). The article “How New York City Gets It’s Fish Supply” also shows that deception of the types of fish actually provided was as rampant then as it is now. As many recent case studies have shown, fish today is often misidentified; when one sits down to eat yellow fin tuna, in many cases the fish is not even tuna at all (Anonymous 2008). The article states that when a patron orders Kennebec salmon, it usually was not caught within hundreds of miles of the Kennebec River, located in Maine, and comes either from Labrador, part of the Canadian province of Newfoundland, or even from the Columbia River in Oregon. While the fish from Oregon are shipped exclusively by rail to New York, the salmon from Labrador are often brought by boat to Boston and then shipped by rail to New York; evidence that the trade of seafood between the cities noted earlier goes both ways. The article also states that the demand for lobster has grown to such a point that the species is threatened by extinction, nothing that while nearly all catches just a few years ago were wild and caught off the New England Coast, New York’s supply is now dependent upon New England fisheries. The article also makes a related finding to cod: although the majority of fish are caught from local waters, some of New York’s supply now came from as far south

 

118

as Florida, where the fish at the time were considerably more plentiful (Anonymous 1924). As time has progressed, local seafood catches of many varieties of both fish and shellfish have not only shifted farther and farther away but have also possibly become dependent on the use of fisheries. As to the actual techniques of fishing the above article cites the use of strategically placed nets off Sandy Hook, which catch schools of fish entering inlets (Anonymous 1924). The article also documents the scores of dinghies, which leave from East Side piers and day in and day out head to the fishing grounds off Sandy Hook in order to drag their nets, pulling in everything from dog sharks, to jellyfish, to mackerel and other prized fish. The article also cites a figure of a fleet of 112 boats, concerned solely with harvesting the still viable oyster and mussel beds off Princess Bay, Rockaway, and Oyster Bay, the two former off of Brooklyn and Queens, the latter on the Long Island Sound (Anonymous 1924). Information from the book, “The Big Oyster: History of the Half Shell” by Mark Kurlansky, a novel examining the history of the oyster in New York City, seems to agree with the above (Kurlansky). Another Times article from 1916, “Fish For Everyone At their Own Price”, discusses the effect of World War I on meat and fish prices in New York City. Although some steaks had risen in price to thirty cents a pound, quality fish, such as tilefish, could be had for as low as two cents a pound, with the more desirable cod going for six cents (Anonymous 1916). The typical endless variety of more desirable fish such as whiting, kingfish, herring, flounders, and mackerel could also all be had for decent prices, due to an unusually large catch. Tilefish in particular, which had virtually disappeared fifteen years prior, apparently came back in full force, and sold cheaply on the market as a result. In the article, a local proprietor of a fish commission house, William H. Cornell, lamented how little fish New Yorkers eat in comparison to meat. He states, “Why should tilefish at two cents a pound be shipped away from here while poor people save up to buy enough meat for a meal? That’s poor economy.” Indeed as a testament to the waste of fish, apart from the large shipments of fish to inland states west of New York, an earlier Times article entitled, “Tons Of Good Fish Go For Fertilizer”, also documents enough fish for 40,000 meals a day being turned into fertilizer (Anonymous 1916). Unlike grain, which can be stored until the next year in the event of a bumper crop, excess fish catches cannot be saved. The article cites low prices as actually driving away customers who fear for the quality of the fish. Essentially for consumers who have no ability to judge the actual quality of the fish, the idea of “you get what you pay for” drives away customers at such low price points when in fact it should be bringing in hordes of the city’s poor who can hardly afford meat as is. The article cites bluefish as an example, which in most years was considered a luxury due to its relative scarcity, but had fallen to as low as ten cents a pound retail and four to eight cents a pound wholesale due to an unusually large catch, driving away consumers who questioned its quality (Anonymous 1916). The earlier article on the steadiness of fish prices also provides insight into the state of fishing vessels at the time. Apart from the sloops, punts, and dinghies discussed earlier, smacks made up the backbone of New York’s fishing fleets. These large seaworthy vessels, which often had wells were live fish were held until they could be brought to market, were among the primary ships used in the 19th century and even into the early 20th century. They were characterized by several large topsails and often a bowsprit and jib sail (March). Apart from the rare years of excess catches and occasional reemergence of local species thought to be hunted to extinction, it is clear that throughout the period from 1860 to 1940 there was an overall general decline in the numbers of wild fish. A Times editorial

 

119

from 1924 on an address by then Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, to the United States Fisheries Association showcases this decline (Anonymous 1924). Hoover’s speech states that primarily due to both pollution and overfishing of tidal and coastal waterways, yields are down drastically from what they once were, even more so than generally thought. Shad, a prized fish, has had a decreased yield of seventy percent over the past thirty years and lobster catches were one-third of what they were in 1900 (Anonymous 1924). The article states that while coastal and tidal fish had been affected most, not even deep-sea catches were immune from the effects of overfishing. The editorial argues that while Congressional actions, such as a treaty with Canada for the conservation of halibut, as well as the regulation of oil dumping by ships has helped, it is not nearly enough. Hoover’s plan to ensure the stability of the fish supply involves essential two components: a coordinated state and federal effort to restock waters, and to prevent further pollution from all dumping sources. Enacting and enforcing such legislation the editorial argues, however, would be difficult, especially regarding curbing factories’ use of rivers as a means of chemical and sewage waste disposal. As the article concludes, “But the greater the demand for fish as food, the greater the need for protecting its supplies. It is time to forget the old idea that just because the sea is apparently boundless the supply of fishes that live in it is unlimited” (Anonymous 1924). While this information is more general than targeted to the New York City area, its findings can be clearly applied. Meat Production

Meat production also drastically changed during this period in response to the population increase. The meat packing industry involves the slaughtering, processing, and distribution of animals including cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry, primarily for human consumption. Meat production in the 1860s to 1940s took place primarily with the use of slaughterhouses and stockyards (Stewart, 1938). A slaughterhouse is a facility where livestock are processed for consumption as food products. Animal byproducts are also used to make other goods such as leather or paste (Stewart, 1938). A stockyard is a large enclosed area composed of stables or pens in which livestock are kept until they slaughtered or shipped elsewhere (Jennings, 1864).

The procedure by which livestock is processed has remained, for the most part, consistent throughout industrialization (Stewart, 1938). For example, pork production starts with the pigs being bathed after they are driven into the plant. They are then shackled to a revolving wheel where a dispatcher severs the swine’s’ main artery with a blade. From that point the carcasses are passed through a scalding vat and then a scraping machine. Any hair that remains after this process is singed off. The bodies are then washed again and placed on moving trolleys, after which they undergo numerous extensive inspections. The hogs are then transferred to a drying room, followed by a cooler. Here they hang for a about two days at a temperature of about thirty eight degrees (Davis, 2010).

Once the carcass is rid of heat it becomes firm enough to be carved, so it is sent to another department to be sliced into various cuts (Stewart, 1938). As each worker removes a different section, each cut is transferred to a packing station in another part of the plant. However, prior to that, each cut is trimmed, graded, and cured. When they are cured they sit in a vat of formula (Davis, 2010). Then they are removed, washed again, and examined another time by a company inspector. The meat is then moved to a smoke room where it is smoked over fires according to its size. Finally they are transferred to a wrapping room where they are inspected a final time.

 

120

The process by which pork produces products varies from plant to plant, however, the overall process is generally the same. In addition, the same process has been used throughout the period of industrialization, however, many of the factory components were replaced with mechanized components (Stewart, 1938). The production of beef products also follows the same process of cleaning, inspecting, trimming, and curing. (Buckman, 1865)

Much of the new developments in meat processing and packaging originated in Chicago, the United States’ main source of processed meat, before they made their way to New York City. From 1864 to 1900, the meatpackers of Chicago transformed the industry through new uses of technology. One such development by Philip Armour, a Chicago-based company, was the ice room, which made it possible to store meat year-round. Another was the steam hoist, which made lifting and moving carcasses along the assembly line easier (Buckman, 1865). Other developments included the preservation of meat in cans, and chemical treatments that allowed meat packers to produce glue, fertilizer, glycerin, and gelatin from previously unused parts of the animal.

New York City’s meat production took place primarily in the Meatpacking District. The Meatpacking District is an area of Manhattan that runs from Gansevoort Street to West 14th street, between the Hudson River and Hudson Street (Stewart, 1938). At the start of the 20th century, around 250 slaughterhouses and packing plants stood in an area known as the Gansevoort Market, which was an open air farmer’s where meat and other produce was sold (Buckman, 1865).

Many of the apartment houses had several floors removed in order to be converted into two-story warehouses. The roofs were then painted black to block the sun’s heat from the perishables stored below. In 1847, railroad tracks ran down the west side of Manhattan. However, after several accidents between the railroad cars and other traffic, it was decided that a new railroad system would be built as part of a reconstruction effort in the area (Stewart, 1938).

This new line, call the High Line, was an elevated track that stretched 13 miles and officially opened in 1934. It ran from 34th Street to Spring Street and went through blocks rather than over the avenues. In addition, it connected directly to factories so that large shipments of meat and other produce could be shipped and unloaded easily without disturbing traffic (Buckman, 1865). Grain Production

As the Industrial Era began, there were many changes to the New York diet and they were mainly due to the change in location of production, new methods of transportation, and availability of fruits, vegetables, and grains. Due to the increasing population resulting from immigration, fruits, grains, and vegetables needed to be mass-produced. Susan Williams, author of Food in the United States, 1820s-1890, claims that during early 1830s, or in the beginning of the Victorian era, Americans still lived on farms and in small towns and villages, and many of the families grew and processed their own food at home (Williams 2006). As the settlement moved towards the mid-west during the industrial revolution period across the Agricultural Core (Map 1.1), it was followed by a wave of wheat production for the eastern markets. Shipping did not prove to be a hassle due to the existence of water transport, and flour milling took sites on the points of embarkation, for example Cincinnati on the Ohio River, or when the grains had to be transported from one mode of transportation to another, for example Buffalo, New York, the terminal end of the Erie Canal (An Outline of American Geography). The Erie Canal provided cheap transportation

 

121

and by 1840, western wheat flour was being used everywhere in New England, by farmers and city residents as well. The cultivation of wheat and rye was reduced due to the Western Canal. The wheat yield from the interior of New York during the 1800-1840 time period was about 20 to 25 bushels. In his article called “NYC Food Detective: What Wheat Where?” Ed Yowell writes, “the effect of the canal was immediate and dramatic and settlers poured west. In 1829, there were 3,640 bushels of wheat transported down the Canal from Buffalo. By 1837, this figure had increased to 500,000 bushels; four years later it reached one million.”

In New England, corn cultivation could not meet the demand of consumption; therefore, corn was imported from the South. As production of wheat moved more towards the west, one crop became the Agriculture Core’s main produce: Corn, or, maize. This crop thrived in the regions long hot days and humid nights. “Corn from western New York and from the Ohio Valley did not figure in eastern markets in its original form, having too little value to stand transportation costs” (Bidwell and Falconer, 1973). The main area of production of barley was the Herkimer County in New York; around 450, 000 bushels of barley was marketed at Albany in 1833 (Bidwell and Falconer, 1973). In eastern Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine, potatoes were raised in high quantities for the market. Maine’s potatoes were already known for its good quality in the 1840s and they were sold in Southern markets.

Food processing was usually done on the farm or at home, but commercial food processing grew at a fast pace. The process of milling grain was done in two types of mills: the country mill and the commercial mill, according to Hindle and Lubar (Hindle and Lubar, 1986). The farmer operated country mills seasonally and a part-time miller ground the grain using a portion of the meal as the payment. On the other hand, commercial mills would buy the grain from the farmer and sell the meal for export.

Specialized areas were developed for market gardening and fruit growing between 1820 and 1840 in eastern Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Long Island, New York and, in New Jersey. The farmers supplied fruits and vegetables to the local markets. Apples remained the most abundant and important orchard fruit except in New Jersey, where peaches were raised on a considerable scale.

The decrease in wheat acreage in New England between 1840 and 1860 was mainly due to reasons such as: competition of the West, soil exhaustion, and the repeated attacks of the wheat midge, rust, and Hessian fly. The increase in wheat production from the West was due to the newly cultivated prairie farms. “ It would seem that wheat soils of western New York had become generally depleted through continued cropping with the use of lime and gypsum as had been the case in the Mohawk Valley some 20 years before. Soil depletion resulted in frequent winterkilling with crop failures, the impoverished condition of the soil making the wheat plant very susceptible to the attacks of the midge, and thus reducing the already small yield” (Bidwell and Falconer 1973). There was an increase in corn production in the East North Central region, especially in Illinois. In New York and Pennsylvania, little corn was sold but the main objective was to raise enough for consumption on the farm. But in areas where wheat is not cultivated, oats is a prominent crop and its yield on a rich land can be from 60 to 100 bushels. Maine and New York had the greatest increase in oat production from the East and Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri from the West during this time period. The states contributing the most to the barley production were California, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin. There were also important increases in New York, Maine, and Pennsylvania since the wheat production reduced in the Eastern states. In 1839, the New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were the leading potato growing states in the country, that is, they produced over 70 percent of the total potato crop of the

 

122

United States (Bidwell and Falconer 1973). The culture of growing other root crops such as turnips, sugar beets, and rutabagas increased after 1840 in New England and New York. Carrots, turnips, sugar beets, and rutabagas were considered good to be used as feed for cattle and horses. These crops, that is, carrots, turnips, sugar beets, and rutabagas were produced as field crops, but the large amount of labor required for their cultivation soon led to the discontinuation of their production in the eastern farms. By the later part of the 19th century, the American palate for vegetables was expanding. New kinds of vegetables were grown by market farmers and in greenhouses, and exotic vegetables from California and the South were now shipped across the country using the railway system. Market gardeners were on the rise in New Jersey, Connecticut, and upstate New York, who supplied the New York City markets. Previously, New York City was supplied by vegetables from the New York counties, Long Island, Westchester, and New Jersey, but as the city grew, these suburbs could not produced enough to meet the increasing demands. Tomatoes, potatoes, peas, cabbage, onions, strawberries, and cherries were brought from Charleston, Norfolk, Savannah, and the Bermudas (Williams, 2006). Some of the vegetables eaten by New Yorkers were artichokes, asparagus, beans (both dried and green), lima beans, beets, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, corn, cucumbers, eggplant, lettuce, mushrooms, onions, parsnips, peas, green peppers, potatoes, tomatoes, spinach, sweet potatoes, winter squash, and turnips (Williams, 2006). Asparagus was considered a luxury good because of its availability only during a certain season.

The Hudson and Mohawk Valleys were known for their apples, pears, and peach orchards, even during 1840 to 1860. By 1850, it seemed that every eastern farmer had an apple orchard and the growing cities demands for these apples were high. Delaware and Maryland were famous for their peach orchards and the water transportation system helped in their quick transportation to the markets of Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York. The number of baskets of peaches sold in New York in 1844 was at 12,000 daily during the peach season (Bidwell and Falconer, 1973).

Canning foods became significant in the 1820s, that is moving from jars to tin cans. Since the increasing population of America began to start living in the cities, especially near the eastern coast, farmlands began moving more towards the west. The food distribution network was now under an industrial capitalist economy. As cities began to grow in population, so did the demand for food and amount of food being reached to markets in cities. By 1860, more than 5 million cans filled with food reached cities. As industrial revolution began to grow, fruits such as oranges were imported from Central and South America, and there was an increasing competition between the apple growers in New York and western apple growers. There was an introduction of refrigeration after canning was invented. Tom Shachtman writes in his article “The Conquest of Cold,” “commenting in 1869 on the first refrigerated railroad-car shipment from Chicago to New York, Scientific American predicted, ‘we shall expect to see grapes raised in California and brought over the Pacific Railroad for sale in New York this season.’” Beverage Production A Brief History of Coca-Cola In addition to the food industry, the beverage industry saw dramatic changes to keep up with rising demand due to New York’s population increase from 1860 to 1940. Coca-cola had a pivotal role in the beverage industry. Today, it is an immensely popular soft drink served across the globe in over 200 countries (The Coca-Cola Company, 2008). A soft drink

 

123

is a non-alcoholic beverage that is typically composed of water and a flavoring agent (which comes in an incredible variety). It is often carbonated, though this is not compulsory. Carbonation is the process of dissolving carbon dioxide gas in water; the resulting liquid retains its gas due to high pressure. When the pressure is lowered (i.e. when you open the bottle), the gas can escape (resulting in the pop and fizz sounds you hear). Occasionally this leads to the disastrous and humiliating (yet often times amusing) event in which the beverage spurts all over the thirsty, unsuspecting soda patron. “Soft” drinks are named in opposition to “hard” drinks, which have high alcohol contents. Though some soft drinks may contain alcohol, it is found only in negligible amounts. However, the Coca-Cola we know and love today was not always a soft drink. In fact, it was not always “Coca-Cola”. Atlanta pharmacist John Pemberton had originally invented French Wine Coca, which – as the name implies – used wine as one of the key components of its substance. Pemberton marketed his beverage as a panacea for headaches and most other common ailments, including mental and physical exhaustion, gastric irritability, constipation and even impotence (Pendergrast, 32). The coca leaf used in French Wine Coca was also intended to cure morphine addiction in a manner similar to today’s nicotine patch. Morphine addiction was increasingly common after the Civil War – Pemberton himself was inflicted (Pendergrast, 43). However, French Wine Coca could not last in the market when Atlanta, Georgia passed prohibition law in 1885. One year later, John Pemberton finished his formula for Coca-Cola, and sold it at a nearby pharmacy. From then on, it has grown in popularity eventually becoming what it is today. An Overview of Alcohol and the Prohibition Years Although food and beverage demand increased from 1860 to 1940, Prohibition had a significant impact on both alcohol production and consumption in New York. Alcohol has a much longer history than Coca-Cola, spanning millennia instead of mere decades. It has been a part of almost every world culture. Alcohol has been used from festive celebrations to rituals serving the gods. Even today, alcohol is used in religious ceremonies. Alcohol and culture are closely tied. In chemistry, there are many different kinds of alcohol, but all are organic compounds with a hydroxyl functional group. The details are not necessary; all you must know is that the alcohol found in beverages is called ethanol, which is what is measured when the “alcohol level” of a beverage is determined and reported. Alcohol level is measured in amount by volume (a percentage). Beers typically range from 5-12% by volume; wines usually range from 9-16%; and distilled liquors are generally much stronger, ranging anywhere from 20% all the way up to 95% by volume. Alcoholic proof is just another way of determining the strength of an alcoholic beverage. In the United States, alcoholic proof is defined as twice the percentage alcohol by volume. For example, a wine that is 15% alcohol by volume is deemed “30 proof”. America’s period of Prohibition lasted from the ratification of the Volstead Act in 1919 until its repeal in 1933 due to the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment. The Volstead Act was named after Andrew Volstead, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversaw passage of the law. The Act legally defined the “intoxicating liquors” to be outlawed, and the law was enforced.

Despite the new law, many American’s chose to continue in their drinking habits; by 1925 there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 “speakeasies” in New York City alone. A

 

124

speakeasy is an establishment such as a bar or tavern that illegally sells alcoholic beverages (Von Drehle, 56). Here, an interesting question comes to mind: If the production of alcohol was an illegal activity, exactly who was producing the alcohol sold in the speakeasies? How was the alcohol made? What changes underwent the process of alcohol production during the Prohibition? Bootleggers – “bootlegging” refers to the illegal transportation of alcoholic beverages – were responsible for supplying the speakeasies of New York with alcoholic beverages such as gin, whiskey, and particularly moonshine. Moonshine (also called, “white lightning” and “mountain dew”) refers to any distilled spirit made without a license. “Moonshine” gets its name from the popular myth that it was first produced by the light of the moon by Appalachian distillers. Because it was made without a license during the times of Prohibition, the distillation of moonshine was a serious criminal activity. In short, if New Yorkers (and other Americans, for that matter) could no longer legally obtain their alcohol, they simply produced it themselves.

Increasing population also often leads to increased demand for beverages. The Coca-Cola Company’s website proved invaluable to the research efforts of this paper. Timelines and photographs made it easy to distinguish important information and factual material. Information concerning the history of how Coca-Cola first developed from its beginnings as French Wine Coca came from excerpts of the book “For God, Country, and Coca-Cola: The Unauthorized History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company that Makes It” Many sources concerning alcohol and Prohibition were consulted and referenced in the writing of this section. It is interesting to note that each author had his or her own interpretation of the time period; some authors seemed to side with Prohibition law (Clark, 1976)(Furna, 1965). Still others had a more light-hearted interpretation, and instead sided with bootleggers and rumrunners (Powers, 1999). Many prohibitionists, those who urged for the passing of prohibition legislation, were evangelical, and pointed to alcohol as a sinful vice that was corrupting the country. However, that may not have all been true. Though bars of the time were regularly filled with patrons, Powers reports that, according to many firsthand accounts, “only occasionally did outright intoxication occur in workers’ barrooms” (12). In “Faces Along the Bar”, Powers shows us that before Prohibition, bars acted in much the same way that churches did:

In one respect at least, prohibitionists were correct: most saloons did cater to a regular crowd. Just as churches had their congregations, so most saloons had loyal constituencies of perhaps fifty to sixty “regulars” who kept them in business. (11)

Other sources were extremely useful as well, such as Assistant Professor of Economics (Auburn University) Mark Thornton’s “Policy Analysis: Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 157: Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure”. This document goes to great lengths to prove why all goals of Prohibition (“to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America”) had failed terribly. While none of his reasons for proving that Prohibition was a blunder are cited here, this chapter does make use of the graphs published in Thornton’s work.

 

125

Transportation of Goods The Erie Canal was one of the most important trade routes leading into New York

Harbor during the period between 1860 and 1940. Construction of a waterway from Lake Erie to the Hudson River at Albany was originally the idea of Jesse Hawley, and was published in a newspaper. Governor De Witt Clinton read these articles and decided that Hawley’s idea would be extremely beneficial to commerce in New York and the entire United States. (Levy 2003) It was the contributions and efforts of Governor De Witt Clinton that got approval for the construction of the canal by the state legislature. (Southworth 1907) Construction lasted eight years from July of 1817 to October of 1825 and cost seven million dollars. (McNeese 2009) Building the 83 locks for a four-foot deep, forty-foot wide waterway across slopes and rugged terrain spanning over 350 miles from Lockport to Albany was no easy task. (McNeese 2009) However, the benefits of the canal were easily noticed. Previously, it could take weeks to travel from Buffalo to Albany. The time it took to transport goods across this distance was equally lengthy, and expensive, costing about ten dollars to transport a single barrel of wheat to Albany. By traveling on the Erie Canal, one could travel from Buffalo to Albany in six days, and the price of hauling a barrel of wheat was reduced to thirty cents. (Southworth 1907) By 1860, the beginning of the period being explored by this paper, over 15,000 pounds of grain could be transported to New York Harbor on a single canal boat. (Unknown 1860) With the canal solidified as one of the most important trade routes in the country with so much activity and transportation on it, it became necessary to expand the Erie Canal in the 1850’s and again in the early 1900’s. The 1860’s began with the tumultuous American Civil War. The Erie Canal facilitated trade between the Union States during the war, and gave them an important advantage over the Confederacy, which lacked a trade route of the Erie Canal’s caliber. (Reisem and Olenick 2000) Despite the fact that the Civil War was raging, construction on improvements to the Erie Canal were completed in 1862. These improvements allowed for larger ships to travel with greater amounts of cargo over the canal. Previously, the canal depth was only about 4 feet, and the ships could only carry about 30 tons of cargo. (Sadowski 2010) With the new improvements the average tonnage of cargo was increased from 30 tons to 240 tons on ships that could travel in the now 7 foot deep canal. (Reisem and Olenick 2000) Boats from the Great Lakes were now able to travel on the canal, which shortened transportation time because cargo would no longer have to be transferred from one ship to a canal boat. This was the first of two canal expansions between 1860 and 1940. The last expansion was completed in 1918 and allowed barges to travel on the canal, which is now twelve to fourteen feet deep and 120 to 200 feet wide. Barges could carry up to 3,000 tons of cargo, which greatly boosted the tonnage of food that could be brought to New York Harbor. (Sadowski 2010) As beneficial to commerce as the Erie Canal was, it had some negative repercussions for New York farmers. The Erie Canal greatly reduced the price of many commodities, including grain, which was harmful to the farms in the New York City area. Many farmers could not compete with the low prices of grain from the west, and had to find something else to grow because they could not find a market for their products. (Linder and Zacharias 1999) These farmers began growing various vegetables instead. They were able to find markets for their goods, and by the outbreak of the Civil War what is now modern day Brooklyn and Queens, was once the country’s biggest supplier of vegetables. Another important mechanism of trade that brought food to New York City was the railroad system. The railroads of New York State were at one point disjointed and privately owned. This made them inefficient methods of transportation. However, the railroads were

 

126

eventually united under the New York Central Railroad by an act of New York State legislation in 1853, and became major contributors to the New York food market with their freight lines. (Atkinson and Flint 1868) Railroads stretched from New York City to Albany, and then across the state to Buffalo. (Solomon and Schafer 2007) Lines also reached the western and southern parts of the country. Multiple lines went to Chicago, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, passing through different states and cities. (Atkinson and Flint 1868) In the south, lines reached Memphis, New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston, and Savannah passing through various cities and states along the way. (Atkinson and Flint 1868) The New York Central Railroad expanded towards New England in 1866 with the completion of a bridge across the Hudson, which allowed trains from Boston to travel through the New York Central rails en route to Chicago. (Atkinson and Flint 1868) Railroads were heavily restricted from carrying freight by legislation. Various fines and penalties were placed on the railroad company to prevent it from carrying freight while the Erie Canal was open during the warm seasons when the water was not frozen. These penalties were meant to promote trade via the Erie Canal rather than the railroad. Tolls and fines varied on different lines. (Solomon and Schafer 2007) Eventually, these restrictions were lightened, and railroads were able to create large revenue by carrying freight to and from New York. The Interstate Commerce Commission and the Transportation Act of 1920 were established to ensure railroad freight rates were fair and appropriate. (Vanderblue 1920) This was originally done to prevent railroad companies from charging excessively high rates simply because there was better way to transport goods when the canal was out of service. Railroad rates regulated by the government remained higher than rates of the canal, but this was because the railroad was a more effective method of transportation, especially of perishable foods. RESULTS AND FINDINGS Oyster Production

Map 8.1 This map displays the various harbors and oyster beds popular throughout New York during the 1800’s. This map was scanned from The Big Oyster, Mark Kurlansky, 2006, pp. xii-xiii

 

127

Figure 8.1 This figure displays the use of tongs by a harvester to obtain oysters. The photo originates from 1960 and was taken at Chesapeake Bay. This picture was obtained from A History of Oystering in the United States and Canada, Clyde MacKenzie, 1996, p.4.

Figure 8.2 This figure is an illustration of a typical oyster dredge used during the late 1800’s. This illustration was scanned from Good Tidings: The History and Ecology of Shellfish Farming in the Northeast, Barbra Brennessel, 2008, p.134.

 

128

Figure 8.3 This figure displays a photograph of a skipjack sailboat in 1921. This picture was obtained from A History of Oystering in the United States and Canada, Clyde MacKenzie, 1996, p.4.

Figure 8.4 This figure displays an oyster advertisement from 1853. The image was scanned from The Big Oyster, Mark Kurlansky, 2006, p.111.

 

129

Figure 8.5 This table displays the annual oyster catch by weight in pounds for New York State over a sixty-year period. Increments of ten years were used, with slight distortion due to data availability. The Hudson River Valley Commission reported this data in The Hudson Fish and Wildlife: A Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Hudson River Valley, 1996. This data was originally obtained from the annually published Fishery Statistics of the United States, published by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

Figure 8.6 This table displays the prices of one pound of oyster meat in New York State per year. The Hudson River Valley Commission reported the annual oyster catch in pounds per year (as shown in Table#2), along with the total monetary value of the annual catch in The Hudson Fish and Wildlife: A Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Hudson River Valley, 1996. This data was originally obtained from the annually published Fishery Statistics of the United States, published by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. To obtain the value of one pound of oyster meat, the total value of oysters for a given year was divided by the total number of pounds of oyster meat collected in that year

0  5,000,000  10,000,000  15,000,000  20,000,000  25,000,000  30,000,000  

1880   1890   1901   1911   1921   1930   1940  

Weight  of  Annual  Catch  (lb.)  

Year  

Figure#5:  Annual  Oyster  Catch  in  New  York  State  

0  10  20  30  

1880   1890   1901   1911   1921   1930   1940  Oyster  Meat  Value  per  

Pound  (cents)  

Year  

Figure#6:  Yearly  Comparison  of  Average  Value  of  Oyster  

Meat  by  Pound  

 

130

Figure 8.7 This graph displays the total area in acres of New York State waters that was leased by the state to various companies for the purpose of culturing shellfish. This area is displayed as a function of the year. The Hudson River Valley Commission reported this data in The Hudson Fish and Wildlife: A Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Hudson River Valley, 1996, p.324. This data was originally obtained from the annually published Fishery Statistics of the United States, published by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Fish Production From the earlier information about fish production we can draw a number of results. If one thing is clear, it is that both fish production and consumption in New York City from 1860 to1940 changed vastly. What is less clear is the degree to which they changed. Although through such sources as the New York Times there exists a very visible firsthand look at changes in the production of New York seafood, figures from such sources are primarily observations and single data points, rather than scientifically sound studies, particularly in the earlier period. Given the time period, such information can be expected. What this means is that the results of this paper will tend to be more ordinal than cardinal, that is, more of a ranking in order than series of comparable data points. This does not, however, mean that a clear pattern over the time period cannot be established. While overall yields may have declined during the time period, the variety certainly increased. With the influx of immigrants with religious preferences towards fish, rising prices of other commodities, such as meat, and an overall growing population as a result of urbanization, fish consumption clearly increased. To meet this demand required a greater variety of fish, which consequently came from waters deeper and deeper offshore, eventually even from different oceans. This also speaks to two different things, firstly the evolution of fishing vessels themselves, and secondly the increased use of transportation, mainly rail, and refrigeration associated with it. Fishing vessels during this time period remained relatively specialized. Among the vessels were punts, used for eel fishing, sloops for coastal fishing, and smacks for deepwater trawling. It was not until many of these smacks were converted to steamships that there was a true technological difference in their construction and usage (March). While the exact reasons for this change in fish production may be less clear, the

0  10,000  20,000  30,000  40,000  

1900  1905  1910  1915  1920  1925  1930  1935  

Acres  

Year  

Figure#7:  Yearly  Comparison  of  Total  Area  of  New  York  State  Waters  Under  Lease  for  ShellNish  Culture  

 

131

change is obvious. This period would be a catalyst for future change in seafood production and consumption, owing largely to the changes documented in the city and society above. Meat Production

The meat industry has been one of the most important food producing entities in America. The mass consumption of meat products across the country has led to the rapid development of meat production in every major city, including New York City. One notable period of development occurred between 1860 and 1940. During this time the methods of the industry greatly expanded due to urbanization leading to faster processing at higher quantities.

The rise of the meat industry in America was in part spurred by the creation of railroads throughout the United States. The transportation of livestock had to be widely developed, as meat production depended on transportation companies to distribute stock to other locations. Various railroad companies performed the majority of this service, as they were apt for relocating large quantities very quickly.

The meat industry in New York City and throughout America developed rapidly in response to a growth in population and a skyrocketing demand. As is the case in any industry, a change in demand called for a change in production. To meet these growing needs, new technology and methodology had to be developed. As a result, during America’s period of industrialization, the meat industry underwent great change to adapt to great change. Grain Production

Map 8.2 The Agricultural Core. This map displays the area of profound corn production in the United States during the 19th century.

When considering production of grains, the main reason that most of the cash crops were no longer cultivated in the New England and Middle Colonies was the competition they faced from the western agribusinesses. The western farms not only had the extensive area to farm, but with the help of new inventions, they could increase their farm output and sell them at a good price in the New York City markets since transportation, except for the railways, was not expensive and there was an increasing demand from the rising population

 

132

in eastern markets. The eastern wheat farms used reapers, threshers, seed drills, mowing machines, horse-rakers, and other technologies. The decreasing wheat production in the eastern farms is addressed by the increasing and affordable wheat produce from the West in large quantities to suffice the needs of the growing population in cities such as New York City. All new farm technologies along with extensive area of land led to an increase in wheat production in the West, while wheat farms in New York suffered from problems such as soil exhaustion and basically, competition from the Western farmers. Fruits such as apples were produced mostly in New York and peaches in neighboring states such as Maryland and Delaware. These were mainly orchards and hence they were mass-produced. The other types of fruits were mainly shipped or hauled from various parts of the country and abroad and reached New York City either through the Erie Canal, by railways, or by sea. Mainly the women of a household during the pre-industrial era grew vegetables in kitchen gardens, and not many varieties were grown. Because of the increasing demand for vegetables New York City during the industrial era, local farms in places such as Long Island and a few New York counties could not meet the demands, hence production of vegetables moved more towards other states such as New Jersey and Connecticut. Technologies such as the railway system supported the mass-production of fruits and vegetables farther away from urban cities. The limitations of the research findings include not knowing definitely if and when all the farmers in the East and West used the technologies invented during the industrial era, since farmers still continued to use their old farm implements during the industrial era. They only bought these new inventions if they could afford them and if these implements could help save their expenditure on hand and animal labor. The majority of information on the American diet before and during the industrial era is only known from cookbooks published during those times. It is not certain that the ingredients used in these cookbooks were always grown by the households or available in the local food markets during that time. Beverage Production Coca-Cola Trends of Development and Expansion

• 1886 – Coca-Cola is first introduced, sold for five cents a glass. • 1890-1900 – Syrup sales increases from 9,000 gallons to 370,877 gallons. • 1920 – Coca-Cola is enjoyed in 10 countries worldwide.

• 1909 – About 400 Coca-Cola bottling plants were operating around the country.

• 1940 – Coca-Cola is enjoyed in over 50 countries worldwide. • 1920 – More than 1,000 bottling plants were operating in the U.S.A. • 1928 – Sales in bottled Coca-Cola exceed fountain sales (first time ever).

– Coca-Cola introduced at the Olympic games in Amsterdam.

 

133

Figure 8.8 The above image is a graphic representation of Coca-Cola’s spread to other countries. As population grew in size, the popularity of the beverage also grew and Coca-Cola began to ship its product to foreign markets. Today, Coca-Cola is sold in over 200 countries. Alcohol Trends During the Prohibition

Figure 8.9 The above graph illustrates how the per capita consumption of alcohol changed in from 1910-1929. In 1910, the average amount of alcohol consumed in gallons was 1.6 – this is an incredibly high amount, as it is a measure of pure alcohol consumption. From 1910 to 1921, the average declined, eventually reaching a value of about 0.233 gallons (much less when compared to the previous years). From 1922 onwards, the average increases again and seems to level off, hovering around 1.2 gallons, but never again reaching the pre-Prohibition value of 1.6 gallons.

0  

50  

100  

150  

200  

250  

1880   1900   1920   1940   1960   1980   2000   2020  

Number  Of  Countries  Where  Coca-­Cola  Is  Sold  

 

134

Figure 8.10 The above graph expresses the total expenditure on distilled spirits as a percentage of total alcohol sales from 1890 to 1960. Though this graph does not give us any information as to how many bottles of spirits were sold, or the volume of spirits sold, it is still valuable to see what proportion of the alcohol market was dedicated solely to distilled spirits. In 1922, there was a sharp increase in this percentage. It declined again gradually until 1939, where it decreased sharply to match pre-1922 values (about 45%). From then on, the percentage remained more or less the same with a small increase around 1950. Imports/Exports Production

Products of animals

Vegetables Other Agriculture

Total

NY RR 375,489 tons 362,478 tons 45,203 tons 783,170 Canal 36,151 tons 773,655 tons 6,978 tons 816,784 Table 8.1:This table displays the tonnage of food transported by the Erie Canal and the various New York railroads in 1859. (Anonymous 1869)

At the beginning of the 1860’s, the Erie Canal brought into New York a greater

amount of vegetables and food products in general. The railroad brought in significantly more tons of products of animals. As time went on, this trend stayed constant. Shipments by railroad and steamship began to decline in the 1930’s. At the same time, shipments via trucks began to increase. (George 1935) Various types of food including meats, vegetables, fruits, sugar, alcoholic beverages, dairy products, live animals and grains were transported to New York via the Erie Canal and New York Central Railroads from western states and parts of Canada. According to James Barton, flour, wheat, and corn were the most imported items with bushels numbering in the millions over a one-year period. Oats, barley, rye, and other types of grains were also important imports. The various meats transported included bacon, beef, beef tongues, ham, mutton, tripe, fish, and slaughtered hogs. The various vegetables shipped included potatoes, peas, and beans. Few fruits were shipped, but the types included various dried fruits and

 

135

cranberries. Other products such as eggs, cheese, butter, live turkeys, live hogs, and sauerkraut were also imported. (Barton 1851) Local New York farms played a large role in the amounts of food available in New York markets. They supplemented the foods that were brought in by the canal and railroad. They were also exported nationwide along these trade routes. Farmers would send their crops to New York to be sold in local markets or shipped nationwide. Most of these farms were located in Kings Country. The vegetables they produced included squash, potatoes, onions, carrots, asparagus, turnips, beans, corn, pumpkins, cucumbers, and cabbages. (Linder and Zacharias 1999) Some fruits were also grown in Kings County. These included cherries, pears, raspberries, and apples. These local New York farms remained some of the largest suppliers of vegetables to the nation until urban development transformed the landscape from rural farms to suburbs by the 1920’s. (Linder and Zacharias 1999) DISCUSSION Shellfish Production

Map 8.1 displays the major harbors/environs in New York during the late 1800’s, which was a period of substantial growth for the oyster industry in New York due to rising demand causing by New York’s population surge. The map displays all of New York’s most prosperous oyster beds at the time: those located at or near Raritan Bay, Prince’s Bay, Arthur Kill, Sandy Hook Bay, Rockaway, Jamaica Bay, Upper New York Bay, City Island, Port Jefferson, and Eaton’s Neck (Kurlansky 2006). All of these oyster beds were heavily used by the end of the 19th century to plant and culture thousands of oysters regularly. Due to polluted waters and governmental regulations, however, many of New York’s oyster beds began to close in the early 1900’s. By 1930, all of New York’s oyster beds had been officially shut down. Thus, the locations from where New Yorkers obtained their oysters profoundly changed as the 20th century progressed when compared to the late 19th century. Tongs were used throughout the 1800’s to harvest oysters. Even as new technology developed, however, tongs were still widely used by oystermen (Ingersoll 2010). Figure 8.1 displays a harvester in 1960 in Chesapeake Bay using tongs. Figure 8.2 displays an illustration of a dredge. First used in New York in 1820, the oyster dredge was widely used towards harvesting during the late 1800’s in select beds such as Prince’s Bay. This was due to the greatly improved efficiency of the oyster dredge. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 display this improved efficiency. The number of oysters caught in Figure 8.1 with the tongs is much smaller than the large quantity of oysters illustrated in the chain mesh in Figure 8.2. Dredging was banned in several beds in New York due to fear of overharvesting. The development of more efficient sailboats for oyster harvesting also occurred during the late 1800’s (MacKenzie 1996). A skipjack is shown in Figure 8.3. Offering a large oyster carrying capacity and improved maneuverability, skipjacks became the most widely used vessel for oyster harvesting in the East Coast until the mid 1900’s. Other technological developments during this era affected the oyster industry as well. The development of railroads and increased availability of ice made oysters available to non-coastal cities. This increase in oyster demand by these cities led to increased profits by harvesters. Figure 8.4, an advertisement for New York oysters delivered by railroad, displays the effects of this technology. Thus, newly developed technology during the late 1800’s led to an increase in the efficiency of harvesting and the availability of oysters to meet up with increasing demand. Figure 8.5 displays the annual amount of oyster meat collected in New York State per year. From 1880 to 1911, amount of oysters collected generally increases. The small

 

136

variation during 1901 was most likely caused by the typhoid scare occurring at the time. The scare reduced demand, which likely affected oyster production. After 1911, however, the oyster production by New York faced a sharp decline. This steep decrease in productivity is explained by the shutting down of New York City’s oyster beds due to water pollution. As mentioned earlier, by 1930, all of New York City’s beds were closed. Figure 8.6 displays the average cost of one pound of oyster meat in New York per year. From 1880 to 1911, the average price of oysters decreased. This was most likely caused by the large upscale in productivity shown in Figure 8.5. With a greater supply of oysters present, the price would steadily decline. As New York City’s beds closed in the 1920’s, there is a sharp increase in oyster price. This increase is most likely due to limited availability of oyster meats. Those meats had to be imported from other areas, causing a rise in price. It should be noted that these observations are only speculation; the true factors affecting prices at the time most likely covered a wide spectrum of issues and go beyond the scope of this study. Figure 8.7 displays the total amount of aquatic land leased to companies for the use of shellfish culturing. The amount of land leased steeply increases until 1915, at which point the graph experiences a sudden regression. This regression was most likely caused by the shutting down of oyster beds, which significantly began to occur during the 1910’s. The shutting down of beds would make less land available to lease and make the available land more valuable. It is interesting to note that although several typhoid scares occurred during the early 1900’s, the acres of land leased still seemed to rise on an upward trend. Fish Production

Fish production over this period raises a series of questions ripe for discussion and elaboration. The New York Times article cited from 1907 titled “How New York City Gets It’s Fish Supply” mentions the common practice of importing halibut all the way across the nation via rail due to the low numbers of the fish found traditionally off the coast of Labrador. As the Panama Canal had not yet been built one cannot help but to wonder how the fish had been brought from Alaska, for bringing the fish all the around the tip of South America would have certainly spoiled the fish before they could be brought to market. The above article answers this question by stating that at least five carloads of halibut arrive at the New York Fulton Fish Market each week, having been packed in ice and rushed across the continent at express speed, which still amounts to at least ten days of transportation time. For buyers to put up with non-fresh fish packed in ice for no fewer than ten days and burdened with what must have been the then significant cost of cross country transportation via rail shows that the catch of Atlantic halibut must have been so low as to warrant the demand for expensive and non-fresh Pacific halibut. Additionally, this fact also goes to further show how consumption of such imports must have been largely local because it simply does not make economic sense to ship such fish cross-country to New York and then double back to inland cities. The Times documents that the flow of fish from New York to cities inland generally consisted of catches from Atlantic waterways (Anonymous 1907.) While the above speaks to the changes in production and demand spanning the time period it does not elaborate much on increased demand for seafood as a result of changing demographics in the City. The influx of such groups as Eastern European Jews and especially Catholics, such as Southern Italians, during the period had a great number of implications on the consumption of seafood (Foner). It is not difficult to draw connections between the huge influx of immigrant groups during this period, particularly Catholics, and the increase in demand for seafood, which is consequently linked to production. In order to

 

137

demonstrate the effect of Good Friday on seafood demand in New York, one can draw a connection to the much-reviled yet massively consumed Filet-O-Fish sandwich from McDonalds. It is very true that the Filet-O-Fish, the first addition to the original McDonalds menu, was introduced by a struggling McDonalds franchisee, Lou Groen, in 1962 as an attempt to save his restaurant, which was located in an area that was eighty-seven percent Catholic (Anonymous 2007). Groen lamented the fact that his Friday’s take, due to Catholic religious restrictions on the consumption of meat, was always low and reasoned that if he were to introduce a fish sandwich, he might be able to capture some of the Good Friday crowd. By introducing the Filet-O-Fish, Groen was able to save his restaurant and compete with other area leaders, which had already introduced fish sandwiches to cater to the Friday crowd. Although the story takes place well after the time period in question and in an area across the country, what is important is that by documenting strict adherence to religious custom that affects fish consumption and consequently demand, we can apply this same concept to the influx of different immigrant groups such as Southern Italians and Eastern European Jews over this time period who, for religious and cultural reasons, often consumed as much or more fish than their native counterparts. Additionally, in terms of heavy consumption by Eastern European Jews an earlier cited Times article makes repeated reference to the large number of freshwater fish sold to the “foreign” residents of the Lower East Side, undoubtedly referring to the large numbers of Orthodox Jews who called that area home (Anonymous 1907). This inference of increased consumption as a result of religious dogma is also backed up by historical documentation. An 1887 New York Times article written during Lent, when adherence to Catholic traditions is arguably strongest, documents the liveliness of the markets on Fridays (Anonymous 1887). The article states that the Fulton Market was well stocked to meet the large Friday demand, which has historically been the busiest day of the market, particularly during Lent (Anonymous 1884). Meat Production

During the Civil War Era, stockyards were built to supply meat primarily to the surrounding area. There were no car routes or central distribution centers, so distribution over great areas was complicated and inefficient. However, many early builders of the packing industry realized that with the immense growth in the meat-consuming population of America, a more efficient method of meat production was imperative. In the 1920’s the meat industry had evolved from local butchers who did their own slaughtering to great meat producing plants. With the rise of vastly growing meat-consuming public came the rise in demand for a supply of meat that is steady, available, and cheap. To accommodate, thousands of stock-raisers appeared hoping for a quick market and a high price. Prior to these new developments, meat production costs were much higher. When butchers did their own slaughtering, byproducts were mostly thrown away and fewer animals were handled at a time. Before the advent of transportation systems, meat was a seasonal product. Ranchers in the western United States sold their livestock to middlemen who would then drive it east into the cities. Consumers did their own slaughtering and the butchers that did slaughter did not process their meat or sell processed meat products. Meat that wasn’t consumed right away had to be salted and cured for preservation. In addition, the meat was of lesser quality. However, during the 1920’s meat production changed to incorporate division of labor. In addition the number of livestock dressed daily by a yard reached the

 

138

thousands rather than one or two a day. This was a result of the growing mechanization used to reduce handling. Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains

The implications of new farm equipment invented during the industrial era were more efficient farms, that is, more produce was harvested than before. The hand labor needed for harvesting the same amount was also reduced. The amount of produce that could be threshed and harvested per day increased because of the inventions such as the reaper, horse-raker, and mowing machines. For example: a farmer from New York estimated in the Cultivator VI, 1839-1840 (a periodical series quoted in History of Agriculture in Northern United States 1620-1860), that the work done by one man and a horse-rake could equal the work of 10 men with hand rakes, hence increasing the efficiency of a farm (Bidwell and Falconer 1973). The produce that reached eastern markets from Western farms such as wheat was much cheaper because of the large supply. There was an increasing demand for products from the West due to the reduction in the number of wheat farms in the Eastern States. Since wheat did not perish during the journey from the West to the eastern markets, it was ready to be bought once it reached the eastern market. The relatively cheap price of transportation using the Erie Canal helped the western farmers to save money and earn more when their produce reached the eastern markets. The Western Farmers also used the railway system to transport their produce even though it was much more expensive than using waterways. The railway system had more advantages such as faster transport, ability to run year-round, and the ability to reach places that the canals could not such as the Southern Tier and the Adirondacks (McDonnell). Fruits and vegetables that were grown far from the eastern markets had to be either preserved in tin cans or transported in refrigerators so that they would not spoil as they reached the recipient markets. But the railway system brought fruits and vegetables from states close to New York fast and therefore the produce did not require preservation or refrigeration. Beverage Production Coca-Cola

The most convincing argument that Coca-Cola had expanded enormously over this time period is simply in the fact that from 1886 to 1840 (just over half a century), Coca-Cola spread from its humble beginnings in Atlanta, Georgia to a total of 53 countries around the globe. Prior to its growth in global presence, Coca-Cola had successfully spread to all parts of the United States, resulting in thousands of bottling plants all over the country. Bottling was key to Coca-Cola’s success: Without the ability to bottle and ship the product, Coca-Cola’s horizon’s would have been quite limited. Instead we see that it is sold in over 200 countries today; the classic, contoured Coca-Cola bottle is an instantly recognized symbol no matter where you are on the planet. Alcohol

From the Figure 8.9, we may infer that the decline in volume of alcohol consumed from 1910 to 1921 is due to the fact that the separate States had been enacting their own prohibition laws before it became national policy in 1919. Therefore, leading up to total Prohibition, there was a gradual decline in alcohol consumption. However, as Prohibition set in, people began to realize ways to get around the law, and consumption again rose to levels before the Volstead Act.

 

139

Figure 8.10 shows us that distilled alcohol was the beverage of choice during the Prohibition. This also seems to make sense: Because the sale and shipment of alcohol was illegal, it would make sense to ship as much alcohol per volume as possible in each shipment. For example, beer is only about 5% alcohol by volume, whereas moonshine may be well over 50%. Selling the same number of gallons of moonshine actually transports more alcohol, because the moonshine is purer. After the Prohibition ended, it was not necessary to condense alcohol in this manner, and the normal market distribution of distilled spirits versus other types of alcohol was allowed to resume. Import/Export of Produce

The Erie Canal and the New York Railroads were both effective mechanisms of trade. As a result, they were constantly in competition with one another. The data in Table 1 reflects this competition. The data shows that animal products were heavily transported by railroad rather than over the Erie Canal. This can best be explained by the fact that the railroad transported goods much quicker than the Erie Canal. Animal products include products such as meat and dairy, which are perishable goods with shorter shelf life than fruits and vegetables. There was a greater chance that some of the cargo would spoil before, or shortly after, it reached its destination in New York City if it was transported over the canal. After the invention of the refrigerated train car in 1872, transportation of perishable goods became even easier. It was still much more expensive to transport goods over rail, so it was not done unless necessary, which was why the tonnage of agricultural products remained lower even after the invention of the refrigerated car. Agricultural imports gradually increased throughout the period. This was caused by the decline in the number of local farms as they were being transformed by urban development in the modern day boroughs of New York City. By the 1930’s, New York was no longer supplying itself with crops. However, the food markets still needed to be filled, so it was necessary to import more fruits and vegetables from other parts of the country. The amount of food shipped via the canal and railroads decreased towards the end of the time period because food was coming into the city from trucks instead. This makes sense economically. The railroads were consistently expensive, which discouraged people from shipping goods via freight train. The Erie Canal was much cheaper, but offered extremely slow transportation. There was a chance perishable foods would spoil. The canal was also closed during the winter because it would freeze. Trucking offered cheap and quick transportation of goods, and is still widely used today. From the information presented above regarding the expansions and increases in tonnage carried by the Erie Canal and New York Central Railroad, a number of subjective conclusions can be made. The growing population in New York City led to a greater demand for food from other regions of the country. The Erie Canal and New York Central Railroads were the most efficient means of importing and exporting goods, throughout the country, so they were expanded to accommodate the growing population. CONCLUSION Over the period 1860-1940 New York’s population increased over nine fold. While the City itself was utterly transformed physically, the means of food production evolved even more so in order to meet the massive increase in demand. All food groups as well as the practices of importation and exportation changed in order to meet the needs of a growing New York.

 

140

From the period of 1860 to 1940, oyster production initially skyrocketed to meet growing demand until New York’s oyster beds were shut down due to pollution. Oysters were harvested in Raritan Bay, Prince’s Bay, Arthur Kill, Sandy Hook Bay, Rockaway, Jamaica Bay, Upper New York Bay, City Island, Port Jefferson, Eaton’s Neck, and other surrounding areas. By the 1929, however, all of New York’s beds had officially been shut down due to effluent. The technology for harvesting during this period also greatly increased to meet New York’s great demand, with the introduction of the oyster dredge and improved harvesting sailboats such as the skipjack. Fish production over this period was also no exception to the massive changes that were needed to meet the demands of a growing New York City. With the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, importation of fish from as far away as Alaskan waters became possible to help compensate for declining catches among fish such as Halibut in more local waters. It is clear that although fish catches declined in local waters, the advances in both fishing and shipping technology enabled fish production to meet the ever-increasing demands of New York consumption. As the demand for meat increased, new meat production technology was developed. These developments made it possible to transport meat farther and store it longer. New York City’s meat production center sprouted in the Meatpacking District on the lower west side, where this new technology was incorporated to meet the demands of a changing New York. In terms of grain production As the urban population increased, more demand was created and the Western farms, in response, mass produced grains such as wheat, which replaced the staples such as oats, barley, corn of the Anglo-American diet. Oats was still cultivated in New York and enough was produced to supply local markets. Fruits such as apples were in abundance in New York, while peaches were shipped usually from Delaware and Maryland during the 1850s. Vegetables were also produced in the local farms and greenhouses, and where supplied to the neighboring cities. They were also produced far away from the eastern markets, depending on the best climatic conditions needed for the production of that vegetable. For the increasing population in cities such as New York City, mass production of fruits, vegetables, and grains was a must and the technological advancements in farm equipments during the Industrial Revolution helped farmers quench the rising demand. Beverages also underwent significant changes from 1860-1940. Coca-Cola exploded onto the markets, well on its way to global domination after only about fifty years in existence. One may correlate the company's fast rate of growth with the equally fast population growth rate. Alcohol use was initially suppressed during the years of Prohibition, but made a comeback as the law started to fade, and was eventually repealed. The way that both beverages were produced changed throughout the time period: John Pemberton changed his formula (creating Coca-Cola), and – for a short while – the American people produced their own alcohol. Lastly, the changing practices of importation and exportation came as a direct result of other advances in the production of various foods. The two most important trade routes leading into New York City during the period between 1860 and 1940 linked New York to the Western United States. These mechanisms of trade were the Erie Canal and the New York Central Railroads. They supplied the growing population of New York with greater amounts of fruits, vegetables, meats, and dairy products than other trade routes during this period. In sum, production of various foods changed to meet the demands of an ever-

 

141

growing New York. It was many of the advances made during this period that revolutionized the methods of urban food production for decades to come. REFERENCES Agricultural History. Fargo, Agricultural Historical Society.

Anonymous. 1860. City Intelligence: A Raid on the River Thieves.

New York Times Apr 7, 1860. Anonymous. 1869. Documents of the Assembly of the State of New

York. ed. N. Y. S. Assembly. Albany. Anonymous. 1879. Fire in Fulton Market. New York Times. Anonymous. 1884. Fish In Fulton Market. New York Times. Anonymous.1887. Fish Plenty For Good Friday. New York Times. Anonymous. 1897. A Huge Horse Mackerel. New York Times. Anonymous. 1907. How New York City Gets It's Fish Supply. New

York Times. Anonymous. 1912. Tons Of Good Fish Go For Fertilizer. New York

Times. Anonymous. 1924. Imperiled Fish Supplies. New York Times. Anonymous. 1935. New York's Menu Undergoes Change. New York

Times. Anonymous. 2007. Filet-O-Fish Inventor just wanted to increase his

Friday Business. The Cinncinati Enquirer. Anonymous. 2008. Fish Tale Has DNA Hook: Students Find Bad

Labels. New York Times. Applegate, Howard L. Coca-Cola: A History in Photographs 1930

through 1969 : Photographs from the Archives Department of the Coca-Cola Company. Iconografix, Inc., 1996. Print.

Atkinson, E. & H. M. Flint. 1868. The Railroads of the United States:

A Potent Factor in the Politics of the Country and of Great Britain. A. Williams and Company.

Bachman, Frank P. Great Inventors and Their Inventions. 2006.

October 21, 2010

 

142

Barton, J. L. 1851. Commerce of the Lakes, and Erie Canal. Seaver's

Power Presses. Behr, Edward. Prohibition: Thirteen Years That Changed America.

Arcade Books, 1996. Print. Bidwell, Percy Wells, and John I. Falconer. History of Agriculture in

the Northern United States, 1620-1860. New York: Peter Smith, 1941. Print.

Birdsall, Stephen S., and John Florin. "An Outline of American

Geography Regional Landscapes of the United States " (1998). <http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/GEO/homepage.html>.

Blackford, E. G. 1888. Report of the oyster investigation and shell-

fish commission, for the year ending November 30th, 1887. ed. N. Y. S. C. o. Fisheries. Troy.

Bliss, D. E. 1990. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs: Their Fascinating

Life Story. New York: Columbia University Press. Brennessel, B. 2008. Good Tidings: The History and Ecology of

Shellfish Farming in the Northeast. Boston: UPNE. Buckman, J. 1865. Science and Practice in Farm Prdocution. Picadilly. Burrows, E. G. & M. Wallace. 1999. Gotham : a history of New York

City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press. Carriker, M. R. 2004. Taming of the Oyster A History of Evolving

Shellfisheries and the National Shellfisheries Association. Hanover, PA: The Sheridan Press.

Clark, Norman H. Deliver Us from Evil: An Interpretation of

American Prohibition (Norton Essays in American History). W. W. Norton & Company, 1976. Print.

Commission, H. R. V. 1966. The Hudson fish and wildlife: a report

on fish and wildlife resources in the Hudson River Valley. Albany: NYDEC.

Commission, N. Y. S. F. S. 1918. Report of the New York State

Food Supply Commission. Organized April 17, 1917, under chapter 205, laws of 1917 J.B. Lyon Company, Printers. October 8, 2010).

 

143

Crawshaw, F. 1922. Farm Mechanics. Peoria, The Manual Arts Press. Davenport, A. 1922. The American live stock market: how it

functions. Chicago, Drovers Journal Print. "Drink Coca-Cola 5 Cents." Ed. cents, Drink Coca-Cola 51890(s).

Vol. 438 x 599 pixels. Print. Foner, N. 2000. From Ellis Island to JFK : New York's two great

waves of immigration. New Haven New York: Yale University Press ; Russell Sage Foundation.

Gibson, Campbell. Population of the 100 Largest Cities and Other

Urban Places in the United States: 1790 to 1990, United States Census Bureau, June 1998.

Grimes, W. 2009. Appetite Ctiy: A Culinary History of New York.

New York: North Point Press. Harper, Charles L., and Bryan F. LeBeau. Food, Society, and

Environment. Prentice Hall 2002. Print. Hindle, Brooke, and Steven Lubar. Engines of Change: The

American Industrial Revolution 1790-1860. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Books, 1986. Print.

ICON Group International, I. 2009. Seafood: Webster's Timeline

History, 1792 - 2007 San Diego, CA: ICON Group International, Inc.

Ingersoll, E. 2010. The Oyster Industry. Washburn, FL: General

Books LLC. Jackson, K. T. & New-York Historical Society. 2010. The

encyclopedia of New York City. New Haven New York: Yale University Press ; New-York Historical Society.

Jacobsen, R. 2008. A Geography of Oysters: The Connoisseur's

Guide to Oyster Eating in North America. New York: Bloomsbury USA.

Jennings, R. 1864. Sheep, swine, and poultry: embracing the history

and varieties of each; the best modes of breeding; their feeding and management; together with the diseases to which they are respectively subject, and the appropriate remedies for each. Ithica, New York.

 

144

Kahn, Gordon. The Speakeasies of 1932: Over 400 Drawings, Paintings and Photos. First Edition ed. New York: Glenn Young Books/Applause, 2003. Print.

Kobler, John. Ardent Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibtion. Da

Capo Press, 1993. Print. Kochiss, J. M. 1974. Oystering from New York to Boston.

Middletown: Wesleyan Publishing. Kuhl, Jackson. "Eight Million Sots in the Naked City: How

Prohibition Was Imposed on, and Rejected by, New York." Reason 2007: 50-57. Print.

Kurlansky, M. 1997. Cod : a biography of the fish that changed the

world. New York: Walker and Co. Kurlansky, M. 2006. The Big Oyster: History on the Half Shell. New

York: Ballantine Books. Lee, D. O. C. & J. F. Wickins. 1992. Crustacean Farming. Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Lee, Norman E. Harvests and Harvesting through the Ages.

Cambridge University Press 1960. Print. Lerner, Michael A. Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City.

Printed in the United States of America: the President and Fellows of Harvard College, March 2007. Print.

Levy, J. 2003. The Erie Canal: A Primary Source History of the Canal

that Changed America. New York: Rosen Publishing Group Inc.

Linder, M. & L. S. Zacharias. 1999. Of Cabbages and Kings County:

Agriculture and the Formation of Modern Brooklyn. University of Iowa Press.

"Liquor to the Sewer at the Height of Prohibition, New York, 1921."

Photographic Print from the Library of Congress Collection: Photographs America. Vol. 16 x 20 inches. Print.

M'Combie, W. 1869. Cattle and cattle-breeders. London. MacKenzie, C. L. (1996) History of Oystering in the United States

and Canada, Featuring the Eight Greatest Oyster Estuaries. Marine Fisheries, 58.

 

145

March, E. J. 1970. Sailing trawlers: the story of deep-sea fishing with long line and trawl. Newton Abbot,: David & Charles.

McDonnell, Timothy. "Economic Geography." Oct 20, 2010. McNeese, T. 2009. The Erie Canal: Linking the Great Lakes.

Infobase Publisher. Oliver, Sandra. Food in Colonial and Federal America (Food in

American History). Greenwood, 2005. Print. Olver, Lynne. "Colonial & Early American Fare." (2000). Oct 10,

2010 Pegram, Thomas R. The Struggle for a Dry America, 1800-1933.

Chicago :: Ivan R. Dee Publisher, August 1999. Print. Pendergrast, Mark. For God, Country, and Coca-Cola: The Definitive

History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company That Makes It. Basic Books, 2000. Print.

Powers, Madelon. Faces Along the Bar: Lore and Order in the

Workingman's Saloon, 1870-1920 (Historical Studies of Urban America). Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, June 1999. Print.

The Prohibition Era. A&E Television. January 15, 1998. Reisem, R. O. & A. Olenick. 2000. Erie Canal Legacy: Architectural

Treasures of the Empire State. New York: Landmark Soc. of Western New York.

Rhodes, J. 1995. "The Industrialization of Hog Production." Review

of Agricultural Economics 7(2). Roberts, C. 2007. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Washington,

D.C.: Island Press. Rumbarger, John J. Profits, Power, and Prohibition: Alcohol Reform

and the Industrializing of America, 1800-1930. New York: State University of New York Press, 1989. Print.

Sadowski, F. E. 2010. The Erie Canal. Saltveit, Mikal E. "Agriculture since the Industrial Revolution." Oct

10, 2010 Shachtman, Tom. "The Conquest of Cold." (1999). Oct 20, 2010.

 

146

Sinclair, Upton 1906. The Jungle, Doubleday, Jabber & Company. Smil, V. 2002. "Eating Meat: Evolution, Patterns, and

Consequences." Population and Development Review 28.

Solomon, B. & M. Schafer. 2007. New York Central Railroad. St.

Paul: MBI Publishing Company. Southworth, G. V. D. 1907. Builders of Our Country. D. Appleton. Stewart, J. J. 1938. Foods: production, marketing, consumption. New

York, Prentice- Hall. Stickney, R. R. 1995. Aquaculture of the United States: A Historical

Survey. Maiden, MA: Wiley. Sumner, Judith. American Household Botany: A History of Useful

Plants 1620-1900. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press, 2004. Print.

"Themes for Coca-Cola Advertising (1886-1999) " 1886-1999. Print. US United States Information Agency. An Outline of American

History (1994). Ed. Cincotta, Howard. 1994. Oct 10, 2010 Vanderblue, H. B. 1920. Railroad Valuation by the Interstate

Commerce Commission. Harvard University Press. Williams, A. 1984. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic

Coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

Williams, Susan. Food in the United States, 1820s-1890. Food in

American History. Greenwood: Greenwood Press, 2006. Print.

Yowell, Ed. "Nyc Food Detective: What Wheat Where?". New

York. Slow Food NYC. Oct 21, 2010. <http://www.foodsystemsnyc.org/node/1073>.

 

147

-9-

FROM NEW METROPOLIS TO INDUSTRIAL CITY Urban food markets in New York City and how they changed during the industrial era

by Ivana Roman, Molly Steinblatt, Olivia Torres, Mason Taub, and Jasmin Zaman

INTRODUCTION

During the 19th century, New York City grew as one of the nation’s principal cities. With increasing immigration, the opening of the Erie Canal, and thriving markets and industries, the population in the city began to boom, reaching more than 300,000 inhabitants by 1840. An expansion in food industry led to a greater access to the products by more consumers. With this expansion, there was a particular change in the distance between the market and the origins of raw materials. Refrigeration aided the access to availability of certain perishable foods. These included meat, beverages, seafood, and fruits. The development of refrigerated cars aided the development of larger-scale packing companies. As a result these companies were able to produce more meat, which forced the prices of the products down. This expansion and lowering of prices forced out smaller meat markets and made the products available to consumers of a wider scope of household incomes.

LITERATURE REVIEW Beverages Beer

Beer was a common beverage among the early settlers in America. They only used few vats for mashing, cooling, and fermenting (Brock 1995). However, the latter half of the nineteenth century saw technological advances help to promote a more efficient processing and production of this beverage. Milk Before the discovery of the tuberculosis bacillus in 1882, cows were not tested and milk was not pasteurized. Milk was ladled from large, uncovered vats into small containers brought by customers. Milkmen delivered directly to homes as they re-used dirty bottles from one customer, ladled new milk into it, and sold it to another. This caused the spread of communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and cholera (2005). The process of producing condensed milk was patented in 1856 and it was also used as a formula when "fresh" milk was not available (2005). Two types of condensed milk were available in cans, plain condensed milk and preserved condensed milk (Jones 2003). The best-known use of pasteurization is in the preparation of milk. It consists of heating the milk that destroys all the disease-causing bacteria, which cause milk to go sour so that maintains quality. Later, however, it was realized that harmful germs could also be killed if the process were modified. In terms of transport, the “milk shed” was the radius the milk trucks were able to travel, which was lesser than that of the railroad. The New York milk shed, beginning in the

 

148

western part of Vermont, includes the New York State region, southern Quebec, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Southern NJ, and part of Maryland. Some shipping stations in borders of both states served both places. Grain Market

According to the Farmer’s Magazine, during this time, “The three great sources of New York grain supply [were] the Erie Canal, the Southern States, and New You State” (1860, 431). Most of what was consumed by the state of New York was actually produced in the state, but most of what was exported elsewhere from New York depended on other sources. The Southern States’ contribution was important during the winter because it was not necessary to heat the grain during transportation. The Erie Canal is unique in that by the time the wheat is harvested the channels of communications close, therefore New York receives light spring wheat from the West as opposed to heavy winter wheat from the South (July to December 1860)

Box 9.1

The grain exports from New York, for the year ending 1st September, have been as follows:

Flour …… 616,166 barrels Wheat …… 4,572,228 bushels Corn …... 1,724,955 bushels

Source: (Data from census years)

For a farmer growing grain in the early 20th century there were several complexities presented. One is that grain must be harvested within six months of planting, and the harvest period usually last anywhere from 2 to 3 months. Ultimately this means that the bulk of grain destined to be sold to manufactures must remain in storage for quite a while before it reaches users. Farmers had a difficult time with this aspect of grain production because it must be kept in fireproof, insured warehouses or it becomes a liability (Benjamin Horace Hibbard 1921).

In 1915, the farms on Long Island fed only a small portion of New York City’s population. Marcus M. Marks argues that intensive farming on Long Island could have provided for New York City and neighboring towns. However, at the time, Marks argues that it would be impossible because the expense of the farmer would outweigh any profit they would gain. The open markets encouraged farmers to produce a greater surplus of crops, which led to fresh and reasonably priced produce for consumers (New York Board of Estimate and Apportionment 1915).

A particular trend in farms on the outskirts of New York City, in Kings County, Brooklyn, was observed during the Industrial Revolution. Between the years of 1880 to 1890, there was a decrease from 409 farms to only 307, which the New York State Bureau of Statistics of Labor inferred as, “’many’ farms that ‘were formally occupied and cultivated … are now lying idle in the hands of real-estate speculators’” (Marc Linder 1999).

At the turn of the century, although there was a slight rise in farmland usage in Kings County in the last decade, there was a sharp 70% decrease by 1910. By 1930, there were only 11 farms servicing New York in the Brooklyn area, a record low. Although the Great

 

149

Depression and World War I forced the number of farms to rise to 65 in 1950, the acres of farm in Kings County never fully recovered the land lost.

Due to this urbanization and population of the New York and Brooklyn area, there was an increased demand for hay, vegetables, milk, and other perishable goods. The remaining farms in Brooklyn became dedicated to this and, “As a result, grain production declined ‘greatly’…” (Linder 25). Since it was not profitable to transport perishable goods over long distances, New York began to focus its attentions to cultivating those commodities and began to rely more on grain imports from other sources. This commercializing of agriculture did not take place over night; in fact it took almost half a century for the new wave of commercial farming to over power the traditional farms. Due to the developments of large cities, it became profitable to transport grain and meat long distances, because these commodities were not easily accessible to populations in cities (Benjamin Horace Hibbard 1921). Meat

The major packing firms of Armour, Morris, Swift, and Hammond, known as the Chicago packers, supplied 85% of the nation’s beef by 1887 (Perry 1989), with another considerable percentage supplied by packers like Cudahy and Schwarzschild & Sulzberger (Whitten and Whitten 2006). The packing companies competed with each other for supply on both local and national levels, each changing their prices, quality, technologies, and shipment techniques to come out on top. The competitors continued to fight for the position as most successful company until they either dissolved or merged.

With the introduction of new technologies, the big packers gained the ability to slaughter, as well as pack, their meat. In fact, by 1916, Swift and Armour alone accounted for half of the cattle, calves, sheep, and hogs slaughtered (Perry 1989). From 1880 through 1910, “slaughtering and meat packing was either the first or second most valuable United States industry” (Himmelberg 1994, 206). “Small, local slaughterhouses, which previously had characterized the industry, were displaced rapidly in most markets because they could not compete with the new low-cost substitute (from the major packing companies). Seafood and Shellfish

The Fulton Fish Market is considered a large, centralized fish market. This means that the consumers, the fishermen themselves, and the dealers (or middlemen between those who actually caught the fish and those who wish to purchase it) all congregate in a single place to complete the trading of the product.

A point of contention between the managers of the Fulton Fish Market and the press has traditionally been the market structure. This refers specifically to the physical construction of the market, i.e. the organization and maintenance of the individual stalls of the market in which both peddlers and permanently established dealers of the market sell their goods to the public. This includes the protection of the goods in their containers from outside contamination, as well as refrigeration (which incidentally was not utilized in New York markets until 1835) (New York Times 1876).

Such areas are the origin of a market’s resources. The origin, source, or original location of the resources refers to the natural site from where a market’s raw materials are physically extracted. For the fishermen of New York City, these areas are the various waterways in and surrounding the five boroughs of the city. Some historically utilized sites of New York City include: the shellfish beds of Jamaica Bay (the body of water that lies between southern Queens, southeastern Brooklyn, and Rockaway Beach), the Hudson River,

 

150

and various locations off of Long Island (these served as the main source of oysters up through the early twentieth century) (New York Times 1876).

Map 9.1 New York Harbor and environs in the late 1800s

Source: (Kurlansky, 2006) Fruit and Vegetables

The invention of the refrigerator car is often touted as the driving force of the changes in the fruit and vegetable industry during the industrial era. Fruits and vegetables were the most impacted by refrigerator car, and the books How Great Cities Are Fed, and Feeding the World: An Economic History of Agriculture, have empirical data supporting this notion. In addition, nyfoodmuseum.org has firsthand accounts of refrigerator cars and their impact on market locations and structures. In The "Industrial Revolution" in the Home: Household Technology and Social Change in the 20th Century, Cowan (1976) provides some background information about refrigeration through a utilitarian perspective. RESULTS, FINDINGS, OR CASE STUDY

 

151

Beverages Milk Milk was often transported using railroads and travels the shortest distance as 80% of New York’s supply comes from upstate New York itself (Hedden 1929). However, there was a switch to motor trucks. At this point, the refrigeration of trucks as they sought to switch to trucks was in the embryonic stage, as glass-lined tank trucks were introduced. Average hauls are two hundred and fifty miles. “Ice box on wheels” was patented in 1867. It became used for many beverages during this time. One of the first cooling systems was an ice-and-salt mixture packed into a box and slipped into the car before sealing the door. Milk was often transported using railroads and travels the shortest distance as 80% of New York’s supply comes from upstate New York itself (Hedden 1929). However, there was a switch to motor trucks. At this point, the refrigeration of trucks as they sought to switch to trucks was in the embryonic stage, as glass-lined tank trucks were introduced. Average hauls are two hundred and fifty miles. “Ice box on wheels” was patented in 1867. It became used for many beverages during this time. One of the first cooling systems was an ice-and-salt mixture packed into a box and slipped into the car before sealing the door. The following photographs show these technologies used on the American railroad: Figure 9.1 Technologies of the Early American Railroad

 

152

Beer The processing of beer in New York is often credited to distilling and fermentation. There are many fermentation methods. We generalize in two – warm and cold ferment-usually called top and bottom ferment (Eckhardt 1995). The main ingredient found in beer is malt (Baron 1972). The process activates the enzymes necessary to utilize the grain to make beer. Malted grains are easily stored and are the primary ingredient of beer (Ehert 1891). The malting process was transformed by the introduction of pneumatic malting systems that permitted greater control and efficiency in processing grains. The application of steam power and the use of hoists, pumps, keg scrubbers, and machines for mashing were able to increase the efficiency of production (Downard 1980). Pasteurization, a process originally devised to preserve wine and beer (not milk) was adopted during this period (Katz 2006). After this, beer no longer had to be kept cold and could be shipped into warm climates and stored without re-fermenting (Brock 1995). This research contributed substantially to the expansion of bottled beer, which was stable for a longer period of time. The Technology: After the brewing process has been completed, beer is packaged in kegs, barrels, bottles, or cans (Eckhardt 1995). The racking, or filling of beer in barrels and bottling is in pasteurized or unpasteurized form depending on the type of packaging. Unpasteurized beer, known as draft, was formerly filled in barrels, or, today also in bottles (Elzinga 1995). Most bottled and canned beer has been, and continues to be, pasteurized; thereby killing any active yeast and permitting shipping, stability, and longer life for the beer (Risch 2009). At the start of the decade in 1850, the 431 brewers in the United States were producing 750,000 barrels of beer. By the end of that decade 1,269 brewers produced more than a million barrels of beer. Prior to the introduction of ice and refrigeration devices, the production of lager beer could only take place during months when cellar temperatures were conducive to fermentation (Downard 1980). The latter half of the 19th century saw technological advances in production and marketing. Mechanical refrigeration aided the brewing and storage of beer. Once beer was pasteurized, wide scale bottling and off-premise consumption became readily available. Development of the rail and motor transport enabled brewers to sell output beyond their local markets. The twentieth century saw the rise in national breweries (Brock 1995). However, according to Doward’s book on distillation facts and figures New York the number of operating breweries took upon a sharp decline from 393 breweries in 1876 to 61 in 1940 seen in the chart below (1980).

Table 9.1 Operating Breweries by [Selected] State[s] in Selected Years 1876-1940 State 1876 1880 1890 1895 1900 1910 1914 1919 1935 1940 NY 393 334 290 274 270 194 165 153 69 61

 

153

Grain Market Table 9.2 Total Grains Produced in New York

Year Buckwheat (in Bushels)

Barley (in Bushels)

Wheat (in Bushels)

Total Difference from previous census

Percent Difference from previous year

1860 4,180,008 5,126,307 0 9,306,315 1880 4,401,200 7,792,062 0 12,199,262 +2,892,947 + 31.09% 1900 3,000,000 3,800,000 10,500,000 17,300,000 +5,100,738 +41.18% 1920 3,901,481 2,273,911 9,136,368 15,311,760 -1,988,240 -11.49% 1940 4,549,088 5,361,743 9,910,831 -5,400,929 -54.50%

Sources: (Data from census years) Meat Refrigerator Cars

Prior to the widespread use of refrigerated railcars, meat was shipped primarily as livestock. Animal carcasses, known as dressed beef, needed preservation and cooling, and therefore could not be shipped in a non-refrigerated car without rotting. However, the idea of saving space, time, and money by shipping dressed beef instead of live cattle was too enticing to give up on. The start of shipping dressed beef began in 1869, when meatpacker George H. Hammond used the protection of winter cold to ship meat (Whitten and Whitten 2006).

Hammond built a monopoly on dressed beef New England, and his success attracted competitors in the 1870s. Packers like Nelson Morris and Timothy Eastman attempted to commercially ship dressed beef, but it was not until Gustavus Swift innovated the use of refrigerated cars that dressed beef became a major commodity. Swift began shipping using winter temperatures, like his predecessors, but became dissatisfied with the seasonal limitations. He began renting refrigerated railroad cars, primarily used for produce, to ship his meat. Swift hired engineer Andrew Chase, and together, they proposed a design for a refrigerated car to railroad companies in 1878. The railroad executives were not interested, as they trusted and were committed to livestock shipment, not the new and unreliable industry of dressed beef. Swift had his cars manufactured instead by Michigan Car Company of Detroit. After proceeding to solely ship dressed beef, Swift began to do extremely well. The cost advantage of shipping dressed meat as opposed to livestock drove his competitors from the business, or forced them to use his technique (Whitten and Whitten 2006).

“In October 1882, Harper's Weekly confidently announced that the ‘era of cheap beef has begun for New York’ with the opening of Swift's first refrigerated meat wholesale shop. Lower prices sped up consumer acceptance of chilled beef ” (Horowitz 2004, 1076). In addition to decreasing the cost of beef, refrigerated cars made the retrieval of meat much easier for retailers. Hedden states in his book that “the refrigerator car ha[d] made possible perambulating branch houses. . . . Two or three times a week a peddler car [wa]s loaded with beef, pork, and lamb as ordered. The retail dealers in each town m[et] the car and t[ook] delivery of their purchases on the spot.” (1929, 45-46).

Furthermore, refrigeration allowed for “centralized, large-scale slaughtering of cattle in Chicago or other leading western packing centers and the shipment of carcasses to

 

154

eastern markets” (Himmelberg 1994, 206). This allowed packers to combine several aspects of the industry into one, making their work more cost efficient. Per capita consumption of beef rose by 12 percent between 1880 and 1889 due to the convenient and economical introduction of refrigerated transport. Eventually, the smaller packers who could not afford the new technologies could not compete with the low prices of the big companies, allowing a meatpacking monopoly to form. By 1917, the Chicago packers had 15,454 refrigerator cars, 93 percent of the U.S. total, and completely dominated the industry (Himmelberg 1994). Seafood and Shellfish The Fulton Fish Market

In the first years of the twentieth century, New York residents along the Gowanus canal began to notice a frequent change in color of the water as a result of waste drainage from the nearby dye manufacturers. Newton Creek, which runs along the border separating Brooklyn and Queens and empties into the East River, was found to be contaminated by the petroleum from the oil-refining site on its shores. A link was established between various cases of typhoid around the city and the oysters harvested in Jamaica Bay, which was subsequently shut down in 1915 and again in 1921. In 1920, the New York Times reported that oysters were becoming a “delicacy”, and reported again in 1924 that the estimate for sewage dumped into the Hudson River annually was 14,000,000 tons. The city began looking into importing oysters, once a plentiful and profitable natural resource, from France (Kurlansky 2006). Fruit and Vegetables Table 9.3 A brief characterization of the start and finish of the industrial era

mid-1800’s mid-1900’s Delivery Methods

Motor trucks House-to-house delivery

Trains Steamboat, barges Trucks

Market locations

Scattered

Concentrated on lower west side of Manhattan

Market structures

“Public markets” Consumer-to-grower

Highly centralized Consumer-to-seller

Processing of fruits and vegetables

Little to none

Little to none

Sources: (Anonymous 2004), (Davidson 1999, Hedden 1929, US Department of Agriculture 1994)

 

155

Table 9.4 A brief history of railroads, refrigerator cars, and fruits and vegetables Year Event

1885 First shipment of Virginia vegetables successfully delivered to New York City via refrigerator freight cars

1888 First shipment of strawberries come from California to New York via refrigerator freight cars

1905 Railroads started building their own refrigerator cars and buying out privately-owned refrigerator cars

1885 Railroads owned 990 refrigerator cars

1900 4000 cars were recorded traveling with fruits and vegetables from west coast to NY

1924 Railroads owned 121,832 refrigerator cars (pp 31)

1927 More holding tracks were constructed at Pennsylvania Railroad to handle the influx of deliveries (that reflect the success)

1927 Installations of “humps,” or special holding tracks, provided facilities for classification and holding by Penn railroad.

1927 Penn Railroad was reconstructed further to handle more fruits and vegetables

1928 Erie station reconstructed Sources: (Hedden 1929, Sherman 1930, Millstone 2003, Ehrenreich) Box 9.2

A summarization of delivery methods the mid-1800’s, pre-refrigerator car

Motor trucks --> plazas, farmers’ markets scattered around New York City according to farmer’s desired consumer base.

Box 9.3

VERSUS

the 1900’s, post-refrigerator car

Railroads --> waterfronts --> tugboats --> New York City --> Lower West Side piers

 

156

Table 9.5 Delivery methods versus distance Distance between source and destination

Most advantageous delivery method for perishable foodstuff

0 – 100 miles

Motor truck

100 + miles Freight, ship, plane Source: (Hedden 1929) Box 9.4

Grapes Circa 1930: A Case Study In the post-refrigerator car era, the grapes will probably come from California (Davidson 1999). It is often easier and cheaper to ship grapes from the West coast by railroad than it is to grow and ship grapes within a hundred mile radius of Manhattan (Anonymous 1906). Distance is a small factor in distribution of high value fruits and vegetables such as grapes because of how cheap it is to use railroads (Friedland , Friedland 1994). A historian said, “ice plants and supplies made Florida, Texas, and California all [became] regular sources of fruit and vegetable supply for New York City by 1927” (Childe 1901, 34). The grapes will be assembled and classified, then packed into the cars. The grapes will travel in a refrigerator car owned by the railroad company. They will be shipped to other railroad classification yards en route to New York.

Sources: (Adelman 2010, Anonymous 1906, Anonymous 2004, Bachmann 2000, Childe 1901, Cowan 1976, Davidson 1999, Ehrenreich , Friedland , Friedland 1994) Table 9.6 Delivery methods versus distance Distance between source and destination

Most advantageous delivery method for perishable foodstuff

0 – 100 miles

Motor truck

100 + miles Freight, ship, plane Source: (Hedden 1929) DISCUSSION

The markets at the beginning of the industrial era were characterized by scattered market locations, consumer-to-producer sales, motor truck deliveries to markets, little to no processing, and a decentralized type of marketing. This meant that farmers sold their own goods to consumers in relatively densely populated areas. These farmers often never traveled farther than one hundred miles by motor truck to deliver their fruits and vegetables to the markets because the goods would deteriorate rapidly otherwise. How Great Cities are Fed

 

157

6,000,000  

8,000,000  

10,000,000  

12,000,000  

14,000,000  

16,000,000  

18,000,000  

1860   1880   1900   1920   1940  

Produced  (in  bushels)  

Years  

(1929) suggested in 1927 that motor trucks are only advantageous economically and in terms of practicality when perishables travel less than one hundred miles. At distances beyond one hundred miles, refrigerated freight travel becomes the more advantageous method because otherwise perishable goods could not survive the journey. At the time of the 1927 guidelines, the technology for refrigeration was not yet introduced to ships and planes feasibly (Hendrickson , Krasner-Khait , Millstone 2003).

The markets towards the end of the industrial era were markedly different. Towards the end of the industrial era, freight transportation became the main mode of delivery. Empirical data supports the claim that freight transportation became the main method of transporting fruits and vegetables to New York City. The total amount of freight car loads containing fruit and vegetables steadily increased after 1888 (Hedden 1929). The average recorded distance fruits and vegetables traveled were 1500 miles by 1927 (Hedden 1929). Because it is well documented that only refrigerator car loads can handle perishables for 1500 miles or more without spoilage, it is certain that most fruit and vegetable deliveries occurred via freight (Sherman 1930, US Department of Agriculture 1994).

Fluctuation in production was a common trend from 1860 to 1940. The data collected by the Census of Agriculture can be showed in terms of the percent difference from the previous census. There was steady increase from 1880 to 1900, which was in fact observed in the farms of Kings County. The slight decrease in 1920, and then subsequent dramatic decrease in 1940 was also seen in Kings County Farms. However, only focusing on the percent difference graph could lead one to believe that the production of grain in 1940 was much less than in 1860. This would be very misleading, since upon inspection of Table 9.7, one can see that ironically, the production in 1860 and 1940 are very similar. Table 9.7 Total Production of Wheat, Barley, and Buckwheat form 1860 to 1940 Source: (Austin 1922, Kennedy 1864)

 

158

Another reason for this observed fluctuation could be attributed to the growth of factories. While the growth of industry initially increased production of grain in New York City, it eventually contributed pushing farms out as well. Commercialized farming was popular till the turn of the century when factory jobs in Manhattan forced people into neighboring towns. This suburbanization of Brooklyn and Long Island could have led to the fluctuation of grain production.

Similarly, the city required an enormous amount of meat, and a great variety of meat, to fulfill the needs of its large, heterogeneous population. A new policy changing the rate at which Chicago packers shipped their meat, the price of meat, or the convenience of acquiring the meat affected the New York City markets especially because of the unyielding demand of New Yorkers for meat products. Refrigeration cars benefited many New Yorkers by lowering the cost and increasing the availability of beef, but it also harmed thousands of New Yorkers who lost their jobs in local slaughterhouses and butcher shops due to the growing control of the Chicago packers.

The decrease of number in beer breweries is often credited to the rise of the national brewery association, in turn putting the local ones out of business. It’s not to say that these establishments no longer exist, just that they are more accessible through mass production. Due to Prohibition, the legislation banning a sale of liquor New York saw a decrease in the number of breweries open. Although bootlegging, and illegal manufacturing of alcohol still took place we can deduce that this type of data was most likely not recorded. In addition, the advantage of the motor truck transportation over the railroad freight saved money in handling and was convenient for the farmer. It provided a single direct movement from field to commission merchant’s store door. However, it had lesser dependability of schedule because of delays.

While news journalists certainly had legitimate cause for complaint regarding New York’s polluted waters in the 1920s, the craze of progressivism, which arose at nearly the same time the Fulton Fish Market opened, is worth looking at as a potential bias. The muckrakers—a term originating with President Theodore Roosevelt’s challenge to “the men with the muckrakes”—were a crowd of journalists bent on purifying American society through consciousness-raising articles. The muckrakers spanned from liberal to conservative; from trust-busting in big business to abolishing prostitution and alcohol. CONCLUSION

The development of various types of technologies like refrigeration turned the selling of beverages into an industry of mass production. As with the meat industry, this allowed for a greater availability of the beverages that were being produced in factories, breweries, and distillation plants. Refrigerated freight cars also aided transportation of raw material as the origins of these materials became more and more distanced from the markets. Because of refrigerated cars, the source of the fruits and vegetables sold in the markets moved from local farms to out-of-state farms. The source of raw fish moved from local New York City waterways to fisheries outside of New York State. Markets for grain and wheat, which were not impacted by refrigeration, expanded in order to cater to the growing population density of New York City. The production of these crops, however, further away from New York, because small local farms failed to meet the high demands of New Yorkers.

 

159

REFERENCES

Anonymous. New York Times (1876). The Wealth of the Sea. New York Times, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2007): 8.

Anonymous (1906) The New York Pushcart: Recommendations of the Mayor's

Commission.

Austin, W. L. 1922. Agriculture. In Census of Agriculture Washington.

Benjamin Horace Hibbard, P. D. 1921. Marketing Agricultural Products. New York,

Brock, W. A. a. J. 1995. The Structure of American Industry. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.

Davidson, A. 1999. Oxford Companion to Food. Oxford University Press.

Downard, W. 1980. Dictionary of the History of the American Brewing and Distilling Industries. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Eckhardt, F. 1995. The Essentials of Beer Style. Portland, OR Fred Eckhardt Communications.

Ehert, G. 1891. Twenty-Five Years of Brewing. New York: Gast Lithograph and Engraving.

Elzinga, K. 1995. The Beer Industry: In The Structure of American Industry. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Friedland, W. H. The Global Fresh Fruit and Vegetable System: an Industrial Organization Analysis.

Hedden, W. P. 1929. How Great Cities Are Fed. D.C. Heath and Company.

Hendrickson, R. Coast to Coast.

Himmelberg, R. F., Ed. (1994). Growth of the Regulatory State, 1900-1917: State and Federal Regulation of Railroads and Other Enterprises. Business and Government in America since 1870.

Horowitz, R., Jeffrey M. Pilcher, and Sydney Watts (2004). "Meat for the Multitudes: Market Culture in Paris, New York City, and Mexico City over the Long Nineteenth Century." American Historical Review 109.4.

Jones, F. (2003) The History of Milk Banking. Human Milk Banking Association of North America. http://www.hmbana.org/index/history/ (last accessed October 25, 2010).

July to December 1860. The Farmer's Magazine. London: Rogerson and Tuxford, 246, Strand.

Katz, S. H. 2006. In Encyclopedia of Food and Culture.

 

160

Kennedy, J. C. G. 1864. Agriculture of the United States in 1864. In Census of Agriculture. Washington.

Kurlansky, M. (2006). The Big Oyster: History on the Half Shell. New York, Random House Publishing Group.

London: D. Appletom and Company.

Marc Linder, L. S. Z. 1999. Of Cabbages and Kings County: Agriculture and the Formation of Modern Brooklyn. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Press.

Millstone, E. 2003. Penguin Atlas of Food. New York: Penguin. Krasner-Khait The Impact of Refrigeration.

New York Board of Estimate and Apportionment 1915, Elise Golan , Matt Barron 2010.

Perry, C. R. (1989). Disintegration and Change: Labor Relations In the Meat Packing Industry, Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.

Risch, S. J. (2009) Food Packaging History and Innovations. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57, 8089-8092.

Sherman, A. 1930. Merchandizing Fruits and Vegetables. New York: McGraw-Hill.

US Department of Agriculture, N. P. A. 1994. Impact on Market Participants. In Food and Agricultural Markets: The Quiet Revolution, ed. L. S. Daft, L., 26-49. Natl Planning Assn.

Whitten, D. O. and B. E. Whitten (2006). The Birth of Big Business in the United States, 1860-1914: Commercial, Extractive, and Industrial Enterprise, Praeger Publishers

 

161

-10-

REGULATING WHAT WE EAT The development of agricultural and food safety policies and regulatory systems in the United

States, 1900-2010

by Kimberly Milner, Swathi Mummini, Olga Myszko, and Alexandra Napoli

INTRODUCTION The current United Sates’ food regulatory system is a complex network that depends upon multiple components that include the federal, state, and local governments, as well as the public, both as producers and consumers of food. These components must be incorporated into the even more complex network of food supply, which includes all aspects from production to consumption. The federal government’s role in food regulation lies in the domains of supervision, research, surveillance, enforcement, and education of the agricultural and processing sectors of food production and consumption. World War II and the Great Depression greatly affected agricultural policy, and drove the necessity for change and reform. Poverty, new technologies, and new research methods, as well as the ultimate desire for efficiency, income, and nutrition helped shape new laws and programs in the United States throughout the years. The existing food system has evolved piecemeal over a century in response to changes in the food supply and changes in the scientific and social environments in which the system operates. Since the passing of the first food and agricultural laws, legislations have evolved from concerns of food fraud, to food safety, to, most recently, the relationship between health and food. Agricultural policy is continuously adjusted to merge with the economical and social state of the United States. This chapter will examine the policies enacted from postwar to present day, analyzing the shifts made in agricultural legislation. BACKGROUND/LITERATURE REVIEW Over the last century, there have been dramatic changes in food technologies to meet shifting supply demands and to improve the quality, safety, and availability of the food supply. Research in agriculture; food composition and nutrition; food science and technology; and food production, processing, and preservation all played a role in changing food sources from local and rural systems to much larger systems that provide foods to national and international markets. Developments in chemistry, microbiology, plant and animal breeding, food science and technology, refrigeration, distribution, and in the marketing of foods changed the face of the food supply. These activities led to the current systems used to supply foods to urban and rural populations in many countries. Systems vary based on geography, production and processing resources, levels of development, environment, and food habits and culture (Lupien 2005). The development and rapid growth of food processing industries for fruits, vegetables, and animal products in Europe, North America, and other regions of the world, caused concern about the quality and safety of foods among consumers and legislators. Around

 

162

1900, several countries adopted new laws on assuring the quality of foods to protect consumers from deceptive practices and low quality foods. Many of these laws also covered drug products, and, in some cases, other consumer products and marketing practices were also addressed (Lupien 2005). At the international level, efforts have been made to develop food standards, codes of hygienic and good agricultural practices, a general standard for food labeling, and to relate information and guidelines. Since the 1960s, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization have jointly developed international standards for foods and information networks to protect the health of consumers (Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses ; Codex Alimentarius Commission 2010). Alliances, such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and the International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council, of governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations have also formed to assemble influential policymakers, agribusiness executives, farm leaders, and academics from developed and developing countries to develop and advocate trade and practice policies (Who We Are 2005-2006; History 2007). In the United States, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) operate the major national food regulatory systems. Other agencies have smaller roles in regulation. State governments and local authorities also have food control systems, and efforts are coordinated with federal authorities. Post-World War II national agricultural policy, especially that concerning price support and supply controls, is rooted in previously established New Deal agricultural legislation. The programs enacted by USDA were created to counter the Great Depression of 1929 and aimed to put the country back together after the Great Depression by introducing and implementing three key terms: relief, recovery, and reform. Later in the 20th century new agricultural topics such as soil conservation, food aid using surplus crops, wetlands conservation, and food labeling all came into play as issues that needed to be addressed in these policies. One of the most significant New Deal agricultural measures, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA)1, was still seen in policy in the 1960s. This act provided price support and production control through the formation of marketing quotas or acreage allotments. One of the United States’ main concerns was overproduction. In this system, when it appeared that some crops covered by the act would be in surplus, the Secretary of Agriculture, working through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) could enact price supports at a level determined by government. The secretary could also impose allotments or quotas based on predicted crop consumption for the following year to avoid a surplus. The 1938 AAA also grounded the concept of parity, a standard on which to base price support. This was determined by the parity ratio, which showed the increase in farmer costs to the increase/decrease in received prices (Blanpied 1984). Farm bills that used to consist of several pages are now more than 700 pages long (Browne 2003). After World War II there was a farming boom in research and machinery. Research funding of agriculture grew to almost 40 percent of the total money spent on research and development. In the more than 60 years after the end of WW II, agricultural policy has gone through many changes, mainly in response to the growing free market in agriculture. Regulation of food safety in the United States was largely the responsibility of the state and local governments until the twentieth century. Nineteenth century legal theorists questioned                                                                                                                1 Not to be confused with the Agricultural Adjustment Administration of 1933 (also known as the AAA)

 

163

whether the Constitution gave Congress the authority to legislate matters of health and safety. Prior to national regulation, federal authority was limited mostly to imported foods and drugs (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998). However, the beginnings of a US national food regulatory system can be traced back to 1862, when President Abraham Lincoln founded USDA (Roberts 2001). In 1880, President Rutherford B. Hayes subsequently established USDA’s Bureau of Chemistry, the predecessor to FDA (Hygiene in Food Processing 2003). The origins of the current food-safety system are in the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was enacted at a time when Americans had a much simpler diet and processed foods were rare. Congress has amended the law numerous times since to account for changes in American diets, including the growing popularity of seafood and other products imported from other countries, where diverse controls apply. As a result, 15 federal agencies now administer at least 30 food-safety laws (Food Safety. 2008). Regulatory agencies are authorized to define standards; to maintain research programs; to monitor risks in the supply; and to provide information and education (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998). FINDINGS The Development of National Agricultural Policy Policy Prior to the New Deal Roosevelt’s New Deal agricultural policy might have been radical in its applications, but not in its genesis. During the 1920’s, agricultural legislation was presented by agrarian spokesmen spurred by the early depression and its chronic failure to achieve full recovery thereafter. Prominent legislation was the McNary-Haugen bill of 1924, which raised farm prices by having the government buy surpluses and sell them abroad at world market prices. Additionally, domestic prices were protected by a tariff. The difference in the higher domestic prices and the lower international prices would be covered by an “equalization fee” charged to farmers (Winders 2009). Though McNary-Haugen was reintroduced into Congress multiple times, gaining support as the Great Depression worsened, it never became law, with President Calvin Coolidge vetoing it twice. What the bill more importantly introduced was an agrarian agitation for direct government relief. The McNary-Haughen bill introduced the government’s capacity to affect farm politics and economics directly. President Herbert Hoover favored efforts to help farmers through voluntary and cooperative agreement: agricultural cooperatives that would relieve farmer’s economic burdens through branches created, not directed, by the government (Hamilton 1991). Hoover signed into law the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1929 that centered on providing financial and managerial support for agricultural cooperatives (Hamilton 1991). Notably the AMA created the Federal Farm Board that had the authority to buy surplus crops (Campbell 1962). Policy under the New Deal, 1932-1939 One of the main policies of the New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933.The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)2 and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) were enacted under the Department of Agriculture as a result of the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act. It tried to alleviate the effects of the depression—the

                                                                                                               2 Enacted by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, not to be confused with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (also known as the AAA)

 

164

particular dilemma posed by the fact that, despite large surpluses of agricultural products, there continued to be severe food shortages in most parts of the country (Poppendieck 1986). AAA was created to control farm commodity supply and raise farm income. The AAA controlled the supply of seven crops: tobacco, milk, corn, wheat, cotton, rice, and peanuts. Its primary goal was to raise farm prices to stabilize national demand and supply cycles for food production. It tried to achieve this through two central programs: price supports, and production controls. Price supports were based on “parity”, or a simple balance between the amount a farmer spends on production and the amount he receives back in profits (based on the ratio of farm prices from 1909-1914) which aimed to give agricultural commodities pre-Depression purchasing power relative to other consumer and industrial prices. Price supports were achieved through CCC loans, or non-recourse loans; where if market prices were to fall below price support levels, CCC purchased commodities from farmers at the price support level as a means of pulling the commodities off the market, controlling supply, and raising farm income (Winders 2009; Poppendieck 1986). The second strategy, which focused on production controls, was administered by AAA to limit the supply of agricultural commodities. Programs like crop reduction, plow ups and animal slaughter were designed to lower farm supplies. If farmers cooperated they were given price supports. Conferences were held with representatives of famers and farm organizations to learn and discuss AAA plans. Farmers were invited to sign contracts with the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce immediately (by destruction) or in the long term (with less sowing) their farm acreagea and commodities. In return for cooperation, each farmer revived benefit payments or other rights. These payments were financed by a tax on the first processing of a commodity for domestic use (Farley 1936). While AAA’s primary goal was to raise farm prices for most commodities, it attempted to achieve its goals by implementing different practices for different products. AAA attempted to lower yields and any surpluses available in order to increase demand and prices. This entailed the destruction of products, including plowing up freshly sown crops, reducing acreage sizes prior to sowing, and slaughtering more animals than demand required. AAA’s primary goal was to raise farm prices. It sought to do this by lowering the gross output of cotton that would enter the market: the consequence of less cotton would be an increase in market prices, and a reduced chance of surplus. In 1933, the season’s cotton had already been planted. Since the government could not advise the farmers to plant less (as the cotton was already planted) it implemented plow-ups. On June 19th, 1933, the government contracted with cotton growers to destroy 25 to 50 percent of their acreage in exchange for one of two options: monetary compensation ($7-$20 an acre), or participation in the cotton option program (Perkins 1969, 99). If the farmer chose the cotton program, he would be compensated slightly less per acre but would have the opportunity to buy an equal amount of cotton from the secretary of agriculture. The logic of the program was that since the price of government cotton was generally lower than market price cotton, the grower could buy back an amount equal to the cotton he’d destroyed and sell it with a profit in the market (Perkins 1969, 102). Simultaneously to creating a cotton relief program the AAA also tackled weak wheat prices. Wheat prices had been unsatisfactory for a longer period of time compared to cotton, and farmers had already been dealing with a large surplus. AAA was briefly interested in the US government’s proposed international tariff agreement on wheat (to make it easier to get rid of wheat through exports), but got its wheat relief program rolling through its own grassroots efforts. The wheat program was announced on June 16th, 1933: If wheat growers

 

165

agreed to reduce their acreage by up to 20 percent when asked to (if asked to) they would immediately be rewarded with benefit payments to be paid in 1933, 1934 and 1935 (Winders 2009). Alongside the blow from the Depression, wheat planters saw their crops wither away in a severe drought in the wheat belt, which brought 1993 output to the lowest level since 1896 (Poppendieck 1986, 111). This took away some of the urgency that would have otherwise enacted drastic wheat plow-ups; instead the government opted for wheat reduction. On August 28th the government demanded those farmers who had agreed to cooperate reduce 15% of their wheat acreage (Winders 2009). Another pair of commodities AAA affected was hogs and corn. Corn and hogs were linked in a cycle: much of the corn produced in the US was used as hog feed. AAA had to find a balance in its actions. Low corn prices would stimulate hog production, and higher corn prices would lead to hogs converting to a different feed. Pork was additionally perishable. The US had a large farming population with vested interest—more than 60% of US farmers raised some corn or hog. The drought had created a hiatus where AAA could implement longer ranging crop reduction: like wheat, corn reduction as opposed to a plow-up would be implemented (Poppendieck 1986). Without designs of their own, the AAA committed themselves to the farmers’ own thoughts on the matter. Meetings were organized where farmers could talk to the government directly about both plight and solution. The National Corn- Hog Committee of Twenty-Five was created from the farming community. They recommended the government adopt emergency pig slaughter (Poppendieck 1986). After buying the pigs, the government slaughtered them for one of three purposes: fertilizer, hog feed, and meat for the poor (Winders 2009). The supply of pork would be reduced and the price for the meat increased by immediate slaughter of killing pigs between twenty-five and one hundred pounds (before they grew larger), and killing pregnant sows before they gave birth, providing both immediate and long term relief. However the sow program was not as successful as AAA hoped, and the government consequently decided to slaughter more young pigs to compensate. To manage such a slaughter, packers started working at full capacity, round the clock. Smaller pigs were “destroyed,” while heavier ones were salted and turned into pork products distributed for relief. However, fertilizer was harder to dispose of, and as a result, ground-up pork started to pile up in stockyards, with some masses eventually being taken to dumps (Winders 2009). The next important program Roosevelt put into place was the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which was passed on March 31, 1933. Roosevelt proposed that Congress create "a civilian conservation corps to be used in simple work, not interfering with normal employment, and confining itself to forestry, the prevention of soil erosion, flood control and similar projects." (Helms 1985) Thus, The Act for the Relief of Unemployment was established, which allowed work to be done on federal and state land to control soil erosion, but not on private land. The CCC relied on public works projects done by young men and adults. These projects included building roads and parks, as well as planting trees, building campgrounds and conservational dams, and replanting grazed land. By the time it had reached its end in 1941, the CCC’s employment total equaled about 3.5 million men. This project helped to create a more efficient and healthy environment with an increase of 40 million acres of farmland, a million acres of grazing land, 800 state parks, and 52,000 acres of campgrounds. Policy during World War II

 

166

Throughout WWII, the parity ratio was well over 100, indicating farm prosperity. In fact, instead of surpluses, shortages now existed, and as prices rose, price controls were put in place by the government. To compensate for a loss in income due to price controls, farmers were paid in direct US subsidies. In addition, limits on production were turned over, as production was encouraged by a lift on all acreage allotments and market quotas by 1943 (besides on certain tobaccos). In another tactic to raise production, the government also raised price supports to ensure farmers that once they expanded production; they would be guaranteed protection from the government despite the possibility of a surplus economy. However, this rising productivity during the war was very soon met with growing surpluses despite the decreasing number of farms, due to technological advances in both the chemical and mechanical fields. Nevertheless, demand remained high for a number of years after the war, allowing farm income to also stay heightened (Bowers, Rasmussen, and Baker 1984).

The Resettlement Administration (RA) worked to relocate struggling families to communities run and funded by the federal government. The goal of the Administration was to solve the problem of poverty and landless farmers. A major bill established by the RA was known as the Bankhead Bill of 1935. Its purpose was to enable the government to evaluate and purchase land based on its longevity and sustainability. Then, the government would be able to resell the land fairly to tenants and sharecroppers who were landless. The bill was passed by Senate in 1935, but rejected by the House of Representatives. However, as a direct result of this bill, Congress passed the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. This act established a credit program that would help farmers purchase land. The Resettlement Administration later became the Farm Security Administration in January 1937. (Gabbert)

Congress then passed the Research and Marketing Act of 1946, which added duties to the Department of Agriculture, including distribution, transportation, and marketing. The act also established research in the area of human nutrition. It gave a value to each food item and was a general first step in making reforms based on health and nutritional values as we do today. The first major research bill was signed by the Senate on March 8, 1946. It was known as the Flannagan-Hope bill, named after John Flannagan and Hope, members of the House Agriculture Committee. Post-World War II Policy

Agricultural policy enacted immediately after WWII focused on stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities through providing different federal price supports for different commodities and by modifying the formula for establishing parity. These acts included the Agricultural Act of 1948 and the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Bowers, Rasmussen, and Baker 1984; Cochrane and Ryan 1976). Price supports were necessary for basic commodities (cotton, wheat, corn, tobacco, rice, peanuts), “Steagall” commodities (hogs, eggs, chickens, turkeys, milk, etc.), and wool. The new parity formula took changes in productivity over the last decade and direct farm labor costs into account, lowering parity for basic commodities, and increasing it for livestock, rice, and tobacco. The 1949 Act also provided for donations of surplus products to domestic and foreign impoverished families (Agricultural Act of 1948 1948; Agricultural Act of 1949 1949). As the nation continued to recover from the effects of WWII, agricultural policy began to center around several issues: 1) the improvement and protection of farm incomes, 2) the reduction of federal costs of farm programs, 3) the reduction of surpluses, and 4) the promotion of foreign and domestic trade supplies. To this end, several laws were enacted that augmented each other by addressing the same issues: the Agricultural Act of 1954, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, and the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965. The 1954 Act

 

167

also authorized a CCC reserve for foreign and domestic relief of shortages (Agricultural Act of 1954 1954; Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 1962; Food and Agricultural Act of 1965 1965). These three Acts also marked the beginnings of a related agricultural-food provision system as a means of reducing surpluses, laying the foundation for programs such as food stamps and school lunch programs. The 1954 Act provided for food donations to programs such as veterans’ hospitals and school milk programs, while the 1962 Act established donations to nonprofit school lunch programs (Agricultural Act of 1954 1954; Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 1962). The Food Stamp Act established a cooperative federal-state program that provided food assistance to low-income households (Food Stamp Act of 1964 1964). The Agricultural Act of 1970, the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, and the Food Security Act of 1985 were enacted to further strengthen and improve these programs. They ensured that food stamp programs reached the neediest, and that food and fibers would be abundantly available at reasonable prices. These acts also worked to protect farm incomes (Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 1973; Agricultural Act of 1970 1970; Food Security Act of 1985 1985) . Beginning with the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, legislation addressed farm land usage and partitioning. The 1962 Act expanded the use of lands, both economically and socially (Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 1962). The Agricultural Act of 1956 established the Soil Bank, which was divided into an acreage reserve program that allowed a yearly land-rental program for basic commodity producers and a conservation reserve program, which provided farmers with annual payments for converting land into conservation uses (Agricultural Act of 1956 1956). The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 based acreage programs on domestic and export needs (as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture) (Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 1977). The Food Security Act of 1985 created conservation reserve programs that removed prairie and wetland areas as usable farmland (Food Security Act of 1985 1985). Recent agricultural policy has focused on modifying and maintaining programs for the coming years. The 1985 Act lowered government price support for many commodities, while the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 eliminated the link between the market prices and income support payments. Instead, production flexibility contract payments were instituted, which were fixed and independent of market price (Schertz 1996). The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 extended agricultural programs through the fiscal year 2012 by again adjusting federal payment and support levels and by stressing conservation of land and energy use (Young 2008; Economic Research Service 2008)

The Development of National Food Safety Policy At least a dozen federal agencies implementing more than 35 statues make up the federal food safety system (Roberts 2001). Major roles in carrying out food safety regulatory activities are played by four agencies: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the Department of Commerce; and the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Other agencies play smaller roles in regulating specific products. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

 

168

The first national food safety law, the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906, added regulatory functions to the Bureau of Chemistry. It prohibited interstate commerce in misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks, and drugs (Federal Food and Drugs Act 1906). There were numerous regulations, amendments, and US Supreme Court rulings on adulteration, misbranding, false and misleading claims, and food additives.

In 1933 FDA recommended a complete revision of the 1906 Act. After 5 years, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) of 1938 was passed, essentially replacing the 1906 Act. The origins of the current food-safety system are in the FD&C Act, which established FDA as the controlling federal authority for food safety (Hygiene in Food Processing 2003; Roberts 2001). The act corrected manipulations in food packaging and quality, and it mandated legally enforceable food standards. Tolerances for certain poisonous substances in food products, including pesticide residues, were set. The law formally authorized factory inspections, and allowed FDA to issue injunctions in order to enforce standards (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938).

The Act re-defined “food,” “adulteration,” and “misbranding,” and defined “food additives” and “added substances.” Food was defined as “(1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938).

The Act set forth multiple, independent definitions of adulteration, meaning that a product needed to violate only one of the definitions in order to be considered adulterated. The primary definition for adulterated foods is as follows:

“[A product] bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance such food shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in such food does not ordinarily render it injurious to health” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938).

Adulteration was also extended to the conditions of the raw materials, production and processing facilities and procedures, packaging materials. Any insanitary conditions along the products creation could violate these definitions, branding the food as adulterated and in violation of the Act, even if the product was proven to be safe for consumers. Labeling was defined as, “all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matters (1) upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or (2) accompanying such article” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938). Misbranding was defined as, “[a product’s] labeling is false or misleading in any particular” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938). These definitions include any books, pamphlets, or other literary media (not including advertisements) that was explicitly sold with the product and made claims about its qualities. Misbranding is independent of adulteration, and FDA could take action against any product in violation of one or both of these categories. Food additives were defined as, “any substance the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938). The Act sets forth exemptions for substances which are treated under different regulations, including pesticide chemicals and their residue, color additives, substances previously approved under other statutes, new animal drugs, and dietary supplements (as defined later in the Act). The statute directs that food additives are to be presumed unsafe

 

169

(and prohibited) until they have been proven to be safe(Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938).

Some of the exceptions to the food additives definition are termed “added substances,” and while not explicitly defined in the Act, are referred to in several sections. Such substances are prohibited, “except where such substance is required in the production thereof or cannot be avoided by good manufacturing practice” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938). Because added substances often cannot be avoided in food, such as the presence of man-made pollutants in fish, the FDA is required to “promulgate regulations limiting the quantity therein or thereon to such extent as [is] necessary for the protection of public health” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938). The tolerances set by FDA addressed these added substances.

There have been many amendments to the FD&C Act since its passage. The 1948 Miller Amendment affirmed that the FD&C Act applied to goods moving in interstate commerce (Roberts 2001). The 1953 Factory Inspection Amendment clarified the Act, giving FDA the authority to inspect a processing plant without a warrant and without the permission of the owner. FDA was also required to give manufacturers written reports of conditions observed during inspections and analyses of factory samples (Hygiene in Food Processing 2003). Following Congressional hearings in the early 1950’s, a series of laws addressing pesticide residues and food and color additives gave FDA tighter control over chemicals entering the food supply and required manufacturers to establish their safety (Swann). The 1954 Pesticide Residue Amendment detailed the procedures for setting safety limits for pesticide residues on raw agricultural commodities. Under the 1958 Food Additives Amendment manufacturers of new food additives were required to establish the safety of the additives. FDA was also given premarket review and approval authority over chemical additives to food. The Delaney clause prohibited the approval of any food additive shown to induce cancer in humans or animals. The 1960 Color Additive Amendment required manufacturers to establish the safety of color additives in foods (Roberts 2001). In 1996, Congress replaced the Delaney clause with a single standard for both fresh and processed foods, allowing pesticides that pose only a negligible risk (Meadows 2006). After the events of September 11, 2001 Congress passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, establishing new requirements for registration of possession, use, and transfer of “Select Agents and Toxins” that could pose a threat to human, animal, and plant safety and health (Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 2002).

After a 1968 departmental reorganization, FDA became responsible for assuring safe milk supplies (through cooperation with state and local milk control authorities); safe shellfish supplies and processing; sanitation in food service facilities (e.g. restaurants); safe food, water, and sanitation in interstate travel facilities (trains, planes, buses, ships, interstate highways); and providing poison control centers with information on treatment (Janssen 1981). The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (1990) required all packaged foods to bear nutrition labeling and all health claims for foods to be consistent with terms defined by HHS. Packaged foods now required per-serving nutrition labeling, and an easily understood list of the most important nutrients. Specific conditions must be met to use terms such as “low fat.” The law preempted states’ requirements for food standards (Bill Summary & Status: Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990 1990). The Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act in 2004 further required the labeling of all food that contains

 

170

any proteins derived from peanuts, soybeans, cow’s milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, and wheat (Swann). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

When passed, the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) of 1906 ensured that meat and meat products produced and sold within the US were not adulterated and properly labeled and packaged. The FMIA established mandatory on-site inspections by government inspectors of livestock before and after slaughter, and set explicit sanitary standards for slaughterhouses. Animal carcasses and processed products could not be shipped from the processing plant until they had been inspected by a USDA inspector. It also allowed USDA to issue grants of inspection and monitor slaughter and processing operations, enabling the Department to enforce its requirements (Federal Meat Inspection Act 1906).

With the passage of the Agricultural Marketing Act in 1946, the scope of USDA’s authority was expanded to inspect, certify, and identify the class, quality and condition of agricultural products. Grading and quality identification activities were separated from inspection activities and assigned to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in 1981 (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998).

In 1957, Congress passed the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), which imposed requirements on poultry product handling and processing that mirrored requirements of the FMIA. It required any poultry products that moved in interstate commerce to be continuously inspected—before and after slaughter, and before processing—that plant facilities be sanitary, and that product labels be accurate and truthful (Poultry Products Inspection Act 1957). States remained responsible for inspection of meat and poultry sold in the state where they were produced, but USDA monitored the process. The 1967 Wholesome Meat Act and the 1968 Wholesome Poultry Products Act set a minimum sanitation requirement by which State inspection programs must be “at least equal in rigor to” their federal counterparts. If the state chose to end its inspection program or could not maintain the standard, the FSIS must assume responsibility for inspection (Hygiene in Food Processing 2003). Additionally, these acts established concurrent jurisdiction over adulterated meat products between USDA and FDA (Food Safety and Inspection Service). The 1970 Egg Products Inspection Act gave USDA jurisdiction over egg safety, requiring continuous inspection of the processing of frozen, liquid, and dried egg products. Egg hatcheries and packers were also put under discontinuous inspections (Egg Products Inspection Act 1970). In 1995, FSIS received the sole responsibility for egg inspection within the USDA, but FDA maintained regulatory authority over intact-shell eggs (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998; Hygiene in Food Processing 2003).

During the 1960s, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), US Army Natick Laboratories, and the Pillsbury Company began to develop foods for the space program. They introduced the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) System in 1971, which focused on preventing hazards that could cause food-borne illness by applying controls at each step of the process from raw material to the finished product (Roberts 2001). Following the recommendation of a National Academy of Sciences committee, FDA passed the Seafood HACCP Regulations in 1995, requiring all seafood processors to implement HACCP systems (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998). In 1996 USDA published the Pathogen Reduction: HACCP System rule, requiring HACCP Systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures in FSIS inspected establishments. All establishments were required to develop a HACCP plan to ensure the safety of their product

 

171

(The Final Rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems 1996; Food Safety and Inspection Service). Implementation of HACCP systems was the responsibility of food producers, processors, and distributors. The role of government was to ensure that HACCP programs were properly implemented by evaluation of HACCP plans and inspection of records of monitoring of critical control points (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998). Other Agencies Agencies other than the FDA and USDA that had roles in food safety and regulation included EPA, NMFS in the Department of Commerce, and CDC. Other government agencies also had smaller regulatory responsibilities.

EPA regulates two aspects indirectly linked to food safety: regulating pesticide use and ensuring clean air and water, all of which may threaten the safety of the food supply. PFederal pesticide regulation originated in the 1910 Federal Insecticide Act, which was passed to ensure the quality of pesticides bought by consumers and was enforced by USDA. In 1947, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act extended the 1910 Act to regulate pesticide usage in food production. The FD&C Act established FDA tolerances for pesticide residues in food. When EPA was established in 1970, it took over FDA’s responsibility for setting pesticide tolerances (Stephen J. Toth 1996). The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended the FD&C Act, strengthening regulation of pesticides by FDA and EPA. It required that EPA consider a new, stronger safety standard, which included considering exposure to the pesticide from all non-occupational sources (food, drinking water, residential use) (Roberts 2001). EPA was also responsible for the safe use of food detergents and sanitizers to protect the public from exposure through food (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998).

Federal regulation of the nation’s drinking water began in 1914 when the Public Health Service (PHS) imposed bacteriological standards for drinking water. These standards were revised in 1925, 1946, and 1962, and eventually adopted by all 50 states. The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) established national, enforceable health standards for contaminants in drinking water. Prior to the SDWA, EPA water regulations focused on regulating pollution in waterways. In 1986 SDWA was amended by the Surface Water Treatment Rule, which required public water systems to filter and disinfect all surface water supplies. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 extended protection of drinking water from source to tap, and required notifying the public about contaminants in tap water (Roberts 2001; Office of Water 2000). FDA regulates bottled water under separate regulations (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998). Mandatory regulation of seafood processing was under FDA, but excluded fishing vessels, common carriers, and retail establishments. Under the 1946 Agricultural Marketing Act, NMFS conducted a voluntary seafood and seafood product inspection and grading program for the industry, including establishments not inspected by FDA. NMFS also conducted research on seafood safety (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). CDC, in conjunction with states and local health departments, undertook surveillance and investigations of illnesses associated with food consumption in support of USDA and FDA regulations. CDC conducted field investigations of food-borne diseases only at the request of state health departments. FDA and FSIS were called into investigations when the safety of a food in their jurisdiction was questioned (Medicine and Council 1998). Several other federal agencies had smaller regulatory responsibilities. For example, the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was responsible

 

172

for overseeing the production, distribution, and labeling of alcoholic beverages, except for wines containing less than seven percent alcohol, which were the responsibility of the FDA. The department’s Custom Service assisted other agencies in ensuring the safety and quality of imported foods through services such as collecting samples (Roberts 2001). DISCUSSION

Agricultural and food regulatory legislation were not passed in a vacuum. Rather, statutes were heavily influenced by the state of the nation’s social, political, and economic circumstances at the time of their consideration and passage. While agricultural policy was largely influenced by the current market and economic practices, food safety policy was subjective to various social, economic, and technological developments. Influences on National Agricultural Policy The Great Depression and Economic Climate The agricultural crisis had already come to a head when President Franklin D. Roosevelt entered office. Farm commodity prices, wrecked by the Great Depression, were severely depressed, and dismally far from their immediate post-WWI prosperity. During 1914-1919, market prices for cotton, wheat and corn had increased significantly over a short period of time. Consequently, gross farm income more than doubled in the 1910s. Those price heights cracked in a short, but severe depression from 1920-1921, rebounding somewhat in years after, but never to the levels of 1919. In this pre-Depression light of gradually declining income, coupled with Republican presidencies, no debated agricultural legislation advocated extensive government intervention. It wasn’t until a free fall collapse in agricultural prices, accompanied with sharp a decline in overall farm income that farmers and their advocates riled for extensive government assistance (Winders 2009). Reduction of Agricultural Surplus During the New Deal, the federal government believed that the agricultural surpluses which lowered commodity prices were so great that they would remain even after relief efforts. The government’s primary strategy for correcting food production problems became control programs that brought supply closer to demand, rather than relief programs to help alleviate hunger. Thus the principle of controlling surplus amidst hunger and want became something of national policy. Growers organized cooperatives and created marketing agreements to reduce production and dispose of surpluses by using them as by-products or sending them to the dump. Most other perishable food agreements depended on regulation of shipments to market as a means of enhancing prices (Winders 2009).

Aside from public outrage at food reduction amidst hunger, a very serious criticism of the plan realized that the benefits had not been evenly distributed. The system of benefits applied only to producers, and not to the tenants that worked the fields (Farley 1936). The AAA was hesitant to pursue actions that would rile Southern planters who wanted to maintain racial plantation system that disadvantaged blacks (Conrad 1965).

The Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 had a very limited impact. The Resettlement Administration had had a vision that was very different from the actual effects of the Bankhead Jones Act; the act fell short of their wishes because of its limitations. Before a farm could be financed, it had to be approved by a committee of local farmers and deemed livable and useable by local standards. “Credit preference went to an upper stratum of tenants who owned implements and who could make down payments. Although not

 

173

satisfied with such limited legislation, RA leaders considered it the best that could be obtained at the time.” (Novel Guide 2004).

Controversies also surrounded many policies. The Flannagan-Hope bill created two separate sides. The House and the House Agriculture Committee was pushing for a separate marketing administration, one that would handle the other aspects of research and work. However, the Department of Agriculture believed the two should be combined into one production unit. The Flannagan-Hope bill called for a general organization of the market system, and Congress ultimately did not require a new agriculture market administration. Free Market versus Managed Agricultural Economy

For almost two decades after World War II, a consensus could not be reached regarding the free market versus managed agricultural economy debate. There was a general consensus that the goal of agricultural policy was to maintain both a successful and productive farm sector. However debate continuously surrounded the method of reaching this goal. The level of government assistance required in obtaining such objectives, or whether a complete free market system was the solution, was the question that arose when making farm policy. Supporters of free market policy argued that supply would eventually meet demand, as surpluses that drove down prices would cause the end to inefficient farming. Those that advocated government controlled production claimed that, in order to keep incomes high enough to sustain small farmers, federal price supports were necessary. They also contended that control of production was needed to prevent unmanageable surpluses (Blanpied 1984). The legislation passed prior to the 1970’s produced a continuous shifting between the two ideologies in the hopes of finding a successful policy to counteract surpluses and low commodity prices.

The Agricultural Act of 1948 was the first compromise. During the first year, price supports remained high and fixed, but would become lower and more flexible in the following years. As farm prices fell under the 1948 Act, the Agricultural Act of 1949 was enacted to revert to high and fixed support systems. The free market debate renewed after the Korean War, when farm income was dropping, exports were low, and production controls could not keep up with demand. The Agricultural Act of 1954 was enacted, and proved successful in increasing export of commodities while once again moving into a system of flexible price supports in the hopes of reducing surpluses (Cochrane and Ryan 1976). However, reduced price support was not enough to avoid surpluses, and the government passed the Agricultural Act of 1956, turning to large acreage reduction programs to solve the problem. This also proved to be unsuccessful as it did not reduce output, and came at a high cost to the federal government. The price support flexibility options built into Food and Agricultural Act of 1962 were soon overturned. Attempts of mandatory controls were also dropped, which is seen in the Food and Agricultural Act of 1965. This policy provided a compromise between the two sides of this debate as it relied on a combination of income support payments and reduced levels of price support (Dimitri, Effland, and Conklin 2005). The Agricultural Act of 1970 was an extension of the 1965 Act, continuing emphasis on supply check and direct payments to farmers.

The 1973 Act replaced support prices with lower target prices, which would only be reimbursed if market prices were to fall greatly. Farmers responded by growing a record amount of crops. Unlike prior policies, which tried to curtail production, this policy attempted to increase it to keep up with demand with the US in the world market. The 1977 Act relapsed to more stringent government assistance, but target prices but remained intact.

 

174

The 1985 Food Security Act also lowered government farm supports, in recognition of a greater movement toward the free market policy concerning agriculture. The 1996 Act exhibited a greater change, giving farmers the freedom to make decisions about their own planting based on the market. However, the government was not be completely absent from the system, providing farmers with a fixed amount of annual payments based on their history of production. Both the Farm Bills of 2002 and 2008 continued the pattern of planting flexibility, but with a return to commodity programs. Influences on National Food Safety Policy Public Pressure for Regulation and Reform

Exposures of the flaws of the regulatory system, whether it was through illnesses or public media, often increased public awareness of the state of the food supply. This increased awareness in turn led to increases in public interest and activism in forming new food safety statutes.

In the latter part of the 19th century to the early 20th century, many Americans were exposed to adulterated foods, dangerous medications, and poisonous substances on a regular basis. Examples are numerous, and while many of the adulterants were harmless, some were poisonous, causing illness or death in those who consumed them. One of the most notorious examples was the use of poisonous lead, copper, or mercury salts to create brightly colored candies that were appealing to children (Janssen 1981). There have since been numerous cases of food-borne disease outbreaks, and many have been used as an opportunity to address weaknesses in the regulatory system. Muckraking journalists played an extensive role in exposing conditions in food industries and the dangers of food products. One of the most famous examples is the 1905 publication of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, which exposed insanitary conditions in the Chicago Meat Packing industry. The book ignited such public outrage that President Theodore Roosevelt commissioned the Neill-Reynolds report. In response to both The Jungle and the Neill-Reynolds report, Congress passed the Federal Meat Inspection Act in June 1906 (Carpenter and Sin 2007; Pickavance 2003). In 1933 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs: Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics, another book detailing the lack of regulation of quality in food and drug industries, was published, again causing a public outcry over the condition of the food supply and helping to ensure the passage of the 1938 FD&C Act (Roberts 2001). FDA also engaged in a form of muckraking when it lobbied for the 1938 FD&C Act. FDA conducted indirect publicity campaigns to various media, showcasing the hazards of adulterated food and medicines by distributing pamphlets and making radio talks (Carpenter and Sin 2007). FDA also organized an exhibit, known as “The American Chamber of Horrors,” which displayed various food, drug, and cosmetic items that exemplified that adulteration that was legal and common in the nation marketplace under the 1906 Act (Swann). Other media, including newspapers, radio, and television, also affected public awareness and response to food safety regulation. While federal agencies monitored the food supply, it was through these outlets that the public learned about various food issues. Industrial and Technological Advancements

Industry leaders in food production, processing, and distribution often had much at stake when food regulatory legislation was being considered. Failures of food safety could be costly: sellers of food that was labeled as “unsafe” faced public relations risks that could ruin their business. Consumers were also ready to shun entire categories of food when just one product was deemed dangerous (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council

 

175

1998). Advancements in food technology allowed not only more accurate inspections of foods, but also for more undetectable methods of adulteration. Laws therefore were partially passed as reactions to these advancements—new safety technologies were incorporated, while new production technologies were addressed, to protect both producer and consumer from adulterated items.

During the later part of the nineteenth century, advances in analytical chemistry provided food producers with more efficient ways to adulterate food, thanks to improved scientific knowledge about food composition. However, these improvements in analytical chemistry also made it possible to reveal food adulteration that would have been undetectable (Jackson 2009). During this time, bacteriology proved that microbes caused diseases, and concerns about microorganisms and their affect on food safety increased (Meadows 2006).

After the publication of Sinclair’s The Jungle, meat packers were facing ruin, with meat sales declining by half prior to the 1906 FMIA (Roberts 2001). Sellers of legitimate goods could not maintain their consumers’ trust after their trade had been undermined by the publicized fraudulent practices of their competitors. In order to re-establish consumers’ trust in their product, producers believed they needed to follow established regulatory standards (Wood 1985). Conversely, sellers of adulterated goods were often against new regulatory legislation because they feared it would shut down their businesses (High and Coppin 1988).

The 1940s and 1950s saw great developments in the proliferation of food chemicals and new food processes and advances in the field of toxicology. During this time, the presence of undesirable byproducts of industrialization in food became a public and regulatory concern. It became apparent that the traditional short-term toxicity tests for assessing the dangers of food chemicals did not accurately assess the long-term dangers of ingredients and contaminants (Jackson 2009). Changes in the FD&C Act that occurred during this time included the Miller Pesticide Amendment, the Food Additives Amendment, and the Color Additive Amendment.

CONCLUSION Over the past century, the federal function in food regulation has developed in

response to changing social and economic environments and industrial practices. However, many components of the federal agricultural and food regulatory systems have been relatively unchanged over the last few decades, and concerns that major changes may be required have recently emerged. Some argue that the systems need only be modified and augmented with new technologies and approaches. Others believe that the only method for improving the systems can be through fundamental changes in the programs. While the remedy is not readily determined, what is clear it that the systems must change if they are to maintain effective vigilance over the food supply. The present systems are not products of planning, but rather, products of reaction, and are often not equipped to anticipate changes. REFERENCES Agricultural Act of 1948. 80-897. July 3, 1948.

Agricultural Act of 1949. 81-439. October 31, 1949.

 

176

Agricultural Act of 1954. 83-690. August 28, 1954.

Agricultural Act of 1956. 84-540. May 28, 1956.

Agricultural Act of 1970. 91-524. November 30, 1970.

Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973. 93-86. August 10, 1973.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. Novel Guide. http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/egd_01/egd_01_00057.html

Bellis, M. 2010. A History of American Agriculture 1776-1990. In Inventors, ed. About.com.

Bill Summary & Status: Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990. 1990. ed. C. R. Service.

Blanpied, N. A. ed. 1984. Farm Policy: the politics of Soil, Surpluses, and Subsidies. United States of America: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

Bowers, D. E. (1982) The Research and Marketing Act of 1946 And It's Effects on Agricultural Marketing Research. Agricultural History, 263.

Bowers, D. E., W. D. Rasmussen, and G. L. Baker. 1984. History of Agricultural Price-Support and Adjustment Programs, 1933-84. In Agriculture Information Bulletin

Browne, W. P. 2003. Agricultural Policy. In Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, ed. J. Rabin. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.

Campbell, C. M. 1962. The Farm Bureau and the New Deal; a study of making of national farm policy, 1933-40. Urbana,: University of Illinois Press.

Carpenter, D., and G. Sin. 2007. Policy Tragedy and the Emergence of Regulation: The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Studies in American Political Development 21 (1):149-180.

Cochrane, W. W., and M. E. Ryan. 1976. American farm policy, 1948-1973. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2010. Codex Alimentarius. World Health Organization Cohen, S., L. Stanton & D. Morgan. 2006. Farm Subsidies Over Time. Washington Post.

Food and Agriculture Organization 2010 [cited October 23 2010]. Available from http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp#.

 

177

Conrad, D. E. 1965. The Forgotten Farmers: The Story of Sharecroppers in the New Deal. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses. 2010. The International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN). World Health Organization, Januray 14, 2010 [cited October 23 2010]. Available from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/infosan/en/.

Dimitri, C., A. Effland, and N. Conklin. 2005. The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy

Economic Research Service. 2010. 2008 Farm Bill Overview. United States Department of Agriculture 2008 [cited November 20, 2010 2010].

Egg Products Inspection Act. 91-597. December 29, 1970.

Farley, M. S. 1936. Agricultural Adjustment Under the New Deal. American Council Institute of Pacific Relations 454.

Federal Food and Drugs Act. 59-384. June 30, 1906.

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. June 25, 1938.

Federal Meat Inspection Act. 90-201. June 30, 1906.

The Final Rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems. 1996. ed. F. S. a. I. Service.

Food and Agricultural Act of 1965. 89-321. November 3, 1965.

Food and Agriculture Act of 1962. 87-703. September 27, 1962.

Food and Agriculture Act of 1977. 95-113. September 29, 1977.

Food Safety and Inspection Service. 2010. Celebrating 100 Years of FMIA. United States Department of Agriculture, May 5, 2006 [cited October 12 2010]. Available from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/About_FSIS/100_Years_Timeline/index.asp.

Food Safety. 2008. Congressional Digest 87 (4):1.

Food Security Act of 1985. 99-198. December 23, 1985.

Food Stamp Act of 1964. 88-525. August 31, 1964.

abbert, J. Resettlement Administration. Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History & Culture. Ganzel, B. Wessels Living History Farm. In Farming in the 1940's.

 

178

Griswold, D., S. Slivinski & C. Preble (2005) Ripe for Reform: Six Good Reasons to Reduce U.S. Farm Subsidies and Trade Barriers. Cato Institute, Trade Policy Analysis no. 30. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5999

Hamilton, D. E. 1991. From new day to New Deal : American farm policy from Hoover to Roosevelt, 1928-1933. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

High, J., and C. A. Coppin. 1988. Wiley and the Whiskey Industry: Strategic Behavior in the Passage of the Pure Food Act. Business History Review 62 (2):24.

History. 2010. International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council 2007 [cited November 20 2010]. Available from http://www.agritrade.org/about/history.html.

Hygiene in Food Processing. 2003. eds. H. L. M. Lelieveld, M. A. Mostert, J. Holah and B. White. Abington, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited.

Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council. 1998. Ensuring Food Safety: From Production to Consumption. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.

Jackson, L. S. 2009. Chemical Food Safety Issues in the United States: Past, Present, and Future. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57 (18):10.

Janssen, W. F. 2010. The Story of the Laws Behind the Labels. Food and Drug Administration 1981 [cited October 13 2010]. Available from http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Overviews/ucm056044.htm.

Lupien, J. R. 2005. Food Quality and Safety: Traceability and Labeling. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 45 (2):119-123.

Meadows, M. 2006. A Century of Ensuring Safe Foods and Cosmetics. FDA Consumer magazine, January-February 2006.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010. NOAA Seafood Inspection Program. United States Department of Commerce [cited October 15 2010]. Available from http://www.seafood.nmfs.noaa.gov/.

Manning, J. 2006. The Midwest Farm Crisis of the 1980's. In The Eighties Club: The Politics and Pop Culture of the 1980's.

National Organization for Raw Materials What Parity Really Means. American Agriculture

Movement. http://www.aaminc.org/newsletter/v8i2/v8i2p7.htm NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets. NYS Council on Food Policy Issues Report

to Governor. Office of Water. 2000. The History of Drinking Water Treatment: United States

Environmental Protection Agency.

Perkins, V. L. 1969. Crisis in agriculture; the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the New Deal, 1933. Berkeley,: University of California Press.

 

179

Pickavance, J. 2003. Gastronomic Realism: Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, the Fight for Pure Food, and the Magic of Mastication. Food & Foodways: History & Culture of Human Nourishment 11 (2/3):26.

Poppendieck, J. 1986. Breadlines knee deep in wheat : food assistance in the Great Depression. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Poultry Products Inspection Act. 90-492. August 28, 1957.

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. 107-188. 107th Congress, June 12, 2002.

Roberts, C. 2001. Food Safety Information Handbook: Greenwood Press.

Schertz, F. J. N. a. L. P. 1996. Provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

Stephen J. Toth, J. 1996. Federal Pesticide Laws and Regulations: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.

Swann, D. J. P. 2010. About FDA: History. FDA History Office, July 29, 2010 [cited October 10 2010]. Available from http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/default.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Demographics. In Agriculture 101. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2000. A Description of the U.S. Food Safety System.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Who We Are. 2010. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 2005-2006

[cited November 20 2010]. Available from http://www.cgiar.org/who/index.html.

Winders, W. 2009. The politics of food supply : U.S. agricultural policy in the world economy. New Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press.

Wood, D. J. 1985. The Strategic Use of Public Policy: Business Support for the 1906 Food and Drug Act. Business History Review 59 (3):30.

Young, E. 2008. The 2002 Farm Bill: Provisions and Economic Implications.

 

180

-11-

BOATS, TRAINS AND TRUCKS The development and integration of food transport technologies in the Global Era

by Sophia Ponce and Dan Pratt

INTRODUCTION

Every day, food is shipped into New York City by multiple forms of transportation: on ships, trains, and trucks. Our import and export trading system relies on our complex—yet largely hidden—freight transport system. Freight movement refers to the carrying of goods from one location to another. The movement of freight can entail a local trip to a supermarket to a cross-country shipment of twenty-five hundred bags of carrots. Over the course of the Global Era—which began in the 1940s and continues to the present—the means used to transport food both nationally and internationally have shifted as new technologies have been adopted in favor of others and integrated with existing ones; though trucks dominate the current landscape of food transport, they have been integrated with other

Compared to the means used in the early twentieth century, today’s “trade moves much more quietly—and much more efficiently—through the region’s ports…through half a dozen rail freight yards, and through a handful of wholesale markets” (Ascher 2007). In the past, busy docks, dangerous and loud railroads, and other foreign freights—all plainly visible—were the norm; the division between production and consumption was not nearly as pronounced.

For many years before World War II, and to a lesser extent, during the post-war period, railways dominated motor trucks. As the elaborate interstate highway system was continually improved directly following the war, however, the advantages of using trucks became increasingly clear. The shift toward their usage suggested more direct, flexible routes connecting production to consumption; such shipping methods could be used either as a standalone or in coordination with the increasingly antiquated freight trains as they ended their routes at their respective terminals.

With regard to food transport and distribution—particularly within urban areas—trucks are rarely seen as a relatively recent innovation; their significance is often taken for granted. However, the dominance of truck freight in the market for food transport is rather newfound; the technologies and infrastructural components that continue to support its use underwent considerable development during the late 1940s—a period of prosperity in the wake of World War II. Such developments allowed for increased time- and cost-efficiency of motor transport, and essentially, better-travelled perishables, the broadening of infrastructural roads within the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways largely encouraged the development and subsequent popularity of such technologies (Sullivan 2005). Furthermore, the creation—and later—the rebuilding of New York City’s West Side Highway, Interstate Route 478 was a crucial development in the scheme of providing for the nation’s most densely populated urban center (NYSDOT 1977).

This paper seeks to identify the reasons for and the advantages of the emergence and continuing development of shipment methods in the Global era—particularly with regard to

 

181

serving New York City and the surrounding metro area, both of which have seen, and continue to see steady population increase. More specifically, it examines the infrastructural systems that support said developments, as well as its integration with other forms of food transport with which it is supplemented.

The paper is structured such that a ‘Literature Review’—an elaboration on the aforementioned questions and material relevant to answering them—describes the historical contexts under which marine and rail freight declined while, trucks emerged as a leading means of food transport, the innovations and advantages that allowed for this emergence, and the further development and continued refinement of key infrastructural components—(i.e., Interstate highways and associated thoroughfares). The ‘Findings’ section provides data that supports the claims alluded to in the ‘Literature Review’, and examines the shift toward increased outsourcing (i.e., the globalization, and more notably here, the nationalization) of the U. S. —and more specifically, local—food market. These results are to be conferred and analyzed in the ‘Discussion’ section that it directly follows. LITERATURE REVIEW

Prior to the post-war truck freight boom, the nation relied heavily on its advanced railway system, which formed a rough network across the nation’s major cities to allow for transcontinental shipping, as well as marine freight, bourne by slow barges that ended their journey in New Jersey. While freight rail transport was—and remains—among the most efficient methods of shipping foodstuffs with regard to the ton-miles moved per unit of energy consumed, fixed rails—which result in limited, inflexible routes—and large payloads meant high transshipment costs. Likewise, the destinations of freight ships were inflexible, and required a large port to accommodate them.

Railroads have been an influential piece of transporting freight for decades. Railroads have been around New York since the ninetieth century and have remained a consistent source of moving freight in a faster and cheaper way. A freight railroad is a group of specialized cars that transport goods and materials from one location to another using tracks dedicated exclusively to trains.

The West Side line was a prominent rail freight line for decades. In 1847 on Manhattan’s West side, a street-level railroad was commissioned by the City of New York. Since the creation of the railroad, Tenth Avenue was nicknamed Death Avenue due to constant accidents between commuters and the rail. The accidents forced men on horses to lead this rail along the street. Due to the many accidents, the West Side Improvement was created; a project that will raise the railroads thirty feet upwards and cost over two billion dollars with today’s inflation prices. The rail opened in 1934 and was thirteen miles long. “It connects directly to factories and warehouses, allowing trains to roll right inside buildings. Milk, meat, produce, and raw and manufactured goods come and go without causing street-level traffic” (Friends of the Highline 2000-2010). The High Line was the only freight railroad that directly entered Manhattan. For thirty years, the freight rail was a major source for Manhattan’s food imports and exports. In the 1960s, major highway improvements were one of the major causes for the High Line and other freight rails to decline. By 1980, the last import of frozen turkeys entered Manhattan, the last run for the line.

The trains that enter New York hold a variety of commodities coming from multiple manufacturers; each car of a freight train can be used to transport different materials and food items. Different types of rail cars connect to each other and move on the same train;

 

182

the convenience of this is that trains only have to make one trip and can transport a varied amount of materials. On a railroad, the transportation of an item from source to destination is called a line-haul. There are different specialty rail cars made to hold specific commodities and complete these line-hauls. A boxcar is a fully enclosed car that can be used to transport dry foods such as canned food. One of the most important cars used to transport food are refrigerator cars or “reefer” cars. These cars move a majority of food that is received from across country. Before the invention of gas-powered coolers, reefers would be packed with ice.

Railroads use classification yards to streamline freight and keep everything organized. There are two different types of yards: flat and hump. A classification yard collects rail cars and sorts them so that as much freight as possible can be shipped at one time. In the book “The Works,” author Kate Ascher depicts the journey of a carrot from California into New York. First, carrots are packaged into over 2,500 50-pound bags; these bags of carrots are then moved into a reefer car. The carrots then begin an 8-day trek to the Bronx, New York. The carrots then move to a classification yard in Fresno, California. In this yard reefer trains heading to Georgia are added amongst the New York bound trains. The mixing of different train cars would not have been so easily organized if not for classification yards. In the beginning of the 1900s, “the New York region served as both a great shipping center and great railway terminus without any direct connections between trunk lines and steamships, the crucial element in the economical movement of freight” (Revell 1963). An active port is a fully operating dock that loads and unloads boats, ships and vessels. By the 1940’s Manhattan had about 750 active ports. The ports were located along the West Side, Brooklyn, Hoboken and Jersey City. Decades later, almost all the active ports disappeared from the Manhattan waterfront.

A majority of railroads ended in New Jersey—therefore, New York had to set up docks with barges to retrieve commodities. “Because of the lack of waterfront space, the railroads used the long (often 750 feet), narrow Manhattan piers as storage areas, and shippers themselves contributed to congestion on the docks by moving freight during the early morning and late-afternoon rush hours” (Revell 1963 61). It was made evident that there needed to be change in the way New York handled moving freight or else the future effectiveness of our City as a shipping powerhouse would be in question.

The invention of the container in the 1950s made trading on water much more efficient. A container is “a portable compartment in which freight is placed (as on a train or ship) for convenience of movement” (Merriam-Webster 2010). Container storage and use demanded open space; due to this marine trading moved to the waters of New Jersey. The noise of overcrowded docks in New York City was now nonexistent; the container terminals at Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal in New Jersey eclipsed that of New York ports. Highway and road improvements caused a rise in trucking; also ending the need for New York City and Brooklyn to ferry freight across from New Jersey.

Today, marine freight headed to New York had been on the rise. “New York Harbor remains among the city’s greatest assets. It covers 650 miles of shoreline, reaching from the banks of Sandy Hook in New Jersey around Staten Island and northward along the contours of Newark Bay and the Hudson and East Rivers” (Ashcer 2007 69). Within the Harbors limits, Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal receives most the most traffic.

Like train cars, there is a large variety vessels that help transport freight efficiently. There are refrigerated ships called “reefers” that primarily transport perishable goods such as meats and fruits. There are the aforementioned container ships that can carry as much as 5,000 containers on one shipment. Bulker vessels, transport bulk items such as coffee and

 

183

bananas. Tugboats and dredgers handle maintenance and navigation of larger ships. All of these vessels help create efficiency.

By their most basic definition, trucks are commercial motor vehicles—or CMVs—used primarily to haul large quantity of freight, and are characterized in their structure by a blunt, sometimes flat-fronted chassis making up a tractor unit and a swiveling hitch to which a trailer bearing freight can be fastened (2009). The advantages of truck freight (and thus, the rise in its use) stems from its flexibility, and specificity in terms of recipients (Painter 2002). Unlike their earlier predecessors, trains, trucks cannot haul numerous trailers-worth of freight, as they traditionally can only accommodate a single (or double, in the case of a tandem setup) trailer for hauling. Provided that their access is not government-restricted, trucks have access to major highways and city streets alike, and thus have the ability to deliver goods (in this case, foods) directly to distributors or in less frequently, to consumers. As aforementioned, trains are bound to the limited expanse of their tracks (their means of moving) and terminals (their ends) where delivery occurs. Today, a dozen such terminals, located in the four outer boroughs—Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island—as well as in parts of New Jersey, indirectly traffic food products and other goods to “the 22 counties of the New York Metropolitan Region” (Chinitz 1960), (Ascher 2007). As a result, freight trains often require transshipment—where cargo is passed on to another form of transport. Thus, they cannot deliver goods to distributers (or customers) directly.

While trucks are often utilized for such transshipment, they can alternatively simplify the process by making direct deliveries. More often than not, direct delivery by truck is used: Rail cargo today makes up only about 5.6 percent of the freight moving through the region, down from a high of roughly 40 percent in the early 1940s. The drop in rail traffic is in part a reflection of the region’s appetite for imports, but also a function of increased competition from long-distance trucking industries (Ascher 2007, 58).

Though rail freight was largely phased out beginning in 1945—the start of the post-war era—the technological advancements made during its peak of use greatly contributed to the technologies required for later successes. For instance, transcontinental railway proprietors sought to overcome the challenges associated with shipping foodstuffs over long distances. Among the biggest and most basic of these challenges was limited shelf life: “product perishability can be viewed more broadly as shelf life…fresh fruits and vegetables, for example, must be shipped relatively quickly since all time delays subtract from this basic shelf life” (Roberts 1975, 160). As aforementioned, these issues were alleviated by reefer containers.

Such technologies were easily adapted to trucks, particularly as intermodal containers—standardized, reusable metal storage units, either 20 or 40 feet in length—became increasingly favored in order to make transshipment more efficient on the increasingly rare occasions that it occurred. On the road, refrigerated containers are not self-powered, but are supported by generators that are powered by diesel and are attached directly to the container (Heap 2003). The addition of refrigerated containers also streamlined the process of transshipment, as the cargo did not require unloading and subsequent reloading onto a truck for the final leg of its journey. Containers could be moved as units themselves, and taken from a freight car and place seamlessly onto the trailer of a truck. In this way, refrigerated containers were to be loaded and delivered as-is; reorganization of items would otherwise drag the process down. As a whole, refrigerated containers single-handily changed the market for perishable food items—most notably meats, fish and fresh produce—as it allowed for increasingly effective outsourcing of food

 

184

consistently, and in the case of fruits and vegetables, the elimination of seasonally dependent offerings (Ascher 2007).

While the opportunity to refrigerate motor truck freight further fueled the demand for truck-based food transport, the innovation also updated the process of integrating the use of trucks and trains. Specialized crossover cars, known as ‘RoadRailers,’ could be hitched to truck tractors and hauled by trains, alike. This technology was created in 1952, and continues to see widespread popularity in the limited integration of the two means of transport. Trailers designed specifically for trucks could also be placed on flatcars, in a maneuver (aptly named) Trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC), and more commonly called “piggybacking” (2007). The primary concept is to have a truck pick up and drop off the merchandise and have the railroad complete the line-haul. “The advantage which the system has over ordinary trucking is clear: line-haul costs are lowered by the substitution of a small train crew for a large number of truck drivers” (Chinitz 1960). Although the cost of moving the trailer onto a train is more costly, the line-haul expenses are so severely lowered that it makes up for any additional costs. Piggybacking lowers the cost of packaging, avoids delays, and lowers shipping costs. Similar to this is “fishy back” operation in which trailers are carried along vessels. The fishy back method also, eliminates a lot of costs. The only negative side is the fact that the initial investment in a piggyback or fishy back operation is very large. Terminal facilities must be fully equipped to transfer loads from trucks into trains. Therefore, the piggyback and fishy-back operation will be run in places that move large quantities of freight daily. COFC stands for containers on flat cars and follows the same principles as TOFC except instead of truck trailers being carried, containers are carried. Most fundamentally, the United States was prepared for the ongoing growth of truck freight and its supporting technologies with the emergence of a more advanced, practical Interstate Highway System after World War II. In the midst of burgeoning economic prosperity, the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways was spurred by the Federal Highway Act of 1956, and is comprised of “sixty-two superhighways that cover 42,795 miles. They link together the nation’s coasts and borders, cities, and downs. These superhighways include 54,633 bridges and 104 tunnels” (Sullivan 2005, 48). The Interstate Highway System, which has so far moved 42 billion cubic feet of earth and cost well over $100 billion (and counting), was not primarily brought about with motor truck freight in mind. Rather, the network of roads came about when automobiles “began to be produced in large quantities. Car prices dropped as a result. Motorists of the time called for more and better roads. To satisfy the demand, private organizations, such as the American Automotive Association, were formed” (47). Though by 1925, significant progress had been made on then-independently owned sectors of the system—for example, the New England and Dixie Highway Systems—the limited-lane roadways and non-standard directional signs were not conducive to the use of large CMVs across long distances. According to Leinback:

Although the Interstate Highway System (IHS) accounts for only 1% of all highway mileage, it carries 25% of the total vehicle miles of travel…Enabling legislation for the largest public works project in history, [which] came in the form of the Federal Highway Act of 1956, and provided not only the authorization to construct but also appropriated the necessary funds for implementation.” This preliminary system, however, did set the foundations for a standardized, and more complex infrastructure…The IHS was financed by a highway trust fund supported by the abundant revenue from federal gasoline taxes. Those finds were available only for

 

185

highways, and the federal government paid 90% of the cost of the new highways. (2004, 37-38)

Though the Interstate Highway System was conceived to support American’s newfound admiration with the car, it was (perhaps inadvertently) responsible for the gradual movement toward a system of food transport that, today, relies to an overwhelming degree on the network of roads. As Leinback writes, “The impact of the [Interstate Highway System] on the intercity transportation of goods…has been nothing short of phenomenal…and may even be the single most important influence on the U.S. metropolis in the last 50 years. The IHS transformed cities in ways its planners never anticipated.” (2004, 37) Though it is not part of the Eisenhower system, one would be hard-pressed not to mention New York State Route 9A—or as it is better known, the West Side Highway, which served as an arterial road along the West side. The location of the road itself is optimized for the support of truck freight, as it serves as a nearly direct way for foodstuffs to enter the city after presumably making their way across the Hudson. The initial incarnation of the road skirted along Manhattan’s Meatpacking District—a name that, at the time, made reference to the neighborhood’s leading industry. As it is written by the New York State Department of Transportation:

The line of demarcation between the Hudson shoreline and the interior of Manhattan is the elevated structure of the West Side Highway. When the highway, formally known as the Miller Highway between the Battery and West 72nd Street was built in the 1930s, it was…suited to its purpose and location…carefully fitted between the warehouses and manufacturing buildings on the east, and the headhouses and piers on the west (NYSDOT 1977).

In spite of its proximity to what was essentially the Manhattan-based center of the food production and processing industry, the West Side Highway was often neglected, and thus, fell out of disrepair quickly—rendering the road unable of handling any cargo at all: “Forty years later,” it became evident—particularly to the state government—that “Trucks, primarily those making the thousands of daily pick-ups and deliveries necessary for the…functioning of Manhattan, were prohibited due to inadequate size, shape and strength of the ramps and…structures” ((NYSDOT 1977). Ultimately, the West Side Highway (and the Henry Hudson Parkway, directly to the north of it) has benefitted from the renovations, which were completed in August of 2001. With the introduction of new, well-integrated elevated roads, and the introduction of safe truck use, the New York State Department of Transportation has effectively created a corridor down the Western edge of Manhattan that extends toward the north, up the Hudson River. A lack of railway freight terminals within Manhattan itself, and the limited access that the highway provided while under construction resulted in a large need for such a thoroughfare, and heavy use of it after it opened.

RESEARCH FINDINGS The results of the research suggest that the role of trucks in transporting food—both directly and indirectly—have unquestionably increased, and are expected to continue increasing with the passage of time. The maps that follow, provided by the Federal Highway

 

186

Administration, show the major freight corridors nationwide, as well as the dominance of highways within this system —many of these roads are part of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, though a number of them are National Highway roads.

Today, in comparison to the beginning of the Global Era, a minority of merchandise is transported to New York from rail. Only 5.6% of moving freight comes from railroads in comparison to 40% in the 1940’s. However, each train used today replaces roughly 280 trains that make the same trip. (Asher 2005).

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, from 2005-2007, the average amount of maritime cargo a year moved via the Port of New York/New Jersey was roughly 91.9 million tons (Figure two). The distribution of general cargo operations in the port of New York is described by the horizontal bar graph in figure one. In 1959, Manhattan and Brooklyn controlled almost 80% of port activities. In 1987, the port activities relocated to New Jersey was in charge of almost all of cargo operations. In 2000, Staten Island regains some control over New Jersey, roughly 20% (Hofstra People 2010).

Figure three shows a bar graph showing the distribution of water, rail, and truck freight in the year 2006. Trucking freight is the majority with 78.6% in areas of NY/East of Hudson. Rail transport is a minority with 1.7% in areas of New York (McGregor 2006). MAPS AND FIGURES

(United States Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration 2008)

 

187

(United States Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration: 2008)

(United States Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration 2008)

The table below shows both the actual and projected increase of truck freight shipments in terms of tonnage and monetary value.

 

188

Table 2.1 U.S. Freight Shipments by Tons and Value Tons (millions) Value (billions)

Mode 1998 2010 2020 1998 2010 2020 Highway (Domestic)

10,439 14,930 18,130 6,656 12,746 2,246

Highway 419 733 1,069 772 1,724 3,131 (International)

(Leinback 2004)

Total USA domestic frieght traffic, by mode, 2002-35 2002 Traffic 2035 traffic volume 2002 traffic volume 2035 traffic Mode of Transport (short kilotons) (percent) (short kilotons) (percent) Air & Truck 1,024 0.03 4,377 0.06 Other Intermodal 15,558 0.43 48,968 0.65 Pipeline & Unknown 565,941 15.52 1,057,937 14.07 Rail 246,360 6.76 435,881 5.80 Truck 2,738,142 75.10 5,793,878 77.06 Truck & Rail 7,206 0.20 18,630 0.25 Water 71,968 1.97 158,532 2.11 Total 3,646,201 100.00 7,518,202 100.00

Figure 11.1

 

189

Figure 11.2

Figure 11.3

 

190

DISCUSSION Advances have been made in the movement of freight to eliminate the cost of

transporting goods and increasing efficiency. The developments promote longer trips and try to avoid shorter hauls.

The demise of the High Line, the main freight train of Manhattan, sets the picture for the place rail freight takes today. Freight rail is still active but does not move even remotely the amount of tons it used too. In large part this is due to increased competition with trucking after the reconstruction on major roads and highways. In the 1940’s rails moved 40% of all freight and now the number has dwindled to a minimal sum. Increases in other modes of transportation have pushed aside railroads. “Railroads’ advantage over trucking turns on their ability to move many diverse shipments over a relatively long distance on one train. But making up a train is a cumbersome process, as no two cars may have the same origin and destination” (Ascher 2007 62). After the decline of the high line, there has been no freight railroad that directly moved into New York City. The closest train to New York was in New Jersey. The need to ship goods across water seemed to be a weighty and economically exhausting process, especially when trucks are not restricted to a track or specific route. After the invention of the container a lot was made easier for moving freight. Still, the space and money needed for the equipment to move containers from trucks to rails are costly, especially when not a lot of tonnage is heading through a specific rail.

Marine freight has fluctuated in terms of tonnage over the past seventy years. Also, in terms of location, marine freight has had a great change. The invention of the container had the largest impact on marine freight. In 1959, about eighty percent of port activities came from New York City. The invention of the container in the 1950’s demanded more space than New York City ports had to offer, leaving trade to move to New Jersey. In 1987, New Jersey controlled almost all-marine trade with New York City maintaining a minimal sum of almost ten percent. The movement of goods is a direct result of the invention of the container. Today, marine freight is less than trucking but still greater than rail freight.

As shown by the data in the ‘Findings’ section and the advantages described in the ‘Literature Review’, a great number of innovations—most notably for perishable food items being container refrigeration, and most fundamentally, the rise of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System among other arterial roads. It is important to note, however, that the latter of these benefited motor truck freight as a whole. From the background information and the findings given, it is clear that highways and roads seem to form the easiest and most schematically efficient (i.e. direct) means of food transport, and that the emergence and continued growth of the use of these innovations and technologies are by logical application. Inevitably, there are a number of drawbacks to using trucks as a primary means of transport—the most controversial of which concern environmental pollution. More specifically there is mounting concern regarding emissions from such trucks, which contribute to air pollution. Perhaps less tangible and more fleeting, noise pollution, street traffic and pedestrian safety associated with deliveries, as well as the use of city streets as a means of arriving at their destinations is also a cause of controversy in urban centers. Furthermore, because of its sheer size, the standard-sized tractor-trailer truck is the cause of much discomfort on highway roads; truck-truck and truck-car collisions often yield exceptionally devastating results (Scheinberg and United States. General Accounting Office. 1999). In general, the ever-expanding and developing truck industry represents the continued urbanization (and resulting population growth) seen in urban centers, in turn the creation of a greater demand for food. Along with this come food products from

 

191

increasingly great distances, as refrigeration in transit allows for their preservation. However, quite recently, a trend called ‘locavorism’ has emerged (Time 2006). The movement, which has formed as a backlash against the environmental risks associated with increased outsourcing, emphasizes a diet restricted to food sourced locally—within 100 miles. Though the increasing number of self-proclaimed locavores is negligible, it is useful to note that such a movement exists, and that if it expands, it could impact the industry (i.e., reduce the amount of freight shipped over long distances). CONCLUSION

Food enters the city of New York on a daily basis via train, water and trucks. Over the years, trains have shifted from being the most heavily used mode of transport, to an almost non-existent piece of integrated food distribution. Marine freight has never been the leading means of moving freight, but holds its own and still moves about 90 million tons of freight a year -- much of which is internationally transported. Technologies such as the container have pushed marine freight to New Jersey. The container also helped to establish efficiency in the way cargo is moved from truck to ship or rail. Today, trucks are the leading movement of freight by an overwhelming majority. The evolutions in the past seventy years have helped organize New York City’s freight movement system.

The United States has effectively improved on its methods of distributing food to urban areas, in particular New York—the nation’s most densely populated. Of course, the methods and means by which this food is transported is far from flawless and, will certainly be further refined as new technologies emerge and the system is perfected. Environmental controversies and traffic drawbacks aside, though, the sheer speed and efficiency we have accomplished thus far is enough to warrant taking a step back and appreciating a stocked fridge, fresh, year-round vegetables, and the potential for even further improvement in the years to come.

REFERENCES (2008). Major Freight Corridors, United State Department of Transportation: Federal

Highway Administration. (2008). National Network for Conventional Combination Trucks, United States Department

of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Truck. Merriam Webster Dictionary, The Encyclopedia Britannica Company. "New York Central's 1934 West Side Improvement." from

http://www.railroad.net/articles/railfanning/westside/index.php.

Ascher, K. (2007). The Works: Anatomy of a City. New York, NY, Penguin Group. Association of American Railroads (2010). "Freight Rail Works | Association of American

Railroads." from http://www.freightrailworks.org/.

Chinitz, B. (1960). Freight and the Metropolis: The Impact of America's Transport Revolutions on the New York Region. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

 

192

Friends of the Highline (2000-2010). "High Line History." Retrieved 10/22, 2010, from http://www.thehighline.org/about/high-line-history.

Heap, R. (2003). Refrigerated transport: progress achieved and challenges to be met. Informatory Notes on Refrigerating Technologies. Paris, France, International Institute of Refrigeration: Intergovernmental organization for the development of refrigeration.

Hofstra People (2010). "Distribution of General Cargo Operations, Port of New York, 1959,

1987 and 2000." from http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/appl4en/trafficshiftportofnynj.html

Leavy, M. (2006). The New York Central System. Charleston, Arcadia Pub.

Leinback, T. R. (2004). City Interactions: The Dynamics of Passenger and Freight Flows. The Geography of Urban Transportation. G. G. Susan Hanson. New York, NY, The Guilford Press: 30-58.

McGregor, M. (2006). The Cross Harbor Rail Freight Tunnel. National Urban Freight

Conference. New York.

New York Central System Historical Society, I. (2010). "New York Central System Historical Society, Inc.". from http://www.nycshs.org/.

NYSDOT, F. H. A. a. (1977). West Side Highway-Interstate Route 478, Administrative Action Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Statement,.

Painter, M. (2002). "Trucking to Port." Review of Agricultural Economics 24(2): 540-545. Rawlinson, L. (2007). "From goods trains to green grass: The New York High Line ". from

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/15/highline.biog/.

Revell, K. D. (1963). Building Gotham. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Roberts, P. O. (1975). "Food Transport in the 1980s." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 191(1102): 155-168.

Scheinberg, P. F. and United States. General Accounting Office. (1999). Truck safety :

Motor Carriers Office's activities to reduce fatalities are likely to have little short-term effect : statement of Phyllis F. Scheinberg, Associate Director, Transportation Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. Washington, D.C. (P.O. Box 37050, Washington, D.C. 20013), The Office.

Sullivan, G., - (2005). Built to last : building America's amazing bridges, dams, tunnels, and

skyscrapers / George Sullivan.

 

193

Time, I. (2006). Local-Food Movement: The Lure of the 100-Mile Diet. New York, NY, Time, Inc.

William Whitman, W. J., John Tomczyk (2005). Refrigeration & air conditioning technology.

Clifton Park, Thomson Delmar Learning.

 

194

-12-

AISLES OF DELIGHT: THE BIRTH OF THE SUPERMARKET MENTALITY

Food Production and Supply in New York City in the Global Era, 1940-2010

by Katrina McCandless, Isaac McGinn, Jessie Ngok, Danny Ovryn, and Annette Paciorek

INTRODUCTION This chapter will examine the development of food markets in New York City between 1940 and 2010 - an era many call the Modern era or the era of Globalization. In all food groups, the products themselves have gone through a massive transformation. Today most foods are mass-produced, over-packaged, and shipped all over the nation and the globe. To accommodate exploding global markets but also to fuel the explosion, we created the supermarket: wherein consumers could seemingly find food from all parts of the world, in many forms, lots of textures, colors and flavors (more imitations and substitutes, gradually less and less of the real thing), all-forms-of-edible. No longer was it necessary to find a butcher’s shop and fish store and a produce market separately. In the modern supermarket, all culinary needs could be met in some shape or form. All the food groups were gathered together in a highly processed form and mass packaged in the name of convenience. The technological boom of the mid-20th century catalyzed advances across human existence. In the 1950s, we saw the birth of the refrigerator, a development that was necessary for the future of the supermarket, and a wide range of manufacturing developments whose goal was to fully stock these new comforts. Globalization had begun and was taking hold in this time period, in an era when capitalism was making an extra effort to exert its influence in the face of communism. New technologies and a hunger for profits, however, far outpaced our awareness of their effects on ecosystems and, indirectly, on ourselves and the food we eat. The supermarket and the supermarket mentality put a great distance between consumers and the food they eat - both literally and figuratively. In an era when different items on your grocery list come from different aisles and not different markets, we are increasingly separated from the source of our food. Fewer and fewer people know where our food originates and how it gets to our plate. How does it get to our plate? In the modern era, it becomes harder to be concerned in large part because it is harder to find out. Technology has been making our lives way easier - this is its purpose. The ability to package and preserve foods has, naturally, contributed to a declining presence of fresh foods. Shelf life takes precedence over natural ingredients. Substitutes start popping up wherever it may increase revenue. As the veil between the consumer and the producer gets thicker (as our foods get more frozen, more microwaveable and less perishable) we grow less aware of what we consume. The foods we eat and the chemicals they now contain not only make the food itself more synthetic but also have the potential to harm us and the environment. In this chapter we will discuss where some of our foods come from. We will examine beverages (particularly milk and water), farming practices, the seafood industry (focusing in particular on the advent and explosion of trawling and the concomitant collapse of the cod

 

195

fish among many others), and overall patterns in imports and exports that have developed since the 1940s. LITERATURE REVIEW Between the 1940s and the present, many new technologies have developed in an effort to maximize beverage production, agricultural production, and the seafood industry. The increased use of super efficient technologies has had many effects on the food we eat and the planet we live on. In addition, these developments brought with them new ideas and concepts that had never been seen before.

Pesticides are some of the most significant developments in farming. Pesticides are usually artificial substances that are used to control/kill pests, weeds, or plant diseases (World Health Organization 1990). The widespread use of pesticides began around the 1900 when scientists began experimenting with chemicals in an attempt to eliminate unwanted weeds and insects. Around the 1940s, a chemical known as DDT was widely introduced in the United States and around the world as an insecticide ⎯ a pesticide aimed to kill insects rather than weeds. Between 1970 and 1980, many more new pesticides were created and they were also spread globally (World Health Organization 1990). Around 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started to pass stricter laws to regulate the production and distribution of pesticides to ensure the safety of the public and environment (2010c). Today, pesticides continue to be widely used in agriculture and in the production of fruits and vegetables.

Discussions about agriculture and farming practices tend to circle back to one concept: sustainability. Sustainable food systems have been talked about since the 1980s (Feenstra 1997). A sustainable food system refers to local food systems or farms that are close to the city or community they cater to. Recently, many large cities, like New York City, have been pushing to develop a sustainable food system because scientists argue it contributes to a healthy and stable community (Feenstra 1997, GrowNYC 2009). The seafood industry since the middle of the 20th century witnessed an enormous expansion. As scientists began scrutinizing fishing practices and the environment in which they took place, we built a terminology around these newborn aspects of the industry. A fishery is an area from which fish are drawn and includes the relationships between the fish themselves, the aquatic environment and the fisherman doing the catching. Fish caught in the wild (capture fisheries) and farmed fish (aquaculture) fall under the broader heading of Fisheries. Aquaculture is the raising of aquatic organism (seafood, shellfish, aquatic plants) in a contained environment over which humans exercise control to “enhance production” (i.e. by feeding, stocking, protecting, etc). The catch is the total number (often by weight) of fish captured in a given operation and includes landings and by-catch. Landings are the amount of target species fish caught by weight (this figure, unlike catch, does not include any fish or other matter that is discarded in the process of fishing). By-catch is the non-targeted part of a catch that is accidentally caught, often killed in the process, and thrown back into the ocean. Fish stocks are the populations of various fish within a fishery from which fish are harvested. Trawling is the use of massive, synthetic-fiber nets towed through the water by one or more vessels to catch fish. A factory trawler is “a large stern trawler equipped with plant for gutting, filleting, freezing and storing fish and for processing fish oil and fish meal.” Exploitive practices of coastal oceans led to the development of new definitions as governments tried to regulate previously open areas. An Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ

 

196

is “a zone under national jurisdiction (up to 200 nautical miles wide), adjacent to a coastal state, declared in line with the provisions of 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, within which the coastal state has the right to explore and exploit, and the responsibility to conserve and manage, the living and non-living resources.” Only recently did scientists begin to carefully assess fish populations. These categories represent the main trends we have observed in terms of the health of various fish stocks. A depleted fish stock is one which has been fished beyond capacity to a point where reproduction levels are reaching record-breaking lows, and which cannot recover without significant human help. Recovery of depleted stocks is threatened and is very unlikely if the treatment of said stocks is not quickly reversed. A fully exploited stock is fished to capacity. Overexploited stocks are fished above sustainable rates but have the potential to recover if left alone. RESULTS/DATA Beverages Water Water is the most important liquid on the globe. Human beings cannot survive without drinking water, and therefore a clean, abundant water source is essential for the health and growth of any city. Since the mid-nineteenth century, New York City has been widely regarded for its delicious natural fresh water supply. Ezemen, in his book about New York City’s environment, wrote: “[New York City’s] water system has historically been ranked among the nation’s best” (Ezemen 1990, 131) which is especially impressive, because “the provision of water for New York City is one of the most elaborate feats of civil engineering in the history of North American urbanization” (Gandy 2002, 19). We draw water from three main reservoirs located in upstate New York. The water passes through a series of enormous pipes on its way to the city.

The seventy-year period from 1940 to 2010 shows tremendous upheavals in the process of manufacturing beverages to be imbibed by New Yorkers, although some drinks had been produced and consumed in essentially the same manner through the decades. Since 1940, New York City’s water supply system has constantly been facing new challenges and as such it is continually being improved. In the early 1980’s, New Yorkers started buying water neatly packaged in a plastic or glass bottles; a phenomenon that would have seemed wholly alien to a New Yorker from the 1940’s (Harris 1967, Boyle 2008, 32). “Today, New York is one of only five major cities in the United States without a filtration plant processing its drinking water supply.”(City of New York 2006, 67) A filtration plant is unnecessary due to the inherent cleanliness of the water that comes from New York City’s three watersheds. A watershed is an area of land where all of the water that is contained in it or drains off of it flows to the same place. Although New York City’s water is not filtered, the water that comes out of the tap in Manhattan is not wholly the same water that washed down the Catskill Mountains or was diverted from the Delaware River. The City still needs to transform the water from the watersheds into a potable form, purging the harmful organisms and particulate matter.

After heavy rainstorms, sediment from the bottom of a reservoir will get mixed with water in greater volume than normal. For example, “in the weeks following a significant storm event on April 2nd and 3rd, 2005, water quality in the City’s reservoirs experienced high turbidity levels, especially in the Catskill System.”(New York City Department of Environmental Protection 2005) “Turbidity is the measure of the relative clarity of a liquid

 

197

… it is caused by suspended matter or impurities that interfere with the clarity of the water. These impurities may include clay, silt, finely divided inorganic and organic matter, soluble colored organic compounds, and plankton and other microscopic organisms.”(Agency 1999, 7.1) High turbidity levels indicate that the water requires further treatment before it can reach the tap.

Figure 12.10 New York City’s water supply system (City of New York 2006)

 

198

To combat high turbidity, the EPA adds alum to the water in the Delaware and Catskill watersheds. “[Alum] causes the suspended particles in the water to bind together; the heavier bound particles then fall through the water column and settle on the bottom of the reservoir.”(New York City Department of Environmental Protection 2005) There has been concern that aluminum intake from dissolved alum in water could be implicated in causing Alzheimer’s disease. However, in late 1998, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization conducted extensive research in this matter and “found convincing evidence that the use of alum to treat drinking water is safe.”(Hunter Water 2008) Even so, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) wants to preserve the purity of the water supply as much as possible. In addition to alum, chlorine and fluoride are also added to the water: chlorine for added disinfection purposes and fluoride to protect against tooth decay. (New York City Department of Environmental Protection 2009, 6) Chlorine is necessary to remove harmful bacteria, such as Giardia lamblia, which can cause intestinal problems in humans. Chlorine is maintained at a constant concentration in the water system in order to steadily stave off bacterial growth. During 2009, “chlorine residuals were maintained at concentrations at or above 0.20 mg L-1 at all Catskill/Delaware entry points during the year. The lowest chlorine residual measured at an entry point was 0.29 mg L-1.”(New York City Department of Environmental Protection 2010, 15) “Fluoride [has been] added since 1966, at a concentration of one part per million, in accordance with the New York City Health Code.”(New York City Department of Environmental Protection 2009, 9) “Phosphoric acid is added to create a protective film on pipes that reduces the release of metals such as lead from household plumbing. Sodium hydroxide is added to Catskill/Delaware water to raise the pH and reduce corrosivity” (New York City Department of Environmental Protection 2009). The pH is directly related to the water’s acidity. Acidic, corrosive water can react with the household plumbing and metal fixtures resulting in the deterioration of the pipes and increased metal content of the water. Although most pathogens and bacteria are killed by the chlorination, “one pathogen, known as Cryptosporidium, has always been able to evade this treatment. This microscopic parasite is encased by a shell that enables it to survive outside of a body and resist chlorine-based disinfectants. When it is ingested by humans or animals, it can lodge in an intestine and cause cryptosporidiosis, a diarrheal disease”(City of New York 2006, 66). The City plans to deal with cryptosporidium and similar pathogens by opening “the world’s largest ultraviolet disinfection facility in 2012. The plant will use ultraviolet light to destroy the pathogens’ abilities to reproduce. Because this is a physical process rather than a chemical one, there are no harmful impacts on humans or aquatic life”(City of New York 2006, 66). This ultraviolet disinfection facility, located in Westchester County, will also allow less chlorine to be maintained in the system. Once operational, it will be able to treat two billion gallons of water per day. However, despite all of the precautions taken by the DEP, the cleanliness of the three upstate watersheds is currently in jeopardy. “Today, New York City’s watersheds are under attack. The main opponent is inappropriate development. Until the last few decades, the three upstate watersheds were, for the most part, rural and sparsely developed. No longer. The nature of the City’s watersheds, especially the Croton, is irrevocably changing as suburban [homes, shopping malls and even] office buildings fan out into upstate counties through the region. The population of Westchester, Putnam, Ulster and Sullivan counties, home to most of the city’s water reserves -- increased by 20 percent from 1960-1980. The highly regarded Regional Plan Association estimates that this number will [increase] another

 

199

15 percent by 2015” (Izemen 1990, 155). This population growth has resulted in a rise in “fertilizer, sewage, and road salt, all of which run into the reservoirs” (City of New York 2006, 66). Although the increase in population is most extreme in the Croton watershed, the same phenomenon is also occurring in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds. In additon to the change in New York City’s natural water supply, in the early 1990’s, another form of water became extremely popular: the packaged bottle of water . This change was aided by a technological advancement: polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic. “PET was cheaper, lighter, stronger, brighter, and clearer than the original polyvinyl chloride bottles; it was durable and, theoretically, recyclable.” Fuelled by this new bottle, sales of bottled water in the United States grew from virtually nonexistent in 1940 to $115 million in 1990 to $4 billion in 1997. Advertising gave bottled water a healthy connotation, and consumers believed that bottled water would boost their health. The advertising worked, and people routinely pay hundreds of times more for water in a PET bottle than they would from the tap. This phenomenon even exists in New York City, where the tap water is highly regarded. Milk Another beverage that changed drastically in manufacture and consumption since the 1940’s in New York City is milk. Milk went from being delivered personally at the home to being stocked in a refrigerator in a supermarket. The improvement of technologies such as refrigeration allowed milk to travel greater distances as time went on. New York City also grew in population, making land-intensive efforts like milk production less profitable. As a result, milk production and delivery systems moved further and further away from metropolitan New York City and into the surrounding suburbs. As recently as 100 years ago, there was a dairy pasture on 42nd Street and Broadway. (HAER) Distribution centers moved from midtown Manhattan to upstate New York and New Jersey. “Before 1940, distributors' plants for pasteurizing and bottling milk were located in the [area where milk was sold], and inter-market sales were much less significant than they are today.” (Harris 1967, 845) The general trend showed milk production moving away from the City. In the mid nineteenth century, dairy cows were still grazing in New York City. However, in 1840, there were already over 300,000 people living on the lower third of Manhattan, and therefore there was a heavy demand for milk and for the cows which produced the milk. City milk producers often found it difficult to pay to feed their cattle and as a result, resorted to feeding their dairy cattle rye and corn mash. This appeared produce lesser quality milk and contribute to soaring child mortality rates. There was a growing movement of scientists and businessmen who insisted that fresh, pure milk from country-bred dairy cattle would eliminate much of the sickness in New York. One man in particular, Robert M. Hartley, started his own campaign to bring fresh milk into the city and outlaw the sale of milk from distillery fed cows. This marked the start of moving dairy production of out of New York City. Since 1849, when Thompson Decker persuaded the first train to carry milk, trains had been barging down the West side of Manhattan, bringing fresh milk from farms, which at that time were only tens of miles away. In 1933, there were twelve pasteurization plants in Manhattan, two in the Bronx, and fifteen in Brooklyn. A typical milk delivery schedule involved milk arriving by train at 130th Street at 11:00 p.m., at the pasteurizing plant at 12:00 a.m., and ready for local distribution by 2:00 a.m. From the plants, the milk was taken

 

200

by wagon or truck to branch distributing stations or delivered directly to consumers along established retail routes. (Habstritt 2005) In 1937, Sheffield Dairy started building the world’s largest milk distribution center, taking up the whole city block between 56th and 57th streets and Tenth and Eleventh Avenues, totaling more than 400,000 square feet. (Cooper 1937) Trains from upstate would bring milk directly into the three-story basement of this midtown manufacturing plant, where it would be pasteurized, bottled, and put onto horse carts to be delivered to businesses and residents throughout the city. However, the world’s largest milk depot would not remain in the West Side for long. In 1952, Sheffield’s parent company, National Dairy Products, sold the giant processing plant, citing the “greater efficiency and better coordination of milk plant facilities in the dispersal to outlying areas”(Anonymous 1952). Another National Dairy Products retail plant on 125th Street in Manhattan was sold to Columbia University for use as its new Engineering Center. (HAER 1986) In 2010, no dairy cows are producing milk in New York City. Elmhurst Dairy still maintains a fifteen-acre dairy processing plant in Jamaica, Queens, but all of the raw milk is brought in via trucks from upstate. Elmhurst pasteurizes and bottles it in their Queens plant, making them the only dairy plant still in New York City. (Dairy 2010) All of the other dairy companies vending milk in New York City have both the production and processing procedures take place outside of New York City. Technological improvements also changed the way milk was packaged and distributed. The advent of refrigerated trucks and train cars allowed fresh milk to be delivered much further away from where it was produced. Milk also changed from being packaged in glass quart bottles to being held in two-quart, paper containers. Glass quart bottles are cumbersome, breakable and require expensive collecting and washing. In contrast, the paper containers can be thrown out, will not break, and can store twice the volume as their older glass counterparts. (HAER 1986) Of the milk that finally reached the consumer in homes in New York City, 28 percent was via home delivery and 72 percent was through stores in 1948 (Bergfeld 1949). “Store sales [in the late 1960’s] generally predominate over home-delivery sales, whereas 25 years ago the home-delivery system using glass quarts still seemed unassailable. Paper containers now play a vital role in store sales and are important in sales to homes and institutions”(Harris 1967, 846). “Home delivery itself began to fade from American life – the victim of supermarkets” (Martin 1987). Fruits & Vegetables The purpose of this research is to determine details about fruit and vegetable production in New York City and the effect of technology involved. New York State’s fruit and vegetable production decrease from the 1940s to 2007. The production of the fruits and vegetables that were consumed in New York City was pushed further and further away from New York City. Additionally, an increased usage of technology would be found from the beginning of the global era to the present. The USDA Agriculture Censuses of 1950, 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007 show the types of vegetables and fruits produced in New York State and the acreage devoted to their production. At the state level, New York State harvested 276,911 acres of vegetables total in 1944. From that period to present day, census trends show that the area of land dedicated to growing vegetables in New York State has decreased steady to 160,596 acres in 2007. Additionally, New York State’s production of fruits has also decreased steadily from 280,309 acres harvested in 1945 to 103,936 acres harvested in 2007.

 

201

Between 1940 and 1950, New York State produced asparagus, soy beans, green beens (snap, string, or wax), green lima beans, beets, sweet corn, cucumbers, lettuce and romaine, dry onions, green peas, sweet peppers and pimientos, spinach, sqaush, tomatoes and other vegetables (Census of Agriculture 1950). Green beans, cabbage, sweet corn, dry onion, green peas, and tomatoes were the most commonly produced vegetables in New York. Between the 1940s and 1950s, New York State produced strawberries, blackberries, dewberries, raspberries, apples, peaches, pears, cherries (sweet/sour), plums, prunes, grapes, cantalopes and muskmelons (Census of Agriculture 1950). Of all fruits produced, apples, peaches, pears, cherries, and grapes are the main fruits produced in New York State. From the USDA Agriculture Census 1950, it is shown that New York City did produce some fruits and vegetables. However, New York City as a whole only produced around 1,596 acres of vegetables and almost no fruits at all. On the other hand, Western New York, Central New York, Long Island and some counties in northern New York were the main producers of vegetables and fruits, see Figure 12.11.

Figure 12.11 Counties in New York State

In 1987, new types of fruits and vegetables were produced in New York State. For

example, snap beans, broccoli, brussel sprouts, collards, chicory, eggplant, endive, escarole, garlic, kale, parsley, hot peppers, pumpkin, radish, rhubarb, turnip, honeydew mellons, apricot, nectarines, blueberries, and currants were introduced after 1987 (Census of Agriculture 1992, Census of Agriculture 1997, Census of Agriculture 2002, Census of Agriculture 2007). Out of all the vegetables produced in New York State between 1987 and 2007, snap beans, cabbage, dry onion, sweet corn, potatoes, and green peas are the most abundant, see Figure 12.13. Additionally, between 1987 and 2007, the main fruits produced in New York were apples and grapes. Results are shown in Figure 12.13.

The USDA Agricultural Census of 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007 also illustrated that New York City did not produce any fruits or vegetables. The censuses also indicate that areas in Western and Northern New York have continued to generate vegetables fairly steadily. Although there is still some vegetable production on Long Island, they are producing much less than before. Also, areas that once produced large amount of fruits have

 

202

started to decrease their harvest numbers. Instead, counties like Wayne and Chautauqua have become the main fruit producing areas.

To determine the change in pesticide usage, the USDA Agricultural Census of 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007 were used. In 1987, around 2,341,334 acres of land were treated with pesticides while in 2007, 2,255,637 acres of land were treated

Vegetable Production 1987 to 2007 Acres Harvested Vegetable 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 Snap Beans 31,963 23,933 29,580 28,471 31,204 Cabbage 15,004 13,842 14,403 15,269 13,618 Sweet Corn 52,187 50,440 70,139 44,363 40,183 Dry Onions 11,635 12,066 13,734 11,516 18,911 Potatoes ---- 28,861 25,930 22,094 18,137 Green Peas 9,586 9,956 19,507 15,741 ** Census of Agriculture 1992, 1997,2002, 2007 Fruit Production 1987 to 2007 Acres Harvested Fruit 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 Apples 73,195 67,313 60,250 36,716 49,966 Grapes 36,916 34,250 33,047 53,233 42,544 ** Census of Agriculture 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007 Figure 12.13 Production of Fruit and Vegetables between 1987 and 2007 Results showed that New York is producing a larger variety of fruits and vegetables since the 1940s. This could be explained by introduction of a new technology during this period: pesticides. In 1951 to 1960, about 63% of fruits and nuts and 52% of vegetable were lost due to insects, weeds, diseases and nematodes (Ridgway et al. 1978). Since then, the U.S. and New York have been using pesticides very consistently, as shown in our data. With the help of pesticides, farmers are able to grow different fruits and vegetables that were not suitable for New York before the use of pesticides. Additionally, between 1940 and 1950, New York State had mainly been producing vegetables like cabbages, green peas, sweet corn, dry onions, tomatoes and green beans. However, since 1987, New York production of green beans and tomatoes decreased significantly compared to previous decades. New York has also significantly decreased production of peaches, pears, and cherries. In 2010, the majority of New York’s fruit production is devoted to apples and grapes. Results also showed that fruits and vegetable production has been decreasing steadily through the years. This could be explained by observing where fruits and vegetables are produced in New York. These results show us that fruit and vegetable productions have moved from New York City and toward Western and Northern New York. Since the 1940s, New York City has not been producing enough fruits and vegetables to fulfill its own demand. This can be linked to the rising premium placed on residential land; the City could not afford to devote land worth far more residentially developed to comparatively low value agricultural

 

203

production. Despite the decrease in available land, demand for fruits and vegetables has increased, so the only option was to move production to the outskirts of the city. As a result, by the late 1940s, Long Island, Western New York, and some areas in the North became the centers for fruit and vegetable production. Expansion continued until most of New York’s fruit and vegetable production took place in a few of the most westerly New York counties like Wayne, Monroe, and Niagara. Most scientists agree that having a sustainable food system in a city can make a city healthier in the long run (Feenstra 1997). New York City has been trying to promote farmers markets (areas where local farmers can sell their produce) and local farming (2010b). Many communities have also tried to plant and promote local gardens. Community gardens not only encourage sustainable food systems for the city, but they help create strong bonds within communities (Schmelzkopf 1995). Seafood and Shellfish

There is a general consensus among scientific sources that the seafood industry has done damage to the oceans and to the relationships between the many fish we find on menus and in supermarkets. There is debate as the extent of the destruction and whether it is irreparable or something we can fix. The exact numbers are unimportant - no matter what the percentage of decline is, there is still empirical evidence of a decline in fish population sizes. For the time period between 1940 and 2010, it is hard to pinpoint where “fish” come from. Different species can be found all over the world.

The trend of developments of modern fishing is that we no longer only eat what swims down the eastern seaboard. New advances in technology and developments in the extent of the global market have changed the way we consume fish in two notable ways. First, humans no longer have to wait for fish to come to them - we are now able to chase dense concentrations of fish wherever they may be. In Rupert Murray’s film about the ramifications of industrial fishing, The End of the Line, he notes that fish no longer stand a chance of survival once fishermen target them. They cannot escape: sonar, GPS, satellite imaging, spotter planes and massive fishing fleets are all used to pinpoint the exact location of large (and more importantly, valuable) fish aggregations (Murray 2009, 5). These technologies and others such as types of nets and ships are described in John Valdemarsen’s Technological Trends in Capture Fisheries, written in 2001. Up until the 1940s, the process of catching cod - a popular fish in North American seafood markets upon which New England built its fishing industry - was the same as it had been for over 200 years: a large skiff (a flat bottomed, open decked boat, in this case about 20 feet long) was manned by two men, who would hand-line (much like the common sport fishing technique of a rod and hooked line, except the line usually has multiple hooks and no rod is generally used) cod until at capacity, then return to shore or to a tender (a large hulled boats used by fisheries to transport fish from actively fishing vessels to a fish processing center) to offload. In the late 19th century, the development of powerful new steam engines was the first step towards the creation of trawlers (vessels that drag nets through the water) large enough to drag enormous nets at greater depths than ever possible before.

 

204

Figure 12.13 Factory Trawler and Trawling Net. A factory trawler is “a large stern trawler equipped with plant for gutting, filleting, freezing and storing fish and for processing fish oil and fish meal.” It uses massive, synthetic fiber nets towed through the water by one or more vessels to catch fish. (FAO 2010, 22)

William Warner’s book, Distant Water: The Fate of the North Atlantic Fisherman, written in 1982, discusses the specific changes in fishing vessels as he observed them - specifically the advent of the factory trawlers - that also have enabled humans to catch whatever fish they see fit. The second major change in consumption and production of seafood: the fish we catch are quickly processed and made ready for shipping to the highest bidders. William Warner writes:

Common to all factory trawlers are four essential elements that set them apart from the generation of fishing vessels that preceded them. These are a stern ramp or slipway...a sheltered belowdecks factory section with assembly-line machines to gut and fillet fish...an ammonia or freon refrigerating plant for the quick freezing and frozen storage of fish...and equipment to make fishmeal. (Warner 1983, 3)

Essentially, these trawlers became the ultimate fishing machines, constructed to streamline the entire process, from hunting, to catching, to filleting, to preserving fish, into a single vessel. Trawling nets, as described in Murray’s film, are taller than the Statue of Liberty, are able to contain thirteen 747 airplanes, and are kept open by heavy gears that roll along the ocean floor plowing through everything in their paths (Murray, 2009, 5). A stern ramp allowed nets literally bulging with many tons of fish could be pulled in easily from the back of the boat and no longer had to be maneuvered riskily over the ship’s sides (Warner also notes the importance of the invention of synthetic netting: prior to this tens of thousands of fish had been hard to contain without the net bursting). The rest of the equipment (filleting factory and freon refrigerator) meant that ships could make longer journeys and store larger stocks. Whereas they once had to return to port before their stores of fish spoiled (and could

 

205

only go so far because of this), now they were able to journey almost indefinitely - until their freezers were filled. Filleting also meant greater storage capabilities (no fish sliding in and out of shelving in rough waters, not that these steel giants were very susceptible to rough waters) and an instant readiness for markets around the globe. (Warner 1983, 3)

Invented by a Scottish man, the designs for trawl nets were seized upon by countries all around the world. Interestingly, the countries that adapted the designs and amassed a fleet the most rapidly were East Germany, West Germany, and the Soviet Union. The rate of massive vessel construction increased rapidly. One New York Times headline from the 1970s reads: “Superefficient Foreign Fleets Deplete Stocks Of Fish Off U.S. Shores” with the subtitle: “Coast Guard cutters plunge through lonesome seas to patrol the 12-mile perimeter forbidden to foreign fishing.” These foreign fleets were chasing the fish stocks that were the life-blood of the American East Coast and rapidly hoarding them. Warner continues:

The year 1974 marked the turning point. In that year alone 1,076 Western European and Communist-bloc fishing vessels swarmed across the Atlantic to fish North American waters. Their catch of 2,176,000 tons was ten times the New England and triple the Canadian Atlantic catch....Huge as the total catch might seem, the catch per vessel was down and the fish were running generally smaller than before, even though the foreign vessels fished longer hours with improved methods over a larger range for a greater part of the year (Warner 1983, 58).

This excerpt sums up the trend of the fishing boom of the mid-20th century. With new, super-efficient technology, industrialized nations scrambled to catch as many fish as possible. As this was happening, targeting technology was also advancing, which made vessels much more accurate. John Valdemarsen details this process in Technological Advances in Capture Fisheries. Sonar technology (developed for military purposes during World War II) found its way from submarines onto most ships and was soon accompanied by all sorts of computer-imaging and satellite sensing. Global Positioning Systems became standard on every vessel not only as a navigation device, but as a means for pinpointing the precise location of dense swarms of fish, by species and size. And if that was not enough, spotter planes were also used. (Valdemarsen 2001, 18)

 

206

Figure 12.14 Factory Trawling vessels built between 1942 and 1996. This graph illustrates the number of factory trawlers built between 1942 and 1996. Peaking around 1975, the number of vessels dropped temporarily during the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the late-1970s period of law-making regarding fishing regulations. (Valdemarsen 2001, 18) The technological development that caused the most indiscriminate damage to the physical environment and fish populations was known as “bottom-dragging.” Previously, fishermen had meticulously avoided dragging nets along the bottom of the ocean because of the damage it would cause to the net itself. A new technique of attaching chains (“ticklers”) or rubber rollers (“bottom-hoppers”) to the lower edge of the net provided a buffer that would prevent any escape of fish while wreaking wide swaths of destruction along the delicate ocean floor. This increased access to larger stocks of more valuable fish was occurring alongside developments in and around New York City itself. New York, always one of America’s main port cities, experienced an enormous shift in water quality during the twentieth century. During the years after World War II, the estuary in which New York City sits was literally thick with pollution termed sludge, which accumulated extremely quickly (Mitchell 1951, 8). All sorts of waste had been and was continuing to be dumped into the rivers. The water became devoid of oxygen while at the same time it was becoming saturated with literal garbage as well as chemicals from factories all along its banks.

The industrial waste consisted of heavy metals, including seven thousand pounds of zinc, copper, lead, chromium, and nickel...an oil by-product [called] polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons...pesticides from agriculture...and between the 1940s and the 1970s, General Electric dumped hundreds of thousands of pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, into the Hudson. (Kurlansky 2006, 272-273)

The potential for life in New York’s rivers had effectively been sapped. Mitchell noted in 1951 that the populations of fish in these areas were sparse and unhealthy (Mitchell 1951, 8). Kurlansky discusses the poisoning of entire populations of fish as chemicals like PCBs and DDT worked their way up the food chain. Some diseases include “fin erosion disease,”

 

207

“liver cancer,” and a mysterious blindness in Harlem catfish. This trend of increasing pollution in New York waterways continued throughout the 1970s. (Kurlansky 1997, 7) The 1970s saw a rise in concern for the environment all around America. Addressing the concern about pollution, Congress passed the 1972 Clean Water Act, “which gave a deadline of 1985 for all bodies of water in the United States to be swimmable and fishable” (Kurlansky 1997, 7). Kurlansky then notes that although all water in New York Harbor is technically “swimmable and most are fishable...the fish that are caught are not edible.” Fish in New York waters became increasingly inedible as the 20th century progressed, although our consumption of seafood did not decrease. In fact, it increased dramatically. In the middle of the 1970s, the United States government and the United Nations attempted to regulate the particulars of who could fish where and how, through the implementation of various laws and international agreements. One such law was the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, passed in 1976 (later amended in 1996) which addressed for the first time the government’s role in overseeing fishing practices in United States waters (Magnuson 1976 & 1996, 6). At the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it was internationally agreed that Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) - areas in which only one nation has the right to extract resources - would extend 200 nautical miles off the country’s coasts (FAO 2010, 22). David Anderson, in Modern Law of the Sea, asserts that it was the desire not for seafood but for oil, natural gas, and later, manganese nodules that influenced the changes in laws regarding national jurisdiction and the distance covered by this jurisdiction, as we were gradually depleting those materials that were closest to the coast (Warner 1983, 3).

The fishing industry in the United States did not start gaining traction until around the 1970s and early 1980s. “In 1962, the owner of a McDonald’s franchise in Cincinnati invented the Filet-O-Fish sandwich for Catholics who did not eat meat on Friday. Demand surged again.” Per capita seafood consumption rose from 10.9 pounds in 1966 to 14.5 pounds in 1985. Price fluctuations in the fish industry are harder to pin down: with farmed food we have a large measure of control but with wild fish, the last food that humans actively hunt, the catches vary. The fish industry by 1987, however, had become more lucrative than the chicken business, taking in about 16 billion dollars in annual revenue as compared to 14 billion dollars for the chicken industry. Surveys taken in 1987 indicate that about two-thirds of fish consumed in the United States is in restaurants - indicative of the late-to-bloom interest in fish in this country, although this was already changing by the time the article was written. (Kleinfield 1987, 20)

 

208

Figure 12.15 Global trends in the state of world marine stocks since 1974. This figure illustrates the way in which fish populations have been affected by the fishing over time (between 1974 and 2006). The number of fully-exploited stocks (stocks that cannot be fished beyond the current rate without impinging chances of population recovery) has decreased slightly only to increase again. The number of overexploited and depleted stocks (both beyond recovery, if the current trend and fishing rates continue) has increased dramatically. Moderately exploited and under-exploited stocks (under threat but not irreparably damaged) has steadily decreased (FAO 2009, 13).

“After tuna, shrimp is the most widely purchased seafood, in pounds sold, followed

by codfish, clams, and salmon” (Kleinfield 1987, 20). Demand for these fish will later be damaging: the shrimp industry is responsible for more by-catch than any other fishing industry (the spacing in the nets are, obviously, the smallest) (Murray 2009, 5) and codfish are to this very day being trawled way beyond sustainable limits as it is politically unfeasible to impose fishing bans when so many jobs rest on the pursuit of this fish (Kurlansky 1997, 7; Smith 2002, 19; Warner 1983, 3).

Canned fish (i.e. generic tuna) has consistently sold well in the United States partly because it requires little preparation. As people learned of potential health benefits (fewer calories, less fat) of seafood, the demand for it jumped, which signaled the shift from restaurant fish consumption to supermarket fish consumption. “The rapid rise in demand for seafood has drained American waters and taxed the nation’s fishing fleets. Hence, 64% of all the fish sold in the United States is imported...[making] this nation the world’s No. 2 importer of fish, after Japan” (Kleinfield 1987, 20). Fish imports have only gone up since 1987: today, the United States imports between 80 and 90 percent of the fish it eats (Barboza 2007, 21).

 

209

Figure 12.16 North American exports and imports of seafood between 1976 and 2006. This graph plots the amount of seafood imported and exported by Canada and the United States between 1976 and 2006. Imports have dramatically increased for both. Exports have also increased but not as quickly resulting in a deficit. {FAO 2009 #13}

Around the middle of the 1970s, aquaculture began to figure more prominently into

the fish industry. The State of World Fisheries 2009 notes a promising rise in aquaculture but The End of the Line points out its inherent failings: aquaculture uses wild fish to feed farmed fish and thus kills more than it produces. “On average, 5 kilos of anchovy make 1 kilo of salmon.” 40% of the world catch goes to feed farmed fish (Murray, 2009, 5).

Today, three signature species of fish - the Atlantic halibut (Warner 1983, 3), the codfish (Kurlansky 1997, 7; Smith 2002, 19), and the bluefin tuna (Montaigne 2007, 16) - have been depleted almost to extinction. Daniel Pauly, the scientist credited in The End of Line with discovering that China has been fabricating its catch statistics for at least a decade thereby enormously altering the world-wide trend (with China included, global marine catch is increasing rapidly; excluding China, the global marine catch reached its peak in 1998 and has leveled off and begun a slight decline since), writes in Fishing Down Food Webs (also in 1998) that humans began with the largest predator fish but, having depleted most of these, turned to increasingly smaller species of fish (Pauly 1998, 11). This trend is also discussed in The End of the Line: we have seen exploding populations of certain species and upon further investigation have discovered that we have killed off most of the species that typically eat them (Murray 2009, 5).

The image part with relationship ID rId97 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId98 was not found in the file.

 

210

Figure 12.17 Availability of seafood types in the Northern Atlantic Ocean between 1970 and 2006. These two graphs plot the prevalence of different types of seafood in the Atlantic Ocean between 1970 and 2006. Population declines have been most marked in the Northwest Atlantic. Populations in both the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic have declined over time. (FAO 2009, 13)

By specifically examining cod, once the lifeblood of the North Eastern American

fishing industry, it is easy to see the greater trends at work. Cod, which sticks to the colder areas found along the outer Northern edges of the Atlantic ocean, reaches maturity at 2-4 years of age and can live as long as 20 years. Unlike salmon, cod can survive to spawn many times in their lifetime, with females averaging production of 1 million eggs per, leading many to believe that supplies of the fish were virtually unlimited. The cooked flesh of cod is white and flaky with a rather bland taste. In the past cod enjoyed popularity as a plentiful fish with a remarkably low fat content (making it last longer after preservation than other food forms); it was an ideal source of food for the long voyages of seafarers (Kurlansky 1997, 2). Although significantly less plentiful today, cod’s low fat content make it an obvious choice for “deep-fat frying,” an ever popular method of cooking that results in the fish equivalent of a Twinkie®.

 

211

Figure 12.18 Cod Capture in the US from 1950 through 2008. The above graph shows the amount of Atlantic Cod in tonnes captured by the United States between 1950 and 2008. The above graph shows the amount of Atlantic Cod captured by the United States

(in tonnes) between 1950 and 2008. The graph shows an overall decline in capture 1950-57, followed by a gradual overall increase until 1976. During the years 1976-83, there was observed a period of huge capture growth, followed by a return to pre-boom capture amounts between 1986 and 1993. Subsequent years show catches averaging about half of the yield of 50 years before. There are three important broad characteristics of this graph to note. The first is the small, but significant overall increase from 1950-76. The second is the peak: the explosion in fish yield between 1976-83. The third is the sad and sudden decline of yield from 1992 to the present, with the low in 2005 almost precisely one-tenth of the yield of the high in 1980. The first gradual increase is a result of the increased effectiveness of the fishing and production methods developed, along with the creation of a moderate coastal boundary reserved for U.S. fishermen (discussed at length in the “Literature Review”). Bottom dragging was the near-universal approach to capture, and entire schools could be spotted and exterminated using SONAR. Filleting machines and freezing technology had long been established, and Americans had become accustomed to fish as an affordable and available component of their diet. The second trend, the explosion between 1976-83, can be attributed to the sudden loss of foreign fisherman due to the 200-mile border established. As stated in 1978 by a member of an old American fishing family, “There are plenty of fish out there now that the foreigners are away” (Kurlansky 2008, 1). Perpetually increasing catch (due in large part to ever advancing technology) gave rise to a perceived increase of available fish which in turn led to an increase in fishermen who in turn manned more fleets, thus increasing catch and perpetuating the belief in the inexhaustible ocean and in our right to as much as we could catch. Also contributing was the belief of scientists at the time that the explosion in the catch reflected a similar explosion in cod population, instead of the simple truth: the population had not changed significantly, just the percentage of fish caught from it (Kurlansky 2008,1). The third trend, the decline to the present, reflects the limited remaining population of cod and the quotas desperately put into place once the error was realized.

 

212

Figure 12.19 The state of world fish stocks in 1999. This bar-graph plots the state of fish stocks in 1999 by the percentage of fish stocks at each population status. 1% of fish stocks are recovering. 9% are depleted. 18% are overexploited (at risk of depletion). 47% are fully-exploited (fished the maximum capacity). 21% are moderately exploited. 4% are under-exploited. (FAO 2001, 12)

Figure 12.20 Per capita seafood consumption between 1970 and 2000 projected to 2020. This graph plots trends in global amounts of seafood per-capita between 1970 and 2000 and then projects this trend into the future to the year 2020. (Duda 2002, 10)

Imports & Exports All of the developments in the seafood, produce and beverage industries have contributed to the broader trend of import growth. Exports have grown as well, but not as rapidly. As new capabilities arose in terms of transport and manufacturing and hunting (in the case of seafood), we began to draw goods from greater distances. There are many complex and overlapping trends observed between 1940 and 2010. Contemporary leaders

 

213

are still facing many of the same challenges that arose in the 1940s and 1950s. Since its establishment, New York City’s success has depended heavily on trade. During the first half of the twentieth century, the New York Times reported that 25% of jobs in the city relied on foreign trade (Special to The New York 1958). This statistic illustrates the constant role imports and exports have played in the development of New York, as does Figure 12.16. By the 1940, New York was already importing fruits grown in South America. New Yorkers were starting to enjoy fruits in the winter imported from Mexico, such as black cherries, red wine, Santa Rosa plums, apricots, as well as grapes, pears, and honeydew melons from Argentina (1940). In 1943, researches started working with farmers in small town in Mexico to produce heartier strains of wheat, corn, and beans, and in 1950 their research pays off when the crop yields are significantly higher than the same crops in the United States (1952). Initially, these fruits were expensive and considered delicacies, but gradually expanded into the common market and today honeydew melons are scarcely considered more exotic than the apple. Much of the food New Yorkers eat is also from California or Florida, while food produced in New York State is sold to buyers in Pennsylvania and Connecticut (Hewitt 1970). As access to the city’s markets became increasingly limited around the 1950s, the need for some sort of trade or infrastructure change was necessary. The Washington Street market, one of the main marketplaces in New York City, was getting increasingly congested as the 20th century reached its middle. Small local farmers in upstate New York could not get their products to the market. Instead, they began sending it to another developing market in the Bronx, located near today’s Yankee stadium. The Hunt’s Point Terminal Market was constructed in the 1960s in the Bronx to replace the Washington Street market, which was plagued by packed streets. The move changed little as the Hunts Point Market soon grew just as crowded. Today it petitions for expansion (Matt Barron 2010). When the Washington Street market was moved to this market at Hunt’s Point, the farmers were again crowded out and needed to distribute their produce to other states (Seymour 1959). This is still true today: a lot of the small upstate farmers simply don’t have the means, the funds, or the trucks to deliver to food to places like the Bronx, whereas more corporate farmers from different places around the country have more money to invest and an interstate highway system over which to ship their goods. Certain distribution companies have been created in order to provide farmers from upstate New York with access to New York City markets, but because there is little demand for products from New York (often more expensive), the distributors must charge even higher prices which again, the farmers cannot afford, creating a difficult cycle to get out of (Matt Barron 2010).

Another reason that the food New Yorkers consumed in this era came from increasingly further distances is the expansion of the population into surrounding areas. Individuals owning farms near the city realized they could make more money selling their land, a large percent of which was converted into public housing works (Hewitt 1970). In the 1970’s, many buyers had set up long-term contracts with producers out west, further cutting off upstate New Yorkers from the city market, and this is still true today.

The abundance of supply also became important in the 1970s. In 1974, for instance, there was a three day strike at the Hunt’s Point Terminal Market, yet the New York Times reported that while some consumers stocked up on food items, their grocers and butchers advised them not to. These grocers and butchers were confident that they could receive shipments of food from the markets of other cities, such as Philadelphia, Providence, Rhode Island or Hartford, Connecticut, at comparable prices (Sheppard 1974). In 2010, if one distributor is unable to make a delivery for whatever reason, there is no cause for concern

 

214

because the supply is so vast that it can be obtained from elsewhere with relative ease (Matt Barron 2010). The Hunt’s Point Terminal Market was providing 20 million people in the metropolitan area, upstate New York, New Jersey, Long Island, and Connecticut with food in 1974. Today it brings in more revenue than any other food market in the world, and is threatening to move to New Jersey if it is not soon updated to better meet consumer demands. The Hunt’s Point Terminal Market was constructed with equal accommodations for railways and trucks, not expecting the decline in railway transport and a boom in trucking (Hess 1974). Present-day statistics illustrate New York’s particular dependence on trucks to facilitate trade:

 

215

Figure 12.20 Domestic food imports to Region 68 by mode of transport by percentage weight in 2002. Aggregated food commodities entering Region 68 from domestic origins by mode of transport by percentage weight. The following pie charts illustrate the present-day movement of food throughout Sector 68 (which includes an area beyond New York City):

Figure 12.21 Food imports into Region 68 by percentage weight. Food commodities entering Region 68 from domestic origins by percentage weight (total: 28.6 million tons), 2002.

 

216

Figure 12.22 Regional origins of food imports to Region 68 by percentage weight in 2002. Regional origin of food commodities entering Region 68 by percentage weight, 2002.

Figure 12.23 Regional origins of food imports to Region 68 excluding New York. Regional origin of food commodities entering Region 68 by percentage weight, with Region 68 removed as an origin. These charts demonstrate that much of what moves through New York City and its surrounding areas originates from within the United States but from outside of New York

 

217

state. Therefore, though New York historically has been the greatest center of imports and exports of the United States, much of its food does not travel very far to reach its destination. The pie charts are somewhat problematic, however, because Sector 68 includes area beyond the city. Because extra data is included, the numbers are inevitably somewhat inaccurate, yet still useful. Because information is grouped and generalized in these statistics, many specific bits of data are unknown. DISCUSSION Many technological advances in mass production have brought the United States into a steep climb in consumption. Since the 1940s, levels of consumption have expanded rapidly, due to the increase in amount of purchasable goods in the city and the country as a whole. We are now in a situation wherein we must decide whether or not we will be more conscious of our effects on our environment. New York City will not be able to boast about its status as one of the five major cities that does not use filtration in its water supply system for much longer. The DEP sees maintaining the city’s watershed as one of its top priorities. As the DEP says in plaNYC, “the health, welfare, and economic well being of New Yorkers are all intrinsically linked to the quality of our drinking water.”(City of New York 2006) plaNYC is a report produced by the DEP in 2006 outlining New York City’s environmental sustainability plans. The City has taken aggressive steps to preserve our water quality, including planning for the building of a major water filtration plant in the Bronx for the Croton Reservoir system, and purchasing almost 80,000 acres [in addition to the 114,000 it already owns] to protect our watersheds from development. As a result, the Catskill and Delaware Watersheds provide some of the country’s purest water.” (City of New York 2006, 65) Because “privately-owned forests and farms cover two-thirds of the [Delaware and Catskill] watershed land area,” the City realizes that it “must work with foresters to establish sustainable forest management plans and to ensure the overall health of these important buffers for the city’s water supply.” (City of New York 2006, 66) Pollution is not the only evil jeopardizing New York City’s water supply. The Croton, Delaware and Catskill aqueducts were all built between sixty and one-hundred and twenty years ago; 1940 in the Delaware’s case and 1893 in the Croton’s case. (Ezemen 1990) Now, the aqueducts are leaking. “An estimated 15 to 36 million gallons per day of water is being lost from the Delaware Aqueduct, or 4% of its daily volume peak flows.”(City of New York 2006) Water leaked from the Delaware Aqueduct periodically flooded the homes in Wawarsing, an upstate town with a population of 12,000. To perform the repair work, the aqueducts may need to be shut down and drained. In 2008, the City enlisted six deep-sea divers to fix a valve that will eventually allow the Delaware Aqueduct to be drained and repaired. (Belson 2008) Removing water completely from the aqueducts is problematic because none of the aqueducts have a redundant backup tunnel that water could flow through in the event of their failure. New York City could not deal with shutting off the Delaware or Catskill aqueducts without throwing residents into a huge water shortage, because the Delaware and Catskill aqueducts combined carry 90% of New York City’s water. The two tunnels that bring water from the reservoirs into the City are also in need of repair. Begun in 1970, City Water Tunnel No. 3 will enhance and improve the City’s water delivery system, and allow for the inspection and repair of City Water Tunnels No. 1 and No. 2 for the first time since they were put into service, in 1917 and 1936, respectively. City Water Tunnel No. 3 is being built in stages and is one of the largest and most expensive

 

218

projects in New York City’s history. Bottled water is still prevalent in New York City, but efforts are being made to lessen the environmental impact of the plastic packaging used. The seventy-year period from 1940 to 2010 showed the entire milk production process move out of New York City. Advances in technology allowed raw milk to be transported further distances, and rising real estate prices in New York City made it more profitable for dairy companies to move their processing plants to a cheaper environment. In terms of agriculture, there seemed to be two trends at work since the middle of the twentieth century. Since the 1940s, there has been a great increase in the use of pesticides. Although there has recently been a push to produce organic fruits and vegetables without the use of any pesticides, the levels of pesticides in use have yet to decline significantly, and are still marginally increasing. Public support for organic foods, however, seems to signal the potential for a demand to decrease the use of these chemicals. New York is producing fewer and fewer amounts of fruits and vegetables. To accommodate a growing population and declining production, the City is importing most of its fruits and vegetables from other states and even other countries. If current trends continue, the production of fruits and vegetables will continue to move away from New York City and even away from New York State. To support the production of fruits and vegetables in New York, the state and the city must start to seriously explore the idea of sustainable food systems and must undertake the creation of these systems. Only then will New York once again grow its own produce, ideally organically, and contribute to healthy and viable communities. Vertical farming and utilizing roof space for gardens are two ideas that the City is exploring to start growing produce.

Since its inception, ready access to the Hudson River and to the Atlantic Ocean has helped New York flourish. Coastal access to these waterways made it one of the main ports for the United States and turned it into what it is today: the economic capital of the country, if not the world. New York is a commercial center, a consumption center. To the east, one can behold the Atlantic Ocean, which transported and nourished the fledgling New York and continues to share its wealth with us. The sea, supposedly inexhaustible, gave life to the coastal civilizations of early America and has provided jobs and food for generations. We have drawn from it for our entire history, through our industrial climb to the top of the world. In the past fifty years, however, we have become too industrialized and too efficient. What was once commonly thought of as an endlessly renewable resource is quickly proving the converse. The ocean is most definitely exhaustible. To compound the problem, the damage to the oceans goes unseen until it is too late. In fact, it is this mentality that has brought about the depleted fish stocks around the world; perhaps because we think of fish as food, not creatures, and because we view the ocean as our own vast dinner bucket not as its own complex ecosystem, that we have haphazardly been hoarding loads of fish as big as we could carry.

The trends in the fishing industry that we have witnessed between the 1940s and 2010 seem to point to one conclusion: we have caused the current crisis. Modern, mechanized methods of fishing that developed during the 1950s and took major hold during the 1960s and 1970s were destructive to oceanic ecosystems and the life contained within them. Laws were passed by the United States, the United Nations and individual countries around the world in attempts to address the issues of overfishing and destruction of ocean ecosystems. The size of vessels would decrease in the decades following this law-making period, indicative perhaps of an acknowledgement of their over-efficiency.

Pollution levels in New York harbor and across oceans worldwide increased drastically between the 1940s and today. The advent of new factories making and disposing

 

219

new chemicals meant a wide range of damaging substances entered New York’s and the world’s waterways. At times pollution was so bad that fish were killed off, forced to leave the area, or poisoned. There were attempts to address this issue as well but pollution continues to be a serious issue.

Demonstrative of the difficulty of enforcing oceanic law, overfishing continued through the 1980s and 1990s. Catch levels peaked around 1998 (exceeding national quotas in many cases for many consecutive years) and have begun to decline since then which seems to indicate that fish populations were so damaged during our feeding frenzy that they are unable to recover - at least, unable to recover so long as we continue consuming them at the current rate (Murray 2009, 5).

Depletion of many fish populations and the trends of exploitation of various species have coincided with the boom in the fishing industry and with the increase in pollution (attributable in large part to the expansion of industrialization as a whole). Many scientists predict that if fishing methods and consumption levels do not change, we will have caused the collapse of most fish species we eat by the middle of the twenty first century. Drawing food, particularly seafood, from greater distances means many things for the food quality: the food is harder to keep fresh and its source becomes increasingly depleted. Imports and exports have grown between 1940 and 2010; however, the former has grown more quickly than the latter, resulting in a trade deficit. This trend helps explain a number of issues that New York finds itself grappling with. As populations grow unchecked, congestion and expansion of infrastructure become more and more important as we need to accommodate ever-greater volumes of food exchange, a ready supply of food, foreign products being absorbed into American diets, and a general dependence on American food suppliers from out of state. As time goes on and population increases, there is the constant need for expansion. Another important theme observed from 1940 to 2010 in terms of imports and exports of food is that the common diets of New Yorkers include items that were once delicacies, a phenomenon likely to become more common in the wake of globalization. Nevertheless, most of New York’s food supply comes from within the nation rather than being imported from foreign countries. These trends are likely to continue in the future, with volumes constantly increasing and infrastructure capacities increasingly stressed. CONCLUSION In conclusion, our upward trends of consumption seem to have reached a crisis point. Technological advances in all industries have allowed rapid development to take place without a concern for the consequences. In the beverage market, water became increasingly processed for purposes of cleanliness but bottled water consumption continues to rise. Milk also went through a similar process: homogenized and mass-produced very far from your local grocery store. Farming practices in New York have involved an increase in the use of pesticides over the past few decades. More fruits and vegetables are being brought in from out-of-state. In order for these foods to remain intact and appealing they must be treated with various chemicals. The middle of the twentieth century saw the invention of the refrigerator, which greatly increased our ability to save and preserve foods. This was a crucial change in the fishing industry: filleting, freezing, and preserving fish on-board factory trawlers enabled them trawl for weeks. No longer did fishermen risk spoiling a catch by chasing another, potentially valuable aggregation of fish. This also meant fish could easily come to New York from all over the world. Fish could be sold from wherever they were

 

220

caught, emblematic of the dramatic changes in the global market. We could and did buy more and more of our products from overseas. Throughout the United States, imports and exports have risen. Imports, however, have risen at a much faster rate, creating a trade deficit. The human desire for growth and expansion has resulted in a somewhat haphazard attitude towards the environment. Americans have always treated resources as inexhaustible. Consumption rates reflect this ideology. Every industry has seen an increase in the consumption of its products. Populations are growing but this growth does not balance the growth in consumption. This demand for more products has created a mass-manufacturing mentality that encourages the cheapest ways to make the best-looking products. The supermarket mentality is all about appearances: we see something we like (advertisers do a good job of taking appealing pictures) and we purchase enormous quantities. In a supermarket, the world of salty-sweet-sour is at our fingertips, more or less. We can choose from a seemingly endless array of food that pretends to be real food, browse through the petrified mimicry of all the world’s cuisines. Most people are not conscious of the way they consume let alone what they consume. In this day and age it is difficult to know about each of the ingredients in the products we buy. One thing is for certain, though: we must make an attempt to learn. Beverages are becoming increasingly packaged and processed. Fruits and vegetables are subject to more and more treatment in an attempt to make something like an always smooth, always bright red tomato - forget whether it’s watery or anywhere close to what a tomato should be or taste like. Our consumption of seafood has led to the decline of fish populations around the world. Our fishing rates are entirely unsustainable - a perfect example of the way in which a food source’s obscurity can lead to unfettered and un-conscious consumption of it. As imports rise and exports decrease, we are finding ourselves in a fiscal situation that quite simply leaves us at a loss. The longevity of these food sources - of all food sources - and of the environment from which we draw them depends entirely on our ability to become interested in consumption. What do we eat? Where does it come from? We need to care about these things. More than that, we need to make conscious, careful choices about what we eat and why but more importantly what we do not eat and why not. Everyone prefers organic but everyone also likes the luxury of the infinite aisle. As food sources become not only less fresh but actively depleted, we find ourselves in an increasingly dire situation. Mass manufacturing techniques and materials are also having a negative impact on the state of the world. New York City produces a very small portion of what it consumes. Most of it comes from outside: from other states and other nations. Cheap substitutes and imitations are pretty much always cheaper than local, organic food. In a corporate world, in the global market, the substitutes and imitations will prevail - and this victory will cost the jobs of small farmers and the health of Americans. The land of packaged plenty is predicated on the idea that what we want is unlimited and also on the idea that we need access to every food variant we can think of (and under one roof, no less). Our results have shown that this is far from the truth; in fact, it is entirely untrue. Either we act now towards some sustainable future or the food we take for granted might just dry up and disappear (if it hasn’t already been shipped in from the other side of the planet, freeze-dried, powdered, or made microwavable).

 

221

REFERENCES 2009. Gastropolis: Food and New York City. NYC: Columbia University Press.

2010a. EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides. Foodnews.com.

(2010b) FoodNYC: A Blueprint for a sustainable food system. 1-45.

2010c. Pesticides. Washington D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency,.

Agency, E. P. 1999. Turbidity Provisions. In EPA Guidance Manual.

Anderson, A. W. 1939. Fishery Market News 1939. In Bureau of Fisheries Report, ed. R. H. Fielder. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior.

Anderson, D. 2008. Modern Law of the Sea. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Anonymous. 1938. $2,500,000 Depot for Milk Opened. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1939. Milk in Boxes. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1952a. Sheffield Plant Resold To CBS. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1952b. Sheffield Sells West Side Plant. New York Times. May 16, 1952.

Anonymous. 2008. Plumber’s Job on a Giant’s Scale: Fixing New York’s Drinking Straw. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1995. How Albany Works, Lesson 1: Lobbying: The Beverage Industry Pushes Hard for a Tax Break, and Succeeds. New York Times. June 12, 1995.

Anonymous. 1937. New Plants Rise Along Rail Route. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1940. Food News of the Week. New York Times

Anonymous. 1945. Food Leaders Fight New Set-Up By U.S. New York Times

Anonymous. 1952. Business Outlook Called Good Here. New York Times

Anonymous. 1997. Pouring It On Extra Virgin Oil as a Staple. New York Times

Barboza, D. 2007. A Slippery, Writhing Trade Dispute. The New York Times 3 July 2007.

Bergfeld, E. C. Y. a. A. J. 1949. Methods Employed in an Analisys of the Spread between Farm and Consumer Milk Prices in New York City. Journal of Farm Economics, 31, 1194-1202.

Blake, N. M. 1956. Water for the Cities. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Boyle, E. 2008. Bottlemania. New York, NY: Bloomsbury USA.

 

222

Campana, S. E. 2009. Photographic Atlas of Fish Otoliths of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. 284. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada.

Carey, R. A. 1999. Agaist the Tide: The Fate of the New England Fisherman. NYC: Houghton Mifflin.

Census of Agriculture. 1950. United States Census of Agriculture: 1950 Mid Atlantic States ed. United States Department of Agriculture.

Census of Agriculture. 1992. County Level Data. ed. United States Department of Agriculture, 385-399, 401-414.

Census of Agriculture. 1997. County Level Data. ed. United States Department of Agriculture, 380-419.

Census of Agriculture. 2002. County Level Data. ed. United States Department of Agriculture, 372-373, 386-405, 407-412, 414-417.

Census of Agriculture. 2007. County Level Data. ed. United States Department of Agriculture, 437-464, 466-478.

Chao, D. L. V. a. G. 2006. Aquaculture Law And Policy : Towards Principled Access And Operations. ed. J. I. L. Program.

City of New York. 2008. Progress Report 2008 on Water Network. New York: The City of New York.

City of New York. 2006. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater, New York. New York: The City of New York.

Cotter, B. 2009. The 1939-1940 New York World's Fair. Charleston, SC: Aracdia Publishing.

David A Rubinos, M. A., Carlos Aymerich, Francicso Diaz-Fierros (2005) Aluminum Contents in Drinking Water from Public Water Supplies of Galicia (Northwest Spain). Water Resources.

Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. History of New York City's Water Supply System.

Dillon, J. J. 1941. Seven Decades of Milk.

Drohan, A. F. 2007. Essential fish habitat source document. ed. United States Department of Commerce. Woods Hole, Massachusetts: Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Duda, A. (2002) A New Imperative for Improving Management of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45, 797-833.

Ellis, R. 2003. The Empty Ocean: Plundering the World’s Marine Life. Washington: Shearwater Books.

 

223

Ezemen, E. G. M. 1990. The New York Environment Book. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

FAF. 2006. Commodity Origin-Destination Database.

Federal Highway Administration. 2002.

Feenstra, G. W. (1997) Local Food Systems and Sustainable Communities. American Journal of Alternatice Agriculture, 12, 28-36.

Fowle. 1959. New City Market In Bronx Backed. New York Times

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2001. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000. 135. Rome: FAO.

--------. 2009. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. 175. Rome: FAO.

--------. 2010. Fisheries Dept Glossary. In FAO Fisheries Dept.

--------. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO of the U.N.

--------. 1999. Number of Fishers, 1970-1996. ed. F. Dept., 131. Rome: FAO of the U.N.

--------. 2010a. CECAF (Eastern Central Atlantic) Capture Production.

--------. 2010b. FAOSTAT - Consumption. FAO.

Gandy, M. 2002. Concrete and Clay. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Giuliani, R. W. 1997. New York City 1997 Water Supply Statement.

Goñi, R. (1998) Ecosystem Effects of Marine Fisheries: an Overview. Ocean & Coastal Management, 40, 37-64.

Greenberg, S. 2003. Waterworks. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Grimes, W. 2009. Appetite City: A Culinary History of New York. New York, NY: North Point Press.

GrowNYC. 2009. GrowNYC Annual Report. 1-32. New York.

Habstritt, M. 2005. Manhattanville and New York City's Milk Supply.

HAER. 1986. Sheffield Farms Milk Plant: Written Historical and Descriptive Data.

Halweil, B. 2006. Catch of the Day: Choosing Seafood for Healthier Oceans. Danvers: Worldwatch Institute.

Harris, E. S. (1967) Impact of Transportation Changes on Price Structures in City Milk Markets. Journal of Farm Economics, 49, 844-851.

 

224

Hays, C. L. 2004. The Real Thing. New York Random House.

Hess. 1974. Hunts Point Market, Called 'Grocer's Dream,' Proving Nightmare to Many. New York Times (1923-Current file).

Hewitt. 1970. Why Local Produce Is Becoming Rarity. New York Times

Hunter Water. 2008. Alum in Drinking Water Fact Sheet.

Kleinfield, N. 1987. Across America, the Fish Are Jumpin'. New York Times 1 March 1987.

Kurlansky, M. 1997. Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. New York: Walker and Co.

Kurlansky, M. 2006. The Big Oyster: New York in the World - a Molluscular History. London: Jonathan Cape.

Kurlansky, M. 2008. The Last Fish Tale. NYC: Penguin Group.

Magnuson, W. 1976 & 1996. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. ed. U. S. Congress.

Manhattan Milk. 2009. Manhattan MIlk is Your New Local Milk Man.

Matt Barron, B. G., Claire Ho, et al (2010) Understanding NYC's Food Supply. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mpaenvironment/pages/documents/UnderstandingNYCsFoodSupply_May2010.pdf

Mitchell, J. 1951. The Bottom of the Harbor. In The New Yorker. New York City.

Miyazaki, N. 2005. Mankind and the Oceans. New York: United Nations University Press.

Montaigne, F. 2007. Still Waters: the Global Fish Crisis. In National Geographic. Tampa: National Geographic Society.

Murray, R. 2009. The End of the Line. United States: New Video Group.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. 2005 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. New York.

---. 2009. New York City 2009 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. New York.

---. 2010. Filtration Avoidance Annual Report

Patrick, M. 1995. High Seas Fisheries Management Agreement: on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. United Nations.

Pauly, D. 2003. In A Perfect Ocean: The State Of Fisheries And Ecosystems In The North Atlantic Ocean. Washington: Island Press.

 

225

Pauly, D. (1998) Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science, 279, 860-863.

Raymo, C. R. a. M. E. 2007. Written In Stone: A Geological History Of The Northeastern United States. Hensonville: Black Dome Press Corp.

Ridgway, R. L., J. C. Tinney, J. T. MacGregor & N. J. Starler (1978) Pesticide Use in Agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 27, 103-112.

Roberts, C. 2007. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Washington: Shearwater Books.

Rovell, D. 2006. First In Thirst. New York, NY: Amacom Books.

Sanderson, E. W. 2009. Manahatta: A Natural History of New York City. NYC: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Schmelzkopf, K. (1995) Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space. Geographical Review, 85, 364-381.

Seymour. 1959. City To Get Plan For Huge Market. New York Times

Sheppard. 1974. Produce Markets Feel Effects Of 3-Day Strike at Hunts Point. New York Times

Smith, C. 2002. North Sea Cod Crisis Brings Call for Nations to Act. New York Times 7 November 2002.

Special to the New York. 1958. One Job in 4 Here Is Held Dependent On Foreign Trade. New York Times

Steinback, S. R. 2006. Northeast Region Commercial Fishing Input-Output Model. 54. Woods Hole, Massachusetts: U.S. Dept. Of Commerce, National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1940. Population of the 100 Largest Urban Places: 1940.

Valdemarsen, J. W. (2001) Technological Trends in Capture Fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44, 635-651.

Voorhees, D. V. 2010. Fisheries of the United States 2009. ed. A. Lowther. Silver Spring: National Marine Fisheries Service - Office of Science and Technology.

Warner, W. 1983. Distant Water: the Fate of the North Atlantic Fisherman. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

World Health Organization. 1990. Public Health Impact Of Pesticides Used In Agriculture. 1-128. England.

 

226

-13-

FROM MEATS TO BEVERAGES: The evolution of urban food markets in New York City during the global era

by Julia Gorbach, Jose Jaime, Hannah Kim, Yuliya Kozachenko, and Maisha Lopa

INTRODUCTION The 20th century and the ushering of the global era have shown dramatic changes in all spheres of American life. Many of these developments have also affected how and where food is grown, made and processed, as well as the locations and functions of our markets. Changes in the locations, functions, and types of urban food markets are directly linked to the changes in the locations and functions to food production sites. In particular, population growth in New York City and technological advances in different urban food production, processing, and markets have greatly affected our food industries. Most significantly, population growth has led to a high rise in wider demands for markets offering a variety of products. In the global era (1940 to the present day), there has been a decline in singular markets and the birth and growth of supermarkets, which are businesses and companies offering a wide range of goods and services. It is becoming ever apparent that the majority of our food, bread, fresh produce, meat, and beverages are now being sold at such supermarket chains and stores. One exception to this modern phenomenon is the seafood and shellfish industry, which still relies on the Fulton Fish Market as the main source of seafood and as a main provider for wholesale companies and restaurants. Even so, supermarkets have developed methods of incorporating and providing certain varieties of seafood for the general public in-store. This shift from locally sustained, small-scale distribution stores to a global marketing system has, in turn, revolutionized the type and quality of food consumed. Technological developments have also influenced and altered the production, processing, and marketing techniques food industries use. Many of these advancements have enabled producers to ship food over long distances and have allowed markets to increase product shelf-life. Such developments that have transformed the food industry include, new processing equipments, expedited and adapted shipping strategies, innovations in marketing, and shifts in the locations and characteristics of urban markets themselves. There have also been dramatic changes in wheat processing and production on the local, national, and international levels, particularly during the Industrial Revolution and World War eras. America's most bountiful crop, corn, has proliferated into the production process of a multitude of products, most notably beverages, through High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), a form of corn syrup, and changed the beverage industry and impacted the consumption of beverages as well. Through this paper, we will explore the various changes that have occurred in population, technological developments and food industries. LITERATURE REVIEW Despite the fact that our population has been growing at an increasing rate since the 1950s, the number of farms in the United States has decreased from 5.4 million to a mere 2

 

227

million in the 1990s. (“Changes…”) In addition decreasing farm land, the percent of population of farm residents has plummeted from a whopping 16% to 1.2%. Despite the dramatic decrease, farm efficiency has greatly increased and has allowed each farmer to increase the number of people he or she can feed from 17 to 132 people within the past six decades. (“Changes…”) Thus, it is apparent that industrialization and improvements in farming technology have had a noticeable impact on farming productivity.

In addition, the move towards industrialization and globalization has left many small-scale private farmers in the dust. The business of owning and maintaining a farm is expensive, and usually results in higher costs of labor and higher prices of product. Some neoclassical economists argue that consumers no longer need their own farmers because a wealthy nation can afford to cheaply import food from poorer countries. This is the direct result of advancements in technology and the use of genetic modification and pesticides, all of which small farmers have trouble keeping up with. Local small town farmers face the growing demand to lower product prices even though the cost of production continues to increase.

Large farms are also at an advantage compared to family farms. By the year 1994, 9 % of produce came from 73 % of farms and the 122,000 largest farms, representing only 6% of the total number of farms, received close to 60 percent of total farm receipts. (Lang 150) Aside from statistical changes, the locations of farms and concentrations of certain crop farms have shifted dramatically. Presently, statistics from several wholesale markets in the U.S demonstrate that fruits and vegetables are traveling longer distances, such as 2,500 to 4,000 kilometers, from farm to market, which represents an increase of roughly 20 % in the last two decades. (Halweil 29) This increase in distance is directly related to demographics. Within the last half century, millions of people have relocated from small suburban centers of food production into highly populated urban locations and cities. (Halweil 29) Even as early as the 1950s, virtually all fruits and vegetables consumed in major American cities were grown on nearby farms. Today, thanks to lower gasoline prices and advanced technologies, local farming has become the most inefficient and expensive way of growing produce. Despite the fact that we now ship food over larger and larger distances, the cost of shipping produce decreases each year. This trend can be attributed to advances in produce transportation and processing technologies. For example, it now costs 70 % less to ship cargo by sea and 50 % less to ship by air than it did 20 years ago. (Halweil 36) Even as early as 1961, the use of refrigerated trucks and the intricate highway system made it easier to package food and distribute it elsewhere; thus, leading to more widespread distribution of perishable foods. (Burk 70) In the United States, annual expenditures for shipping food have grown from just over $4 billion in 1967 to nearly $24 billion in 1997, and yet have declined from 7 % to 5 % as a share of the total food marketing bill during the period. (Halweil 36) Such observations in the food industry can be explained by the introduction of new technologies. Technological advances

An important technological achievement in the fruit industry is the invention of orange juice concentrate. Prior to World War II, oranges could only be enjoyed in certain seasons and by people in temperature regions in which the fruit could be freshly shipped to. Yet during the war, due to the high demand of orange juice for overseas troops, American scientists developed a process for concentrating the orange juice by adding a small amount of unconcentrated juice for taste, vacuum sealing it in cans and then passing the cans

 

228

through a freezing tunnel before shipping them in refrigerated ocean liners, boxcars and trucks. (Halweil 36) This process freed the orange industry from seasonal and geographic constraints.

Even so, seasonal constraints were still quite in effect for other fruits and vegetables. In 1961, total marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables were lightest in the winter season, which accounted for 1/5 of the annual unloads. (Burk 33) Accordingly, the heaviest marketing of fruits and vegetables occurred during the summer. Today, however, advanced technology has done away with limitations that caused these disparities and allowed the fruit and vegetable markets to be bountiful all year long. Another essential innovation for the fruit industry was the British development of “controlled atmosphere storage” for apples. (Halweil 32) The goal of the invention was to slow down the ripening of apples by lowering oxygen levels and raising carbon dioxide levels in the air. To this day, almost all apples are stored and shipped in this type of environment. Many of the vegetables are now quick-frozen and internationally shipped to various locations. (Gaull 208) The 1961 edition of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook clearly states that the process of quick freezing foods is the “outstanding development” in processing and has affected the rate and seasonal consumption of most produce. (Burk 69)

Another device for preserving produce involves adding nitrogen gas to plastic bags containing pre-cut salads. (Halweil 32) The controlled atmosphere created by the nitrogen gas reduces browning of the lettuce leaves and allows salads to remain fresh for longer amounts of time. In addition, the discovery of ethylene now allows fruit producers to ship produce while it is still unripe and to ripen it upon arrival to the destination using ethylene gas. (Halweil 32) For example, 80 % of fresh tomatoes on the market today are ripened by ethylene.

Another interesting innovation, albeit a relatively simple one, is the removal of water as a method of food preservation. For example, field-drying peas reduces shipping costs and limits growth of microorganisms, but the peas need to be soaked overnight with a soda tablet in order to be rehydrated. (Ritson 212) The resulting product barely resembles the original fresh pea and loses many of its qualities. Another example is dried potato powder, or the dehydration of the cooked and mashed potato, which experiences a similar loss of nutrients and taste as the field-dried peas. Thus, although it may seem beneficial to production and marketing companies, there are many negative consequences to these seemingly practical advances in technology. Robert Sommers, a University of California professor, recalls an interesting and disturbing memory of a time when he was once driving on a highway behind a truck carrying recently harvest tomatoes. When the truck made a sharp turn, some tomatoes rolled off the top of the truck and bounced when they hit the highway. (Halweil 34) Obviously, technology has brought about some serious drawbacks. Similar to the fruits and vegetables industry, as technology improved and population sky-rocketed, bread making became less home-based. Local bakeries began to spring up in towns all over the United States and used “large brick ovens heated by wood or coal to move the dough in and out of the ovens with a long-handled wooden shovel called the peel.” (McNulty 1) Within the 20th century, inventions like the steamroller mechanism, which simplified the grinding process and led to mass production of white flour, easy-to-use packaged yeast, and high speed machinery, allowed large bread making factories to gain control of the complex process of bread making and to establish city-wide bread markets. (McNulty 1) Such innovations and developments allowed white, whole wheat, rye, and other types of breads to be produced and marketed locally and nationally. Over time, with the

 

229

combination of bread slicing technology (invented in 1928 and marketed as Kleen Maid Sliced Bread) and bread making factories, store-bought bread became an integral product within the United States. White bread brands, such as the 1921 creation of Wonder Bread, became very successful and widely purchased by consumers. Eventually, whole grain, wheat, and natural breads rose within the bread market and began to compete for consumers against white bread.

Even as a top international exporter, the U.S implemented the same basic fundamental process of trading wheat locally and nationally in addition to internationally. Wheat would be harvested and loaded onto a grain truck and transported to storage bins on a farm or a grain elevator, which is a large storage facility named for the moving belts used to move or “elevate” the grain. (Mangelsdorf 6) Either the elevator operator would purchase the grain or the farmer would store it for future sale. The wheat itself was purchased depending on its test weight, dockage, and grade. Dockage and grade was determined on the level of moisture in the grain or the presence of unfamiliar materials. Thus, if the moisture level of the grain was too high or if the grain had small infestations or decay, then the price would be “docked” or bargained down and the crop cleaned. (Mangelsdorf 6) In addition, New York implements conventional farming techniques that use “chemical pesticides and fertilizers, excessive use of water and fossil fuels, and repeated planting of single crops.” (B. Stone) Conventional farming techniques, B. Stone discusses, work well for the short but in the long term, “soil becomes laden with chemical toxins, and lacking in nutrients, viable land becomes scarce, and the use of water and energy becomes a growing financial cost as well as an environmental one.” Technological advancements have drastically altered the process and production of certain crops. For instance, even though High Fructose Corn Syrup was not officially used as a sweetener until 1978, the ability to create sugar from corn became a reality in the 1930’s when corn yield in the United States increased ten folds as a result of government experimentation with hybrid corn. Increased corn yield led scientists at the United States Department of Agriculture to experiment and find alternative uses for corn. In 1957, scientists discovered an enzyme that had the ability to transform glucose to fructose (although it required arsenic as a cofactor). In 1965, a version of this glucose enzyme that did not require arsenic was discovered in a species of bacteria called Streptomyces. Once it was possible to grow this organism using corn-steep liquor to produce a thermally stable enzyme in a cost-effective way, it became possible to produce sugar from corn that resembled the sweetness of sugar from sugar cane. (Ladisch 2004) It took a total of 20 years of research to produce High Fructose Corn Syrup 55 (the 55 denotation stands for the percentage of fructose present in the syrup). The biotechnology developed for HCFS production combined with the increases in U.S. agricultural productivity of corn set the stage for the large-scale use of HFCS as a substitute to traditional cane sugar. (Ayesha 2009) The introduction of HFCS into the beverage production process occurred in 1978. By 1982, U.S beverage makers had reduced the use of sucrose in the production process by one-third and increased their use of HFCS by two folds. A beverage company sponsored a “taste challenge” and the result of the challenge stipulated that consumers preferred beverages made with 55-percent HFCS than sugar. (Pendergrast 2000) Yet, little is it known that the consumer preference of HFCS over sucrose is rooted in chemistry. Fructose enhances the flavor of fruits, which makes beverages sweeter than they would be if made with an equal amount of sucrose. Moreover, fructose tastes sweeter in lower temperatures, which perfectly enhances the chilled serving suggestion of most beverages. (McQueen 2003)

 

230

Taste, as well as economic factors, played an important role in the switch to HFCS in beverages. Besides developments within the beverage industry, the meat industry has also dramatically transformed in order to keep up with the growing demand for different types of meat. According to “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzeler,” a New York Times editorial by Mark Bittman, the world total meat supply back in 1961 was approximately Seventy-one million tons of meat. Sixty-six years later, in the year 2007, it was estimated that the meat supply was over “284 million tons.” That is over two hundred million tons of meat consumption; that’s four times the amount. Henning Steinfiled of the United Nation predicts that by the year 2050 this number will double. Besides the fact that these numbers are outrageous, this also means more meat consumption correlates with higher percentages of animal growth and processing. But who provides for all these high demands? Where does the US manage to feed all these hungry meat eaters? The answer is simple but complicated, it’s simple because markets are so easy to access and thus products, whether it is meat or any other form of food, can be easily obtained. However, the answer is complicated because to provide for such huge consumption means taking a little and turning it into a lot. Thus, this causes unsanitary and unhealthy meat production techniques like factory farming or the use of steroids and selective breeding.

The growth of supermarkets

Over the past sixty years, food markets have greatly changed from small locally owned businesses to large corporate dominated supermarkets. Food stores were predominantly groups of small stores. As seen in Table I in Section IV, only about 6 % had annual sales over $50,000 and the sales of 43% percent were under $5,000. (Monroe 46) Independent traders dominated retail and there were few limitations on who could open a grocery store. The entire system of production, distribution and retail was much more simplified than it is today.

At present, the food dealer, as all other retailers, is the consumer’s buying agent and the grower’s and manufacturer’s selling agent (in the economic but not legal sense). (Monroe 30) Fresh fruits and vegetables that are produced by scores of scattered, small producers have to pass through more hands than the processed and manufactured goods produced by large companies. As a result, the number of small local food markets and stores is losing to the dominance of larger more efficient industrial farms. In the late 1930s, most retailers operated stalls or informal outside markets, including roadside markets or stands, and public retail markets were usually located in the central section of a town or a city, frequently in open air. (Monroe 43)

However, the newfound ability to process produce for long distance shipment and the resources to ship the produce has created a competition between big national food businesses and the traditional markets of local farmers. (Halweil 43) Even as early as 1961, the trend towards fewer retail stores and larger supermarkets was clear. (Burk 68) Because the one-stop shopping companies, such as large supermarket chains, typically offer lower prices on fruits and vegetables, small firms tend to be driven out of business and many traditional aspects of food markets are lost in this process. For example, the shift from small local markets to large corporate supermarkets hinders the promotion of human connections and feelings of community that existed 50 years ago. From a practical perspective, supermarkets cut down on the consumer’s freedom to choose among locally grown produce, and the ability to locate and eat healthy and organically grown foods. (Halweil 44)

 

231

With this moving away from locally sustained systems, the community retains a declining share of the ultimate profit of sold produce since more of the services once provided by the farm community are out-sourced to other regions or nations. (Harweil 45) Brian Halweil, the author of “Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket,” dubs this transformation as the “Wal-Mart Effect.” This trend can be observed in Table II in Section IV, which shows the million dollar sales of leading supermarket companies. The shift is staggering when compared to the <$5,000 sales of the majority of stores in the late 1930s. “The relationship between production and marketing is symbolic,” says Helena Norberg-Hodge of the International Society for Ecology and Culture. (Halweil 46) She elaborates that large-scale, specialized agriculture we have today is best suited to a global and centralized market. Therefore, the continual swallowing up of small farmer businesses and neighborhood stores is only a natural consequence of the changes in agriculture at its core. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for a small number of large corporations to monopolize an entire chunk of the global market. For example, only a handful of multinational companies control about 90 % of the global trade in cocoa and pineapples and 80 % of the banana market. (Halweil 47) Having conquered the problem of seasonal supply, the supermarket provides a marketplace of variety all year long. (Camp 89)

A classic example of how much fruit and vegetable markets have evolved in the past 50 years is the specialized superstore Harry’s Farmers Markets. The flagship store devotes about one half of its 120,000 square feet to fresh fruits, vegetables and other produce. The superstore carries five or six types of lettuce, fifteen types of mushrooms, and twenty kinds of peppers at any one time. (Pillsbury 106) It is simple to see how difficult it is for smaller businesses to compete with the convenience, selection and unbeatable prices of these supermarket giants. The constantly increasing population is a direct reason for such increasing demands within the industry. As the population rises, for example, the demand for products increases and causes a fall in meat markets and a rise in supermarkets. But are these markets, whether singular aimed or multi-aimed markets, keeping up with demand rates (population rates)? How are these livestock being transported? The numbers of livestock grow by the second, and as the numbers grow the treatment of each livestock worsens, and the quality of the end product we consume worsens. As the number of consumers tends to increase, markets as a whole tend to increase as well. Currently, the biggest market aiding to such demands is Wal-Mart. According to research conducted by Coriolis in 2001, titled “Retail Supermarket Globalization: Whose winning,” 12.7 % of market sales comes from Wal-Mart. This percent is ranked first above other competing markets, including Kroger, Albertsons, Safeway, Costco and etc. Wal-Mart has over 1000 supermarkets in North America alone. Surprisingly, the company “other” that entails all other markets accounts for 37.4% and they have over 21,000 supermarkets. Hence, ten major companies are controlling the entire market. Small markets are no longer able to sustain standing alone against these huge companies and that is why we see the decrease in many specialty markets, especially meat markets in New York City, in particular the Meat Market District (also known as Gansevoort). Most of the meat markets that existed in the 1940’s are no longer present and they will continue to disappear as consumption increases, population increases, and supermarkets prevail.

 

232

RESULTS AND FINDINGS Population growth

As the following figure indicates, the population has increased by three million people

Figure 13.1 “Population in New York City”

between 1930 and 2010, and by five million people between 1900 and 2010. The figure also shows a trend in consistent increase in population, indicating that the population of New York City may never decline and even if it were to drop like in 1980, it is sure to increase again. The chart also predicts a population of over nine million residents in New York City by the year 2030. This population growth is a major factor in affecting the food industries. The second pie chart indicates the distribution of New York City's population among each borough. It is notable that Brooklyn holds 31% of the population, and Staten Island holds the least amount of residents at 5%. The order of most populated to least populated boroughs is: Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Bronx, and Staten Island.

Figure 13.2 “Population of New York City in 2009”

Move to supermarkets It was inferable that the regions with

the most concentrated amounts of people require more supermarkets. This deduction ties

Bronx;  17%  

Brooklyn;  31%  

Manhattan;  19%  

Queens;  28%  

Staten  Island;  5%  

POPULATION  2009  

Bronx  

Brooklyn  

Manhattan  

Queens  

Staten  Island  

0  1000000  2000000  3000000  4000000  5000000  6000000  7000000  8000000  9000000  10000000  

1930  1940  1950  1960  1970  1980  1990  2000  2010  2020  2030  

POPULATION  IN  NYC    

POPULATION  IN  NYC  3437202  4766883  5620048  

 

233

into our claim that the growth of population resulted in a move from smaller markets to supermarkets in NYC. The figure below measures the need for markets in New York City. The darker areas are regions in high need of supermarkets, and the lightly colored regions are in minimal need of supermarkets. It is notable that locations with high volumes of people, such as: Washington Heights, East New York, Bedford, Stuyvesant, Concourse, Harlem, East Village, Flat Bush, and Far Rockaway, are all in high needs of supermarkets. The map on the left only displays the areas in which there is a high need for markets. The dark spots are located over large areas of Brooklyn, the Bronx, and upper Manhattan, and some part of Queens. It is apparent that the heaviest-populated boroughs correlated with the areas with the most need for supermarkets.

Figure 13.3 “Supermarket High Need Areas in New York City”

 

234

Figure 13.4 “New York City Supermarket Access Index: Measurement of Need” Furthermore, there has been a decrease in specialized meat markets. The Meat Market: New York City Meatpacking District Guide claims that there are only fourteen meat markets left in the Gansevoort Meat Market District from the original one hundred and twenty-five that once crowded the district over eighty years ago.

Figure 13.5 “Oligopoly of the Meat Industry Today”

The guidebook also mentions that by the end of this year there will only be thirteen meat markets left. This means that since the 1930s, there has been a total of almost 90% of meat

 

235

markets that have closed down. Meat markets once, “fed the entire city…the city no longer cares about them.” (H.P. France Meat Market Guidebook)

Figure 13.5 “Supermarket Group Market Share in North

America” On the other hand, there has been a steady increase in the amount of supermarkets, and in the power that they hold nationwide. The doughnut graph on the left shows the distribution of market share. The ten major supermarkets, Wal-mart, Kroger, Albertsons, Safeway, Costco, Ahold, Publix, Winn-Dixie, Loblaw, Delhaize, hold the majority of the market share - a combined percentage of 62.5%! It is evident that the "other" markets hold a very small market share compared to that of the top ten supermarkets.

Figure 13.6 “Fulton Fish Market”

12.70%  

10.90%  

8.20%  

7.10%  

6.90%  

4.70%  

3.20%  3.00%  

3.00%  

2.80%  

37.40%  

Supermarket  Group  Market  Share  In  North  America  

Wal-­‐mart  

Kroger  

Albertsons  

Safeway  

Costco  

Ahold  

Publix  

Winn-­‐Dixie  

Loblaw  

Delhaize  

Other  

 

236

One exception is the example of the Fulton Fish Market, however. Although most supermarkets do have a small section for seafood and shellfish, it is evident that the majority of wholesale and retail sales of seafood and shellfish occur through the Fulton Fish Market (Bronx). However, at the core of its organization and marketing, it is very much like a supermarket. Unlike in the past, when fisherman would catch and subsequently sell their own fish and seafood, presently, all of the products go to the Fulton Fish Market and then different restaurant owners or salespeople purchase their goods.

Figure 13.7

Technological advances The development of HFCS has had a great affect on the beverage industry. As the

figure above indicates, HFCS rose from an insignificant role to eventually accounting for about 35% of sweetener calories in the United States. Furthermore, the trajectory of corn sweeteners and cane sugar cross and corn sweeteners surpass sugar in consumption in 1985. The decline of white sugar is almost mirrored by the rise of HFCS, as is seen in the graph below.

 

237

Figure 13.8 “Added Sugar Consumption”

Even after the switch for HFCS over sugar was complete, consumption of HFCS

continued to rise, eventually reaching a plateau of about 200 calories per day. (USDA: Economic Research Service 2010) Even when there was a 12% price increase between 2006 and 2007, consumption of soda beverages only dropped 3.4%. It is apparent that this development in the beverage industry has had a major effect on that trade. In the past, food was brought directly into the city either by trucks or by car floats over the Hudson and East Rivers. (Albrecht 9) Prior to technological developments that allowed the proliferation of food, the piers- where the car floats unloaded- were usually used as markets to sell most of the perishable foods that had to be sold quickly and efficiently. The main market for produce was located on the Lower West Side—it handled approximately ¾ of the city’s fresh produce. (Bressier 1) The majority of the foods sold at the main markets would then be trucked away to secondary markets, such as the Washington Market, the Gansevoort Market in midtown New York, Harlem Market in uptown New York, Wallabout Market in Brooklyn, as well as Newark in New Jersey. (Albrecht 10) As of the 1930s, 13, 685 grocery stores sold fruits and vegetables in New York City, as well as 5,534 fruit and vegetable stores, 8,700 pushcarts, and 4,000 hucksters. (Albrecht 10) Overall, the system was considered chaotic and inefficient. Aside from the canning of fruits and vegetables, produce underwent minimal processing on its way to the market.

 

238

Figure 13.9 “Farmers’ Declining Share of the Food Dollar, 1910-1997”

Looking at the New York Economic Handbook of the year 2006, the changes that have occurred since World War II can be easily noticed. The percent of fruits and vegetables produced within New York City’s bounds has decreased dramatically (NYEH). As of 2006, vegetables are produced mostly in California and Florida, as well as the upper Midwest. (NYEH) From these regions, the vegetables are shipped thousands of miles to their destination in New York City, where they are distributed and sold by large corporations. New York State has experienced the same shift as the rest of the country. With the development of new technologies and the passing of power to supermarket companies, the farmers’ share of the food dollar has declined dramatically since the 1940s (see figure above). Technological advances had allowed developments in the marketing of foods, so that individualized markets are no longer needed, and supermarkets can provide a variety of non-perishable foods to the public. DISCUSSION It is inferable that the United States (and New York specifically), relies heavily on abusing natural resources, such as fertile land, by implementing farming techniques that do not focus on conserving nature, substantiating soil capacity for renewal, or saving water. The nation has a very capitalistic approach of handling problems as they arise to the surface instead of thinking ahead. Instead of continuing to use chemical pesticides and fertilizers, excessive use of water and fossil fuels, and repeatedly planting the same crop on the same land, farmers as a unity should follow NOFA’s lead and obtain more sustainable methods of farming. Farmers should rotate crops, conserve water, and avoid fertilizers, herbicides, and any other chemicals that pollute the soil and local ecosystems. Also, farmers should reuse materials as much as possible. There are several trends that can be interpreted from the information gathered. Prior to World War II and during a short time after, the United States had not yet experienced the push towards industrialization to the fullest extent. The majority of produce was still grown on private farms and sold by private vendors, forming a confusing, inefficient and cost-ineffective system. Since then, global changes in how we grow our crops, how we treat

 

239

produce for shipping, and the declining cost of shipping have all affected the efficiency of our system of marketing. We now have access to a much wider range of products from all around the world. In addition, these items are more accessible due to lower prices, as well as more convenient to obtain, thanks to one-stop supermarket chains. Despite all of these advancements, quite a few negative complications have been caused by this industrialization. Majority of the small farmers responsible for most of our produce in the 1940s are now without work. Although, quite a huge chunk of our population is employed in the factories and industrial farms that have replaced the small farms. With the use of new technologies, such as quick-freezing, the quality and freshness of the produce we buy has declined. A huge focus on the outer appearance of the food has led to the development of topical coatings and instant ripening techniques that inevitably fool the consumer. Due to the trend between population size and consumer demand as shown in figures one through four, it may be predicted that with higher population more markets are needed. Also, it can be concurred that if population continues to increase, meat consumption will continue to increase, and maybe quadruple later in the future. Unfortunately, meat markets are quickly disappearing; a phenomenon that can be seen in the Meat Market District where only 13 meat markets will be around by the end of this year. Meat markets were the source of food for the entire city during the early 1900’s, but now in the later Global era supermarkets are addressing consumer demand. There are ten major supermarkets that are currently controlling Market share. According to “The issue: slaughterhouses and processing,” there is also a designate number of meat processing companies controlling meat processing. In 2005, four companies controlled over 80% of the countries beef (Out of the four, three controlled 60% of the countries pork). On top of that in 1996, 79% of cattle slaughter only occurred in 22 plants. Moving forward, since the 1940’s there have been less farms, but those that remain continue to increase in size in order to try and continue to fulfill the demands of consumers. In order to fulfill these demands, farmers have developed horrific techniques of processing meat, through farm factories. In farm factories, animals are no longer treated as such, rather as meat-producing machines. The conditions in which animals are forced to live in are treacherous and enter animal abuse territory. Animals are jam-packed into tiny cages and dark rooms, are forced to feed and excrete in close proximity to other animals, and are physically abused and tormented until the time arrives to kill them for food. From a humane perspective, this production is the true horror of food (meat) consumption and will continue to be so unless companies figure out a more humane approach to reaching population demands for meat. The increase in corn production had several consequences on the sweetener industry. In terms of price, corn sweeteners such as HFCS were able to beat out competing sugar. HFCS entered the market at around 10-13 cents per pound and sugar was at 15 cents per pound. Between 1986 and 1996, the price gap ranged from 2 to 10 cents per pound.(McQueen 2003) Even though sugar was largely imported into the U.S, high tariffs imposed on the imports kept the price of sugar high. HFCS, on the other hand, was more economical to produce because of the abundant supply of corn and sales of corn byproducts, such as corn oil and corn feed. Due to the market forces described above, HFCS eventually became a substitute for sugar. Even after the HFCS and the sugar switch was complete, consumption of HFCS kept rising. The lower price of HFCS made it very lucrative for large beverage retailers such

 

240

as Coca Cola to make the switch from sucrose to HFCS. It is estimated that Coca Cola saved 100 million dollars per year by replacing 50% of the sugar in its product with HFCS in the early 1980’s.(Fredreick 1994) In 2002, the soft-drink industry used 8 billion pounds of HFCS, but only about 200 million pounds of sugar.(Fredreick 1994, USDA: Economic Research Service 2010 ) The beverage industry has clearly benefitted from the switch as the consumption rates of beverage have steadily inclined. In 1945, Americans drank four times more milk than carbonated soft drinks; in 1997, they downed nearly two and a half times more soda than milk. Since 1950, soft-drink consumption per capita has quadrupled, from about 11 gallons per year to about 46 gallons in 2003.(Querna 2005) CONCLUSION In conclusion, various food industries have greatly changed within the global era due to many factors: political acts, social modification, economical stability, and environmental issues. However, it is evident that population growth and technological advances have had a great effect on New York City, especially in bringing about the rise in supermarkets. While some of these changes have certainly benefited the consumer financially, as well as helped our economy flourish, many drawbacks came out of the transformation. For example, as beverages have become an integral part of the American diet, the production, consumption and health effects of beverages have come under intense scrutiny. In New York, which was at one point an epicenter of beverage production, the state government is considering levying a soda tax due to adverse health effects associated with soda consumption. Critiques of beverages argue that the increase in New York State’s obesity rate coincides with increase in consumption of beverages. (Dinour 2010) Although studies have not substantively correlated beverage consumption with obesity, they have correlated beverage consumption with increased calorie intake and body mass index, an indicator of obesity(Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB and Brownell KD 2007). This issue of quicker food production versus public health is a problem along all sectors of the food market. In every possible section of produce production and growth, whether grains, fruits, vegetables, meats, etc, technological advancements have had mixed results. In order to meet higher demands for produce, the quality of food has decreased. However, in general, we were able to conclude that population growth and technological advances have changed the way food industries provide food to New York City residents by introducing and establishing supermarkets to serve a large and growing population. REFERENCES 1940a. 1914 Lessons Rule Allies on Grains. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York

Times, 25. THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1940b. Weather Watched by Wheat Traders. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York

Times, 22. THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1940c. Wheat Off Hard on Talk of Peace. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York

Times, 41. THE NEW YORK TIMES.

 

241

1944. Reich Exhaustion Placed a Year Off. In ProQuest Historical Newspaper New York Times, 6. THE NEW YORK TIMES.

1948. Urges Free Grain Export. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times, 61.

THE NEW YORK TIMES. (1979). Whole Foods Natural Foods Guide: What Happens to Natural Food Products

from Farm to Consumer. Berkeley, Whole Foods Publishing Company.

(2006). New York Economic Handbook. (NYEH) 2010a. In Northeast Organic Wheat. NESARE. 2010b. Ground Cover Issue 83 - Wheat Breeding Supplement. In Grains Research and

Development Corporation. Australian Government GRDC. 2010c. Underfunded Genebanks Key To Crop Diversity. In Gene Banks. Albrecht, A. E. (1932). About Foods and Markets: A Teacher's Handbook and

Consumer's Guide. New York, Teacher's College, Columbia University.

Ayesha, R. (2009) High Fructose Corn Syrup: History, Consumption and Spread. BITTMAN, MARK. "The World - Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler - NYTimes.com." The New

York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html>.

Bressier, R. G. (1940). "Review of "The Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Markets of

New York City by WIlliam C. Crow"." Journal of Farm Economics 22(4).

Burk, M. C. (1961). Influences of Economic and Social Factors on U.S. Food Consumption. Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing Company.

Burk, M. C. (1961). Trends and Patterns in U.S. Food Consumption. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture.

California State Summer School for Math and Science - UC DAVIS. October 11, 2010 ). Camp, C. (1989). American Foodways: What, When, Why and How We Eat in

America. Little Rock, August House.

Carmical, J. H. 1955. Wheat Producers Face Crucial Poll. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times, F1. THE NEW YORK TIMES.

"Changes in U.S. Agriculture: From the 1950s to the 1990s." from

http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/agecon/pubs/agric50-90.htm.

Clapp, J. and S. M. Stringer (2010). FoodNYC: a blueprint for a sustainable food system. New York, Manhattan Borough President's Office: 45.

 

242

Considine, D. M. (1982) Foods and Food Production Encyclopedia. 02 M-Z, 284, 293-294,

266. DeWeerdt, S. (2007) Can Cities Feed Us? Conservation Magazine. Dinour, L. (2010) New York State's Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Goes Down the

Drain: Lessons for Nutrition Advocates Corporations and Health Watch. http://corporationsandhealth.org/Sugar-Sweetened_Beverages_Tax.php (last accessed October 11, 2010 ).

Dupaigne, B. 1999. The History of Bread. Italy: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers. "Factory Farming Facts." Animal Rights Concerns. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.animalsuffering.com/resources/facts/factory-farming.php>. "Facts: Factory Farming." In Defense of Animals. idausa.org, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.idausa.org/facts/factoryfarmfacts.html>. Fredreick, A. 1994. Secret Formula: How brilliant marketing and relentless salesmanship made Coca-

Cola the best-known product in the world New York, NY: Harper Business. Gaull, G. E. (1993). The Emerging Global Food System: Public and Private Sector

Issues. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gjerde, E. C. H. a. J. Major Problems in American History. 2. Going to Market: New York City's Neighborhood Grocery Store and Supermarket Shortage. New York:

New York City Deparment of City Planning and NYC HEALTH, 2008. Print. Levenston, M. (2010) Establish urban food production as a priority in NYC for personal, community, or commercial use by year 2030. FoodNYC- A Blueprint for a Sustainable Food System.

Halweil, B. (2004). Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global

Supermarket. New York, W.W. Norton. Hoffman, Mary . "Global Warming due to Animal Agriculture - Saving Wildlife from Mass

Extinction due to Global Warming." all-creatures.org: Working for a Peaceful World for Humans, Animals, and the Environment. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/gw/01_animal_agriculture.htm>.

Jacobs, M. B. 1959. Manufacture and Analysis of Carbonated Beverages New York, NY: Chemical

Publishing Co. Ladisch, M. (2004) The Role of Bioprocess Engineering in Biotechnology. The Bridge -

National Academy of Engineers (NAE) 34. Lang, T. (2004). Food Wars: the Global Battle for Mouths, Minds, and Markets.

London, Earthscan.

 

243

Mangan, F., M. Moreira, et al. "How Farmers Can Access Urban Consumers from

Farmers' Markets to Supermarkets and Everything in Between." McNulty, M. F. How Products are Made: Bread and Wheat. How Products are Made

Encyclopedia. McQueen, H. 2003. The Essence of Capitalism: The Orignis of Our Future Montreal: Black Rose

Books. Meaker, R. D. (1946). "Fruit and Vegetable Sales at City Municipal Markets,

December 1945." Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 14(01): 5. "MEAT MARKET : MEATPACKERS." MEAT MARKET. H.P. France Inc., n.d. Web. 26

Oct. 2010. <http://www.mmg-nyc.com/meatpackers.html>. "Meat.org | The Website the Meat Industry Doesn't Want You to See." Meat.org | The

Website the Meat Industry Doesn't Want You to See. PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.meat.org/index.asp>.

Mnagelsdorf, P. C. (1953) Wheat. Scientific American, 2-11. Mock, Gregory . "EarthTrends: Feature - How Much Do We Consume?." EarthTrends |

Environmental Information. World Resources Institute , n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?fid=7&theme=6>.

Monroe, D. (1938). Food Buying and Our Markets. New York, M. Barrows and

Company. NASS, U. D. A.-e. Small Grains- DC. Olver, L. 2010. History of Wheat. U.S Copyright. Pendergrast, M. 2000. For God, Country and Coca Cola New York Basic Books Pillsbury, R. (1998). No Foreign Food: the American Diet in Time and Place.

Colorado, Westview Press. Putnam, J. J. & J. E. Allshouse. 1999. Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-97

USDA: Economic Research Services Querna, E. 2005. One Sweet Nation: No it's not just your sweet tooth. In US News and World

Weekend, 60-62. Retail Supermarket Globakization: Who's winning?. Auckland, New Zealand:

CORIOLISRESEARCH, 2001. Print. Riley, J. J. 1946. A History of the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages. American Bottlers of

Carbonated Beverages (1958)

 

244

Ritson, C. (1986). The Food Consumer, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Salvo, Jospeh , Arun Lobo, and Adam L. New York CIty Population Projections by Age/Sex and

Borough. New York: Department of City Planning, 2006. Print. Santos, J. M. (2010) Going Against the Grain: Why Do Canada and the United States Market

Wheat So Differently? American Review of Canadian Studies, 40, 104-117. Scott, J. (2003) Specialty Foods: Strong in Weak Economy. New York Times. Severson, K. (2010). Local Carrots With a Side of Red Tape. New York Times. New

York. "Slaughterhouses and Processing, industrial meat production - The Issues - Sustainable

Table." Sustainabletable. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/processing/>.

Smith, D. C. and D. Clayton (2002). Studies in the land: the Northeast corner. Stone, B. (2009) The Challenges and Glories of Environmentally Sustainable Wheat

Farming. Sustainable Agriculture. Taft , Will. "How Much Meat Do We Eat?." Will Taft . com — Healthy Living For People and

Planet Earth. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://willtaft.com/sustainability/how-much-meat-do-we-eat/>.

USDA: Economic Research Service. 2010 Sugars and Sweetners: Recommended Data

USDA Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB & Brownell KD ( 2007) Effects of drink consumption on

nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health., 97, 667-675.

Author. 2008. In Price and Supply, Wheat Is the Unstable Staple NY Times February 13,

2008.

 

245

-14-

NEW YORKERS BITING TOO MUCH OFF THE BIG APPLE Conclusions about the Historical and Geographic Perspective of the Food Industry

We all came into this investigation with our own prejudices about the importance of food. What we discovered was that every detail, no matter how small, was essential to the development of the food culture of modern New York City.

This extensive study examined the intricate evolution of the food system in New York City from pre-colonial times to the global era. These chapters assessed the changes in agriculture, diversity of food, colonial and urban food markets by looking at the increasing complexity of technology, diversity, and geography. The history of New York City's agriculture, inhabitants, population changes, colonization, and economic activity provided specific information about changes over the past few centuries.

We collected information that contributed insight to the growth of Dutch New Amsterdam into present day New York City. In our research, we discovered patterns concerning advances in technology and their effects on food production and distribution throughout the existence of this bustling, steel-framed megalopolis. The variety of foods available to hungry New Yorkers also expanded over time with the aid of innovations such as railroads, refrigerated rail cars, and canals. Besides technological improvements, agricultural advances in milling and production greatly furthered the progression of New York City’s cuisine.

While there are numbers of factors involved in supplying New Yorkers with the food they need, certain overall trends are apparent in terms of food markets, their locations, distribution and their subsequent effects.

From the days of the Lenape and colonization of the Dutch to the thriving metropolis of today, market structure in New York has undergone necessary change. The Lenape engaged in little trade, mostly harvesting and hunting the food that would be used for their own family or small community, making “markets” infrequent and informal (if present at all). The first true markets were introduced to the new world by the Dutch, one of many traditional forms of infrastructure sourced from their urban origin. As the city grew, its markets multiplied, with one centered in nearly every neighborhood. Expansion in the diversity of foods available also paralleled the city’s growth, with exotic fruits like dragon fruit available to those who once lived where they grew naturally.

Over time, New York City experienced a change in the types and amounts of foods available. New technologies, such as the refrigerator freight car and pasteurization, dramatically increased the amount of food available to New Yorkers. Commodities such as grain and wheat could be grown in abundance. When the amount of foods available to New Yorkers increased, prices for these foods often decreased. As a result, food became more widely available to all consumers. New technologies also expanded the types of foods available in markets. By the early 1900s, New Yorkers could enjoy exotic new foods such as oranges from Florida for the first time. In the mid 1950s, even more different types of foods became available as more new technological innovations were developed. The changes in foods available to New Yorkers reflect New York’s use of innovative technologies. In addition to the shifts in the types and amounts of food available, the modes by which they

 

246

were brought to consumers in New York City. Prior to the rise of the elaborate railway networks--and the National Interstate Highway System in the years to follow--food transport remained very much a local process; products were carted in on horse-drawn carriages and occasionally, motor trucks. As these infrastructural networks were built and expanded, however, food was sourced from increasingly vast distances, whether internationally (as is often the case with container-filled ships) or across states. While different modes of transport have risen and fallen across time, their subsequent integration is responsible for today’s streamlined system.

During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, legislation had played an important role in the local public market system in the regulation and prevention of illegal practices. After the enactment of the first agricultural and food laws in the early twentieth century, national food safety laws were passed, and federal agencies were established to administer those laws. The federal government’s greater involvement in food legislation serves to protect the health of consumers, and maintain higher food quality standards. Overall, legislation has played a larger role in American society from the local regulation of the primary food distribution mechanism and agricultural practices to national food safety.

Technologies were invented to create efficiency in the way food is shipped and preserved. The invention of the container in the mid-twentieth century allowed for convenience in freight movement and lowered the distribution costs. The refrigerated rail car improved the shelf life of perishable items, diversifying the foods shipped to the city. Also, the refrigerated rail cars increased the quantity of food accessible to the city. The advancements helped integrate different modes of transportation such as rail, trucks, and marine. One key trend we have since the mid-19th century is the change in location of production of New York City’s food supply. This was both intentional and incidental. As technology advanced, transportation of raw materials was made easier. Mass production was also utilized in industries such as the beer industry and the meat packing industry. As a result of increased accessibility due to the rise of mass production, resources in and around the city were depleted and polluted. New York had to look outside its borders to procure raw materials. By extending its reach across the country and across international borders, the New York City food industry increased the distance again between the source and the location of production.

Along with the overlying trends seen in the New York City’s food industry at this time, changes in geography, complexity, diversity, and technology have followed clear patterns. These themes are all interconnected, and advancements in one area often influenced changes in the others. From our research, we observed an increased use of technology in food production and distribution. Advancements in hunting and harvesting occurred early in New York’s history, and as time went on technologies involving transportation and preservation began to improve. As the technologies proved to increase food accessibility and production, advancements are constantly made to further satisfy New Yorkers’ increasing demand.

A geographic theme of outward expansion regarding food production is obvious as well. In pre-colonial New York, the Lenape Indians would constantly migrate, so they would grow and eat food locally at their new resting places. When English settlers arrived in New York, however, the first markets sprung up. Eventually, as Manhattan’s population grew, people began settling northward, and new markets opened to satisfy the demand of the public in their new location. By the 18th Century, food was brought to Manhattan’s markets from Long Island, King’s and Queen’s Counties, and even North Carolina by ferryboat.

 

247

Soon, New Yorkers received food from other counties and across the country. Today, we can see that our food comes from all over the world. The diversity of food products has also increased. From colonists introducing non-native grains and animals early in New York’s history to technological advancements allowing the transport of goods from across the world, New Yorkers have always been interested in bringing new foods into their diets. Thanks to the expansion of food production and technological advancements over time, it has become easier to grow and import a large variety of food.

It seems easier and far less complex for New Yorkers to obtain food in the twenty-first century than ever before. There is no need to spend time growing and harvesting your own crops, so the only thing standing between a New Yorker and a plateful of steamed broccoli today is a trip to the grocery store. In actuality, however, New York City’s food supply became more complicated as time went on. Food comes to New York City from vast distances, requiring an extensive transportation system to sustain a supply of fresh food. The actual production of food has gotten increasingly complicated due to the development of new technologies designed to make food both impervious to pests and time. In the twenty-first century, most food that New Yorkers eat comes from hundreds of miles away and arrives either filled with preservatives or covered with pesticides. This is a far more complex process than existed in Colonial times, when food was harvested in close proximity to people’s homes.

All the trends of our research imply that food production, regulation, education, and distribution will need to be changed and reworked as New York City’s population and improvements in technologies continue to grow. Historically, the new features of our food industries have been responses to the ever-increasing demand. The technological advances that brought the city through the Industrial age and into the modern age as one of the biggest metropolises in the world also enabled several million people to be fed on a daily basis. Presently, an enormously intricate highway system enables this whereas refrigerated rail cars that ran on set tracks permitted this in the past. Millions of trucks now follow routes that are subject to change regularly according to their needs. New routes are added and old ones are reconfigured as food industries adjust to accommodate New York’s growing population.

Food production moving away from the city has enabled mass production and distribution at a cost that is becoming increasingly severe. Our produce is often treated with pesticides and other unfriendly chemicals in an effort to preserve it for an unnaturally long period of time. Milk, water and other beverages are bottled out-of-state (often in non-biodegradable materials) and shipped into the city every morning, contributing to the massive amounts of daily waste. The seafood industry, over time, has overdrawn from the oceans to a destructive degree, depleting many fish populations to sizes beyond recovery. Meat is produced on factory farms, which are known for both inhumane treatment of animals and massive carbon footprints. Lastly, the larger scale factories that provide pesticides for our crops, bottles for our beverages, and the motor parts to our trucks are responsible for some of the most significant technological advances. Consequently, these factories have also been the biggest contributors to air and water pollution seen in New York City's history.

In all of these industries, damage has been done in an effort to create an efficient assembly-line style food production. The question now becomes how to mitigate the damage. Legislation comes long after the fact and is often too little too late. Our waterways, although cleaner than they were in the 1950s, are still highly polluted. Fishing populations

 

248

are still being depleted despite congressional legislation regarding careful maintenance of ocean fisheries. With increasing urbanization comes a greater need for regulatory legislation. The effectiveness and more importantly, the timeliness, of such legislation have yet to be seen. As food markets and trade networks become more complex, it becomes more important for us to address problems like pollution and unnatural treatment of foods. Food provisioning is one of the single most important issues that we all have a hand in. As we continue on an environmentally destructive track towards an ambiguously stable future, it will become increasingly important that New York addresses this grocery-list of issues in the near future. As the city and the list continue to develop, the solution becomes difficult to achieve and even more imperative. If the city wants to continue to eat, it must carefully examine the long-term viability of its diet starting now.