!"#$%&'"((")&*+,#'$-).#+("$/")0'12("-)34(',,").#5*(6"-)7,'8")9*:$#(; MALAYSIAN FOOD BAROMETER i Malaysian Food Barometer ii Malaysian Food Barometer An initiative of the Chair of Food Studies: FOOD, CULTURES AND HEALTH Led by Prof. Dr. Jean-Pierre Poulain iii Malaysian Food Barometer Malaysian Food Barometer Authors Jean-Pierre Poulain, Laurence Tibère, Cyrille Laporte, Elise Mognard. In collaboration with Neethiahnanthan Ari Ragavan, Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, Noor Mohd Ismail, Wendy Smith, Marcella Aloysius. Members of Scientiic Committee Jean-Pierre Poulain, Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, Noor Mohd Ismail, Muhamad Muda, Laurence Tibère, Wendy Smith, Cyrille Laporte, Eric Olmedo, Elise Mognard, Neethiananthan Ari Ragavan, Mun Yee Lai, Karen Ho, Marcella Aloysius, Hema Subramonian, Kashif Hussain, Mansor Mohamed Noor, Anis Yusal Yusoff. Members of Strategic Committee Prof Dato’ Dr Hassan Said, Pradeep Nair, Dato Visweswaran Navaratnam, Jean-Michel Minonez, Vincent Simoulin, Jean-Pierre Poulain, Perry Hobson, Dato Sarjit Singh Banta Singh, Neethiananthan Ari Ragavan, Haresh Singh Gill, Zainun Nur Abdul Rauf, Zamira Yasmin Abdul Rahman, Norean Sayers, Cher Siew Wei, Amanda Lin, Grace Landert-Soon, Noëlle Paolo, Véronique Pardo, Isabelle Pinta-Costa. Members of Steering Commitee Jean-Pierre Poulain, Noor Mohd Ismail, Laurence Tibère, Neethiananthan Ari Ragavan, Cyrille Laporte, Elise Mognard, Angie Lim. Cover logo design by: Angie Lim Published by: Taylor’s Press ISBN: 978-967-017317-7 Copyright © 2014. Chair of Food Studies: Food, Cultures and Health. All rights reserved. For further information or enquiries or requests for permission to reproduce or translate this report – whether for sale or non-commercial distribution, please contact us at chairfoodstudies@taylors.edu.my. Disclaimer: Research outcomes expressed in this report should not be interpreted or used as inal results or recommendations. No liability is accepted arising from the use of any of the indings reported herein. iv FOREWORD At Taylor’s University, we believe in supporting the greater agenda and mission of the government. One way of supporting the policies is through utilising the academic strengths we have and delving into matters of national interest through research in order to produce qualitative and quantitative data that will enable decision makers to have a deeper understanding of these issues. With the economic growth of the nation, Malaysians have seen their lifestyles evolve with the times. One signiicant change can be found in the consumption of food of Malaysians today which has led to an increase in non-communicable diseases as a result of more and more Malaysians registering as obese and overweight, particularly in the last 20 years. As this is an area of concern for the nation, Taylor’s University through the School of Hospitality, Tourism & Culinary Arts and its research arm, the Centre of Research and Innovation in Tourism (CRiT) sees the need to ill this gap and decided to address this issue with the support of its academic partner, University of Toulouse, France. Together, Taylor’s University and University of Toulouse has successfully set up the Chair of Food Studies, which is headed by Professor Dr. Jean-Pierre Poulain to play a greater role in research especially in this emerging ield. One of the irst research projects of this Chair was to look into the factors of food consumption and food habits locally by establishing the Malaysian Food Barometer study (MFB), which is aimed to follow the evolution of food practices and understand the consequences with relation to the larger issue of public health. The researchers involved in this multi-disciplinary study had a two-prong function. The study looked at the eating cultures from the persepectives of sociology, anthropology and nutrition which will assist in coming up with outcomes that will be able to assist sectors like public health, political sciences, economy, food service management and food product innovation. Secondly, the MFB stemmed from an international partnership which is aimed to mobilize public and private Malaysian universities, public and private foundations, academic and industrial partners to assist with tackling this health issue. I would like to thank all the researchers who participated in this forward-thinking research project as it will assist with improving the quality of life of Malaysians. Professor Dato’ Dr Hassan Said Vice Chancellor and President Taylor’s University v Malaysian Food Barometer vi Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS vii INTRODUCTION 5 I. Objectives & Theoretical Framework 1. What is The Purpose of the MFB? 1.1. To Understand Effects of Modernization in a Multi-cultural Context 1.2. To challenge the Theory of Modernization and the Latest Version of the “Convergence” Theory 2. Research Framework 9 11 2.1. Social Class, Socio-economic Status and Ethnicity 2.2. From “Food Social Space” to “Food Models” Organization of Research 3.1. Research Team 3.2. Steering Committee 3.3. Scientiic commitee 3.4. Strategic Commitee 22 26 31 32 33 33 34 II. Methodology & data collection 1. Preliminary Qualitative Approaches 1.1. Face-to-face Interviews 1.2. Focus Group 2. Issues in Quantitative Data Collection in Food Studies 3. Questionnaire 4. Quantitative Fieldwork 5. Descriptive Variables 5.1. Representativeness 5.2. Gender 5.3. Age 5.4. Living Area 5.5. Urbanization & Metropolization of Living Area 5.6. Area Grown Up 5.7. Ethnic Group 5.8. Occupation 5.9. Level of Education 5.10. Income (RM) and Income Groups 5.11. Social Positions 5.12. Language & Ethnicity 5.13. Income Changes in the Past Five Years 5.14. Marital Status 5.15. Number of Children 5.16. Number of Family Members Staying Together 5.17. Religion 39 41 41 43 44 47 48 50 50 51 52 52 52 54 55 55 58 58 59 60 61 63 64 64 64 III. Findings 1. Food Intakes 1.1. Research Aims & Questions, Notions and Methods 1.2. Synchronicity of Food Intakes 69 71 71 73 13 18 21 3. vii Malaysian Food Barometer 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1.3. Norms and Practices for the Number of Food Intakes 1.4. Norms and Practices for the Structures of Meals 1.5. Socialization of Food Intakes Eating Out 2.1. Eating Out the Week Before 2.2. Eating Out and At Home the Day Before Rice and Noodles Consumption 3.1. Research Aims 3.2. Rice & Noodle Consumption: Social or Cultural Marker? Beverages 4.1. Beverages in Norms 4.2. Beverages in Practices Perception of Transformation in Food Socio-cultural Representations of Food 6.1. “Food Must be First of All…” 6.2. Eating Well 6.3. Food Beneicial for Health 6.4. Food to be Reduced for Good Health Malaysian Emblematic Dishes Obesity 8.1. Body Mass Index Distribution 8.2. Prevalence in MFB (2013) versus Rampal et al National Study (2006) 8.3. Findings on BMI Monitoring Food Crises by Listening to Weak Signals 9.1. Crisis Dynamics 9.2. Crisis Monitoring Level 1: Listening to Weak Signals 9.3. Social Representations of Food Risk Perception: Malaysian Food Pattern 80 95 118 124 125 130 144 144 146 149 149 152 157 161 162 167 169 171 175 179 186 187 188 197 197 198 199 Conclusion and perspectives 211 References 219 LIST of APPENDIXES Appendix 1 – Guide for face-to-face interview Appendix 2 – Guide for second round interviews Appendix 3 – Report on the Focus Group Appendix 4 – Structure of the meals’ content Appendix 5 - Questionnaire Appendix 6 - Table of Figures Appendix 7 - Table of Tables Appendix 8 - Table of Images 233 A1 A16 A18 A20 A23 A56 A63 A64 viii 1 Malaysian Food Barometer 2 INTRODUCTION 3 Malaysian Food Barometer 4 Introduction INTRODUCTION The Malaysian society is experiencing rapid urbanization and modernization. A sizeable new middle class has emerged and the traditional ways of life and eating habits of the different types of ethnic communities are changing. For many years, nutritional surveys have been capturing the transformations of food consumption but to date, there has been no comprehensive survey focusing on the sociocultural determinants of food habits and eating decisions at the national level. The purpose of the Malaysian Food Barometer (MFB) is to ill this gap and to investigate the eating practices and cultural representation of food and eating in a multicultural context. By analyzing the inluences of modernization on social hierarchies and ethnic cultures, and ultimately on the food eating patterns and styles, the MFB will revisit the theories of convergence as well as try to take into account the role of ethnic food cultures in societies such as Malaysia which is undergoing rapid industrialization and social change. The purpose of the MFB is to describe the food habits and food culture of the Malaysian population in different dimensions: practices, social norms, social representations and beliefs. In doing so, it will analyze the effects of the social status, the level of education, ethnicity, gender, generation, household size and urbanization on them over time. It will measure the importance of eating out and the prevalence of using food delivery services. It will identify food lifestyles with a special focus on the role of the ethnicity in the middle class. It will also study the correlation between the lifestyles of individuals, the above-mentioned social characteristics, and body size status (obese, overweight, normal, underweight). Thus the objectives of the Malaysian Food Barometer is to produce useful data for the different categories of stakeholders: irstly, the public health sectors (from epidemiologists to those engaged in health and nutritional education); secondly, the economic sectors (including the agro-food chain, restaurants and the food service industries); and inally, the academics who work in the different disciplines that are interested in food consumption and food cultures, ranging from anthropology and food sociology, to medical science and nutrition. Since food habits are strongly determined by culture, religion, and social beliefs, a detailed empirical study seeking rich qualitative data based in Malaysia is a worthy and meaningful exercise because Malaysia is a multicultural and rapidly modernizing society. “Food Habits in Malaysia” is a very relevant context for studying the transformation of food habits in general, with the aim of cross-national comparisons and to enhance our understanding of this topic at a theoretical level. 5 Malaysian Food Barometer So the objectives of MFB are to: • Describe the food habits, practices, social norms, social representations and beliefs pertaining to foods in Malaysia; • Assess the frequency of eating out, and its relationship to variables such as social status, gender, ethnicity, etc.; • Assess the intake of convenience food in the daily diet; • Identify the food lifestyles with a special focus on the role of ethnicity in the lifestyles of the middle class; • Analyze the correlation between lifestyles and the above-mentioned characteristics; • Show the correlation between the lifestyles and obesity; • Conduct a comparative analysis between the different time periods in Malaysia and other countries. 6 7 Malaysian Food Barometer 8 OBJECTIVES & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 9 Malaysian Food Barometer 10 Objectives & Theoretical Framework I. 1. OBJECTIVES & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK What is the Purpose of the MFB? A food barometer is a survey that produces a set of indicators that link cultural patterns, food consumption and demographic data to health issues. It complements the classical nutritional survey and its purpose is to build better prevention programs against health problems, mainly non-communicable diseases. The general aim of the MFB is to study food patterns using the nutritional approach and, in doing so, develop an interdisciplinary dialogue between the disciplines of nutrition and anthropology for the beneit of public health as well as between sensorial analysis and sociological analysis in order to explore food decisions. The food barometer uses a quantitative instrument that is developed at the national level to study the transformation of food habits. The core research is centered within the social and cultural dimensions of eating practices in addition to nutritional and/or economic data. This macro tool is then mobilized every two or three years. Figure 1 Objectives & Outcomes 11 Malaysian Food Barometer The purpose of the MFB is to draw a picture of the Malaysian food habits and analyze their diversity based on the sociocultural determinants. It will describe the food habits and cultures in different dimensions: practices, social norms, social representations and beliefs, and in doing so, will analyze the effects of social status, level of education, ethnicity, gender, generation, household size and urbanization on them. It will measure the importance of eating out and the prevalence of using convenience food. It will identify food lifestyles with a special focus on the role of ethnicity in the middle class. It will study the correlation between the lifestyle of the individuals, the above-mentioned social characteristics, and body size (obese, overweight, normal or underweight). All these data will facilitate a comparative analysis of the food habits and obesity between the different periods in the Malaysian history and economic development as well as between different countries. Figure 2 Malaysian Food Barometer Organization Thus the operational objectives of the Malaysian Food Barometer is to produce useful data for the different categories of stakeholders: irstly, the public health sectors (from the epidemiologists to those engaged in the health and nutritional education); secondly, the economic sectors (including the agro-food chain, restaurants and food service industries); and thirdly, the academics working in the different disciplines interested in the consumption of food and food cultures ranging from anthropology and food sociology to medical science and nutrition. From an academic point of view, our purpose is to challenge the theories of modernization and the latest version of “convergence” which claims that with the economic development and the emergence of the middle class, food consumption patterns are less determined by sociocultural factors (and in the case of Malaysia, ethnicity) than by a consumption culture that is typical of the middle class. The stage that follows this convergence should be the homogenisation of the middle class lifestyles (Mahbubani, 2013). Thus in order to investigatethe validity of this approach, we examined the signiicance and the role of ethnic factors within the middle class conventions of food consumption. 1 The prevalence of the overweight and obesity is commonly assessed by using the body mass index (BMI). It is deined as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters (kg/m2). A BMI over 25 kg/m2 is deined as being overweight, and a BMI of over 30 kg/m2 as being obese. The normal BMI is between 20 and 25 kg/m2 and underweight is below 20 kg/m2 (WHO, 1998). 12 Objectives & Theoretical Framework Figure 3 Malaysian Food Barometer: A Recurrent Survey Finally, the MFB aims to understand the effects of modernization in a multicultural context. More precisely, to describe the food habits and food cultures using different dimensions: practices, social norms, social representations and beliefs. It allows the identiication of food lifestyles and their evolution across the time and studies the correlation between food lifestyle and body mass index (BMI). In addition to this, it aims to identify the weak signals in order to monitor food crises and set up a baseline for further surveys as well as allow the development of cross-national comparisons. 1.1 To Understand Effects of Modernization in a Multi-cultural Context Several concurrent phenomena contributed to the process of modernization in Malaysia. Through a process of rapid urbanization and rural exodus, which accompanied the industrialization of the New Economic Policy Era (1971-1990) (Aziz, 2012) and the development of the services economy from 1970 onwards (Hutton, 2003), the urban population rose from 11% in 1951, to 51% in 1991, 62 % in 2000 and 72.7 % in 2012 (Jaafar, 2004; BMCE Trade, 2013). Now, in the 3rd demographic transition, the structure of the society is changing dramatically. The fertility rate has dropped from 3.29 children per woman in 2000 to 2.64 in 2012 (Leete, 1996; Index Mundi, 2013) and the size of the average household has reduced from 5.2 persons in 1980 to 4.3 in 2010 (Hirschman & Guest, 1990; Sudha, 1997; Masayu, Esa and Miskiman, 2012; Hirschman, 2011). The increase in the purchasing power of newly salaried employees combined with the reduction in the family size has heralded the emergence of a new middle class (Shamsul, 1999; Embong, 2007) as well as a new working class (Smith, 1999) that has a greater ability to participate in the consumption economy. The related epidemiological transition shows a change in the causes of mortality from an epidemic of communicable diseases to non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancers, degenerative diseases and one of the main risk factors, obesity. Despite the success of modern medicine to combat the latter diseases, it is becoming increasingly clear 13 Malaysian Food Barometer that lifestyle changes including food habits and physical activity are vital components for both prevention and managing these diseases. The Malaysian life expectancy has increased by 3.2 years in the 12 years between 2000 and 2012 (Ismail, 2002; Index Mundi, 2013). Therefore, the current obesity epidemic both in Malaysia and worldwide raises concerns for its potential negative effects of such transformations. This has stimulated us to focus our research on identifying those factors in the food cultures and lifestyles which have led to the development of this new disease proile in Malaysia. All the aforementioned macrostructural developments have profoundly affected the lifestyles and food habits of the various ethnic groups that make up the Malaysian population. This stage of food modernity in Malaysia can be regarded as a consequence of the modernized Malaysian society and is characterized by the transformation of the food supply, consumption patterns as well as new consumer expectations and aspirations in relation to food. In addition to these characteristics which can be found in most developed countries, Malaysian food consumption has two major distinguishing characteristics. The irst is that it is linked to Malaysia’s multi ethnicity which oficially consists of three main ethnic groups (Malay, Chinese and Indians, plus a few minority groups). Each group is supposed to have its own food culture with its typical dishes and ingredients, dietary taboos and restrictions, dining rituals, form and structure of meals and symbolic dimensions of food. This may appear as a simple question. However, these “racial” categories are not totally homogenous in Malaysia. The “Indians” may belong to different religions, for instance, they may be Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists, Christians or members of New Religious Movements. As well as Malay which is the national language and possibly English, they may also speak different mother tongues, for instance, Tamil, Hindi, Urdu, Malayalam; identify more or less strongly with a caste, come from different regions of India, or from countries neighboring India such as Pakistan or Sri Lanka; their families have may have resided in Malaysia over several generations or have just arrived. The “Chinese” may be Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, Muslim converts and they may speak Hakka, Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew, or Mandarin. They may be Min people, Hakka, Cantonese or Wu. Furthermore, there are Malaysians that are oficially catogorized as “Others”. This category covers the non-Malay Bumiputra, the Dusuns, Ibans and Kadazans. The boundaries between these three main “races” are not totally hermetic; they have a certain “porosity” as a result of interpersonal relationships across the ethnic boundaries through friendship, mixed marriages, overlapping religious afiliations and language competence. The usage behind the primary “race” identity, religious conversion, “metissage” from historical institutionalised mixed marriages (for example, in the Baba-Nyonya community in historic times) or actual inter-racial breeding with or without religious conversions (Hirschman, 1975, 1987; Clammer, 1980; Tan, 1982) and the rise of the individualism within which the individual Malaysians develops a personal preference in choosing from a wide variety of dietary alternatives. In addition there is also some “metissage” between the different food cultures. For example, the Nyonya cuisine from the Malacca region is a combination of Chinese and Malay food, with some inluences from the Portuguese. Some restaurants, such as those labeled Mamak, which were originally for Tamil Muslims, are now frequented by consumers of all ethnic groups and thus make a solid contribution to the development of a “Malaysian mixed” food culture. This 14 Objectives & Theoretical Framework means that some dishes and some food practices are commonly shared by or are compatible with more than one “ethnic” group. Figure 4 Ethnicity in Malaysia • Ethnicity 3 + OTHERS • Religions 5 + • Languages 6 + • Assigned Ethnicity. The concept of “assigned ethnicity” is the category given to a child by the father during the declaration of his birth to registry ofice. • Self designation. I am a… open question • Religions of origin • Generation of migration • What kind of Malaysian are you? 3 words to choice in 27 • Ethnicities in the family. Three ethnicity for 3 generations • Religions • Intensity of religiosity The second characteristic is the high frequency of food consumed outside the home by the urban population in Malaysia, which is probably one of the highest in the world. The latest population study (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2008a, 2008b) reveals the high incidence of food consumed outside the home and the strong positive correlation with the level of urbanization. With urbanization, the opportunities for Malaysians to eat out have increased tremendously as the prices are sometimes lower than the cost of a meal made at home. The idea that increased urbanization has resulted in an increase in eating outside the home leads to the assumption that the prevalence of eating out is now of much greater signiicance within Malaysian food culture and its outcomes for health. We do not claim that eating out could be globally linked with the rise of obesity. Rather, in this research, we assume that there is a typology based on a cluster of practices which make up the ethnic food lifestyles in Malaysia and that some of them are more or less connected with obesity. The data from the MFB survey conirms this assumption and shows that more than 38.5% of all Malaysian meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper) are consumed outside the home and if we take into account the food that is eaten at home but comes from outside (through delivery or food purchased in take-away packaging, including from a local Mamak restaurant) the frequency increases to 47.7%. These practices are strongly linked with the level of urbanization of the sample when correlations were performed; 32.9% rural versus 39.7% urban and 40.2% suburban (Poulain et al., 2014). Moreover, on an individual scale, more than 64% of individuals have at least one meal a day outside the home and if we add the food that comes from outside, this increases to 76.6%. In terms of coping with the rise in obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs), the restaurant industry is at the front line. The range of practical contexts in which Malaysians consumers are deciding what to eat are very different from those encountered in the West. So, public health programs developed in Europe and USA cannot be transferred to 15 Malaysian Food Barometer Malaysia without risking some socio-economical and ethno-cultural resistance and therefore, will most probably have some counterproductive effects. At the same time, within the process of modernization, traditional food models re-assert themselves as a heritage and a context where the ethnic and social identities can be expressed and consolidated. Such mutations can affect some level of consumption and the health of the population. This phenomenon is readily observed with the growth of restaurant chains in large shopping malls such as Madam Kwan’s, Little Penang Café, Secret Recipe and Old Town White Coffee, which simultaneously fulills the need for “eating out” and nostalgic heritage aspect. According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the number of tourist arrivals in Malaysia has risen dramatically from 5.56 million in 1998 to more than 25 million in 2012. Added to this, are the domestic tourists who are also sensitive to food nostalgia. These restaurant concepts and their heritage food products, so clearly identiied with cultural references would beneit from this extra source of customers. At the same time, the tourist expectations for local and “authentic” food accelerate the trend further towards the patrimonialization of food (Bessière, 2008; Poulain, 2008; Bessière & Tibère, 2013; Tibère & Aloysius, 2013). This context creates new opportunities for the agents within the agro-food chain and the food service sector to develop new products and services such as health food, food with a perceived high level of cultural attributes and shorter chain between producer and consumer. It also exposes them to new social responsibilities (Laporte & Poulain, 2014). In this context, the MFB is a tool to identify and study in depth the sociocultural determinants of the Malaysian food habits. It will describe the “food social space” of the Malaysian population. It will also focus simultaneously on the practices and representations of food cultures. The aim is to understand the food lifestyles and different food contexts of the various Malaysian ethnic groups as well as the “middle class” in order to elucidate their process in making food decisions. Additionally, being a follow-up survey, it makes it possible for the study on the longitudinal transformation of food habits in Malaysia. Finally these different sets of data and their analysis will be used to uncover the social infrastructure of the eating decisions (patterns, scenarios and the contexts) of Malaysians. Table 1 Index of Modernization Details Combination of variables Details Level of urbanization Living area (Q3) Education level Q35 Incomes level Income/month (Q39) 16 Rural = 10 Urban = 50 Suburban = 40 Primary or lower = 10 Lower secondary school = 20 Upper sec. school = 30 College/University = 40 100-700 = 10 700-1,333 = 20 1,333-2,000 = 30 More than 2,000 = 40 Objectives & Theoretical Framework Income evolution (5 past years) Q40 Size of household Number of family members living together (Q38) Have decreased = 10 Remained stable = 30 Have increased = 50 More than 10 = 0 9-10 = 10 7-8 = 20 5-6 = 30 2-4 = 40 1 = 50 Figure 5 Modernization (N = 2,000) Half of the sample is characterized by a medium level of modernization (48.4%) while a third (30.4%) is positioned in the high level and a ifth (21.3%) in the low one. Figure 6 Modernization and Ethnicity (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) The modernization level correlated strongly (P = 0.000) to ethnicity: Malay group is overrepresented (s.r. +4.2) in the low modernization level while Non-Malay Bumiputra one is overrepresented in the medium level (s.r. +3.0) and Chinese in the high level (s.r. +4.5). 17 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 7 Modernization and Metropolization for Malays (N = 1,176; P = 0.000) This distribution can be explained by a differing factor between the two Malaysian subpopulations: one living in the rural Peninsular Malaysia and charactised by a low level of modernization (s.r. +4.8) and the other, living in the metropolitan areas, characterized by medium and high levels of modernization (s.r. +1.7 and s.r. +5.0, respectively). 1.2. To Challenge the Theory of Modernization and the Latest Version of the “Convergence” Theory The theory of convergence claims that with economic development and the emergence of the middle class, food consumption patterns are less determined by the sociocultural factors (in the case of Malaysia, ethnicity) than by a consumption culture which is typical of the middle class. The stage following this convergence should be the homogenisation of the middle classes life styles. In order to examine the validity of this approach, we investigated the signiicance and role of the ethnic factors within the conventions of middle class food consumption. The concept of inertia relects a phenomenon of reaction to changing factors. It takes the form of a resistance that opposes the change which in turn slows down the change. The inertia of the dietary patterns is the consequence of the fact that food practices are not an individual’s decisions. They are supervised by social norms and systems and they support social functions (in Durkheimian sense). 18 Objectives & Theoretical Framework Figure 8 Convergence Theory regarding Structure of Nutritional Intake (Esnouf, Russel and Bricas, 2013) Figure 9 Evolution of Calories from Animal Products (Esnouf, Russel and Bricas, 2013) 19 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 10 Analyzing following Food Convergence Theory Figure 11 Analyzing the Cultural Inertia 20 Objectives & Theoretical Framework 2. Research Framework The aim of this research is to study the inluence of the sociocultural factors impacted by modernization, on social and ethnic positions within Malaysian society; demographic and epidemiological transitions in the Malaysian population, emergence of the middle class and the stylisation of food consumption patterns. By generating an EthSEP index for the individual informants, the research will produce a new approach in combining social position with ethnicity in the analysis of the Malaysian society. The study of the food habits will follow an established model that will be matching eating practices and social representations on meals (Poulain, 2002). The study will thus describe the “food social space” of the different Malaysians communities. Finally, it will explore the “food decisions” of the individuals through the contextualisation of their food lifestyles. Figure 12 Malaysian Modernization: Conceptual Framework The research framework assumes that an eating decision is a calculation that is developed in a space framed by ethno-cultural determinants and is built into a social context. So this research distances itself from the “rational choice theory” which has been a dominant approach to date, in the nutritional sciences and consumer sciences. 21 Malaysian Food Barometer 2.1. Social Class, Socio-economic Status and Ethnicity Our irst objective is to study the transformations in the social structure in a multi-ethnic society such as Malaysia under the process of the socioeconomic modernization. How does the Malaysian population reorganize during modernization in terms of social stratiication and how do these transformations inluence their traditional food “consumption cultures”? In the social sciences, two concurrent paradigms have been developed to describe the position of an individual in the social hierarchy. The Marxist tradition uses the concept of “social class”, assuming that the society is divided into categories whose membership is deined in relation to the possession of the means of production: those who own it and those who own nothing and have only their labor power to sell (Marx & Engel, 1848). This fact of ownership or nonownership brings together the social sectors into two basic social classes who have a common interest: the capitalist class and the working class. The boundaries of each group are quite hermetic. Social classes in the Marxian sense stand in a relationship of conlict due to the differential of power and this is the key dynamic of the society. This concept is inseparable from the notion of class struggle. The alternative perspective to the Marxist paradigm is where, rather than emphasising a contentious relationship, it tends to emphasize the perspectives of the “social position” and the “social category”. However in doing so, they also use the term “social class”, because the term “class”, belongs to the generic vocabulary of the social sciences. The German sociologist Max Weber (1921) used the term “social class” but in its larger meaning, it is similar in meaning to “category”. This latter’s sense of “class”, views society as a continuum. These categories would group individuals, but their borders are porous in order for people to be able to move from one category to another during the course of their life trajectories. Relations between these categories are more competitive than confrontational. If the latter perceptive is associated with the Marxist theory, the former is in line with the class theories of Max Weber and Alexis de Tocqueville (1849). It is based on the idea of a system of social stratiication but in a continuum where there are no boundaries between theses categories. Under the Weberian class theory, a social class occupies a position in the socioeconomic system, while individuals would then attain social status due to the social characteristics they possess such as educational qualiications, beliefs and social skills. At the peak of society, it is the upper class, the elite, the aristocracy, or the “nouveaux riches”, who have earned their money in businesses, followed by the middle class, the broad group of people in the contemporary society who, socioeconomically speaking, fall between the lower class and upper class. The lower class or working class, are people employed in the low-paying wage jobs with very little economic security. These two theoretical perspectives of Marxist and Weberian support the idea that the social classes or social categories can be described and studied objectively from an outside point of view. The Marxist view takes into account the relationship to the means of production and the other view which is associated with Weber, where the position is in the social hierarchy is largely deined by the economic and cultural resources. Both would also include the possibility to then study the subjective feeling of belonging to those social sectors. The critique of the Marxist “social class” perspective was developed within the North American intellectual context by Robert Nisbet (1959). It argues that the relevance of the social class 22 Objectives & Theoretical Framework has declined as a consequence of the modernization of society. The main arguments in this critique are, (1) the de-industrialization and the concomitant rise of services, (2) the economic development, (3) the rise of a consumption culture, and (4) the de-structuration of political life. Aside from these major reasons, Nisbet suggests that the increases in the levels of education, female employment, the development of individual property and social diversity based on the differences in religion, gender, culture, ethnicity or sexual orientation also contributed to the decline in the relevance of the social class as a theory in understanding the nature of the modern society. In addition to this, these phenomena in combination, not only transformed the objective living conditions of the members of the society, but also contributed to the deconstruction of their “class consciousness” (Nisbet, 1959). This intellectual tradition has been actively prolonged through the later work of Pakulski & Waters (1996) and Holton & Turner (1989). The emergence of the middle class concept, negating the binary Marxist view of society as being made up of owners and non-owners in terms of means of production, is part of the shift to view society as a Weberian social hierarchy of classes layered in a continuum. Hence this paradigm is based on the social position that focuses on the transformation of the value systems under the effect of modernization and post-modernization. Theodor Veblen initially formulated this focus with regard to the emphasis of consumption activities from “use value” to “symbolic value”, in what he termed as “conspicuous consumption” (Veblen, 1899). Since then and in their own ways, Robert Merton (1949), Pierre Bourdieu (1984) and Jean Baudrillard (1969), to mention a few, have reworked this fundamental question of social science. Supporting the idea that there is no “genuine” need, (that is challenging the notion of “use value”), Baudrillard considers that it is consumption, rather than production, which is the driver of capitalist society. He makes the distinction between the four dimensions of value: functional, exchange, symbolic and sign. Moreover, with his distinction between the economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital, Pierre Bourdieu has transformed the concept of the social class. But it is important to note that, even in Bourdieu’s formulation, inally cultural, symbolic and social capitals are considered as “translatable into the economic” (Bourdieu, 1987). Ronald Inglehart and his research team analyzed, with very large, recurrent quantitative surveys, the cultural, economic, and political changes in 43 societies (Inglehart, 1997). His indings also supported the idea that in the cycle of modernization, the consumption culture moves from a situation where the economic determinants dominate the cultural determinants to one where the cultural determinants take the prevailing role. Reusing a concept of Simmel (1910), he called this stage the “stylisation” of consumption. Other researchers, following Erik Olin Wright, have proposed to update the Marxist social class perspective (Wright, 2006). Thus, the Marxist “social class” and the Weberian “socioeconomic status” paradigms are still in competition and the controversy has re-emerged in recent years in Europe, especially in France. The irst debate focuses on the “supposed decline” versus the “return” of the social classes and the second one explores the “downgrading” of the middle class (Chauvel, 2006). At the same time, other socio-economists and demographers who focus on social mobility, reject the vision of a reduced importance of the middle class 23 Malaysian Food Barometer concept and support the idea of the emergence of a “new middle class” (Maurin & Goux, 2012). Notwithstanding these controversies, the question that interests us in this research is the cohabitation or integration of the social class, cultural and ethnic determinants. Due to the strong framing of food habits by cultural and ethnic factors, food is a very fruitful and dramatic empirical ield to revisit and investigate as to how the social classes and cultures interact (Fischler, 1990, 2011; Mennell et al., 1992; Warde, 1997; Gronow, 1997; Poulain, 2002a; Tibère, 2009). Theories of ethnicity and race are numerous and the concepts themselves are not free of ambiguity2. Some theories called “primordialist” focus on the impact size that is supposedly imposed by either biological characteristics or associated with the psychological characteristics of a particular race or ethnic group as well as those coming from their ancestors. A second group of theories gives priority to the cultural dimensions of the group’s social life, whereby the languages and systems of representation are considered as having a deinitive inluence on the identity of the individuals in a society. The irst category of these theories tends to reduce the ethnicity to biological factors which is the so-called socio-biology approach (Wilson, 1975; van den Berghe, 1981). The second category has been characterized as an “essentialisation” of the ethnicity (Shils, 1957; Geertz, 1973; Isaacs, 1975). Other scholars who are grouped more or less as “constructivists” or “instrumentalists” are rejecting these imposed dimensions. They view ethnicity as a phenomenon resulting from the social interaction, even as a manifestation of the strategic processes used by actors in both the social and political competition (Barth, 1969; Keyes, 1976). They focus also on the subjectivity of the social actors. In this project, it is assumed that ethnicity results from a combination of both the objective and subjective dimensions which are manipulated (in a neutral sense) in identity games and interactions (Gans, 1979; Amselle & M’Bokolo, 1985; Martiniello, 1995, 2003; Wieviorka, 1998; Ghasarian, 2002; Tibère, 2006). Some authors have studied the status of food choices within these symbolic manipulations (Corbeau, 1994; Poulain, 1997a, 1997b; Tibère, 1997; Poulain & Tibère, 2000; Mintz & Du Bois, 2002; Tibère, 2006, 2009; Poulain, 2012; Williams-Forson & Walker, 2012). It has been dificult to establish a dialogue between North American sociologists, who more or less adopt a liberal frame of reference based on the individual, and the European sociologists, mainly in the French and the German traditions, who are more inluenced by the Marxist theory (Bertheleu, 2007) on the connection between ethnicity and social classes. On one hand, the Marxists have been blinded by their desire to achieve a proletarian internationalism and on the other hand, the Liberals are handicapped by “the belief in the inevitability of the melting pot” (Martiniello, 1995). In fact, in trying to understand the opposition between a ‘classist’ theory, which views the economic aspect as the dominant and the basis of social stratiication, and an ‘ethnicist’ theory, in which this economic dimension is totally absent and where the social hierarchization is based on cultural determinants, we must ask ourselves what is the objectivity of these differences. In fact, it has been argued by Wieviorka (1993, 1998) that this opposition becomes more compounded when the different conceptions of ethnicity and social positions in the class structure are taken into account. 24 Objectives & Theoretical Framework The challenge in articulating the concepts of social position, or social class, and ethnicity has engaged many sociologists, anthropologists and political scientists. Even in the North American sociological tradition, Milton Gordon has developed the concept of Ethclass as an articulation of the Marxist concept of class with that of ethnicity. With this formulation, he tried to demonstrate the fact that ethnicity is more or less connected with social class (Gordon, 1978). The paradigm of Ethclass assumes that the social and ethnic categories are quite impervious. Adopting the same perspective but working in the empirical ield of post-colonial societies, the historian Pierre Briant (1998) has proposed the “Ethnoclass” concept in an attempt to describe the social repartition of the ethnic group into certain social or economic functions as a result of the colonial experience. The concept of “Ethnoclass” has also been adopted by the anthropologists and sociologists working in the post-colonial plural or creole societies which still manifests in the compartmentalisation and study of the interactions between the different groups (Bernabé, Chamoiseau & Coniant, 1989; Benoist, 1998; Tibère, 2006, 2009, 2013). The social stratiication perspective has also developed a dialogue with scholars focusing on the ethnicity, gender and social hierarchy. For instance, at present, Floya Anthias (2001) represents the tradition of dialogue between social stratiication and ethnicity. In addition to the neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian perspectives, the social movement theory has proposed new types of political allegiances that are emerging from a range of social forces which are focused around the environment and other speciic campaigns and are often organized in terms of local concerns and identities (Touraine, 1981). The Malaysian society, which during the colonial era had experienced racial partition according to its economic function (Indians in the rubber plantations, Chinese in the tin mines and in the urban business sector, Malay peasantry in subsistence agriculture), is more or less a good example of the Ethclass concept. However, the modernization of the Malaysian economy coupled with the decline in the importance of the agricultural sector and the development of the service industries could change the situation. The de-ethnicization of occupation is a key element in the New Economic Policy of 1971-1990 which achieved only limited success (Olmedo & Noor, 2012). The very complex interlinking of the cultural, linguistic, religious and political afiliations, which could be the key to understanding the Malaysian social cohesion (Shamsul, 2010) is a relevant empirical ield for studying this connection between social position and ethnicity. For Malaysia, we referred to the seminal work of Charles Hirschman. At the beginning of his career, this American sociologist studied a way to interrelate ethnicity and social stratiication. In his irst work, Hirschman generated six models, matching ethnicity with social determinants such as the “level of education”, “father’s occupation”, “urbanization versus rurality”, etc. His aim was to try and identify the impact of ethnicity and other sociological variables on a range of dependent variables such as “occupation” (Hirschman, 1975). Twenty years later, he completed this work, using a very comprehensive analysis of Malaysian’s census classiications, from 1871 to 1980 (Hirschman, 1987). This body of knowledge on ethnicity and social position 25 Malaysian Food Barometer provides the foundation for this study. In order to study and describe the range of social positions in a multi-ethnic society such as Malaysia, the MFB will develop an index that combines social and ethic variables which is based on the Socio-Economic Position (SEP) score originally conceptualised by Poulain and Tibère to study obesity in the French society (Poulain & Tibère, 2008; Pigeyre, Duhamel, Poulain, Rousseau, Barbe, Jeanneau, Tibère & Romon, 2011). This index is called Eth-SocioEconomical position (EthSEP) and will include a more subtle and complex ethnic dimension and not just the oficial national administrative designation of the three main racial categories in Malaysia, which are the “Malay”, “Chinese” and “Indian”. It will take into account the fact that this variable of “race” in not monolithic but could be fragmented by “metissage” mixed marriage, religious conversion, and the intensity of their religion practices. The ethnic identity of the individuals participating in the survey will be studied through different variables such as, personal ethnic assignation, ethnic assignation of the partner for those who are living as a couple, or of the parents and grandparents, the religion practiced and the intensity of the individual’s religious life (Poulain & Tibère, 2000). 2.2. From “Food Social Space” to “Food Models” This survey is grounded in the social sciences, which means it focuses mainly on the sociocultural determinants of food consumption in social life from the perspective of anthropological and sociological theories. However, our theoretical framework contains the assumption that within the complexity of the food habits, several chains of determinism intertwine. Human food habits are subservient to a double determinism, which are biological and cultural. The irst set of constraints is a consequence of the “omnivorous status” of mankind. Human food behavior is irstly determined by the biological omnivorous status of the human species that deines a double set of constraints. These constraints come from the necessity to tap into the energy resources in order to provide for the vital necessities of the body’s functioning as well as enhancing its maintenance and growth. These biological constraints are not only determined by biochemical mechanisms underlying nutrition, but also by the functioning of the digestive system. The second set of constraints results from the environment in which the human community lives, from its material characteristics (climate, fauna and lora) and from the conditions of their exploitation for human survival. However these constraints are more or less loose, thus leaving a space for freedom where social and cultural processes can intervene. These processes take food as a vehicle for cultural expression, thereby contributing to the formation of the social identities and to the structuration of various forms of social interactions. They also make an impact upon the body’s physiological and biological aspects, hence contributing at an individual level to its adaptation to social uses (the socialization of the body), and also – on a generational scale – to the selection and diffusion of certain genetic characteristics (Poulain, 2002a, 2012). The dialectic between human genetics and socio-anthropology provides the scientiic statement that there is neither a “biologically pure” human being, nor is there a “socially pure” one, instead homosapiens arose as the outcome of the shaping and interaction between biology and culture. Culture impacts on genetics by contributing to the mode of selection, transmission and diffusion of genes through the rules of kinship as well as different sexual taboos. It also contributes 26 Objectives & Theoretical Framework through diet, the latter having the underlying processes of expression or non-expression of a speciic phenotype. Looking into these questions, a new body of knowledge called nutrigenetics has emerged today. Conversely, biology also impacts on culture by imposing vital limits to the conceit of societies which strive to organize living things, human or other natural species as they wish (Poulain, 2012). The concept of “social space” suggested by Condominas (1980, 1990) to aid our understanding of the interrelationships between a human group and its environment, inds in food, a ield of application, which is particularly fruitful. Condominas fostered a true reversal of the classic anthropological perspective through his concept of “social space”, when he wrote that the set of food habits (food diet) of a human group constitutes a fundamental element of their social space due to its central position in the production system from where it frames both the technology and economy of the group. In this approach, the food diet ceases to be considered a consequence of the environment (as in the environmental determinist in the theories of geography), or as an observation platform for cultural diversity (here we may quote both the theories of geographic possibilism and anthropological culturalism). Rather, it has emerged as a structuring dimension of social organization, connecting back to the major contribution to anthropology by Claude Lévi-Strauss (1958). In doing so, the food pattern concept gives the sociology and anthropology of food a quintessential position at the crossroads of ields of knowledge which were traditionally disconnected. On the one hand, the social sciences and on the other, the natural sciences, incorporated in the human geography, ethnology, ethno-botanics, ethno-zoology, can act as a catalyst to open a fruitful dialogue with nutrition science (Condominas, Fischler & Poulain, 2003). In other words, the ‘food decision’ not only arises as the result of a rational decision, but also as a result of the social and cultural frames as well as contexts of social actors. Thus Poulain has suggested that the concept of “food social space” is used as a tool for studying the food patterns of a social group. A “food model” or “food pattern” can be deined as a particular coniguration of the “food social space” in a particular society or in a socio-cultural context (Poulain, 2002a). A particular social group’s dietary pattern is marked by the precise order of: the edible; a procurement system; a culinary system; a consumption system; a time frame; and a set of particular internal and external differentiation processes. Thus, the “food social space” marks the bio-anthropological connection of a human group to its social and natural environment. It incorporates seven main dimensions: the range of edible foods, the systems of food production, the culinary system, the consumption patterns (the structure of meals, number of food intakes, and social contexts of eating…), the temporality of the food consumption (the repartition of the food intakes in the timeframes; daily, weekly…), and the system of social differentiation in relation to food. The main contribution of this concept is that it allows us to make the distinction between what is determined by biological factors and what is determined by socio-cultural factors. Subsequently, it allows us to study the interaction between them. 27 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 13 Food Social Space: the Social Dimensions of Food (Poulain, 2002 & 2012) Room of Freedom Social dimensions of Food A “food model” is therefore a body of knowledge that embodies multifarious experiments conducted on a trial and error basis by the human community. It takes the form of a “fantastic” series of dovetailing and overlapping categories used daily by the members of a society without them being truly aware of the fact. It is within these “category cascades,” to borrow the expression coined by Claude Fischler (1990) that lines of the dietary reasoning unfold. Following Claude Lévi-Strauss, Igor de Garine suggests that the anthropological purpose of dietary patterns is to link the natural and the cultural. The differentiation in eating attitudes and behaviors contributes at the same time to marking the cohesion within the group of origin and to maintaining, among the individuals, social groups and cultures, a heterogeneity that fosters the communication and the interchange without which no human society can exist (Garine, 1979). The model is handed down from generation to generation and embodies both the effective empirical knowledge and the concrete manifestation of the social group’s central values. It thus performs a role in the building up (in the course of socialization) and upholding (throughout life) of the social and cultural identities. In doing so, it also fosters the survival of the individuals by providing them with patterns of behavior tailored to the survival of the social group, and by enabling values and rules to be handed down through the generations (Poulain, 2002a). Food models are subject to inluences on two fronts. They evolve irst of all because of the fact that value systems metamorphose; this is referred to as a cultural determination. However, they also change because the systems of concrete action — the use of time, know-how and economic power — metamorphose as well. Food models may be studied from the perspective of the different variables, for instance, reporting factual data on the dietary practices, or presenting data on the manifestations relecting the values and symbolic systems that the foods and eating practices embody. 28 Objectives & Theoretical Framework By eating according to socially deined habits, children learn a sense of what is private and what is public, (what part of food and digestive mechanics may be seen and what must be kept hidden), the rules of division and presence which relect social hierarchies, and a sense of what is “good”, or more precisely of what is regarded as good by their group. They internalize the central values of their culture, which are expressed by their table manners, through the act of eating. At the same time, the eaters’ bodies and biological rhythms’ are affected by the social dimensions. The kitchen-language analogy suggested by Claude Lévi-Strauss (1966 [1964]) reveals its relevance here. Just like the fact that all people “speak”, but do not all speak the same language, so too do all people eat cooked food, but all people do not eat food cooked in the same way. The distinction between language and speech proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure (1916) makes it possible to recognize an individual’s way of eating. “Language” represents the codiied and socialised element. That it is an institution resulting from a vast contract between men, a social product of the faculty of language, and a set of necessary conventions adopted by the social body in order to allow the exercise of this faculty in the individuals”. “Speech”, on the other hand, is an individual act of will and intelligence. In other words, speech is the particular manner in which an individual uses language. This opposition can also be used for food. Food models which embody the group’s culinary practices and socialised meals are the equivalent of the language. How an individual cooks, eats and appreciates a speciic food which are perceived as edible and good in their native culture, constitutes the equivalent of speech (Poulain, 1985). In this proposition, the food models thus correspond to the language and the individual eating practices to speech; they are in a particular manner using food, as with using language, to position oneself socially. “By separating language from speech, one also separates: the social from the individual; the essential from the additional and the more or less accidental” (Saussure 1916: 30). Food is thus the support of a vast communication system which would allow the human groups to mark external differences between cultures, and between social groups or individuals which belong to the same cultural space. 29 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 14 Malaysian Food Barometer: General Framework 30 Objectives & Theoretical Framework 3. Organization of Research 31 Malaysian Food Barometer 3.1 Research Team a) Chair of Food Studies: Food, Cultures & Health (i) Researchers Jean-Pierre Poulain, Professor, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Laurence Tibère, Associate Professor, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Cyrille Laporte, PhD, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Elise Mognard, PhD, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) – From April 2014, on-going (ii) Research assistants Karen Ho, PhD Candidate and Research assistant, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) – From September 2012 to January 2013 Mun Yee Lai, PhD Candidate and Senior Lecturer, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) – From January 2013, on-going Saeed P. Sharif, PhD Candidate and Postgraduate Teaching Fellow, Business School of Taylor’s University (Malaysia) – From January 2014, on-going Yu Wai Man, Research assistant, Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) – From Octobre 2013 to May 2014 Wei Ting Ting, Research assistant, Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) – From Octobre 2013 to March 2014 Daniela Chiang, Research assistant, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France) Simon Roser, Master student, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France) – From May 2012 to September 2012 (iii) Administration Sara Abourich, Research assistant, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France), School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) – From September 2012 to July 2013 Angie Lim, Senior Executive, Administration, Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) – From February 2014, on-going b) Researchers from other academic partners Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, Professor, The National University of Malaysia, KITA, Institute of Ethnic Studies (Malaysia) 32 Objectives & Theoretical Framework Noor Mohd Ismail, Professor, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) (Malaysia) Wendy Smith, Associate Professor, Monash University (Malaysia) Marcella Aloysius, PhD Candidate, The National University of Malaysia, KITA, Institute of Ethnic Studies (Malaysia) 3.2. Steering Committee a) Coordinator Jean-Pierre Poulain, Professor, University of Toulouse (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) b) Members Noor Mohd Ismail, Professor, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Laurence Tibère, Associate Professor, University of Toulouse (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Neethiananthan Ari Ragavan, Dean of the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) and co-director of Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Cyrille Laporte, PhD, University of Toulouse (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Elise Mognard, PhD, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) – From April 2014, on-going Angie Lim, Senior Executive, Administration, Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) – From February 2014, on-going 3.3. Scientiic Commitee a) Chairmen Jean-Pierre Poulain, Professor, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France), codirector of Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, Professor, The National University of Malaysia, KITA, Institute of Ethnic Studies (Malaysia) b) Members Noor Mohd Ismail, Professor, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) (Malaysia) Muhamad Muda, Professor, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) Laurence Tibère, Associate Professor, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) 33 Malaysian Food Barometer Wendy Smith, Associate Professor, Monash University (Malaysia) Cyrille Laporte, PhD, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Eric Olmedo, PhD, Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) – From September 2012 to July 2013 Elise Mognard, PhD, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) – From April 2014, on-going Neethiananthan Ari Ragavan, Dean of the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) and co-director of Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Mun Yee Lai, PhD Candidate and Senior Lecturer, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) Karen Ho, PhD Candidate and Research assistant, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) – From September 2012 to January 2013 Marcella Aloysius, PhD Candidate, The National University of Malaysia, KITA, Institute of Ethnic Studies (Malaysia) Hema Subramonian, Deputy Dean of the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) Kashif Hussain, Associate Dean of the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) Mansor Mohamed Noor, Professor, The National University of Malaysia, KITA, Institute of Ethnic Studies (Malaysia) Anis Yusal Yusoff, Principal Research Fellow, The National University of Malaysia, KITA, Institute of Ethnic Studies (Malaysia) 3.4. Strategic Commitee Dato’ Hassan Said, Professor, Vice Chancellor and President of Taylor’s University (Malaysia), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Pradeep Nair, Deputy Vice Chancelor of Taylor’s University (Malaysia) Dato’ Visweswaran Navaratnam, Emeritus Professor, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Taylor’s University (Malaysia) Jean-Michel Minovez, Professor, President of Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France) Vincent Simoulin, Professor, Director of Centre d’Etudes et de Recherche Travail Organization Pouvoir – mixed research unit Centre National de la Recherche Scientiique 5044 (France) Jean-Pierre Poulain, Professor, University of Toulouse (France), Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Perry Hobson, Professor, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Taylor’s University (Malaysia) 34 Objectives & Theoretical Framework Dato Sarjit Singh Banta Singh, Associate Director of the Center for Research and Innovation in Tourism Hospitality and Food Studies - CRiT, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) Neethiananthan Ari Ragavan, Dean of the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) and co-director of Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia) Haresh Singh Gill, Associate Dean of the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts Taylor’s University (Malaysia) Zainun Nur Abdul Rauf, Group Corporate Affairs Director, Nestlé – Malaysia (Malaysia) Zamira Yasmin Abdul Rahman, Corporate Affairs Manager, Nestlé – Malaysia (Malaysia) Norean Sayers, Business Ressource Manager, Nestlé – Malaysia (Malaysia) Cher Siew Wei, Dietetics Nutrition Manager, Nestlé – Malaysia (Malaysia) Siew Ling Lim, Brand Manager - All Family Cereals, Nestlé – Malaysia (Malaysia) Amanda Lin, Corporate Affairs Region Manager, Coca-Cola Singapore (Singapore) Sook Hua Yap, Knowlegde and Insights Manager, Coca-Cola Singapore (Singapore) Grace Landert-Soon, Head of Health and Nutrition Department, Coca-Cola Singapore (Singapore) Noëlle Paolo, Head of Consumers Studies, Centre National Interprofessionnel de l’Economie Laitière – CNIEL (France) Véronique Pardo, Deputy Head of Consumers Studies, Observatoire CNIEL des Hahitudes et Comportements Alimentaires - OCHA, Centre National Interprofessionnel de l’Economie Laitière – CNIEL (France) Isabelle Pinta-Costa, Research Oficer, Consumers Studies Centre National Interprofessionnel de l’Economie Laitière – CNIEL (France) 35 Malaysian Food Barometer Research Meetings Image 1 (From left to right) : Cyrille Laporte, Neethiahnanthan Ari Ragavan, Wendy Smith, Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, Jean-Pierre Poulain, Laurence Tibère, Eric Olmedo, Anis Yusal Yusoff Image 2 (From left to right): Hema Subramonian, Dato Sarjit Singh Banta Singh, Norean Sayers, Cher Siew Wei, Frédéric Bouchon, Marcella Aloysius, Laurence Tibère, Anis Yusal Yusoff, Mun Yee Lai, Jean-Pierre Poulain, Amanda Lin, Sook Hua Yap, Cyrille Laporte, Haresh Singh Gill, Sara Abourich 36 Methodology & Data Collection 37 Malaysian Food Barometer 38 Methodology & Data Collection METHODOLOGY & DATA COLLECTION 39 Malaysian Food Barometer 40 Methodology & Data Collection II. METHODOLOGY & DATA COLLECTION We used both qualitative and quantitative methods. We irst did a demographic selection of the people that were assembled to participate in a guided discussion about their food habits. We also mobilized face-to-face interviews to gather the descriptions of the food life-world of the interviewee with respect to the interpretation of the meaning of the described phenomena. We used these preliminary data to build the questionnaire. All the interviewers that were employed were luent in the language used for training as well as at least one (other) language into which the questionnaires had been translated into (Chinese, Malay, Indian, English). As the questionnaire had been translated into another language, we trained the trainers in different languages (2 days). The main purpose of this was to present the structure of the questionnaire and to validate the data collection method. It was a very important step to match the different points of view and methods regarding the cultural impacts. 1. Preliminary Qualitative Approaches 1.1 Face-to-face Interviews To carry out the exploratory phase, we irst conducted a series of qualitative face-to-face interviews. The interview guide was written in English. A three hour-long discussion was conducted with an Indian, a Malay and a Chinese. The goal here was to become familiar with the social discourse and representation about the food in Malaysia instead of performing a complete qualitative data collection. We then left the outstanding data collection work and focused on exploring the literature and data collection by the focus group. The irst theme of the interview guide (Appendix 1) involves the eating habits with questions targeted about diets and special diets. We irst focused on the frequency of the standard food intake and their structure and practices with a recall of the food consumption over a period of three days. We also differentiated the points of purchase with the consumption areas that may be encountered in Malaysia. With regard to the recall, the last three days were not dificult for our interviewees, but it was impossible to go as far back as the last seven days. The interview guide continued with food consumption at home with the sub-themes related to frequency, organization of the supply at home and the practice of home cooking. The guide then approached the outside consumption by asking about places and frequencies thereof. Other topics addressed were the inal invitations and commensality, relations between the ethnic groups through food, nutrition and food representations, the identity of the interviewee and the individual’s personal characteristics. 41 Malaysian Food Barometer Some Examples of Face-to-face Interviews Image 3 Interviewees and interviewers during face-toface interviews, Ipoh (Malaysia), 2013 We then conducted a second round of qualitative data collection towards the end of our presentation for additional information on the dimensions that were left unexplored and in order to test some of questions in the questionnaire on the quantitative approach (a guide of interview is available at Appendix 2). A shortened version of the interview guide was used for the interviews which lasted 30 minutes. The total sample in our qualitative phase was nine persons and details are presented in the following table. 42 Methodology & Data Collection Table 2 Sample of face-to-face interviews Interviewee Gender Ethnicity Religion SocLev Age FC1 F Chinese Christian -- 24 FM2 F Malay Muslim + 30 HI3 M Indian Hindou ++ 47 HC4 M Chinese Muslim - 41 HC5 M Chinese Buddhist + 31 HI6 M Indian Christian + 38 FI7 F Indian Jaïna + 37 HM8 M Malay Muslim -- 32 HM9 M Malay Muslim + 24 1.2 Focus Group After carrying out these qualitative interviews, we conducted a focus group. We used a power point presentation during the focus group to show images, visual media and tools. The focus group was held at Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus for a duration of three hours. The interviewees were 10 in total with all of them residing in Kuala Lumpur. The majority of the participants were recruited based on varying proiles based on their position and income level. The different aspects that the focus group looked at were: • • • • • Food composition and consumption in a day, Structure of the food intake, Invitations and outside consumption, Home cooking practices, Food modernity and its avatars. The sample of the focus group was built in order to it to the gender and ethnic distribution of the Malaysian population (based on the 2010 population census). With regard to gender, the group consisted of 70% males and 30% females and with regards to ethnicity, they consisted of 50% Malays, 40% Chinese and 10% Indian Malaysians. 43 Malaysian Food Barometer Focus group led by Simon Roser and Jean-Pierre Poulain Image 4 The indings of the focus group concluded (the report on the focus group is available in Appendix 3) that the “regional food speciicities can be observed in Malaysia. These speciicities can be spicy lavors more or less pronounced, local specialities, variants of the same recipes etc. Food in urban area, in particular in the metropolis of Kuala Lumpur and its suburbs in Selangor, presents notable differences compared with rural zones. Daily meal has a simple structure, consisting in a food sequence. This can be individual, with an indidualized dish by dinner guest. It can be collective, with is a common dish on the table, which is shared and served in the plate. It is usually served with an individual plate of rice and one or several dishes of accompaniment on table. The rice is strongly competed by pastas and noodles as main element of the meal and other carbohydrates. When they are consumed, noodles seem to be rather served on the individual mode.” (Roser, 2012 : 77). In conclusion, using the qualitative approach, most of the elements were used to build the quantitative tools for data collection (see The cards structure of food content in Appendix 4). 2. Issues in Quantitative Data Collection in Food Studies The data collection method for the food intake used in the MFB was based on the “recall of the last 24 hours” approach. This method was developed by Dorothy Wiehl (1942), and it asks the interviewees to list out all the food and drink intakes of the day which includes before, during and in between meals. It is a common method used to investigate the individual’s food intake. It has been used mainly in nutrition science surveys, but we adapted the method in order to take into account the socio-cultural dimensions that were being investigated. In the early 1980s, sociologists, anthropologists and economists carried out intense research work focused on food consumption surveys (Douglas, 1971, 1984; Ledrut, Clément, Gorge and Saint-Raymond, 1979; Fischler, 1979, 1980, 1990; Garine, 1979, 1994; Goody, 1982; USDA, 44 Methodology & Data Collection 1985; Mennell, 1985; Poulain, 1985; Lambert, 1987; Mennell, Murcott & van Otterloo, 1992). Their indings generated theoretical debates which then gave rise to the methodological advances which now beneit current research. These include the awareness of the need to consider the relative status of the variables and the data collection techniques. Indeed, how can we be sure that the data collected would correspond to the actual practices of the individuals? Quantitative research on eating practices faces an obstacle that is related to the use of declarative methods to uncover, or at least attain data as close as possible to the actual behavior of the individuals. For example, when we ask individuals to describe the meals they ate the day before and if they have not eaten “as usual”, or if they had eaten differently from their normal pattern, that is, what they think they normally should have done, according to prevailing social norms, then they might feel uncomfortable and be placed in a dilemma. What should their answer be? What they had actually eaten yesterday, or what they usually ate or what they believe should have been eaten? The problem, methodologically speaking, is that all the individuals do not solve this dilemma in the same way. Some of them, in respecting the instructions of the interviewer, faithfully describe the food intake of the day before, while others, eager to report their usual way of eating, are tempted to change their statement from the actual to the usual, to reduce the cognitive dissonance they feel. All seek to translate what they think is the reality of their food practices. In the second case, the data collected can be said to be more related to their perception of the “social norms”, which is more of a mix of the social and nutritional requirements than their actual practices. Thus the data obtained has a fairly weak empirical value because they represent neither a complete picture of the real behavior of individuals, nor of the social representations (norms and values) related to food in the social group being studied. In an attempt to resolve this ambiguity, some studies (Poulain, 1996, 2001), have developed a collection method which facilitates the distinction between practices and norms, using a questionnaire administered during a face-to-face interview. This is done by irst inviting the people to describe what they consider to be a “proper meal”, a “proper breakfast”, a “proper lunch”, etc. This is then presented to them as taking place in an ideal setting, when nothing has been disturbed with regard to the physical organization of the preparation and consumption of these meals. This method is an extension of Mary Douglas’ work on “deciphering a meal” (1971). Through this process, the social norms are collected for the meals under consideration. In the second step, when the interviewee is “liberated” from the normative pressures by his or her statements, another series of questions is asked in order to help the individual rebuild his or her actual food consumption for the day. The interviewer than begins by specifying that, now, what interests the research team is what actually happened or what has actually been eaten. The interviewer then explains that working at the level of the total population, it is not a problem if the meals eaten by the interviewee differs from what has been said in the irst part of the questionnaire, where the respondent informed them of what she/he thinks should be done, or what she/he usually does. The irst type of data corresponds to the social norms, that is to say, provides an aggregate of 45 Malaysian Food Barometer the guidelines for food consumption that are rooted in the cultural, social and family traditions. They result from the speciic socialization of an individual. However, these norms are also impacted by the prevailing discourse of public health, or pressure from prevailing models of the desirable body shape. The second type of data always retains the status of the declarative data, but is much closer to the actual practices of the individuals. Using such a method allows the data collected be more accurate and it becomes possible to distinguish the norms and practices and their relationships with each other, particularly for the exploration of the various forms of change. The improvement in the data collection method is an important issue in this research. The ability to distinguish between norms and practices allows for a deeper understanding of the transformation of the eating habits. In France, four national surveys using the same methodology showed convergent results. The French respondents displayed an ideational commitment to the “normal” meals (a 3 course structure: irst course, main course and dessert) which are rather traditional, but in fact, they do simplify their structure in practice. It is understandable that some previous studies which did not take the precautions described above, produced results that until recently appeared to demonstrate a higher incidence of structural stability in the traditional French meal (starter, main dish, cheese, dessert), in contrast to the more simpliied structure of meals consumed in a catering context (Poulain, 1996, 2001). The distinction in our survey, between norms and practices is a solution to improve the empirical quality of the data, but it comes at a cost because it greatly increases the length of the questionnaire and almost always requires face-to-face data collection. To rebuild the picture of food intake more accurately, the data collection method for the MFB project adopted a middle position between a qualitative and a quantitative approach. The questionnaire is actually a guide to help the interviewee to remember the composition of his/ her food intake, the structure of meals, the timing of food consumption, the conditions of food acquisition and the socio-technical contexts of its consumption, including the ethnicity of the persons with whom the food intake was shared wtih. The form and sequence of the questions had been developed to relect the Malaysian context, including the high frequency of meals and snacks purchased out of the home and the variety of places of consumption. Every food intake episode, whether its a main meal or a food intake between meals, is described using the same questioning process. The interviewer will assist the interviewees to identify the food intake of the previous day, following the time low of the day, from the time of waking until the time of sleeping. Moreover, it is the interviewee him/herself who names the food intake (be it breakfast, lunch, dinner, tea time, snack, etc.) and then describes it in his or her own words. 46 Methodology & Data Collection Figure 15 Guide for the Recall of 24 Hour Eating Practices Adapted to Malaysia 1. Where did you have your first food or drink intake yesterday? Dimanakah anda mengambil makanan pertama atau minuman pertama semalam? Your first meal, food or drink intake of yesterday / Pengambilan hidangan pertama anda, makanan atau minuman semalam Where did the food come from? Disediakan oleh siapa? Bolehkah anda menerangkan kandungan makanan, atau minuman anda? 8. cooked by you 3. your place tempat anda Could you describe the content(s) of your meal, food or drink intake? dimasak oleh saya 19. With someone Qty : Nama Dengan seseorang Kuantiti 9. cooked by friend / family 18. Alone 10. delivery* : Di Rumah Bolehkah anda menerangkan situasi anda semasa pengambilan ini? Name : dimasak oleh kawan / keluarga 1. At home Could you describe the social context on this intake? Sendiri 4. friend’s place penghantaran Brand : tempat Kawan 11. brought from outside* : Jenama Bungkus/ Dibawa dari luar 12. hawkers, street food (1) Penjaja, makanan tepi jalan 5. In the office Di dalam pejabat At what time? Pukul berapa? 13. convenience store, supermarket, pasar mini (2) How many adults : Minuman Kedai serbaneka, pasar raya, pasar mini 2. Outside Di luar 6. in a restaurant Di restoran If with someone Jika dengan seseorang How many children : Berapa kanak-kanak Guest (s) ethnicity : Barangan makanan individu Etnik tetamu 16. mamak (5) Shared food items : 20. working mamak Makanan dikongsi 15. food court (4) food court 7. in a hurry Dalam kesuntukan masa Individual food items : 14. fast – food (3) Makanan segera Berapa orang dewasa Drinks : berkerja 17. restaurant (6) 21. watching TV restoran Menonton tv Activities during food intakes *Coding the source of food among the 6 propositions below Aktiviti-aktiviti semasa pengambilan makanan 22. on a computer pada komputer 23.Meal time Waktu makan 24. other distraction : Ganguan lain 3. Questionnaire The MFB project studied the social, ethnic and cultural diversiication of the food habits in Malaysia using a macrodata collection approach. It was based on a national representative sample (N = 2,000), of respondents from the age of 15 years to the very elderly. The methodology for sampling used a semi-randomised approach, based on the regions within Malaysia and their degree of urbanization. A quota system based on the age and ethnicity was also applied. In this way, the evolution of the food consumption both at home and outside the home were studied and the consequences in terms of the market factors and public health were identiied. The questionnaire (Appendix 5) used as the structure for the interviews has six main parts encompassing the socio-demographics and ethnic indicators, food norms, food intake in the last 24 hours, cooking practices, social representations concerning food and the perception of health risk relating to food consumption food. The questionnaire comprises of 66 items and more than 1,400 variables, including body mass index (BMI). There are 46 closed and multiple-choice questions, consisting of standard questions used in sociology to describe the socio-demographics of a population (Desrosières, 1998), as well as questions that have been used in other studies (Poulain, 2002b; Poulain, Guignard, Michaud & Escalon, 2010). They The questionnaire (Appendix 5) used as the structure for the interviews has six main parts 47 Malaysian Food Barometer encompassing the socio-demographics and ethnic indicators, food norms, food intake in the last 24 hours, cooking practices, social representations concerning food and the perception of health risk relating to food consumption food. The questionnaire comprises of 66 items and more than 1,400 variables, including body mass index (BMI). There are 46 closed and multiple-choice questions, consisting of standard questions used in sociology to describe the socio-demographics of a population (Desrosières, 1998), as well as questions that have been used in other studies (Poulain, 2002b; Poulain, Guignard, Michaud & Escalon, 2010). They have been adapted to the Malaysian context based on a preliminary qualitative survey which included focus groups, semi-directed interviews and expert interviews. 4. Quantitative Fieldwork We conducted data collection between January and May 2013. We regularly checked the quality of the data collection done by Geek Field, the company that the work was outsourced to. Training for Trainer of Interviewers Image 5 Thus, we decided to redo the collection for the “income” variable and for the “24 hours recall”. The aim was to improve the quality of the raw data. This was then carried out using the phoning method. 48 The sample that we used is the population distribution used by the Ministry of Health in the Malaysian adult nutrition survey (MANS) done in 2002 and 2003. This survey involved 6,928 adults selected by stratiied random sampling from all the households by zone in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. We followed this stratiication to build our sample. We then built randomized sampling for the states, level of urbanization, gender and ethnicity. Table 3 Malaysian Food Barometer Sample 2013 (N = 2,000) % 0.82 6.87 5.51 13.20 Urban 118,978 1,257,941 1,418,074 2,794,993 % 0.42 4.44 5.00 9.86 Rural 112,563 689,710 143,309 945,582 % 0.40 2.43 0.51 3.34 Sample 2,000 16 137 110 264 Perak WP Kuala Lumpur (FT KL + FT Putrajaya) Selangor Total Z2 - Central zone 2,352,743 1,747,034 5,462,141 9,561,918 8.30 6.17 19.28 33.75 1,640,241 1,747,034 4,990,482 8,377,757 5.79 6.17 17.61 29.57 712,502 0 471,659 1,184,161 2.51 0.00 1.66 4.18 Negeri Sembilan Melaka Johor Total Z3 - Southern zone 1,021,064 821,110 3,348,283 5,190,457 3.60 2.90 11.82 18.32 679,286 709,933 2,405,874 3,795,093 2.40 2.51 8.49 13.39 341,778 111,177 942,409 1,395,364 Pahang Terengganu Kelantan Total Z4 - East Coast zone 1,500,817 1,035,977 1,539,601 4,076,395 5.30 3.66 5.43 14.39 758,014 612,737 652,825 2,023,576 2.68 2.16 2.30 7.14 Total Peninsular Malaysia 22,569,345 79.65 16,991,419 Sabah zone 3,206,742 11.32 Sarawak zone 2,471,140 49 F.T. Labuan Total Z5 - Off Peninsular Malaysia Total Malaysia Urban Rural 8 89 100 197 8 49 10 67 166 123 386 675 116 123 352 591 50 0 33 84 1.21 0.39 3.33 4.92 72 58 236 366 48 50 170 268 24 8 67 98 742,803 423,240 886,776 2,052,819 2.62 1.49 3.13 7.25 106 73 109 288 54 43 46 143 52 30 63 145 59.97 5,577,926 19.69 1,593 1,199 394 1,731,806 6.11 1,474,936 5.21 226 122 104 8.72 1,330,217 4.69 1,140,923 4.03 174 94 81 86,908 0.31 71,528 0.25 15,380 0.05 6 5 1 5,764,790 20.35 3,133,551 11.06 2,631,239 9.29 407 221 186 28,334,135 100.00 20,124,970 71.03 8,209,165 28.97 2,000 1,421 579 Methodology & Data Collection Total population 231,541 1,947,651 1,561,383 3,740,575 State Perlis Kedah Pulau Pinang Total Z1 - Northern zone Malaysian Food Barometer Questionnaire Validation Image 6 5. Descriptive Variables We mobilized a combination of sociological and demographic variables to deine the sample and to check its representativeness of the population in Malaysia. 5.1 Representativeness However, some gaps still remained in matching the sample with the population. Figure 16 Gaps between national population and sample In order to it to the national population, the sample was redressed. According to the observed gaps, the criteria of exclusion are as follows: 50 Methodology & Data Collection • • • Gender – Females: 63 individuals Age: • 15-19: 30 individuals • 20-29: 18 individuals • 40-49: 15 individuals • 40-49: 15 individuals Living Area - Rural: 63 individuals. Once the exclusion was complete, the sample count stood 2,000 individuals. The distribution of the population and its comparison with the national one (census 2010) is shown below. Figure 17 Comparison of socio-descriptive 2010 data census and MFB Comparison of socio-descriptive 2010 data census and MFB These combination of variables allowed us to compare the sample with the Malaysian population (census 2010). 5.2 Gender Table 4 Gender The proportion between the male and female is almost the same. 51 Malaysian Food Barometer The differences between the total population and the sample became very low. 5.3 Age Figure 18 Age Malaysian population is a young one as 26% of it is aged 0-14 years old. The 20-29 year old group makes up the most of the population. Those over 65 years are only 5.5%. (Source: Department of Statistic, Malaysia, 2013) The sample is very close to the actual age distribution. 5.4 Living Area Nearly a third of the population live in the central region. Table 5 Region of Residence 5.5 Urbanization & Metropolization of Living Area The classiication used for this study is slighty different from the one that is usually promoted by the statistics department of Malaysia which deined, beginning the 1970 census, an urban areas as having more than 10,000 persons living in a local administrative unit (Jaafar, 2004). Based on the literature regarding re-deinition of the relation between rurality and urbanity and the emergence of the suburban category (Clapson & Hutchison, 2010), three areas have been differentiated: urban, rural and suburban. The company that was hired for the data collection deined those different zones as follows: • Urban: Built-up city or large town with large buildings and houses (i.e. Kuala Lumpur, 52 Methodology & Data Collection • • Petaling Jaya, Subang etc.) Rural: Open space, village area without tall buildings. Far from the main and secondary city, 50 km from the main city and a minimum of 20 km from the secondary city (i.e. villages of Kuala Selangor, Rawang, Kajang etc.) Suburban city: Town or city that can be accessed by the highway. Some tall buildings and is normally 30 km from the main city (i.e. Kuala Selangor, Rawang etc.) Table 6 Living Area Figure 19 Living Area Malaysia has a high level of urban population (73.5%) compared to other ASEAN members such as Indonesia (51.5%), Philippines (49.1%), Thailand (34.4%) and Vietnam (31.7%) (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Paciic, 2013). In the MFB sample, the urban and suburban represent 78.1%. A light over-representation of the urban population was observed. The level of urbanization had doubled in 30 years and metropolitan towns are located in almost all states with some of them being state capitals (Jaafar, 2004; Masron et al., 2012). Metropolization has been deined as a speciic process of urbanization in the age of globalization which invites a re-think of the relations between urbanity and rurality (Ascher, 1995). While the intensity of the metropolization varies from one continent to another, this process is ongoing worldwide. In order to differentiate the levels of metropolization in Malaysia, a variable has been built in regarding the living area. Metropolization includes states Selangor and Penang as 53 Malaysian Food Barometer well as the Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory. With regard to rural areas, the states of Sabah and Sarawak have been categorized separately from the rest of the states, as they are considered as rural peninsular areas. Table 7 Metropolization 5.7 Area Grown Up Table 8 Area Grown Up Figure 20 Urbanization Level Of Living Areas And Urbanization Level Of Growing (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) There is strong correlation (P = 0.000) between the urbanization level of growing up areas and that of the current living areas, implying that there is a strong stable level of urbanization in Malaysia, even if the urbanization process that occured in the last 30 years is important. 54 Methodology & Data Collection 5.7 Ethnic Group Table 9 Ethnic Group Based on the 2010 Population and Housing Census of Malaysia, the oficial distribution by the ethnic group shows that the Malays are dominant: 61.9% Malays, 24.6% Chinese, 7.3% Indians, 5.5% Non-Malay Bumiputera and 0.7% Others. The distribution of the sample for this variable is good even if we had an under-representation of Malays (-6.6 points) and an over-representation of Non-Malay Bumiputera (+4.2 points). 5.8 Occupation After regrouping the occupation into three classes, the proile of the sample showed almost a balance between the two main categories: blue collar (39.2%) and white collar (33.0%). Professionals make up the remaining 19.5% of the population. Figure 21 Occupation 3 Classes + Housewife (N = 2,000) Considering the social position, the occupation of a housewife’s husband provided reliable information (Giddens, 1973). Towards this aim, a recoding of the housewife was done. Following this recoding, half of the sample (50.1%) could be considered as blue collar, 38.1% as white collar and 11.9% as professionals. 55 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 22 Occupation 3 Classes (N = 2,000) Occupation was found to be strongly correlated (P = 0.000) with income. The highest incomes were over-represented within the professionals (s.r. +11.9), lowest within the blue collar (s.r. +8.1) and medium within the white collar (s.r. +4.4 and s.r. +2.3). Figure 23 Occupation and Income (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) The level of education was also found to be strongly correlated (P = 0.000) to occupation. The lowest level of education was over-represented within the blue collar group (respectively s.r +2.4 and s.r. +2.1) while people who had completed a college or university level education were over-represented within the profesionals (s.r. +4.4). 56 Methodology & Data Collection Figure 24 Occupation and Level of Education (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Consequently, modernization was strongly linked with occupation (P = 0.000). The low level of modernization was over-represented within the blue collar (s.r. +4.4) while its high level was over-represented within the profesionals and the white collar (respectively s.r. +3.6 and s.r. +2.9). Figure 25 Occupation and Modernization (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) 57 Malaysian Food Barometer 5.9 Level of Education Figure 26 Level of Education (N = 2,000) The level of education for most of the respondents was upper secondary school. In addition, a quarter of the sample had only lower secondary school education level. 5.10. Income (RM) and Income Groups Figure 27 Monthly Household Income (N = 2,000) The data indicated that almost 25% of the population was in the lowest income category and a similar proportion in the highest one. If we consider the middle range income, 37% earn between RM700 and RM1,332.99 per month and 14.1% have higher incomes at RM 1,333 to RM 2,000. 58 Methodology & Data Collection Figure 28 Bi-modal Distribution Of Income (N = 2,000) The bi-modal distribution of the household income underlines the presence of a irst population with low income and what we can call a “middle class”, with an income about RM1,333. 5.11. Social Positions A combined variable between occupation and income level was created in order to indicate the social position of the interviewees. The regrouping are indicated below: Table 10 Combination for Social Position Mounthly Household Income (RM) 100 to 699.99 700 to 1,332.99 1,333 to 1,999.99 2,000 and above Professional Low middle class Middle class High social class High social class White Collar Low middle class Middle class High middle class High social class Blue Collar Low social class Low middle class Middle class High middle class Figure 29 Social Positions (N = 2,000) 59 Malaysian Food Barometer Following this classiication, the low middle class and middle class are the dominant ones as they represent 23.5% and 24.7% of the sample, matching the previous observation about the bi-modality of income. 5.12 Language & Ethnicity The oficial language of Malaysia is Malay. English was the administrative language until Malay becoming predominant after the 1969 race riots. Malaysian English is used in business, along with Manglish, which is a colloquial form of English that has a heavy dose of Malay, Chinese, and Tamil inluences. Many other languages are used in Malaysia (137 living languages) and in Peninsular Malaysia (41 of these languages). In East Malaysia, we also have different languages. Iban is the main tribal language in Sarawak and Dusunic languages are spoken by the natives in Sabah. Chinese Malaysians speak Chinese dialects. The more common dialects in the country are Cantonese, Mandarin, Hokkien, Hakka, Hainanese, and Fuzhou. Tamil is used predominantly by the Tamils whom form a majority of Malaysian Indians. Table 11 Number of Languages We noted that 68% of the population speak only one language. Figure 30 Language and Ethnicity Two Languages
Three Languages
2.6 3.8 0.4 10.8 0.9 9.3 1.2 10.5 23 11.1 13.4 4.3 0.6 6.1 3.7 Four Languages
2.4 2.4 10.7 4.8 6 23.5 65 91.7 78.7 66.9 45.9 24.7 82.3 27 95.2 1.2 an gu ag nd e La ng ua Fi ge rs tL a ng Se ua co ge nd La ng Th ua ird ge La ng ua Fi ge rs tL a ng Se ua co ge nd La ng Th ua ird ge La ng Fo ua ur ge th La ng ua ge ge ua 8.3 Se co tL ng rs Fi La ne 69.9 21.6 6.3 O 83.3 Bahasa Melayu Mandarin English Cantonese Tamil Hindi (N = 2,000) 60 Methodology & Data Collection The Malays speak mainly one language. This is an important characteristic of the Malaysian population because it is the largest community. The other ethnic groups speak more than one language, speciically the Chinese population. 5.13 Income Changes in the Past Five Years The economic concept of “elasticity” relects the propensity in proportion to the budget to increase with the progression of the purchasing power. It depends both on the variations of incomes (“elasticity to income”) and on the variations of the prices (“elasticity to price”). From a prospective perspective and to understand social change, sociologists are studying consumption “restrictions” and “aspirations”, that is to say, the desires or limitations of consumption expressed by individuals in a situation of income change. The study on aspirations highlights systems values and representations that would determine the prioritization of needs. The issues relating to the changes in income are interesting to look at, not only the overall socioeconomic dynamics (economic crisis, growth etc ) but also people’s perceptions of their material life. Table 12 Incomes Changes in Past 5 Years Figure 31 Income Changes in Past 5 Years (N = 2,000) We used three categories to assess the evolution of income in the past ive years. We observed that 49.9% of the respondents consider that their income increased in the past ive years, which is interesting if we were to consider the economic development of Malaysia compared to other regions such as European countries. For 43.4% of the respondents, they believe their income had been stable. 61 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 32 Mean Monthly Gross Household Income by Ethnic Group and Stratum 2004, 2007, 2009 & 2012 (Department of Statistics, 2012) Figure 33 Perception of Evolution of Income in the Past 5 Years and Ethnic Group (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Even if the mean monthly gross household income has been rising for all Malaysians in the last 5 years, irrespective of their ethnicity (Department of Statistics, 2012), the subjective perception is not the same according to ethnicity (P = 0.000). Non-Malay Bumiputra and Chinese groups of respondents are over-represented in the perception of the stability of the income while Malays are over-represented in the perception of an increasing stability. This result underlines the emergence and reinforcement of the Malay middle class. 62 Methodology & Data Collection 5.14 Marital Status Table 13 Marital Status Figure 34 Marital Status of population aged over 15 (Census, 2010) 52.6 % of the responsants declared themselves as being married in a monogamous marriage or as married. It under-represented the distribution in the Malaysian population (59.6%). 63 Malaysian Food Barometer 5.15 Number of Children Table 14 Number of Children 51.6% of the respondants said that they don’t have any child. 24.7% of the families have 1 or 2 children 14.5% of the families have 3 or 4 children 5.16 Number of Family Members Staying Together Table 15 Number of Family Member Staying Together (Including Self) 43.7% of the respondents stay with 1, 2 or others persons under the same roof. 40.8% of the respondents have 5 or 6 people in the same home. Only 1.7% live alone but most of the time, they stay with relatives and the whole family. 5.17 Religion Table 16 Religion 64 Methodology & Data Collection Figure 35 Population by Religion (Census, 2010) In the sample, the respondents were mainly Muslims (57.4%) and the representation of the sample with regard to this variable was satisfactory. Table 17 Consider Self To Be Religious? Almost 50% of the respondents considered themselves to be “moderately religious”. 65 Malaysian Food Barometer 66 Findings 67 Malaysian Food Barometer 68 Findings FINDINGS 69 Malaysian Food Barometer 70 Findings III. FINDINGS This section is dedicated to the output of the survey. After introducing the main theoretical approaches and concepts used in our research, we will now present all the major dimensions of the Malaysian food habits and representations. The main aspects of the Social Food Space (Poulain, 2010) have been explored: the daily food intake time, social context, number of meals and non-meals. With regard to meals (is deined below), we have not only studied their contents but also their structures, that is, their internal combination and the way in which they are related to the individual or collective organization. Most of these dimensions that we studied are actual practices as well as the norms (this point will be explained below). This section will conclude with an important aspect of the Malaysian food model, which is the eating out habits. 1. Food Intakes 1.1 Research Aims & Questions, Notions and Methods a) Research Aims & Questions Nowadays, having three meals a day is seen as a value-added norm in many countries. In 2003, Brazilian President Luiz Ignacioa Lula Da Silva announced his determination to “do his utmost to make sure that Brazilian people would eat three meals a day” (this speech was given on the 1st of January 2003 in Brasilia, Brazil). The three-meal day, which is considered today as a benchmark model and as a form of social progress is nonetheless neither timeless nor universal. In France and in many European countries, this model was developed just after the end of the Second World War, for example, before it stabilized and became a part of the norms and practices of most of the social groups through a nutritionalisation of food habits (Poulain, 2002a). In some of the cases in which this model is favored, the transition phase is gradual and lasts for a long enough period so that the local cultures have time to adapt to it. In other cases, it happened very quickly in a context of food modernity in which the offer is abundant and the consumption of animal products as well as sugary and fatty food increases, and where ways of life undergoes changes on a very short time span (settling down…) (Fischler, 1990; Poulain, 2006). Nutritional studies have given information on the impact of these transformations on public health, and more speciically on the development of food pathologies such as diabetes and obesity. The research in food sociology and anthropology deals with the way these changes occur within the food. The transformation of food models can be caught by studying food norms (what people say they usually do, what is good and appropriate to do) and practices (what they really do) (Poulain, 2001). The gap between the norms and practices is mainly caused by the change inluenced by the global transformation (colonization, tourism contacts) and food modernity (Poulain, 2002a, 2006), and the change in the pattern is related to social mobility (intergenerational), the increase in standard of living of the population (intra71 Malaysian Food Barometer generational), the acculturation process (interracial marriage, migration) (Etien and Tibère, 2013) and the inluences of media and health campaigns. Previous surveys have shown that obesity is very often located in the gaps, especially when the number of meals is higher in practice than otherwise mentioned in the norms (Poulain, 1997c, 2001). We thus focus on the meal as a component of food cultures. From a socioanthropological viewpoint, a meal can be deined as a structured intake of food that is socially regulated at different levels (society as a whole, the social and ethnic group, the family…). The internal organization of the meals is codiied (it is either diachronic or synchronic) and so are the combination of rules of their different elements, their frequency and occurrence during the day, and the commensal standards as well as the rules that systematize them. The number of meals varies from one culture to another, within a given society, from a social group to another, and it also changes according to the social development (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2008a; Poulain, 2006). In 2003, a nutritional survey conducted in Malaysia showed that most of the respondents ate three meals per day with 89.2% of them having had breakfast, 88.6% had lunch and 92.0% had dinner (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2008a; 2008b). This implies that even if the three-meal a day model stands out, it sometimes gives way to the two or once a day meal. In fact, 10.8% of this survey’s respondents do not have breakfast, 11.4% of them do skip lunch, and 8.0% of them do not have dinner. This study underlines that 22.0% of the respondents have two meals a day while 3.84% of them eat only once a day. We wonder if this is due to the socio-cultural patterns (ethnicity, social group) as suggested in previous studies (Chiva, 1997) or due to insecurities. Ten years later, in the context of food modernity and rapid changes that take place in Malaysia, we have endeavored to assess the current situation. We have tried to deine the daily food habits by emphasising the number and types of consumed meals. We completed this approach through a study of meal-related norms and practices. This research aims at identifying the different types of food patterns (both in the dimension of social norms and eating practices) regarding the different meals and other food intakes. Here the attention is drawn to the periodicity of food intakes of the previous day (a 24 hour recall). This is also to further identify their ethnic and socio-demographic (gender, urban/rural, age, occupation & incomes) distribution. Therefore, the main questions asked were: • • • Is there a Malaysian food pattern or/and Malaysian ethnic and social patterns? Are there differences between norms and practices? Is there a link between some of the food patterns (to include the gaps between norms and practices) and obesity? 72 Findings • Are food patterns of the middle class belonging to an ethnic group closer to other middle class belonging to another ethnic group or to other members of his ethnic group? Social or ethnic differentiation? Due to religion, some food patterns could be differentiated according to the timing of the food intakes. One of the main illustrations is certainly the change of food periodicity during the month of Ramadhan in the Muslim culture. During this period, Muslims cannot eat (and in certain cases, drink) during the day and all their food intakes are localized during the night. b) Notions and concepts The concept of food day was developed by Poulain (2001) in the aim to characterise the concentration, time and synchronization of food intakes during the day. A food pattern is deined as a system that includes the food practices and representations of a given population (society, social or ethnic group). It is organized around the system of production and distribution, culinary systems, eatables, consumption patterns, temporalities and modes of differentiation. Food intakes include the meals (socially structured and standardized intakes) and other food intakes, for instance “small meals” (tea time, supper) and snacking. Social synchronization of food days is related to the commensality (Fischler, 2011; Mäkelä, 2009). It was irst deined as one of the ive characteristics of a “food intake” – by Herpin (1988) as a situation in which meals are shared at the same time by several members of a family. Later, this concept was expanded to the population level (Poulain, 2002a; Saint-Pol (de), 2006). Analyzing the social synchronization of food intakes is therefore related with the question of meal as an institution (Herpin, 1988), playing a role in the food socialization. Food norms: what is considered as “proper”, appropriate, by a social group. Food practices: what people actually do. 1.2 Synchronicity of Food Intakes For a closer look at the types of meals and to describe the food practices, Nicolas Herpin listed ive dimensions (1988): • • • • • concentration, that is, the more or less complex organization of food intakes in the form of meals time-framing, that is, keeping to ixed times for meals and snacks synchronization, that is, sharing meals with the whole family localisation, that is, the place where meals are eaten, in the kitchen, the dining room ritualisation, deined as, the “everyday meals” alternating with festive meals. 73 Malaysian Food Barometer In order to explain how some of the dimensions such as concentration, time framing and synchronization interact, the concept of “food days” was suggested (Poulain, 2001). It can be deined as the distribution of the various food intakes, at home meals and outside meals in the course of a day. The time frame of the intake gives the day its food tempo with highlights dedicated to this activity by a signiicant part of the society. The socialization of the meals and of other intakes outside the meals implies that the schedules are being co-ordinated. Analyzing the places of consumption enables us to identify the limits between the domestic, work and catering worlds on a macrosociological scale; the concept of “food days” also highlights another dimension of “food synchronization” which reports on the fact that the individuals belonging to the same social group or same society eat at the same time. Concerning Malaysia, the meal times during the “food days” shows that food intakes were spaced out over the day, which resulted into social synchronization. The diagram below shows three distinct peaks, during which a high proportion of the population ate at the same time to a slight regrouping into three points which relects strong synchronization. The timing of food intakes in Malaysian practice follows a “three main meals” pattern. The synchronicity of those food intakes is important; almost 35% of Malaysian eat at about 8.00 am, 45% about 1.00 pm and 40% about 8.00 pm. Some of the less socially synchronised food intakes take place during the afternoon, with the main one about 4.00 pm involving about 20% of Malaysian eating at that time. Contrary to popular belief, Malaysians are not eating in a destructive manner as they usually say they do. Moreover, a fourth peak appears between lunch and dinner, showing the importance of the food intake in the middle of the afternoon. Figure 36 Time of Food Intakes - All Malaysians (N = 2,000) The following graph shows the distribution of the different main food intakes, namely “breakfast & wake-up”, “lunch”, “in-between” and “dinner & supper” according to the respondents. 74 Findings Figure 37 Meal Times - All Malaysians (N = 2,000) Ethnic “food days” can be differentiated as the following graphs show. Figure 38 Meal Times - Non-Malay Bumiputra (N = 193) 75 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 39 Meal Times - Indian (N = 133) Figure 40 Meal Times - Malay (N = 1,176) 76 Findings Figure 41 Meal Times for Chinese (N = 498) Breakfast, lunch and dinner are the main meals for all Malaysians (even if almost 20% of the people don’t eat breakfast as we will see in chapter 4). We can observe the prevalence of the ‘supper’ meal which is a late evening intake of food, sometimes replacing dinner or sometimes added to it. Supper can be either savoury or sweet (it is often taken as a late dessert) or both. The data shows however, that compared to the other ethnic groups, the main daily meal for Indians is lunch. The in-between morning and afternoon meals, make up part of the Malaysian food model. Most of them correspond to a morning break and an afternoon tea break. However, we can notice that the percentage is lower for Non-Malay Bumiputra and Chineses. Synchronization of the main meals also depends on metropolization as we can see in the following chart. 77 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 42 Meal Times - Metropolitan (N = 663) Figure 43 Meal Times - Rural Peninsular (N = 975) 78 Findings Figure 44 Meal Time - Sabah & Sarawak (N = 362) In metropolitan areas, lunch is the main meal. This is probably due to the social synchronization of this intake on the working schedule. Comparing Malaysia with other countries would allow for a better idea of the synchronization of the food intakes. With regard to the United Kingdom, the meal times during “food days” shows that the food intakes were spaced out over the day, which resulted in the social desynchronization and probably, the decreasing community meals. The diagram below shows a slight regrouping into three points and spaced out intakes over the day in 2001, which relects the strong desynchronization. The data underlines a stronger meal synchronization in Malaysia whereas in UK, it is more desynchronised. Figure 45 Times for Food Intakes - Comparison between Malaysia & UK 79 Malaysian Food Barometer Even though the data available for France does not quite cover the same time period as that of Malaysia, they do show a clear breakdown of the times allocated to the three main meals and the small snacks. For 2006, the French curve resembles closely that of Malaysia in 2013. This data highlights the prominence of a strong synchronization of meals in both France and Malaysia. Figure 46 Times for Food Intakes - Comparison between Malaysia & France 1.3 Norms and Practices for the Number of Food Intakes a) Norms Figure 47 Norms of Number of Meal Per Day (N = 2,000) The “three daily meals” pattern dominates in norms (62%). Why does this model stand out? Is it a result of public health campaigns? Is it the modernization of food 80 Findings pattern amongst Malaysian people? Is this transformation of food patterns the same across the socioeconomic and ethno-cultural groups? The MFB data invalidated this convergence hypothesis. In fact, some correlations between the socio-descriptive variables and the norms of “food days” could be underlined. With regard to occupation (P = 0.009), the norm of “two-meals” was over-represented for respondents who are blue collar workers even through the “three and four meals” were over-represented for white collar workers and professionals. Figure 48 Norms of Number of Meal per Day and Occupation (N = 2,000; P = 0.009) In terms of economical capital, the correlation is weakest (P = 0.052) and conirmed for this distribution that the lowest income group was over-represented for norms of one per day (s.r. +2.6) while the highest income group was under-represented (s.r. -1.7). Figure 49 Norms of Number of Meal per Day and Income (N = 2,000; P = 0.052) 81 Malaysian Food Barometer All these results it with the hypothesis of the transformation of norms in the number of meals per day according to the modernization process. Indeed, the correlation between the modernization index and the norms of the number of meals per day is strong (P = 0.000). The “One-meal” norm was over-represented for the respondents who have a low index of modernization (s.r. +4.3) and was under-represented for those that have a high index (s.r. -2.8). The relation was found to be inverted for the “four-meal” norm, which was under-represented for respondents who have a low index of modernization (s.r. -2.8) and was over-represented for those which have a high index (s.r. +2.8). Figure 50 Norms of Number of Meal per Day and Modernization (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Is there a homogenisation of the Malaysian lifestyle across the ethnic-boundaries? The analysis from the MFB suggests that the ethnic speciicities have to be considered. The norm of the number of meals per day was found to be strongly correlated with the ethnic groups (P = 0.000). The Non-Malay Bumiputra and the Malay Malaysians were over-represented in persons who referred to the norm of one or two meals (s.r. respectively +3.2 and +2.3) while the Indians and Chinese Malaysian were underrepresented (respectively s.r. -2.7 and -4.2). On the opposite, the Malay Malaysians were under-represented for those who referred to the norm of 4 meals or more per day (s.r. -2.2) while the Chinese Malaysians were over-represented (s.r. +2.9). 82 Findings Figure 51 Norms of Number of Meal per Day and Ethnicity (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) b) Practices The analyzes on the practices show that the “three meals” also emerged as the dominant pattern. As a matter of fact, the combined patterns of the “three meals a day” and “three meals, small meals and snacks a day” together comprised 76% of the sample. Figure 52 Practices in Number of Food Intakes per Day (N = 2,000) 83 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 53 Practices in Number of Meals per Day (N = 2,000) Similar to norms, practices cannot be considered as homogeneous across the social and ethnic groups. The evolution of income over the last ive years, metropolization, modernization and the ethnic groups constitute some variables of differentiation. The evolution of the income was found to be strongly correlated with the number of meals actually eaten on the previous day (P = 0.000). This relation can explain the difference between the “three meals” and “three meals, small meals and snacks” practices. Indeed, the “three meals” practices were over-represented for respondents who have declared a stable income for the last 5 years (s.r. +3.8), while they were under-represented for those who have declared an increased income (s.r. -3.3). At the same time, the opposite was observed concerning the practice of “three meals, small meals and snacks” which showed the under-representation of the stable income (s.r. -3.6) and over-representation of the increased income (s.r. +3.2). These different observations indicate that in the case of increased income, the number of food intakes is increased by adding small meals and snacks. This means that the increase of the income is positively correlated to the institutionalisation of the additional meals. 84 Findings Figure 54 Number of Intakes per Day and Evolution of the Income During the Last 5 Years (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Practices were strongly correlated with metropolization (P = 0.000). Respondents who live in Sabah and Sarawak were over-represented (s.r. 8.8) in the practices of “two meals” (possibly with the additional small meals and snacks) while they were under-represented for the practices of “three meals” (s.r. -4.9). This dominant pattern seems to be the differentiating factor between “Sabah and Sarawak” and Peninsular Malaysia. As a matter fact, the pattern of “two meals” was under-represented for respondents who are living in the rural peninsular Malaysia (s.r. 3.2) and the metropolitan cities (s.r. -2.6) while the “three meals” pattern was over-represented in those same areas (s.r. +1.6 and +1.7, respectively). Figure 55 Number of Meals per Day and Metropolization (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) 85 Malaysian Food Barometer The differences between the pattern of “two meals” and “three meals” is speciically more pronounced for the Malay and Chinese living in Sabah and Sarawak (P = 0.000 in both cases). The respondents of these two ethnic groups were over-represented in practices of the “two meals” (s.r. +4.7 for the Indians and s.r. +4.4 for the Chinese) while they were under-represented in the practices of the “three meals” per day (s.r. -2.5 in both the cases). Finally, the number and status of food intakes can be differentiated according to the level of modernization (P = 0.031). Respondents who are positioned in the lowest level of modernization were under-represented for the practice of “three meals” per day (s.r. -2.4) while they were over-represented in the practice of “two meals, small meals and snacks” (s.r. +1.7). This could imply that for people who belong in lowest level of modernization, the practice of food intakes are a little less institutionalised and tend to stand for a third meal. In addition to this, even if the absolute values of the standardized residuals observed are not important, it is revealed that there was a light over-representation of the practice of the “three meals” for respondents who are in the medium level of modernization. We could assume that a transformation of the practices from “two meals and other food intakes” to the “three meals” per day practice takes place between the low and medium levels of modernization. Figure 56 Number and Status of Food Intakes (Practices) and Modernization (N = 2,000; P = 0.031) This result is conirmed by the strong correlation (P = 0.003) between the number of snacks eaten the previous day and the level of modernization. The respondents who are in the lowest level of modernization were under-represented in the practice of “no snack” (s.r. -2.2) while they were over-represented in the “one snack” (s.r. +2.0). 86 Findings The respondents who are in the medium level of modernization were over-represented in the “no snack” practice (s.r. +1.7) and under-represented in the “two snacks” (s.r. -1.7). Finally, the respondents who are in the highest level of modernization were over-represented in the practice of the “two snacks” (s.r. +1.8). Figure 57 Number of Snacks and Modernization (N = 2,000; P = 0.003) Modernization is an index based on urbanization, number of family members, income and the evolution of income and level of education. What are the main variables which have to be taken in account regarding the practices of snacking? Evolution of income during the last ive years was found to be correlated to the number of snacks eaten the previous day (P = 0.000). Respondents who declared that their incomes have remained stable were over-represented in those who didn’t have a snack (s.r. +3.6), while respondents who declared an increased income were over-represented in those who have eaten one or two snacks (s.r. +1.7 and 2.4, respectively). Urbanization was also found to be correlated with this practice (P = 0.014) and respondents of the rural areas were found to be over-represented in those who ate one daily snack (s.r. +2.0). In addition to this, the correlation (P = 0.057) between the number of snacks eaten the previous day and age could also conirm the hypothesis of a transformation of food models, as the youngest generation (15-19 years old) was over-represented (s.r. +2.6) in respondents who had eaten three snacks or more the previous day. 87 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 58 Synthesis of Over-representations Regarding the Number of Snacks Regarding Modernization Process (N = 2,000) Finally, the social and ethnic groups have to be taken into account in the diversity of the transformation of food models as we have underlined the correlations between the norms and practices regarding the number of food intakes and ethnicity or gender. In fact, the practices of snacking were found to be strongly correlated with ethnicity (P = 0.000). Non-Malay Bumiputra and Chinese Malaysians were over-represented for respondents who didn’t have a snack the day before (s.r. +3.1 and +3.4, respectively) while Malay Malaysians were over-represented for those who had two or more snacks (s.r. +2.7 and +1.8, respectively). In addition to this, the gender was also found to be correlated to the snacks’ practices (P = 0.016) and the women were found to be over-represented (s.r. +2.0) in those who had three snacks or more on the previous day. Figure 59 Synthesis of Over-representations Regarding the Number of Snacks Regarding Ethnicity & Gender (N = 2,000) 88 Findings These results highlight a possible transformation process of the food patterns and more speciically, the dimension of the “food day”. As will be shown next, this gap is mainly caused by changes related to the social and geographical mobilities of people, foodstuffs and norms promoted by the media and public policies (such as health campaigns). Thus, analyzing the gap between the norms and practices concerning the number of meals per day constitutes a way to understand the deeper transformations of the food patterns. c) Gap between norms and practices What can be observed regarding the gaps between norms and practices? Most of the respondents (68%) have declared a norm equivalent to the re-build practice of the previous day. Figure 60 Comparison of the Norms and Practices Regarding the Number of Meals per Day (N = 2,000) All of the respondents who have norms that were coherent with practices can be differentiated between two groups: the most important is the corresponding of norm and practice of “three daily meals” (54%); the second one is that of the norm and practice of “two daily meals” (13%). Figure 61 Comparison of the Norms and Practices Regarding the Number of Meals per Day (N = 2,000) 89 Malaysian Food Barometer What could be observed regarding the previous hypothesis of a differentiated transformation of the “food day” aspects in relation to the social and ethnic groups? The comparison between the norms and practices of the number of intakes per day, the main contrasts are concerned with the extreme situations (P = 0.000). For the norm of one intake and the practice of one intake, there was an over-representation (s.r. +4.3) of respondents who are in the low modernization level while there was an under-representation of those who are in the high modernization level (s.r. -2.8). In addition to this, for the norm of 4 intakes or more and the practice of 3 intakes or less, there was a under-representation (s.r. -2.6) of respondents while there was a over-representation of those in the high modernization level (s.r. +2.6). This means that the coherent number of intakes in the norm and practice are positively linked with the modernization process. Figure 62 Comparison of the Norms and Practices and Modernization (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) This relation is partially conirmed by the strong correlation (P = 0.000) between the comparison between the norms and practices of number of intakes per day and metropolization. For the norm of one intake and the practice of one intake, there was an under-representation (s.r. -2.0) of respondents who are located in the metropolitan city. For the norm of 4 intakes or more and for the practice of 3 intakes or less, there was an under-representation of respondents who are living in Sabah and Sarawak and the rural peninsular Malaysia (at s.r. -2.1 and s.r. -1.9, respectively) while there was an over-representation of those who are living in the metropolitan city (s.r. +3.9). These results tend to agree with the previous inding, with a superposition of the metropolization process (both in peninsular and insular Malaysia) with modernization. In addition to this, this analysis shows that Sabah and Sarawak are differentiated from the Peninsular Malaysia (both the rural and metropolitan ones, but mainly 90 Findings rural areas) regarding the ‘food day’ pattern. The pattern of two intakes per day (in norms and practices) was over-represented in insular Malaysia (s.r. +7.6) while it was under-represented in rural peninsular and metropolitan city (s.r. -3.1 and s.r. -1.8, respectively). The opposite relation can be observed concerning the 3 intakes per day pattern (norms and practices), where there was an under-representation of this pattern in Sabah and Sarawak (s.r. -4.7) and an over-representation of the rural peninsular (s.r. +2.5). These correlations underlined the interest to consider the differences between the rural areas in Malaysia. The differentiation here is more important regarding the opposites between the peninsular and insular Malaysia rather than urbanization. Figure 63 Comparison of the Norms and Practices and Metropolization (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Finally, considering that the two intakes per day pattern is dominant in Sabah and Sarawak, the analysis concerning the abnormal BMI can be raised. There was an over-representation of respondents who have a norm of two intakes per day and a practice of one intake (s.r. +2.1) in Sabah and Sarawak. This correlation could explain the over-representation of the underweight respondents in this area. At the same time, there was an over-representation of respondents who are living in Sabah and Sarawak in the norm of two intakes per day and the practice of three which could explain the over-representation of obesity of the area. In order to test both hypotheses, an analysis involving BMI Classes was conducted. However, the correlation between the BMI Classes and comparison between the norm and practices of number of intakes per day was not conirmed for the sub-population of Sabah and Sarawak. 91 Malaysian Food Barometer The correlation between the comparison of norms and practices regarding the ‘food day’ was also partially conirmed by the strong one with ethnicity (P = 0.000). As a conirmation of the previous correlation, Non-Malay Bumiputra (the dominant ethnic group in Sabah and Sarawak) were over-represented in respondents who have a ‘food day’ pattern (norm and practice) of two intakes per day (s.r. +6.7). Otherwise, the Malays were over-represented for the lower norm than practice, and especially so for the norm of two intakes a day and practice of three (s.r. +3.1). This dissonance could be explained by a transformation of the pattern from a two daily intakes to a three intakes per day. They were also over-represented (s.r. +2.6) in the norm of one intake and practice of one or more than one. As the Malay population is mainly represented in rural peninsular Malaysia and have a low level of modernization, this could be understood as a consequence of this correlation with modernization. Finally, the Chinese and Indians were over-represented (s.r. +2.2 and s.r. +2.9, respectively) in those who have dissonant and lower practice of three intakes or less than norm of four intakes a day. It could be explained by the over-representation of these ethnic groups in the metropolitan city. In addition to this, the Chinese Malaysians were over-represented (s.r. +2.5) in those who have coherent practices with norms, especially for the norm of three and practice of three intakes a day. Figure 64 Comparison of the Number of Food Intake in Norms & Practices and Ethnic Groups (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) 92 Findings Figure 65 Comparison of Norms & Practices and Ethnic Groups (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Is there is any link with obesity? The statistic analysis shows that obesity was correlated (as =0.030) to the dissonance between norms and practices, and more precisely (P = 0.004) to the norm of two intakes and practice of three (s.r. +3.0). Figure 66 Comparison of the Number of Food Intake In Norms & Practices and BMI (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) 93 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 67 Comparison of the Number of Food Intake in Norms & Practices and BMI (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) If we consider the strong correlation (P = 0.000) between the ethnic groups and BMI, the Malay Malaysians were more concerned with overweight (s.r. +1.9) and the Indian Malaysians were more concerned with obesity (s.r. +2.6). Could we consider this link as a consequence of ethnic ‘food days’ patterns? The analysis shows that the correlation between the comparison of norms and practices and the BMI was only conirmed for the Malay Malaysians (P = 0.004) and that BMI was not linked (P = 0.800) to the dissonance between the norms and practices of daily meals for the Indian Malaysians. For the sub-population of Malay, obesity was over-represented for the respondents who have a norm of two intakes and practice of three. Figure 68 Comparison of the Number of Food Intake in Norms & Practices and BMI for Malay (N = 1,176; P = 0.004) 94 Findings A more general representation of the typology according to the links between the comparison of number of food intakes in norms and practices, BMI and sociodescriptive variables is shown below. Figure 69 Comparison of the Number of Food Intakes in Norms and Practices: A Typology (N = 2,000) 1.4 Norms and Practices for the Structures of Meals Claude Lévi-Strauss (1958) identiied two principal forms of meal structure. The synchronic form is characterized by the provision of a series of dishes simultaneously. In the synchronic meals, all the food arrives on the table at the same time, even if their combination can vary as is the case of the Chinese meal, Vietnamese meal or the Spanish “plato-combinado”. In the diachronic form, the dishes are presented one after the other, and according to a socially deinite order. An example is the contemporary French meal which follows a series of sequence starter/main course/cheese/dessert but the number of dishes/sequence could change in the time and from a social group to an other (Aymard, Grignon & Sabban, 1993; Grignon & Grignon, 1999; Grignon, 1996; Poulain, 2002a). Certain meals are organized around a permanent main food, presented systematically every day (core food) around of which a series of side dishes of food or accompaniment change regularly. The Chinese meal is more or less of this category. In other cases, all the food changes in permanence, as in the contemporary French meal. 95 Malaysian Food Barometer Modernization is characterized by a rise of individualization in food habits. The individualization of food intakes and meals has already been examined. This dimension could also be retrieved in the individualization of dishes, as an historical standpoint of gastronomy and table manners allows to underline (Poulain, 1985). In the Malaysian context, the Nasi Lemak is an individualization of a diachronic structure and could be a “signature” of the Malaysian (and Indonesian) food culture. The individualization of the food in Malaysia takes two forms, the extension of Nasi Lemak on the meals (lunch and dinner) and the individualization of the lunch and dinner. In the Malaysian Food Barometer, the individualization of meal structures in the norms was evaluated using pictures that were presented to the interviewees as representing the collective structure of meals (the shared foods or rice with separate dishes that is served on the table at the same time) or the individual structure (as a dish of rice or noodle and other foods in a plate, dish of Roti or Thosai in a plate, sandwich and burger, cereal and milk, sausages and eggs, toasts, pastries, individual soup, etc.). Some pictures were introduced using this sentence, “The following question is about the usual organization of your meal. I will ask you to explain the different food items that your lunch, dinner and supper are usually composed of”. The practices were recoded from the explanation of the individualized and shared food items actually eaten by the interviewees for each food intake of the previous day. Examples of Pictures Shown to the Interviewees Image 7 96 Findings a) Breakfast Structure Figure 70 Norms for Breakfast Structure Figure 71 Practices for Breakfast Structure (N = 2,000) Breakfast followed an individual structure in norms as well as in practices. (i) Norms Structure for Breakfast The norms concerning the structure of the breakfast was mainly individual (92% of the sample). Figure 72 Norms for Breakfast Structure (N = 1,605) 97 Malaysian Food Barometer The hypothesis of the individualization of the eating habits was conirmed, as this norm strongly correlated with modernization (P = 0.000). The norm of collective structure of the breakfast was over-represented for respondents who are in the low modernization level (s.r. +4.8), while it was under-represented in those who are in the high modernization level (s.r. -2.4). This means that the more modernization increases, the more the norm of the breakfast structure becomes individualized. Figure 73 Norms Individual/Collective Breakfast and Modernization (N = 1,605; P = 0.000) What are the main factors of resistance to the individualization of the breakfast structure (in norms) or of the maintenance of the collective structure of the meal? First, there were some strong correlations between urbanization and metropolization (P = 0.000 in both cases) and there was an over-representation of respondents who live in the rural areas (s.r. +4.5) and in Sabah and Sarawak (s.r. +3.9). In other words, the collective and shared dishes for breakfast are still the norm for rural areas, and especially in insular Malaysia. Partly in relation with this irst consideration (due to ethnicity geographical distribution), ethnicity was found to be strongly correlated with the norm (P = 0.000). Non-Malay Bumiputra and Malays were over-represented in respondents who have a norm of collective structure of breakfast (respectively s.r. +2.9 and +2.1). Secondly, some variables related to the socio-economical status were also correlated, that is, occupation (P = 0.001) and level of education (P = 0.000). The respondents who are blue collar workers and who have an education level of 98 Findings primary school or less, were over-represented (s.r. +2.5 and +3.6, respectively) in the collective structure norm for breakfast. Finally, the respondents who declared increased income during the last ive years were found to be overrepresented (P = 0.001; s.r. +2.1). Figure 74 Synthetical View of Over-representations Regarding Norm for Breakfast Structure (N = 1,605) (ii) Practices Structure for Breakfast Similar to the norm but with a bit more emphasis, the practices 8concerning the breakfast structure were mainly individualized (98%). This distribution was not correlated with modernization; nevertheless, an ethnic food model could be differentiated according to the weak correlation link (P = 0.089) for the Chinese Malaysians and the practice of collective breakfast structure Figure 75 Practices for Breakfast Structure (s.r. +1.9) 99 Malaysian Food Barometer (iii) Norms & Practices Structures for Breakfast Most of the respondents have some coherent practices with their norm for the breakfast structure, meaning an individual structure of the meal (89%). Nonetheless, almost one in ten respondents (9%) have a dissonant practice of an individual structure of the breakfast while they declared a norm of collective structure. Figure 76 Norms & Practices for Breakfast Structure (N = 1,383) The correlations of comparison between the norms and practices of the meal structures and socio-descriptive variables allow the interpreting of the differentiation of the meal structure transformations. Indeed, urbanization (P = 0.000), metropolization (P = 0.000), occupation (P = 0.002), educational level (P = 0.002), evolution of the income the last ive years (P = 0.012) and the ethnicity (P = 0.000) all correlated to the norms and practices comparison for the breakfast structure. For the dissonant respondents who have eaten a breakfast with an individual structure the day before while they declared a norm of collective structure for breakfast, there was an over-representation of the rural (s.r. +4.6) and Sabah and Sarawak (s.r. +3.8) residents, the blue collars (s.r. +2.4), increased income (s.r. +2.0), primary school education level or less (s.r. +3.3) and the Non-Malay Bumiputra and Malay (s.r. +2.7 and 2.3, respectively). These results could be interpreted as the end of the individualization process of norms and practices regarding the structure of the breakfast, with lowest social groups (in terms of economic and social capitals) individualising practices while norms remain collective. 100 Findings Figure 77 Breakfast Structure in Norms and Practices: A Typology (N = 1,383) 101 Malaysian Food Barometer (iv) What Do they Eat for Breakfast? Almost 14% of the samples do not eat breakfast. Nasi Lemak is the more popular breakfast as attested to by 12% of the population followed by Fried noodles and Roti Canai. Figure 78 Food Taken for Breakfast (N = 2,000) 102 Findings Regarding the breakfast content, a dish with rice is the more common structure, followed by noodles dishes. Figure 79 Structure of Food Content for Breakfast (N = 2,000) b) Lunch Structure Figure 80 Norms for Lunch Structure Figure 81 Practices for Lunch Structure (N = 2,000) For lunch, the actual structures are much more individual than that appears in the norms. These gaps between the norms and practices can be a sign of change related 103 Malaysian Food Barometer to the individualization of the Malaysian food model. (i) Norms Structure for Lunch The norm regarding the lunch structure is mainly collective (70%). Figure 82 Norms for Lunch Structure (N = 1,769) The correlation between this norm and modernization was strong (P = 0.000). For low modernization level, the individual structure was under-represented (s.r. -6.0) while the collective one was over-represented (s.r. +4.0). On the opposite, the norm of the individual structure of lunch was over-represented for high modernization level (s.r. +4.0) while the collective one was underrepresented (s.r. -2.7). The hypothesis of the individualization of food intakes was also conirmed for lunch, as the higher the modernization level, the more the respondents tended to have a norm of an individual structure of lunch. Figure 83 Norms Individual/Collective Lunch and Modernization (N = 1,769; P = 0.000) 104 Findings Consider the social and ethnic characteristics that allow a better understanding of the transformation of the norm as a consequence of structural changes – urbanization and expansion of the service sector in the Malaysian society. In fact, the norm of the lunch structure was strongly correlated with urbanization (P = 0.000), metropolization (P = 0.000), occupation (P = 0.000), level (P = 0.000) and the evolution of income in last ive years (P = 0.002) and social classes (P = 0.000). Indeed, the norm of the individual structure of lunch was over-represented for the following groups of respondents: the urbanites (s.r. +3.2), metropolitan city dwellers (s.r. +8.1), white collar (s.r. +1.7), highest income (s.r. +3.7) and the high social class (as a combined variable of occupation and income, s.r. +3.3). All those over-representation could explain the Chinese Malaysian (s.r. +5.8), that is mainly represented in those cases. How do we interpret over-representation of income stable (s.r. +2.2) and professional (s.r. +1.8)? Conversely, the norm of the collective lunch structure was over-represented for the following groups of respondents, the rurals (s.r. +4.5), Sabah, Sarawak and rural peninsular residents (s.r. +2.0 and +3.3, respectively) and the blue collar (s.r. +1.7). The Malay, mainly represented in those social groups were over-represented (s.r. +2.4). Figure 84 Synthetical View of Over-representations Regarding Norm of Lunch’s Structure (N = 1,769) 105 Malaysian Food Barometer (ii) Practices Structure for Lunch Unlike norm, the practices regarding the lunch structure were mainly individualized (80%). This distribution of the practices was not related to the modernization process. The practice of collective structure of the lunch was a characteristic of the differentiation of the Non-Malay Bumiputra ethnic group (P = 0.005, s.r. +2.7) and the respondents who live in insular Malaysia (P = 0.000, s.r. +3.8). It was also related (P = 0.027) to the educational level and the respondents who have an education level of primary school or less were overrepresented in the collective practice of the lunch structure (s.r. +1.8). Figure 85 Practices for Lunch Structure (N = 1,834) (iii) Norms & Practices Structures for Lunch Only 38% of the respondents have some coherent norms and practices regarding the structure of the lunch (24% for the individual and 14% for the collective) while more than 60% have some dissonant practices regarding the norm declared. 56% declared a norm of the collective structure in norm and have eaten a meal with an individual structure and 6% have declared an individual norm and have actually consumed a meal with a collective structure. Going deeper into the cause of those dissonant practices permits one to understand the transformation(s) of the lunch structure in the Malaysian society. 106 Findings Figure 86 Norms & Practices for Lunch Structure (N = 1,677) As a consequence of the interest that developed here regarding transformations of eating habits, the analysis mainly focused on dissonant practices. These practices are mainly opposing for respondents living in metropolized areas and rural areas. Indeed, urbanization and metropolization were found to be strongly correlated with this combined variable of lunch structure (P = 0.000 in both cases). The metropolitan city dwellers were over-represented (s.r. +7.6) in the collective practice dissonant with an individual norm while respondents living in the rural peninsular were over-represented (s.r. +3.1) in individual practice dissonant with collective norm. As a further conirmation, the respondents who generally live in the rural areas were over-represented (s.r. +3.5) in individual practice dissonant with collective norm. Those results underlined the impact, in norms, of the urbanization of the Malaysian society. This observation was completed by the correlation between the norms and practices comparison regarding lunch structure and ethnicity (as = 0.000). The Chinese Malaysians were over-represented (s.r. +3.4) in collective practice dissonant with individual norm while the Malay Malaysians were overrepresented (s.r. +2.9) in individual practice dissonant with the collective norm. The evolution of income was also considered as a factor of change regarding the norms and practices of the lunch structure (P = 0.006) and the increase of income could be associated to the change from a collective practice to an individual one for the rural Malaysian while the norm is maintained as collective (s.r. 1.6). 107 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 87 Lunch Structure in Norms and Practices: A Typology (N = 1,677) 108 Findings (iv) What Do they Eat for Lunch? For lunch, mixed rice is the more popular dish as about 25% of the population actually eat it. This is followed by fried noodle dishes and rice with dishes. Figure 88 Food Eaten for Lunch (N = 2,000) 109 Malaysian Food Barometer As a result, dishes with rice are dominant regarding the structure of the lunch food content, as attested by more than 60% of the population in the survey. Figure 89 Structure of Food Content for Lunch (N = 2,000) c) Dinner Structure Figure 90 Norms for Lunch Structure Figure 91 Practices for Dinner Structure (N = 2,000) There results showed differences between the norms and practices for dinner as well. The practices were more individualized compared to the norms. 110 Findings (i) Norms Structure for Dinner Similar to lunch, the norm structure of the dinner was mainly collective (79%). Figure 92 Norms for Dinner Structure (N = 1,709) This norm, similarly with breakfast and lunch, correlated strongly with modernization (P = 0.000). For low modernization level, the respondents who have a norm of an individual structure of dinner were under-represented (s.r. -3.8), while respondents who have a collective one were over-represented (s.r. +2.0). At the same time, for high modernization level, the norm of an individualized structure was over-represented (s.r. +2.0). Once again, the hypothesis of the individualization of the structure of the meals was conirmed with regard to the norm. Figure 93 Norms Individual/Collective Dinner and Modernization (N = 1,709; P = 0.000) 111 Malaysian Food Barometer As for the lunch structure of norms, consider the social and ethnic characteristics that allows for a better understanding of the transformation of the norm as a consequence of structural changes, urbanization and expansion of the service sector in the Malaysian society. Indeed, the norm of the dinner structure was found to be strongly correlated with urbanization (P = 0.000), metropolization (P = 0.000), occupation (P = 0.003), level of education (P = 0.002), evolution of income in the last ive years (P = 0.000) and social classes (P = 0.010). Concerning the individual structure of dinner, the respondents whose educational level is upper secondary school (s.r. +2.2), white collar (s.r. +2.3), and highest social class (s.r. 2.5), with a stable income in the last ive years (s.r. +2.9), city dwellers (s.r. +2.3) and living in the metropolitan city (s.r. +8.0) were all over-represented. Those social characteristics it the Chinese Malaysian ethnic group (s.r. +3.6). Concerning the collective structure of dinner, the respondents who live in the rural areas (s.r. 2.0), meaning in Sabah, Sarawak (s.r. +2.5) and rural peninsular Malaysia (s.r. +1.8) were over-represented. As a consequence, the Non-Malay Bumiputra, as the main ethnic group represented in insular Malaysia was overrepresented (s.r. +2.2). Figure 94 Synthetical View of Over-representations Regarding Norm of Dinner’s Structure (N = 1,709) 112 Findings (ii) Practices Structure for Dinner Unlike norm, the dinner structure is mainly individual, as relected by 71% of the sample. Figure 95 Practices for Dinner Structure (N = 1,853) While the practices regarding the individualization meal structure were found to be not correlated with modernization that concerns breakfast and lunch, it correlated strongly in the case of dinner (P = 0.002). The differentiation concerns the medium modernization level, for which there was an overrepresentation of the collective structure of dinner (s.r. +1.7), while it was underrepresented (s.r. -2.0) for high modernization level. Here, the hypothesis of the individualization of the meal structure was conirmed for dinner practices. The fact that it only concerns the medium and high-level modernization, as well as mainly the norms rather than practices, could be an indication of the diffusion of the individualization norm from the more modernized social groups to the lower ones. This norm is progressively included in the practices, beginning with the highest modernized social groups. Figure 96 Practices Individual/Collective Dinner and Modernization (N = 1,853; P = 0.002) 113 Malaysian Food Barometer The transformation of the dinner structure in practices depending on the modernization process is mainly due to metropolization (P = 0.000) and ethnic differentiations of the food models (P = 0.000). In fact, the main differentiation is regarding the insular respondents, those who were over-represented in the practices of the individual structure of dinner (s.r. +3.0 for metropolitan and s.r. +3.0 for rural peninsular) – versus respondents living in Sabah and Sarawak (s.r. +15.2). With regard to the ethnic groups, the Malays and Indian Malaysians were over-represented in practices of the individual structure of dinner (s.r. +3.3 and +1.9, respectively) while the Non-Malay Bumiputra and Chinese were over-represented in the collective structure (sr. +12.5 and s.r. +1.7, respectively). Otherwise, the correlation with urbanization (P = 0.000), education level (P = 0.000) and evolution of income in last ive years (P = 0.000) can be noted. The synthetical view shown below details the over-representations. Figure 97 Synthetical View of Over-representations Regarding the Practices of Dinner Structure (N = 1,853) (iii) Norms & Practices Structures for Dinner Similar to lunch, the majority of respondents have some dissonant practices regarding the norm of the meal structure. 54% chose individual practices while they have a collective structure of dinner as norm and 5% chose collective practices while they have an individual structure as norm. 114 Findings Figure 98 Norms & Practices for Dinner Structure (N = 1,604) In the analysis which focused on the dissonant practices, it underlined the role that the ethnic groups could play regarding the resistance or differentiation in the transformation of the dinner structure. Ethnicity correlated strongly with the norms and practices comparison regarding the dinner structure (P = 0.000). Chinese Malaysians were over-represented in the collective practices dissonant with individual structure in norm (s.r. +3.4) while the Malay Malaysians were over-represented in the individual dissonant with collective structure in norm (s.r. +2.9). This second consideration is related to the correlations between the urbanization and metropolization processes and the norms and practices regarding the dinner structure (P = 0.000 in both cases). Indeed, the respondents who are living in the rural areas, and especially in rural peninsular Malaysia, were over-represented in the individual practice dissonant with collective norm (s.r. +3.5 and +3.1, respectively). Figure 99 Dinner Structure in Norms And Practices: A Typology (N = 1,604) 115 Malaysian Food Barometer (iv) What Do they Eat for Dinner? For dinner, dishes with rice are the more commonly eaten item, as conirmed by 25% of the respondents. This is followed by mixed rice. Figure 100 Food Eaten for Dinner (N = 2,000) 116 Findings As a result, dish with rice is the more common structure of the dinner structure, with more than 60% of the respondents. Figure 101 Structure of Food Content for Dinner (N = 2,000) Malaysians’ food days are composed of three meals with two socially accepted ‘in between’ intakes that can be considered as small meals. The data did not allow an analysis of the snacking. Although it is part of the daily meal, it should be noted that breakfast is not consumed in almost 20% of the cases. It would be interesting to study if this is inherent to the food habits model in the concerned populations or due to other factors (economic insecurity or the lack of time). With regard to lunch, it remains the most important meal and this status increases with metropolization, the pressure of work schedules and the forms of sociability linked to it. Another point to emphasize is the existence ‘supper’ to complement or replace dinner. Regarding the structure of the meals, there is a global shift towards the individualized practices while speech and norms value collective structure in which the various components are placed on the table and shared. Only the structure of the breakfast is individual both in norms and practice. If the meals are taken as indicators of the broad societal trends in terms of value system and social relationships (Douglas, 1975), we hypothesize that more of individualization occurs with modernization in Malaysia. To conclude about meals, rice is very present in all of them, but with a relatively large presence of noodles and breads for breakfast. 117 Malaysian Food Barometer 1.5 Socialization of Food Intakes The hypothesis of desocialization of meals as a consequence of modernization and urbanization of the society has been promoted by several researchers (Herpin, 1988; Fischler, 2011). One of the main characteristics of the Malaysian food habits is the cohabitation of an important individualization of the meal composition and the high level of socialization of these meals. The very quick transformation has created a context of cognitive dissonance between the norms and the practices. For example, a total 61.5% of the participants said they believe eating collective lunches (meals where diners share several dishes) should be the norm. However, only 18.3% actually practised it in their daily life. Even if a few socio-cultural variations can be noticed regarding the intensity, this general observation was observed irrespective of the socio-cultural group. What is very interesting in Malaysia is that although there is high individualization (where each diner has his own meal), there is also a very high socialization of the food practices, as 72% of meals are eaten with somebody else. Figure 102 Sociality of Meals In MFB, the ratio of socialised food intakes was linked to the level of education, occupation, evolution of the income, marital status and metropolization. 118 Findings Education level was strongly associated with the socialization of food intakes (P = 0.006). Some signiicant differences in the distribution of the population can be underlined between the lower secondary school and the highest level of education (upper secondary school and college/ university). Figure 103 Socialization of Food Intake and Education (N = 1,852; P = 0.006) Occupation was strongly associated to the ratio of socialized food intakes (P = 0.006). The signiicant difference between the means was observed between blue and white collar as the mean was more important for the blue collars. The high socio-profesional status was associated to a less important ratio of socialization of food intakes. 119 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 104 Socialization of Food Intake and Occupation (N = 1,852; P = 0.006) Evolution of income was strongly associated with the socialization of food intakes (P = 0.007). Respondents that estimated that their income has decreased over the last ive years tended to have a lower ratio mean of socialised intakes than those who have a stable income and an increased income. 120 Findings Figure 105 Socialization of Food Intake and Evolution of the Income (N = 1,852; P = 0.007) Marital status was strongly associated with the ratio of socialization of food intakes (P = 0.000). There are signiicant differences that were observed between people living alone (as single or widowed/separated/divorced) and in monogamous marriages. People living alone (as single or widowed/separated/divorced) have the highest mean of ratio of non-socialised food intakes. 121 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 106 Socialization of Food Intake and Marital Status (N = 1,852; P = 0.000) Ethnicity was strongly associated to socialization of food intakes (P = 0.000). Signiicant difference was observed between the Non-Malay Bumiputra and Indians; the mean’s ratio of socialised intakes was signiicantly lower for Indians. 122 Findings Figure 107 Socialization of Food Intake and Ethnicity (N = 1,852; P = 0.000) However, this link with ethnicity has to be cautiously considerd as metropolization was strongly associated to socialization of the food intakes (P = 0.000). Mean’s ratio of socialized intakes is less important in metropolitan area than in others areas (peninsular & insular Malaysia). 123 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 108 Socialization of Food Intake and Metropolization (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) To conclude, even if the modernization variable was not statistically associated with the socialization of food intakes, the main variables involved in this process, such as high education level, occupation related to the expansion of the service sector, metropolization, stability or increase in income, are related to the lowest rate of socialization of food intakes. 2. Eating Out In this chapter, we look at the impact of eating out practices in daily consumption. Malaysia is characterized by a great diversity of eater proiles and contexts of consumption. Consuming meals at a restaurant or having meals brought from the outside at home represent the various contexts of an individual’s consumption. What is the impact of these practices on the Malaysian food models? What is the link between the level of eating out in Malaysia and the level of obesity? What is the role of the restaurant industry in terms of coping with the rise in obesity and non-communicable diseases? The data collected on eating out hopes to achieve two major aims: 1. To describe the impact of eating out on dietary practices of Malaysian, by considering not only the consumption outside the home but meals bought from outside but consumed at home, 124 Findings 2. To understand and explain the socio-cultural factors that mainly inluence the practices of the consumption outside the home. The objective is to help players in the catering and food industry understand better the operation of the catering market. It also aims to make available for institutional actors complementary public health policy data. In order to study eating out habits, we used two indicators: 1. The reconstruction of the week before: The value of the weekly ration is 1 when all the intakes are eaten outside and value is 0 when the intakes are eaten at home. 2. The 24 hours recall with: • A ratio of the frequency on intake (number of intake eaten out/number of intake) • A ratio of the frequency per individual (number of individual having at least one intake out) The results using these approaches are presented next. 2.1 Eating Out the Week Before a) Eating Out & Urbanization Figure 109 Eating out & Urbanization (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) 125 Malaysian Food Barometer b) Eating Out & Ethnicity Figure 110 Eating out & Ethnicity (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) The Chinese group was shown to eat out more often than all the other ethnic groups while the Malays do not have a high eating out ratio. 126 Findings c) Eating Out & Gender Figure 111 Eating out & Gender (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) The resuts showed that men practiced eating out more than women. The gender is a discriminant variable for eating out. 127 Malaysian Food Barometer d) Eating Out and Education Level by Gender Figure 112 Eating out - Education & Gender (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) The results showed that for women, the higher the education level, the higher the eating out ratio. 128 Findings e) Eating Out and Ethnic Group by Education Level Figure 113 Eating out - Ethnic Group - Education (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Except for Indians, the level of education was shown to be positively linked to the eating out ratio. 129 Malaysian Food Barometer f) Eating Out and Number of Family Members Figure 114 Eating out: Number of family Members (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Considering the number of family members that live together, the results showed that the larger the family is, the less the individuals eat outside. In conclusion, the eating out ratio correlated with household size, level of education, and evolution of income. Taking into account the main trends of socio-economic and socio-demographic evolution of the Malaysian society, we can predict a rise in eating out practices. 2.2 Eating Out and At Home the Day Before In this section we consider two categories of food practices: 1. “Food intakes”: all food intakes 2. “Meals”: include only breakfast, lunch & dinner The eating out aspect was studied using two different approaches: number of food intakes or per individual. 130 Findings a) All food intakes Table 18 All food intakes Eating Out Practices for all food intakes Type of data Food intakes Individuals Total intakes 7,249 100% 2,000 100% Food intake eaten outside 2,697 37.2% 1,341 67.1% Food intake eaten at home 4,552 62.8% 1,850 92.5% Food intake eaten at home but the food came from outside 1,841 25.4% 1,334 66.7% Food intakes eaten at home but that came from outside were included in studying eating out habits. Figure 115 Food Intakes: Percentage of Eating Out Practices for All Food Intakes (N = 7,249) 131 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 116 Individuals: Percentage of Eating Out Practices for All Food Intakes (N = 2,000) b) Only Meals (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner) Table 19 Only meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) Eating Out Practices for meals only Type of data Meals Individuals Total Intakes 5,566 100% 2,000 100% Eating at least one meal outside 2,134 38.3% 1,282 64.1% Eating at least one meal at home 3,422 61.5% 1,768 88.4% 515 9.2% 455 22.7% Eating meals only at home 1,930 34.7% 714 35.7% Eating meals only outside 577 10.4% 224 11.2% Eating at home but the meal comes from outside 132 Findings Figure 117 Food Intakes: Percentage of Eating Out Practices for Meals Only (N = 5,566) Figure 118 Individuals: Percentage of Eating Out Practices for Meals Only (N = 2,000) 133 Malaysian Food Barometer c) Focus on “Food Intakes” Figure 119 Percentage of eating out per Intakes & per Individuals (N = 2,000) If we take in consideration all food intakes, and not only meals (breakfast, lunch and dinner), almost 64.1% of the individuals interviewed consume at least one food intake outside or consume at home one food intake that was purchased from outside. The results are similar if we consider total food intakes. d) Focus on “Meals” (Breakfast – Lunch – Dinner) Figure 120 Percentage of eating out per Meals & per Individuals (N = 2,000) 134 Findings 61.6% of the individuals had at least one meal which was purchased from outside. Considering food delivery, the proportion of eating out is higher because 12.5% of individuals who eat only at home have at least one meal that comes from outside. We can also found that more than a third of the meals are eaten outside (37.2%). If the meals eaten at home but purchased from outside were included, this proportion reaches 46.6%. Figure 121 Eating Out: Malaysia / France (N = 2,000) The proportion of people eating out is higher in Malaysia than it is in France (+17.5 points for meals; + 20.2 points for individuals). If we included the meals eaten at home but purchased from outside, the gap is even greater (+26.7 points). Malaysia is one of the countries in the world where the level of eating out is high. With regard to other European countries, about one out of every three meals is eaten out in the United Kingdom, one out of four in Italy, one out of ive in Spain and in France, and one out of seven in Germany (GIRA, 2012). Almost one out of every two meals is eaten out, in Malaysia which is close to practices observed in the United States. 135 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 122 Eating Out and Age (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) For the meals, the group with the highest level for eating out was those aged between 20 and 39 years old. At the same time, there is a generation effect and an age effect. Older people are less used to eating out. The results show that there is an age effect which can be attributed to younger people having lesser access to foodservice delivery but which increases signiicantly when their purchasing power increases. Then, moving on to a different segment of the society, a couple with the advent of the children would reduce the frequency of eating out. Moreover, in the organization of social life, with the family gathering under the same roof, taking meals at home are favored over going outside for food. The weak institutionalisation of people over 60 shows the weak relationship between age and eating out for this part of the population. 136 Findings Figure 123 Eating Out and Gender (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) While the proportion of men and women is substantially identical, we can clearly see that men tend to eat less at home than women. Women are less likely to work (51.1%; Economic Planning Unit, 2013) than men (80.7%, Economic Planning Unit, 2013) and thus have a weaker propensity to eat out compared to men. Figure 124 Eating Out and Urbanization of Living Area (N = 2,000; P = 0.001) 137 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 125 Eating Out and Urbanization of Growing Area (N = 2,000; P = 0.003) In urban areas, people have easier access to eating out with the development of the catering industry in tandem with the urbanization of the Malaysia society. This explains the strong link between urban settlements and intense practices of eating out. However, we also see that in rural areas, people who eat outside the home have a main meal. The presence of street food gives access to the non-domestic supply. Figure 126 Eating Out and Occupation (N = 2,000; P = 0.003) Those at the top of the social hierarchy and have the highest incomes have the easiest access to catering compared to other parts of the population. Moreover, they live in urban areas which facilitate their access to food outside the home. The Chinese were found to have a strong practice of eating out because they consumed 2 or 3 meals outside in a day. In Malay, the practices are differentiated because of their importance in the Malaysian population (67.4%, Census 2010). However, the frequency of eating out is mainly 1 meal or 3 meal(s) a day. For the 138 Findings Indians, it was observed that they practiced eating out mainly two meals a day. The Non-Malay Bumiputra is the subpopulation with the least amount of eating out. Figure 127 Eating Out and Ethnicity (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Figure 128 Eating Out and Education Level (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) The relationship between the level of education and practice of eating out shows that most people who have a higher level of education, go to restaurant or buy meals outside the home more. With regard to eating out in the Malaysian society as a whole, this phenomenon is linked with modernization and level of education, then we can predict that it will increase in future research. 139 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 129 Eating Out and Monthly Household Income (a) (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Figure 130 Eating Out and Monthly Household Income (b) (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) The frequency of eating out is positively linked with income since it was observed that the higher the income, the higher the proportion of eating out. The observation of the data clearly indicates that as income increases, more people eat out. Owning the necessary purchasing power facilitates the use of catering. However, we also observed that even people with modest means eat outside their homes. This is due to the fact that the cost of outside meals is relatively low. 140 Findings Figure 133 Eating Out and Evolution of the Income (a) (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) The link is also very strong between rising incomes and increased eating out since it is observed that as income increases, more people eat out or buy meals from outside. Figure 132 Eating Out and Evolution of the Income (b) (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Single people or those who have never been married are those who eat most at restaurants. The absence of family commitments and a larger purchasing power explains this inding. This group represents more than a third of the total population. For other categories, the practice of eating out is low. 141 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 133 Eating Out and Number of Children (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) The number of children very clearly inluences eating out practices as it can be seen that individuals without children eat outside the home more or buy most of their meals outside the home. This is understandable as of course it is easier to organize for this group to organize their social life without children and the budget is lower when the person is single or a couple without children. Figure 134 Eating Out and Number of Persons Living Together (Including Self) (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) When the number of people who live under the same roof increases, the frequency of eating out decreases. However, even in large families, we have observed practices of eating out at least one meal a day. 142 Findings The frequency of food that is consumed outside by the urban population in Malaysia is probably one of the highest in the world. The latest population study (Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2008) reveals this high incidence of food consumed outside had a strong positive correlation with the level of urbanization. With urbanization, the opportunities for Malaysians to eat out have increased tremendously and prices are sometimes lower than the cost of homemade meals. This increasing urbanization that is positively correlated to eating out practices is a transformation factor of the Malaysian food models and has a strong impact on health. We do not claim that eating out could be globally linked with the rise of obesity. Rather, in this research, we assume that there is a typology based on a cluster of practices, which make up the ethnic food lifestyles in Malaysia and that some of them are more or less connected with obesity. The data collected conirmed this assumption and showed that more than 38.5% of all Malaysian meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper) are consumed outside and if we added the food eaten at home but purchased outside (through delivery or food purchased in take-away packaging, including from a local Mamak restaurant), the frequency increased to 47.7%. These practices were shown to be strongly linked with the level on urbanization of the sample when correlations were performed; 32.9% rural versus 39.7% urban and 40.2% suburban (Poulain et al., 2014). Moreover, if we go on an individual scale, more than 64.0% of individuals have at least one meal a day outside and if we add food purchased outside, this increased to 76.6%. In terms of coping with the rise in obesity and non-communicable diseases, the restaurant industry is on the front line. The range of practical contexts in which Malaysians consumers are deciding what to eat are very different from those encountered in the Western context. So, public health programs developed in Europe and USA cannot be transferred to Malaysia without risking some socio-cultural resistance and therefore will most probably have some counterproductive effects. At the same time, within the modernization process, the traditional food models reassert themselves as a heritage and a context where ethnic and social identities can be expressed and consolidated. Such mutations can affect the level of consumption for some food products, the food consumption and the health of the population. This phenomenon is readily observed with the growth of restaurant chains in the large shopping malls, “Madam Kwan’s”, “Little Penang Café”, “Secret Recipe”, “Old Town White Coffee”, which simultaneously fulil the “eating out”, the “nostalgia” and heritage function. According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the number of tourist arrivals in Malaysia has risen dramatically from 5.56 million in 1998 to more than 25 million in 2012. Added to this, are the domestic tourists who are also sensitive to food nostalgia. These restaurant concepts and their heritage food products, which clearly identify with cultural references, beneit from this extra source of customers. 143 Malaysian Food Barometer 3. Rice and Noodles Consumption 3.1 Research Aims The main purpose of this section is to identify the importance of rice and noodles as the core food in the Malaysian eating habits, in the main meals and to identify the social proiles for their daily consumption. At the macro level, we know that in Malaysia, noodle products have registered a strong 10% increase in value in 2011 and has now reached RM1.1 billion. If rice is a staple food of the Asian models, noodles occupy an important place in the Chinese cuisine. Through the nyonya cuisine, they captured an important place in the heart of the eating habits of the Malaysians. Now, noodles are a staple food type in the Malaysian cuisine. Within the last two decades, the development of instant noodles has transformed the ratio of rice-noodle consumption. Indeed, instant noodles are well suited to the fast pace of modern life and in addition, they are relatively cheap. MFB followed the evolution of the consumption of noodles and their relative impact in comparison to rice in food consumption. This section focuses on consumption of rice and noodles, within the different communities. Four mains questions that are looked at in this analysis: • • • • Do rice and noodles carry the same weight in food habits? Is one rising compared to the other? Is there a link with obesity? Are there other core foods in these eating patterns? a) Rice and Noodle in Daily Meals Figure 135 Rice & Noodle Daily Consumption (N = 2,000) Nearly 50% of the population consume rice for lunch while only 10% consume noodles. In addition, 35% eat both noodles and rice. These two products are core foods as they are present in more than 90% of the daily meals. 144 Findings b) Rice and Noodle for Breakfast Figure 136 Synthetical View of Over-representations of Rice & Noodle Consumption for Breakfast (N = 2,000) c) Rice and Noodle for Lunch Figure 137 Synthetical View of Over-representations of Rice & Noodle Consumption for Lunch (N = 2,000) 145 Malaysian Food Barometer People who live in the urban areas as well as those who have an upper secondary level of education consume rice for lunch. The prevalene of mee or noodles for lunch was also observed for Indians, people who estimated that their income is increasing and rural dwellers. d) Rice and Noodle for Dinner Figure 138 Synthetical View of Over-representations of Rice & Noodle Consumption for Dinner (N = 2,000) Rice for dinner is mainly consumed by the Chinese. People with the highest or lowest incomes were over-represented in those who consumed noodles for dinner, as well as those with a low education level and whose income has decreased over the past ive years. We can presume that in the low social categories, it is more of the instant noodles variety that is consumed. 3.2 Rice & Noodle Consumption: Social or Cultural Marker? As rice consumption and ethnicity were not found to be correlated, consumption of rice appears to be a shared cultural marker across the Malaysian ethnic groups. At the same time, rice consumption is a socio-economic marker. 146 Findings Indeed, modernization correlated strongly (P = 0.008) with the presence of rice in their eating practices the day before (breakfast, lunch or dinner). This is especially for the Malaysian Malays (P = 0.002). Within this ethnic group, the respondents who are located in the low level of modernization were over-represented (s.r. +2.7) in those who had not eaten rice for breakfast, lunch or dinner the previous day. Figure 139 Presence of Rice Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner and Modernization for Malay (N = 1,176; P = 0.002) Could the same be said regarding noodle consumption? The data collected did not cover the differentiation between fresh and instant noodles; nonetheless, going deeper in the analysis of its consumption could have allowed for some. In fact, there’s a social differentiation as noodles consumption correlated with social classes (P = 0.034). Noodle consumption was over-represented within the respondents from the highest social classes (s.r. +1.7). Figure 140 Presence of Noodles Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner 24h Recall and Social Positions (N = 2,000; P = 0.034) 147 Malaysian Food Barometer This link is not due to metropolization or urbanization but all ethnic groups in Malaysia do not share noodle consumption, as shown by the correlation between the noodle consumption the day before with ethnicity (P = 0.041). There was an over-representation of Indians in respondents who had eaten some noodles the previous day (s.r. +1.9). Figure 141 Presence of Noodles Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner and Ethnicity (N = 2,000; P = 0.041) In fact, this link between ethnicity and noodle consumption was shown to cover some social differentiation, and it is especially conirmed in the low and high modernization levels (P = 0.024 and P = 0.002, respectively). For low modernization level, Chinese were over-represented in no consumption of noodles (s.r. +1.9). For high modernization level, the Indians were overrepresented (s.r +2.6) in those who had eaten noodles the day before. Figure 142 Presence of Noodles Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner and Ethnicity for Low Modernization (N = 425; P = 0.024) 148 Findings Figure 143 Presence of Noodles Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner and Ethnicity for High Modernization (N = 607; P = 0.002) In contrast to instant noodle consumption in America (Errington, Gewertz, & Fujikura, 2013), noodle consumption in Malaysia was over-represented in the highest class of the society, especially for Indian and under-represented in lowest class, especially with the Chinese. 4. Beverages It should be noted that soda or soft drinks do not appear in the norms regarding the beverages of the respondents, including for snacks and is mainly consumed for lunch, dinner and snacks. 4.1 Beverages in Norms Information on norms about beverages were obtained by asking the following: “For the following meals, could you tell me which food and drink they have to include in order to be a proper meal, a meal that you are supposed to eat every day?” Twelve modalities were suggested to the respondents: water coffee, tea, teh tarik, chocolate drink, cow’s milk, soy milk, herbal tea, fruit juice, soda, cordials and alcohol. First, the results according to the meals are presented, followed by a summary for the day. a) Beverages in Norms: Break Down by Meals In order to collect information about norms regarding beverages, supper, tea time and snack that could be considered as “small meals” were added to the three main ones (breakfast, lunch and dinner). Respondents were given the option to not answer if they did not have these type of meals. Thus this explains the variations in the size of the sample. 149 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 144 Beverage Norms for Breakfast (N = 1,863) Figure 145 Beverage Norms for Lunch (N = 1,811) 150 Findings Figure 146 Beverage Norms for Dinner (N = 1,859) Figure 147 Beverage Norms for Supper (N = 1,228) 151 Malaysian Food Barometer b) Beverages in norms: Summary for the day By adding all the beverages’ choices of each respondent and at the sample level, a summary of beverages chosen for all the meals was created. Indeed, it can be observed that “soda” as well as “herbal tea” were not chosen by any of the respondents for any of the meals. Water was the main named beverage (37%), followed by tea (20%), coffee (18%), tea tarik (9%), cow’s milk (6%), fruit juice (5%), chocolate drink (3%), cordials (2%) and inally soy milk (0.3%). Figure 148 Distribution of Beverages Norms for the Day (N = 8,179) 4.2 Beverages in Practices The questionnaire framework was based on the “recall of the latest 24 hours” in order to collect data about eating and drinking practices. The following results, focused on drinking practices, show the practices for each intake of the respondent. This methodological approach which combined qualitative and quantitative techniques, allowed both an overview of the practices and their contexts. Firstly, interviewers invited people to state what they considerd to be a “proper meal”, a “proper breakfast”, a “proper lunch”, etc which is presented to them as taking place in an ideal setting, where nothing has disturbed the usual organization of the preparation and consumption of these meals. In the second step, after the interviewee is “liberated” from the normative pressures of his or her statement, another series of questions was proposed to help the individual to rebuild his or her food day. As for the norms, the results of the drinking practices of the representative sample are irst presented, broken down by meals. A summary for the day is presented next. Finally, we look at the trends of the consumption of soft drinks’ competitors. 152 Findings a) Beverages in Practices: Breakdown by Meals Based on the choices given by the respondents for their different intakes of the previous day, an overview of drinking practices was built. This type of data informs the temporality of consumption of the different beverages. Figure 149 Drinking Practices for Wake-Up (N = 855) Figure 150 Drinking Practices for Breakfast (N = 1,117) 153 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 151 Drinking Practices for Lunch (N = 1,794) Figure 152 Drinking Practices for Dinner (N = 1,754) 154 Findings Figure 153 Drinking Practices for Supper (N = 397) Figure 154 Drinking Practices for Tea Time (N = 758) 155 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 155 Drinking Practices for Snack (N = 191) b) Beverages in Practices: Summary for the Day In conclusion, water was dominant in the practices, taking up 38% of the beverage intakes. It was followed by coffee (13%), tea (15%), Milo (12%). Although sodas were absent in practices, nevertheless they were well represented in intakes, amounting to 10% (including 1% for Coke). Figure 156 Distribution of Beverages Drunk During the Day (N = 6,823) 156 Findings 5. Perception of Transformation in Food The previous treatments were based on current practices and did not allow a dynamic perspective. However, consumers have their own perception of the evolution. These variables have to be considered as representations including a part of the norm. Even if it could not be analyzed as actual practices, they constitute a way to access this dynamic dimension of the food models. In addition, this subjective perception of the evolution is important to understand how food decisions of consumers are made. Data regarding these subjective perceptions was collected by asking respondents the following, “I will propose different situations, do the following suggestions differ nowadays to what you’ve been used to do in the past?” The proposed situations were (1) Eating alone; (2) Eating in the ofice / school/workplace; (3) Eating at casual restaurant; (4) Eating at food court & fast food; (5) Eating in a mamak restaurant; (6) Eating at home; (7) Inviting someone to your house; (8) Being invited to someone’s place. Figure 157 Eating alone Eating Alone (N = 2,000) The non-socialization of meals (i.e. “eating alone”) is not a new phenomenon in the perception of transformation by the respondents as most of them felt that they were already doing it in the past. The perception of the transformation is not very distinct but it should be noted that a regression of the perception of sociality of meals is not predominant as almost 70% of the population considered that there is no change or that they are eating less alone than in the past. In literature, the modernization process is usually associated to a desocialization of meals (cf. indings regarding food intakes) but this was not conirmed in the representations of Malaysians. 157 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 158 Eating at working place Eating at Workplace (N = 2,000) Urbanization could be associated to a transformation of social temporalities in gathering during working hours. Eating at the workplace has been increasing in Europe in accordance to the transformation of life’s rhythm (Poulain, 2001). An important proportion of the sample (35.4%) afirmed of not doing it previously and this could be associated to the role of the housewife. With regard to people who had been doing it previously, the transformation is not really distinct and a similar portion of the respondents reported that they are doing it less often, equally or more often than in the past. Figure 159 Eating in Casual Restaurants Eating in Casual Restaurants (N = 2,000) As the rate of eating out in Malaysia is one of the highest in the world, the barometer attempted to dig deeper for the characterization of that practice. Several questions regarding the perception 158 Findings of the transformation in eating habits were focused on. Firstly, regarding eating out in casual restaurants, most of the respondents (46.9%) estimated that they ate lesser in casual restaurants compared to in the past. For a third (29%), it was the same and only 6.8% of respondents reported that they were doing it more often. The structural evolution of the society is associated to this decline in the frequentation of casual restaurants, at least based on the respondents’ representations. Figure 160 Eating at food courts and fast food joints Eating at Food Courts and Fast Food Joints (N = 2,000) Only a few people reported that they have never eaten in fast food joint or food court which underlined the traditional popularity of this type of eating out. In addition, similar trends can be observed for the frequentation of this type of restaurants more than the others. Figure 161 Eating in Mamak restaurants Eating in Mamak Restaurants (N = 2,000) 159 Malaysian Food Barometer The same can be observed regarding eating at mamak restaurants. Figure 162 Eating at Home Eating at Home (N = 2,000) In contrast with the previous result regarding eating out, the respondents reported of seriously considering eating at home more often (70.1%). This representation is quite contradictory with the trends observed regarding eating out practices and the urbanization and modernization processes. Taking into account that this data of the transformation’s perception can include a part of norm, this departure from the usual can be interpreted as a promotion of home-consumed (and probably home-made) meals in the norms. Figure 163 Invited Someone to My House Invited Someone to My House (N = 2,000) 160 Findings Inviting someone to your house or being invited to someone’s house for a meal is a way to build social relations. The majority of respondents (54.8%) stated that they do not frequently invite someone to their homes. Figure 164 Being Invited to Someone’s Place Being Invited to Someone’s Place (N = 2,000) The majority of the respondents (60.2%) reported of rarely being invited to someone’s place. These results could be interpreted as a transformation in the sociality around food and a transformation in the public and private boundaries as invitations to eating outside could have been developed. The result could also be interpreted as a consequence of a decreasing perception of the respondents regarding their situation (Poulain & Tibère, 2008). These results invite further and deeper analyzes in terms of correlations with modernization, representation of income change, etc. 6. Socio-cultural Representations of Food Social representations are not just ideas, images, values but also social knowledge shared by members of a society or a social group. Social representations related to food show our relationship to food, its importance and the main values associated to it but also the link people make between food and other aspects like health, pleasure etc. To become a food, a raw product must be socially signiicant for its consumers. Jean Trémolières wrote “food must not only be for nutritional purposes, but also give pleasure and have a symbolic meaning” (Trémolières, 1968). After analyzing the eating habits of Malaysians, we will now consider their representations, that is, the way they conceive the links between diet and health, nutrition and beauty care, pain and pleasure, and food hierarchies that apply. The study on representations of food is not justiied by some supposedly ‘consumers irrationality’, 161 Malaysian Food Barometer but because it is in the heart of the process by which a product containing nutrients is recognized as a food that is socially accepted and appreciated by groups. In the survey, four questions were asked to capture these dimensions. • • • • The irst question: Which of the following statement do you feel closer to? (Chose one answer): “Food must be irst of all a need…”, ‘Food must be irst of all shared with someone’, Food must be irst of all a pleasure’, Food must irst of all prevent health problems’. Second question: What does ‘eating well’ means to you? Health/Pleasure/Togetherness/ Fill the stomach/ Tradition/Strength/Others/ Third question: In your opinion, what are the two essential foodstuffs that are essential and beneicial to the health? Fourth question: In your opinion, what are the two main foodstuffs that needs to be reduced to be in good health? This section focuses on nutritional representations in order to igure how consumers conceive the links between diet and helth, enjoyment, ethnicity and the different food classiications. It is based on a series of questions originally used by Kurt Lewin in his survey on eating habits in the USA, followed by Jean Trémolières (1968), Claude Fischler and Jean-Pierre Poulain (Poulain et al., 1997, 2002a). This type of question invites respondents to make a judgment on the values of very synthetic functions or “utility” of the different foods, without asking for speciic reasons. This approach breaks away from analytical logic, that seeks to break down the reasons for choice and the various mechanisms of food selection but gives disappointing results, in order to understand how the overall performances of more or less positive qualities and virtues of food and their alleged effects on the body are aggregated over the large categories of food (meat, vegetables, dairy products, ish...) and participate in the selection of food. The positive mode is “foodstuffs that are essential and beneicial to health” and the negative mode is “foodstuffs to be reduced to be in good health”. 6.1 “Food Must be First of All…” From the answers, we can identify four main types of representations and relationships: • • • • A functional relationship (food is a need, that is, to feed the body), A health-related representation (food is a tool to control health), A hedonistic relationship (food is a source of pleasure), A sociable relationship (food must be shared with other people, “feeding” social link). 162 Findings Figure 165 Food Must Be First of All... (a) (N = 2,000) The results showed the functional relationship as being dominant, but with social differentiation. Figure 166 Food Must Be First of All... (b) (N = 2,000) 163 Malaysian Food Barometer a) Urban/Rural Focus Figure 167 “Food Must Be First of All...” and Urbanization of the Living Area (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Pleasure, commensality and health were associated more with urbanization. In rural areas, food was mainly mentioned as a need. Figure 168 “Food Must Be First of All...” and Education Level (N = 2,000; P = 0.001) Pleasure was linked with the level of education. 164 Findings b) Ethnic Group Figure 169 “Food Must Be First of All...” and Urbanization of the Living Area (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Non-Malay Bumiputra and Malays mainly see food as a need. Chinese gave importance to pleasure and conviviality. Food as a lever of prevention was not differentiated between the three main ethnic groups but Non-Malay Bumiputra were less aware. Figure 170 “Food Must Be...” and Modernization (N = 1,992; P = 0.026) Modernization tended to emphasize the representation of food as a pleasure. 165 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 171 “Food Must Be...” and Modernization for Malays (N = 1,174; P = 0.065) Figure 172 “Food Must Be...” and Modernization for Indians (N = 133; P = 0.017) 166 Findings 6.2 Eating Well The question about “eating well” also aimed at identifying the main values system associated to food. The answers to this question highlighted ive main value areas: • • • • • Health (eating well is eating healthy food and being in good health) Energy and strength (eating well is eating in order to ill the stomach and to be strong) Pleasure (eating well is irst of all enjoying and having pleasure) Togetherness (eating well is sharing with other people) Tradition (eating well is eating according to the cultural and traditional model) Figure 173 Eating Well (1st & 2nd choices) (N = 2,000) Health appeared to be a strong element in the relationship most Malaysians have towards their food. This can be a social and cultural characteristic but also a result of public health campaigns. Of course, the fact that health is strongly present does not necessarily mean systematically healthy food practice. 167 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 174 Synthetical View of the Over-Representations of “Eating Well” (1st Choice) (N = 2,000) Modernization correlated strongly (P = 0.000) with the representation of eating, especially with regard to pleasure and was over-represented for respondents in high modernization levels. Figure 175 Eating Well and Modernization (N = 2,000; P = 0.017) 168 Findings However, this effect of modernization has to be differenciated according to the ethnicity. As shown in the two following graphs, Non-Malay Bumiputra in low modernization level were over-represented in promoting eating as pleasure while for Malays, pleasure was underrepresented for medium modernization level and over-represented for the highest level. Figure 176 Eating Well and Modernization for Non-Malay Figure 177 Eating Well and Modernization (N = 1,176; P = 0.039) (N = 193; P = 0.032) 6.3 Food Beneicial for Health The purpose for this analysis is to understand better the representations of food related to health and identify the food categories considered as healthy by Malaysians. We assume that these representations are socio-economically, socio-demographically and ethnically differentiated. These elements are useful in building and targeting public health messages. Figure 178 Beneicial to Health (1st & 2nd Choices) (N = 2,000) Fruits and vegetables were the irst choices as beneicial to health. This can be a social and cultural characteristic but also a result of public health campaigns. Of course, the fact that it is strongly present does not necessarily mean systematically it is included in food practices. These 169 Malaysian Food Barometer are followed by rice, milk and diary. The status of rice is interesting as it is one of the main core food for Malaysians. The link to health is also a result of its emblematic status in the food model. Figure 179 Foodstuff Essential and Beneicial to Health – 1st Choice (N = 1,887) Figure 180 Foodstuff Essential and Beneicial to Health and Modernization (N = 1,887; P = 0.000) 170 Findings Representations about food being essential for health strongly correlated with modernization (P = 0.000) and answers given in terms of nutrition and water were over-represented for high modernization level while they were under-represented for low modernization level. In addition to this, fruits and vegetables were under-represented for high modernization level which underlined the difference with western societies where fruits and vegetables consumption are currently highly promoted after being discredited for a long period of time (Levenstein, 1988; Poulain et al. 1998; Poulain, 2001; Fischler & Masson, 2008). The discredit of fruits and vegetables mainly occur within the highly-modernized Malay group while the same group is, at the same time, enhancing its intake of milk and daily. Finally, the halal food promotion was over-represented within the highly-modernized Malay group while it was under-represented within the lowest modernized group. Figure 181 Foodstuff Essential to Health and Modernization for Malay (N = 1,189; P = 0.001) 6.4. Food to be Reduced for Good Health This variable aims to analyze the representations of food related to health and to identify the food categories considered as unhealthy by Malaysians. We assume that these representations are socio-economically, socio-demographically and ethnically differentiated. These elements are also useful in building and targeting public health messages. 171 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 182 Food to Reduce to be in Good Health (Combination of 1st & 2nd Choices) (N = 2,000) Oil, lipid and fat were mentioned irst when respondents were asked about the food that need to be reduced in order to gain good health. We can identify this as result of public health campaigns. Salt and sugar were mentioned next for less than half of the population, which is not very strong. All these results raise the concern of the necessity to work with chefs and culinary art specialists in improving emblematic dishes like Nasi Lemak. Figure 184 Foodstuff to Reduce to be in Good Health – 1st Choice (N = 1,868) 172 Findings Figure 184 Food to Reduce to be in Good Health and Urbanization (N = 1,868; P = 0.000) Sugar and salt were more often mentioned in the rural population. Oil, meat, fast foods were also considered unhealthier by the urban population. Figure 185 Food to Reduce to be in Good Health and Ethnic Groups (N = 1,868; P = 0.000) 173 Malaysian Food Barometer Ethnicity correlated strongly with the representations of food that should be reduced to gain good health (P = 0.000). Salted products, preservatives and colouring were over-represented for the Non-Malay Bumiputra, meat was over-represented for the Chinese as well as fast food and processed food. Figure 186 Foodstuff to Reduce to be in Good Health and Modernization (N = 1,816; P = 0.000) Differentiation could also be considered regarding modernization as this indicator correlated strongly with the representations of food to be reduced in order to gain good health. For the lowest modernization level, sugar and salt products were over-represented as foodstuff to be avoided in order to gain good health while fat, fast food and processed food were underrepresented. This enhancement of fat in the lowest modernization level could be interpreted as a consequence of “social revenge” (Corbeau, 1992; Corbeau and Poulain, 2002). With regard to highest modernization level, fast food and processed food were over-represented. A reversal of the representation attached to fast food and processed food is observed with the modernization process. Figure 187 Foodstuff to Reduce for Health and Modernization for Malays (N = 1,075; P = 0.000) 174 Findings Running the same treatement by ethnicity, it was noted that the Malay ethnic group was more speciically concerned by this transformation about fast food and processed food. 7. Malaysian Emblematic Dishes In every society, eating and drinking are the core activities located at the heart of the economic and political systems through the organization of food production and distribution. In its social dimension, food also contributes to the structure and shape of human relations and cultural identities. Relationships among family members, and between friends and colleagues, are produced by a complex network of exchanges around food. However, food is also a language by which the members of a society express who they are or aspire to be, their relations to the world and to others. All this sheds light on a community’s sense of belonging and collective identity. This is especially important in multicultural societies such as Malaysia, where social cohesion has to be a balance between collective identity and ethnic speciicities. We assume, with other researchers, that in a multicultural context, “iddling with” symbols, in the neutral sense of the word, plays a central part in the expression of identities and in the social regulation of “living together” (Taylor, 1994; Semprini, 2000; Kymlicka, 2001). Food has been explored, both in its material and immaterial dimensions, as a system of symbols likely to be manipulated (Douglas, 1975; Garine, 1979; Fischler, 1990; Corbeau and Poulain, 2002; Tibère, 2009). These symbols, visible in the culinary environment (which combines food and ingredients), in table manners, but also those identiied in the discourse on food relect representations of the common heritage. This notion of food heritage takes place in the context of modernization of the Malaysian society and we can expect that a patrimonialization process that takes place in the local society, especially through urban, youngest and highest educated groups (Poulain, 2002a, 2013). The common fondness of a society to a particular dish or food component underlines the special status of this dish in the social construction of collective identity. Our aim was to study the status of Nasi Lemak and others potential dishes in this perspective. The focus on food heritage is linked to a further application process for UNESCO Intangible Heritage. The purpose is to identify some Malaysian dish(es) that represent(s) a common heritage for all Malaysians and to evaluate the status of Nasi Lemak in a national scale. Indeed, in the preliminary investigations, Nasi Lemak appeared as “Number One” both on the tourist board communication and for Malaysians interviewed in Kuala Lumpur. We wanted to evaluate this and to identify other potential candidates. In the questionnaire, we asked the respondents to mention two main dishes that “best represent Malaysia” for them. In addition to this question that focused on representations, we also studied the actual consumption of these dishes using the “recall of the last 24 hours” approach (Poulain, 2001). The results were then cross analyzed with ethnic groups, as well as age, living area and socio-economic level in order to evaluate the ethnic and socio-economic differentiation and also to study potential food patrimonialization process. 175 Malaysian Food Barometer Notions and concepts Food heritage refers to the raw products, dishes, ingredients, recipes, table manners, table items, commensality attached to a food model and considered by a social group or a society as a cultural heritage and identity. Our aim is to analyze the social construction of the food heritage (patrimonialization) in the context of modernization. Emblematic dish refers to a symbol that crystallises the social or ethnic identity. In a multicultural society: emblematic dishes are very important as they support both the social construction of the common identity as well as the speciic one. Figure 188 Nasi Lemak is a Good Candidate… (N = 2,000) ... and engages a process of patrimonialization… Figure 189 Food Heritage and Level of Education (N = 1,191; P = 0.000) 176 Findings Figure 190 Food Heritage and Age (N = 1,191; P = 0.001) …but not the only one regarding to ethnicity and living areas Figure 191 Food Heritage and Ethnic Groups (N = 1,191; P = 0.000) 177 Malaysian Food Barometer Emblematic Dishes Image 8 (N = 1,191; P = 0.000) At the irst stage of analyzing, Nasi Lemak appeared as an ideal candidate for the Malaysian cuisine application at the Unesco Intangible Heritage: it counts for more than 40% of the respondents of the Malaysian Food Barometer. In addition, its citation was over-represented in youngest and highest educated groups, conirming the hypothesis of a process of patrimonialization. This hypothesis was also conirmed by the fact that Nasi Lemak is mainly mentioned in Kuala Lumpur. However, deeper investigation revealed that the respondents’ citation strongly depended on their ethnic group: Nasi Lemak and Satay were over-represented in the Malay respondents whereas Roti Canai was over-represented for the Indians and Chicken rice and Laksa amongst the Chinese. Place of residence also was a contributing factor: Nasi Lemak and Roti Canai were over-represented for respondents living in Central Malaysia, curry dishes were overrepresented in the North, Satay in the South, Chicken Rice in the East Coast and Laksa in the East Malaysia. These results emphasize the importance take of taking into account not only one dish in the patrimonialization process but the whole cuisine, as a socio-technical and symbolic system that allows integration and differentiation processes. 178 Findings 8. Obesity Epidemiologists consider obesity as a social problem because of the speed of its development that suggests social factors are involved. This idea is also present in the genetics of obesity. To illustrate the simultaneous contributions of biology and environment to weight problems, George Bray used a particularly eloquent metaphor “Genes load the gun; environment pulls the trigger” (Bray and Bouchard, 1998). Obesity is a social problem because it affects people in ways that are socially differentiated. Its prevalence, that is the proportion of individuals in a given population suffering from it, is not the same in the different stratas of society. It thus becomes another factor for health-related social inequality (Sobal, 1991). Obesity is a social problem because of the human diet that is culturally determined in terms of what is considered edible, how it is prepared and consumed, and the way these prescriptions are implemented in the precise social contexts. Finally, obesity is a social problem because of the involvement of many stakeholders, from the food and pharmaceutical industries to the parents or obese subjects themselves, as well as the public policymakers in agriculture or health and “diet-selling” nutritionists. The list is not exhaustive and no one party can be singled out as (partly) responsible for the situation. Since eating habits are seen to be both a determinant of obesity and a prime factor through which one can act to prevent its onset or limit its development once it is present, the knowledge of food patterns and the conditions in which they can be modiied is an evident priority; all the more so in that certain eating practices could be at the origin of certain life histories of obesity. However, it is widely acknowledged in the scientiic community that obesity is a complex problem depending on multiple factors such as genetic, physiological, psychological, social, anthropological etc. (WHO, 2000). Even in the ield of social sciences, it appears likely to involve many channels of determination, which should all be explored before proceeding with the elaboration of the public health policies. From the pioneer sociological works of Werner Cahnman (1968), extending to those of Erwin Goffman (1963) on the stigmatisation of obesity in the US, to the recent book of Jean-Pierre Poulain (2009) or the Oxford handbook directed by John Cawley (2011), sociology of obesity have come a long way. The two books mentioned present a large diversity of sociological research within the different theoretical frameworks and methodological perspectives. Malaysia is thus experiencing a signiicant increase in the prevalence of obesity. It is now at 12.6% for adults and 11.7% for children (Rampal et al., 2007). Obesity has doubled over the past decade amongst the adult Malaysian (1996-2006) (Lim et al., 2000; Ismail, 2002; Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2008; Poh et al., 2003; Ismail et al., 2009). The objectives of the MFB on the front line of obesity are to provide more information on the sociocultural represensation and contexts in relation with food habits and its transformations. 179 Malaysian Food Barometer Lifestyle and food modernity According to the current dominant thermodynamic model, obesity is the result of an imbalance between nutritional intake and energy consumption. In modern societies, the energy consumption of individuals has fallen very signiicantly. The causes of this is the heating and air-conditioning of the homes, the development of individual and collective transport systems, the predominance of the tertiary sector and new forms of work organization in the agricultural and industrial sectors. Food consumption has gone down at the same time, but not to the same degree. It is this gap which is alleged to contribute to the development of obesity. In addition since the drop in consumption is socially diversiied, this may explain partly why there are social differentiations in obesity. Thus, using macro-economic calculations, Jean-Louis Lambert demonstrated that there was a difference of more than 200 calories per day between the upper and middle classes and the lower classes, the latter having the highest consumption. This analysis could provide the initial explanation of the development of obesity at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale (Lambert, 1987). However, since the processing of statistical data from a large series and the reconstruction of a diet that can be translated into terms of energy intake pose problems of reliability (Poulain, 2001), this type of explanation remains hypothetical. Social differences in taste, leading to a preference for “energy-giving”, “powerful” or “strong” foods among the lower socioeconomic classes could also be cited for this difference. From a phenomenological point of view, some sociologists suggest an interpretation of this phenomenon in terms of “social revenge”. For the lower classes, who on the historical time scale have most often suffered from hunger, contemporary afluence could be seen in the collective imagination as an opportunity for revenge (Corbeau, 2002). Nutritional information is appreciated and understood differently by the sexes (women being far more receptive than men) and by different social classes, and this too could form part of the explanation. However, the availability of nutritional information does not always lead to a change in behaviour. Finally, regional differences in tastes and habits could also explain the regional variations in the prevalence of obesity (Corbeau & Poulain, 2002). Could nutritional modernity be considered as a risk factor? In western countries, the idea that changes in modern diet are a cause of the development of obesity is commonly accepted, even in the public health circles. Generally, these changes are grouped under the heading of “destructuring of modern food habits”, modiication of the composition of the meals, development of snacks, skipping of meals, and the increased consumption of sugar and fats in what is sometimes referred to as “junk food”. Recently, the notion of a nutritional transition has taken over to account for the changes in the macro-nutritional structure of food intake (drop in carbohydrates and increase in fats, with a greater share of animal fats in the lipid intake). Some specialists have been tempted to condemn the “new eating habits”, interpreted as a breakdown of the original “nutritional order”. Their discourse then turns to the necessity of restoring proper habits, the three well-structured meals a day and no snacks between meals, or the “re-educating the modern eater”. This overlooks the fact that meals, and more generally 180 Findings food intake, are not solely a matter of individual decision but also the result of a series of social situations and constraints. It idealizes the norm of three meals a day which, historically, is far from being the dominant model in Europe. The form taken by eating is a concrete presentation of social values and varies considerably from one culture to another and over time and according to the socioeconomic status within a given culture. Nutrition and food transition The concept of “nutrition transition” was proposed to describe the transformation of diets; some view “shifts in diet” as a predictable consequence of modernization, urbanization, economic development, and increased purchasing power (Popkin, 2003 & 2006). “Nutrition transition is classically divided into ive stages: 1. Hunter Gatherer: Individuals have active lifestyles, hunting and foraging for food. Diets typically are rich in ibrous plants and high in protein from wild animals. 2. Early Agriculture: Famine is common, slowing individuals’ growth and decreasing their body fat. 3. End of Famine: Famine decreases as income rises and nutrition improves. 4. Overeating, Obesity-Related Diseases: As income continues to rise, individuals have access to an abundance of high-calorie foods, and they become less active, leading to increases in obesity and obesity-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease. 5. Behavior Change: In response to increasing rates of obesity and obesity-related chronic diseases, individuals change their behavior—and communities promote behavior changes—to prevent these conditions. Currently, most low- and middle-income countries are rapidly moving from pattern 3 (end of famine) to pattern 4 (consuming more energy-dense diets). This shift from traditional diets to Western-style diets has been a key contributor to the obesity epidemic in low- and middle-income countries.” (Harvard, 2014) If obesity can be strongly suspected as the result of the phenomenon of transition, it could be useful to dwell deeper in this direction in order to understand the role of the food models and the cultures and their transformation in the transition. We will begin by presenting the “demographic transition” model that was conceptualised during the 1930s and 1940s by the American demographer, Frank Notestein. As part of an evolutionary approach, it describes the structural transformations that populations undergo during the process of development, and particularly, the transition from a stage in which mortality rates are high, life expectancy is short and demographic balance can only be maintained by a high birth rate, to another in which life expectancy increases while mortality rate falls. During the intermediate or “transitional” phase which gives the model its name, the birth rate falls, with a delayed impact on death rates; the balance is positive and the population increases. During the transition, there is therefore a marginal increase in population, a demographic spurt. Finally, in the third stage, the birth and death rates stabilise at a lower level but one that is suficient to ensure the renewal of the 181 Malaysian Food Barometer population. The process therefore concludes with a demographic equilibrium. To describe the phenomenon more fully it is possible to distinguish the two phases in the transition: the irst where the difference between birth and death rates increases and the second where the gap closes again. This gives rise to a four-stage model. Figure 192 The Four Stages of Demographic Transition This model enjoyed considerable success, being accepted by the American demographic authorities as their theoretical standard from the end of the 1940s, and by most other countries in the world in the following decade. While the notion of post-transitional demographic equilibrium has been strongly criticised, the heuristic interest of the model is in no way diminished even if it is stripped of certain concepts of demographic self-regulation. Many people acknowledge it as highly relevant for the description of the phenomena encountered by societies when they are impacted by factors of progress in technology and health. Today, it is still widely used as a conceptual framework in a number of scientiic sectors, from epidemiology to human geography, and more recently in the ield of nutrition. Its main contribution is to stress the delayed impact of the mechanisms of cultural regulation in situations of interaction between the biological and social parameters. At the start of the transition phase, birth rates remain high although their biological “utility” for the population is no longer evident, and this is because the value systems surrounding procreation (the idea of the family, large numbers of children well regarded, etc.) are still linked to the former contexts in which they emerged and provided adaptive advantages (guarantee that old people would be looked after by the younger) and in which they became meaningful. This question will be examined in more detail as it can help us to understand the development of obesity. But irst, we should look at the way this model has developed in the ield of epidemiology. In 1971, Abdel Omran described and analyzed the changes in the causes of mortality during the transition process, and thereby developed the “epidemiological transition” model (Omran, 1971). He distinguishes the three stages in the epidemiological transition, that correspond to the three stages of the basic model. In the irst, which he calls “the period of epidemics and famine”, the main causes of death are infectious diseases, nutritional deicits and parasitic diseases. Life expectancy is low and infant mortality rates are very high. 182 Findings During the “transition phase”, these causes of mortality do regress while at the same time degenerative pathologies (heart disease, cancers, etc.) emerge and life expectancy begins to increase. Finally, during the third phase entitled the “installation of degenerative diseases”, mortality due to infection virtually disappears and fatal diseases become the leading cause of death. Life expectancy rises still further and the population increases, particularly in the more elderly age groups. Henri Picheral suggested that the model should be completed with the addition of a fourth stage which he called the “abatement of chronic diseases” (Picheral, 1989), and at the end of the 1990s, Marcel Drulhe proposed to extend the model with a ifth stage, that of the “sociopathies”. “When other causes of death stabilise and regress, sociopathies emerge strongly, as if, from one phase to another in the epidemiological cycle, the social element in health became more visible” (Drulhe, 1996). Table 20 Food’s Role in the Epidemiological Transition Source: Poulain, 2000 It is possible to draw up a model of “nutritional transition” that is able to explain the development of obesity in afluent societies. If by analogy we assume that the energy intake in the nutritional transition model corresponds to the birth rate in the demographic transition model, energy needs to the death rate, and inally the increase of fat mass to the marginal population increase, we predispose a model that presents obesity as the momentary consequence of a gap between the energy needs, overly determined by systems of action, and the consumption that is still controlled by the value systems and cultural norms (Fischler and Masson, 2007). In an optimistic version that partly corresponds to the views of Frank Notestein, one simply has to wait for need and intake to readjust. Obesity here is merely an avatar of transformation, involving processes that 183 Malaysian Food Barometer develop according to the different time scales. The solution is simply to wait for the systems of representation and regulation to catch up with the rapid changes in economic context and lifestyle. If the population increases during the demographic transition, it is because there is a time shift between death rates, which go down thanks to improved hygiene and better organization of the production and distribution of food, and birth rates, which remain high for some time. These birth rates are in fact determined by a series of cultural factors which give priority to procreation and a large number of descendants. Such systems of representation may have come into being in a variety of demographic contexts, but always within those that offered adaptive advantages. Indeed, in the economic and social contexts in which there is no old age pension and where manpower needs in the household, seen as a production unit, are high, a large number of progeny is both a guarantee for old age and a short-term advantage. If, as proposed by François Ascher (2005), we pursue the analogy and replace the death rate by the energy needs which diminish on account of a modal shift, because of a new lifestyle that consumes less energy, and also because of the progress of medicine, and if we replace the birth rate by the energy intake through food, which itself is controlled by a series of factors that foreground abundance and quantity and that associates copious eating with social progress, celebration, etc., then the increase in obesity can be seen as analogous with the demographic spurt. Figure 193 Energy Needs and Intake During the Nutrition Transition The transitional hypothesis is useful insofar as it allows us to mine the abundant theoretical heritage of demographic studies relating to the fall in birth rates so as to try to understand the social, economic and health conditions which determine consumption in the transformation of nutritional models (Poulain, 2009). However post-transitional development remains controversial. Two competing analyzes are available. The irst, following Notestein, considers that one has only to wait for the social and cultural processes that accompany and control the nutritional models to adjust to the energy needs that correspond to the new lifestyles. From this point of view, obesity is only a temporary problem that will concern three or four generations at 184 Findings most and will resolve itself with time. They could be seen as the lost generations of nutritional transition. The best way to manage this disease of the modern times would be to do nothing and wait for everything to settle down, for the nutritional equivalent of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to do its job. The second attitude does not “believe” in the principle of self-regulation and considers that, as in demographics, there are several possible post-transition scenarios. It is therefore advisable to intervene to steer developments in the direction that, on the basis of current knowledge, seems the most desirable. This second proposal argues in favour of the adoption of health policies that will change systems of social and cultural representation and encourage new eating habits that are better adapted to modern life. Levers of action are therefore nutritional or dietary education and pressure on prices (fat tax, sugar tax, etc.) and on advertising, either by its regulation or by obliging it to inance the promotion of products or services aimed at the “right direction”. Therefore, there are two approaches with regard to public health policies concerning obesity which are in opposition; one is more “liberal” and the other is more “interventionist”; the variants between the two extremes can be envisaged. The transitional perspective shows that it is relevant to develop two strategies concurrently: • The irst one is based on an individual-based paradigm and uses the diffusion of knowledge on healthy lifestyles through school education and health education. This given knowledge is supposed to help individuals to make the right choices in terms of lifestyle (food and physical activities). • The second one is based on the “ecological paradigm” which includes the anthropological and ethnic dimensions it assumes that one must improve the social environment to make the individuals change. To do that, an experimental work will be conducive to rethink the traditional Malaysian dishes, using nutritional knowledge, food sciences, culinary arts and sensorial analysis. The traditional Malaysian must be understood at the larger dimension which includes the Malay food, Chinese Malay food, Indian food and those of the minority’s dishes born from their heritages. The objective is to develop a body of recipes which are generally healthier with less energy and better nutritional proile and all without losing their acceptability. The inal evaluation will be carried out by a panel of professionals. This knowledge will be introduced in the curriculum of hospitality and culinary art programs under the form of methodologies and recipes. Finally, the professionals of the food supply chain and restaurant, industries that represent body image, related NGOs and associations will be invited to participate to the production of “good practices guides” and “charters of commitment”. Among the available tools to ight against the rise of obesity is nutrition and food education programmes that would play a leading role. However, most of the currently available programs were developed in western contexts (European and North-American). Therefore, the transfer of these programmes to a country such as Malaysia which is characterized by high food culture diversity and a very developed outside food consumption represent several issues. The purpose of the MFB is to highlight the evidence of ethnic food patterns from the perspective 185 Malaysian Food Barometer of food studies. This would then develop nutritional education programs and professional community-based actions involving restaurants, food services and food industries to increase the empowerment of both professional of the industry and consumers. The main goal of the MFB in collecting data related to obesity was not to measure the prevalence of obesity. Several epidemiological surveys have already done this work (Lim et al., 2000; Poh et al., 2003; Rampal & al., 2007; Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2008; Ismail et al., 2009). Our purpose was more to study the connection between BMI and food habits. Nevertheless, if we can compare the data with the largest epidemiological survey available, we can validate the sample and use our independent variables (like modernization, metropolization) to enhance our understanding of the phenomenon in Malaysia. 8.1 Body Mass Index Distribution Table 21 BMI Classes Figure 194 BMI Distribution 186 Findings 8.2 Prevalence in MFB (2013) versus Rampal et al. National study (2006) Table 22 Gender and Age Male Female Both sexes Rampal et MFB 2013 Rampal et MFB 2013 Rampal et MFB 2013 al., 2006 al., 2006 al., 2006 Overall age standardized age ≥ 15 years 9.6 (8.8, 10.5) 8.2 13.8 (13.0, 14.7) 10.9 11.7 (11.1, 12.4) 9.5 Overall age standardized age ≥ 20 years 10.1 (9.2, 11.0) 8.8 15.2 (14.3, 16.2) 12.04 12.6 (12.0, 13.4) 10.46 Table 23 Gender & Age per Age Classes Male Age classes Rampal et al., 2006 Female MFB 2013 Rampal et al., 2006 Both sexes MFB 2013 Rampal et al., 2006 MFB 2013 15-19 7.2 4.7 5.8 3.6 6.5 4.2 20-29 8.8 5.9 10.0 7.3 9.4 6.6 30-39 9.8 10.7 13.8 13.1 11.8 11.9 40-49 12.1 7.6 20.7 16.5 16.4 12.1 50-59 11.3 14.4 22.7 12.1 16.8 13.2 + 60 8.8 10.6 13.2 20 11.1 14.6 Table 24 Urbanization Male Zone Rampal & al. 2007 Female MFB 2013 Rampal & al. 2007 Both sexes MFB 2013 Rampal & al. 2007 MFB 2013 Rural 9.1 7.7 13.5 14 11.3 10.6 Urban 10.0 8.3 14.0 10.2 12.0 9.3 Table 25 Ethnicity Ethnic groups Malay Male Rampal & al. 2007 Female MFB 2013 Rampal & al. 2007 Both sexes MFB 2013 Rampal & al. 2007 MFB 2013 10.5 8.4 16.6 12 13.6 10.4 Chinese 8.4 5.4 8.5 3.8 8.5 4.6 Indian 9.8 14.7 17.2 18.5 13.5 16.5 Non-Malay Bumiputra When compared with the survey from “Rampal et al. national study”, it shows an almost 187 Malaysian Food Barometer identical situation as the classic socio-demographic criteria. For gender, differential superior prevalence for women was equivalent. The difference in the intensity of the prevalence may be attributed to the method of data collection. For Malay and Indian ethnicity groups, the development of obesity appears to be the strongest. However, the Malays topped the list in the Rampal et al. National study followed by the Indians while the reverse is true for the MFB. The collection methods and sample size could explain this difference. 8.3. Findings on BMI a) BMI and socio-descriptives variables (i) BMI and socio-descriptives variables (global population) Traditionally, obesity is linked with age, gender, urban/rural and status ethnicity level of education. Figure 195 Average BMI per Ethnicity (N = 2,000) 188 Findings Figure 196 BMI and Ethnicity (N = 2,000; P = 0,000) Figure 197 Average BMI per Level of Education (N = 2,000) 189 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 198 Average BMI per Ethnic Group and Modernization (for Malays) (N = 2,000) Figure 199 Average of BMI per Education Level and Ethnic Group (N = 1,627) 190 Findings Figure 200 BMI and Ethnicity (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Figure 201 BMI and Ethnicity by Gender (N = 2,000; P = 0.0000) 191 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 202 BMI and Gender by Ethnicity (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Figure 203 BMI and Level of Education (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) 192 Findings Figure 204 BMI and Age (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) Figure 205 BMI and Gender by Level of education (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) 193 Malaysian Food Barometer (ii) BMI and Socio-Descriptives Variables (Population Above 19 Years Old) Figure 206 BMI and Ethnicity (Without 15-19 Years Old) (N = 1,691 ; P = 0.000) Figure 207 Average BMI by Level of Modernization (Without 15-19 Years Old) (N = 2,000) 194 Findings Figure 208 Ethniity and Modernization (Without 15-19 Years Old) (N = 1;691; P = 0.002) Figure 209 BMI by Level of Education (Without 15-19 Years Old) (N = 1,691; P = 0.000) 195 Malaysian Food Barometer b) BMI and eating practices Figure 210 BMI and Eating Out (N = 2,000; P = 0.037) Figure 211 BMI and Eating Out by Gender (N = 2,000; P = 0.000) 196 Findings 9. Monitoring Food Crises by Listening to Weak Signals This part of the questionnaire is a small section that looked at risks. It is possible to expand it for the following edition of the Malaysian Food Barometer. It studies the hierarchy of risks perceived by the laymen. The sociology of risk points to the differences between the terms of secular and scientiic risk assessment. Experts use statistical tools and think in probabilistic terms. Risk perception by lay people is subject to the inluence of social factors. Thus the risk is seen most acutely in the social group distant centers of power and decision (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982), that familiar technology comes into play (a new technique and is considered unknown which is more dangerous than the traditional technology, it is the case for example of food irradiation which is considered more risky than canned sterilised). The sense of mastery and personal control is also critical; lying is seen as more dangerous than driving a car or even while the statistical risk is much lower (Slovic 1987, 1993). Finally, for the food industry, it seems that women “show more anxiety than men” and in countries as diverse as France, Japan, Belgium and Holland (Rozin et al., 1999). 9.1 Crisis Dynamics Analysis of the crisis shows changes in ive main steps. The irst is a lag phase that can last quite a long time. Some elements of the crisis are known, but the problem does not interest the general public as yet, as for now only some speciic subpopulation groups have developed sensitivity and some expertise on the matter. These individuals are often activists, in other words, social actors who consider themselves advanced in the construction of an issue and want to promote a new vision in order to make a difference. They can also be “learned” and more or less recognized as “experts”, acting on the margins of science. Activists are involved in the setting and theming of the problem, that is, its conceptual organization as well as the formulation of risk and explanation of its health, social and political consequences. They can sometimes adopt a posture of denunciation, showing or purporting to show that the danger has been voluntarily or involuntarily, underestimated or that there has been mismanagement or that groups with special interests have manipulated circumstances to their advantage. Chateauraynaud Francis and Didier Torny (1999) proposed to use a more neutral and descriptive of “whistleblowers” instead of the term “activist”. This phase can last long and, in some cases, for decades. During the second phase, the problem goes on the agenda of the media and will become increasingly more important. Those concerned would not only be the newspapers, radio stations, TV channels, but also the social media. The duration of this step is shorter. The media coverage can be measured by the intensity of the presence and the times of the theme in each different media. It is sometimes accompanied by social emotion or indignation aroused by the discovery of the problem and tends to affect more and more people. 197 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 212 Food crisis timeline The third step is decision making. The administrative and political authorities take the stage in emergency situations and make decisions in “crisis management” in order to bring the situation back to normal. This can lead to bans, temporary withdrawals from the market and regulatory changes. The actors of these decisions vary depending on the context, the spatial scale (local, regional, national and international) and sector (private, public and mixed). The duration of this phase is very short and the decisions are “hot” under the glare of the media and sometimes in a situation of great stress. The fourth phase of the cycle is the ebb of the crisis. Decisions, be it bans, withdrawal from the market, tighter controls, or the care and compensation for victims, take effect and the pressure falls and the situation returns more or less rapidly to normal. The question leaves the limelight of the political and media scene. Sometimes however, more or less strong aftershocks occur and restore a current to the crisis, constituting a ifth phase. Policymakers may need to complete the old discisions taken by the new measures. 9.2 Crisis Monitoring Level 1: Listening to Weak Signals The dynamics of the crisis allows for consideration the establishment of several listening devices and anticipating service management. They can grow into two speciic levels of the cycle and have complementary roles. During the sleep phase and coniguration, it is possible to listen to and during the media, “weak signals”, that is, the theming of the crisis (ie its conceptual organization) that is to be seen. The theory of the “weak signals” irst appeared in the 1970s. It postulates that, low signal intensity, low visibility and a “herald” character can be identiied before an event occurs (Ansoff, 1975). It would be possible for those who can hear and interpret the weak signals to be able to see the crises well in advance and thus build a decision that could be used at the appropriate time, thus avoiding the decision too “hot” or “under pressure”. This theory was developed in the framework of strategic management and has led to economic intelligence. It then spread to other sectors such as public health or policy decision. 198 Findings Listening to known, recurring and spreading as an epidemic phenomena function was particularly relevant. Standby devices, anticipating the likely occurrence of a problem, were then developed. Applying this model to crisis management is an extension of the original ield theory. However, the risks “emerging” is particularly challenging because the issue is not fully problematised. In this perspective, the main problems to solve are the identiication and interpretation of weak signals. Since they coexist with strong signals and information, the task becomes even more dificult when we do not know exactly what we trying to listen to. Once a potential crisis is identiied, two main approaches are possible, the population-based analysis or the thematic analysis. The irst identiies the social groups involved and studies their evolution over time. Are there positive movements of incoming and outgoing? The second approach identiies the argument portfolio and trends. It is then possible to cross the two dimensions to see the types of people are sensitive to the types of argument. Figure 213 Food crisis timeline weak signals 9.3 Social Representations of Food Risk Perception: Malaysian Food Pattern a) Research Aims In all human societies, food and risk are deeply linked and food models are organized in order to manage this risk and its perceptions. This part aims to analyze the risk perception in food in the Malaysian society and to identify their social and ethnic characteristics. The different topics were chosen from the exploratory step as well from other surveys in a comparative approach. b) Risk Perception in Food 199 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 214 Risk Perception in Food (Combination of 1st, 2nd, 3rd Choices) (N = 2,000) Figure 215 Risk Perception in Food (Combination of 1st, 2nd, 3rd Choices) (N = 6,000) If we compare these results with those of the Barometer of the French Ministry of Agriculture, we could observe two types of differences. In Malaysia, the risks perceived as “more important” are the risks associated with the industrialization of the food chain. These are traditionally grouped under the term “food safety”. This includes those related to the use of dyes and preservatives, and those related to poor microbiological quality of food and barriers relating to the 200 Findings presence of residues of agricultural pollutants. Perceived risks are “less important” as these are related to risks for which scientiic evidence is not conclusive and for which controversy exists. These range from GMOs, food allergies to foodborne epidemics (avian lu, mad cow etc). Finally, the perception of nutritional risk (unbalanced diet) is almost the same as in France. The correlation with the level of modernization highlights a positive relationship with the second risk category. Figure 216 Risk Perception in Food (Combination of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Choices) Comparison Between Malaysia and France (N = 2,000) 201 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 217 Risk Perception in Food (1st Choice) (N = 2,000) c) Social & Ethnical Differenciation (i) Risk Perception and Urbanization Figure 218 Risk Perception for Urban/Rural 202 Findings Figure 219 Risk Perception and Urbanization (N = 2,000, P = 0.001) 203 Malaysian Food Barometer (ii) Risk Perception and Age GMO was mainly mentioned by those in the age group of 20-29. Food epidemic was mentioned by the 15 to 39 years old group. Figure 220 Risk Perception and Age (N = 2,000, P = 0.005) 204 Findings (iii) Ethnic Group Figure 221 Risk Perception and Ethnic Group (N = 2,000) Figure 222 Risk Perception and Ethnicity (N = 2,000, P = 0.005) Regarding the correlation with the level of education, respondents with loweest level of education were over-represented in pesticides while those with the higher level were over-represented in GMO and germs and bacteria. 205 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 223 Risk Perception ad Education (N = 2,000, P = 0.005) Figure 224 Risk Perception and Demographics Combined (N = 2,000) 206 Findings Figure 225 Risk and Modernization (N = 2,000; P = 0.003) Figure 226 Risk and Modernization for Malays (N = 1,176; P = 0.006) 207 Malaysian Food Barometer 208 209 Malaysian Food Barometer 210 CONCLUSION & PERSPECTIVES 211 Malaysian Food Barometer 212 Conclusion & Perspectives CONCLUSION & PERSPECTIVES The Malaysian Food Barometer allowed the comprehensive study of the social and cultural determinants of human food consumption. It offers a global reading of the contemporary Malaysian food habits and provides useful data at different levels: • Food intakes (food intake whether meals or taken between meals) analyzed in terms of composition, structures of places, forms of socialization ...; • Eating out, analyzed at the previous week and the day before the survey; • Presence of rice and noodles in the meals; • Beverages; • Socio-cultural representations on food; • Malaysian emblematic dishes; • Obesity; • Monitoring food crises by listening weak signals. With the data that focused on food intake, the contexts of consumption and social representations related to the food, the MFB supplements the already available data obtained from previous nutritional surveys. These data will be useful to the different categories of stakeholders and economic actors of the following sectors: • • • • • • Catering, catering and food-service professionals; Food and agricultural industries; Tourism; Public health and nutrition; Academics of different disciplines; Policymakers. Of course, this report is not exhaustive and the empirical datas are far from exhausted. They have already provided and will provide the basis of a series of scientiic articles. They also will allow the comparative analysis with exisitng surveys. For future research, this irst edition of the MFB will be form the baseline in order to make a dynamic comparison. It will also facilitate the establishment of other comparative analyzes with various European countries in which parallel studies are being conducted using similar methodology to the MFB. The barometer is a contribution of the “Food Studies” to the understanding of the impact of modernization on the eating habits and food lifestyles, in multi-ethnic societies. He leads an interdisciplinary dialogue about the inluences and consequences of changes in the eating patterns on contemporary challange posed by the non-communicable diseases. In doing so, it is a step and a tool for a comprehensive relection on the health of the population. The MFB is a new data source that will greatly facilitate the study of the evolution of food cultures and eating habits in Malaysia. It will also set up a wider dialogue, based on empirical data between the spheres of social sciences and nutrition, public health, economics and political 213 Malaysian Food Barometer science. Through the analysis of the inluence of modernization on social hierarchies and ethnic cultures, and ultimately on food eating patterns and food styles, the MFB will revisit theories of convergence in trying to show the inluence and inertia of ethnic food cultures in societies such as Malaysia that is undergoing rapid industrialization and social change in one generation, along with the rural-urban migration which this entails. With the MFB research tool and the data it generates, the Malaysian academic landscape bcomes more enriched in many disciplinary contexts and theoretical perspectives: the Sociology and Anthropology of Food; Socio-Economy of Consumption, Medicine, especially Diabetes and Obesity Studies; Ethnic Studies; Modernization Theory; Class Theory. Food modernization, which refers to the practices linked with the modernization factors (household size, incomes, education, number of people living under the same roof) takes the form of: • Increasing the frequency of eating out; • Individualization of the lunch and dinner structures but a socialization of the food intakes; • Development of the values of pleasure, of the commensality in the same time then medicalisation; • However, the inluence of cultural factors are still strong both in the representations and the practices. Malaysian context and consequences for the non-communicable diseases ighting policy. The characteristics of the context are: • The very high frequency of outside-home food consumption. More than 64% of the people are having at least on meal outside per day. One of the highest rates in the world and a strong positive correlation with modernization factors. • However unlike the American context in which the level of eating out is equivalent, the Malaysian meals are always highly socialised. • The strong differention of eating out regarding gender, level of education and ethnicity. • The ethnicization of the food lifestyles that remains important. Because of this context: 1. Nutrition programs developed in Europe and USA cannot be transferred without the risk of socio-cultural resistances and counter-productive effects. 2. Public health messages must be adapted to the cultural and socio-economical contexts in Malaysia. 3. The irst front line stakeholders are the professionals in the catering and restaurant 214 Conclusion & Perspectives industry and the food industry. 4. The Malaysian Food Barometer can be a complement and a supplement of ongoing ministry efforts to address the current problem of obesity and non-communicable diseases. 5. The data of MFB can help to move the health policies from being based on a population approach to a target group-based approach and to develop not only “science based” but also a “social reality” based policies. 215 Malaysian Food Barometer 216 217 Malaysian Food Barometer 218 REFERENCES 219 Malaysian Food Barometer 220 References REFERENCES Amselle, J.-L. and M’Bokolo, E. (Eds.) (1985) Au Coeur de l’ethnie. Ethnies, tribalisme et Etat en Afrique. Paris: La Découverte. Ansoff, I. H. (1975) “Managing strategic Surprise by Response to Weak Signals”. California Management Review, V.XVIII, 2: pp. 21-33. Anthias, F. (2001) “The Concept of ‘Social Division’ and Theorising Social Stratiication: Looking at Ethnicity and Class”, Sociology, 35: pp. 835-854. Ascher, F. (1995) Métapolis ou l’avenir des villes. Paris: Odile Jacob. Ascher, F. (2005) Le mangeur hyper moderne, une igure de l’individu éclectique. Paris: Odile Jacob. Aymard, M. ; Grignon, C. and Sabban, F. (1993) Le Temps de manger: alimentation, emploi du temps et rythmes sociaux. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme & INRA. Aziz, R. A. (2012) New Economic Policy and the Malaysian multiethnic middle class, Asian Ethnicity, Volume 13, 1, pp. 29-46. Barbier, J.-C. (2005) « La précarité, une catégorie française à l’épreuve de la comparaison internationale », Revue française de sociologie, 46(2): pp. 351 371. Barth, F. (1969) Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference, Bergen Oslo Universitetsforlaget. Baudrillard, J. (1969) “La morale des objets. Fonction du signe et logique de classe”, in Communications, 13, pp. 23-50. Benoist, J. (1998) Hindouismes créoles : Mascareignes, Antilles. Paris : C.T.H.S. Bernabé, J.; Chamoiseau, P. and Coniant Raphaël (1989) Éloge de la créolité. Paris: Gallimard. Bertheleu, H. (2007) “ Sens et usages de “l’ethnicization”, Revue européenne des migrations internationales 23(2). Avaiblable at: http://remi.revues.org/4167. Consulted on 10 January 2014. Bessière, J. (2008) “Eating Elsewhere, Eating “Locally”: The Role of Regional Gastronomy in Tourism”, Revue Tourisme, 16: pp. 155-161. Bessière, J. and Tibère, L. (2013) “Traditional food and tourism: French tourist experience and food heritage in rural spaces”, Journal of the Science of Food Agriculture, 93: pp. 3420–3425. Bolton, J. M. (1972) “Food taboos among the Orang Asli in West Malaysia: A potential nutritional hazard”, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 25: pp. 789-799. BMCE TRADE (2013). Available at: http//www.bmcetrade.com/fr/observer-les-pays/malaisie/presentation?mots_a_surligner =malaisie. Consulted on 10 January 2014. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Translation of La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris : Editions de Minuit . Bourdieu, P. (1987) “What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical Existence of Groups”, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32: pp. 1-18. Bray, G. A. and Bouchard, C. (1998) Handbook of Obesity. New York: Marcel Dekker. Briant, P. (1998) Histoire de l’Empire perse : de Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris : le Grand livre du mois. Brissenden, R. (1996) South East Asian Food. Ringwood: Penguin Group Australia. Cahnman, W.J. (1968) “The stigma of obesity”. Sociological quarterly 9(3): pp. 283-299. Cawley, J. (2011) The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Obesity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chateauraynaud, F. and Torny, D. (1999) Les Sombres précurseurs : Une Sociologie pragmatique de l’alerte et du risque de Paris, Editions de l’EHESS. Chauvel, L. (2006) Les classes moyennes à la dérive, Paris : Seuil. 221 Malaysian Food Barometer Chiva, M. (1997) Cultural aspects of meals and meal frequency. British Journal of Nutrition, 77(Supplement S1), S21 S28. Clammer, J. R. (1980) Sociology of the Baba Communities of Malaysia and Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Clapson, M. and Hutchison, R. (Eds.). (2010). Suburbanization in Global Society (Vol. 10). Emerald. Condominas, G.; Fischler, C. and Poulain, J.-P. (2003) “ Pour une socio-anthropologie de l’alimentation”, Lettre scientiique de l’Institut Français pour la Nutrition, 89: pp. 1-20. Condominas, G. (1980) L’espace social à propos de l’Asie du Sud-Est. Paris: Flammarion. Condominas, G. (1990), From Lawa to Mon, from Saa’ to Thai: Historical and anthropological aspects of Southeast Asian social spaces. Canberra: Australian National University, Dept. of Anthropology, Research School of Paciic Studies. Corbeau, J.-P. and Poulain, J.-P. (2002) Penser l’alimentation : Imaginaire et rationalité. Toulouse : Editions Privat. Corbeau, J.-P. (1992) “Rituels alimentaires et mutations sociales ». Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 92: pp. 101 120. Corbeau, J.-P. (1994) “Goût des sages, sages dégoûts, métissage des gouts”, in International de l’imaginaire n° 1. Le metis culturel. Paris: Actes Sud, pp. 164-182. Corbeau, J.-P. (2002) “Perception par les adolescents des messages alimentaires”. Cahiers de Nutrition et de Diététique, 37(2): pp. 191 198. Department of Statistics Malaysia (2012) “Mean Monthly Gross Household Income by Ethnicity and Strata”. Available at: http://www.epu.gov.my/en/household-income-poverty Desrosières, A. (1998) The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Devasahayam T. W. (2003) “ When We Eat What We Eat: Classifying Crispy Foods in Malaysian Tamil cuisine”, Anthropology of food. Available at: http://aof.revues.org/1458. Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982) Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Douglas, Mary (1971) “Deciphering a meal”, in Geertz Clifford (Ed.), Myth, Symbol, and Culture. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 101: pp. 61-82. Douglas, M. (1975) Implicit meanings:Essays in Anthropology. London : Routledge, Kegan Paul. Douglas, M. (1984) Food in the social order, Studies of Food and Festivities in three American Communities, New York: Russell Sage Foudation. Drulhe, M. (1996) Santé et société. Le façonnement sociétal de la santé. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia (2013) The Malaysian Economy In Figures 2013. Available at: http://www.epu.gov.my/en/the-malaysian-economy-in-igures-2013 Embong, A. R. (2002) State-led Modernization and the New Middle Class in Malaysia. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave. Embong, A. R. (2007) “New Middle Classes in Asia”, in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 3198-3201. Errington, F.; Gewertz, D. and Fujikura, T. (2013) The Noodle Narratives. Berkeley: University of California Press. Esnouf, C.; Russel, M., and Bricas, N. (Eds.) (2013) Food System Sustainability: Insights From duALIne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fischler, C. and Masson, E. (Eds.) (2007) Manger : Français, Européens et Américains face à l’alimentation. Paris: Odile Jacob. Fischler, C. (1979) La nourriture. Pour une anthropologie culturelle de l’alimentation. Paris: Seuil. Fischler, C. (1980) “ Food Habits, Social Change, and the Nature/Culture Dilemma”, Social Science Information, 19: pp. 937-953. 222 References Fischler, C. (1990) L’Homnivore. Paris: Odile Jacob. Fischler, C. (2011) “Commensality, Society, and Culture”, Social Science Information 50 (3-4): 528–548. Gan, W. Y., Mohd Nasir, M. T.; Zalilah, M. S. and Hazizi, A. S. (2011) “Direct and indirect effects of sociocultural inluences on disordered eating among Malaysian male and female university students. A mediation analysis of psychological distress”, Appetite, 56 (3): pp. 778-83. Gans, H. J. (1979) “Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic groups and cultures in America”, Ethnic and racial studies, 2(1): pp. 1-19. Garine (de), I. (1979) “Culture et nutrition”, Communications, 31: pp. 70-91. Garine (de), I. (1994) “The diet and nutrition of human populations”, in Ingold Tim, Companion encyclopaedia of anthropology. London: Routledge, pp. 226-264. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic. Ghasarian, C. (Ed.) (2002), De l’ethnographie à l’anthropologie rélexive. Nouveaux terrains, nouvelles pratiques, nouveaux enjeux. Paris: Armand Colin. Giddens, A. (1973) The class structure of the advanced societies. London: Hutchinson. GIRA (2012) La Consommation Alimentaire Hors Domicile France 2011-2016 Marché de la CAHD. Available at: http://www. alyht.net/boutboul.pdf Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Goody, J. (1982) Cooking,Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gordon, M. (1978) Human nature, class, and ethnicity. New York : Oxford University Press. Grignon, C. (1996) Rule, fashion, work: The social genesis of the contemporary French pattern of meals. Food and Foodways, 6(3-4), pp. 205 241. Grignon, C. and Grignon, C. (1999) Long-term trends in food consumption: A French portrait. Food and Foodways, 8(3), pp. 151 174. Gronow, J. (1997) The sociology of taste. London & New York: Routledge. Harvard, School of public Health (2014) The Nutrition Transition. Obesity Prevention Source. Available at: http://www.hsph. harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/nutrition-transition/ Herpin, N. (1988) Le repas comme institution, compte-rendu d’une enquête exploratoire. Revue française de Sociologie, 29(3), pp. 503 521. Hirschman, C. (1975) “Ethnic and Social Stratiication In Peninsular Malaysia”, The Arnold and Caroline Rose Monograph of the American Sociological Association. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Hirschman, C. (1987) “The Meaning and Measurement of ethnicity in Malaysia: An Analysis of Census Classiication”, The Journal of Asian studies, 46(3): pp. 555-582. Hirschman, C. (2011) “The demographic transition in Asia: 1950 to 2050”, Keynote address presented on 11 July 2011 at the conference on “Population Dynamism of Asia: Issues and Challenges Ahead”, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Hirschman, C. and Guest, P. (1990) “The Emerging Demographic Transition of Southeast Asia”, Population and development Review, 16(1): pp. 121-152. Holton, R. J. and Bryan, S. T. (1989) “Has Class Analysis a Future? Max Weber and the challenge of Liberalism to Gemeinschaftlich accounts of class”, in Holton Robert Jhon and Bryan S. Turner, Max Weber on Economics and Society. London: Routledge Revivals, pp. 109-135. Hutton, T. A. (2003) “Service industries, globalization, and urban restructuring within the Asia-Paciic: new development trajectories and planning responses”, Progress in Planning, 61(1): pp. 1-74. INDEX MUNDI Malaysia (2013). Available at: http://www.indexmundi.com/malaysia/demographics_proile.html. Consulted on 10 January 2014. 223 Malaysian Food Barometer Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and post-modernization. Culture, Economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Isaacs, H. R. (1975) The Idols of the Tribe. Group Identity and Political Change. New York: Harper & Row. Ismail, M. N.; Zawiah, H.; Chee, S.S. and Ng, K.K. (1995). “Prevalence of obesity and chronic energy deiciency (CED) in adult Malaysians”. Malaysian Journal of Nutrition, 1(1): pp. 1-9. Ismail, M. N.; Chee, S.S.; Nawaki, H.; Yusoff, K.; Lim, T.O. and James, W.P.T. (2002). Obesity in Malaysia. Obesity reviews, 3(3): pp. 203-208. Ismail, M. N.; Poh, B. K.; Zawiah, H. and Henry, C. J. (2003) “New predictive equations for estimation of basal metabolic rates of adolescents: tropics versus temperate”. Forum Nutrition, 56: pp. 250-253. Ismail, M. N.; Poh, B. K. and Zawiah, H. (Eds.) (2008) “Strategy for the Prevention of Obesity-Malaysia”. Malaysia Association for the Study of Obesity. Ismail, M. N.; Ruzita, A. T.; Norimah, A. K.; Poh, B. K.; Nik Shanita, S.; Nik Mazlan, M.; Roslee, R.; Nurunnajiha, N.; Wong, J. E.; Nur Zakiah, M.S. and Raduan, S. (2009) “Prevalence and trends of overweight and obesity in two cross-sectional studies of Malaysian children, 2002-2008”. MASO 2009 Scientiic Conference on Obesity: obesity and our environment. Ismail, M. N. (Ed.) (2010). Malaysian Dietetary Guidelines: National Coordinating Committee on Food and Nutrition, Putrajaya: National Coordinating Committee on Food and Nutrition, Ministry of Health Malaysia. Ismail, M. N. (2002) “ The nutrition and health transition in Malaysia”, Public health nutrition, 5(1A): pp. 191-195. Jaafar, J. (2004) “Emerging trends of urbanization in Malaysia”, Journal of The Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 1: pp. 4354. Karupaiah T.; Swee W. C.; Siew Y. L.; Ng, B. K. and Chinna, K. (2013) “Dietary Health Behaviors of Women Living in High Rise Dwellings: A Case Study of an Urban Community in Malaysia”, Journal of Community Health, 38: pp. 163-171. Kymlicka, W. (2001) La citoyenneté multiculturelle. Une théorie libérale du droit des minorités. Paris : Editions La Découverte. Keyes, C. (1976) “Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of Ethnic Group” Ethnicity, 3: pp. 202-213. Khor G. L. and Zalilah, M. S. (2008) “The Ecology of Health and Nutrition of “Orang Asli”(Indigenous People) Women and Children in Peninsular Malaysia”, Tribes and Tribals, 2: pp. 67-77. Lambert, J-L. (1987) L’Évolution des modèles de consommation alimentaires en France. Paris: Lavoisier. Laporte, C. and Poulain, J.-P. (2014) “ Restauration au travail : le rôle des dispositifs techniques dans la synchronisation de l’alimentation. France-Royaume Uni”, Ethnologie francaise, XLIV(1): pp. 861-872. Ledrut, R. (Ed.), Clément, S.; Gorge, J.-P. and Saint-Raymond, O. (1979) L’évolution des pratiques alimentaires sous leurs aspects qualitatifs. Toulouse: CERS. Lee, C.L.; Norimah, A.K. and Ismail, M. N. (2010). Association of energy intake and macronutrient composition with overweight and obesity in Malay women from Klang Valley. Malaysian Journal of Nutrition, 16(2): pp. 251-260. Leete, R. (1996) Malaysia’s demographic transition: rapid development, culture and politics. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Levenstein, H. A. (1988) Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966 [1964]) “ The Culinary Triangle”, The Partisan Review, 33: pp. 586–96. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1968 [1958]) Structural Anthropology. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Lim, H. M. and Chee, H. L. (1998) “ Nutritional status and reproductive health of Orang Asli women in two villages in Kuantan, Pahang”, Malaysian journal of nutrition, 4(1): pp. 31-54. Lim, T.O.; Ding, L.M.; Zaki, M.; Suleiman, A.B.; Fatimah, S.; Siti, S.; Tahir, A. and Maimunah, A.H. (2000) “Distribution of body weight, height and body mass index in a national sample of Malaysian adults”. Medical Journal Malaysia, 55(1): pp. 108-128. 224 References Mahari, M. Z. (2012) “A demographic transition in Malaysia: the changing roles of Journal of the department of statistics, 1. Available http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&id=1301&Itemid=96&lang=en. women”, at: Mahbubani, K. (2013) The great convergence: Asia, The west and the Logic of One World. New York: PublicAffairs. Mäkelä, J. (2009) Meals: the social perspective. In H. L. Meiselman, Meals in science and practice: interdisciplinary research and business applications. Oxford: Woodhead Publishing, pp. 37-49. Malaysian Dietary Guidelines (2010), Minister http://www.moh.gov.my/images/gallery/Garispanduan/diet/KM1.pdf. of Health. Available at: Manderson, L. (1981) “ Roasting, smoking and dieting in response to birth: Malay coninement in cross-cultural perspective”, Social science and medicine, 15(4): pp. 509-520. Martiniello, M. (1995) L’ethnicité dans les sciences sociales contemporaines. Paris: PUF. Martiniello, M. (2003) “Researching and teaching in the ield of ethnic and racial studies: A view from continental Europe”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 26(3): pp. 537-545. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848) The Communist Manifesto. New York: Penguin group. Masron, T. ; Yaakob, U., Ayob, N. M. and Mokhtar, A. S. (2012) “ Population and spatial distribution of urbanization in Peninsular Malaysia 1957 - 2000”. Geograia: Malaysia Journal of Society and Space, 8(2): pp. 20 29. Maurin, E. and Goux, D. (2012) Les nouvelles classes moyennes. Paris: Seuil. Mennell, S. (1985) All Manners of Food. Eating and Taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Mennell, S.; Murcott, A. and H. van Otterloo, A. (1992) The sociology of food: eating, diet and culture. London: Sage. Merton, R. K. (1968 [1949]) Social Theory and Social Structure. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Milner, A. (2008) The Malays. Oxford: Blackwell. Ministry of Health Malaysia (2008a) Malaysian Adult Nutrition Survey 2003 (vol. 1): Methodology, Putrajaya: Ministry of Health. Ministry of Health Malaysia (2008b) Malaysian Adult Nutrition Survey 2003 (vol. 4): Meal Pattern of Adults Aged 18 to 59 Years, Putrajaya: Ministry of Health. Mintz, S. W. and Du Bois, C. M. (2002) “The anthropology of food and eating”, Annual Review of anthropology, 31: pp. 99-119. Nisbet, R. (1959) “The Decline and Fall of Social Class”, Paciic Sociological Review, 2(1): pp. 119-129. Norimah, A.K.; Saiah, M.; Jamal, K.; Siti, H.; Zuhaida, H.; Rohida, S.; Fatimah, S.; Siti, N.; Poh, B.K.; Kandiah, M.; Zalilah, M.S.; Wan Manan, W.M.; Fatimah, S. and Azmi, M.Y. (2009) “Food consumption patterns: Findings from the Malaysian Adult Nutrition Survey (MANS)”. Malaysian Journal of Nutrition, 14(1): pp. 25-39. Olmedo, E. and Mansor, M. N. (2012) “Micro sociological analysis in managing conlict transformation: the luidity of ethnic identity in the workplace, Malaysia”, Malaysian Journal of History, Politics & Strategic Studies, 39(1): pp. 187-208. Omran, A. R. (1971) “The epidemiological transition. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 49(1): pp. 509-538. Pakulski, J. and Waters, M. (1996) The Death of Class. London: Sage. Picheral, H. (1989) “Géographie de la transition épidémiologique”. Annales de géographie XCVIIIème année, n° 546: pp. 129151. Pigeyre, M.; Duhamel, A.; Poulain, J.-P.; Rousseaux, J.; Barbe, P., Jeanneau, S.; Tibère, L. and Romon, M. (2011) “Inluence of social factors on weight-related behaviors according to gender in the French adult population”, Appetite, 58(2): pp. 703-709. Poh, B. K.; Saiah, M.Y.; Tahir, A.; Siti, H.M.D.; Siti, N.N.; Norimah, A.Karim; Manan, W.W.; Mirnalini, K.; Zalilah, M.S.; Azmi, M.Y. and Fatimah, S. (2010) “Physical Activity Pattern and Energy Expenditure of Malaysian Adults: Findings from the Malaysian Nutrition Survey (MANS)”. Malaysian Journal of Nutrition, 16(1): pp. 13-37. 225 Malaysian Food Barometer Popkin, B. M. (2003) “The Nutrition Transition in the Developing World”. Development Policy Review, 21 (5-6): pp. 581–597. Popkin, B. M. (2006) “Global nutrition dynamics: the world is shifting rapidly toward a diet linked with noncommunicable diseases”. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84: pp. 289-298 Poulain, J.-P. ; Delorme, J.-M., Gineste, M. and Laporte, C. (1997). Les nouvelles pratiques alimentaires : Entre commensalisme et vagabondage (Programme « Aliment Demain »). France, Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche, Ministère de l’Education nationale, Ministère de la Recherche et de la Technologie. Poulain, J.-P.; Guignard, R.; Michaud, C. and Escalon, H. (2010) “Les repas : distribution journalière, structure, lieux et convivialité”, in Hélène Escalon, Claire Bossard and François Beck (eds.), Baromètre santé nutrition, Paris: INPES. Available at: http://www.inpes.sante.fr/nouveautes-editoriales/2010/barometre-sante-nutrition-2008.asp. Poulain, J.-P.; Smith, W.; Laporte, C.; Tibère, L.; Ismail, N. M.; Roser, S.; Anis, Y. Y.; Abourish, S.; Aloysius, M.; Mansor, M. N.; Ari Ragavan, N. and Shamsul, A. B. (2014) “Studying the consequences of modernization for ethnic food patterns: The cas of the Malaysian Food Barometer (MFB)”. Anthropology of Food. (Submitted). Poulain, J.-P. and Tibère, L. (2000) “Mondialisation, métissage et créolisation alimentaire. De l’intérêt du “ laboratoire” réunionnais”, Bastidiana, 31-32: pp. 225-242. Poulain, J.-P. and Tibère, L. (2008) “Alimentation et précarité”, Anthropology of food. Available at: http://aof.revues.org/4773. Poulain, J.-P. (1985) Anthroposociologie de la cuisine et des manières de table. Lille : ANRT. Poulain, J.-P. (1996) “Les nouveaux comportements alimentaires”, Revue technique des hôtels et des restaurants, 552: pp. 52-58. Poulain, J.-P. (Ed.) (1997a) Eating and drinking habits and cultural identity (I) and (II), Vietnamese studies, 55(3): 5-190, 55(4): pp. 5-251. Poulain, J.-P. (1997b) “La nourriture de l’autre: entre délices et dégoûts”, L’internationale de l’imaginaire, (7): pp. 115-139. Poulain, J.-P. (2000) “Les dimensions sociales de l’obésité”. In : Obésité, dépistage et prévention chez l’enfant. Expertise collective. Paris: INSERM. Poulain, J.-P. (2001) Manger aujourd’hui. Attitudes, Normes et Pratiques. Toulouse: Privat. Poulain, J.-P. (2002a), Sociologies de l’alimentation, les mangeurs et l’espace social alimentaire. Paris : PUF. Poulain, J.-P. (2002b), “The contemporary diet in France: “ de-structuration” or from commensalism to “ vagabond feeding” ”, Appetite, 38: pp. 1-13. Poulain, J.-P. (2006) “Combien de repas par jour ? Normes culturelles et normes médicales en Polynésie Française”. Journal des anthropologues, 106-107 : pp. 245 268. Poulain, J.-P. (2008) “Gastronomic Heritages and Their Tourist Valorisations”. Revue Tourisme, 16: pp. 1-18. Available at: http://www.revue-espaces.com/librairie/8504/gastronomic-heritages-patromonialisation-tourist-valorisation.html. Poulain, J.-P. (2009) Sociologie de l’obésité. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Poulain, J.-P. (Ed.) (2012) Dictionnaire des cultures alimentaires. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Poulain, J.-P. (2014) “Le baromètre alimentaire malaisien pour une étude de la « modernization » de l’alimentation en contexte multiculturel”. Lettre de l’AFRASE, 84-85: pp. 23-26. Lee, P. Y.; Cheah, W.L.; Chang, C. T. and Siti Raudzah, G. (2012) “Childhood obesity, self-esteem, and health-related quality of life among urban primary school in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia”, Malaysian Journal of Nutrition, 2: pp. 207-219. Rampal, L.; Rampal, S.; Khor, G. L.; Azhar, M. Z.; Shaie, B. O.; Ramlee, B. R.; Sirajoon, N. G. and Jayanthi, K. (2007) “A national study on the prevalence of obesity among 16,127 Malaysians”, Asia Paciic journal of clinical nutrition, 16(3): pp. 561–566. Rozin, P.; Fischler, C.; Imada, S.; Sarubin, A. and Vrzesniewski, A. (1999) “Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France : Possible implications for the diet-health debate”, Appetite, 33(2): pp. 163-80. 226 References Ronzy, P. (2011) L’alimentation malaisienne, un outil de gestion de la multiculturalité ? Master dissertation Food social sciences. Université Toulouse II Le Mirail. Roser, S. (2012) Étude préliminaire pour un baromètre alimentaire en situation multiculturelle : le Malaysian Food Barometer Survey. Master dissertation Food social sceinces. Université Toulouse II Le Mirail. Saint-Pol (de), T. (2006) “Le dîner des français : un synchronisme alimentaire qui se maintient”. Économie et statistique, (400): pp. 45 69. Saussure (de), F. (1995 [1916]) Cours de linguistique générale. Paris : Payot & Rivages. Semprini, A. (2000) Le multiculturalisme. Paris : Presses universitaires de France. Shamsul, A. B. (1999) “From Orang Kaya Baru to Malayu Baru: cultural construction of the Malay “new rich””, in Pinches Michael, Culture and privilege in capitalist Asia. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 104-128. Shamsul, A. B. (2001) “The deinition of politics and transformation of Malaysian pluralism”, in Hefner Robert W., The Politics of Multiculturalism: Pluralism and Citizenship in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Shamsul, A. B. (2010) “We talk conlict, http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=45032. but walk cohesion”, The Sun. Available at: Shamsul, A. B. (2012) “From hunger to obesity: Confronting the social reality of modernity and food habits in Malaysia”, A paper for the National Convention on Food Security in Malaysia: Strategies for the Future, Academy of Science Malaysia (ASM), Putrajaya. Shils, E. A. (1957) “Primordial, personal, sacred and civil ties: some particular observations of sociological research and theory”, British Journal of Sociology, 8: pp. 130-145. Simmel, G. (1997 [1910]) “Sociology of the Meal”, in David Frisby and Mike Featherstone (eds), Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings. London: Sage, pp. 130-136. Slovic, P. (1987) “Perception of risk”, Science, 236: pp. 280-285. Slovic, P. (1993) “Perceived risk, trust and democracy”, Risk Analysis, 13, 6: pp. 675-682. Smith, W. (1999) “The contribution of a Japanese irm to the cultural construction of the new rich in Malaysia”, in Pinches Michael, Culture and privilege in capitalist Asia. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 111-136. Sobal, J. (1991) “Obesity and nutritional sociology: a model for coping with stigma of obesity”, Clinical sociology review, 9: pp. 21-32. Sudha, S. (1997) “Family Size, Sex Composition and Children’s Education: Ethnic Differentials Over Development in Peninsular Malaysia”, Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, 51(2): pp. 139-151. Tan, T. W. (1982) Income Distribution and Determination in West Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Taylors, C. (1992) Multiculturalisme. Différences et démocratie. Paris : Editions Flammarion. Tee, E. S. (1980) An annotated bibliography of nutrition research in Malaysia (1900-1979). Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Tee, E. S. (1994) Selected annotated bibliography of research publications and resource materials (1980-1993) in food, nutrition and health promotion in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Food Technology Research Centre. Tee, E. S. (1999) “Nutrition of Malaysians: where are we heading?”, Malaysian Journal of Nutrition, 5 (1-2): pp. 87-109. Tibère, L. and Aloysius, M. (2013) “Malaysia as food-haven destination: The vision and its sustainability”, Asia-Paciic Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 2(1): pp. 37-51. Tibère, L. (1997) “Promoting Vietnamese gastronomic heritage on the tourist market” in Eating and drinking habits and cultural identity, Vietnamese Studies. Hanoi, 4: pp. 97-126. Tibère, L. (2006) “ Manger créole : interactions identitaires et insularité à La Réunion”, Ethnologie Française, XXXVI(3): pp. 509-518. 227 Malaysian Food Barometer Tibère, L. (2009) L’alimentation dans le vivre-ensemble multiculturel. L’exemple de La Réunion. Paris: L’Harmattan. Tibère, L. (2013) “Alimentation et vivre-ensemble. Le cas de la créolisation”, in Christine Jourdan and Kathleen C. Riley, Glocalisation alimentaire, Anthropologie et société, 37(2): pp. 27-43. Trémolières, J. (Ed.) (1968) Manuel élémentaire d’alimentation humaine. Paris: Editions sociales françaises. Tocqueville (de), A. (1980 [1949]) On Democracy, Revolution and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Touraine, A. (1981) “The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements”, Sociology, 15: pp. 634-636. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Paciic, Direction of the Statistics Division. (2013) Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Paciic 2013 (p. 324). Bangkok: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Paciic. USDA, United States Department of Agriculture. Nutrition Monitoring Division. Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII): One Day’s Food Intake Data for Men 19-50 Years of Age, 1985 [United States]. Available at: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/21960?groupResults=false&dataFormat%5B0%5D= STATA&place=North+Carolina&keyword%5B0%5D=health. Van den Berghe, P. L. (1981) The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier. Veblen, T. (1912 [1899]) The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: the Macmillan Company. Warde, A. (1997) Consumption, Food & Taste. Culinary Antinomies and Commodity Culture. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Weber, M. (1964 [1921]) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: The Free Press. World Health Organization (1998) Obesity: prevention and managing the global epidemic, Report of WHO consultation on Obesity, WHO/NUT/NCD/98.1, Geneva. World Health Organization (2000) Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic : report of a WHO consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization. Wiehl, D. G., (1942) “Diets of a group of aircraft workers in Southern California”, The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 20: 329-366. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3347838. Wieviorka, M. (1993) La démocratie à l’épreuve. Nationalisme, populisme, ethnicité. Paris: La découverte. Wieviorka, M. (1998) “Racism and Diasporas”, Thesis Eleven, 52: pp. 69-81. Williams-Forson, P. and Walker, J. (2012) “Food and race. An overview”, in Albala Keen, Routledge international Handbook of Food Studies. London: Routledge. Wilson, E. O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Wilson, P. J. (1967) A Malay village in Malaysia. New Haven: HRAF Press. Wright, E. O. (2006) “Class”, in Beckert Jens and Zairovsky Milan (ed), International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology, Routledge, pp. 62-68. Yang, P. Q. (2000) From ethnic studies: issues and approaches. New York city: State University of New York Press. Yusoff H.; Daud, W. N.; Ahmad, Z. (2012) “Nutrition education and knowledge, attitude and hemoglobin status of Malaysian adolescents”, The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 43: pp. 192-200. 228 229 Malaysian Food Barometer 230 APPENDIXES 231 Malaysian Food Barometer 232 Appendixes LIST OF APPENDIXES Appendix 1 – Guide for face-to-face interview Appendix 2 – Guide for second round interviews Appendix 3 – Report on the Focus Group Appendix 4 – Structure of the meals’ content Appendix 5 - Questionnaire Appendix 6 - Table of Figures Appendix 7 - Table of Tables Appendix 8 - Table of Images 233 A1 A16 A18 A20 A23 A56 A63 A64 Malaysian Food Barometer 234 Appendix 1 – Guide for face-to-face interview Hello sir / madam, I’m doing university research on the food behavior of Malaysian people. In order to understand the way people eat, I propose you answer this 1:30 hour interview. This interview is anonymous. There is no wrong or good answers; the aim of this interview is to know your everyday food habits. Thank for your participation. THEME SUBTHEME FOOD HABITS Personal food Do you have a particular food diet? diet QUESTION A1 Temporality (norm) REOPENING With religious background (halal, kosher), health reasons (no sugar, low fat, allergic), ethical reasons (local food, organic, vegan), personal (vegetarian, macrobiotic)... What are your motivations about those food choices? Is there is food that you don’t eat or you refuse to eat? Pork, beef and so on? What is your motivation? Could you describe your usual food consumption of each day? Breakfast, lunch, diner and so on. What are the contents and food items ? How many times a day do you eat usually? How long is your meal? At what time do you eat during the day? Do you always eat at the same time? Appendixes If yes, how long are you following this particular food diet? What is the usual organization of a meal? Do you have the entire meal on the table or do you have a starter plate, then a second course? What are the food elements which composed your main dish? Do you have a mix of veggies, cereals, meat and so on? Do you have a current food item (rice, noodle…)? 3 days / 1 week recall (practice) Now, we will remember what you ate yesterday, from the beginning of the day to bedtime. For each food consumption, you have to remember the items that you’ve consumed. Malaysian Food Barometer Meal structure How many dishes do you eat per meal? (norm) A2 YESTERDAY / D-1 : A3 Wake up Sleep Appendixes Day-2 Wake up Sleep Malaysian Food Barometer A4 Day-3 A5 Wake up Sleep Appendixes Day-4 Wake up Sleep Malaysian Food Barometer A6 Day-5 A7 Wake up Sleep Appendixes Day-6 Wake up Sleep Malaysian Food Barometer A8 Day-7 A9 Wake up Sleep Appendixes SUBTHEME EATING IN Time and space A10 Cuisine QUESTION REOPENING How many meals do you eat at home for a week? What are the occasion that you eat at home? What is the situation or the context when you eat at home? When are you eating at home, where do you usually eat? In your room, in the kitchen? Do you have a food storage at home that everyone can eat when they want? For example fruits, biscuits box, in your fridge, junk food supply... There are rules or speciic hours for eating when you’re at home? If you eat with someone at home, are you eating the same meals? Are you cooking different dishes or it’s the same for everyone? What do you usually eat at home? Are you eating convenience food? Do you use tap water for cooking? Do you boiled the water before? Do you drink tap water? What do you think about convenience food? Is it useful, cheap, expensive, healthy? What kind of cuisine or food do you cook? What are your favourite recipes? Is there a recipe that you prepare for special occasions? What do you use to cook, what tools and equipment? Pan, wok, steam, microwave, rice cooker,... Appendixes Do you eat at home sometimes? Malaysian Food Barometer THEME What do you use to cook, what tools and equipment? Supply Pan, wok, steam, microwave, rice cooker,... Do you have a food supply at home for cooking? When do you buy the food for your food supplies? Every month, twice a week... In which place do you buy your food supplies? Supermarket, grocery store, local store or market, pasar malam, ... What kinds of information do you pay attention to on food package when you’re doing you shopping? Halal certiication, speciic ingredients, ... Do you often brought food from the outside to eat at home? A11 EATING OUT Time and space Commensality Do you eat outside sometimes? How many times per week? What are the occasions? For which reasons are you eating outside? For speciic events? Where do you go when eating outside? How far do you travel to ind a restaurant? How do you choose a restaurant? Do you have speciics criteria? Are there different occasions associated with different restaurants when eating outside? Are you eating alone outside or with someone? How many people eat with you outside? What kind of cuisine do you eat outside? Are you eating something that you don’t cook or cuisine that you don’t know? What do you eat outside? One main dish, several dishes, do you share a dish with someone? How do you pay when you eat with someone? Is it a separate How much money do you spend for a meal usually? bill? If you are drinking with friends outside, do you only paid for your own consumption? REPRESENTATIONS Invitation A12 Do you eat alone most of the time or do you try to eat with someone? Do you have any preference? How many times per week do you invite people to eat with you? What kind of people: friends, working colleague, family…. If you invite someone, where do you eat? At home or outside? - If you are at home, are you cooking? - If you are eating outside, how do you choose the restaurant? How do you choose the items to eat when you invite someone? Do you pay attention to a particular food diet: halal, vegetarian, no sugar, allergies, … ? How do you feel if someone you invited informs you that he can’t eat something for personal reasons? Ethnic relations Do you often eat with someone who does not have the same ethnic origin as you? In this case, what kind of cuisine do you eat? In your opinion, what kind of food does a restaurant that serves meal for children at school need to provide? Do public restaurants need to provide particular food for everyone who has a special diet for religious or personal reason? Do you think it’s normal if some restaurants to not serve particular food (for example: halal or vegetarian)? In your opinion, a restaurant should provide food that is it for everyone? Malaysian Food Barometer Are you eating the same dish or sharing one when you’re with someone? Do you often eat food from a different ethnic cuisine to yours? Food identity A13 Nutrition Malaysian/ Chinese/Indian cooking, homestyle cooking,... What is Malaysian cuisine for you? What are they characteristics ingredients, recipes, dishes or way to eat and so on. What is your favourite kind of cuisine? Malay, Thai, Vietnam, French cuisine.. Do you have a “totem-dish”, a dish that you love to eat or cook? What is your favourite dish? What religious events or festivals do you celebrate? For this event, is there is any relation to food? A meal associated or particular dishes? For you, what is “having a good meal”? Eating something good/balanced? Eating in a nice place/ conditions? Eating your favourite dish? Eating with friends/ family? According to your opinion, is there a link between food and health? What kind of link? What do you have to eat to have a balanced meal? Are there any food, dishes or ingredients that you try to avoid or try to consume? According to you, ahat are the healthiest food items or cooking styles for you? Which are unhealthiest? What is a healthy eating behaviour for you? Speciic timing meal, number of meal… If you could change something in your current eating habits, what would you change? Are you feeling good right now with your eating behaviour? Appendixes How do you describe your cooking style when you’re cooking? For medical reasons, to lose some weight? Are you satisied with your corpulence? Do you want to gain or lose weight? Do you think food habits can have an impact on environmental issues? What concerns or worries do you have related to food? Are you ok to eat Genetically Modiied Food such as corn, soya, beef fed with GMO food? Are you concerned about animal welfare? Does the Malaysian government have to advise people on the Is the setting up of a national food policy important to you? way they have to eat? A14 According to you, what should be included in the food education? Personal information How old are you? What is your ethnic group? Your nationality? What is the history of your family? What is the ethnic group of your wife/girlfriend? From which ethnic group, do most of your friends originate from? Do you practice a religion? How often do you practice your religion? (pray, events, etc.) Malaysian Food Barometer Other Do you have already follow a diet? What is your current occupation? What is your annual/monthly income? How tall are you? What is your weight? A15 Appendixes Questions Could you describe what a basic “food day” is for you? (Name of food intakes, schedule, contents…) What is a normal daily number of food intakes in your opinion? In your opinion, what is a proper meal? Difference between lunch, dinner and supper A16 In your opinion, what is a proper breakfast? In your opinion, what is a proper snack? Do you remember what you have been eating and drinking yesterday? It doesn't matter if it wasn't what you usually eat. Who does the cooking at home? Could you tell me more about your home-cooking style? Could you describe your style of cuisine What do you think deines Malaysian cooking? (Representative ingredients, recipes) Chinese Indian Malay Notes and remarks Malaysian Food Barometer Appendix 2 – Guide for second round interviews Could you tell me about Malaysian people? Tell me about Malaysian personal relationships? If you introduce Malaysian people to someone, what would you tell at this person? What do you think about the economic situation of Malaysia? Is there is differences of living conditions and incomes in Malaysia? How would you describe yourself? A17 How old are you? What is your occupation in life, How many job do you have? How would describe your ethnic belonging? Do you practice a religion? Appendixes Malaysian Food Barometer Appendix 3 – Report on the Focus Group A18 Appendixes A19 Malaysian Food Barometer Appendix 4 – Structure of the meals’ content A20 Appendixes A21 Malaysian Food Barometer A22 Appendixes Appendix 5 - Questionnaire Presentation of the questionnaire is different from the data collection one. Respondent Name Address City Postcode Contact no (O) (H) (HP) Email Date Time Start Time End Interviewer Z1 North Code Z2 Central Code Z3 South Code Perlis 1 Perak 4 N,Sembilan 7 Kedah 2 Kuala Lumpur 5 Melaka 8 Penang 3 Selangor 6 Johor 9 Z4 east Coast Code Z5 East Malaysia Code Q6 Code Pahang 10 Sabah 13 Non – Malay Bumiputra 1 Terengganu 11 Sarawak 14 Malay 2 Kelantan 12 Labuan 15 Indian 3 Chinese 4 Other 5 Q2. Gender Code Q3. Living area Code A23 Malaysian Food Barometer Male 1 Urban 1 Female 2 Rural 2 Introduction Good morning / afternoon / evening, my name is ____________. We are conducting a survey in the frame of research under the Ministry of Higher Education. The objective is to study Malaysian food habits, for the purpose of improving public health. This research focuses on people of aged 15 and above. Full anonymity and conidentiality are guaranteed. This questionnaire will take approximately 30 – 45 minutes. ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ . ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀30฀45฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Selamat pagi / tengah hari / petang, nama saya _______. Kami sedang menjalankan kajian sejajar dengan penyelidikan inisiatif Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi. Objektifnya adalah untuk mengkaji tabiat pemakanan penduduk Malaysia, untuk memperbaikikan taraf kesihatan awam. Kajian ini ditujukan untuk golongan respondent yang berumur 15 tahun dan ke atas. Maklumat yang diberikan ini akan hanya digunakan bagi tujuan kajian sahaja dan maklumat responden adalah sulit. Soal selidik ini akan mengambil masa lebih kurang 30 - 45 minit. Section A: Filter Questions Q1 Q2 Malaysian citizen ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Warganegara Malaysia SA Route Yes ฀ Ya 1 Continue No ฀฀ Bukan 2 Terminate SA Route 1 Check Quota Gender (Ask only if needed) ฀฀ Jantina Male ฀ Lelaki A24 Appendixes Female ฀ Perempuan Q3 Q4b Q5 2 Living area ฀฀฀฀ Tempat tinggal SA Urban ฀฀ Bandar 1 Suburban ฀ Pekan 2 Rural ฀฀ Kampung 3 Where did you grow up? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Dimanakah anda membesar? SA Urban ฀฀ Bandar 1 Suburban ฀ Pekan 2 Rural ฀฀ Kampung 3 Date of Birth and Age ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Tarikh Lahir and Umur Code Route Check Quota Route Check Quota Route Birthdate Check Quota Age Q6 Ethic group or race (do not propose irst) ฀฀ Bangsa Non – Malay Bumiputra ฀฀฀฀฀ Bumiputra bukan Melayu Malay ฀฀ Melayu Indian ฀฀ India A25 SA Route 1 2 3 Check Quota Malaysian Food Barometer Chinese ฀฀ Cina Others ฀฀ Lain-lain 4 5 Section B : Norms on Food Q7 Q8 Generally speaking, how many meals are you consuming per day? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Secara umum, berapa hidangan yang anda makan setiap hari? 1 meal per day 1฀1฀ 1 hidangan setiap hari 2 meals per day 1฀2฀ 2 hidangan setiap hari 3 meals per day 1฀3฀ 3 hidangan setiap hari 4 meals day 1฀4฀ 4 hidangan setiap hari More than 4 meals ฀฀4฀ Lebih daripada 4 hidangan setiap hari Besides those meals, how often do you have food intakes in between meals (tea break, snacks, etc)? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Selain daripada hidangan tersebut, apakah kekerapan pengambilan makanan sampingan anda (Minum Petang, snek, etc) Never ฀฀ Tak Pernah Once to twice a day 1฀1฀2฀ Satu hingga dua kali sehari Three to four times a day 1฀3฀4฀ Tiga hingga empat kali sehari Five to six times a day 1฀5฀6฀ Lima hingga enam kali sehari More than six times a day 1฀฀฀6฀ Lebih daripada enam kali sehari A26 SA Route 1 2 3 Check Quota 4 5 SA 1 2 3 4 5 Route Appendixes The following question is about your usual meal organization. Could you please explain what your lunch, dinner and supper usually consists of. ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Soalan yang berikut adalah berhubungan dengan jenis-jenis makanan anda. Boleh anda menjelaskan jenis makanan yang anda untuk makan tengah hari, makan malam dan makan lewat malam. [SHOW CARD] A proper breakfast A proper Lunch ฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀ Sarapan Makan tengah pagi yang hari yang betul betul A proper dinner ฀฀฀฀ Makan malam yang betul A proper supper ฀฀฀฀ Makan lewat malam yang betul Q9 Card 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Dish of Rice/Noodles mixed with other food in the plate (incl. Rice Porridge or Instant Noodles) +/- Drink ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ + / -฀฀฀ Satu hidangan nasi / mi yang dicampur dengan hidangan sampingan (Termasuk bubur dan mi segera) + / - Minuman 1 Dish of Roti Canai/Thosai/Chapati mixed with curry +/- Drink ฀฀฀฀฀฀ /฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+ / - ฀฀ Satu hidangan roti canai /Thosai / Chapati dengan kari, + / Minuman 1 Dish of Rice/Noodles with shared dishes (including Lazy Susan) +/- Drink ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+ / - ฀฀ Satu hidangan nasi / mi dengan lauk pauk , + / - Minuman Sandwich/Burger +/- Drink ฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀ + / -฀฀ Sandwic / Burger + / - Minuman Cereals with milk+/- Drink ฀฀฀฀฀ ฀+ / -฀฀ Bijirin dengan susu + / - minuman Anglo-Saxon Breakfast with Sausage and Eggs +/- Drink ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+ / -฀฀ Sarapan barat dengan sosej dan telu r+ / - Minuman Continental Breakfast with Toasts and Hot +/- Drink ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+/-฀฀฀ Sarapan timur dengan roti bakar +/-minuman panas Pastries or Shared dishes (Dim Sum) +/- Drink ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+/-฀฀ Pastri atau Dim Sum +/- minuman A27 A snack ฀฀ Snek yang betul Tea time ฀฀฀ Watuk minum Malaysian Food Barometer 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Small items (Nuts, Fruits, Kuih-Muih, etc) +/- Drink ฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+/-฀฀ Makanan kecil (kacang,buah-buahan,kuih muih dan lain lain) 1 Dish of Rice/Noodles mixed with other food in the plate ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+ / -฀฀฀ Satu hidangan nasi / mi yang dicampur dengan hidangan sampingan + / - minuman 1 Dish of Roti Canai/Thosai/Chapati mixed with curry ฀฀฀฀฀฀ /฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+ / - ฀฀ Satu hidangan roti canai /Thosai / Chapati dengan kari, + / Minuman 1 Dish of Rice/Noodles with shared dishes (including Lazy Susan) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+ / - ฀฀ Satu hidangan nasi / mi dengan lauk pauk , + / - Minuman Sandwich/Burger/Savory Pastries ฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ Sandwic / Burger dengan kentang Western Structure (Starter+/- Main Course+/- Dessert) ฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ Hidangan barat (Pembukaan selera, hidagan utama, pencuci mulut) Small items (Nuts, Fruits, Kuih-Muih, etc) ฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+/-฀฀ Makanan kecil (kacang,buah-buahan,kuih muih dan lain lain) 1 Dish of Rice/Noodles mixed with other food in the plate ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Satu hidangan nasi / mi yang dicampur dengan hidangan sampingan 1 Dish of Roti Canai/Thosai/Chapati mixed with curry ฀฀฀฀฀฀ /฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Satu hidangan roti canai /Thosai / Chapati dengan kari 1 Dish of Rice/Noodles with shared dishes (including Lazy Susan) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Satu hidangan nasi / mi dengan lauk pauk Sandwich/Burger/Savoury Pastries ฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀ Sandwic / Burger dengan kentang Western Structure (Starter+/- Main Course+/- Dessert) ฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ Hidangan barat (Pembukaan selera, hidagan utama, pencuci mulut) 21 22 Small items (Nuts, Fruits, Kuih-Muih, etc) ฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀+/-฀฀ Makanan kecil (kacang,buah-buahan,kuih muih dan lain lain) A28 17a ) +Fruits/Desserts + ฀฀ / ฀฀ + Buah Buahan / Desert 18a) +Fruits/Desserts + ฀฀ / ฀฀ + Buah Buahan / Desert 19a) + +Fruits/Desserts + ฀฀ / ฀฀ + Buah Buahan / Desert 20a) +Fruits/Desserts + ฀฀ / ฀฀ + Buah Buahan / Desert 21a) Starter+Main Course ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ Hidangan barat (Pembukaan selera dan hidagan utama, 21b) Starter+Dessert ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ Hidangan barat (Pembukaan selera, dan pencuci mulut) Appendixes 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 Soup 1฀ 1 sup Steamboat ฀฀ Steamboat Buffet ฀฀฀ Buffet Local/Western Pastries (Kuih Muih, Cakes, Vienoisseries, Sandwich) +Beverage ฀฀ / ฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ Kuih Muih / Pastri + minuman Sweet/Savory Snacks (Biscuits, Chocolates, Candies, Chips, Nuts) + Beverage ฀/฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ + ฀฀ Snek Manis atau masin masam (Biskut,coklat,gula,cips,kaan)+minuman Rice/Roti Canai/Noodles + Beverage ฀/฀฀฀฀/฀+฀฀ Nasi / Roti Canai / Mi + Minuman Fruits/Hot or Cold Dessert+ Beverage ฀฀ / ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ Buah-buahan / pencuci muluh panas atau sejuk + minuman 1 Beverage 1 ฀฀฀ 1 minuman A29 Malaysian Food Barometer A30 Appendixes A31 For the following meals, could you tell me which food and drink that you have to include in order to be a proper meal, a meal that you are supposed to eat every day? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Di antara makanan dan minuman yang berikut, yang mana anda anggap sebagai makanan dan minuman yang boleh menglengkapkan hidangan anda setiap hari? Generally speaking, ฀฀ Secara umumnya, A proper Lunch ฀฀฀฀ Makan tengah hari yang betul A proper dinner ฀฀฀฀ Makan malam yang betul A proper supper ฀฀฀฀ Makan lewat malam yang betul 1 1 1 2 2 3 A proper breakfast ฀฀฀฀ Sarapan pagi yang betul A snack ฀฀ Snek yang betul Tea time ฀฀฀ Watuk minum 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 SA A32 1 2 3 4 5 C. Beverage ฀฀ Minuman Water ฀฀฀ Air Coffee ฀฀ Kopi Tea ฀ Teh Tea Tarik ฀฀฀฀฀ Teh tarik Chocolate Drink ฀฀฀฀฀ Minuman Coklat Malaysian Food Barometer Q10 6 7 8 9 10 A33 11 12 13 14 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 Appendixes Cow’s milk ฀฀ Susu Lembu Soy Milk ฀฀ Susu Soya Herbal Tea ฀฀ Teh Herba Fruit Juice ฀฀ Jus Buah-buahan Soda ฀฀฀฀ Soda Cordials ฀฀ Kordial Alcohol ฀฀฀฀ Alkohol Other ฀฀ Lain-lain I never have this kind of meal Saya tak pernah ambil jenis makanan ini ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Malaysian Food Barometer Q10 Card 1 Water ฀฀฀ Air 2 Coffee ฀฀ Kopi 3 Tea ฀ Teh 4 Tea Tarik ฀฀฀฀฀ Teh Tarik 5 Chocolate Drink ฀฀฀฀฀ Minuman Coklat 6 Cow’s milk ฀฀ Susu Lembu 7 Soy Milk ฀฀ Susu Soya 8 Herbal Tea ฀฀ Teh Herba 9 Fruit Juice ฀฀ Jus Buah-buahan 10 Soda ฀฀฀฀ Soda 11 Cordials ฀฀ Kordial 12 Alcohol ฀฀฀฀ Alkohol 13 Other ฀฀ Lain-lain 14 I never have this kind of meal Saya tak pernah ambil jenis makanan ini ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ A34 Appendixes Section C: Food intakes of the last 24 hours Before we proceed to recall your food consumption for yesterday, we will proceed to a recall your food consumption of the previous days, before yesterday. It is not common to remember that we have been eating. However I would like you to try to remember how many meals you had at your place for the last seven days. Q11 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀7฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Code Route Sebelum kita terus dengan soalan pemakanan anda semalam, kita ingin anda cuba ingat kembali makanan anda hari sebelumnya. Ini adalah perkara yang luar biasa, walau bagaimanapun, saya ingin anda cuba ingat seberapa banyak boleh. I ate xx times at home last week ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀xx ฀ Saya makan xx kali di rumah pada minggu lepas I ate xx times outside last week ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀xx ฀ Saya makan xx kali di luar pada minggu lepas Continue [ IF IT CAN FACILITATE THE ANSWER TELL “IF IT’S EASIER FOR YOU TO REMEMBER HOW MANY MEALS YOU HAD OUTSIDE YOU CAN TELL ME”.] Now I would like you to remember what and how you have been eating and drinking for the whole day yesterday from the moment you woke up to the moment you went to sleep. It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t what you usually eat. It is important to me to understand the context in which you took your food. For this purpose, I will ask you several questions that can help you to remember your different food and drink intake. Q12 ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Sekarang saya ingin anda ingat apa dan bagaimana anda telah makan dan minum sepanjang hari semalam. Ia adalah penting bagi saya untuk memahami dan menganalisis persekitaran pemakanan anda. Untuk tujuan ini, saya akan tanya anda beberapa soalan yang boleh membantu anda untuk mengingati pemakanan berbeza A35 Your irst meal, food or drink intake of yesterday ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀1฀฀ Where did you have your irst food or drink Where did the food come from? intake yesterday? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ 8. cooked by you ฀฀฀฀฀ 3. your place ฀฀฀ 1. At home ฀฀฀ Name : ฀฀ 19. With someone ฀฀฀ Qty : ฀฀ 18. Alone ฀฀฀฀ 10. delivery* : ฀฀ 4. friend’s place ฀฀฀฀ 2. Outside ฀฀ 9. cooked by friend / family ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀฀฀฀ Could you describe the content(s) Could you describe the social context on this intake? of your meal, food or drink intake? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ 5. In the ofice ฀฀฀ 12. hawkers, street food (1) ฀฀฀฀฀฀ A36 13. convenience store, supermarket, pasar mini (2) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ 6. in a restaurant ฀฀ Brand : ฀฀ 11. brought from outside* : ฀฀฀฀฀ 14. fast – food (3) ฀฀ How many adults : ฀฀฀฀ At what time? ฀฀ Drinks : ฀฀ If with someone ฀฀฀ How many children : ฀฀฀฀ Individual food items : ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Guest (s) ethnicity : ฀฀฀฀ Shared food items : ฀฀฀฀฀฀ 20. working ฀฀ 15. food court (4) ฀฀฀฀ 7. in a hurry ฀฀฀ 16. mamak (5) ฀฀฀฀ 17. restaurant (6) ฀฀ *Coding the source of food among the 6 propositions below 21. watching TV ฀฀฀ Activities during food intakes ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ 22. on a computer ฀฀ 23.Meal time ฀฀฀฀ 24. other distraction : ฀฀ Malaysian Food Barometer Card for 24h Recall – Questionnaire includes seven food intakes (English & Chinese) Card for 24h Recall – Questionnaire includes seven food intakes (English & Malay) Your irst meal, food or drink intake of yesterday / Pengambilan hidangan pertama anda, makanan atau minuman semalam Where did you have your irst food or drink Where did the food come from? intake yesterday? Disediakan oleh siapa? makanan pertama atau minuman pertama semalam? 3. your place tempat anda 1. At home Di Rumah 4. friend’s place tempat Kawan A37 2. Outside Di luar 5. In the ofice Di dalam pejabat 8. cooked by you dimasak oleh saya 7. in a hurry Dalam kesuntukan masa Name : Nama 9. cooked by friend / family dimasak oleh kawan / keluarga Brand : Jenama 11. brought from outside* : Bungkus/ Dibawa dari luar 12. hawkers, street food (1) Penjaja, makanan tepi jalan 14. fast – food (3) Makanan segera 15. food court (4) food court 16. mamak (5) mamak 17. restaurant (6) restoran *Coding the source of food among the 6 propositions below 19. With someone Dengan seseorang Qty : Kuantiti 18. Alone Sendiri 10. delivery* : penghantaran 13. convenience store, supermarket, pasar mini (2) Kedai serbaneka, pasar raya, pasar mini 6. in a restaurant Di restoran Could you describe the content(s) Could you describe the social context on this intake? of your meal, food or drink intake? Bolehkah anda menerangkan situasi anda semasa Bolehkah anda menerangkan pengambilan ini? kandungan makanan, atau minuman anda? How many adults : Berapa orang dewasa At what time? Pukul berapa? Drinks : Minuman If with someone Jika dengan seseorang How many children : Berapa kanak-kanak Individual food items : Barangan makanan individu Guest (s) ethnicity : Etnik tetamu Shared food items : Makanan dikongsi 20. working berkerja Activities during food intakes Aktiviti-aktiviti semasa pengambilan makanan 21. watching TV Menonton tv 22. on a computer pada komputer 23.Meal time Waktu makan Appendixes 24. other distraction : Ganguan lain Malaysian Food Barometer Section D: Cooking pratices Q13 Generally, who is cooking in your household? (Choose one answer) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Secara umumnya, siapakah yang masak di rumah anda? SA Myself ฀฀฀ Sendiri 1 My wife ฀฀฀฀ Isteri Saya 2 My husband ฀฀฀฀ Suami Saya 3 My Grandparent(s) ฀฀฀฀฀ Datuk nenek 4 My Friend ฀฀ Kawan-kawan 5 My mother ฀฀฀฀ Emak Saya 6 A maid ฀฀ Pembantu rumah 7 I hardly cook at home ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Saya jarang memasak di rumah 8 Others ฀฀ ---------------------------------------lain-lain 9 A38 Route Continue Appendixes Q14 Which of the following statement do you feel closer to? (Choose one answer) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Antara penyataan berikut yang manakah anda berasa lebih dekat Food must be irst of all a need ฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan adalah satu keperluan Food must be irst of all shared with someone ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan sepatutnya dikongsi dengan seseorang Food must be irst of all a pleasure ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan mestilah seronok Food must irst of all prevent health problems ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan pertama sekali mesti dapat mencegah masalah kesihatan Others ฀฀ ---------------------------------------lain-lain SA Route 1 2 3 4 Q14 Card Food must be irst of all a need ฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan adalah satu keperluan Food must be irst of all shared with someone ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan sepatutnya mesti dikongsi dengan seseorang Food must be irst of all a pleasure ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan mestilah diseronokan Food must irst of all prevent health problems ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan pertama sekali mesti dapat mencegah masalah kesihatan 1 2 3 4 Section E: Representations of food Q15 Could you give me your opinion about halal food products according to the following criteria? (SHOW CARD) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Bolehkah anda memberitahu saya mengenai pendapat anda tentang produk makanan halal mengikut criteria berikut? Yes ฀฀ Ya A39 No ฀฀฀ Tidak I Don’t know / I don’t care ฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀ Tidak tahu / Tidak peduli Malaysian Food Barometer a I always eat halal products ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Saya selalu gunakan produk makanan halal 1 2 3 b I pay attention to halal food ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Saya selalu memberi perhatian kepada makanan halal 1 2 3 c Halal food tastes better ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan Halal rasa lebih baik 1 2 3 d Halal food minimises animal suffering ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan Halal kurangkan penderitaan binatang 1 2 3 e Halal food is more expensive ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Lebih mahal 1 2 3 f Halal food is more hygienic ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Mempunyai kualiti kebersihan yang lebih baik 1 2 3 Q15 Card I always eat halal products ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Saya selalu gunakan produk makanan halal I pay attention to halal food ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Saya selalu memberi perhatian kepada makanan halal Halal food tastes better ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan Halal rasa lebih baik Halal food minimises animal suffering ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan Halal kurangkan penderitaan binatang Halal food is more expensive ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Lebih mahal Halal food is more hygienic ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Mempunyai kualiti kebersihan yang lebih baik A40 Yes ฀฀ Ya No ฀฀฀ Tidak 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Appendixes Q16 I will propose different situations, do the following suggestions differ nowadays to what you’ve been used to do in the past? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Saya akan mencadangkan beberapa situasi, adakah cadangan berikut berbeza pada masa sekarang berbanding yang apa yang anda telah lakukan pada masa dahulu? [Show Card] Did not do it ฀฀ Tidak pernah less often ฀฀ Kurang sekali same ฀฀ Sama sekali more often ฀฀ Sentiasa a Eating alone ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makan sendiri 1 2 3 4 b Eating in the ofice/school/workplace ฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀ Makan di dalam pejabat / Tempat kerja 1 2 3 4 c Eating at casual restaurant ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makan di restoran yang kasual 1 2 3 4 d Eating at food court & fast food ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makan di medan selera & makanan segera 1 2 3 4 e Eating in a mamak restaurant ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Makan di restoran mamak 1 2 3 4 f Eating at home ฀฀฀฀฀ Makan di rumah 1 2 3 4 g Inviting someone to your house ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Menjemput seseorang ke rumah saya untuk makan 1 2 3 4 h Being invited at someone’s place ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Dijemput ke tempat seseorang untuk makan 1 2 3 4 Q16 Card A41 Malaysian Food Barometer Q17 Did not do it ฀฀ Tidak pernah less often ฀฀ Kurang sekali same ฀฀ Sama sekali more often ฀฀ Sentiasa 1 2 3 4 Could you tell me 2 dishes that best represent Malaysian food ฀฀฀฀2฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Boleh beritahu saya 2 hidangan yang terbaik yang mewakili makanan Malaysia? MA Route 1 Continue 2 Q18 Could you tell me 2 ingredients/raw materials that best represent Malaysian food? ฀฀฀฀2฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Boleh beritahu saya 2 bahan yang terbaik yang mewakili makanan Malaysia? MA Route 1 Continue 2 Q19 What does “Eating Well” mean to you? ฀฀฀“฀฀฀”฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Pada pendapat anda, apakah maksud “Pemakan Sempurna” ? [SHOW CARD] 1st (SA) 2nd (SA) Health ฀฀฀฀ Kesihatan 1 1 Pleasure ฀฀฀฀ Kesukaan 2 2 Togetherness ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Keramahtamahan 3 3 A42 Route Continue Appendixes Fill the stomach ฀฀฀฀ Isikan perut Tradition ฀฀฀฀ Tradisi Strength ฀฀฀฀ Kuat Others ฀฀ Lain-lain 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 Q19 Card Health ฀฀฀฀ Kesihatan Pleasure ฀฀฀฀ Kesukaan Togetherness ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Keramahtamahan Fill the stomach ฀฀฀฀ Isikan perut Tradition ฀฀฀฀ Tradisi Strength ฀฀฀฀ Kuat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Section F: Health and risk issues Q20 In your opinion, what are the 2 essential foodstuffs (food items, meals, ingredients, drinks…) that are essentials and beneicial to the health? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀2฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Pada pendapat anda, apakah 2 bahan makanan yang paling bermanfaat untuk kesihatan? MA Route 1 Continue 2 Q21 In your opinion, what are the 2 essential foodstuffs to reduce to be in good health? ฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀2฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ A43 MA Route Malaysian Food Barometer Pada pendapat anda, apakah 2 bahan makanan yang perlu dikurangkan untuk kesihatan? 1 Continue 2 Q22 a b c d e f g h i Q23 Which of the following risks scares you the most? Identify your top 3 risks ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀3฀฀฀ Yang manakah berikutnya risiko yang paling menakutkan anda? Namakan 3 tiga risiko yang tinggi [SHOW CARD] Pesticides on agricultural products ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Racun perosak untuk produk pertanian Genetically Modify Organizm (GMO) ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Organizma terubah suai secara genetik Contamination by pollutant ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Pencemaran oleh Pencemar Colouring or preservatives ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Pewarna atau pengawet Germs or bacteria in food ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Kuman atau bacteria dalam makanan Food epidemic (i.e. Bird lu) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Kuman atau bacteria dalam makanan (Bird lu…) Unbalanced diet to fat or too much sugar ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Diet tidak seimbang terhadap lemak atau terlalu banyak gula Expired food ฀฀฀฀฀ Makanan tamat tempoh Food allergens (i.e. nuts….) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Alahan Makanan (Kacang dan lain-lain) Do you pratice any physical activities? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Adakah anda mengamalkan sebarang aktiviti izikal? Yes ฀ Ada A44 Top 1 Top 2 Top 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 MA Route 1 Go to Q23a Appendixes No ฀฀ Tidak 2 Q23a Duration per acitivity ฀฀฀฀ Jangka masa untuk setiap aktiviti Type of activities ฀฀฀฀ Jenis Aktiviti Go to Q24 Frequency per week ฀฀฀฀ Kekerapan untuk seminggu 1 2 3 4 5 Q24 In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and/or stressed ? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀/฀฀฀฀ Pada bulan lepas, berapa kerap anda berasa gementar dan/atau tertekan? Never ฀฀฀฀ Tidak pernah Almost never ฀฀ Jarang Sometimes ฀฀฀ Kadang kala Fairly often ฀฀฀฀ Agak Sering Very often ฀฀ Sering Q24 Card Never ฀฀฀฀ Tidak pernah Almost never ฀฀ Jarang Sometimes ฀฀฀ Kadang kala Fairly often ฀฀฀฀ Agak Sering A45 SA Route 0 1 2 3 4 Continue Malaysian Food Barometer Very often ฀฀ Sering Section G: Ethnicity indicators Q25a Please tell us how you deine your cultural identity. (3 words) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀3฀฀ Sila beritahu kami bagaimana anda menentukan identiti budaya anda? (3 perkataan) No 1 2 3 Q25b Please rank 3 best word from below that how you deined your identity in Malaysia? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀1฀3฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Sila aturkan perkataan dari 1-3 yang paling terbaik menggambarkan identity anda di Malaysia. A46 Appendixes Q26 Could you indicate the ethnicity race of both your parents and grandparents in the following chart? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Bolehkah anda menunjukkan etnik ibu bapa anda dan datuk nenek dalam carta berikut Q27 Could you indicate the ethnicity / race of your spouse and the family of your spouse? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Bagaimana dengan Suami / isiteri anad? A47 Malaysian Food Barometer Q28 What languages or dialects do you speak ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Apakah bahasa atau dialek anda ? Malay ฀฀฀ Bahasa Melayu English ฀฀ Bahasa Inggeris Arabic ฀฀฀฀ Bahasa Arab Mandarin ฀฀ Bahasa Cina Cantonese ฀฀฀ Bahasa Kantonis Hindi ฀฀฀ Bahasa Hindi Tamil ฀฀฀฀ Bahasa Tamil Other: ฀฀ Lain-lain Q29a What is your religion? ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Apakah agama anda? Muslim ฀฀฀ Islam Hindu ฀฀฀ Hindu Buddhist ฀฀ Buddha Christian ฀฀฀ Kristian Taoism ฀฀ Tao Other: ฀฀ Lain-lain MA Route 1 2 3 4 Continue 5 6 7 8 SA Route 1 2 3 Continue 4 5 6 A48 Appendixes No religion ฀฀฀฀ Tiada agama 7 Decline to answer (Do not read) ฀฀ Enggan menjawab 8 [ONLY for Non-Muslim] ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Q29b Is it a conversion? SA Route Yes ฀ 1 Go to Q29c No ฀฀ 2 Go to 30 SA Route ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Q29c If YES, you are converted from which religion to religion now? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Last time ฀฀ Go to 30 Now ฀฀ Q30 Would you describe yourself as ฀฀฀฀฀ Anda adalah seorang yang: SA Very religious ฀฀฀฀ Sangat beragama 1 Moderately religious ฀฀฀฀฀ Sederhana beragama 2 Lightly religious ฀฀฀฀฀ Agak beragama 3 Not religious at all ฀฀฀฀฀ Tidak beragama 4 Decline to answer (Do not read) ฀฀ Enggan menjawab 5 A49 Route Continue Malaysian Food Barometer Section H :Socio – Demographic indicators Q31 How tall are you without your shoes on? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Apakah ketinggian anda tanpa memakai kasut? SA Route cm Q32 How much do you weigh without your shoes on? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Berapakah berat badan anda tanpa memakai kasut? SA Route kg Q33 What is your occupation? ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Apakah perkerjaan anda? 1st 2nd Legislator, senior oficial or manager ฀฀฀฀฀, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Ahli majlis undangan,pengawa-pengawai kanan, pengurus 1 1 Professional ฀฀฀฀ Ahli profesional 2 2 Technician and allied professional ฀฀฀฀ Juruteknik dan rakan kongsi profesional 3 3 Continue Continue Route Answer: Clerical ฀฀ Kerani 4 4 Service, shop attendant, or sales person ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Perkidmatan, pembantu kedai ,jurujual 5 5 Skilled worker in agriculture and isheries ฀฀฀฀฀ Pekerja berkemahiran dalam bidang pertanian dan perikanan 6 6 Craft and related trades worker ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Kraft dan perdagangan pekerja yang berkaitan 7 7 Continue A50 Appendixes Plant and machine operator or assembler ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Loji dan mesin operator serta pemasang Manual worker ฀฀ Pekerja am Army personal ฀฀ Anggota tentera Retired ฀฀฀ Bersara Student ฀฀ Pelajar Housewife ฀฀฀฀ Suri rumah tangga Unemployed ฀฀฀฀ Penganggur Others ฀฀ Lain-lain Decline to answer ฀฀ Enggan menjawab Q34 What is your father’s occupation? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Bagaimana dengan Bapa anda? 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 SA Route Answer: Legislator, senior oficial or manager ฀฀฀฀฀, ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Ahli majlis undangan,pengawa-pengawai kanan, pengurus Professional ฀฀฀฀ Ahli profesional Technician and allied professional ฀฀฀฀ Juruteknik dan rakan kongsi profesional Clerical ฀฀ Kerani Service, shop attendant, or sales person ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Perkidmatan, pembantu kedai ,jurujual A51 1 2 Continue 3 4 5 Malaysian Food Barometer Skilled worker in agriculture and isheries ฀฀฀฀฀ Pekerja berkemahiran dalam bidang pertanian dan perikanan Craft and related trades worker ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Kraft dan perdagangan pekerja yang berkaitan Plant and machine operator or assembler ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Loji dan mesin operator serta pemasang Manual worker ฀฀ Pekerja am Army personal ฀฀ Anggota tentera Retired ฀฀฀ Bersara Student ฀฀ Pelajar Housewife ฀฀฀฀ Suri rumah tangga Unemployed ฀฀฀฀ Penganggur Others ฀฀ Lain-lain Decline to answer ฀฀ Enggan menjawab Q35 What is the highest level of education that you have completed? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Apakah tahap pendidikan tertinggi yang anda telah lengkapkan? 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SA No formal education ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Tiada pendidikan rasmi 1 Primary school ฀฀ Sekolah rendah 2 Lower secondary school ฀฀ Sekolah Menengah Pengajian tinggi 3 A52 Route Continue Appendixes Q36 Upper secondary school ฀฀ Sekolah Menengah Pengajian tinggi 4 Marticulation / Form 6 ฀฀ Matrikulasi / Form 6 5 College / University ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ Kolaj / Universiti 6 Other: ฀฀ Lain-lain 7 Decline to answer ฀฀ Enggan menjawab 8 What is your marital status? ฀฀฀฀฀฀ Apakah status perkahwinan anda? SA Single or never married ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Bujang atau tidak pernah berkahwin 1 Married in monogamous marriage ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Berkahwin dalam perkahwinan monogami 2 Married in polygamous marriage ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Berkahwin dalam perkahwinan poligami 3 Living in as married ฀฀ Tinggal sebagai berkahwin 4 Widowed ฀฀ ฀ ฀฀ Janda/duda 5 Separated or married but separated ฀฀ Berasing atau berkahwin tapi tinggal berasingan 6 Not living with legal spouse ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Tidak tinggal dengan pasangan yang sah 7 Divorced ฀฀ Bercerai 8 Route Continue A53 Malaysian Food Barometer Decline to answer ฀฀ Enggan menjawab Q37 Q38 Q39 9 How many children do you have ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Berapa kanak-kanak anda mempunyai? No children ฀฀ Tiada kanak-kanak 1 – 2 children 1 - 2฀฀฀ 1 – 2 orang 3 – 4 children 3 - 4฀฀฀ 3 – 4 orang 5 children or more 5฀฀฀฀฀฀ 5 kanak-kanak atau lebih SA Route 1 2 Continue 3 4 How many family members do you live together with? Including you. ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Berapak ahli keluarga sedang tinggal bersama dengan anda? Termasuk diri sendiri 2 – 4 family members 2 - 4 ฀฀฀ 2 – 4 ahli keluarga 5 – 6 family members 5 - 6 ฀฀฀ 5 – 6 ahli keluarga 7 – 8 family members 7 ฀ 8 ฀฀฀ 7 – 8 ahli keluarga 9 – 10 family members 9 - 10 ฀฀฀ 9 – 10 ahli keluarga More than 10 family members ฀฀10฀฀฀ Lebih 10 orang ahli keluarga We would like to know your average monthly household income by using this scale, based on your wages, salaries, pensions, dividends and other income before taxes and other education. Just give the letter of the group your households falls into.(MHI) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ A54 SA Route 1 2 3 Continue 4 5 SA Route Appendixes Kami ingin mengetahui secara puratanya, upah bulanan anda dengan mengunakan skala yang berikut, mengambilkira upah, gaji, pencen, dividen dan pendapatan lain sebelum cukai dan pendidikan yang lain. Anda hanya perlu memberi angka kumpulan isi rumah anda. Q40 Q41 Less than < RM 2,000 1 RM 2,001 – RM 5,000 2 RM 5,001 – RM 11,000 3 More than > RM 11,000 4 Decline to answer ฀฀฀฀ Enggan menjawab 5 In the past 5 years, would you say that your income (personal income) ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Dalam 5 tahun yang lalu, anda akan mengatakan bahawa pendapatan anda SA Has decreased ฀฀ Telah berkurang 1 Has remained stable ฀฀ Telah berkurang 2 Has increased ฀฀ Telah meningkat 3 We would like to contact you for research purpose in the future. Do you give permission to this? ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ Kami ingin menghubungi anda untuk tujuan penyelidikan pada masa hadapan. Adakah anda memberi kebenaran? SA Yes ฀฀ Ya 1 No ฀฀฀ Tidak 2 Continue Route Continue Route END Thank You and Close A55 Malaysian Food Barometer Appendix 6 - Table of Figures Figure 1 Objectives & Outcomes Figure 2 Malaysian Food Barometer Organization Figure 3 Malaysian Food Barometer: A recurrent survey Figure 4 Ehnicity in Malaysia Figure 5 Modernization Figure 6 Modernization and Ethnicity Figure 7 Modernization and Metropolization for Malays Figure 8 Convergence Theory regarding Structure of Nutritional Intake Figure 9 Evolution of Calories from Animal Products (Esnouf, Russel and Bricas, 2013) Figure 10 Analyzing following Food Convergence Theory Figure 11 Analyzing for Cultural Inertia Figure 12 Malaysian Modernization: Conceptual Framework Figure 13 Food Social Space: The social domensions of food (Poulain, 2012) Figure 14 Malaysian Food Barometer: General Framework Figure 15 Guide for the recall of 24 hour eating practices adapted to Malaysia Figure 16 Gaps between national population and sample Figure 17 Comparison of socio-descriptive 2010 data census and MFB Figure 18 Age Figure 19 Living Area Figure 20 Urbanization level of living areas and Urbanization level of growing areas Figure 21 Occupation 3 classes + Housewife Figure 22 Occupation 3 classes Figure 23 Occupation and Income Figure 24 Occupation and Level of Education Figure 25 Occupation and Modernization Figure 26 Level of Education Figure 27 Monthly Household Income Figure 28 Bi-modal distribution of income Figure 29 Social Positions Figure 30 Language and Ethnicity Figure 31 Income Changes in Past 5 Years Figure 32 Mean Monthly Household Income by Ethnic Group and Stratum 2004, 2007, 2009 & 2012 Figure 33 Perception of Evolution of income in the past ive years and Ethnic Group Figure 34 Marital Status of population aged over 15 (Census, 2010) Figure 35 Population by religion (Census,2010) Figure 36 Time of food intakes – All Malaysians Figure 37 Meal Times - All Malaysians A56 11 12 13 15 17 17 18 19 19 20 20 21 28 30 47 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 60 61 62 62 63 65 74 75 Figure 38 Meal Times for Non-Malay Bumiputra Figure 39 Meal Times for Indian Figure 40 Meal Times for Malay Figure 41 Meal Times for Chinese Figure 42 Meal times for Metropolitan Figure 43 Meal Times for Rural Peninsular Figure 44 Meal Times for Sabah & Sarawak Figure 45 Times of food intakes – Comparison between Malaysia & UK Figure 46 Time of Food intakes - Comparison between Malaysia & France Figure 47 Norms of number of meals per day Figure 48 Norms of number of meal per day and Occupation Figure 49 Norms of number of meal per day and Income Figure 50 Norms of number of meal per day and Modernization Figure 51 norms of number of meals per day and Ethnicity Figure 52 Practices in number of food intakes per day Figure 53 Practices in number of meals per day Figure 54 Number of intakes per day and Evolution of the income during the last 5 years Figure 55 Number of meals per day and Metropolization Figure 56 Number and status of food intakes (practices) and Modernization Figure 57 Number of snacks and Modernization Figure 58 Synthesis of over-representations regarding the number of snacks regarding modernization process Figure 59 Synthesis of over-representations regarding the number of snacks regarding ethnicity & gender Figure 60 Comparison of the norms and practices regarding the number of meals per day Figure 61 Comparison of the norms and practices regarding the number of meals per day Figure 62 Comparison of the norms and practices and Modernization Figure 63 Comparison of the norms and practices and Metropolization Figure 64 Comparison of the number of food intakes in norms & practices and Ethnic Groups Figure 65 Comparison of norms & practices and Ethnic Groups Figure 66 Comparison of the number of food intakes in norms & practices and BMI Figure 67 Comparison of the number of food intakes in norms and practices and BMI Figure 68 Comparison of the number of food intakes in norms and practices and BMI for Malay Figure 69 Comparison of the number of food intakes in norms and practices: a typology A57 75 76 76 77 78 78 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 83 83 84 85 85 86 87 88 88 89 89 90 91 92 93 93 94 94 95 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 70 Norms for Breakfast Structure Figure 71 Practices for Breakfast Structure Figure 72 Norms for Breakfast Structure Figure 73 Norms individual/collective Breakfast and Modernization Figure 74 Sythetical view of over-representations regarding norm of breakfast’s structure Figure 75 Practices for Breakfast Structure Figure 76 Norms & Practices for Breakfast Strcuture Figure 77 Breakfast Structure in norms and practices: a typology Figure 78 Food eaten for breakfast Figure 79 Structure of Food Content of Breakfast Figure 80 Norms for Lunch Structure Figure 81 Practices for Lunch Structure Figure 82 Norms for Lunch Structure Figure 83 Norms individual/collective Lunch and Modernization Figure 84 Synthetical view of over-representations regarding norm of lunch’s structure Figure 85 Practices for Lunch Structure Figure 86 Norms & Practices for Lunch Structure Figure 87 Lunch Structure in norms and practices: a typology Figure 88 Food eaten for lunch Figure 89 Structure of Food Content for Lunch Figure 90 Norms for Lunch Structure Figure 91 Practices for Dinner Structure Figure 92 Norms for Dinner Structure Figure 93 Norms individual/collective Dinner and Modernization Figure 94 Synthetical view of over-representations regarding norm of dinner’s structure Figure 95 Practices for Dinner Structure Figure 96 Practices individual/collective Dinner and Modernization Figure 97 Synthetical view of over-representations regarding the practices for dinner structure Figure 98 Norms & Practices for Dinner Structure Figure 99 Dinner Structure in norms and practices: a typology Figure 100 Food eaten for dinner Figure 101 Structure of Food Content for Dinner Figure 102 Sociality of Meals Figure 103 Socialization of food intake and Education Figure 104 Socialization of food intake and Occupation Figure 105 Socialization of food intake and Evolution of the Income Figure 106 Socialization of food intake and Marital Status Figure 107 Socialization of food intake and Ethnicity A58 97 97 97 98 99 99 100 101 102 103 103 103 104 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 110 110 111 111 112 113 113 114 115 115 116 116 118 119 120 121 122 123 Figure 108 Socialization of food intake and Metropolization Figure 109 Eating out & Urbanization Figure 110 Eating out & Ethnicity Figure 111 Eating out & Gender Figure 112 Eating out - Education & Gender Figure 113 Eating out - Ethnic Group - Education Figure 114 Eating out: Number of family Members Figure 115 Food Intakes: Percentage of Eating Out Practices for all food intakes Figure 116 Individuals: Percentage of Eating Out Practices for all food intakes Figure 117 Food Intakes: Percentage of Eating Out Practices for Meals only Figure 118 Individuals: Percentage of Eating Out Practices for Meals only Figure 119 Percentage of eating out per Intakes & per Individuals Figure 120 Percentage of eating out per Meals & per Individuals Figure 121 Eating out: Malaysia / France Figure 122 Eating out and Age Figure 123 Eating and Gender Figure 124 Eating Out and Urbanization of living area Figure 125 Eating Out and Urbanization of growing area Figure 126 Eating Out and Occupation Figure 127 Eating Out and Ethnicity Figure 128 Eating Out and Education Level Figure 129 Eating Out and Monthly Household Income (a) Figure 130 Eating Out and Monthly Household Income (b) Figure 131 Eating Out and Evoloution of the Income Figure 132 Eating Out and Marital Status Figure 133 Eating Out and Number of Children Figure 134 Eating Out and Number of Persons Living Together (including self) Figure 135 Rice & Noodle daily consumption Figure 136 Synthetical of over-representations of Rice & Noodle consumption for Breakfast Figure 137 Synthetical View of over-representations of Rice & Noodle consumption for Lunch Figure 138 Synthetical View of over-representations of Rice & Noodle consumption for Dinner Figure 139 Presence of rice Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner and Modernization for Malay Figure 140 Presence of noodles Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner 24h Recall and Social Positions Figure 141 Presence of noodles Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner and Ethnicity Figure 142 Presence of noodles Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner and Ethnicity for Low Modernization A59 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 133 134 134 135 136 137 137 138 138 139 139 140 140 141 141 142 142 144 145 145 146 147 147 148 148 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 143 Presence of noodles Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner and Ethnicity for High Modernization Figure 144 Beverage Norms for Breakfast Figure 145 Beverage Norms for Lunch Figure 146 Beverage Norms for Dinner Figure 147 Beverage Norms for Supper Figure 148 Distribution of Beverages Norms for the Day Figure 149 Drinking Practices for Wake-Up Figure 150 Drinking Practices for Breakfast Figure 151 Drinking Practices for Lunch Figure 152 Drinking Practices for Dinner Figure 153 Drinking Practices for Supper Figure 154 Drinking Practices for Tea Time Figure 155 Drinking Practices for Snack Figure 156 Distribution of Beverages Drunk during the Day Figure 157 Eating alone Figure 158 Eating at working place Figure 159 Eating in Casual Restaurants Figure 160 Eating at food courts and fast food joints Figure 161 Eating in Mamak restaurants Figure 162 Eating at home Figure 163 Invited someone to my house Figure 164 Being invited to someone’s place Figure 165 Food must be irst of all...(a) Figure 166 Food must be irst of all...(b) Figure 167 “Food must be irst of all...” and Urbanization of the Living Area Figure 168 “Food must be irst of all…” and Education Level Figure 169 “Food must be irst of all...” and Urbanization of the Living Area Figure 170 “Food must be...” and Modernization Figure 171 “Food must be...” and Modernization for Malays Figure 172 “Food must be...” and Modernization for Indians Figure 173 Eating well (1st & 2nd choices) Figure 174 Synthetical view of the over-representations of “eating well” (1st Mention) Figure 175 Eating Well and Modernization Figure 176 Eating Well and Modernization for Non Malay Bumiputra Figure 177 Eating Well and Modernization for Malay Figure 178 Beneicial to health (1st & 2nd choice) Figure 179 Foodstuff essential and beneicial to health - 1st choice Figure 180 Foodstuff essential and beneicial to Health and Modernization Figure 181 Foodstuff essential to Health and Modernization for Malay A60 149 150 150 151 151 152 153 153 154 154 155 155 156 156 157 158 158 159 159 160 160 161 163 163 164 164 165 165 166 166 167 168 168 169 169 169 170 170 171 Figure 182 Food to be reduced to be in good health (combination of 1st & 2nd choices) Figure 183 Foodstuff to be reduced to be in good health - 1st choice Figure 184 Food to be reduced to be in good health and Urbanization Figure 185 Food to be reduced to be in good health and Ethnic Groups Figure 186 Foodstuff to reduce for Health and Modernization Figure 187 Foodstuff to reduce for Health and Modernization for Malays Figure 188 Emblematic dish Figure 189 Food Heritage and Level of Education Figure 190 Food Heritage and Age Figure 191 Food Heritage and Ethnic Groups Figure 192 The four stages of demographic transition Figure 193 Energy needs and intake during the nutrition transition Figure 194 BMI Distrubution Figure 195 Average BMI per Ethnicity Figure 196 BMI and Ethnicity Figure 197 Average BMI per Level of Education Figure 198 Average BMI per Ethnic Group and Modernization (for Malays) Figure 199 Average of BMI per Education Level and Ethnic Group Figure 200 BMI and Ethnicity Figure 201 BMI and Ethnicity by Gender Figure 202 BMI and Gender by Ethnicity Figure 203 BMI and Level of Education Figure 204 BMI and Age Figure 205 BMI and Gender by Level of education Figure 206 BMI and Etnicity (without 15-19 years old) Figure 207 Average BMI by Level of Modernization (without 15-19 years old) Figure 208 Ethnicity and Modernization (without 15-19 years old) Figure 209 BMI by Level of Education (without 15-19 years old) Figure 210 BMI and eating out Figure 211 BMI and Eating Out by Gender Figure 212 Food crisis timeline Figure 213 Food crisis timeline weak signals Figure 214 Risk perception in food (combination 1st, 2nd, 3rd choices) Figure 215 Risk perception in food (combination of 1st, 2nd, 3rd mentions) Figure 216 Risk perception in food (combination of 1st, 2nd, 3rd mentions) Comparison between Malaysia and France Figure 217 Risk perception in food (1st metion) Figure 218 Risk perception for Urban/Rural Figure 219 Risk Perception and Urbanization Figure 220 Risk Perception and Age Figure 221 Risk perception and Ethnic Group A61 172 172 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 182 184 186 188 189 189 190 190 191 191 192 192 193 193 194 194 195 195 196 196 198 199 200 200 201 202 202 203 204 205 Malaysian Food Barometer Figure 222 Risk Perception and Ethnicity Figure 223 Risk Perception and Education Figure 224 Risk perception and demographics combined Figure 225 Risk and Modernization Figure 226 Risk and Modernization for Malays A62 205 206 206 207 207 Appendix 7 - Table of Tables Table 1 Index of Modernization Details Table 2 Sample of face-to-face interviews Table 3 Malaysian Food Barometer Sample 2013 (N=2000) Table 4 Gender Table 5 Region of Residence Table 6 Living Area Table 7 Metropolization Table 8 Area Grown Up Table 9 Ethnic Group Table 10 Combination of Social Positions Table 11 Number of Languages Table 12 Income Changes in Past 5 Years Table 13 Marital Status Table 14 Number of Children Table 15 Number of Family Members Staying Together Table 16 Religion Table 17 Consider self to be religious Table 18 All Food Intakes Table 19 Only meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) Table 20 Food's Role in the Epidemiological Transistion Table 21 BMI Classes Table 22 Prevalence in MFB (2013) versus Rampal et al. National study (2006), Gender and Age Table 23 Prevalence in MFB (2013) versus Rampal et al. National study (2006), Gender and Age per Age Class Table 24 Prevalence in MFB (2013) versus Rampal et al. National study (2006), Urbanization Table 25 Prevalence in MFB (2013) versus Rampal et al. National study (2006), Ethnicity A63 16 43 49 51 52 53 54 54 55 59 60 61 63 64 64 64 65 131 132 183 186 187 187 187 187 Malaysian Food Barometer Appendix 8 - Table of Images Image 1 - Research meetings Image 2 - Research meetings Image 3 - Face-to-face interviews Image 4 - Focus group Image 5 - Training for Trainers of Interviews Image 6 - Questionnaire Validation Image 7 - Example of Pictures shown to Interviewees Image 8 - Emblematic Dishes A64 36 36 42 44 48 50 95 178 A65 As a result of rapid urbanization and modernization, a seizable new middle class in Malaysia has emerged and the traditional ways of life and eating habits of the different ethnic communities are changing with the times. For many years, nutritional surveys have been capturing the transformation of food consumption habits but till date, a comprehensive survey focusing on the socio-cultural determinants of food habits and eating decisions at the national level has not been attempted. The Malaysian Food Barometer was conceptualised to fill this gap and to investigate the eating practices and cultural representations of food and eating in a multicultural context. Its aim is to describe and understand the food habits and transformation of the many different dimensions of Malaysian communities including practices, social norms, social representations and beliefs. Over 2,000 people across the northern, central, southern and northern regions of Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak participated in the 2013 survey. The findings show the correlation between the food lifestyle of individuals, social characteristics and body size status, or obesity. This survey is an initiative of the Chair of Food Studies, “Food, Cultures & Health”, spearheaded by Taylor’s University, Taylor’s Toulouse University Centre and Toulouse Jean-Jaurès University, under the supervision of Prof. Jean-Pierre Poulain. The project is also a collaboration with UKM, UiTM, and Monash University. The project is made possible with the help of Malaysian and international public and private support, including the LRGS “National Social Cohesion” project led by Prof. Shamsul A.B. (KITA-UKM) and some industrial partners: Observatory of Food Habits of French dairy industry, Nestlé (Malaysia) and Coca-Cola (Malaysia). !"#$%&' ()*+%,,-.%&-#/%)*0/#$ Prof. Dr. Jean-Pierre Poulain, Food sociologist & Anthropologist (Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès – France & Taylor’s Toulouse University Center - Malaysia) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Laurence Tibère, Food sociologist & Anthropologist (Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès – France & Taylor’s Toulouse University Center - Malaysia) Mr. Neethiahnanthan Ari Ragavan, Dean, School of Hospitality,Tourism and Culinary Arts (Taylor’s University – Malaysia) Prof. Dr. Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, Anthropologist (The National University of Malaysia, KITA, Institute of Ethnic Studies - Malaysia) Prof. Dr. Noor Mohd Ismail, Nutritionist (Universiti Teknologi MARA – UiTM – Malaysia) Dr. Cyrille Laporte, Food sociologist (Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès – France & Taylor’s Toulouse University Center - Malaysia) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wendy Smith, Anthropologist (Monash University - Malaysia) Dr. Elise Mognard, Food sociologist (Taylor’s University – Malaysia & Taylor’s Toulouse University Center - Malaysia) Ms. Marcella Alyosius, PhD Candidate (The National University of Malaysia, KITA, Institute of Ethnic Studies – Malaysia) In collaboration with Published by: Chair of Food Studies: Food, Cultures & Health Taylor’s Toulouse University Centre (TTUC) Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus No. 1, Jalan Taylor’s, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, MALAYSIA Tel:+603 - 5629 5000 Fax: +603 - 5629 5522 Email: chairfoodstudies@ taylors.edu.my