- Email: [email protected]
Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison
ARTICLE IN PRESS Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Appetite j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a p p e t
Research report
Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆ An-Sofie Vanhouche * Faculty of Law and Criminology, Social & Cultural Food Studies (FOST), Pleinlaan 2, Elsene 1050, Belgium
A R T I C L E
I N F O
Article history: Received 29 October 2014 Received in revised form 8 April 2015 Accepted 10 April 2015 Available online Keywords: Convenience food Prison food Food-related attitudes
A B S T R A C T
Food in prison is an insufficiently researched topic. However, prisoners often highlight problems with and criticism of their prison meals. This article aims to further develop this topic by giving closer insight into the use and attitudes toward ready-made meals in the Tilburg prison. In this prison, prisoners receive ready-made meals. This is in contrast to Belgian prisons, from which they were transferred, where meals were made from scratch. This change in the food system led to commotion and complaints. To understand the situation, interviews with prisoners and staff were conducted and observations in the Tilburg prison were made. The results showed that a food system can have considerable influence on prison experiences. In addition, and contrary to what earlier reports have mentioned, the ready-made meals also have some advantages, especially for the organization of daily prison life. However, most prisoners had negative attitudes toward these meals. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction “Belgian Prisoners Do Not Like Dutch Food” was the headline of a newspaper article reporting on the living conditions of Belgian prisoners in the Dutch prison of Tilburg (Belga, 2010). Due to the overcrowded Belgian prisons and the overcapacity in The Netherlands’ prisons, cooperation between both countries has been established (Beyens & Boone, 2013). Although a Belgian prison regime was introduced in Tilburg, some differences remained. One of these differences was the food system. In Belgian prisons, meals are cooked on the spot, while in The Netherlands, ready-made meals are distributed. Because Belgium pays an annual price to the Dutch government for all of the services in the Tilburg prison, including the food service, introducing a Belgian food system would be very expensive. Under huge media attention, the first prisoners were transferred in 2010 from Belgian prisons to The Netherlands. Prisoners took advantage of this attention to criticize the ready-made meals. In 2011, a delegation of the Commission for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited the Penitentiary Institution in Tilburg to verify if the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were being upheld. Members of the CPT also “received a large number of complaints about the quality and method of preparation of the food served in the establishment” during their visit (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
☆ Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank Peter Scholliers, Tom Kiesecoms and Proof-Reading-Services.org for the revision and help during the writing of this article. * E-mail address: [email protected].
Punishment (CPT), CPT/Inf (2012)19§18). However, the meals were found to fulfill the minimum quality levels. In this article, we aim to contextualize and to nuance earlier reports on this topic. In addition, we aim to develop insights into prisoners’ attitudes toward the food systems in prison and how these may influence their prison experience. First, we explain prisoners’ reactions when they faced the change in food preparation after their transfer. Second, we highlight the specificities of the two different food systems within these two prisons. Finally, we elaborate on the insights into attitudes toward convenience food and ready-made meals.
What do we know about prison food? According to the World Health Organization (2013), “The quality and quantity of food available in a prison has a major influence on the quality of a prisoner’s life.” Research has shown that the importance of food in prison must not be underestimated. In tackling the problem from the sociological, anthropological, criminological, medical, and a human rights perspectives, researchers have explained possible reasons for this importance through many different points of view. Criminologists and sociologists have found that food can play many different roles within a prison context. Food possesses a symbolic power and is a means of communication in a closely controlled environment (Brisman, 2007; Godderis, 2006a, 2006b; Smith, 2002; Ugelvik, 2011, 2014; Valentine & Longstaff, 1998). For example, Godderis (2006b) explained how food practices represent overt and covert displays of institutional power. Prison guards’ arbitrary decision-making when distributing the meals, the economic restrictions imposed on purchases in prison shops, and the inconsistent
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047 0195-6663/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2
A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
implication of prison regulations are only a few examples of how power can be imposed through food. Next to these forms, prisoners experience an even more extensive and intrusive control when they lose choices about their own food intake. The prison staff and the state in general decide what, when, and how prisoners eat (Cate, 2008; Godderis, 2006a; Ugelvik, 2011). As a consequence, some prisoners lose control over their own bodies (Smith, 2002). However, power and hierarchical relationships can be open to change and can even be converted. In prison, this conversion of power is often explained as resistance. Resistance can be described as behavior that challenges existing power relationships. Food and food-related activities appear to be among the few activities people can try to control in highly supervised institutions (Brisman, 2007; Dusselier, 2002; Godderis, 2006a; Smith, 2002; Ugelvik, 2011). In prison the most obvious food-related form of resistance is the hunger strike. Prisoners on hunger strikes mostly protest or try to enforce their demands by putting the prison organization under pressure (Gétaz et al., 2012). But also mundane activities have been defined as forms of resistance. Smith (2002), for example, explained how eating unhealthy food can be a relief and form of resistance against a system that promotes healthy eating. In addition, Ugelvik (2011) explained how prisoners’ legal and illegal ways of cooking helped immigrants to resist Norwegian eating habits and Norwegian society. Rubin (2014), however, challenged Ugelvik’s (2011) research that defined these everyday activities as resistance without clarifying the prisoners’ intentions. According to Rubin (2014), resistance has to be a consciously and intentionally political act, which is not necessarily the case when prisoners cook their own food. Next to food as a means of reflecting and converting power relationships, cooking and eating can be methods to connect, bind, and create individual as well as group identities in prison (Cate, 2008; Earle & Phillips, 2012). For example, Kjær Minke (2014) explained how prisoners in Danish prisons receive their own money and are responsible for their own purchases and cooking. These circumstances may create positive identities in the sense that prisoners are acknowledged and respected as a “chef de cuisine” by their fellow inmates. Smoyer (2014) explained how women can construct a positive identity by representing themselves as healthy eaters who take care of themselves and their bodies. Eating and cooking are often group activities, and such things may ameliorate social relations among prisoners. Since most prisoners in the Danish system cook together, they have to organize, take responsibility for, and share their food (Kjær Minke, 2014). Smoyer (2014) also explained that food sharing and taking care of each other can be experienced as important activities for the construction of positive identities. In addition, Earle and Phillips (2012) illustrated how cooking areas in prison serve as a display for the cultural diversity between prisoners as well as a place where they learn to negotiate, organize, and work with each other. This conviviality may exist within as well as between cooking groups. Furthermore, prisoners from the same cooking group may protect each other in case of trouble (Kjær Minke, 2014). However, in some cases, the hierarchical structure within or between cooking groups may inflict oppression toward prisoners with lower positions (Kjær Minke, 2014). In addition, food can be used in a barter system that can demonstrate economic inequalities between prisoners (Valentine & Longstaff, 1998). Another perspective that sheds light onto the importance of food in a prison environment concentrates on the nutritional value of prison food and its effect on prisoners’ health. The results of this kind of research may differ between countries and prisons (Edards, Hartwell, & Schafheitle, 2009; Collins & Thompson, 2012; Stein, 2000). Finally, research has focused on different food systems (Johns, Edwards, & Hartwell, 2013) and prisoners’ attitudes toward differ-
ent forms of food preparation (Williams et al., 2009; Cross & MacDonald, 2009). Cross and MacDonald (2009) discussed several food preparation and distribution systems in five types of institutions, including prisons in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. They explained that the raising of standards of food quality since 1990 has led to prisoners’ having more favorable views toward their food. This article will expand the literature on food systems in prison as well as on prisoners’ and staffs’ attitudes toward these systems. Methods The prison of Tilburg and its detention regime are very unique. Since the 1980s, Belgium has faced major problems with prison overcrowding. Almost no action was undertaken to alleviate this overpopulation until the situation became unbearable in 2009. The Belgian minister of justice found a short term solution to diminish prison overcrowding by asking help from the neighboring country, The Netherlands. The prison of Tilburg (situated in The Netherlands, close to its Belgian border) faced closuring and staff’s dismissal due to the diminishing prison population in The Netherlands. Clearly both countries could take advantage of a cooperation. In 2010, the first prisoners convicted on Belgian territory could be transferred to Tilburg. In this penitentiary institution, a Belgian prison regime was introduced, while prison staff remained mainly Dutch. In 2012, the Dutch Ministry of Justice wanted to conduct a research study in this particular prison to find out what The Netherlands could learn from a Belgian detention regime. As a consequence, a research under the supervision of Beyens and Boone (Beyens & Boone, 2013) was set up. The research elaborated male prisoners’ detention experiences by drawing upon 36 interviews that were conducted by the author of this article in 2012. In this research (Beyens & Boone, 2013), we used a purposive sampling method to ensure the maximum variation. Prior knowledge about prison populations allowed us to focus on prisoners’ particular characteristics. The prison of Tilburg consists of different units. Therefore the sample ensured that a proportional number of prisoners from every unit were represented. In addition, the sample consisted of prisoners with different detention durations and detention experiences (i.e. they were transferred from a wide variety of Belgian prisons to Tilburg). Finally, we should note that an important characteristic of the population was underrepresented in the sample. At the time of the research, more than 50% of the prisoners in Tilburg did not have legal permission to stay in Belgium, while only six out of the thirty-six respondents (16.7%) did not have legal permission. Because detention experiences between prisoners with legal permission to stay in Belgium and those without the legal permission may greatly differ (Kox et al., 2014), the principal chose to focus on prisoners with legal permission. Based on these characteristics, we developed a list of prisoners. Before the start of the interviews, prisoners were asked if they agreed to cooperate with the research and to have the interview recorded. The interviews were conducted in a closed room in the prison where prisoners could not be heard by staff or by others inmates. During the interviews, a topic list was used. Afterwards, the interviews were transcribed and they were uploaded to the computer program MAXQDA. MAXQDA is a computer software program that assists with qualitative data analysis, and it is ideally suited to analyzing data according to the grounded theory approach (Gibbs, 2013). According to this approach, the coding process consisted of two or three phases. The first phase was “initial” or “open coding.” The codes created in this first phase allowed us to “stay close to the data and remain open to exploring what is happening in the data” (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2013, p. 156). In light of this research, the
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
36 interviews with prisoners were analyzed in this way. After this general analyses (further developed in the work of Beyens & Boone, (2013), in this new research the focus was placed on frequently occurring codes. Prison food was one of these codes, and the author further developed this code after the research of Beyens and Boone (2013). This led to the second phase of coding: the selective or focused coding, which means a focus is set on a particular topic that is further analyzed. The core category “prison food” evolved and several “subcodes” and concepts were attached. Based on the insights acquired during phases one and two of the analysis, it became apparent that new data had to be gathered. The Research Foundation Flanders supported the idea to conduct more research on the topic of prison food and provided the funds to conduct a new research in Tilburg and Belgian prisons. In Tilburg, six more prisoners were interviewed as well as seven members of the prison staff. As in the first sample, prisoners from different units were selected. Second, all prisoners interviewed in this stage were involved in food-related tasks. Two prisoners cooked on the prison wing for themselves and for other prisoners, three prisoners represented their fellow inmates in the monthly prisoner– governor meeting (a meeting during which food related-problems were often discussed), and one prisoner delivered the readymade meals on the prison wings. Third, staff from the medical service, the accounting department, the private company Sodexo, as well as two guards, the imam, and a prison governor also provided useful information concerning food-related topics. Similarly to the first interview phase, both prisoners and staff were asked to participate, and recordings were made with their consent. The interviews were conducted in a closed room. During the interviews, a topic list was used. The topic list was established drawing upon the results found in the previous coding phases. After the interviews, transcriptions were made and uploaded in MAXQDA. During the interviews in Tilburg, many prisoners referred to the Belgian system and compared their experiences. To contextualize and understand the Belgian food system, data were gathered in four Belgian prisons. Each prison was visited in an approximate twoweek period. In each prison, 10 interviews were conducted with staff and prisoners. Thirty of these interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in MAQXDA. Some prisoners did not give authorization for the recording, and in one prison, prison staff had to be present during the recordings. Their presence clearly had an influence on the information the prisoners yielded, so the decision was made to have informal conversations when no guards were present. In addition, observations were done in the prison kitchens and during the distribution of the meals. The Belgian ministry of justice as well as the prison governors (the Dutch as well as the Belgian) gave authorization for this research. We agreed that all participants, even during observations, had to give their authorization for participation and recordings and that anonymity would be preserved. Consequently, only general information about the research population is given and citations have been anonymized. Belgian and Dutch catering systems First, a description of the Belgian food system will be given to provide insight into the system to which prisoners were accustomed. It is important to notice that their reflections and criticism on the ready-made meals in Tilburg were invoked and based on their former experiences with the Belgian catering system. Second, the catering system in Tilburg will be discussed. Third, based on the interviews with prisoners and prison staff in Belgian prisons as well as in the Tilburg prison, the advantages and disadvantages of both systems will be highlighted. We then move to prisoners’ attitudes toward ready-made meals in prison.
3
Meals are made from scratch in Belgian prisons In Belgian prisons, meals are made from scratch in the prison kitchens. Catering staff and prison guards working in the kitchen are responsible for buying, stocking, and cooking these meals. In Belgium, prisons receive 3 euro 60 per prisoner per day to purchase food. This daily food price does not include kitchen equipment costs or kitchen staff’s salaries. Nevertheless, it is little money to provide three meals a day of which one has to be hot. Furthermore, prisoners have the right to order religious meals or specific medical diets that might be much more expensive than regular meals. However, prisons do not receive extra money for these special diets. For the prison to be able to cater within this limited budget, deals have to be struck with suppliers and seasonal vegetables and fruits have to be bought. Based on these prices, menus are set up. Every day, catering staff, prison guards and prisoners prepare these meals in the prison kitchen. For breakfast and dinner, prisoners mostly receive bread, sandwich filling, fruit, and sometimes dessert. For these meals, little preparation is needed in the kitchen; the food only has to be divided on the serving carts. Lunch consists of a hot meal that is prepared in the kitchen. Although only kitchen staff receive specific cooking training, prison guards as well as prisoners help to prepare these meals. In the morning, they start preparing the meals. Once the meals are ready, they are stored in heated trolleys before being distributed throughout the wings. Around 11:30 am prisoners who work on the wings and prison staff collect the heated trolleys and transport the food to the prison cells. The food should be distributed by prison staff and one or two prisoners, but in reality, prison staff do not always watch the distribution of the meals, which gives the prisoner in charge some power to decide the quantity of food each prisoner receives. Next to the official food system, prisoners can buy food in the prison shop at their own expense. The number of products that can be purchased in the shop varies from one prison to the next. In some prisons, inmates can prepare their own meals with the products purchased in the shop. However, cooking facilities available in the prison cells or on the wings differ greatly from prison to prison. In addition, in some prisons, prisoners have to buy their own cooking facilities, while in other prisons, small kitchens are available on the wings. The lack of cooking facilities in some prisons lead to the creation of self-made cooking utilities, like small fires to heat meals. Convenience food in Dutch prisons Several authors have discussed the meaning of convenience foods, based on food-related activities within a household (Botonaki & Mattas, 2010; Brunner, van der Horst, & Siegrist, 2010; Buckley, Cowan, & McCarthy, 2007; de Boer, McCarthy, Cowan, & Ryan, 2004). Saving time during food-related activities such as shopping, cooking, and cleaning seems to be important in the definition of “convenience.” In addition to the time-saving component, physical and mental efforts also play a role. Buckley et al. (2007, p. 601) characterized convenience as being “associated with reducing the input required from consumers in either food shopping, preparation, cooking or cleaning after the meal.” Furthermore, the use of convenience food appears to provide interesting insight into the effects on the changing of the household organization. All of this also applies to prisons, just as for any other institution that serves food and that caters for large groups of people. In Tilburg, ready-made meals are delivered by Sodexo, a private company that offers a varied range of “on-site” services. In many Dutch correctional institutions, Sodexo is responsible for catering. Once a week, deep-frozen meals for 650 prisoners are brought into the Tilburg prison. On a daily basis, a prisoner controls these stocks,
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4
A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
and a Sodexo worker, accompanied by prisoners, ensures that the right number of meals is present. Then, prisoners distribute the premade meals together with the other rations (bread; sandwich fillings such as cheese, jam, peanut butter, chocolate sprinkles; and dessert, such as fruit and yogurt). In Tilburg, the distribution of food occurs once a day, and prisoners are free to decide when they place their frozen meal in the prison cell microwaves. A label on the meal box allows prisoners to check the contents of the dish, as well as to verify whether they have received their recommended diet. In Tilburg, prisoners can also buy food in the prison shop at their own expense. In addition, every unit is equipped with a modern prison kitchen where prisoners can cook their own food. These kitchens are very important for most prisoners because it allows the wellto-do prisoners to prepare their own food. Other inmates often take out products from the ready-made meals and use them in their selfmade meals. The advantages and disadvantages of meals made from scratch and ready-made meals When a prison introduces pre-packaged food, a much shorter and less demanding process takes place. Clearly, this process is much more efficient for the prison system because of time saving. Moreover, only a small number of people is required to distribute food and, even more importantly, no prison staff are needed to prepare the meals. As a consequence, the staff can focus on other activities for prisoners or on security-related tasks. Also, consider that within prisons, every inmate movement needs to be supervised and controlled, and, therefore, in Belgian prisons, their movement is often kept to a minimum. Particularly in overcrowded places, circulation within a prison brings about extra workload, a problem that is considerably circumvented with the implementation of premade meals. This leaves more time for other activities. Finally, contrary to ready-made meals in society, prison management often believes these meals are less expensive than meals that are prepared on the spot. However, some authors have claimed that this can be contested since private catering companies may receive large discounts from suppliers if they deliver to public facilities (Cross & MacDonald, 2009). Aside from advantages related to cost, frozen meals and microwave ovens in the cells allow prisoners to heat food whenever they wish. A long lapse of time between two meals (especially between dinner and breakfast the next day) is a frequent source of discontent among prisoners (Cross & MacDonald, 2009; Peter, 2013). The Tilburg prison solves this by giving prisoners some autonomy, allowing them to eat whenever they want. These advantages were highlighted by Dutch prison staff: We used to serve them [prisoners] hot meals. Back then, the food was warm at twelve so they had to eat at twelve. Now, they have a microwave in their prison cell. They can choose whether they eat their meal at twelve or at six.… It is also very efficient during the Ramadan. They can eat their meals whenever they want. (translation of prisoner staff transcript X18) Furthermore, the meals cannot cool down during transport from the kitchen to the cells, while in Belgium, prisoners often complain about meals cooling down during the distribution. As a consequence, the prisoners at the end of the wings often receive cold meals. In Tilburg, the meals arrive in closed boxes, making it impossible for prisoners to intentionally contaminate each other’s food. In Belgian prisons, stories of prisoners who urinate in prison staff’s food or prisoners who spit in pedophiles’ meals are very common. In addition, pre-packaged meals ensure that all prisoners receive the same quantity of food. In Belgium, prisoners sometimes complain about being served portions of different sizes.
Another problem concerns the preparation of several types of meals: prisons are required to serve specific religious or medical diets to prisoners (European Prison Rules s.d., art. 22). The preparation of these meals entails an increased workload, and knowledge about specific medical diets is required to prepare them properly. Likewise, it should be mentioned that in some Belgian prisons, the kitchen equipment does not allow caterers to simultaneously cook all these different diets, and, in fact, the kitchen staff have explained that the expertise of a dietician is needed to guarantee quality and content. In contrast to Belgian penitentiary institutions, the Tilburg prison can rely on Sodexo and only has to order the requested quantity of religious and medical dishes. In Tilburg, prisoners can freely choose between the “normal,” the vegetarian, or the halal diet. Each diet can be served with rice or potatoes. Due to the higher costs of medical or kosher foods, authorization from the medical staff or the Rabbi is needed prior to purchasing these meals. Furthermore, Sodexo ensures that the nutritional value of the meals conforms to the standards set out in the co-operation act between Sodexo and the Dutch government. This act stipulates, among other things, the content of these meals and the different menus that have to be delivered. In Belgium, information on nutritional value of the meals does not exist. Finally, In Belgium, after the food preparation and distribution, the kitchen has to be cleaned to conform to norms of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). In Belgian prisons, the distribution of food is carried out at least twice a day. Needless to say, this process is time-consuming and laborious. Furthermore, the prison’s food chain has to conform to guidelines concerning food safety. In Belgian prisons, this is often problematic, as stated by the Belgian Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (Ghafir & Busschots, 2013). Although the ready-made meals in Tilburg clearly have some advantages for the organization of food distribution in prison, they also give rise to a number of problems. First, prisoners complain loudly about the ready-made meals they receive. In Tilburg, prisoners have explicitly voiced their dissatisfaction with the meals during the so-called “prisoner meeting.” However, since the central prison administration decided to outsource the catering, governors cannot make any changes to the meals. Consequently, prisoners’ complaints concerning meals could not be discussed with those responsible for cooking. As another point, Cross and MacDonald (2009, 20) mentioned that “in-house catering gives establishments more control and say over how the service is operated.” In Belgium, prison staff and governors intentionally prepare certain meals, like fries, for example, to comfort prisoners and to keep them calm. In Belgium, food is described as a means to please prisoners and to give them a little bit of joy during their imprisonment. Second, the pre-packaged meals prevent prisoners from changing the composition of dishes. In Belgium, prisoners can ask to have certain items removed from their plate. This grants them a feeling of autonomy (Edwards et al., 2009). When prisoners are employed as part of the kitchen staff, they are able to partake in meal preparation in a more meaningful way, which in turn may foster positive attitudes about themselves (Williams, 2009). Finally, the presence of a kitchen provides prisoners with the opportunity to work and earn a little money while incarcerated. Although prisoners are allowed to work four hours per day in Tilburg, many prefer to work whole days. The kitchen work, then, seems an ideal locale for prisoner employment. One Belgian prisoner in Tilburg voiced his criticism on this topic: I think we should earn more money, like in Belgium. That’s what I think. If they want to, they could create work opportunities. In Belgium, they have a kitchen where prisoners cook. They have the
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
guards to supervise.… Here, external companies do this kind of work. (translation of prisoner transcript X3) Additionally, prisoners can acquire cooking skills, which may help them during their rehabilitation, which, moreover, gives them a purposeful pastime (Williams, 2009). In some Belgian prisons, prisoners can attend cooking lessons in the prison kitchen, and they can even obtain a certificate if they graduate successfully. Prisoners’ attitudes toward ready-made meals In this research, thirty-six Belgian prisoners voiced their opinion on food-related matters in this prison. Twenty-eight prisoners were repulsed by the food, four prisoners expressed mixed feelings – listing both pros and cons, and only three were pleased with the food they received. Before starting with a description of prisoners’ attitudes toward ready-made meals, we must note that criticism of prison food is often described as prisoners’ venting about life behind bars (Cross & MacDonald, 2009). Because of the particularity of the situation and the population in Tilburg, the results are not representative of all prisons in The Netherlands where this food system was introduced. The quantitative research of Van der Broeck, Molleman, Henneken-Hordijk, and Mol (2011) proved that Belgian prisoners’ attitudes in Tilburg toward the food are more negative than the Dutch average. Prisoners’ criticism originates from a frustration that, according to them, ready-made meals have a lower quality than meals prepared on the spot, as is done in Belgian prisons. They perceive this as an unjust change in food service because their regime should be similar to that in Belgian prisons. This idea clearly influences their opinions. Nevertheless, we believe the situation in Tilburg gives interesting insights into people’s reaction to a changing food system. Prisoners’ lack of choice in meal preparation, in particular, and their unfamiliarity with ready-made meals give closer insights into prison experiences as well as attitudes toward convenience food. One prisoner expressed his feelings thus: No, I won’t eat this. It’s been deep-frozen; it has no flavor, nothing. It can fill the stomach, yes, but it’s impossible to savor the meal. (translation of prisoner transcript X1) As mentioned above, prisoners strongly disapproved of the readymade meals because, in their opinion, once these were heated from their deep-frozen state, the food emerged soggy and unappetizing. According to most of the interviewees, the food tasted bad or was flavorless. Even prisoners with more positive attitudes toward the meals said that they added spices. Sodexo adds only a minimal amount of spices to allow consumers to season dishes as they see fit. However, spices have to be bought in the prison shop. Second, aside from taste, the smell was often criticized as revolting, in particular when a meal containing sea-food was served. For example, one said: The fish [served by the prison] is a fish burger, which means several types of fish are mixed. So really, it’s such a nasty smell when you put it in the microwave. The dirty smell it emits is incredible. In fact, it really doesn’t increase appetite. So the food is really bad here. (translation of prisoner transcript X5) Third, prisoners frequently deemed the portion size of prepacked dishes too small. The meal size is based on the amount of food an average man should eat daily. But several prisoners claim to experience weight loss during their stay in Tilburg, as expressed by one: You lose weight, yes. Or you have to spend 100 euro per week in the prison shop and cook your own food. In that case, your weight won’t change or you can gain weight. But not from the food they
5
distribute. If they tell me that the ready-made meal is enough, yes, okay but then you need more. Because you receive a little bit of rice, some vegetables, a little bit of fish. They have to make more so a human being can be satisfied. And you also think: “What do they throw in these meals?” (translation of prisoner transcript X16) Still, prisoners can ask for an extra ration of bread if they are still hungry after their meal. According to them, this does not meet their needs, and prisoners transferred from Belgium preferred the system to which they had previously been accustomed, a food service system where bigger portions were the norm and where some prisoners close to staff members or the prisoner who distributed the food could occasionally count on extras. Furthermore, since it is impossible to deep-freeze and reheat certain food products in a microwave oven, a number of appealing dishes cannot be provided to prisoners. The absence of fries, for example, was perceived as an enormous problem. In Belgian correctional institutions, prisoners receive fries once a week, an event to which many look forward as a pleasant reprieve from their otherwise drab prison lives. In the Tilburg prison, the more well-to-do prisoners can purchase potatoes and use their imagination to make fries in the kitchens on the wings, as one explained: We have to be creative in the way we cook […] Like deep-frying, we are not allowed to fry our fries but we put oil in a saucepan and fry them. But this is not allowed. If the guards notice it and they don’t like you, they will forbid you to do it. Why? Because you have a saucepan full of boiling oil. If you would throw it at a guard, his face will be burned. So in fact it is dangerous but sometimes they tolerate it. (translation of prisoner transcript X6) Other prisoners have to wait for special occasions, like holidays, when the prison serves fresh meals and fried foods. Overall, the prisoners experienced the lack of diversity as a painful loss choice. Aside from complaints about portion size, variation, and quality, several prisoners expressed concern about their health. Some prisoners eat these meals for a long period of time but have expressed the belief that it would not be feasible to do so throughout the entirety of their stay because they think it’s damaging to their health. The lack of fresh ingredients has led some to believe the food is unhealthy: They say even outside prison, it is not healthy to eat “microwave food.” In here, you don’t get anything else. Sometimes I wonder if you eat it every day, two years in a row, would you get problems with your health? So I don’t eat it every day. I throw it away. (translation of prisoner transcript X16) Some prisoners do not trust industrially prepared meals because they do not know how they are prepared and which ingredients are used. Sometimes the content of the meal is barely specified. This is similar to criticism previously leveled at Australian prisons where meals were delivered on a foil tray (Williams, Walton, Ainsworth, & Wirtz, 2008). The factory-processed nature of meals is associated with poor quality, and several prisoners felt that pre-packaged meals have nothing to do with food, as one said: I live in [name of a village] where we have a bakery. For one euro I can buy bread [indistinguishable speech]. I have never put it into a fridge or whatever, slices of bread-never ever have I done that. For me it’s the first time, all this deep-frozen stuff, I had no experience with it, except for when we travelled by airplane, but there’s more taste in that food than I have ever encountered in our prison meals. We’re not on Mars, right? But there’s nothing we can do about it. We’re in jail, not the Hilton hotel. (translation of prisoner transcript X2) Some prisoners explain this difference in food systems by referring to their culture. According to them, in their culture, food is
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
6
always homemade and they do not purchase ready-made meals. But they believe that in The Netherlands people are more used to this kind of food. Finally, sometimes prisoners perceive bad food as normal because they are imprisoned. This opinion is interesting because throughout history, many discussions have been held about whether food should contain a penal aspect or not. Most recently, the prevailing opinion is that prison food cannot be used as a penalty; prisoners have to be adequately fed (Coyle, 2002; Tomlinson, 2007). But clearly, some prisoners still experience prison food as a punitive aspect of the prison regime. As mentioned earlier, not all of the interviewees had negative experiences with ready-made meals. One prisoner stated that Sodexo distributes a varied diet. Since other prisoners do not share this opinion, the perception of what comprises a varied diet clearly differs between prisoners. Another prisoner claimed the portion size was too small but that the food was healthy, because the nutritional value of the menus conforms to prescribed standards. This prisoner had become involved in sports, and the meals appeared to be adjusted to his lifestyle: We don’t get sufficient food. For example, I eat bread and I buy tuna in the prison shop. These ready-made meals are okay if you don’t do any activities. But if you do sports during two or three hours a day, it is not enough. But it is very healthy. There is no fat in it, nothing. I think they steam it so it is very healthy. (translation of prisoner transcript X13) Prison meals can be heated in the microwave oven. Prisoners expressed their appreciation for the autonomy allowed in their heating their own food, in particular because it allows them to eat hot dishes. This is in contrast to Belgian prisons where the meals regularly get cold during food distribution. Finally, the opportunity to heat the meals is appreciated during the Ramadan by some Muslims as such a system allows them to prepare food after sunset. Conclusions The question was raised about the influence a particular food provisioning may have on prison life. This research focused on the effects for the organization of prison life, and then considered the effects for prisoners. Relevant is the division between the interests of those who buy the food (the administration) and those who consume the food (the prisoners). This research shows that readymade meals include several advantages for a well-ordered organization of the daily prison regime. The administrators’ conviction about budgetary advantages is the main reason to choose convenience food. Together, the time-saving element and the small number of employees who distribute the meals seem to be important as well. Nevertheless, some problems that arise for daily prison life are also noted. Prisoners as well as prison governors have no say in the composition of the meals. In addition, the prison fails to create job opportunities and teaching opportunities concerning food preparation for prisoners. The advantages for the prison system are mostly convenient for the administration, but concern about the prisoners’ preferences has not been demonstrated. The prisoners’ views highlight mainly negative attitudes toward convenience food. Sloppy, unappetizing, tasteless, and smelly food as well as small portion size and lack of variation were among the main complaints. More importantly, health considerations, the lack of trust in industrially prepared food and the unfamiliarity with convenience food appear to negatively influence their detention experiences. Some prisoners perceive conveniece food as a punitive aspect of their detention. In addition, it confronts them with their loss of autonomy. Clearly, prisoners focus instead on the content of ready-made meals and surely not on advantages for the prison system. This, of course, is not surprising since prisoners do not need to save time or effort. For most prisoners, “doing time” means they
believe time goes by slowly, and ways to spend time in a purposeful way are welcome. The extra effort needed to prepare meals would be a way to escape the boredom of daily prison life. Although this time aspect is characteristic of prison life, prisoners’ attitudes and beliefs are often similar to those they used to have before their imprisonment. Research shows that prison experiences are shaped by deprivation of several aspects of daily life (Goffman, 1961; Sykes, 1958) as well as by the importation of attitudes, beliefs, culture, and religion prisoners used to have before their detention. (See for example Irwin & Cressey, 1962.) Consequently, by focusing on prisoners’ attitudes, these findings give insight in people’s general attitudes toward convenience food: convenience food is quite practical prior to consumption, but not highly appreciated when eaten. Due to criticism and bad experiences with convenience food, prisoners, prison staff, and prison governors in Tilburg are searching for original ways to make the best out of this system. First of all, prisoners highly enjoy cooking in the kitchens in their cell wings. Prisoners who can afford to do so purchase food in the canteen, while others take some ingredients out of their ready-made meals and change these into a more familiar meal. In addition, an experiment has been set up where prisoners receive a small amount of money to buy fresh products delivered by Sodexo. Instead of receiving the ready-made meals, they receive fresh products to prepare their meals from scratch. As a result of these options, the prisoners are responsible for their own food preparation. The importance of cooking cannot be underestimated because it gives prisoners control over their health and identity construction. Further research is needed to find out more about this new catering system. References Belga. (2010). Belgische gevangenen lusten Hollandse kost niet. De Morgen (October 4th.). Beyens, K., & Boone, M. (2013). Zeg maar Henk tegen de chef. Utrecht; Boom-Lemma. Botonaki, A., & Mattas, K. (2010). Revealing the values behind convenience food consumption. Appetite, 55(3), 629–638. Brisman, A. (2007). Fair fare? Food as contested terrain in US prisons and jails. In L. J. Lefler (Ed.), Southern foodways and culture. Local considerations and beyond. Mississippi: Newfound Press. Brunner, T. A., van der Horst, K., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption. Appetite, 55(3), 498–506. Buckley, M., Cowan, C., & McCarthy, M. (2007). The convenience food market in Great Britain. Convenience food lifestyle (CFL) segments. Appetite, 49(3), 600–617. Cate, S. (2008). Breaking bread with a spread in a San Francisco County Jail. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 8(3), 17–24. Collins, S. A., & Thompson, S. H. (2012). What are we feeding our inmates? Journal of Correctional Health Care, 18(3), 210–218. Coyle, A. (2002). A human rights approach to prison management. Handbook for prison staff. London: International Centre for Prison Studies. Cross, M., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Nutrition in institutions. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. de Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Cowan, C., & Ryan, I. (2004). The influence of lifestyle characteristics and beliefs about convenience food on the demand for convenience foods in the Irish market. Food Quality and Preference, 15(2), 155–165. Dusselier, J. (2002). Does food make place? Food protests in Japanese American concentration camps. Food and Foodways, 10(3), 137–165. Earle, R., & Phillips, C. (2012). Digesting men? Ethnicity, gender and food. Perspectives from a ‘prison ethnography’. Theoretical Criminology, 16(2), 141–156. Edwards, J., Hartwell, H., & Schafheitle, J. (2009). Prison foodservice in England. Journal of Foodservice, 20, 157–166. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Report to the Governments of Belgium and The Netherlands on the visit to Tilburg Prison carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (2012). Gétaz, L., Rieder, J. P., Nyffenegger, L., Eytan, A., Gaspoz, J. M., & Wolff, H. (2012). Hunger strike among detainees. Guidance for good medical practice. Swiss Medical Weekly, 142, w13675. Ghafir, Y., & Busschots, L. (2013). Activiteitenverslag. Brussels: Federaal Agentschap voor de Veiligheid van de Voedselketen. Gibbs, G. (2013). Using Software in Qualitative Analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Godderis, R. (2006a). Dining in. The Symbolic power of food in prison. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(3), 255–267. Godderis, R. (2006b). Food for thought. An analysis of power and identity in prison food narratives. Berkley Journal of Sociology, 50, 61–75.
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Doubleday. Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. R. (1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10(2), 142–155. Johns, N., Edwards, J. S. A., & Hartwell, H. J. (2013). Hungry in hospital, well-fed in prison? A comparative analysis of food service systems. Appetite, 68(0), 45–50. Kjær Minke, L. (2014). Cooking in prison-from crook to cook. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 10(4), 228–238. Kox, M., De Ridder, S., Vanhouche, A., Boone, M., & Beyens, K. (2014). Detentiebeleving van strafrechtelijk gedetineerden zonder verblijfsrecht. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 56(2), 31–47. Peter, O. (2013). Alimentation et droits des personnes détenues. Analyse dans la perspective du droit européen. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, 93, 97–121. Rubin, A. (2014). Resistance or friction. Understanding the significance of prisoners’ secondary adjustments. Theoretical Criminology, 19(1), 23–42. Smith, C. (2002). Punishment and pleasure. Women, food and the imprisoned body. Sociological Review, 50(2), 197–214. Smoyer, A. (2014). Good and healthy. Foodways and construction of identity in a women’s prison. The Howard Journal, 53(5), 525–541. Stein, K. (2000). Foodservice in correctional facilities. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 100(5), 508–509. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. A study of a maximum security prison. New York: Princeton University Press.
7
Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2013). Grounded Theory and Theoretical Coding. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Tomlinson, M. H. (2007). Not an instrument of punishment. Prison diet in the mid-nineteenth century. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2(1), 15–26. Ugelvik, T. (2011). The hidden food. Mealtime resistance and identity work in a Norwegian prison. Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology, 13(1), 47–63. Ugelvik, T. (2014). Power and resistance in prison. Doing time, doing freedom. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Valentine, G., & Longstaff, B. (1998). Doing porridge. Food and social relations in a male prison. Journal of Material Culture, 3(2), 131–152. Van der Broeck, T., Molleman, T., Henneken-Hordijk, I., & Mol, G. (2011). Welbevinden van medewerkers en gedetineerden op leefafdelingen van locatie Willem II Tilburg. Den Haag. Williams, P. (2009). Meals in science and practice. In H. Meiselman (Ed.), Interdisciplinary research and business applications (pp. 50–65). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd. Williams, P., Walton, K., Ainsworth, N., & Wirtz, C. (2008). Eating inside. Food service experiences in three Australian prisons. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference of Culinary Arts and Sciences. Stavanger, Norway. Williams, P., Walton, K., & Hannan-Jones, M. (2009). Prison foodservice in Australia - systems, menus and inmate attitudes. Journal of Foodservice, 20, 167–180. World Health Organization. Nutrition. (2013).
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Appetite j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a p p e t
Research report
Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆ An-Sofie Vanhouche * Faculty of Law and Criminology, Social & Cultural Food Studies (FOST), Pleinlaan 2, Elsene 1050, Belgium
A R T I C L E
I N F O
Article history: Received 29 October 2014 Received in revised form 8 April 2015 Accepted 10 April 2015 Available online Keywords: Convenience food Prison food Food-related attitudes
A B S T R A C T
Food in prison is an insufficiently researched topic. However, prisoners often highlight problems with and criticism of their prison meals. This article aims to further develop this topic by giving closer insight into the use and attitudes toward ready-made meals in the Tilburg prison. In this prison, prisoners receive ready-made meals. This is in contrast to Belgian prisons, from which they were transferred, where meals were made from scratch. This change in the food system led to commotion and complaints. To understand the situation, interviews with prisoners and staff were conducted and observations in the Tilburg prison were made. The results showed that a food system can have considerable influence on prison experiences. In addition, and contrary to what earlier reports have mentioned, the ready-made meals also have some advantages, especially for the organization of daily prison life. However, most prisoners had negative attitudes toward these meals. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction “Belgian Prisoners Do Not Like Dutch Food” was the headline of a newspaper article reporting on the living conditions of Belgian prisoners in the Dutch prison of Tilburg (Belga, 2010). Due to the overcrowded Belgian prisons and the overcapacity in The Netherlands’ prisons, cooperation between both countries has been established (Beyens & Boone, 2013). Although a Belgian prison regime was introduced in Tilburg, some differences remained. One of these differences was the food system. In Belgian prisons, meals are cooked on the spot, while in The Netherlands, ready-made meals are distributed. Because Belgium pays an annual price to the Dutch government for all of the services in the Tilburg prison, including the food service, introducing a Belgian food system would be very expensive. Under huge media attention, the first prisoners were transferred in 2010 from Belgian prisons to The Netherlands. Prisoners took advantage of this attention to criticize the ready-made meals. In 2011, a delegation of the Commission for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited the Penitentiary Institution in Tilburg to verify if the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were being upheld. Members of the CPT also “received a large number of complaints about the quality and method of preparation of the food served in the establishment” during their visit (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
☆ Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank Peter Scholliers, Tom Kiesecoms and Proof-Reading-Services.org for the revision and help during the writing of this article. * E-mail address: [email protected].
Punishment (CPT), CPT/Inf (2012)19§18). However, the meals were found to fulfill the minimum quality levels. In this article, we aim to contextualize and to nuance earlier reports on this topic. In addition, we aim to develop insights into prisoners’ attitudes toward the food systems in prison and how these may influence their prison experience. First, we explain prisoners’ reactions when they faced the change in food preparation after their transfer. Second, we highlight the specificities of the two different food systems within these two prisons. Finally, we elaborate on the insights into attitudes toward convenience food and ready-made meals.
What do we know about prison food? According to the World Health Organization (2013), “The quality and quantity of food available in a prison has a major influence on the quality of a prisoner’s life.” Research has shown that the importance of food in prison must not be underestimated. In tackling the problem from the sociological, anthropological, criminological, medical, and a human rights perspectives, researchers have explained possible reasons for this importance through many different points of view. Criminologists and sociologists have found that food can play many different roles within a prison context. Food possesses a symbolic power and is a means of communication in a closely controlled environment (Brisman, 2007; Godderis, 2006a, 2006b; Smith, 2002; Ugelvik, 2011, 2014; Valentine & Longstaff, 1998). For example, Godderis (2006b) explained how food practices represent overt and covert displays of institutional power. Prison guards’ arbitrary decision-making when distributing the meals, the economic restrictions imposed on purchases in prison shops, and the inconsistent
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047 0195-6663/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2
A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
implication of prison regulations are only a few examples of how power can be imposed through food. Next to these forms, prisoners experience an even more extensive and intrusive control when they lose choices about their own food intake. The prison staff and the state in general decide what, when, and how prisoners eat (Cate, 2008; Godderis, 2006a; Ugelvik, 2011). As a consequence, some prisoners lose control over their own bodies (Smith, 2002). However, power and hierarchical relationships can be open to change and can even be converted. In prison, this conversion of power is often explained as resistance. Resistance can be described as behavior that challenges existing power relationships. Food and food-related activities appear to be among the few activities people can try to control in highly supervised institutions (Brisman, 2007; Dusselier, 2002; Godderis, 2006a; Smith, 2002; Ugelvik, 2011). In prison the most obvious food-related form of resistance is the hunger strike. Prisoners on hunger strikes mostly protest or try to enforce their demands by putting the prison organization under pressure (Gétaz et al., 2012). But also mundane activities have been defined as forms of resistance. Smith (2002), for example, explained how eating unhealthy food can be a relief and form of resistance against a system that promotes healthy eating. In addition, Ugelvik (2011) explained how prisoners’ legal and illegal ways of cooking helped immigrants to resist Norwegian eating habits and Norwegian society. Rubin (2014), however, challenged Ugelvik’s (2011) research that defined these everyday activities as resistance without clarifying the prisoners’ intentions. According to Rubin (2014), resistance has to be a consciously and intentionally political act, which is not necessarily the case when prisoners cook their own food. Next to food as a means of reflecting and converting power relationships, cooking and eating can be methods to connect, bind, and create individual as well as group identities in prison (Cate, 2008; Earle & Phillips, 2012). For example, Kjær Minke (2014) explained how prisoners in Danish prisons receive their own money and are responsible for their own purchases and cooking. These circumstances may create positive identities in the sense that prisoners are acknowledged and respected as a “chef de cuisine” by their fellow inmates. Smoyer (2014) explained how women can construct a positive identity by representing themselves as healthy eaters who take care of themselves and their bodies. Eating and cooking are often group activities, and such things may ameliorate social relations among prisoners. Since most prisoners in the Danish system cook together, they have to organize, take responsibility for, and share their food (Kjær Minke, 2014). Smoyer (2014) also explained that food sharing and taking care of each other can be experienced as important activities for the construction of positive identities. In addition, Earle and Phillips (2012) illustrated how cooking areas in prison serve as a display for the cultural diversity between prisoners as well as a place where they learn to negotiate, organize, and work with each other. This conviviality may exist within as well as between cooking groups. Furthermore, prisoners from the same cooking group may protect each other in case of trouble (Kjær Minke, 2014). However, in some cases, the hierarchical structure within or between cooking groups may inflict oppression toward prisoners with lower positions (Kjær Minke, 2014). In addition, food can be used in a barter system that can demonstrate economic inequalities between prisoners (Valentine & Longstaff, 1998). Another perspective that sheds light onto the importance of food in a prison environment concentrates on the nutritional value of prison food and its effect on prisoners’ health. The results of this kind of research may differ between countries and prisons (Edards, Hartwell, & Schafheitle, 2009; Collins & Thompson, 2012; Stein, 2000). Finally, research has focused on different food systems (Johns, Edwards, & Hartwell, 2013) and prisoners’ attitudes toward differ-
ent forms of food preparation (Williams et al., 2009; Cross & MacDonald, 2009). Cross and MacDonald (2009) discussed several food preparation and distribution systems in five types of institutions, including prisons in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. They explained that the raising of standards of food quality since 1990 has led to prisoners’ having more favorable views toward their food. This article will expand the literature on food systems in prison as well as on prisoners’ and staffs’ attitudes toward these systems. Methods The prison of Tilburg and its detention regime are very unique. Since the 1980s, Belgium has faced major problems with prison overcrowding. Almost no action was undertaken to alleviate this overpopulation until the situation became unbearable in 2009. The Belgian minister of justice found a short term solution to diminish prison overcrowding by asking help from the neighboring country, The Netherlands. The prison of Tilburg (situated in The Netherlands, close to its Belgian border) faced closuring and staff’s dismissal due to the diminishing prison population in The Netherlands. Clearly both countries could take advantage of a cooperation. In 2010, the first prisoners convicted on Belgian territory could be transferred to Tilburg. In this penitentiary institution, a Belgian prison regime was introduced, while prison staff remained mainly Dutch. In 2012, the Dutch Ministry of Justice wanted to conduct a research study in this particular prison to find out what The Netherlands could learn from a Belgian detention regime. As a consequence, a research under the supervision of Beyens and Boone (Beyens & Boone, 2013) was set up. The research elaborated male prisoners’ detention experiences by drawing upon 36 interviews that were conducted by the author of this article in 2012. In this research (Beyens & Boone, 2013), we used a purposive sampling method to ensure the maximum variation. Prior knowledge about prison populations allowed us to focus on prisoners’ particular characteristics. The prison of Tilburg consists of different units. Therefore the sample ensured that a proportional number of prisoners from every unit were represented. In addition, the sample consisted of prisoners with different detention durations and detention experiences (i.e. they were transferred from a wide variety of Belgian prisons to Tilburg). Finally, we should note that an important characteristic of the population was underrepresented in the sample. At the time of the research, more than 50% of the prisoners in Tilburg did not have legal permission to stay in Belgium, while only six out of the thirty-six respondents (16.7%) did not have legal permission. Because detention experiences between prisoners with legal permission to stay in Belgium and those without the legal permission may greatly differ (Kox et al., 2014), the principal chose to focus on prisoners with legal permission. Based on these characteristics, we developed a list of prisoners. Before the start of the interviews, prisoners were asked if they agreed to cooperate with the research and to have the interview recorded. The interviews were conducted in a closed room in the prison where prisoners could not be heard by staff or by others inmates. During the interviews, a topic list was used. Afterwards, the interviews were transcribed and they were uploaded to the computer program MAXQDA. MAXQDA is a computer software program that assists with qualitative data analysis, and it is ideally suited to analyzing data according to the grounded theory approach (Gibbs, 2013). According to this approach, the coding process consisted of two or three phases. The first phase was “initial” or “open coding.” The codes created in this first phase allowed us to “stay close to the data and remain open to exploring what is happening in the data” (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2013, p. 156). In light of this research, the
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
36 interviews with prisoners were analyzed in this way. After this general analyses (further developed in the work of Beyens & Boone, (2013), in this new research the focus was placed on frequently occurring codes. Prison food was one of these codes, and the author further developed this code after the research of Beyens and Boone (2013). This led to the second phase of coding: the selective or focused coding, which means a focus is set on a particular topic that is further analyzed. The core category “prison food” evolved and several “subcodes” and concepts were attached. Based on the insights acquired during phases one and two of the analysis, it became apparent that new data had to be gathered. The Research Foundation Flanders supported the idea to conduct more research on the topic of prison food and provided the funds to conduct a new research in Tilburg and Belgian prisons. In Tilburg, six more prisoners were interviewed as well as seven members of the prison staff. As in the first sample, prisoners from different units were selected. Second, all prisoners interviewed in this stage were involved in food-related tasks. Two prisoners cooked on the prison wing for themselves and for other prisoners, three prisoners represented their fellow inmates in the monthly prisoner– governor meeting (a meeting during which food related-problems were often discussed), and one prisoner delivered the readymade meals on the prison wings. Third, staff from the medical service, the accounting department, the private company Sodexo, as well as two guards, the imam, and a prison governor also provided useful information concerning food-related topics. Similarly to the first interview phase, both prisoners and staff were asked to participate, and recordings were made with their consent. The interviews were conducted in a closed room. During the interviews, a topic list was used. The topic list was established drawing upon the results found in the previous coding phases. After the interviews, transcriptions were made and uploaded in MAXQDA. During the interviews in Tilburg, many prisoners referred to the Belgian system and compared their experiences. To contextualize and understand the Belgian food system, data were gathered in four Belgian prisons. Each prison was visited in an approximate twoweek period. In each prison, 10 interviews were conducted with staff and prisoners. Thirty of these interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in MAQXDA. Some prisoners did not give authorization for the recording, and in one prison, prison staff had to be present during the recordings. Their presence clearly had an influence on the information the prisoners yielded, so the decision was made to have informal conversations when no guards were present. In addition, observations were done in the prison kitchens and during the distribution of the meals. The Belgian ministry of justice as well as the prison governors (the Dutch as well as the Belgian) gave authorization for this research. We agreed that all participants, even during observations, had to give their authorization for participation and recordings and that anonymity would be preserved. Consequently, only general information about the research population is given and citations have been anonymized. Belgian and Dutch catering systems First, a description of the Belgian food system will be given to provide insight into the system to which prisoners were accustomed. It is important to notice that their reflections and criticism on the ready-made meals in Tilburg were invoked and based on their former experiences with the Belgian catering system. Second, the catering system in Tilburg will be discussed. Third, based on the interviews with prisoners and prison staff in Belgian prisons as well as in the Tilburg prison, the advantages and disadvantages of both systems will be highlighted. We then move to prisoners’ attitudes toward ready-made meals in prison.
3
Meals are made from scratch in Belgian prisons In Belgian prisons, meals are made from scratch in the prison kitchens. Catering staff and prison guards working in the kitchen are responsible for buying, stocking, and cooking these meals. In Belgium, prisons receive 3 euro 60 per prisoner per day to purchase food. This daily food price does not include kitchen equipment costs or kitchen staff’s salaries. Nevertheless, it is little money to provide three meals a day of which one has to be hot. Furthermore, prisoners have the right to order religious meals or specific medical diets that might be much more expensive than regular meals. However, prisons do not receive extra money for these special diets. For the prison to be able to cater within this limited budget, deals have to be struck with suppliers and seasonal vegetables and fruits have to be bought. Based on these prices, menus are set up. Every day, catering staff, prison guards and prisoners prepare these meals in the prison kitchen. For breakfast and dinner, prisoners mostly receive bread, sandwich filling, fruit, and sometimes dessert. For these meals, little preparation is needed in the kitchen; the food only has to be divided on the serving carts. Lunch consists of a hot meal that is prepared in the kitchen. Although only kitchen staff receive specific cooking training, prison guards as well as prisoners help to prepare these meals. In the morning, they start preparing the meals. Once the meals are ready, they are stored in heated trolleys before being distributed throughout the wings. Around 11:30 am prisoners who work on the wings and prison staff collect the heated trolleys and transport the food to the prison cells. The food should be distributed by prison staff and one or two prisoners, but in reality, prison staff do not always watch the distribution of the meals, which gives the prisoner in charge some power to decide the quantity of food each prisoner receives. Next to the official food system, prisoners can buy food in the prison shop at their own expense. The number of products that can be purchased in the shop varies from one prison to the next. In some prisons, inmates can prepare their own meals with the products purchased in the shop. However, cooking facilities available in the prison cells or on the wings differ greatly from prison to prison. In addition, in some prisons, prisoners have to buy their own cooking facilities, while in other prisons, small kitchens are available on the wings. The lack of cooking facilities in some prisons lead to the creation of self-made cooking utilities, like small fires to heat meals. Convenience food in Dutch prisons Several authors have discussed the meaning of convenience foods, based on food-related activities within a household (Botonaki & Mattas, 2010; Brunner, van der Horst, & Siegrist, 2010; Buckley, Cowan, & McCarthy, 2007; de Boer, McCarthy, Cowan, & Ryan, 2004). Saving time during food-related activities such as shopping, cooking, and cleaning seems to be important in the definition of “convenience.” In addition to the time-saving component, physical and mental efforts also play a role. Buckley et al. (2007, p. 601) characterized convenience as being “associated with reducing the input required from consumers in either food shopping, preparation, cooking or cleaning after the meal.” Furthermore, the use of convenience food appears to provide interesting insight into the effects on the changing of the household organization. All of this also applies to prisons, just as for any other institution that serves food and that caters for large groups of people. In Tilburg, ready-made meals are delivered by Sodexo, a private company that offers a varied range of “on-site” services. In many Dutch correctional institutions, Sodexo is responsible for catering. Once a week, deep-frozen meals for 650 prisoners are brought into the Tilburg prison. On a daily basis, a prisoner controls these stocks,
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4
A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
and a Sodexo worker, accompanied by prisoners, ensures that the right number of meals is present. Then, prisoners distribute the premade meals together with the other rations (bread; sandwich fillings such as cheese, jam, peanut butter, chocolate sprinkles; and dessert, such as fruit and yogurt). In Tilburg, the distribution of food occurs once a day, and prisoners are free to decide when they place their frozen meal in the prison cell microwaves. A label on the meal box allows prisoners to check the contents of the dish, as well as to verify whether they have received their recommended diet. In Tilburg, prisoners can also buy food in the prison shop at their own expense. In addition, every unit is equipped with a modern prison kitchen where prisoners can cook their own food. These kitchens are very important for most prisoners because it allows the wellto-do prisoners to prepare their own food. Other inmates often take out products from the ready-made meals and use them in their selfmade meals. The advantages and disadvantages of meals made from scratch and ready-made meals When a prison introduces pre-packaged food, a much shorter and less demanding process takes place. Clearly, this process is much more efficient for the prison system because of time saving. Moreover, only a small number of people is required to distribute food and, even more importantly, no prison staff are needed to prepare the meals. As a consequence, the staff can focus on other activities for prisoners or on security-related tasks. Also, consider that within prisons, every inmate movement needs to be supervised and controlled, and, therefore, in Belgian prisons, their movement is often kept to a minimum. Particularly in overcrowded places, circulation within a prison brings about extra workload, a problem that is considerably circumvented with the implementation of premade meals. This leaves more time for other activities. Finally, contrary to ready-made meals in society, prison management often believes these meals are less expensive than meals that are prepared on the spot. However, some authors have claimed that this can be contested since private catering companies may receive large discounts from suppliers if they deliver to public facilities (Cross & MacDonald, 2009). Aside from advantages related to cost, frozen meals and microwave ovens in the cells allow prisoners to heat food whenever they wish. A long lapse of time between two meals (especially between dinner and breakfast the next day) is a frequent source of discontent among prisoners (Cross & MacDonald, 2009; Peter, 2013). The Tilburg prison solves this by giving prisoners some autonomy, allowing them to eat whenever they want. These advantages were highlighted by Dutch prison staff: We used to serve them [prisoners] hot meals. Back then, the food was warm at twelve so they had to eat at twelve. Now, they have a microwave in their prison cell. They can choose whether they eat their meal at twelve or at six.… It is also very efficient during the Ramadan. They can eat their meals whenever they want. (translation of prisoner staff transcript X18) Furthermore, the meals cannot cool down during transport from the kitchen to the cells, while in Belgium, prisoners often complain about meals cooling down during the distribution. As a consequence, the prisoners at the end of the wings often receive cold meals. In Tilburg, the meals arrive in closed boxes, making it impossible for prisoners to intentionally contaminate each other’s food. In Belgian prisons, stories of prisoners who urinate in prison staff’s food or prisoners who spit in pedophiles’ meals are very common. In addition, pre-packaged meals ensure that all prisoners receive the same quantity of food. In Belgium, prisoners sometimes complain about being served portions of different sizes.
Another problem concerns the preparation of several types of meals: prisons are required to serve specific religious or medical diets to prisoners (European Prison Rules s.d., art. 22). The preparation of these meals entails an increased workload, and knowledge about specific medical diets is required to prepare them properly. Likewise, it should be mentioned that in some Belgian prisons, the kitchen equipment does not allow caterers to simultaneously cook all these different diets, and, in fact, the kitchen staff have explained that the expertise of a dietician is needed to guarantee quality and content. In contrast to Belgian penitentiary institutions, the Tilburg prison can rely on Sodexo and only has to order the requested quantity of religious and medical dishes. In Tilburg, prisoners can freely choose between the “normal,” the vegetarian, or the halal diet. Each diet can be served with rice or potatoes. Due to the higher costs of medical or kosher foods, authorization from the medical staff or the Rabbi is needed prior to purchasing these meals. Furthermore, Sodexo ensures that the nutritional value of the meals conforms to the standards set out in the co-operation act between Sodexo and the Dutch government. This act stipulates, among other things, the content of these meals and the different menus that have to be delivered. In Belgium, information on nutritional value of the meals does not exist. Finally, In Belgium, after the food preparation and distribution, the kitchen has to be cleaned to conform to norms of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). In Belgian prisons, the distribution of food is carried out at least twice a day. Needless to say, this process is time-consuming and laborious. Furthermore, the prison’s food chain has to conform to guidelines concerning food safety. In Belgian prisons, this is often problematic, as stated by the Belgian Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (Ghafir & Busschots, 2013). Although the ready-made meals in Tilburg clearly have some advantages for the organization of food distribution in prison, they also give rise to a number of problems. First, prisoners complain loudly about the ready-made meals they receive. In Tilburg, prisoners have explicitly voiced their dissatisfaction with the meals during the so-called “prisoner meeting.” However, since the central prison administration decided to outsource the catering, governors cannot make any changes to the meals. Consequently, prisoners’ complaints concerning meals could not be discussed with those responsible for cooking. As another point, Cross and MacDonald (2009, 20) mentioned that “in-house catering gives establishments more control and say over how the service is operated.” In Belgium, prison staff and governors intentionally prepare certain meals, like fries, for example, to comfort prisoners and to keep them calm. In Belgium, food is described as a means to please prisoners and to give them a little bit of joy during their imprisonment. Second, the pre-packaged meals prevent prisoners from changing the composition of dishes. In Belgium, prisoners can ask to have certain items removed from their plate. This grants them a feeling of autonomy (Edwards et al., 2009). When prisoners are employed as part of the kitchen staff, they are able to partake in meal preparation in a more meaningful way, which in turn may foster positive attitudes about themselves (Williams, 2009). Finally, the presence of a kitchen provides prisoners with the opportunity to work and earn a little money while incarcerated. Although prisoners are allowed to work four hours per day in Tilburg, many prefer to work whole days. The kitchen work, then, seems an ideal locale for prisoner employment. One Belgian prisoner in Tilburg voiced his criticism on this topic: I think we should earn more money, like in Belgium. That’s what I think. If they want to, they could create work opportunities. In Belgium, they have a kitchen where prisoners cook. They have the
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
guards to supervise.… Here, external companies do this kind of work. (translation of prisoner transcript X3) Additionally, prisoners can acquire cooking skills, which may help them during their rehabilitation, which, moreover, gives them a purposeful pastime (Williams, 2009). In some Belgian prisons, prisoners can attend cooking lessons in the prison kitchen, and they can even obtain a certificate if they graduate successfully. Prisoners’ attitudes toward ready-made meals In this research, thirty-six Belgian prisoners voiced their opinion on food-related matters in this prison. Twenty-eight prisoners were repulsed by the food, four prisoners expressed mixed feelings – listing both pros and cons, and only three were pleased with the food they received. Before starting with a description of prisoners’ attitudes toward ready-made meals, we must note that criticism of prison food is often described as prisoners’ venting about life behind bars (Cross & MacDonald, 2009). Because of the particularity of the situation and the population in Tilburg, the results are not representative of all prisons in The Netherlands where this food system was introduced. The quantitative research of Van der Broeck, Molleman, Henneken-Hordijk, and Mol (2011) proved that Belgian prisoners’ attitudes in Tilburg toward the food are more negative than the Dutch average. Prisoners’ criticism originates from a frustration that, according to them, ready-made meals have a lower quality than meals prepared on the spot, as is done in Belgian prisons. They perceive this as an unjust change in food service because their regime should be similar to that in Belgian prisons. This idea clearly influences their opinions. Nevertheless, we believe the situation in Tilburg gives interesting insights into people’s reaction to a changing food system. Prisoners’ lack of choice in meal preparation, in particular, and their unfamiliarity with ready-made meals give closer insights into prison experiences as well as attitudes toward convenience food. One prisoner expressed his feelings thus: No, I won’t eat this. It’s been deep-frozen; it has no flavor, nothing. It can fill the stomach, yes, but it’s impossible to savor the meal. (translation of prisoner transcript X1) As mentioned above, prisoners strongly disapproved of the readymade meals because, in their opinion, once these were heated from their deep-frozen state, the food emerged soggy and unappetizing. According to most of the interviewees, the food tasted bad or was flavorless. Even prisoners with more positive attitudes toward the meals said that they added spices. Sodexo adds only a minimal amount of spices to allow consumers to season dishes as they see fit. However, spices have to be bought in the prison shop. Second, aside from taste, the smell was often criticized as revolting, in particular when a meal containing sea-food was served. For example, one said: The fish [served by the prison] is a fish burger, which means several types of fish are mixed. So really, it’s such a nasty smell when you put it in the microwave. The dirty smell it emits is incredible. In fact, it really doesn’t increase appetite. So the food is really bad here. (translation of prisoner transcript X5) Third, prisoners frequently deemed the portion size of prepacked dishes too small. The meal size is based on the amount of food an average man should eat daily. But several prisoners claim to experience weight loss during their stay in Tilburg, as expressed by one: You lose weight, yes. Or you have to spend 100 euro per week in the prison shop and cook your own food. In that case, your weight won’t change or you can gain weight. But not from the food they
5
distribute. If they tell me that the ready-made meal is enough, yes, okay but then you need more. Because you receive a little bit of rice, some vegetables, a little bit of fish. They have to make more so a human being can be satisfied. And you also think: “What do they throw in these meals?” (translation of prisoner transcript X16) Still, prisoners can ask for an extra ration of bread if they are still hungry after their meal. According to them, this does not meet their needs, and prisoners transferred from Belgium preferred the system to which they had previously been accustomed, a food service system where bigger portions were the norm and where some prisoners close to staff members or the prisoner who distributed the food could occasionally count on extras. Furthermore, since it is impossible to deep-freeze and reheat certain food products in a microwave oven, a number of appealing dishes cannot be provided to prisoners. The absence of fries, for example, was perceived as an enormous problem. In Belgian correctional institutions, prisoners receive fries once a week, an event to which many look forward as a pleasant reprieve from their otherwise drab prison lives. In the Tilburg prison, the more well-to-do prisoners can purchase potatoes and use their imagination to make fries in the kitchens on the wings, as one explained: We have to be creative in the way we cook […] Like deep-frying, we are not allowed to fry our fries but we put oil in a saucepan and fry them. But this is not allowed. If the guards notice it and they don’t like you, they will forbid you to do it. Why? Because you have a saucepan full of boiling oil. If you would throw it at a guard, his face will be burned. So in fact it is dangerous but sometimes they tolerate it. (translation of prisoner transcript X6) Other prisoners have to wait for special occasions, like holidays, when the prison serves fresh meals and fried foods. Overall, the prisoners experienced the lack of diversity as a painful loss choice. Aside from complaints about portion size, variation, and quality, several prisoners expressed concern about their health. Some prisoners eat these meals for a long period of time but have expressed the belief that it would not be feasible to do so throughout the entirety of their stay because they think it’s damaging to their health. The lack of fresh ingredients has led some to believe the food is unhealthy: They say even outside prison, it is not healthy to eat “microwave food.” In here, you don’t get anything else. Sometimes I wonder if you eat it every day, two years in a row, would you get problems with your health? So I don’t eat it every day. I throw it away. (translation of prisoner transcript X16) Some prisoners do not trust industrially prepared meals because they do not know how they are prepared and which ingredients are used. Sometimes the content of the meal is barely specified. This is similar to criticism previously leveled at Australian prisons where meals were delivered on a foil tray (Williams, Walton, Ainsworth, & Wirtz, 2008). The factory-processed nature of meals is associated with poor quality, and several prisoners felt that pre-packaged meals have nothing to do with food, as one said: I live in [name of a village] where we have a bakery. For one euro I can buy bread [indistinguishable speech]. I have never put it into a fridge or whatever, slices of bread-never ever have I done that. For me it’s the first time, all this deep-frozen stuff, I had no experience with it, except for when we travelled by airplane, but there’s more taste in that food than I have ever encountered in our prison meals. We’re not on Mars, right? But there’s nothing we can do about it. We’re in jail, not the Hilton hotel. (translation of prisoner transcript X2) Some prisoners explain this difference in food systems by referring to their culture. According to them, in their culture, food is
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
6
always homemade and they do not purchase ready-made meals. But they believe that in The Netherlands people are more used to this kind of food. Finally, sometimes prisoners perceive bad food as normal because they are imprisoned. This opinion is interesting because throughout history, many discussions have been held about whether food should contain a penal aspect or not. Most recently, the prevailing opinion is that prison food cannot be used as a penalty; prisoners have to be adequately fed (Coyle, 2002; Tomlinson, 2007). But clearly, some prisoners still experience prison food as a punitive aspect of the prison regime. As mentioned earlier, not all of the interviewees had negative experiences with ready-made meals. One prisoner stated that Sodexo distributes a varied diet. Since other prisoners do not share this opinion, the perception of what comprises a varied diet clearly differs between prisoners. Another prisoner claimed the portion size was too small but that the food was healthy, because the nutritional value of the menus conforms to prescribed standards. This prisoner had become involved in sports, and the meals appeared to be adjusted to his lifestyle: We don’t get sufficient food. For example, I eat bread and I buy tuna in the prison shop. These ready-made meals are okay if you don’t do any activities. But if you do sports during two or three hours a day, it is not enough. But it is very healthy. There is no fat in it, nothing. I think they steam it so it is very healthy. (translation of prisoner transcript X13) Prison meals can be heated in the microwave oven. Prisoners expressed their appreciation for the autonomy allowed in their heating their own food, in particular because it allows them to eat hot dishes. This is in contrast to Belgian prisons where the meals regularly get cold during food distribution. Finally, the opportunity to heat the meals is appreciated during the Ramadan by some Muslims as such a system allows them to prepare food after sunset. Conclusions The question was raised about the influence a particular food provisioning may have on prison life. This research focused on the effects for the organization of prison life, and then considered the effects for prisoners. Relevant is the division between the interests of those who buy the food (the administration) and those who consume the food (the prisoners). This research shows that readymade meals include several advantages for a well-ordered organization of the daily prison regime. The administrators’ conviction about budgetary advantages is the main reason to choose convenience food. Together, the time-saving element and the small number of employees who distribute the meals seem to be important as well. Nevertheless, some problems that arise for daily prison life are also noted. Prisoners as well as prison governors have no say in the composition of the meals. In addition, the prison fails to create job opportunities and teaching opportunities concerning food preparation for prisoners. The advantages for the prison system are mostly convenient for the administration, but concern about the prisoners’ preferences has not been demonstrated. The prisoners’ views highlight mainly negative attitudes toward convenience food. Sloppy, unappetizing, tasteless, and smelly food as well as small portion size and lack of variation were among the main complaints. More importantly, health considerations, the lack of trust in industrially prepared food and the unfamiliarity with convenience food appear to negatively influence their detention experiences. Some prisoners perceive conveniece food as a punitive aspect of their detention. In addition, it confronts them with their loss of autonomy. Clearly, prisoners focus instead on the content of ready-made meals and surely not on advantages for the prison system. This, of course, is not surprising since prisoners do not need to save time or effort. For most prisoners, “doing time” means they
believe time goes by slowly, and ways to spend time in a purposeful way are welcome. The extra effort needed to prepare meals would be a way to escape the boredom of daily prison life. Although this time aspect is characteristic of prison life, prisoners’ attitudes and beliefs are often similar to those they used to have before their imprisonment. Research shows that prison experiences are shaped by deprivation of several aspects of daily life (Goffman, 1961; Sykes, 1958) as well as by the importation of attitudes, beliefs, culture, and religion prisoners used to have before their detention. (See for example Irwin & Cressey, 1962.) Consequently, by focusing on prisoners’ attitudes, these findings give insight in people’s general attitudes toward convenience food: convenience food is quite practical prior to consumption, but not highly appreciated when eaten. Due to criticism and bad experiences with convenience food, prisoners, prison staff, and prison governors in Tilburg are searching for original ways to make the best out of this system. First of all, prisoners highly enjoy cooking in the kitchens in their cell wings. Prisoners who can afford to do so purchase food in the canteen, while others take some ingredients out of their ready-made meals and change these into a more familiar meal. In addition, an experiment has been set up where prisoners receive a small amount of money to buy fresh products delivered by Sodexo. Instead of receiving the ready-made meals, they receive fresh products to prepare their meals from scratch. As a result of these options, the prisoners are responsible for their own food preparation. The importance of cooking cannot be underestimated because it gives prisoners control over their health and identity construction. Further research is needed to find out more about this new catering system. References Belga. (2010). Belgische gevangenen lusten Hollandse kost niet. De Morgen (October 4th.). Beyens, K., & Boone, M. (2013). Zeg maar Henk tegen de chef. Utrecht; Boom-Lemma. Botonaki, A., & Mattas, K. (2010). Revealing the values behind convenience food consumption. Appetite, 55(3), 629–638. Brisman, A. (2007). Fair fare? Food as contested terrain in US prisons and jails. In L. J. Lefler (Ed.), Southern foodways and culture. Local considerations and beyond. Mississippi: Newfound Press. Brunner, T. A., van der Horst, K., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption. Appetite, 55(3), 498–506. Buckley, M., Cowan, C., & McCarthy, M. (2007). The convenience food market in Great Britain. Convenience food lifestyle (CFL) segments. Appetite, 49(3), 600–617. Cate, S. (2008). Breaking bread with a spread in a San Francisco County Jail. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 8(3), 17–24. Collins, S. A., & Thompson, S. H. (2012). What are we feeding our inmates? Journal of Correctional Health Care, 18(3), 210–218. Coyle, A. (2002). A human rights approach to prison management. Handbook for prison staff. London: International Centre for Prison Studies. Cross, M., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Nutrition in institutions. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. de Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Cowan, C., & Ryan, I. (2004). The influence of lifestyle characteristics and beliefs about convenience food on the demand for convenience foods in the Irish market. Food Quality and Preference, 15(2), 155–165. Dusselier, J. (2002). Does food make place? Food protests in Japanese American concentration camps. Food and Foodways, 10(3), 137–165. Earle, R., & Phillips, C. (2012). Digesting men? Ethnicity, gender and food. Perspectives from a ‘prison ethnography’. Theoretical Criminology, 16(2), 141–156. Edwards, J., Hartwell, H., & Schafheitle, J. (2009). Prison foodservice in England. Journal of Foodservice, 20, 157–166. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Report to the Governments of Belgium and The Netherlands on the visit to Tilburg Prison carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (2012).
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047
ARTICLE IN PRESS A.-S. Vanhouche/Appetite ■■ (2015) ■■–■■
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Doubleday. Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. R. (1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10(2), 142–155. Johns, N., Edwards, J. S. A., & Hartwell, H. J. (2013). Hungry in hospital, well-fed in prison? A comparative analysis of food service systems. Appetite, 68(0), 45–50. Kjær Minke, L. (2014). Cooking in prison-from crook to cook. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 10(4), 228–238. Kox, M., De Ridder, S., Vanhouche, A., Boone, M., & Beyens, K. (2014). Detentiebeleving van strafrechtelijk gedetineerden zonder verblijfsrecht. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 56(2), 31–47. Peter, O. (2013). Alimentation et droits des personnes détenues. Analyse dans la perspective du droit européen. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, 93, 97–121. Rubin, A. (2014). Resistance or friction. Understanding the significance of prisoners’ secondary adjustments. Theoretical Criminology, 19(1), 23–42. Smith, C. (2002). Punishment and pleasure. Women, food and the imprisoned body. Sociological Review, 50(2), 197–214. Smoyer, A. (2014). Good and healthy. Foodways and construction of identity in a women’s prison. The Howard Journal, 53(5), 525–541. Stein, K. (2000). Foodservice in correctional facilities. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 100(5), 508–509. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. A study of a maximum security prison. New York: Princeton University Press.
7
Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2013). Grounded Theory and Theoretical Coding. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Tomlinson, M. H. (2007). Not an instrument of punishment. Prison diet in the mid-nineteenth century. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2(1), 15–26. Ugelvik, T. (2011). The hidden food. Mealtime resistance and identity work in a Norwegian prison. Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology, 13(1), 47–63. Ugelvik, T. (2014). Power and resistance in prison. Doing time, doing freedom. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Valentine, G., & Longstaff, B. (1998). Doing porridge. Food and social relations in a male prison. Journal of Material Culture, 3(2), 131–152. Van der Broeck, T., Molleman, T., Henneken-Hordijk, I., & Mol, G. (2011). Welbevinden van medewerkers en gedetineerden op leefafdelingen van locatie Willem II Tilburg. Den Haag. Williams, P. (2009). Meals in science and practice. In H. Meiselman (Ed.), Interdisciplinary research and business applications (pp. 50–65). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd. Williams, P., Walton, K., Ainsworth, N., & Wirtz, C. (2008). Eating inside. Food service experiences in three Australian prisons. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference of Culinary Arts and Sciences. Stavanger, Norway. Williams, P., Walton, K., & Hannan-Jones, M. (2009). Prison foodservice in Australia - systems, menus and inmate attitudes. Journal of Foodservice, 20, 167–180. World Health Organization. Nutrition. (2013).
Please cite this article in press as: An-Sofie Vanhouche, Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison ☆, Appetite (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047