Food trust in low trust environments. Negotiating food trust in belgian prisons

Appetite 142 (2019) 104385

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet

Food trust in low trust environments. Negotiating food trust in belgian prisons

T

An-Sofie Vanhouche Postdoctoral Researcher at the Crime and Society Research Group of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

ABSTRACT

This article examines how food trust is negotiated in Belgian penitentiaries. The study of food trust in prison, provides a particular context where the process can be understood in a low trust environment, and framed within a wider debate about food trust that has focused predominantly on how confidence is constructed in the context of outside society. A qualitative study, based on 60 in-depth interviews conducted with prisoners (41) and prison staff (19) and participant observations in prison kitchens, was carried out in five Belgian prisons. The findings show first, that trust in prisoners who work in the kitchen, and trust in external actors such as food control bodies or religious representatives that regularly visit the kitchens, can facilitate a negotiation of trust. Secondly, and contextually related to the above, is the importance of respecting religious and cultural norms in establishing a climate of food trust. Finally, the results additionally indicate that a lack of information, and/or incorrect information about cleanliness, at times led to food distrust.

1. Introduction ‘More maggots and mold found in Michigan's prison food’ (Perkins, 2017) 'El Chapo led a protest in a Mexican prison that had to do with bad food' (more than 20 inmates were poisoned by eating spoiled chicken) (Estevez, 2014) These two quotations from newspaper articles around the world were no doubt met with little surprise since prison food is infamously presented in the news media as poor (see for example Camplin, 2017; Marguia, 2018). Nevertheless, in many prisons around the world, prisoners will eat meals prepared by correctional institutions on a daily basis. Based on notorious stories told in news media, the question arises whether this is commonly experienced as such by prisoners and how trust in these meals is negotiated. This generates a further question of how food trust is experienced by prisoners and staff in settings that are generally characterized as low trust environments. Since the notion of food trust is a construction, the way in which food trust is gained or lost needs to be deconstructed. In the literature, food trust is considered a source of anxiety and discomfort that not only relates to food safety, but also to food quality and nutritional concerns (Kjaernes, Harvey & Warde, 2007). The current lack of food trust in society is often linked to distrust in industrialised food systems, compounded by a lack of direct contact with the food chain, and unknown systems of production (e.g. De Greef, 2015). While these findings are based on studies in outside society, it is feasible to speculate whether the same concerns apply to how food trust is experienced in prison; a

place where the consumers (as prisoners) are often even less involved in food preparation and distribution than those in outside society. Furthermore, consumers in society often have significantly greater levels of agency; they can choose not to co-operate and distrust meals (Kjaernes, 1999). This is seldom the case for prisoners who often have limited food choices. Moreover, studies on consumers’ levels of food trust have shown that socio-institutional factors are crucial to understanding food trust. Kjaernes (2006) for example, has questioned the salience of studies that focus solely on micro-level indicators, suggesting that these aspects do not sufficiently explain variations in food trust. She therefore posits the inclusion of socio-institutional understandings: In trusting food, people trust or distrust someone, not something. They trust the provisioning system and the actors and persons inhabiting that system rather than the food items as such (Kjærnes, 2006: 919). Clearly, food trust relates to food items, but also to the actors and people involved in the preparation process. Additionally, Thomas (2014) highlights how food trust can influence a general sense of trust when referring to a statement from a victim from food borne illness: ‘When you lose trust in your food, you lost trust in a lot of things’ (Thomas, 2014, p. 79). This illustrates the necessity to increase understanding of the prison environment if we wish to gain insight about eating habits in prison in general, and prisoners' food trust in particular. This study is exploratory. Consequently, we cannot over generalise about macrolevel factors, however, we do consider prisoners' social relations, and the institutional aspects of the prison. This is important since prisons

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104385 Received 2 March 2019; Received in revised form 8 July 2019; Accepted 22 July 2019 Available online 27 July 2019 0195-6663/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Appetite 142 (2019) 104385

A.-S. Vanhouche

are quintessential low trust environments where trust is rare and scepticism the norm: prisoners have violated the law and are therefore easily considered untrustworthy. This can often be the vision of the prison system, but equally one shared by fellow inmates where prisoner narratives often focus on this lack of trust in others:

several roles of prison food. In order to understand food trust within the broader prison context, this article discusses the interaction between food related experiences and the prison environment. In 1958, Sykes already broadened the understanding on prison food when he noted how the loss of interesting foods was experienced as one of the pains of imprisonment. In his study of a US male prison, he discovered how food deprivations affected prisoners. The deprivations of these goods and services, he argued, did not mean that prisoners' basic needs were not met, rather it showed how the symbolic values of those aspects are crucial in a prisoner's experience:

I don't really trust no one in here. I don't trust no one. You never know. People, like, people are like snakes. They are all smiley smiley with you. If you are playing pool and you beat them at pool, they could just turn sour and could be plotting against you (Harvey, 2007: 84).

however useful it may be in setting minimum levels of consumption for the maintenance of health. A standard of living can be hopelessly inadequate, from the individual's viewpoint, because it bores him to death or fails to provide those subtle symbolic overtones which we invest in the world of possessions (Sykes, 1958: 68).

Liebling and Arnold (2004) stated that trust and distrust characterize the prison. They explain how trust in prison is negotiated as one of the most vulnerable aspects to relationships between prisoners, prisoners and officers, and prisoners and the larger institution. Trust is linked to perceptions of safety and support. The construction of trust then, becomes a balancing act that has been nicely described by Harvey (2007):

The argument developed here reflects the notion that the absence of possessions, such as self-chosen foods, constitutes an attack on a man's self-worth. Studies with a specific focus on prison foodways1 provided important insights to the symbolic role prison food can play across a variety of correctional systems. Important themes have emerged, such as how food can reflect ideas of normalisation (Minke, 2014; Minke & Smoyer, 2017), or experiences of punishment (Smoyer & Lopes, 2017). Moreover, food is important in the way that prisoners shape aspects of their identity(s) (Godderis, 2006; Ugelvik, 2011; Earle & Phillips, 2012; Minke, 2014; Smoyer, 2014), it reflects power relationships between prisoners, and between prisoners and officers or prison authorities (Earle & Phillips, 2012; Godderis, 2006; Valentine & Longstaff, 1998). Some studies also show how prisoners use food to fight and resist power (Smith, 2002; Brisman, 2008; Ugelvik, 2011). Finally, food can be used as a tool to create or breakdown order in penitentiaries (Sparks, Bottoms, & Hay, 1996). Whilst some previous studies allude to situations in which food trust is directly, or indirectly tackled, studies with a primary focus on food trust in prison are, to our knowledge, absent. Research focusing on power relations in prison, regularly refers to food trust. In her study on the symbolic role of food in prison, Godderis (2006) for example, highlighted how fear over the contamination of prison food symbolised power relations in prison. She discussed the idea that prisoners had been able to contaminate officers' food, considering this a role reversal that put prisoners in a position of power over officers' health and well-being. This fear of contamination led to several measures including the cooking of all food (for prisoners and officers) at the same time. Similarly, Valentine and Longstaff (1998) in their study on food and social relations in a male prison, referred to rumours about the dangers of certain food items and unhygienic practices in the kitchen. These rumours were linked to a fear of food poisoning and diarrhoea. In order to deal with the intrusive marks of the institution on prisoners’ bodies, prisoners regained control and power over their food intake by purchasing canteen products. A second framework in which food trust is often used as an example, concerns the link between low food standards and prison food being used as an additional punishment. Smith (2002), highlighted how her female respondents feared the lack of cleanliness and hygiene in the prison kitchen, and discussed the overall lack of food safety. Consistent with Valentine and Longstaff (1998), prisoners feared the impact of these meals on their health due to medical problems such as diarrhoea and vomiting, leading to a lack of appetite. Similarly, De Graaf and Kilty (2016), discussed the questionable prison food items highlighted by their Canadian respondents. They criticised examples of green eggs, green meat, and even so-called mystery meat; some prisoners added experiences of finding hair in their food. The authors analysed these

Too much trust in prison was foolish, but too much caution and the refusal to trust anyone could also be psychologically detrimental. A balance had to be reached in social interactions too, not becoming too dependent upon a particular officer or prisoner due to the transient nature of the prison world, yet not being too independent either, and becoming social isolate (Harvey, 2007:71). Lack of trust is often considered a survival strategy that prevents prisoners from talking to each other about personal problems. In addition, trust in officers is considered even more delicate since information could be used against a prisoner. Prison codes therefore often describe a strong division between officers and prisoners (Lindberg, 2005). The existence of an ‘us’ and ‘them’ climate, limits social relationships between staff and prisoners and often increases distrust. Officers also engage in trust relationships, however, the creation of these relationships is a constant risk - ‘never trust a con’ is the general wisdom shared between officers. With these visions in mind, officers have to interact daily and in most prisons it is clear that officers' trust is won, lost and redirected (Liebling & Arnold, 2004). Consequently, certain vulnerable levels of trust exist between officers and prisoners in penitentiaries. Besides trust between people, the prison environment is a constant reminder of the threat prisoners' pose. The spatial organisation of a prison expresses visions on the levels of trust prisoners deserve (Jewkes, 2018): are prisoners entrusted to move around freely in large spaces of the prison? Or, are they confined to their cells with wire in front of their windows with a key to their cell that is carried by officers? In an environment where the negotiation of trust is not only exceptionally vulnerable, but also central to day to day interactions, the question arises as to how food trust is negotiated. It is worthwhile linking Kjaernes (2006) insights on the role of social relationships in constructing food trust, to understanding knowledge about social relationships in prison. Thus, this article integrates two bodies of research to increase our understanding of food trust and the complex negotiations around it: namely the scholarship on food trust and prison studies. We excavate the perceptions of, and stories about, the prison kitchen; its cooks, the social relations between groups of prisoners that work in the kitchen and distribute the food, and those prisoners not involved in the production process. Therefore, the central research question is how food trust in prison is negotiated. As explained, food studies highlight the problem of a narrow focus on food trust without considering relational aspects. In prisons, this indicates that food trust relates to trust in those who prepare and serve meals i.e. prisoners, prison staff and the system more generally. Therefore, these relational dimensions are central to this analysis of trust in prison food. 2. Food trust in prison

1 The first article of this thematic issue (Smoyer, 2019) provides an in-depth discussion of these articles.

Well-known prison studies without a focus on food do recognise 2

Appetite 142 (2019) 104385

A.-S. Vanhouche

experiences within the framework of status degradation experienced by prisoners. Vanhouche (2015), highlighted prisoners’ lack of trust in deep frozen ready-made prison meals. In her study, prisoners complained that the content of these meals was barely specified and the ingredients in the box hard to discern. Consequently, prisoners perceived this food as an additional punitive aspect of their imprisonment. Finally, narratives on food trust appear in discussions of social relations between prisoners when they can cook. Minke (2014) discussed the ways in which cooking groups are formed in Danish prisons, and how within these groups, each member holds a specific role. Group members expressed great confidence and trust in the cook of their group which related to hygiene, as well as the respect shown toward religious or cultural norms. Smoyer's (2013) US based study on female prisoners' experiences with prison food shows similar processes. Her respondents discussed how some prisoners were not involved in group cooking because they did not trust the cleanliness of other prisoners:

by earlier research that acknowledged these actors as providers of meaningful information concerning food in correctional settings. The focus on this particular group of prisoners was made clear to the authorities. Officers (key persons) often provided access to them. The length of the interviews differed between respondents. The shortest interview lasted 20 min, the longest was 2 h. Most interviews (48) were transcribed by the author of this article, the other interviews (12) were transcribed by professional transcribers who signed a declaration of confidentiality. Interviews were transcribed (verbatim transcriptions) in two phases. When the first transcriptions were finished, a first analysis was made making use of the software MAXQDA. The data was analysed after each phase, making the analysis and gathering of data a parallel process (cf. iterative process). This enabled refining and deepening constructions during the research. When new data or new forms of knowledge were introduced, the code(s) was/were changed. Moreover, literature reviews were not left to the final stages of the analysis, rather they were deliberately used to provide distinct ‘lenses’ to look at data. Additionally, in each of the five prisons, participant observations were conducted for a couple of days in the prison kitchens and during the distribution of meals. For this paper, 23 days of participant observations are relevant. The participant observations are characterized as descriptive to gain initial insights into the field, which not only helped to focus the study, but also enhanced familiarity with the places, regimes, and activities that were referred to in the interviews. They facilitated a deeper understanding of the respondent's stories. During the participant observations, there was more freedom to talk to different people, and therefore the role of key persons was limited in comparison to the interviews. Observations usually took place in the prison kitchen, during food distribution and on the wings. After each day of observation, field notes were made. This was done in the form of a description of how the day progressed, the conversations that were held, and the situations that occurred. Official authorisation for this study was given by the Belgian central prison administration on the following conditions: that respondents participated voluntarily; that data would only be used for the current research; that recordings would be deleted at the end of the research; and that the respondent's privacy would be respected. In order to make information anonymous, names of the respondents were replaced by random numbers and at times, some information was left out to prevent the identification of a respondent.

I don't trust people's hands. And there is a lot of people that cook together and I hate that …. I had my few, like, there was other bids I did … People that were clean, that you know, that you trust. That don't touch themselves and pick their nose [laughs] (Smoyer, 2013: 160). Clearly, food trust in prison has not been entirely absent in previous work, but it has been conspicuously less than central. These studies show that various aspects can influence prisoners’ food trust. However, while these data were gathered in prisons with different correctional food systems (central prison kitchens, cafeterias, food delivered in cells …) the studies do not reflect on how these differences might influence food trust. This study therefore aims to understand how trust is negotiated in the Belgian context where food is served in the prison cells. It is fundamental to stress that most studies on prison foodways focus on Anglo-Saxon countries or Denmark, and therefore only provide a fragmented understanding of experiences with prison foodways in other places. Therefore this study aims to provide a more holistic understanding of the elements involved in the negotiation of food trust in Belgian prisons. 3. Methodology The data used in this article was gathered as part of a larger doctoral study on prison food in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark (Vanhouche, 2017). The research was conducted between 2013 and 2017 and examined the organisation of correctional food systems organised in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark and the role of food in these prison contexts.2 This article focuses only on the data gathered in five Belgian prisons combining participant observations, interviews with prison staff and analysis of internal documents that were collected during the study. During the exploratory and open interviews with prisoners, food trust was emphasised by many prisoners as a central element in their experiences with prison foodways. The prisons included in this study were of different sizes, overcrowding rates, mixed populations (remandsentenced prisoners, male and female prisoners, and mentally ill offenders), and geographically distinct (between Flanders and Wallonia). 41 interviews with prisoners, and 19 interviews with prison staff form the core of the discussion here. The staff respondents include prison officers, chefs, nurses, governors, sport instructors, social services personnel, and a religious counsellor. Prisoners were chosen based upon their different eating habits, religions, health conditions, and work tasks (in particular kitchen work). These choices were informed

4. Food systems in Belgian prisons In 2005, the Belgian government accepted the Belgian Prison Act. The Act provides for general guidelines on the organisation of imprisonment, the rights of prisoners, and crucially, included rules on prison food standards: Prisoners receive sufficient food according to standards of modern food hygiene. If necessary, the food should be adapted to their health situation (Art. 42 Belgian Prison Act). Internal guidelines ensure that prisoners receive three meals a day, are entitled to a diet prescribed by medical staff if necessary and asserts that prisoners’ freedom of religion should be respected, allowing them to eat meals consistent with their religious norms. In addition, prisoners have the right to switch menus (Daems, Eechaudt, Maes, & Vander Beken, 2014). Moreover, the central prison administration develops service orders on procedures for food safety and attestations to that effect. The international literature shows that food systems in correctional settings can be organised in various ways: meals can be prepared in the prison's kitchen on site, in another facility, or by a private caterer. In some institutions, these meals are served in a cafeteria where prisoners eat together while in others, meals are delivered on heated trolleys to the prison cells. In some countries like Denmark, prisoners receive the financial means to prepare their own meals in kitchens on the prison

2 The author would like to thank Tewissen Chris, chef in the prison of Merksplas, for his meaningful feedback on this paper. This research was funded by the Research Foundation Flanders and was supervised by Kristel Beyens, Peter Scholliers and Linda Kjaer Minke.

3

Appetite 142 (2019) 104385

A.-S. Vanhouche

wings (Smoyer & Minke, 2015). In Belgium, prison meals are prepared in a central kitchen and staff are responsible for the menu, which is drawn up within the constraints of a limited budget of about €3.80 per prisoner per day. Each prison is free to order ingredients and to develop their own menu. Prisoners and staff prepare the meals in the central kitchen, from where the food is then transported in heated trolleys to the housing tiers, before being distributed to prisoners. In most prisons, prisoners eat meals in their cell. Each cell has one table which is used to eat, write, and store possessions. Usually prisoners have their own cell, however overcrowding problems result in some cells being shared. In some prisons, prisoners refuse institutional meals and prefer to buy canteen products at their own expense. In this study, the vast majority of prisoners reports to buy products in the canteen. However, their purchases also depend on the cooking utensils provided by the prison ranging from snacks and drinks to vegetables and meat for proper meals. When no utensils are available some prisoners, whose hostility to prison food is particularly strong, construct their own cooking materials by making a small fire in an empty sardine can filled with oil and toilet paper. This enables them to prepare meals that they can trust (see below).

example, one prisoner found a hair in his meal and raised criticism on hygiene standards, whilst another heard from the kitchen staff that meat that was past its ‘use by’ date had been served. He feared that expired foods had been served: It already happened in prison X [name of a prison] that they served expired meat. We noticed it (Prisoner 10). While it is not clear if this information was correct, it certainly influenced prisoners' food experience. These feelings were exacerbated by the lack of information about how their meals were prepared and encouraged gossip about the kitchen's food standards. This gossip was largely based on stories from other prisoners, and media coverage of reports from the FASFC. In 2013, the FASFC reported negatively on the central prison kitchens in penitentiaries. While prisoners did not know precisely what the problems were, all kinds of assumptions were made. One of the respondents explained this during the interview: Prisoner: In September they did a food inspection and they have found expired foods in the freezers. Interviewer: So, the results of the control were negative? Prisoner: Yes, yes …. I know it from prison staff. They told me four men inspected the food. But it was not the usual inspection. People from the normal inspection inform the prison kitchen in advance, so they can hide some stuff. But there's a difference between these control bodies and a federal agency. They didn't inform the prison in advance. They have tried to call the kitchen, but it was too late, they were busted (Prisoner 3).

4.1. Kitchen staff A significant aspect of trust in prisons relates to social relations between prisoners and staff. In the context of this article it is pertinent to briefly discuss the selection and tasks of the kitchen staff. In most Belgian prison kitchens professional chefs are in charge, although they usually collaborate with prison officers and prisoners. They are members of the so-called technical staff (technisch personeel) and whilst they are not trained as prison officers, they will have received a basic training on the functioning of Belgian prisons. Their task, within the confines of the budget, is to set the menus, purchase ingredients, and direct the preparation of meals in accordance with hygiene standards. Prison officers, some of whom may have had work experience in the catering business, usually accompany the chef. When a prisoner wishes to work in the kitchen they are added to a waiting list. Previous work experiences in industrial kitchens is an asset but is not mandatory. Prisoners’ jobs in the kitchens vary from washing the dishes to cleaning, and from peeling vegetables to cooking.

This kind of gossip clearly influenced prisoners’ perceptions of meals. According to the prisoner, it was the lack of hygiene that resulted in bad food. This behaviour is characterized by Kjaernes (1999) who calls the exercise of trust in dealing with food risks active reflexivity, which she argued was characterized by the collection of information and discussions with others. However, while people in society can exercise agency that enables them to make strategic choices based on this reflexive information, this is not always the case for prisoners. It can be more difficult for prisoners to obtain information on food inspections, and prisoners with few financial means, are unable to refuse institutional meals since they cannot purchase their own food in the canteen shop. Whilst the results of food inspections were considered important to some prisoners, others believed the food inspections were too strict and got in the way of a normal cooking process. While these prisoners supported hygiene standards in prison kitchens, they thought that at times, the FASFC exaggerated the claims. A prisoner who worked in the kitchen discussed the implications of these strict standards:

5. Negotiating food trust in prison 5.1. Food safety and hygiene standards The lack of trust in prison meals was strongly voiced in the interviews. Often these concerns were linked to food safety. In the literature, the meaning of food safety has changed over time but has generally been linked to food free from contamination, the cleanliness of food processing facilities and physical, biological and chemical safety. As the examples in Thomas’ (2014) book show, food safety is often linked to food trust. This is not different in prison. Since the preparation of prison meals in Belgium must conform to hygiene standards laid out by the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC). This public body is responsible for food safety, animal health and plant protection, the inspection of prison kitchens, the distribution of meals, and storage rooms. While their checklist of controls in prisons used to return negative results, there has been a substantial improvement in recent years (Federaal Agentschap voor de Voedselveiligheid, 2014, 2018). Nevertheless, and in line with previous studies on prison foodways in other countries (Valentine & Longstaff, 1998; Smith, 2002; De Graaf & Kilty, 2016), many prisoners in this study expressed concern about the hygiene conditions in which their food is prepared and distributed. Often, this was linked to one negative experience with a meal, or a practice that they considered unclean. These specific stories, based on their own personal experiences, or garnered from others, disgusted prisoners and fuelled distrust. For

Interviewer: Are these HACCP rules strict? Prisoner: It's exaggerated. You have to check a catering service that prepares meals for the airport for example, you know, these small boxes. That has nothing to do with cooking. That's a laboratory, it's just a laboratory. That has nothing to do with it anymore. I mean, a kitchen can't be dirty, it has to be clean and that's it. Just clean and that's it (Prisoner 4). So, while some prisoners only trust meals prepared according to strict guidelines, other prisoners, such as prisoner 4 who worked in the kitchen, stressed the problems created by the high standards imposed by the FASFC and other international guidelines. According to him this leads to meals he does not consider to be tasty self-made meals. By referring to ‘airplane meals’ and ‘laboratories’ he is critiquing the lack of attention to the cooking process and the investment in tasty meals. In line with this declaration, another prisoner explained how these rules sometimes led to problems: These rules state that all the food that is touched cannot be distributed afterwards. And once there was a barbeque at the courtyard 4

Appetite 142 (2019) 104385

A.-S. Vanhouche

in prison X [name of a prison]. But not everyone goes to the courtyard and some stay in their cell. Those who stayed in their cells did not receive the food from the barbeque while they wanted to eat it. And you would think that they would bring the leftovers to those in their cells. But these rules [hygiene standards] prohibit it, they just threw it away. While most prisoners think: ‘for once that it’s good food, I don't care if three people have touched it, I eat it anyway’ (Prisoner 17).

that's hygiene. But they had to rebuild the whole kitchen and they made a new system, with cameras. They need some surveillance for the hygiene, that's normal. It's important because, what I want to say is, imagine there's a prisoner who doesn't like the others and spits in the food or something like that. It must have happened before. But we just try not to think about these things (Prisoner 10). Fear of contamination was central to many prisoners' stories. As the quotation above illuminates, this fear can be linked to the perceptions of the prisoners who have contact with prison meals. It is hard to discover what happened, but it is clear from the prisoner's story that all kinds of assumptions are made (imagining someone spitting in the food). When prisoners who work in the kitchen are perceived as clean and trustworthy, low fear levels of contamination are reported. However, cleanliness and hygiene were also linked to whether prisoners consider the prisoner cook as ‘the other’ - someone they do not wish to be in contact with. In this study, prisoners related these unwanted connections to ethnic or national differences. When prisoners consider kitchen staff as the other - those they do not identify with - they claim that the food is unhygienic, even contaminated. One prisoner explains how disgusted he was when working with a Belgian3 prisoner who he perceived as unhygienic:

The absence of certain foods in prison can lead to prisoners craving for certain meals. Previous studies show how this can lead to food fantasies (Valentine & Longstaff, 1998). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that on the rare occasions that these meals are served prisoners’ primary concern is not food safety. A similar story was told in a prison with a vegetable garden that was looked after by the chef and some prisoners. However, food safety guidelines prohibited them from using the garden produce in the prison kitchen. The fact that they could not prepare these home grown and fresh vegetables in the kitchen was a strong disappointment. Perceptions on food safety are thus varied, meaning that negative results of controls do not prompt all prisoners to distrust meals, or throw them away; some express the view that stricter rules should not be followed. This enables prisoners to eat tasty homemade meals which entails more pleasure and are placed into contrast to strictly controlled industrial (prison) meals.

I used to be a prisoner chef … I worked with a Portuguese and a Belgian … I don't think Belgians like to take a shower … I almost had to vomit, he was sweating and it fell [in the food] … I said to the officer that we weren't serving good food (Prisoner 12).

5.2. Social relationships and trust in kitchen staff Besides references to FASFC inspections, prisoners discussed several aspects that were important to their experiences with food and food trust. Contact with prisoners working in the kitchen was crucial with regard to gleaning information about the state of the central kitchen, hygiene conditions, the prevention of contamination and the quality of the meals. As one interviewee puts it:

This respondent, who did not define himself as a Belgian, attributed food contamination to his Belgian colleague in the kitchen. More significantly, he linked this unhygienic condition to a characteristic that was, according to him, typical for Belgians. The idea that someone with whom the respondent does not identify himself with is unhygienic, was similarly central to stories of prisoners who defined themselves as Belgians. One example is the prisoner who believed foreigners were unhygienic, and therefore thought that they should not be allowed to work in kitchens where hygiene standards are high:

Prisoner: In X [name of a prison] … I have a better view on what is going on in the kitchen. In Y [name of another prison], this is separate [the wing for the workers] so you only see the food on your wing and that are fatty meals.

In Belgium, they are very strict concerning hygiene. I don't want to discriminate, but foreigners won't easily be allowed to these kitchens (Prisoner 19).

Interviewer: But what do you mean ‘you have a better view’? Because it always arrives on the wing, right?

Clearly, both respondents regarded those they saw as different as not always clean and not suitable for work in the kitchen because they can contaminate the food. This is consistent with Kjærnes (2006), who argued that food trust depends on trust in another person. Nonetheless, these prisoners' experiences bear out Goffman's (1961) earlier finding that people consider institutional food as alien, or polluted, when they connect an unwanted person with their food. Goffman argues that life in institutions is often characterized by unwanted contacts with others, which he defines as part of a mortification process of the self that tears prisoners from the elements that enable them to construct an individual identity in prison. In institutions, inmates have to engage in forced interpersonal contact and social relationships. The fact that prisoners cannot hold objects of self-feeling clear of contact with items they consider alien and contaminating, add to this mortification of the self. Goffman explicitly mentions complaints about unclean food in relation to this problem:

Prisoner: In prison Y … the men who work in the kitchen stay on a separate wing. You can never talk to them. Interviewer: I see … . Prisoner: Here, you see the people who work in the kitchen and you can talk to them, so you can discover what's going on in the kitchen (Prisoner 3). Prisoners like to know who works in the kitchen to obtain information. Moreover, if these prisoners are known to have a clean cell and frequently wash themselves, then most prisoners are happy that these people are engaged in the preparation of meals - suffice to say, the obverse elicits opposite levels of confidence in the hygiene standards. This is in line with the study of Minke (2014) that shows how the prisoner chef in food groups is a person trusted by others if they are sure it is a clean person. Equally, Smoyer (2013), recounted how a female prisoner refused to cook with other prisoners to prevent contamination of her meals. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that prisoners in this study highlight the need to control prisoners who work in the kitchen. A prisoner explained how the kitchen where he previously worked had started to invest in food safety and began to control those who worked in the kitchen:

When the individual has to eat food he considers alien and polluted, this contamination sometimes derives from other persons'

3 In this study, the labels that prisoners ascribe to the self and to other groups, are not changed or reworded. The labels used by prisoners are no official classifications. Sometimes these classifications can be perceived as politically incorrect (in particular when prisoners identify others). However, the use of these terms reveals how they perceive both the self and each other, and gives us a realistic insight into how they talk and deal with each other.

It already happened that for example in the ravioli we found the cover of a pot that they just put in the food. It already happened that things like hair or small metal pieces from a thin can were found. So 5

Appetite 142 (2019) 104385

A.-S. Vanhouche

connection with the food (Goffman, 1961: 31).

prison probably increases trust. Besides documented proof, specific procedures in prison kitchens are followed to prevent meals being prepared without following the norms of a culture or religion. As one prisoner cook explained during the participant observations:

In line with our study, he adds that these feelings of alienation can result from the mixing of inmates with a variety of ages, ethnicity or racial backgrounds.

I talk with a prisoner who prepares the meals. He explains he now starts with the meat brochette from bird meat. Then, he continues with the meat brochettes from pork meat. This order facilitates their work because they don't have to clean everything in between. The meat for Muslims cannot be prepared in the same oil that was used to prepare the pork. Therefore, this order is more convenient for kitchen staff. (Participant Observations, 24 October 2013)

5.3. Distrust and religious habits Food trust then, is constructed through information about food safety, hygiene, and fellow prisoners who work in the kitchen. Moreover, social relationships and the perceptions of prisoner cooks were important in negotiating trust. A third element in the construction of food trust in prison relates to respect for cultural and religious norms in the preparation of meals. The prisons that were studied for this article can be characterized as multicultural settings. In a study of multicultural prisons in the UK, Philips' (2012) alludes to the fact that general knowledge of multicultural prison populations remains limited, but is nevertheless crucial if we wish to understand prisoners’ experiences with contemporary imprisonment. Within such settings, prison food has often been described as a significant cultural symbol. On the inside, prisoners aim to follow outside rituals. Philips (2012) explains this as,

At times, respondents highlighted the importance of hiring Muslim prisoners in the kitchen. They would be able to inform fellow inmates about the kitchen's procedure which might increase trust. Moreover, some kitchens regularly invite the Imam to inspect the food preparation process. However, some Muslim prisoners highlighted the differing perceptions on these meals4. Whilst some followed religious requirements and norms around food strictly, others were more lenient. During an interview, the consumption of pork was discussed with a prisoner who defined himself as Muslim:

[…] everyday multiculturalism is that wary and awkward interactions, like those in the self-cook area or in shared cells, coexist with the vibrancy of convivial multiculturism, cultural fusion and hybridity (Philips, 2012: 116).

I am very relaxed on that matter [eating pork], do you understand? When I'm hungry, I will eat it. But others are persons of principle. And yes, it's about trust hé … They say it is halal but I'm not sure about that … only when it is ritually slaughtered it is halal (Prisoner 8).

In order to understand prison food trust, it is of the utmost importance to consider it within these multicultural encounters. Religions and cultures often embody distinctive cultural norms about foodways (Fischler, 1988) and the respect of these is critically related to those who identify with them. This identity shaping through food is defined by Fischler as the principle of incorporation:

In the same prison, a prisoner who cooked in the kitchen explained that indeed they do not serve halal meat. Belgian prisons are not obliged to serve halal but they must provide a ‘pork free’ menu. In some prisons it is, however, possible to buy and prepare halal meat separately. Additionally, the prisoner's quote is consistent with previous studies that have shown how geographical and cultural norms determine the extent to which religious norms are followed (Nath, Hendersen, Coveney, & Ward, 2013). Moreover, prisoners not always bound to their identity in an exclusive sense and often cross cultural or religious boundaries which reflects hybridity (Philips, 2012). Thus, religion is performed in different ways and so consequently there is no unified ‘Muslim diet’. Some prisoners also raised criticism over Muslims' distrust toward the ‘no pork’ meals. This frustrated some, as this prisoner explained:

[…] to incorporate a food is, in both real and imaginary terms, to incorporate all or some of its properties: we become what we eat […] Human beings mark their membership of a culture or a group by asserting specificity of what they eat, or more precisely- but it amounts to the same thing-by defining the otherness (Fischler, 1988: 279–280). Embedded in a culturally specific food system, disgust, and acceptance of certain foods, thus play a crucial role. Whilst Belgian prison authorities provide a variety of menus in an attempt to reflect religious or cultural habits, prisoners nevertheless highlight shortcomings with these menus. These shortcomings are largely related to a lack of trust in the prison system. Prisoners fear that during meal preparations, specific cultural norms are not respected. Moreover, in prison, the exact content of a meal is hard to discern, and if food is unknown, or distrusted, it is common for prisoners to throw it away. During conversations on food, several prisoners who defined themselves as Muslims, shed further light on these experiences by highlighting their difficulties in trusting meals due to religious concerns. As a means to increase trust, some chefs provided these prisoners with the certificate of the butcher who delivered meat to the prison to prove that the ‘no pork’ menu was halal. This practice was in line with conclusions of a previous study on the impact of religious dietary norms and certification on food trust in society. Nath et al. (2013), found that the official recognition and documented guarantee of religious representatives, or institutions, was an essential element in improving food trust. Moreover, the work of Thomas (2014) shows that the increasing range of certifiers for religious meals help consumers to determine to adhere to religious standards. This strategy is also known as protection in the sense that consumers trust meals that obtained a guarantee by external control bodies (Kjaernes, 1999). In this study, the external body does not relate to the prison. This independence from the

In this prison there are many Muslims. To reduce the costs, they don't serve pork meat, also not for us. And the funny thing is, the Muslims … when they see this curry sausage from the outside, you can't see whether it's really chicken, so they refuse it … ‘No, I don't trust it, take it back’. All the prison meals are adapted in their favour and then they don't even eat it (Prisoner 17). These frustrations were often shared by prisoners who defined themselves as Belgians. In contrast to outside society, they felt that they were a minority in prison and that their cultural habits (and food choices) were restrained. The prisons’ policy to respect and cater for a variety of cultures was consequently seen as a threat to a Belgian nationality. Studies in the UK reported similar experiences in which white prisoners felt there was a destabilization of white privileges (Earle & Phillips, 2012, p. 149) due to their exclusion from the communal

4 These different perceptions similarly relate to multicultural identities. While some prisoners defined themselves as Muslims many others attached several components to their identities (such as nationality, culture and religion). In this study, the focus was set on what appears to influence food trust. Based on the stories of prisoners, the component of their religious habits appears to be central in the stories on food. This, however, does not mean that their identity is limited to this aspect when they talked about other experiences or contexts.

6

Appetite 142 (2019) 104385

A.-S. Vanhouche

kitchen that was mainly dominated by Black or Muslim prisoners (see also Hall, 2016). By highlighting these differences, food trust serves to generate borders and dichotomies between groups. This is in line with previous studies stating that food serves both to solidify group membership and to set groups apart (Mintz & Du Bois, 2002; Philips, 2012). Clearly, the complex negotiations around food trust at times results in frustration for prisoners who cannot eat their desired products.

in ways not entirely distinct from those on the outside. However, the situation in prisons is different due to the limits on prisoners' agency. While in outside society, firms can bind consumers thanks to consumers’ trust, the limited choices available to prisoners do not create an environment where this is encouraged. Nevertheless, prisoners find inventive, illegal, and sometimes dangerous ways to prepare their own meals, exemplifying how the powerful need to consume meals that can be trusted, clearly outweighs the risks of being caught in the illicit production of them.

5.4. Prisoners’ agency

6. Conclusion

The previous sections discussed those factors that influenced prisoners' perceptions on food trust. However, it would be wrong to consider prisoners as passive recipients of food - they can have some agency in trying to increase trust in the meals they consume. Contrary to outside society, prisoners’ freedom to choose - between meals, brands, and the places where meals are consumed - is much more limited. Consequently, prisoners develop specific strategies to increase food trust in this context; strategies which are mainly absent in free society. A first strategy is the preparation of self-made meals. In some countries, like Denmark for example, prisoners can cook their own meals5. In Belgium, this is restricted to very few institutions where prisoners can cook at their own expense in small kitchens on the wings. However, this excludes prisoners without the financial means to buy ingredients. Therefore, many prisoners construct their own cooking materials. Some prisoners use the heating plate of the water heater by filling an empty crisp bag with vegetables, eggs, or meat from the prison canteen, and placing it in the boiling water of the water heater. Some prisoners make small fires in empty cans or use electric cables and cutlery to heat water. These forms of illegal cooking can be punished for example, with a stay in solitary confinement. Nevertheless, the need to consume self-made meals that can be trusted, are more important to some prisoners than the risks of punishment. A second strategy that is not illegal but that can result in negative stereotyping is a change in menu option. The lack of trust in certain meals prompted some Muslim prisoners to choose the vegetarian option. Consequently, the vegetarian menu is ordered to ensure that no pork, or haram meat, is present in the meals. The vegetarian meal is thus considered by most as halal by default, thus exemplifying that a key influence on food trust is, ironically, the limited choice that prisoners can exercise. However, it is notable that in prisons where there is a close collaboration between the kitchen and the Imam, few Muslims chose the vegetarian option. In some cases, when Muslims decided to order the vegetarian meal, they took the risk of being negatively stereotyped by some staff members or fellow prisoners (see above). Discussions about the risk of radicalisation amongst Muslim prisoners is deep rooted in the Belgian prison system. Asri (2015), argues that in Belgium there is a fear of an ‘Islamization of prisons through the table’ (Asri, 2015: 50). In this study, the fact that some Muslim prisoners choose to eat vegetarian meals instead of the ‘no pork’ menus, is taken by some staff members as sufficient evidence to describe their behaviour as radical:

This article examined how food trust is negotiated in prison. The findings suggest that the construction of food trust is similar to society. However, distrust is a dominant discourse in prison: it is refelected in narratives on food trust and combines with prisoners’ lack of agency to create a complex interplay of activities and relations that increase (dis) trust in a prison context. Like studies on food trust in outside society, information on food processing and social relationships within the system, were argued to be important in gaining trust. Similar to concerns over food safety in outside society, reports from external bodies such as the Belgian Federal Food Agency, were keenly discussed amongst prisoners. Whilst trust towards the prison institution might be low, trust in this external control body was high. However, while some prisoners' fears were grounded in negative results of these inspections, others were quick to suggest that the rules were too strict, with negative reports not influencing their perceptions of meal standards - some considered tasty meals as more meaningful. More important to most respondents was their contact with prisoners who worked in prison kitchens. Information from these prisoners, and their perceptions of them, were crucial to the level of trust. When unwanted others came in contact with meals, prisoners tended to distrust food, and ‘surveillance’ of kitchen work was therefore considered important. Besides the influence of hygiene concerns and social relationships on food trust, religious convictions similarly played a central role in negotiations of trust. Prisoners wished to be informed and assured that religious standards were being met. This was achieved by providing proof of certification, or by the inclusion of people with relevant religious backgrounds, in the kitchen. For Muslim prisoners, the invitation of the imam to the kitchen, was another important element in the construction of trust. Clearly, trust in the people involved in the cooking process was highly important. Consequently, the findings are consistent with Kjaernes (1999) contention that in trusting food, people trust someone and not something. Trusting the prisoners who work in the kitchen and trust in external actors such as food control bodies, or a religious representative, clearly facilitated the negotiation of trust. In addition, these results indicate that the lack of information was a key variable in the fostering of food distrust in Belgian prisons. With many similarities to Kjaernes (1999) findings on food trust in general society, prisons can benefit from more openness on their cooking practices. Communication on the increase in positive inspections of the Belgian Federal Food Agency is indicative of a gradual improvement in conditions that can serve to foster prisoners' food trust. Transparency on these matters can be achieved by informing prisoners for example, during their meetings with prisoners’ representatives and governors. It is worth noting that much of this good practice is in place across some institutions. A major difference between this work and previous studies relates to the prison environment that provides prisoners with little autonomy and choice. While on the outside, consumers have a variety of choices and are often not obliged to consume distrusted foods, prisoners do not have these choices. Therefore, this article provides insights into the risks that people are willing to take (creation of illegal and sometimes dangerous cooking materials) to prepare a meal they can trust and adheres to their minimum standards. This stresses the significance of

The current disadvantage is that we have a huge number of vegetarians. This has to do with the radicalisation of our prison population. And those vegetarian meals are more expensive (Staff member 4). Rather than interpret this choice as a lack of food trust, conclusions with far reaching implications can be made about a prisoner's disposition based on their dietary choices - Muslims who ordered vegetarian meals were, by definition, radicalised. These results show food trust in prison to be a matter of negotiation 5

See Smoyer & Minke (2019) in this thematic issue. 7

Appetite 142 (2019) 104385

A.-S. Vanhouche

food trust. Finally, while the results of this exploratory study cannot be overgeneralised, they do raise important insights on prisoners’ food habits and food trust. I do well to stress that these results are germane to a correctional food system in which meals are cooked in a central kitchen and are delivered to the prison cells. Other correctional food systems might inflict different experiences. Nevertheless, observing the negotiations over food trust through the lens of actual experiences in a low trust environment, increases understandings of social relations, and information, in the construction of food trust in prisons.

of Criminal Justice, 45, 255–267. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Anchor Books. Hall, M. (2016). The lived sentence. Rethinking sentencing, risk and rehabilitation. Cham: Pallgrave Macmillan. Harvey, J. (2007). Young men in prison. Cullumpton: Willan Publishing. Jewkes, Y. (2018). Just design: Healthy prisons and the architecture of hope. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(3), 319–338. Kjaeners, U., Harvey, M., & Warde, A. (2007). Trust in food. A comparative institutional analysis. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kjaernes, U. (1999). Food risks and trust relations. Sosiologisk Tidsskrift, 4, 265–284. Kjærnes, U. (2006). Trust and distrust: Cognitive decisions or social relations? Journal of Risk Research, 9, 911–932. Liebling, A., & Arnold, H. (2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality and prison life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindberg, O. (2005). Prison cultures and social representations. The case of Hinseberg, a women's prison in Sweden. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 1, 143–161. Marguia, S. J. (2018). Food as a mechanism of control and resistance in jails and prisons. Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Rowman & Littlefield. Minke, L. K. (2014). Cooking in prison-from crook to cook. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 10, 228–238. Minke, L. K., & Smoyer, A. (2017). Prison food in Denmark: Normal responsibility or ethnocentric imaginations? In P. Scharff Smith, & T. Ugelvik (Eds.). Scandinavian penal history, culture and prison practice. Embraced by the welfare state? (pp. 353–376). (London: Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology). Mintz, W., & Du Bois, M. (2002). The anthropology of food and eating. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 99–119. Nath, J., Hendersen, J., Coveney, J., & Ward, P. (2013). Consumer faith. Food, Culture and Society, 16, 421–436. Perkins, T. (2017). More maggots and mold found in Michigan's prison food. Detroit Metro Times. Online available https://www.metrotimes.com/table-and-bar/archives/ 2017/11/08/more-maggots-and-mold-found-in-michigans-prison-food, Accessed date: 29 July 2019. Philips, C. (2012). The multicultural prison. Ethnicity, masculinity, and social relations among prisoners. Oxford: Clarendon Studies in Criminology. Smith, C. (2002). Punishment and pleasure. Women, food and the imprisoned body. Sociological Review, 50(2), 197–214. Smoyer, A. (2013). Cafeteria, commissary and cooking: Foodways and negotiations of power and identity in a women's prison. New York: UMI Dissertation Publishing. Smoyer, A. (2014). Good and healthy. Foodways and construction of identity in a women’s prison. The Howard Journal, 53(5), 525–541. Smoyer, A. (2019). Food in correctional facilities: A scoping review. Appetite, 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.06.004. Smoyer, A., & Kjaer Minke, L. (2019). Hygge: Food and the construction of safety among incarcerated women in Denmark. Appetite, 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet. 2019.104319. Smoyer, A., & Lopes, G. (2017). Hungry on the inside: Prison food as concrete and symbolic punishment in a women's prison. Punishment & Society, 19, 240–255. Smoyer, A., & Minke, L. K. (2015). Food systems in correctional settings. A literature review and case study. Copenhagen: World Health Organization. Online available http:// www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/292965/Food-systems-correctionalsettings-literature-review-case-study.pdf?ua=1, Accessed date: 6 June 2019. Sparks, R., Bottoms, A., & Hay, W. (1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. A study of a maximum-security prison. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Thomas, C. I. P. (2014). Food we trust. The politics of purity in American food regulation. Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press. Ugelvik, T. (2011). The hidden food. Mealtime resistance and identity work in a Norwegian prison. Punishment & Society, 13, 47–63. Valentine, G., & Longstaff, B. (1998). Doing porridge. Food and social relations in a male prison. Journal of Material Culture, 3, 131–152. Vanhouche, A. (2015). Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison. Appetite, 94, 47–53. Vanhouche, A. (2017). Prison cuisines in europe. A comparative study on prison food systems in Belgium, The Netherlands and Denmark. Brussels/Odense: Unpublished Doctoral thesis.

Future directions These findings signpost important issues for future research. Further work is required to increase understandings on the relation between food trust and health issues in prison. Can a lack of trust result in weight loss or even weight gain due to the purchase of canteen products (often snacks) that replace the meals? Prison services that invest in healthy meals often conclude that the food is not consumed. Further research should consider the role of food trust within this process. A final suggestion is to investigate the relation between food trust and food waste. Food waste in prison is often a considerable problem due to the high financial (and environmental) costs. Based on the findings in this study, it can be suggested that self-catering can play an important role, but further research is needed. References Asri, F. E. (2015). An outline of the construction of the islamic council for prisons in Belgium. In I. Becci, & O. Roy (Eds.). Religious diversity in european prisons. Challenges and implications for rehabilitation (pp. 47–59). Dordrecht: Springer. Brisman, A. (2008). Fair fare? Food as contested terrain in US prisons and jails. Georgetown. Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 15, 68–145. Camplin, E. (2017). Prison food in America. Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Rowman & Littlefield. Daems, T., Eechaudt, V., Maes, E., & Vander Beken, T. (2014). De basiswet van 12 januari 2005 betreffende het gevangeniswezen en de rechtspositie van de gedetineerden: Een status quaestionis. Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, (1), 1–45 2014. De Graaf, K., & Kilty, J. M. (2016). You are what you eat: Exploring the relationship between women, food and incarceration. Punishment & Society, 18, 27–46. Degreef, F. (2015). A making sense of new food technologies and trust in food (19601995). In M. José Pires (Ed.). Tasting cultures: Thoughts for food (pp. 53–69). Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press. Earle, R., & Phillips, C. (2012). Digesting men? Ethnicity, gender and food. Perspectives from a ‘prison ethnography’. Theoretical Criminology, 16, 141–156. Estevez, D. (2014). El Chapo Guzman's first six months in prison: No U.S. extradition request and a successful hunger strike. Forbes. Online available https://www.forbes. com/sites/doliaestevez/2014/08/21/el-chapo-guzmans-first-six-months-in-prisonno-u-s-extradition-request-and-a-successful-hunger-strike/#18b42267b329, Accessed date: 29 July 2019. Federaal Agentschap voor de Voedselveiligheid (2014). Activiteitenverslag 2013. Brussel: Federaal Agentschap voor de veiligheid van de voedselketen. Online available at: http:// www.afsca.be/jaarverslagen/_documents/2014-07-09_AV2013NL.pdf, Accessed date: 2 March 2019. Federaal Agentschap voor de Voedselveiligheid (2018). Activiteitenverslag 2017. Brussel: Federaal Agentschap voor de veiligheid van de voedselketen. Online available at: http:// www.afsca.be/activiteitenverslag/2017, Accessed date: 2 March 2019. Fischler, C. (1988). Food, self and identity. Social Science Information, 27, 275–292. Godderis, R. (2006). Dining in. The symbolic power of food in prison. The Howard Journal

8